which a servant of the High Priest narrowly escaped a fatal blow), and the execution of the troublesome Messiah.

The conviction forces itself upon us that Jesus must have been, from first to last, an obscure man so far as concerned the world of affairs and politics and literature. No author of distinction deemed his crucifixion worth a passing note. Even the Gospels partly bear out this conclusion. They represent him as homeless and in want of food and money; as oftentimes retiring from the multitude, hushing up miracles, and even forbidding his friends from publishing his Sonship. "Who is this?" the people of Jerusalem asked, not recognising in him any notorious figure. He lodged outside the city. His visit to Gethsemane was private. The men who arrested him did not know his face, though that of the "notable" robber Barabbas was familiar to the whole town. So modest and unpolished was his appearance that the soldiers saw in him an apt target for jest and mockery. To the Sanhedrim and Pilate and Herod he scarcely uttered half a dozen words. He was not even reserved for special execution, but suffered death with two common felons. One of his Christian biographers felt it necessary, perhaps, to account for the unimposing personality of Jesus, and referred to an Old Testament prophecy which thus pictured the Servant of God: "He shall not strive, nor cry aloud, neither shall anyone hear his voice in the streets; a bruised reed shall he not break, and smoking flax shall he not quench" (that is, his step and deportment shall be so gentle). To these facts we may add the remarkable circumstance that the Triple Tradition reveals not a single incident of the career of Christ from his infancy to the beginning of his propaganda.

No theology could bear a much simpler character than that of Jesus. God was the father who listened with sympathy to prayer, especially the prayer of the unaffected heart; who rewarded the sincere alms-giver and the loyal disciple and the minister to the sick and helpless; who provided food and clothing, and who gave sunlight and refreshing rain even to sinners. To the "Holy Spirit" scant reference is made in the Common Tradition.* Jesus con

The writer of "Luke" and "Acts" gives a great expansion to the doctrine of the Holy Spirit, as the reader may see by looking at a

ceived of the Spirit as a divine effluence moving in the human breast, teaching the use of meet words, directing the actions, and opposing a celestial strength to the rebelliousness of devils. And when (if we may trust the Triple Tradition) certain critics derided Jesus as the victim of an unclean spirit, he turned angrily upon them with the menace that they who blasphemed the Holy Spirit should be held eternally guilty.

66

Angels play scarcely any part in the career of Jesus as described in the earlier version of the Gospel. Angels cluster about him as he wrestles with temptation in the wilderness. He speaks only in passing of the Son of Man's coming amid a throng of angels, and of the angels in heaven who know no sex. On the other hand, angels flit numerously through the pages of "Luke" and Acts -an incidental proof of the evolution of the Christian legend. A similar significance underlies the fact that the earliest gospel ("Mark") contains no mention of dreams and visions. These preternatural events appear only in " Matthew" and "Luke." All the Synoptics tell of a Devil, who tempts, thwarts, and acts as Prince of the evil world, and devils or evil spirits, who lodge themselves in human bodies, and produce disease and convulsions, and can be expelled by a power created by prayer and the discipline of fasting. There are "kinds" or orders among these malevolent spirits. They and Jesus parley with one another like rival champions. When driven out, they seek shelter in swine, or wander disconsolately in waste places.

Very little can be gleaned from the Common Tradition as to the nature of the Teacher's Eschatology (doctrine of the Last Things) and his ideas of Heaven and Hell.* Vaguely enough he seems to think of Hell as a fire of punishment for sin, and of Heaven as a region whence angels will emerge at the critical day of the Son of Man's glory; though he also believes† that heaven, like earth, shall pass

Concordance, and comparing the few allusions in Mark with the numerous uses of the phrase "Holy Spirit" (Ghost) in "Luke" and "Acts."

66

* Heaven is seldom named in "Mark," but very frequently (especially in the phrase "Father in heaven ") in " Matthew." Matthew," too, mentions hell much more than the other gospels.

+ The passage occurs in the "Broad-sheet of Pella ;” see p. 23.

away. Even the eternal life which will reward the faithful presents itself, in the Triple Tradition, as a pale and nondescript anticipation. The later gospels (" Matthew" and "Luke"), however, introduce a fuller doctrine, and we hear Jesus dilate on the broad highway to destruction, the narrow path of salvation, the loyal servant who watches for the lord's return, the five virgins who kept burning the lamps of greeting, the ignominious expulsion of the guest who had not on a wedding garment, the degradation of the servant who let his talent lie idle, the separation of the wheat from the weeds which fed the fire, and the resurrection of the just (Luke xvi. 14) and the unjust, and the great tribunal before which gather the sheep and the goats-the souls on the right hand passing into the realms of life because they had shown mercy and pity, and those on the left vanishing into the abyss because they had neglected the claims of holy charity.* Less impressively the note of judgment sounds in the parables which relate the doom of the wicked vinedressers, and of the people who insolently rejected the invitation to the royal feast. The fires of Gehenna flicker about the unhappy Rich Man, who gazes upwards at the ravishing scene where Lazarus the Beggar reclines at ease on the breast of Abraham.

