[1] Renan says that "the family of David had, as it seems, been long extinct" before Joseph's birth. Life of Jesus, Chap. XV.

[2] The first verse of Luke's Gospel says that "many" had written about Jesus' life before him. If, as seems probable, he had Matthew's narrative before him when he wrote his Gospel, it is an interesting query why he rejected in his line of ancestry Solomon—the most "glorious" of the Jewish rulers—in favor of the obscure and comparatively unknown Nathan.

[3] It is somewhat curious that Matthew and Luke, who are the only two evangelists to attribute a divine ancestry to Jesus (see heading "Conception"), are the only two to give a genealogy of Joseph. From their point of view, it was entirely immaterial whether Joseph was a descendant of David or not. An attempt to trace Mary's lineage back to David would have had some materiality.

On the other hand, it would seem that Mark and John, who ignore the paternity of the Holy Ghost, would have deemed it of high importance to establish, if possible, one of these genealogies. All Jewry at this time was teeming with expectation of the coming of a Messiah, and their prophets had marked Him out as one of the lineage of David (Psalms CXXXII:2; Jer. XXIII:4; John VII:42). No stronger argument could have been found to win the favor of the Jews to Jesus than the linking of His name with David.

In Cadman's "Harmony of the Gospels," page 39, the author makes an ingenious attempt to "harmonize" these two lines of ancestry—the super-natural and the Davidian. This he does by making Luke's genealogy one of Mary, instead of Joseph. By this means the super-natural fatherhood of Jesus is saved and, at the same time He can claim, through His mother, a descent from David.

The main trouble with this theory is that Cadman is obliged to make Heli the father of Mary, when Luke expressly says that Heli was the father of Joseph (Luke III:23). At another place, Luke speaks of Joseph, not Mary, as being of the house of David (Luke II:4).

[4] There was no God—the Holy Ghost—known to the Jews, and Joseph could not have understood the meaning of the term without some explanation.

[5] It is to be noted that Matthew does not explain why the angel changed the name in the prophecy—Immanuel—to that of Jesus.

[6] Apparently the Angel must have told Mary His name.

[7] Cadman, in the work already referred to, page 37, "harmonizes" these two variant accounts of the angelic announcements by giving Matthew's version in his text, and simply referring to Luke's account in a note.

[8] From Luke's narrative it does not appear that Joseph had any doubts as to Jesus being his child, or, if he did, how these doubts were removed.

[9] The story of the miraculous conception of Jesus would be thrown out of any impartial court upon the evidence of the four Gospels alone.

(a) The two narratives of Matthew and Luke contradict each other on several important details, as is shown above. This discredits each of them as a reliable, accurate authority on this point.

(b) This story is entirely omitted from the narratives of our two first-hand authorities—Mark and John.

Now, it is unthinkable that the authors of these two Gospels, if they knew of this story and believed it to be true, would not have recorded so important a fact in the life of Jesus.

Consequently, they either did not know of the story or, knowing it, did not believe it to be true.

Either hypothesis is equally fatal to the credit of the story.

If they, writing shortly after Jesus' death and, presumably, investigating all sources of information about His prophetic career—probably personally interviewing those persons then living who had seen, heard and known Jesus most intimately—had heard nothing of this story, then it must have been such an obscure legend, buried in the inner consciousness of so few people, as to be unworthy of serious consideration as a fact of history.

If, on the other hand, these writers knew of the story, but, after investigation of the abundant sources of information at their command, rejected it as untrue, what warrant have subsequent historians, not possessing their special means of information, to claim that their decision was wrong?

(c) The story of Jesus' supernatural paternity is most effectually discredited by the fact that no such claim on His behalf was advanced by, nor was the story known to, those nearest to Him during His lifetime.

His nearest friends and neighbors, who had been in daily intercourse with Him at Nazareth for thirty years, had no suspicion of such a claim being made on His behalf, even some time after He had begun his preaching.

"Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not His mother called Mary? And His brethren James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?" (Matt. XIII:55; Mark VI:3.) (See also Matt. XII:47.)

Still later, the multitudes who came to hear Him knew nothing of such a claim.

"Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know?" (John VI:42).

Luke himself says that Jesus "was supposed" to be the son of Joseph (Luke III:23).

There is, in fact, no evidence in the four Gospels to show that, during Jesus' lifetime, there was, at any time or place or by any person, a public claim made that He was not as much the son of Joseph, in the natural course of events, as He was the son of Mary.

(d) Jesus in His lifetime never denied the paternity of Joseph.

On one occasion, in the synagogue at Nazareth, when He had been preaching and the people "wondered" at His "gracious words," "they said, Is not this Joseph's son?" And He said unto them, among other things, "No prophet is accepted in his own country" (Luke IV:22, 23). That is, the people were loath to accept Jesus' teachings because of His lowly birth. But Jesus, instead of claiming a divine parentage, impliedly affirms the fatherhood of Joseph.

