JESUS.

JESUS, the Divine Author of the Christian religion, was born at Bethlehem, a city of the tribe of Judah, about six miles south-east from Jerusalem. His mother was a Jewish virgin named Mary, the betrothed wife of Joseph, both in the humblest rank of life, though both of the royal race of David. The date of his birth is not mentioned in the sacred record; and there has been a difference of opinion among the learned who have engaged in the inquiry, respecting the precise period when it took place. It is now, however, generally agreed upon, that it must be fixed a few years earlier than is indicated by the epoch of our era, which, according to the common computation, corresponds with a. u. 754. We know that Jesus was born before the death of Herod the Great;^[1. Matt. ii. 1, 16. ] and it appears from Josephus,^[2. Antiq. 17, 18, 1; Comp. 14, 14, 5, and 17, 9, 3. ] that Herod died before the Jewish passover a. u. 750. From calculations founded on other parts of the gospel history, and particularly on a comparison between Luke, iii. 1 and 23, many have supposed that the nativity was in a. u. 747; and in this opinion some have been confirmed by the conjecture of Kepler, that the conjunction between Jupiter and Saturn, which took place in that year, was the star seen by the wise men; though it may be justly questioned how far the principles of scriptural interpretation admit of the supposition that the phenomenon referred to corresponds with the particulars mentioned by St Matthew.^[3. Matt. ii. 2, 7, 9. A list of the opinions which have been entertained respecting the year of our Saviour’s birth is to be found in the Ľìbliographia Antiquaria by Fabricius, and in Münter’s Stern der Weisen. Untersuchungen über das Geburtsjahr Christi. See also Hales’ Chronology, vol. i. ] In regard to the day or month in which the Saviour was born, a subject to which the devotion of a large proportion of the Christian world has attached much importance, we have no means of accurate knowledge. The description given^[4. Luke, ii. 8. ] of shepherds watching their flocks by night, is inconsistent with the idea that it could have been in December or January, or during the heat of the summer months; as we know that in these periods the herds were no longer left in the fields.^[5. “Pluvia prima descendit, die 17, Μ. Marchevan (Novem.), tunc armenta redibant domum nec pastores in tuguriis amplius habitabant in agris,” &c. (Gemar. Nedar. 63.) Again, we read in Jerome, that in summer, “juxta ritum Palestinae et multarum orientis provinciarum quae ob pratorum et faeni penuriam paleas praeparant usui animantium.” (Comm. Is. lib. viii.) ] At other times of the year the flocks might be turned out to pasture day and night in the south of Palestine; but there is no circumstaiice referred to by any of the evangelists to determine whether it was in spring or in autumn that Jesus was born.^[6. Various attempts have been made to connect the birth of Jesus with the feast of the Passover and the feast of Tabernacles; but the conclusions have been generally drawn from vague and fanciful analogies, and do not rest on historical grounds. See Hales’ Chronology, vol. i.; and Greswell’s Dissertations on the Harmony of the Gospels, diss. x. ]

The chronological error in the vulgar era, and in the season for celebrating the festival of Christmas, does not in any way affect the truth of the gospel history; and cannot indeed appear strange, when it is considered that several centuries elapsed before the method of computing time by the birth of Christ was introduced, and that the festival of the nativity was not observed in the primitive church. During the first three centuries, the Christians adopted the ordinary modes of reckoning time, which prevailed among the heathen around them. Different methods were afterwards employed; and it was not till the sixth century that a Roman abbot named Dionysius the Less was induced, by motives of religion, to have recourse to the expedient of determining dates by the number of years from the period when the Son of God was born of a woman. The commemoration of the day of the nativity was not generally observed throughout the Christian world till the fourth century. At that time the western church fixed upon the 25th of December, and their example was generally followed.^[7. Clemens Alexandrinus mentions (Strom, i.), that some celebrated the natvity on the 20th of May, others on the 20th of April. The 6th of January was celebrated by the Basilidian Gnostics as the day of the nativity and of the baptism. This custom afterwards became general for a time throughout the East. And when the birth-day was fixed by the western church on 1he 25th of December, the 6th of January continued to be observed as the Epiphany. ] Different causes have been assigned for the choice of this day. Sir Isaac Newton, in his work on Daniel, supposes that it was agreeably to the principle by which the chief feasts were fixed at the cardinal points, without regard to historical accuracy; as the annunciation at the vernal equinox, and St John the Baptist’s day at the summer solstice. Hospinian and others have been of opinion that the festivities connected with the celebration of Christmas were intended to make up for the Saturnalia, conformably to the practice which had been acted upon from an earlier period, of smoothing the way for the conversion of the heathen, by [7:12:558]presenting their idolatrous ceremonies under a new form. And there is not wanting reason to suppose, that from the winter solstice being observed as the birth-day of the sun, when that luminary, returning from the south, seemed to be restored to the world, the transition was suggested to the celebration of the birth of him who was the life and light of the world.^[8. Schroekh’s Kirchengesch⅛tc, i. 403. ]