In his Ethics Jesus laid stress upon Right Disposition and Right Conduct,† and never upon beliefs or opinions or ceremonial compliances. Though a disciple of the Baptist, he did not baptise. The Sacred Meal itself was an occasion for fraternal converse, and (according to the Gospel account) affectionate memorial; it in no way furnished a religious test, and its very institution belongs to the most legendary part of his career-viz., the closing days in Jerusalem. The New People might not even utter oaths to lend a ceremonial value to solemn speech. God's blessing rested on the purehearted. Angry feeling and lustful emotion were crimes.

* The corresponding passage in "Mark" only represents Christ as sending out angels to gather in the elect. Nothing is there said as to the moral character of the elect.

In seeking for the ethics of Jesus we are chiefly dependent on "Matthew" and "Luke," the moral element in "Mark" and the Common Tradition not being conspicuous.

The condemnation of unbelievers in Mark belongs to the spurious section, xvi. 9-20.

Meekness, mercy, peacefulness, gentleness of judgment furnished the elements of the acceptable life. Out of the heart proceeded the holy train of virtues and the leprous brood of vices. A man would be justified or condemned by his words, but only because the tongue betrayed the character. Conduct indexed the inner nature, and derived its worth from the motive. A cup of cold water, a small coin dropped into the Temple treasury, would win the smile of God, not for their intrinsic value, but because of the gracious heart that prompted the deed. And the Elect who, at the Day of Judgment, modestly disclaimed having shown pity to the suffering Christ received their title to the Endless Life; for the act of mercy was equally noble whether manifested towards the prince of heaven or the sad tenant of a gaol. Conduct was the fruit which commended a man to divine favour as being the outward and visible sign of an inward ethical temper. Jesus did not advance so far as Paul, who denounced the Law as a prisonhouse and flung away the Decalogue, and who taught the doctrine of a Moral Freedom which found in neighbourly love the mainspring of conduct. But if the prophet of Nazareth did not put a ban on the Law, he easily ignored it, and, in his scorn of Pharisaic rigour, in the sarcasms he directed against the sham piety of the loud prayer, the ostentatious fast, the conceited almsgiving, the flaunting phylactery, the folly of rigid Sabbatarianism, and the like, he prepared the way for the yet broader gospel of Paul. Jesus reduced all the Torah and the complex system of the Scribes to two simple elements-the love of God and the love of one's fellow-man. That God was not a jealous God came out clearly enough in the welcome accorded to the repentant spendthrift son and the returning sheep; and in the parable of the Two Sons, one of whom only rendered lip-service, while the other, having uttered a defiant "I will not," soon relented, and with meek obedience took up the allotted task in his father's vineyard. And what love to one's neighbour meant Jesus displayed in the story of the Pitiful Samaritan. At times, indeed, the benevolence of Jesus lost itself in a morbid and preternatural sweetness. Not merely would the Saint, mindful of his own frequent offences, cherish lenience of judgment and forgive an occasional debt or personal insult, but he would extend the

forgiveness to seventy times seven, receive the mocking blow and bear the robber's violence without a protest, and even, in a passionate revenge of love, pray for his despiteful enemies and bear them gifts of kindness. The Gospel legend itself faltered at such an exaltation of the grace of charity; for the teacher of forgiveness forgave not sinners at the judgment, the teacher of non-resistance beat down the irreligious crowd with a scourge of small cords, and the teacher of love to enemies hurled a curse against unbelieving Capernaum. A keen criticism might discern a like inconsistency in the Nazarene's doctrine of poverty. The poverty which he blessed made a path to heaven.

Lazarus the beggar found ready entrance into the halls of consolation. The selfish farmer was rich, and a fool; but had he given his property to the needy, he could still have claimed riches in paradise. He that spread banquets for the penniless would find a recompense at the resurrection of the just. The wealthy young man who refused to dissolve his inheritance in alms might have had treasure in heaven. If the trustful disciple left caring for the supply of his material wants, he would, nevertheless, be divinely provided for. The key to the doctrine lay in the often-misunderstood parable of the Wise Steward, who exhibited so much evil skill in preparing for his expected dismissal; for the truly wise and prudent disciples would ensure their place in the eternal habitations by expending their earthly mammon in donations to the poor. They would relinquish a handful of jewels in order to win the pearl of great price. They would gain life by losing it. The bearing of the cross would end at a throne, and the pain of voluntary eunuchism or the cutting off of an offending hand would result in future profit. All this betrayed inconsistency by retaining the idea of external reward in the form of celestial treasure while counselling the disciples to shake off the lust for wealth and good cheer. On the other hand, while his doctrine took a materialistic form, a general view of the career of Jesus, as portrayed in the Gospels, reveals the true fibre of altruism as expressed in his sympathy and compassion. And in self-denial on earth for the sake of glory in heaven a discipline was exercised which possessed a

certain moral value. to the ethical ideal.

Paul seems to have travelled nearer Sometimes he asked the churches to