On another occasion He is challenged as to His paternity, and does not deny that He is the son of Joseph (John VI:42).

If He had believed that the Holy Ghost was His father, then these two utterances would have been a suppressio veri—the equivalent of a falsehood—of which we cannot think Him guilty.

While Jesus never applies to Himself the title of "Son of David," yet His claim to this lineage must have been widely circulated, since He is given this title not only by the Jews (Matt. IX:27; XII:23; XX:30; XXI:9, 15; Mark X:47; XI:10; Luke I:32; XVIII:38), but also by the Gentiles (Matt. XV:22). His silence and failure to object, when so addressed, certainly constitutes a tacit approval of this description of Himself. But He could only be a descendant of David by reason of the fact that Joseph was His father. Undoubtedly Matthew and Luke inserted in their narratives these two genealogies of Joseph to prove a direct descent of Jesus from David through the paternity of Joseph. The Cadman theory of tracing a descent from David through Mary was not known to the evangelists (Matt. I:16; Luke II:4).

In His meetings with his family, while He seems rather cool and indifferent to them, there is no intimation that His relationship to them is not the ordinary one of son and brother (Matt. XII:47; Mark III:31; Luke VIII:19, 20; XI:28; John II:1, 12).

Jesus never refers to the Holy Ghost as His father, and, on four occasions only, calls Himself the "Son of God" (John III:16-18; V:20; IX:35; XI:4). None of the events in connection with which the term is used by John, are related in either of the three other Gospels. But this term would convey to His hearers no other significance than that with which they were familiar from the Old Testament, where it is applied to beings inferior to God (Gen. VI:2; Job I:6; II:1; XXXVIII:7; Ps. LXXXII:6; 2 Sam. VII:14). But this is very far from the attribute ascribed to Jesus through the miraculous conception, of being the equal of, or one with, God. Jesus Himself refers to others as being the "children of God" (Luke XX:36; Matt. V:45), and He speaks constantly of God being the "Father" of His hearers (Matt. V:16, 45; VI:1, 6, 14; XVIII:14 et passim). Apparently He makes no distinction between this "fatherhood," as related to others, and as related to Himself. For instance, He tells Mary to go to His disciples and say unto them, "I ascend unto my Father, and your Father and to my God and your God" (John XX:17).

Jesus' favorite appellation for Himself is "the Son of Man." He uses this name constantly throughout the four Gospels, and uniformly, except in the four instances cited from John. In speaking of the most solemn and important events of His career, He prefers this name to "the Son of God," or any other. "Of him, also, shall the Son of Man be ashamed, when He cometh in the glory of His Father with the holy angels" (Mark VIII:38; XIII:26; Luke IX:26). In passages like these, it seems necessary to eliminate the words "of man," if they are to harmonize with the theory of the paternity of the Holy Ghost. Again, on His trial, when the high priest "adjures" Him: "Tell us whether Thou be the Christ, the Son of God," Jesus follows His usual noncommittal answer, "Thou hast said," with the statement: "Hereafter shall ye see the Son of Man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven (Matt. XXVI:64; Luke XXII:69; Mark XIV:62; John VIII:28; XII:23, 34, 35).

(e) Finally, to close all argument on this point, there are the many express statements of Jesus to the effect that He was not the same as, or the equal of, God (Matt. XIX:17; XX:23; Mark X:18, 40; Luke XVIII:19; John XIV:28; XVII:3).

[10] Evidently Elisabeth never told John of this visit of Mary, since John says of his first meeting with Jesus that "I knew Him not," until he saw "the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon Him" (John I:31-33; see also Matt. XI:3; Luke VII:19).

[11] Unfortunate as it may be to lose the beautiful story of the birth at Bethlehem, with its poetic imagery of the manger, the visit of the "wise men," and the greeting of the shepherds, the evidence of the four Gospels proves its untruth even more strongly than the story of the miraculous conception.

(a) The contradictory details appearing in the two narratives discredit each as a reliable authority.

Matthew has Jesus born in a house, greeted by "wise men of the East," and going to Egypt immediately after His birth, and remaining there until after Herod's death.

Luke has Him born in a manger, greeted by shepherds, remaining in Bethlehem for several weeks, then going to Jerusalem, and from there returning "into Galilee, to their own city Nazareth" (Luke II:39). His parents could not have been in Egypt, avoiding the wrath of Herod, because "they went to Jerusalem every year at the feast of the Passover" (Luke II:41).

Herod's massacre of the innocents is, of course, unknown to Luke, because, according to him, no "flight of the holy family to Egypt" ever took place. This massacre is not mentioned in the four Gospels, except in this Chapter of Matthew, nor is it recorded by any profane historian of that time, like Josephus. Even supposing that Herod—a Roman tetrarch and not an independent despot—would have dared a wholesale slaughter of Roman subjects without express authority from Augustus CÆsar, yet so terrible an event would have left an indelible impression on the Jewish people. If it had occurred, connected as it was with the birth of Jesus, it is incredible that the other evangelists should have omitted all mention of it, as well as Josephus, who records the other cruelties of Herod.