The circumstances connected with the birth of Jesus corresponded in a remarkable degree with the predictions of the Jewish prophets respecting the Messias. He belonged to the tribe of Judah, and was of the house of David. Events, over which .his earthly kindred had no control, fixed his birth at Bethlehem, from which place the promised Deliverer was to spring. The seventy prophetic weeks of Daniel were approaching to their termination. And so determinate were these and other predictions, that a general opinion prevailed, even in heathen countries, that the tide of time was bringing our race to a mighty epoch, and that a prince was to arise in the East who was to obtain the empire of the world.^[9. Tac. Hist, , V. 13; Suet, in Vesp. cap. iv.; Virg. Poll. ] The wisdom of Divine Providence was also shown in the appointed scene and season of the birth of Jesus. From the geographical situation of Palestine, forming a part of Asia, touching upon Africa, and connected by the Mediterranean with the whole of Europe, the Jews enjoyed the best opportunities of diffusing the knowledge of their principles. And the intercourse between remote nations, occasioned by the conquests of Alexander and the progress of the Roman arms, afforded increased facilities for propagating new opinions, while it forced upon men’s notice the different forms of national worship, and led to an examination βf the great principles of religious belief.

Soon after the birth of Jesus, his parents fled with him to Egypt, to save him from the fury of Herod, whose suspicions were awakened by the idea of a rival to his throne.^[10. Matt. ii∙ 13. ] An uncertain tradition fixes the spot of the residence of the holy family at Matarea, near the ancient Heliopolis; and one of the apocryphal gospels contains various idle accounts of miracles which marked the presence of a superior being. From such traditions the Jews took occasion to circulate many ridiculous tales of magical arts learned by Jesus while in Egypt, which woere frequently referred to by some of the early philosophic opponents of the Christian faith. The malignant insinuations of Celsus, however, and the absurd legends which long found currency among the Jews, are wholly inconsistent with the authentic narrative of the return from Egypt upon the death of Herod, when Jesus might still be said to be in infancy.

Upon their arrival in Palestine, Joseph was led to take up his residence in Nazareth, in Galilee. Here the opening character of Jesus engaged the love and excited the admiration of all who knew him.^[11. Luke, ii. 52. ] And, even before his childhood was ended, in his twelfth year, when his parents carried him up to one of the annual Jewish feasts, we find him attracting the notice of the learned Rabbis, entering into discussion with them, and filling them with astonishment at his extraordinary knowledge and sagacity. It would appear that, according to the custom of his”countrymen, he followed the trade of his foster-father. In Mark, vi. 3, he is spoken of familiarly as “the carpenter.”^[12. ∕ θt '* wros iστt » riκτωι s ‰ Maζ 'a s . This passage seems to have been tampered with as early as the time of Origen, probably from a wish to do away the prejudice that existed in many minds against the idea of a Saviour in such a state of humiliation. There is another reading, « ∙∏>υ τot<r >v >s υ <>s Maļía; ; but the weight of evidence is decidedly in favour of the former. ] And Justin Martyr tells us, that while he sojourned on earth, he was employed in the ordinary occupations of a carpenter.^[13. TíXTíwxà i i γa, i ζγaζι<r l >, b a i >6 iωnots α,^τ^α. κto ζυy a . Trvph. 88. See also Theod. 3, 23; and Soz. 6, 2. ]

