The Norfolk Virginian. [volume] (Norfolk, Va.) 186?-189?, 1895-12-22
Certain Legends Considered by the Dean of
Canterbury.
THEY PRESENT A DISTORTED APPEARANCE
The Apochrypl,al Gospels of the In
fancy and the Singular Incidents
They Rcintc-it is Strange Tint So
Eittlc That is Authentic Is Known
But il IL Sufficient.
BG THE VERY REV. i. w. FARRAR,
u. D.. DEAN OF CANTERBGRY
(Copyright. lsa5. by S. S Sic clurc, Limi,cdl

II y. d.. DEAN OF CANTERBURY
Copyright, 1898. by SIS Mcclure, Limiicti)
1t is matter of real establishment
Hthat outside the circle OF the ranonical
gospels so few "reminiscences are pre-
served served or the ESrfect Man. who,
ms II living man 3urIag living men.
Ihere arc multitudes OF historical
Il celehrit!eS respecting the inCidritS Of
whose lives endless details and anec-
i IoteS have been recorded and preserved
IN II Is little short of ;lma%ln;, that ncith-
Il or history nor tradition should have
III tmDaimed for MS one certain or precious
I SAVING or circumstance in the life of
Al IN" saviour OF mankind. except the
y comparatively few events recorded in
8 Tour very brief biographies. ST Paul
Il has preserved for us the one deep word
Hnt the Lord Jesus. how lie said, 1T
HIS more blessed To give than To receive"
8hnu II Is just possible that the rule
Approve yourselves trustworthy
4 mohcS-chanrcrs.' uU0tcd by several Of
Hithc Fathers, which after all. is lii
3 T." more than m cpitomc OF tho parable
MOI the talents and the pounds, may
II Ne true recollection OF Ills words
AlManN of tho "nnrecorded sayings" of,
4lC'hrist Uhc :,grapha t,ogInatni nrf n,.n
Hltound and forcible. and it is far from
&mprohablc that some Of them may lie
HEi true echo OF what Fe said Init there
HIS not one of them which adds n rev
4it bought or u new lesson to those con
I'm ancd in the authentic tliscoursrs and
$ImrnbleS. II is quite certain that Meth
NET from The aEocYphal gospels, nor
#p rom any other source, do we derive one
#ftncedotc or even one hint upon which
live can rely as expressing q single now
al "hthrc OF His example. or n single nd
J['tiohal particular Of His mortal life.
@l WHAT WAS CFlR!&'r'S APPEAR
al ANCE?
I'll we could No have n more signal
sAHroof of this total failure of tradition
B8l nan the astounding fact that not ONLY
KIN inns da%. but even in the early cen
III "IleS' there was not even n dim re
H nembrance as to the physical appear
- nee OF The King of GLORY IEn. II. cC
& beautiful features; ami commandinr ,s
f#leci. or was hc OF married y!.sa"c and
8aInean Appearance? We might surely
&a Pnve anticipatcd that SO much ut least
E&tnight have been remembered ei,t n
81 was not. The descriptions of C,hrist
&Fhich for centuries haunted and domj-
~ hated the nunherlrss cndeavors of hri
23(o represent Him during and since, the
vs. iddlc Ages, were late rorrcrire MOI
ct the earliest than the seventh
JET M elShth centuries. AS carly as the
anu hfth centuries. Il was dis
Sl led whether He was the chief among
900, ana ait"sethcr lovcly." "faircr
&plan the children of men" ana '.cn-
ISL owctwith the oil Of -ladncss above
a 10 fellows. or whether He was smit-
Am, and stricken. and ugly. and dwar-
S$lsn ana perhaps even Il lepcr CNos
I<<9t N'''' 'ib'tSi ltIhiSuI, ISst-
StSsh lid. The earlier view that he wns
ficcptionally beautiful in appearance
HMtevailcd mainly in consequence of tho
Use conception Of life, and the revolt
s33tg Slorificntion of dirt and unnatural
which invaded Christianity
atom Paganism and the East. and uD-
@@hld before Christians the ideal of yogis
S8ahd fakirs. The belief that there must
&#hve been Something starry" I'm the
|E4 box of Christ, and that one who wos
8kafpcllant In aspect could never have won
H23pc passionate alteration of muItitudcs
hmmendcd itself to the opinion of the
$8 eat fourth century Fathers who
s frther rightfully argued that His out
8 ard form could not hut have been
Iansluccnt with the divine moral and
#piritual beauty within But the re-
H iarkable thing Is that neither party of
lH8p pose who treated the Subjc from
50 bosite points Of few was able to claim
%1ae slightest authority Of tradition for
36H. cir opinion on Il subject 50 full of in
freSt. Thcy argued exclusively n priori
8,om what they regarded as most fit
$#8iig. or poStcriori from their inter
% citation Of passages in Isaiah and the
Sfali almS. Nor did the earliest efforts of
I$5 nistian Art afford them the smallest
8i slStancc. For nearly five centuries
GM was generally regarded as profane
&&hong the greatest writer's and think
32s In the church. to attempt any nat
&SSA alistic representation of Christ at all
lie sweet and simple artist Of the
AttncombS. with no exception, before
nc fourth century, and with but few ex-
6 ptionS for two or three centuries
4ES8ter. only fQea1iZo6 Him no a ro1to,t