THE CHARACTER OF JESUS.

With regard to the present discussion, it is of no consequence whether the four Gospels were composed by the authors to whom they are ascribed, or by persons of whom the world has never heard. Nor is it of importance to inquire whether the history is "true and reliable as a whole, and in its details," or whether its writers "collected all sorts of legendary traditions, and embellished them in part by inventions of their own." Whatever conclusion infidels may choose to reach concerning such questions, the undeniable fact still remains that in the Gospels we find the portrait of a character, which is the most marvelous miracle of the ages. If there was a real person whose likeness is here accurately drawn. He Himself is the greatest of miracles; if it is only a fancy sketch at which we are called to look, the genius to paint the picture is a still greater miracle, were it possible; as "the inventor," Rousseau well says, "would be a more astonishing character than the hero."

Strauss begins his "Historical Outline of the Life of Jesus" by referring to the influence of "Judaism," and of "Greco-Roman cultivation;" but it is clear that Jesus is not the fruit or result of either. The former, in the sense in which Strauss understands it, as a mere human culture and development, found its expression and manifested its vitality, at the time Jesus was horn, in the three sects of Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes. But according to the biographers of Christ, He was in sharp conflict with the two first through the whole of his brief public ministry, and with the asceticism and mysticism of the last it is obvious at a glance that He had no sympathy whatever. As to Greco-Roman cultivation, Strauss admits "it shows itself in the resemblance of the Greek gods to men," and then adds, "It was precisely because the Divinity did not confront the Greek in the form of a commanding law, that the Greek was compelled to be a law to himself: because he did not, like the Jew, see his whole life ordered for him, step by step, by religious ordinance, he was compelled to seek for a moral rule within his own mind. That this was a difficult problem, that the way to the solution of it led over dangerous ground, we see by the corruption of morals which broke in over the Greek nation after the most brilliant and flourishing age, by the arbitrary manner in which the contemporary Sophists confounded all moral notions," (Vol. I. p. 244).

It is true that Judaism in its sacred books had spoken repeatedly of the coming of a mighty and even a divine Deliverer, from the day the promise was made to the fallen parents of our race, that the seed of the woman should bruise the head of the tempter (Gen. iii. 15). The extraordinary manner of His birth is told, as when it is said, "Behold^ a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel," (Isa. vii. 14; Matt. i. 23). The place of His nativity is mentioned, as when it is said, "Thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel 5 whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting," (Mic. v. 2; Matt. ii. 6). His remarkable character and career are described in glowing language, as when it is said, "Unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given, and the government shall be upon his shoulders; and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father [or rather the Father of the ages to come], The Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, u]3on the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice, from henceforth even forever," (Isa. ix. 6, 7). To these passages might be added scores of quotations from the ancient writings of the Jews, distinctly predicting both the leading events and the minutest incidents in the life, teachings, works, betrayal, sufferings, death, resurrection, and second coming of the promised Messiah; and Strauss imagines that such predictions suggested to the forgers or inventors of the Gospel history the propriety of having them fulfilled by Jesus of Nazareth. But it will be observed that nowhere in the writings of the Jews do we learn how a virgin is to conceive, and bring forth a son, whose name indicated that He was Immanuel, God manifest in the flesh. The inventors of the New Testament history were left to their own invention to solve the mystery.

It is true that Greco-Roman cultivation ever and anon sounded a faint prelude of the song of incarnation, and told out the longings of many an earnest spirit, as that of Socrates, for the descent of Deity to the earth, when its mythology described the birth of beings half human and half divine. But these beings were invariably associated with stories that were coarse, and low, aud sensual, and shameful; for they were represented as the offspring of gods who had become fascinated with the beauty of mortal women. Greco-Roman cultivation, at the very height of its splendid attainments, could not rise to the thought of its divinities as exempt from human vices; for having none other than a human standard by which to form an estimate of the superior intelligences, it necessarily attributed to the unknown gods the weaknesses of men, and then experienced the inevitable reaction in an ever-increasing immorality, that at last swept like a flood over the two proudest empires of antiquity. The revolting sketch which Paul draws in the first chapter of his Epistle to the Romans of the state of Greek and Roman society is presented in still darker colors by heathen and infidel writers. Rousseau, for example, tells us that "the paganism of the ancient world produced, indeed, abominable gods, who on earth would have been shunned or punished as monsters, and who offered, as a picture of supreme happiness, only crimes to commit, and passions to satiate."

How comes it, then, that the inventors of the Gospel history, rude, uneducated, belonging to the lowest class, and living at an age of universal vice and corruption, brought their Deity to earth in a way that has never yet shocked the sensibilities of the purest and most refined! Their statement is that the angel Gabriel said to the virgin, "Fear not, Mary, for thou hast found favour with God. And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name Jesus [the Lord of Salvation]. He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: and he shall reign over the house of Jacob forever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end. Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee; therefore that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God," (Luke i. 30-35). This is the whole of the wondrous story, and while it can not cause in the most unsullied soul the slightest shrinking, the most debased dare not tarnish it with a breath of pollution. Nothing could be more delicate, more modest, more entirely elevated above all taint of earth; and the bitterest skeptic, who retains a particle of decency or self-respect will bow before the awful mystery in silence, if not with the homage of veneration. Even Strauss, cold, unfeeling, unsparing in his savage criticism, does not hesitate to say, "The view that Jesus was begotten by the Holy Ghost in the womb of a virgin might indeed, as above explained, be reconciled with the Jewish idea of God, by the exclusion of every sensuous element from the conception," (Vol. II. p. 55).