Bethlehem was some six miles south of Jerusalem, and Nazareth some sixty or seventy miles north of Jerusalem. Matthew does not explain why Joseph and Mary should have been in Bethlehem at this time, especially in view of her then approaching confinement. In fact, the inference from Matthew's narrative would be, that they were residents of Bethlehem at this time. But the unvarying testimony of all the Gospels, except in this one passage, is that Galilee was the native country of both Joseph and Mary, and that their home, after her marriage, was at Nazareth. Luke states this explicitly (Luke I:26), and Matthew himself, in every other passage but this, speaks of Jesus as coming from Nazareth, and asserts that Galilee was "his own country" (Matt. XIII:54; XXI:11; XXVI:71).

Luke, who recognizes Nazareth as the native city of Joseph, explains his presence in Bethlehem on the theory that he, being of the house of David, came to Bethlehem to be enrolled under the census taken by Quirinius, pursuant to a decree of CÆsar Augustus (Luke II:1). But the authorities generally agree that this census did not extend to the tetrarchies, like JudÆa, and that it was taken at least ten years after the birth of Jesus (Renan, Life of Jesus, Chap. II). Besides, it is taxing one's credulity to the utmost to suppose that the Roman officers would have allowed a citizen of Nazareth to enroll himself in an insignificant village, more than sixty miles distant, on the ground that some problematical ancestor had been anointed with oil in that place a thousand years before (1 Sam. XVI:13).

As to the contradictory accounts of Matthew and Luke concerning Jesus' movements immediately after His birth, Cadman in his "Harmony of the Gospels" pp. 4, 45, 48, "harmonizes" them by printing each of them without comment, as though both could be true.

(b) The silence of Mark and John as to the birth at Bethlehem is even more significant than in the matter of the miraculous conception.

There were two points most essential for Jesus and His followers to establish in order to convince the Jews that He was truly their expected Messiah: (1) that He was of the "house of David"; (2) that He "came" from Bethlehem.

The Old Testament prophecies were explicit on these two points (Jer. XXIII:5; Micah V:2; Ps. CXXXII:11).

This was the general expectancy among the Jews at the time of Jesus' birth (Matt. II:5, 6; XXII:42; Luke I:32).

"Hath not the Scripture said that Christ cometh of the seed of David, and out of the town of Bethlehem, where David was?" (John VII:42).

With such importance attaching to a birth at Bethlehem, the argument is irresistible that Mark and John, in not mentioning it, either did not know of the story, or, knowing it, did not believe it to be true. Either hypothesis is equally fatal to the credibility of the story.

It is further to be noted that, while the claim of Jesus' paternity by the Holy Ghost, if publicly asserted, might have stirred up some scandal among the good people of Nazareth, it could not have been absolutely disproved. But, at the time the Gospels were written, it was comparatively easy to absolutely prove whether Jesus was born at Nazareth or at Bethlehem, more than sixty miles distant.

(c) The claim was never publicly made that He was born at Bethlehem, notwithstanding the great support which that fact, if true, would have given to His cause. To His friends and neighbors of thirty years' standing at Nazareth, and to the "multitudes" in general, He was known only as "Jesus of Nazareth" (Mark VI:1-4; Matt. XXI:11; XXVI:71; Mark XIV:67, 70; Luke IV:16, 22; XXII:59; XXIII:6; John VII:41, 42; XVIII:5, 7, 8; XX:19).

(d) Neither Jesus nor His apostles ever put forth this claim, even when the objection was made that He could not be the Messiah, because He came from Nazareth.

The evidence on this point is, of course, mostly negative, consisting in an entire absence in the four Gospels of any reference to His birth at Bethlehem, except the first account given in Matthew and Luke. Thereafter it is as though it had never occurred, for anything that the Gospels have to say about it.

But in two or three instances the question was directly raised.

Philip, one of the apostles, finds Nathaniel and says to him: "We have found Him, of whom Moses, in the law and the prophets, did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.

Nathaniel's reply is: "Can there any good thing come out of Nazareth?"

The only answer which Philip makes is: "Come and see" (John I:45, 46).

On another occasion, Jesus' preaching so impressed His hearers that many of them said: Of a truth this is the Prophet. Others said, This is the Christ. But some said, Shall Christ come out of Galilee? Hath not the Scripture said that Christ cometh of the seed of David, and out of the town of Bethlehem, where David was? (John VII:40, 41, 42).

In both these instances the obvious answer to the objection made would have been, that Jesus was born at Bethlehem, if that had been a fact.

Again, on the evening of His arrest, Jesus twice affirms that He is "Jesus of Nazareth" (John XVIII:5, 8). It would seem that, in that solemn moment of approaching death, Jesus would have asserted His Messianic claim to a birth at Bethlehem, if it had been a fact. (See also Mark XVI:6; Luke XXIII:6, 7; XXIV:19; John XIX:19).

