A Hebrew doctrin, false and mischievous, dominated in early days, ascribing to the anger of God against sin calamity of whatever kind, whether defeat in war, failure of crops, or bodily disease :--a folly which mars many of the Hebrew psalms. As to some on whom the tower of Siloam fell, Jesus (in Luke) opposed this error; but he startles one by entirely adopting it, when he identifies the two phrases, Thy sins be forgiven thee, and Be thou healed of thy malady. -But perhaps these words ar foolishly imputed, in the wish to glorify him. Nevertheless, if we accept the narrativs as substantially correct concerning his doctrin, there is much indeed to regret, much reason to wonder that thoughtful persons can approve. His vehement and frequent threat of a hell with unquenchable flames and undying worm, has above all things given vitality to this noxious doctrin, which darkens the character of God and hardens the hearts of men. From none of the other Christian writings could the dreadful idea of Eternal Sin, Eternal Despair and Eternal Agony be established. Therefor we must believe that it was a dominating idea characteristic of him, as indeed, after him, of Mohammed. He threatens this doom to the simple townsfolk to whose conscience his message of "The Kingdom" did not commend itself:-a worse doom at the day of judgment than that of Sodom and Gomorrha. A preacher so dogmatic and so full of threat ought above all to be cautious in expression. With his enigmatic and hyperbolical style and precepts paradoxically framed, (such as, "Hate your father and mother for "my sake,") he must hav puzzled and revolted many hearers. A teacher with ordinary wisdom who expected docility and submission from simple folk, would know how dangerous ar hyperbolical and vague precepts. The writer whom we call Matthew gravely assures us that Jesus purposely made his teaching obscure, in order

to fulfil prophecy; lest the people be converted and he should heal them!! (Matt. xiii. 11--17.) How grave the danger of ambiguous precept, is disagreeably shown in his panegyric on those who hav made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. To this day it is debated whether he spoke figurativly or literally. For the latter an Origen could plead that the zeal which adopts the cruel letter may carry the gospel into Eastern harems from which a mere celibate Paul is excluded. Whether here also the fault is thrown on the stupidity of reporters, I wait to learn.

In his teaching is a still more fundamental unsoundness. He repels by rudeness or evasion the more educated inquirers who may approach him; and then solemnly thanks God that "He had hidden these things" (i.e. the divine mission of Jesus? or his divine wisdom?) "from the wise and prudent, and revealed them unto "babes. Even so, Father! for so it seemed good in thy "sight." Was he unaware that Reasons ar necessary to convince the wise and prudent? He demanded that his hearers should become babes, thus identifying Credulity with Faith. This rottenness at the core has been fatal to Christianity. Truth, even if nobly established at first, cannot maintain itself, if Credulity is consecrated as a virtue; but Fantasy overcrusts and smothers it, because Criticism is frowned down.

SECOND PART.

A TIME arrived, which, according to our three narrators, was critical to Jesus. Rumours favorable to him had thickened among the populace. He inquired of his apostles, what was the prevalent opinion. They replied: "Some think thee to be John the Baptist, others one of

"the old prophets, or Elijah" (brought back from heaven). "But whom think ye that I am?" is his further question: to which Simon replied, "The Messiah of God." According to Matthew, Jesus hereon burst into the joyful utterance: "Blessed art thou, Simon son of "Jonah ! for flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, "but my Father which is in heaven." He proceeds to bestow on him the title Kefa (ROCK)--which we render by Peter or Cephas--and adds: "On this Rock will I "build my Church "--whether on Simon or Simon's confession is hotly debated :--" and the gates of Hades "shall not prevail against it." Mark and Luke ar here more concise: but all three agree that after accepting Simon's avowal, Jesus strictly charged them to tell no man of it. Only one reasonable explanation here offers itself; for such a dialogue will not be ascribed to wanton fancy. Jesus, while despising the doctors and daring to denounce them, had (like them) great difficulty in defining how Messiah was to be discerned. Though inwardly believing himself to be the pre-destined One, he had never dared to utter the claim. If he even had a complete copy of the old prophets, to reconcile them was so hard, that doubt was perhaps inevitable. Naturally he wished others to enunciate his Messiahship; hence his eager delight and exultation when Simon made the bold avowal. Nevertheless, after a short interval, old doubts recurred, with painful misgivings. He was frightened at his own elation; therefor he forbad them to tell any one.

But the word, as an arrow, stuck deep in his side. From this era he began to ponder on an ambitious career, which must lead either to glorious triumph or to violent and ignominious death. He is consistently said to hav tried from this moment to prepare his disciples for the worst, often warning them of the fate in store for him.

66

Here an interesting question arises, Hav we any clue that may suggest what was his own conception of the task and function of Messiah? If we may assume, that he discarded the idea of a warlike Messiah such as the prophet Micah suggested, such a deliverer to Israel as Judas Maccabæus had been,-did he imagine Messiah to be prefigured by the "servant of God" in the later Isaiah, from which alone the idea of Messiah suffering death for his people could be gathered? In answer, a remark must be premised. It is not credible that Jesus should not hav discerned what were the expectations of his disciples, and should not hav corrected them, if he judged them to be wrong. Therefor, whatever error on this topic they all held down to his death, must hav been his error also. Several passages giv us information. In Luke xxii. 29, we read: "I appoint unto you a kingdom; as my Father "hath appointed unto me, that ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones, judging "the twelve tribes of Israel." We should call a teacher mad, who used such words to simple men, and did not expect them to understand him literally. The royal table, and the chief ministers eating and drinking at it; the judicial thrones, and the same favored ministers dealing out awards to the inferior multitude,—precisely hit off the idea cardinal in those days to a heavenly monarchy planted on earth. As, in a Greek republic, to be dieted in the City Hall at public expense was the highest honor, so in a royalty to liv at the king's table. The eating and drinking distinctly marks that continued life in the flesh was intended. Bread and Wine were the normal food, as with king Melchisedek; and so a little above, Luke xxii. 18, Jesus says: "I will drink no "more of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God "is come." Moreover Acts i. 6 converges to the same result. The disciples there ask Jesus: "Lord! wilt

"thou at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?" words on which it is useless to foist any spiritual sense. He does not reprove them for the belief, that the kingdom (now held by Rome) is to be restored to Israel, nor does he deny that he is himself God's champion to restore it; but simply avows that the time of the event is a secret with God, thus virtually asserting that earthly dominion is to be restored to Israel:-as indeed every Jew who accepted Isaiah was bound to believe. Of course it may be objected that this discourse was fictitious, being held after the death of Jesus; but it does not the less attest the sharply defined persistent tradition that at that era the disciples continued to believe such to be Messiah's function, though Messiah had first to suffer.

وو

An indirect confirmation meets us in Zachariah's hymn, Luke i. 68. We cannot know when first it was penned; but Luke's authority (some earlier Christian) received it as an inspired prophecy. "Zachariah was filled with the "Holy Ghost and prophesied." We must infer that Zachariah uttered what the early Christian Church accepted as sound doctrin. Twice he distinctly intimates the great function of Messiah to be, deliverance of Israel from a heathen yoke; "that we should be saved from "our enemies and from the hand of all that hate us "_ v. 71; again, v. 74, "that we, being delivered out of "the hand of our enemies might serve him without "fear," &c. Deliverance from the power of the heathen was the first condition requisit for the pure and permanent service of God; therefor is here put forward as the main result to be achieved by the new-born Messiah. It is called Redemption. Such being the Christian belief when this hymn was first incorporated with Christian sacred writings, the belief must hav subsisted all along, first among those devout Jews who were precursors of Christianity; next, in the first Christian Church. It