The same amazing skill and utter separation from all that is gross or grotesque, we at once discover in the brief allusion of the Gospel history to the childhood of Jesus. We are told that "the child grew, and waxed strong in spirit, filled with wisdom; and the grace of God was upon him." When twelve years of age, he is represented as accompanying Joseph and Mary to Jerusalem at the feast of the passover, and on their way home he was missed from the group of their kinsfolk and acquaintance, with whom they supposed he was travelling. Returning to the city, "after three days they found him in the temple, sitting in the midst of the doctors, both hearing them, and asking them questions." There was nothing pert, nothing offensive in His manner, nothing that assumed superiority, nothing that was done for display or effect; and hence the only record is, "all that heard him were astonished at his understanding and answers." His mother reproved Him for the anxiety and sorrow she had felt on account of His absence, and He replied, "How is it that ye sought me? wist ye not that I must be about my Father's business I Mary understood not what He meant, and He went down with her and Joseph, "and came to Nazareth, and was subject unto them: but his mother kept all these sayings in her heart," (Luke ii. 40-51). Such is the reference to His childhood; "and in this respect," says Horace Bushnell, "the early character of Jesus is a picture that stands by its. If. In no other case, that we remember, has it ever entered the mind of a biographer, in drawing a character, to represent it as beginning with a spotless childhood. . . . Commonly a certain pleasure is taken in showing how the many wayward sallies of the boy are, at length, reduced by discipline to the character of wisdom, justice, and public heroism so much admired. Besides, if any writer, of almost any age, will undertake to describe, not merely a spotless, but a superhuman or celestial childhood, not having the reality before him, he must be somewhat more than human himself, if he does not pile together a mass of clumsy exaggerations, and draw and overdraw, till neither heaven nor earth can find any veri-similitude in the picture," (Nature and the Supernatural, p. 280).

That this is true will be admitted by all who are familiar with the manner in which heathen writers of antiquity treated the childhood of their demigods, or with the description given by Josephus of the childhood of Moses, or with the stories told of the childhood of Jesus in the Apocryphal Gospels, that were undoubtedly written by well-meaning men very near the time of the Apostles. These last state that Mary gave to the wise men from the East one of her Infant's swaddling cloths, which, on their return to their own country, they worshipped, and then cast it into the fire, but it was not consumed; that having washed the swaddling cloths and hung them on a post to dry, a son of the chief priest put one on his head, and being possessed of devils, they left him; that Jesus, kissed by a bride made dumb by sorceries, cured her; that a leprous girl was cured by water in which He was washed; that a young man who had been bewitched, and turned into a mule, was cured by Jesus being put on his back, and was married to the girl healed of leprosy; that He caused a well to spring from a sycamore tree, and Mary washed His coat in it, and balsam grew there from His sweat; that a girl, having received one of His swaddling cloths from the Virgin, she showed it to Satan, who had sucked her blood, and flames and burning coals proceeded from it, and fell upon him; that He made clay birds, and caused them to fly; that He turned His playfellows into kids; that He killed a boy who had broken down His fish pools, and another boy who ran against Him; that, refusing to say His letters, He withered the hand of the school-master who intended to whip Him, and struck him dead; and that He performed, as a child, a vast number of similar miracles, which it would be too tedious and too painful to mention. The question instantly arises, why did not Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, record such repulsive fables of His childhood, or if they did not write the four Gospels, why did the forgers, who "collected all sorts of legendary traditions, and embellished them in part by inventions of their own," so carefully refrain, against the whole spirit of their age, from one word that could cause the holiest and most cultivated of men to experience even a momentary recoil? There is nothing inappropriate, nothing impossible to a child in their narrative; but the single glimpse they give us of His early days is in striking harmony with His birth, and with His entire character. All is beautiful, all is perfect, all is divine.