[12] Luke says that Joseph and Mary were "amazed," and, when he told them that He must be about His Father's business, "they understood not the saying which He spoke unto them" (Luke II:50). Apparently their knowledge of His miraculous conception, and all the predictions of angels, wise men, shepherds, Simeon, Anna and Elisabeth had produced little, if any, effect on their minds.

[13] It is an interesting query why all four evangelists give such full and precise details of this ceremony. Neither John nor Jesus seems to have attached much importance to it. Only a short time after it occurred, John had forgotten it, for, while in prison (Matt. XI:2; Mark VI:17), he sent some of his disciples to inquire of Jesus, "Art Thou He that should come or do we look for another?" (Matt. XI:2-6; Luke VII:19-23).

Jesus never mentions His baptism or His then recognition by John, as giving credence to His claims, although He speaks of him and his mission as His forerunner (Matt. XI:7-13; Luke VII:24-29). When He appeals to John as a witness to the truth of His messianic claims, He does not refer to this baptismal ceremony, but relies on John's statements to messengers sent to Him (John V:32, 33; III:25-36).

Baptism, as it developed into a religious rite after Jesus' death—the first step towards admission into the membership of a church—was unknown to the Jews and to Jesus Himself (Kitto's CyclopÆdia of Bib. Lit., pp. 282-290).

John seems to have given it a temporary popularity, but its practice among the Jews ceased with his death. Jesus showed as little interest in it as in other rites and ceremonies. Only one of the Gospels mentions baptism by Jesus' disciples, and that allusion is very indefinite (John III:22; IV:1). But it is explicitly added "though Jesus Himself baptized not" (John IV:2).

The strongest evidence on this point is Jesus' failure to enjoin the practice of this rite on His followers. Three of the Gospels give quite fully Jesus' instructions to the apostles and disciples on sending them out in the world to preach, and not one word is said about baptism (Matt. X; Mark VI:7-13; Luke IX:1-6).

Probably the evangelists felt the need (more than Jesus Himself) of fortifying the latter's cause with the Ægis of John's popularity. At this time the Jews were filled with expectations of the coming of some ruler (Elias, Christ, the Messiah, "he who shall come," etc.), who should establish an earthly kingdom and give them victory over the heathen. John's preaching appealed to this feeling and won to him great numbers of adherents, who remained faithful to him even in prison (Matt. III:5; XIV:5; Mark I:5; XI:32; Luke III:3). To identify Jesus with this expectant one, of whom John preached, was to win at once to Jesus' cause all of John's great following.

[14] It is to be noted that the Epistle of James is directed "to the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad" (James I:1), and contains no allusion whatever to the Gentiles. There is some dispute whether the author of this epistle, who was bishop of Jerusalem for many years, was the brother or cousin-german of Jesus, or the brother of John, "the beloved disciple." There is no doubt, however, that he was an intimate associate of Jesus during His life-time, and, presumably, a much more accurate authority on His views than Paul or others who had never seen Jesus or heard Him speak.

[15] There may be urged, against this view of Jesus' conception of His mission, certain passages occurring in the different accounts of the resurrection.

Matthew relates that, on the appearance of Jesus on a mountain in Galilee to the eleven apostles, where "some doubted" whether it were He or not, Jesus said, "Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost" (Matt. XXVIII:19).

Mark relates that, on Jesus' appearance in Jerusalem "unto the eleven as they sat at meat," He said: "Go ye into all the world, and preach the Gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned" (Mark XVI:14, 15, 16).

Luke relates that, when Jesus appeared in Jerusalem to the eleven, He told them that Christ was to suffer and rise the third day "that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem" (Luke XXIV:47).

According to John, who is by many regarded the most reliable authority on the events of Passion Week, and who describes the appearances of Jesus both at Jerusalem and on the sea-shore in Galilee, Jesus said nothing indicating any change in His views about preaching to the Gentiles or the importance of baptism. On the contrary, He three times says to Peter, "Feed my lambs" or "Feed my sheep" (John XXI:15, 16, 17). But His "sheep" were "the lost sheep of the house of Israel," with whom alone His mission lay (Matt. XV:24).

The glaring contradictions on this point between Matthew, Mark and Luke make their evidence of little weight as against the clear and explicit utterances of Jesus, which these same evangelists have recorded in the earlier part of their Gospels. No two of them agree as to just what was said, or when it was said. The use by Matthew of the later formula of baptism—"in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost"—which apparently was never used by John the Baptist or Jesus' disciples, marks his passage with the strongest suspicion.

The account of John is the only one consistent with the previous history of Jesus, and it is more than probable that these passages from Matthew, Mark and Luke were interpolated through the influence of Paul and his followers.

[16] These solitary "retreats" for fasting, prayer and meditation to a desert, wilderness or mountain are common occurrences in the lives of religious teachers, prophets, saints, etc., of the Orient. They seem, however, somewhat foreign to the character of Jesus (Luke VII:33, 34; Matt. IX:14). This is the only formal fasting by Jesus mentioned in the four Gospels. Several times it is related that He went up into a mount, but He either did not go alone, or He spent only a short time,—a day or a night.

In its location—a mountain—and its duration—forty days—this fast follows the Old Testament precedents of Moses, on Mount Sinai (Exod. XXXIV:28), and the prophet Elijah on Mount Horeb (I Kings XIX:8).

The rather theatrical adjunct of the devil and his temptations may fall in the same category, as Matthew's massacre of the innocents and the flight to Egypt. It gives opportunity, however, to bring in several quotations from the Old Testament.

It must be remembered that, as Jesus preached only to the Jews, so the Gospels (except possibly John), were written with the purpose of convincing the Jews of the truth of Jesus' claims to be their Messiah. The more their authors could connect Him with the sayings and predictions of the Old Testament, the stronger their case. Hence, with nearly every incident of Jesus' life, they cite some appropriate text of the Old Testament, usually with the addition, "that it might be fulfilled" or "as it was spoken by the prophet." In their zeal, it is possible that, in some cases, an incident was found to fit a text, rather than a text to fit an incident.

[17] Apparently, after Jesus left Nazareth, He became domiciled at Capernaum (Mark II:1,15; Matt. IX:1).

[18] The four Gospels use the term "disciples" without much distinction, as meaning either the apostles or the immediate, personal adherents of Jesus for the time being.

[19] According to Mark this "feast" was in Jesus' house (Mark II:15; see Matt. IX:10).

[20] This first discourse of Jesus stands unequaled in religious writings for its clearness, simplicity and freedom from dogmatic theology. To appreciate this, it is only necessary to cite some passages from John's Gospel, which in comparison seem mystic, turgid and ambiguous (John I:1-14; III:11-23; IV:50-59). There is scarcely a sentence in the Sermon on the Mount susceptible of a double meaning, or which a man of ordinary education cannot understand without the aid of a learned exegesis. Yet how hard it is for the poor human followers of Jesus to rise to its grand simplicity. Take, for instance, the subject of fasting. It seems almost impossible for the Christian, of ancient or modern times, to escape from the idea that, in mortifying the flesh, he is doing something pleasing to God. John the Baptist both fasted and enjoined fasting on his disciples. But Jesus neither fasted Himself, nor enjoined fasting on His disciples (Matt. IX:14; Mark II:18; Luke V:33; Matt. III:4; Luke VII:33-34). With His sane view of life, free of all fanaticism, He here, as always, inculcated temperance, condemning the excess of asceticism, as much as the excess of overindulgence in eating and drinking. While He does not prohibit fasting, He, in very plain language checks the enthusiasm of His disciples to make the public practice of fasting a mark of holiness.

"Moreover, when ye fast, be not as the hypocrites of a sad countenance, for they disfigure their faces that they may appear to fast."

"But thou, when thou fastest, anoint thine head and wash thy face. That thou appear not unto men to fast, but unto thy Father which is in secret" (Matt. VI:16, 17, 18).

This seems so clear that he who runs may read, and how the Roman Catholic and Protestant Episcopal Churches make it square with their public celebration of the Lenten fast, for instance, is hard to understand. The "Fast Day" of New England would seem to come directly under Jesus' condemnation.

[21] The Sermon on the Mount is probably composed of a number of utterances at different times and places, which have been compiled and put together in one discourse by the author of this Gospel.

[22] The promulgation of the Lord's Prayer is one of the most significant events of Jesus' prophetic career. It illustrates both His conception of God, and, as a consequence, His dislike of all ceremonial worship.

The persistent weakness of every religion is to gradually forget, or ignore, the spiritual unity of its supreme divinity with his human followers. Whatever may have been the conception of the Deity by the first great teacher, he soon comes to be regarded as a Being apart, like the deified monarchs of ancient times, and as one who can be pleased, or his wrath averted, by offerings and sacrifices. Practically all religions having their beginning from barbarous races are founded on sacrifices of animals, and usually of human beings. Even fairly well civilized nations are not offended by legends describing human sacrifices as being welcome to God. Examples of this are Abraham and Isaac among the Jews, Iphigenia at Aulis among the Greeks, and Curtius among the Romans. The ceremonies attending the rendition of these offerings and sacrifices form often the most important part of the religion, as is illustrated by the innumerable minute regulations contained in the Mosaic books of the Old Testament.