"When," as Strauss says, "after these preparatory considerations, we attempt to approach nearer to the Person of Him for whom it was reserved to pronounce the word which was to solve the riddle of the struggling time," (Vol. I. p. 252), and come to consider His public life, whatever view may be taken of that life, it remains before the world a miracle, in comparison with which every other miracle is of little moment. We behold a meek and lowly man coming forth from the obscure and despised village of Nazareth, the reputed son of a carpenter, without education, without a knowledge, so far as the record goes, of a single book composed by any of the masters of human thought who had preceded Him. "And yet this Jesus of Nazareth," as Schaff, a German fully the equal of Strauss in intellect and literary attainments, well says, "without money and arms, conquered more millions than Alexander, Caesar, Mohammed, and Napoleon; without science and learning, he shed more light on things human and divine than all philosophers and scholars combined; without the eloquence of schools, he spoke such words of life as were never spoken before or since, and produced effects which lie beyond the reach of any orator or poet; without writing a single line, he set more pens in motion, and furnished themes for more sermons, orations, discussions, learned volumes, works of art, and sweet songs of praise, than the whole army of great men of ancient and modern times. Born in a manger, and crucified as a malefactor, he now controls the destinies of the civilized world, and rules a spiritual empire which embraces one-third of the inhabitants of the globe," (Person of Christ, p. 49).

Renan says of Him, "Neither directly nor indirectly, did any element of Hellenic culture make its way to Jesus;" and "happily for him, he knew no more of the grotesque scholasticism which was taught at Jerusalem, and which was soon to constitute the Talmud," (Life of Jesus, p. 75). Having received, therefore, none of the advantages of mental training in any school, sect, or party, He began His public career by gathering around Him a few unlettered fishermen. That career continued for only three years, and then abruptly terminated on the cross, while He was still almost a youth, and before the period when other men, as a rule, have wrought achievements that leave the faintest foot-prints on the sands of time. Daring the brief interval His associates were very often the disreputable, stigmatized as "publicans and sinners," and generally the poor, with the exception of "Joanna, the wife of Chuza, Herod's steward," and Joseph of Arimathea, a rich man of whom it is recorded that he was "a disciple of Jesus, but secretly for fear of the Jews." But He never uttered a word th at could tend to make the poor dissatisfied with their condition, or envious of those in a higher rank, as shown by the fact that to this day Red Republicans and Communists, clamoring for a reform that would spare nothing of the past, and contending for what they call the rights of humanity in the forcible uplifting of the masses, and the violent levelling of social distinctions, hate Him as the greatest obstacle in the way of accomplishing their reckless schemes, and of realizing their wilder dreams. He was then neither radical nor conservative, but pursued his mission apart from all the distractions of earthly questions, "like ships in seas, while in, above the world;" like an unsoiled sunbeam passing through a dirty moat surrounding the castle of divine truth.

Thus refusing to become identified with any caste or strife of temporal interest. His was the broadest and most universal life crowded into those three immense years that has ever been known. Other great men are generally bounded by national lines and aims; and indeed it is by the very intensity of their national ambition and devotion they usually attain their greatness. Strauss closes his preface to the Life of Jesus by saying, "I joyfully hailed the work of Renan on its appearance, when my own was nearly completed, as the sign of a generally felt want; on closer acquaintance I accept it respectfully, and though by no means tempted by its example to alter my own plan, I may say that all I wish is to have written a book as suitable for Germany as Renan's is for France." He does not seem to rise in his purpose above a book that will do for Germany what he expects Renan's book to do for France; but Jesus, against whom he hurls his poisoned darts with such relentless ferocity, embraces Germany and France and all the world in His far-reaching love. Frederick the Great was nothing except to Prussia; Wellington was mighty only for Old England; Napoleon bound the glory of France to the chariot of his vaulting ambition; even Washington can not touch the heart of one who believes in the divine right of kings, and the advantages of monarchy; while Jesus addresses men of all climes and races with equal directness and sympathy and power. Shakspeare is perhaps the most cosmopolitan and many-sided of all uninspired writers; and yet there are millions to whom his words would have no significance, because they are too illiterate to feel any admiration for the play of his poetic genius, or too stolid under the pressure of hard toil and wearing anxiety and heavy sorrow to care for the entertainment he furnishes in his wonderful delineations of human character. But mention the race, or the class in society^, or the individual in any continent or on any island, to whom the sayings of Jesus, as recorded in the four Gospels, would be inappropriately addressed. They are daily read in Greenland, and Lapland, and China, and India, and Africa, and the capitals of Europe, and. North North American Indians, touching, as if with the finger of God, every conscience, and finding a response in every heart. The king in his palace and the doomed prisoner in his cell, the profound philosopher and the ignorant peasant, the leader of armies and the slave in his fetters, the spirit bright with gladness and the soul sinking beneath a burden of grief, have for eighteen centuries hung over these sayings with personal concern, and derived from them light and strength and solace and victory. And is this the work of unknown men, who "collected all sorts of legendary traditions, and embellished them in part by inventions of their own?"