But Jesus' conception of the Heavenly Father was essentially unique in ever realizing the spiritual unity existing between the Father in heaven and His Son Jesus and His other children on earth. Mark the difference between Moses and Jesus in the matter of divine communications. Moses' messages to the Jews are the results of direct and separate interviews with the Almighty. He sees Him in the bush, or in the fire, and hears Him from the clouds. But all this is unnecessary with Jesus. He and the Father are one, and when He speaks, the Father speaks through Him. In the beautiful words of Renan:

"Jesus had no visions; God did not speak to Him as to one outside of Himself; God was in Him; He felt Himself with God, and He drew from His heart all He said of His Father. He lived in the bosom of God by constant communication with Him; he saw Him not, but he understood Him, without need of the thunder and the burning bush of Moses, of the revealing tempests of Job, of the oracle of the old Greek sages, of the familiar genius of Socrates, or of the angel Gabriel of Mahomet. The imagination and the hallucination of a St. Theresa, for example, are useless here. The intoxication of the Soufi, proclaiming himself identical with God, is also quite another thing. Jesus never once gave utterance to the sacrilegious idea that He was God. He believed Himself to be in direct communication with God; He believed Himself to be the Son of God. The highest consciousness of God which has existed in the bosom of humanity was that of Jesus."

With this conception of God, the idea of offerings or sacrifices to please or placate Him becomes unthinkable. All He asks of His earthly children is that they lead a God-like life.

Human nature, however, seems too weak to free itself from this superstition of a Supreme Being to be pleased and His wrath averted. But, as a nation becomes more civilized and spiritualized, the manifestation of this superstition takes on different forms. The smoking altars with their living victims disappear, and, in a measure, the material offerings of shields and other weapons, chariots, gold and silver vessels, jewels, etc. But their place is taken by rites and ceremonies, of which prayer is always foremost. The pilgrimages, votive offerings, masses, adoration of holy places, long prayers (especially for victory over our enemies), elaborate church ceremonials, public fastings, erection of expensive churches "to the glory of God," legacies to "pious uses," etc., of the present day are the legitimate successors of the "fat thighs" of the Greeks, and the Shew-bread of the Jews—offerings to win the favor of a possibly offended or indifferent Deity. We laugh at the "prayer-mill" of the Hindus, but the idea is the same as procuring better treatment for your departed soul by purchasing the performance of long "masses," if you have sufficient wealth.

At the time of Jesus the Jewish religion, as moulded by the Pharisees, was dominated by the spirit of formalism. Attendance at the synagogue, public prayers and fasting, observance of minute Sabbatical and other regulations, were made of more importance than visiting the sick, helping the poor, succoring the widow and orphan, etc. But the essence of Jesus' religion was the living of an every-day godlike life, not the adherence to certain creeds or dogmas, or the performance of rites and ceremonies. In this formalism He recognized His most dangerous enemy. It was a deep-rooted evil and hard to eradicate. One of its inherent dangers is the easy cloak it lends to hypocrisy, and, like the poor, the Pecksniffs we will always have with us.

Consequently we find Jesus early and late inveighing against the "long prayers" of the Pharisees and heathen, and the bitterest term He can apply to the Pharisees is "ye hypocrites." When He comes to instruct His disciples on the subject of prayer, it is quite probable that He would have interdicted it altogether, except for that sane temperance which was so fundamental an element of His character. He recognized the essential uselessness of prayer addressed to an all-good and all-wise Father, since He knows what is best for each person without being instructed, and from His great goodness will do what is best for each person without being asked.

"For your Father knoweth what things ye have need of before ye ask Him" (Matt. VI:8).

Jesus therefore carefully enjoins on His disciples that they shall not pray in the synagogue, but "when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to the Father which is in secret" (Matt. VI:5, 6). He also cautions them against long prayers—"use not vain repetitions as the heathen do" (Matt. VI:7).

He then gives them a short, simple prayer, as a model for their efforts.

On this point of prayer Jesus makes Himself clear beyond any possibility of misunderstanding, as in the case of fasting, and with apparently as little effect on the modern Christian. The very term "prayer-meeting" would be anathema to Jesus, and, if He were enticed into one of these "meetings," He would assuredly think He was in the midst of His old enemies, the Pharisees.

[23] The "Gadarene swine" were the subject of a once famous controversy between Huxley and Gladstone (Huxley. Some Controverted Questions. Chaps. XIV, XV). In the course of the wordy battle there occurs a delicious bit of humor which is worth preserving. Huxley starts out by saying that, for himself, he does not believe the miracle ever occurred, and then adds that he should consider that "the wanton destruction of other people's property is a misdemeanor of evil example." Gladstone comments on this that, after eighteen centuries of worship of Jesus, "it has been reserved to a scientific inquirer to discover that He was not better than a law-breaker and an evil-doer." Huxley objects to this accusation, because, as he expressly said he did not believe Jesus ever sent any devils into any swine, he can hardly be guilty of charging Jesus with this evil-doing. In his following article Gladstone states Huxley's position, does not withdraw his accusation, but, in a manner of apology, says: "The difference, from his point of view, is probably material, and I therefore regret that I overlooked it."