Advancing in our investigation, we are at once struck with the humility and modesty of His bearing, as described in the Gospel history. According to the record He never manifested the least ostentation, nor striving for effect, nor self-conceit. On the other hand. He instantly impressed every beholder by His unaffected lowliness. He sought not the notice of the rich and powerful; He courted not the applause of the multitude; He yielded not to the threats and rage of those whose enmity was roused by His solemn and searching words. On one occasion when the fickle populace would have crowned Him as their expected Deliverer from the yoke of Roman oppression. He retired from their view; on another occasion when they thought the Kingdom of God would immediately appear. He uttered a parable that indicated His withdrawal into a far country to receive for Himself a Kingdom, which He would win in the face of His rejection by His own citizens; and on still another occasion, when their Hosannas rent the air. He knew they were tuning their voices for the frenzied shout, "Crucify him, Crucify him." So indifferent was He to public opinion that many of His mightiest works, which would have convinced the doubtful, and silenced the cavilling, He straitly commanded should not be made known; and as far as possible, He shunned the gaze of the curious crowd, save when called to walk the open path of obedience to the Father's will. His favorite resorts were the lonely mountain side, the sea-shore, with the melody of its waves, or the houses of the humble f and so quiet, so gentle, so far from display were His movements, He is declared to have fulfilled the Scripture, "He shall not strive, nor cry; neither shall any man hear his voice in the streets. A bruised reed shall he not break, and smoking flax shall he not quench, till he send forth judgment unto victory," (Matt. xii. 19, 20). No skeptic, however eager his search to discover imperfection in the narrative of His life, has ever yet accused Him of vanity; for His own testimony and that of His Apostles are self-evident, "I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me," (John vi. 38); and "even Christ pleased not himself," (Rom. xv. 3).

But with all this. His assertions concerning His relation to God, and His claim upon the confidence, the love, the worship, and the entire devotedness of every member of our race, are indeed amazing, and altogether unaccountable and monstrous and blasphemous, if He is reduced to any merely human classification. Here it is important to notice the remarkable admission of Strauss when he says, "In the history of his public life, there is, as the analysis contained in the former book has shown, much that must be recognized as historical both in the facts, and especially in the speeches of Jesus," (Vol. II. p. 116). Much, then, must be recognized as historical, that is, as truly related, especially in the speeches of Jesus, for the intellect of Strauss is far too keen not to perceive that it will hardly do to trace the speeches scattered throughout the Gospels to all sorts of legendary traditions, and inventions of anonymous writers. With this important admission in view, let us glance at these speeches, beginning with the Sermon on the Mount which excites the admiration of Strauss.

We find Jesus, after pronouncing a blessing on those who had never been blessed before, enlarging the scope and deepening the significance of the law proclaimed to Moses amid the imposing tokens of Jehovah's presence, lifting it up into a higher sphere, and adding to its requirements with the calmness and assurance of the original Law-giver. He then determines with absolute authority the manner of bestowing alms, the question of prayer, and the mode of fasting; forbids anxious thought about the things of this life; lays a positive arrest upon the common habit of harshly judging others; reveals the fatherly character of God; exposes the deceptions of false teachers; declares that they will stand in judgment before Himself to bear the sentence of their irrevocable doom; and closes His discourse by likening those who hear His sayings, and do them, to a wise man who built his house upon a rock, that no storm can shake, nor flood sweep away.

A little later we hear Him announcing that man must follow Him, and let the dead bury their dead, (Matt. viii. 22); that He had power on earth to forgive sins (Matt. ix. 6); that the destiny of the soul for weal or for woe turns upon the confession of His name before men 5 that the necessary result of His mission to earth must be variance in every household divided concerning His character; that He must be loved more than father or mother, more than son or daughter, or life itself, (Matt. x. 32-39); that all things are delivered unto Him of His Father, so that no man knoweth the Son, but the Father, neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal Him (Matt. xi. 27); that a greater than Jonas is here, a greater than Solomon is here, (Matt. xii. 41, 42); that during the period of His rejection by Israel and His bodily absence from the earth. His Kingdom will exist in mystery and concealment, but at the end of the age He will send forth His angels, and sever the wicked from the righteous, (Matt, xiii.); that He can receive without a murmur of disapproval the worship of men as the Son of God, (Matt. xiv. 33); that all the evils which defile the outward man flow from a depraved heart, (Matt. XV. 19); that faith in Himself will gain any victory, (Matt. xv. 28); that His divinity is the rock on which He will build His Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it, (Matt, xvi. 18) 5 that no man can be His disciple unless he is willing to renounce self, and take up the cross, and follow Him unto death and glory, (Matt. xvi. 24-27), that His transfiguration was not to be revealed before His sufferings, which He plainly predicted, (Matt. xvii. 9-23); that a little child is the symbol of true greatness, (Matt, xviii. 1-14); that we may keep all the commandments of God, and yet without supreme devotion to Himself lack that which will secure eternal happiness, (Matt, xix. 16-21); that the Son of Man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give His life a ransom for many, (Matt. xx. 28); that His murder by the Jews would lead to their downfall as a nation, (Matt. xxi. 33-44); that He is not only David's son, but David's Lord, (Matt. xxii. 42-45); that He would often have gathered the children of Jerusalem together, as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings from the lowering storm or swooping hawk, but they would not; and as a consequence their house is left unto them desolate, until in the extremity of their woe they shall say. Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord, (Matt, xxiii. 37-39); that there will be sorrows and troubles and wars and rumors of wars during the entire interval between His departure from the earth and His return, when He shall come in His glory, and all the holy angels with Him, and before Him shall be gathered all nations, (Matt. xxiv. xxv.); that His blood is shed for many for the remission of sins, and that hereafter He shall be seen sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven, (Matt. xxvi. 28, 64); that according to the testimony of His enemies He foretold His resurrection, (Matt, xxvii. 63); and that all power is given unto Him in heaven and in earth, (Matt, xxviii. 18).

Such is a mere glimpse at some of the speeches in the single Gospel of Matthew, of which Strauss says, "We, as well as Baur, have always considered, and still do consider, the Gospel of Matthew as the most original, and, comparatively speaking, the most trustworthy. As regards the speeches of Jesus in particular, notwithstanding all doubt upon individual points, every one must admit that we have them in the first Gospel, though not unmixed with later additions and modifications, still in a purer form than in any of the others," (Vol. I. p. 152). But what shall be said of the speeches just mentioned, so hastily and imperfectly, in this most trustworthy Gospel? They are found in every chapter, and such are the amazing assertions they contain and the high claims they put forth, the only choice they leave is between a belief in His true and proper divinity, and a belief in the grossness and madness of His blasphemy. Those who hold that He was a good man, and nothing more, are utterly illogical and inconsistent; for they go too far, or do not go far enough. He constantly declared that He was far above man and angels in demanding the faith and obedience of the race, in swaying the scepter of universal empire, in coming at the last day to judge the world; and if these startling declarations are not true. He is only to be scorned as a base impostor, or despised and pitied as a crazed enthusiast. Think of man or angel assuming power to forgive sins; summoning the world to follow him against the tenderest calls of natural affection, and the very instinct of self preservation; bidding the laboring and heavy laden of earth's toiling and sorrowful population come to him for rest; proclaiming his future advent after death to sit in judgment upon countless generations, and to pronounce the sentence of eternity; and how quickly the boundless effrontery and preposterous conceit of such pretension would be scouted! Yet Jesus set up these pretensions, and for eighteen hundred years they have been acknowledged with adoring gratitude by millions of all classes and races, embracing the most intellectual, the most learned, the most holy, of the human family, because it is instantly seen that there is the most perfect agreement between His lofty claim and His lofty character.

The speeches recorded in the Gospel by Matthew are in fullest harmony with those running through the other Gospels, especially that written by John, the authenticity of which Strauss particularly assails, contrary to his friend Renan and other skeptics, and the authenticity of which has been more completely vindicated than ever, since Strauss wrote his Life of Jesus. But, leaving the infidels to settle their dispute among themselves, it is enough to know that the meek and lowly One distinctly affirms that He is Lord also of the Sabbath (Mark ii. 28); that He refuses to accept the testimony of devils to His Messiahship, (Mark iii. 12); that He declared it shall be more tolerable in the day of judgment for Sodom and Gomorrah than for the city rejecting the testimony of His disciples, (Mark vi. 11); that these disciples addressed Him without rebuke as the Christ, (Mark viii. 29); that He ]3romi8ed a reward to any who would give them only a cup of cold water because they belonged to Christ, (Mark ix. 41); and that on His trial, when the high priest asked Him the question, "Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed!" He distinctly replied, "I am," and was condemned to death for the alleged blasphemy, (Mark xiv. 61, 62).

The same testimony is borne by Him and about Him in the Gospel of Luke, from the time in the first chapter when His birth as the Son of God was announced to the Virgin, and John the Baptist was called the prophet of the Highest, going before the face of the Lord to prepare His ways, down to the last chapter, where Jesus twice asserts that all the Old Testament Scriptures were written concerning Himself. The same testimony is given by John, certifying that He was in the beginning, that He was with God, that He was God, that all things were made by Him, that to as many as receive Him in His true character He gives power to become the sons of God, that He is the only begotten Son, (i. 1-18); that He came down from heaven, (iii. 13); that salvation hangs upon belief in Him, as the expression of God's love for the world, (iii. 14-18); that God is a spirit, and must be worshipped in spirit and in truth, (iv. 24); that the Father hath committed all judgment unto the Son in order that all men should honor the Son, even as they honor the Father, (v. 22); that He is the bread of God which Cometh down from heaven, and giveth life to the world, (vi. 33); that the thirsty are invited to come unto Him and drink, (vii. 37); that before Abraham was. He lived as the i am, the self-existent, eternal, unchangeable One, (viii. 58); that He was the Son of God, worthy of worship, (ix. 35-38); that He and His Father are one, (x. 30); that He is the resurrection and the life, (xi. 25); that if lifted up from the earth. He will draw all men unto Him (xii. 32), that the Father had given all things into His hands, and that He was come from God, and went to God, (xiii. 3); that He is the way, the truth, and the life; that prayer, if acceptable, must be offered in His name; that He sends the Spirit to abide with His people, (xiv.); that His commandments must be kept, (xv. 14); that the office of the Holy Ghost is to glorify Him, (xvi. 14); and that the Father will glorify Him, with His own self, with the glory He had with Him before the world was, (xvii. 5).