[24] This miracle occurs in Luke before the healing of Jairus' daughter (Luke VIII:41).

[25] The account of Luke's miracle is so vague as to be very unsatisfactory. The dead man is unnamed and unknown, neither his dwelling nor any of his relatives are identified, no one solicits Jesus to perform the miracle, but the bier is met casually on the street or country road, and none of the witnesses are named, as in the case of Jairus' daughter. The narrator of such an unprecedented event, as the raising of one from the dead, ought at least to furnish some means of identifying the resurrected person. It is small wonder that Matthew, Mark and John know nothing of this miracle.

A "doubting Thomas" might explain all three of these resurrection miracles on the hypothesis of unexpert diagnosis of death, a trance, a cataleptic fit, or other form of suspended animation. This would not be possible in the case of Lazarus, if he had been buried in the ground without the provision of some means of respiration. But he was laid in a cave covered only by a stone, so that ample means of respiration are not excluded.

But in the case of Lazarus, the most unexplainable matter is the silence of Matthew, Mark and Luke on the subject of this miracle. Lazarus and his two sisters were well known to Jesus and His disciples, and the sisters are mentioned by all three of the evangelists. Shortly after the miracle, Jesus comes to Bethany and "there they made Him a supper" (John XII:2), and Lazarus sat at the table and Martha served. "Then took Mary a pound of ointment of spikenard very costly and anointed the feet of Jesus and wiped His feet with her hair" (John XII:3). The disciples were apparently present, because Judas Iscariot objects to the waste of the ointment (John XII:4, 5, 6). Both Matthew and Mark relate this event as occurring in Bethany at the house of Simon the leper, except that the ointment is poured over Jesus' head, and neither the name of Mary or of Judas Iscariot is mentioned (Matt. XXVI:6-13; Mark XIV:3-9). Luke speaks of both Martha and Mary on the occasion when Jesus rebukes Martha for being "troubled about many things" (Luke X:38). The raising of Lazarus from the dead was not kept secret but was noised abroad, and was known to many of the Jews in Jerusalem and to the chief priests (John XI:45, 46; XII:9, 10, 11, 17, 18).

Considering the notoriety of this miracle, the intimacy existing between Lazarus' family and Jesus and His disciples, the relation by all the evangelists of other incidents in Jesus' life in which Martha and Mary appear, it is hard to understand why Matthew, Mark and Luke have not a word to say of this, the most marvelous of all of Jesus' deeds.

[26] Bethsaida is on the same (west) side of the sea of Galilee as Capernaum, and but a short distance from it, but this desert place was apparently across the sea, near the land of the Gergesenes (John VI:1, 17; Matt. XIV:22; Mark VI:32). Some claim that there was another Bethsaida on the east side of the sea of Galilee.

[27] It may seem strange that these numerous miracles had so little effect in winning permanent adherents to Jesus' cause. The Jews at this time were, from all accounts, in a state of religious fermentation, expecting the immediate coming of a Messiah, looking for the signs and portents of that coming, ready and willing to welcome any miraculous happenings as proof that their hopes were about to be realized. Yet John the Baptist, who did no miracles (John X:41), had apparently at the time of his death a stronger following than Jesus at the time of His death. (Compare Matt. XIV:5; Mark XI:32; Luke XX:6, with Matt. XIII:57; XXVII:22; John VII:1; VIII:59; X:39; XI:53.)

The earlier miracles attracted large crowds, but the evidence is abundant that, later, the miracles lost their effect, and in some cases, even aroused animosity. Thus Matthew says that Jesus, in the beginning of His prophetic career, "went about all Galilee," teaching and preaching and "healing all manner of sickness and all manner of disease among the people." "And there followed Him great multitudes of people from Galilee and from Decapolis and from Jerusalem and from JudÆa and from beyond Jordan" (Matt. IV:23, 24, 25. See Mark III:7, 8). But, in Chap. XIII:53-58, he relates how Jesus, coming "into His own country" at a later date and preaching there, the people "were offended in Him." "But Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not without honor, save in his own country and in his own house. And He did not many mighty works there because of their unbelief." Mark says, "And He could there do no mighty work, save that He laid His hands upon a few sick folk and healed them. And He marvelled because of their unbelief" (Mark VI:5, 6).

Luke tells how, after He had preached in the synagogue in His home town of Nazareth, "all they in the synagogue, when they heard these things, were filled with wrath, and rose up and thrust Him out of the city, and led Him unto the brow of the hill, whereon their city was built, that they might cast Him down headlong (Luke IV:28, 29).

Immediately after Jesus had healed the man, or two men, in the country of the Gergesenes, Matthew, Mark and Luke agree that the "whole city," or the "whole multitude of the country of the Gadarenes round about," besought Him to depart out of their coasts (Matt. VIII:34; Mark V:17; Luke VIII:37).

After Jesus had preached in Jerusalem and performed at least one miracle there (John V:5-9), the people were so incensed against Him that "He would not walk in Jewry (JudÆa), because the Jews sought to kill Him" (John VII:1).