Truly all this is wonderful, and apart from the exploded idea of imposture or fanaticism, which is abandoned by all intelligent and respectable infidels, it is obviously inexplicable on any theory that would lower Jesus to the level of men. He was a man, but he was more. He sat weary on Jacob's well, and, therefore, was a man; but He lifted the redeemed soul of the sinful woman into the joy of eternal life, and, therefore, was God. He slept upon a pillow in the ship, and, therefore, was man; but He stilled the raging of the tempest with a word, and, therefore, was God. He wept at the grave of Lazarus, and, therefore, was man -, but He called the dead man from the tomb, and, therefore, was God. Thus it is everywhere throughout the four Gospels, that present Him as the Son of man and Son of God, man and God, bound by the sensitive ties of a personal experience to all the wants and sinless infirmities of humanity, but clothed with the attributes, wearing the titles, and performing the works of God. Strauss says, between God and man there is "a gulf not to be passed," (Vol. I. p. 274), and yet he afterwards says, "While Jesus was forming within himself this cheerful tone of mind, identical with that of God, . . . he had, to speak with the poet, 'adopted the Deity into his will;' hence, for him, that Deity had descended from his throne of the universe, the gulf had been filled up, the dread phenomenon had vanished;' in him men had passed from slavery to freedom," (Vol. I. p. 281). So he says other natures were not purified until they had gone through struggles and violent disruption, the shadowy colors of which exist forever, "and something harsh, severe and gloomy clings to them all their lives: but of this in Jesus no trace is found. Jesus appears as a beautiful nature from the first, which had only to develop itself out of itself," (p. 282). Again, referring to many of the sayings of Jesus, he writes, "these are imperishable words, for in them truths that are every day getting fresh corroboration are enclosed in a form that exactly suits them, and is at the same time universally intelligible," (Vol. I. p. 347). Is it not safe to infer from Strauss's own premises that Jesus crossed the gulf, and became the sorely-needed days-man between God and us, laying His hand familiarly upon both? But the marvel does not cease with these remarkable assertions on His part, and these remarkable admissions on the part of those who would banish Him from the earth; for He is represented in the Gospels as affirming not only His spotless innocence, but His absolute holiness. It is surprising to read the comment of so fine a mind as that possessed by Strauss upon the words of our Lord to the rich young ruler, "Why callest thou me good! There is none good, but one, that is, God," (Mark x. 18). It is easy to see that our Saviour was meeting the inquirer on his own ground, and answering him from the stand-point the latter had taken, when he looked upon Christ as nothing more than man. If this were true, he had no right to call Jesus good, for none is good, but one, that is God. But everywhere in the New Testament it is declared in the most unequivocal manner, that Jesus was altogether good, that the devil utterly failed to move Him a hair's breadth from His unswerving integrity, (Matt, iv) j that He did all things well (Mark vii. 37); that He always did those things that pleased His Father, and no one could convict Him of sin, (John viii. 29, 46); that the prince of this world came at the close of His ministry, and had nothing in Him, (John xiv. 30); that He was made to be sin for us, who knew no sin, (2 Cor. v. 21); that He was holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, (Heb. vii. 26); that He did no sin, neither was guile found in His mouth, (1 Pet. ii. 22). He never manifested the least anxiety about the salvation of His own soul j never expressed a word of regret for anything He had done or said, or left undone and unsaid; never shed a tear of repentance; never asked for pardon; never breathed a prayer that inspired a thought of confession, or a sense of moral weakness, but with His dying breath actually commended His spirit to the Father; and by this alone He is raised above the life of all other men, even the noblest and the holiest. When, therefore, He said to the young ruler, "None is good, but one, and that is God," He was bearing the clearest and most striking testimony to the fact of His real divinity.

If, however, it is true that the most perfect human character only serves by its shadows and imperfections to exhibit in brighter light the character of Jesus, it is equally true that He surpasses all others in the matchless harmony of His graces and excellences. There is not a man or woman living, nor has one ever lived, with a single illustrious exception, however noted for the possession of some striking virtue, that has not had some accompanying defect as a dark back-ground to the lovely picture. Even the most distinguished saints of the Bible had their faults, and marred the record of their lives by failures. Abraham, the most faithful man, uttered a falsehood, at the risk of his wife's dishonor, to shield himself from imaginary danger. Moses, the meekest man on earth, at last gave way to a burst of passion that excluded him from the promised land. Job, the most patient man, opened his mouth and cursed his day, and floundered in the mire of an attempted self-vindication, until the Almighty silenced him by a voice out of the whirlwind. Elijah, the bravest man, fled in terror from the threat of a furious woman, and wished for himself that he might die. David, so honored by the Lord, committed crimes that have left a deep stain upon his memory, and often caused the enemies of God to blaspheme. Jeremiah, sanctified from his infancy, hoped that the man who communicated the tidings of his birth to his father might be as Sodom and Gomorrah. Daniel confessed his sins, as well as the sins of the people. Peter not only denied his Lord, but afterwards dissembled, and was justly withstood to the face. Paul declared himself a Pharisee to escape from the Jews, and was compelled to retract his angry denunciations of the high priest. Even John would call down fire from heaven to consume the Samaritans who insulted his Master.

Why, it must be asked, were no such defects found in that Master's character? Who among men was capable of portraying such a character? An author's productions can never rise above the author's thoughts, as the conception of the statue must be in the sculptor's mind before it can be transferred to marble, and the conception of the painter's sketch must be previously formed before it can be placed upon the canvas. But where was the example that could be copied by the uneducated writers of the four Gospels, who "collected all sorts of legendary traditions, and embellished them in part by inventions of their own f How did it occur to them to describe a faultless human being, and how was it possible for them to succeed in the attempt, unless the reality was before them in their simple and artless narratives, and unless their pens were guided by the Spirit of God? That they did succeed is shown by the fact that even the most accomplished skeptics do not undertake to censure any word or act of Jesus, and never indicate any mistake He made in all the circumstances of sharp trial through which He X^assed. He was truly the antitype of the fine flour used in the meat offering, for there was nothing rough, nothing uneven, nothing salient about Him, simply because there was so perfect a development of all the perfections of His nature. It may be said of Him in a far higher and truer sense than of Shakspeare's hero,

"His life was gentle, and the elements
So mixed in him, that nature might stand up
And say to all the world, This was a man!"

The more these perfections are pondered by the devout student of the Bible, the more clearly they are seen, and the more they increase in beauty, until many a time he finds himself exclaiming, with his affections all aglow and with tears in his eyes, "Blessed Jesus, would that I were with Thee!" If any one imagines he can improve upon the sayings or the conduct of Christ in any instance mentioned by the writers of the Gospels, as Bushnell says, "Give us then this one experiment, and see if it does not prove to you a truth that is of some consequence; viz: that you are a man, and that Jesus Christ is — more."

That such a being should work miracles, it may be said, was unavoidable. With Him they were as natural as the performance with us of the most ordinary and familiar acts, and hence there was no effort, no struggling, no mighty convulsion of soul to accomplish the effects. "He spake, and it was done; He commanded, and it stood fast." Moreover, no miracle He wrought was an idle exhibition of power, but each had a great moral end to serve, a most valuable lesson to teach. It is a singular weakness in Strauss that he assumes from beginning to end of his book the impossibility of miracles; for a clearer illustration of "begging the question "can not be furnished in the history of literature. There is a vast amount of ignorance on this subject, which only shows how readily most men accept popular errors as truth, and hew easily they are contented with shallow thinking. It is commonly supposed that a miracle is a direct violation, or at least a violent suspension, of what are called the laws of nature, when in fact it is neither. It is simply a withdrawal for a time from the action of those laws of a person in whom God determines to take a special interest, or through whom He wishes to manifest His glory. An apple, for example, if loosened from the tree, falls to the earth by the law of gravitation, but if a man's hand arrests the fall, it is not less truly a miracle, so far as the laws of nature are concerned, than any recorded in the Bible. A miracle is just the exhibition of God's majestic hand amid the laws of nature for some wise and good purpose. There are thousands of well-attested facts constantly occurring around us, which every one knows can not at all be explained in accordance with the ordinary operation of the laws of nature, and these too are miracles. It is utterly illogical, therefore, to assume with Straus's that miracles are impossible, and especially is it absurd in the light of the demonstration, that, whatever view may be taken of the four Gospels, Jesus Himself is incontestably the most sublime and wonderful of all miracles; and Jesus Himself appealed to miracles in the trustworthy Gospel of Matthew, as the attestation of His divinity: "The blind receive their sight, and the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, and the deaf hear, the dead are raised u}), and [above all, and more important than all] the poor have the gospel preached to them," (Matt. xi. 5).

Prophecy, also, in its narrow signification of predicting future events, was a natural and necessary endowment of such a character. Again it may be affirmed that, whatever view is taken of the authenticity of the four Gospels, they contain prophecies ascribed to Jesus, which are meeting with a precise fulfillment before our own eyes. Let the two following answer as illustrations and proofs of the statement; First, He predicted the varying success of His cause, amid incessant opposition, through the centuries, never once intimating that it would achieve universal triumph before His second personal coming. On the other hand, only one-fourth part of the seed, which is the word of God, will take permanent effect, and even that with different degrees of fruitfulness, the tares and the wheat will grow together until the harvest at the end of the age; the mustard seed, although increasing until it becomes the greatest of trees, furnishes a convenient shelter for the birds, which He represents as types of the Wicked one; and the leaven the woman hides in three measures of meal, as the symbol of the mystery of iniquity already at work, will continue to spread until the state of society in Christendom will be like the moral condition of the world in the days of Noah, before the deluge rolled over its guilty population; like the utter ungodliness that prevailed in the days of Lot, before a fiery storm devastated the proud cities of the plain. He nowhere promises His disciples or their successors exemption from toil and suffering, but plainly warns them that they are to expect contempt and hatred and persecution, that His followers will constitute but a "little flock," and that His Church will be like the vessel driven by contrary winds, and tossed upon the bosom of the tempest, when He came walking on the rolling billows. Did ever the founder of any other religion stimulate his adherents to fidelity by such a picture and prospect as this? Well may we exclaim with David, "And is this the manner of man, O Lord God?" (2 Sam. vii. 19).