Later He went secretly into JudÆa on the occasion of the feast of the tabernacles (John VII:2, 10), and the people took "up stones to cast at Him, but Jesus hid Himself and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them and so passed by" (John VIII:59). Again, when He had restored sight to a blind man, they reviled this man and "cast him out" (John IX:7, 34).

Again, when Jesus was at Jerusalem at the feast of the dedication (John X:22), "the Jews took up stones again to stone Him." "Therefore they sought again to take Him; but He escaped out of their hands" (John X:31, 39).

As regards the raising of Lazarus from the dead, the Jews, instead of being favorably affected by that stupendous miracle, were apparently incensed by it. They plotted to put both Lazarus and Jesus to death (John XII:10), and "Jesus therefore walked no more openly among the Jews; but went thence unto a country near to the wilderness, into a city called Ephraim" (John XI:54).

Finally, Jesus Himself bears witness both to His belief that miracles were proof of His messianic claims, and that His miracles had failed to give the support to His cause which He had expected. In one of His most bitter utterances, He denounces the cities of Galilee, because they would not believe in Him notwithstanding the many "mighty works" which He had performed in their midst.

"Woe unto thee, Chorazin. Woe unto thee, Bethsaida."

"But I say unto you, it shall be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon at the day of judgment than for you."

"And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted unto heaven, shalt be brought down to hell."

"But I say unto you, that it shall be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon at the day of judgment, than for you" (Matt. XI:20-24; Luke X:13-15).

In more temperate language He bewails the coldness and hostility of Jerusalem.

"How often would I have gathered thy children together even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not?" (Matt. XXIII:37; Luke XIII:34. See also Luke XIX:41, 42; Luke XI:31, 32).

The reason why Jesus' miracles produced no lasting effect on the Jews has already been indicated. They expected their Messiah to show them miracles as proof of his claims. But this Messiah must be one of their own creation preaching the doctrines which they wished him to preach. All the miracles in the world would not have convinced them that Jesus was the true Messiah, so long as He offered them only a heavenly kingdom. On the other hand, if He had promised them an earthly kingdom, they would have acclaimed these same miracles which He did, as indubitable proofs of His Messiahship. In this respect they differ not at all from many modern professed followers of Jesus. They follow such parts of His teaching as happen to suit their own ideas or prejudices, and calmly ignore other parts, equally explicit and binding, which do not fit in with their scheme of life. (See Hypocrisy or Truth, infra.)

The miracles and, even more, the apparent faith of Jesus in their evidentiary value, form serious stumbling blocks in the way of those who revere Jesus as the greatest "Son of Man"—unequaled in the simplicity and unselfishness of His character and in the sublimity of His teaching—but free from the tawdry tinsel of supernaturalism, which is the usual stock-in-trade of leaders of religious sects. Mohammedanism seems to be the only great religion which has resisted the temptation to ascribe to its founder, either divine parentage or the power to perform supernatural acts.

The attribution to Jesus of the Holy Ghost as His father need cause no difficulty, by reason of the facts set out under sub-head "Conception," supra.

But as regards the miracles, it is true that few of them have much scientific value as evidence of the intervention of supernatural powers in their occurrence. For instance, Matthew records nineteen specific miracles, of which only one is attested to by all the three other evangelists, five are attested to by one beside himself, twelve by two, and one by himself alone. Of the nineteen, five are events—stilling the tempest—walking on the waters, two feeding the multitude, and one the blasting of the unfortunate fig tree, which did not bear fruit out of season. Of the remaining fourteen, one is a lunatic, one has a withered hand, one is dumb, one is a leper, two have palsy, three are blind, one has fever, one an issue of blood, two are possessed of devils, and the ailment of Jairus' daughter is not specified. Without examining each in detail, it may be said generally that these accounts are very indefinite as to exact times and places, names of persons cured, or by friends or relatives, and other details, by which the story might be verified. From the insufficient data furnished, it would, for instance, have been almost impossible for a person, starting to investigate these miracles immediately after Jesus' death to have asserted that any particular miracle did not occur, although he could not find a single witness to any of them. Even the names of the disciples present are given only in a few instances. It is also to be regretted that practically all of the personal cures, as is the case with more modern miracle workers, fall within that class of afflictions where ignorance, suggestion, simulation, conscious or unconscious, etc., can so easily confuse the result. If some of these latter-day healers would only go to an old soldiers' home and supply some missing arms and legs, the "doubting Thomases" would be more ready to concede their possession of supernatural powers.

But, notwithstanding all this, the four Gospels are so permeated with these miraculous doings that it would be almost denying them any credibility at all, to claim that Jesus and His apostles did not believe that He performed miracles, and that these miracles were proof of His claim to the Messiahship. It can only be said that Jesus, great as He was, could not entirely escape the influence of the times in which He lived.