Second, when the disciples called the attention of Jesus to the goodly stones of the temple, He announced its speedy overthrow, and the desolation by armies of the city in which it stood, and then added, "They shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations; and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled," (Luke xxi. 24). It is well known that Julian the Apostate determined to rebuild the temple, and thus, by defeating the prophecy, to shatter at one blow the colossal claims of Jesus to divinity. He commanded the Jews from all parts of the widely-extended Roman empire to accomplish the most agreeable task, and, as Gibbon says, "Every purse was opened in liberal contributions, every hand claimed a share in the pious labor; and the commands of a great monarch were executed by the enthusiasm of a whole people. Yet," he adds, "on this occasion, the joint efforts of power and enthusiasm were unsuccessful; and the ground of the Jewish temple, which is now covered by a Mohametan mosque, still continued to exhibit the same edifying spectacle of ruin and desolation. . . . But the Christians entertained a natural and pious expectation, that, in this memorable contest, the honor of religion would be vindicated by some signal miracle. An earthquake, a whirlwind, and a fiery eruption, which overturned and scattered the new foundations of the temple, are attested, with some variations by contemporary and respectable evidence." Then, after referring to Ambrose, bishop of Milan, the eloquent Chrysostom, and Gregory Nazianzen as witnesses, he says, '* The last of these writers has boldly declared, that this preternatural event was not disputed by the infidels; and his assertion, strange as it may seem, is confirmed by the unexceptionable testimony of Ammianus Marcellinus," as follows: "'Whilst Alypius, assisted by the governor of the province, urged, with vigor and diligence, the execution of the work, horrible balls of fire breaking out near the foundations, with frequent and reiterated attacks, rendered the place, from time to time, inaccessible to the scorched and blasted workmen; and the victorious element continuing in this manner obstinately and resolutely bent, as it were, to drive them to a distance, the undertaking was abandoned.' Such authority should satisfy a believing, and must astonish an incredulous, mind," (Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Vol. II. pp. 438, 439). However science or skepticism may choose to account for it, the fact is, the temple has never been rebuilt.

It is well known, too, that during the Crusades, Europe was rallied, as a continent has never been roused before nor since, by the battle shout, "Rescue the holy sepulchre from the grasp of the Moslem." Army after army of enthusiastic soldiers, animated by the hope of winning heaven, and led by the bravest and most skillful princes and generals, poured into Palestine, only to be baffled by successive disasters and defeats. Even for the little time they succeeded in planting the banner of the cross upon the walls of the sacred city, Jerusalem was still trodden down of the Gentiles, for the European invaders were no less Gentiles than the followers of Mohamet. It is still trodden down of the Gentiles, so that the miracle of Christ's prophecies, or of the prophecies recorded in the Gospels, concerning the condition of the Church and of Jerusalem through subsequent centuries, is enacted at this day before the face of the whole world.

But why speak of the miracles of His deeds and prophecies, when His mightiest miracle is the reign of His love over those who believe in His name? It is the glory of the Gospel that it reveals to us not merely deliverance, but a Deliverer; not redemption only, but a Redeemer; and there is a vast difference between submitting to ecclesiastical rules, or even accepting a system of theological doctrines, and casting ourselves upon a beating heart. Millions, during these eighteen hundred years, have trusted in Jesus as a living Person, and have learned in a happy experience that His sweet promise of rest was not uttered in vain. The conscience, turned into a blood-hound in the breast, and pursuing the wretched fugitive fleeing in vain from the memory of the past, has found protection and peace in His presence; the form, quivering with grief beside the grave that had swallowed up its treasures, has felt the soothing touch of His comforting band; the mind groping in the gloom of a cheerless skepticism has been raised by His tender call to soar amid scenes of supernal light and beauty; and the soul has left behind it the broken fetters of sin, that it may go forth upon a career of joyful and ennobling consecration to Him who is still saying, "The Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost," (Luke xix. 10). Blessed Lord, eternity will be short to tell out what we owe Thine amazing grace!

Hark! He speaks again: "I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst," (John vi. 35). O hungry and thirsty ones, will ye not heed that entreating and persuasive voice? It is a hunger only He can satisfy, a thirst none but He can quench. Come to Him to-night with all your doubts and fears and questionings, and learn the meaning of the precious invitation that seals the Canon of Scripture, "Whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely," (Rev. xxii. 17). Come to Him as One who has the heart of a brother to sympathize, and the arm of a God mighty to save. Then can you enter into the gladness of those who through the "little while "are waiting and watching for Jesus, and who will so soon shout the harvest song at His glorious coming,

"Bring forth the royal diadem,
And crown Him Lord of all."