In this lowly situation, and in the midst of these servile employments, a character was silently maturing, such as the world had never before witnessed; and those lofty designs were conceived, the accomplishment of which was to give a new impress to the condition of society, and to alter the destiny of our race. Frequent attempts have been made to explain by the operation of natural causes, how, in circumstances so unfavourable, a character like that of our Saviour’s could have arisen; and various theories have been framed respecting the manner in which the plan to which he devoted himself was suggested to his mind. The insufficiency of these attempts we shall afterwards consider. In the mean time, however, it may be remarked, that, though no explanation can be given, from circumstances merely external, of the growth of such a mind as that of Jesus, which must be sought only in the seed of the immortal plant itself, it is by no means inconsistent with the highest ideas that can be entertained of the divinity of his nature, to suppose a progression in the development of his humanity. External influences must to a certain extent modify the character of every man. We are told, accordingly, that “he grew in wisdom' as weH as “stature.” And the commanding situation and romantic beauty of the city of his dwelling, the instructions of his mother, intercourse with the heathen, which, from the proximity of Nazareth to Galilee of the Gentiles, must have been frequent, may have proved among the subordinate’ aids for awakening that sense of the loveliness and majesty of external nature to which we find so many references in his discourses, and that susceptibility of every tender emotion which his whole history manifested, and that enlarged philanthropy which looked beyond the distinctions of Jew and Gentile, of sect and class, of rank and station, and considered the whole human race as members of one great family, as children of the same heavenly parent. Such influences, however, are matter of conjecture rather than of positive knowledge; for no reference is made to them by any of the Evangelists. The piety of his mother and of Joseph renders it certain that he would from infancy be made acquainted with the Old Testament Scriptures; and these not only contain the germ of all that is pure and elevating in religious sentiment, but also are, more than any other study, calculated to awaken the curiosity and stimulate the powers of the opening mind. His conversation and discourses everywhere show that he must have made a constant study of the sacred records. It appears that he never attended any rabbinical school, nor did he receive a learned education.^[14. Matt. xiii. 54; John, vii. 15. ]

From the time when he appeared disputing with the Jewish doctors in the temple, we have no direct information respecting him till his thirtieth year, when we find him among those who presented themselves to John upon the banks of the Jordan to be baptized. The intervening period was no doubt employed in maturing the plan for the arduous undertaking to which he was prompted by the stirrings of the Divinity within him. The consciousness of his high vocation, however, to a career that was to attract the notice of the world, did not interfere with the pious observance of his filial duties, or the laborious discharge of the common offices of his early situation.^[15. Luke, iit 51 . and ; ust . Mart. ut sup. ] The baptism of John served as a consecration to his new office. The heavens were opened, the Holy Spirit [7:12:559] descended upon him, and a voice was heard from heaven declaring him to be the Son of God, and claiming for him the attention of mankind. Immediately after his initiation, he was impelled to retire into the solitudes of a wilderness, with a view, probably, of meditating on the work before him; and, by fasting and prayer, after the example of former prophets, to prepare himself for his great undertaking. A higher purpose was also accomplished during this retirement, an opportunity being afforded him for proving the purity and sinlessness of his nature, and establishing his fitness for the office upon which he had entered, by baffling the temptations of Satan.

After this mysterious conflict, Jesus returned to Bethabara, a place near to that part of the river Jordan over which the Israelites had passed under Joshua. It was here that disciples first began to gather around him; and few passages in history are more interesting than that^[16. John, i. 29, ad fin. ] which tells of the individuals who first attached themselves to his cause; of their curiosity, their doubts, their conferences with him, the influence he gained over their minds, and their eagerness to communicate to others the wondrous tidings, that they had found the promised Messias in the person of Jesus of Nazareth. The first two individuals who joined themselves to him were disciples of John the Baptist, who pointed out Jesus when walking at a little distance, as the “Lamb of God who taketh away the sins of the world.” Upon this they introduced themselves to his notice, and on his invitation accompanied him to the house where he lodged. What took place at this memorable interview, or how a solitary and almost unknown stranger attached to his cause the first two disciples, we are not informed; whether by some token of supernatural knowledge or power, or by the natural influence of a superior mind; the conviction was produced; and with it was imparted the spirit, which was at the foundation of the indefinite extension of the new cause, viz. the desire of imparting their own impressions of the new doctrines to others. One of the two individuals was Andrew, brother of Simon, who afterwards became so eminent in the primitive history of Christianity. “Andrew first findeth his own brother, and saith, we have found the Messias; and he brought him to Jesus? These three were the converts of the first day; and in a short time, without any advantages of birth or station, or human learning, without the aid of powerful relations or influential patrons, he had a considerable number of attached followers, who listened to his teaching, and accompanied him from place to place. At the feast of the Passover, along with the rest of his countrymen, Jesus went up to Jerusalem, where he increased the number of his disciples by his doctrines and miracles. He seems to have continued in the land of Judea about six or seven months; when the success of his preaching, exciting the attention and envy of the Scribes and Pharisees, led him to withdraw into Galilee, where the power of the Jewish Sanhedrim was less to be dreaded. In passing through Samaria, where the political circumstances of the inhabitants freed them from some of the prejudices of the Jews^[17. See Horsley’s Sermons, vol. ii. p. 243. See also Neander’s Geschichte der Pflanzung, u. s. w∙ i. 72. ] respecting the character of the Messias, he first openly and publicly proclaimed the great truth, that all distinctions of Jews and Gentiles and Samaritans were to be at an end; and that, without reference to time or place, or outward ceremony, the Deity was to be worshipped in purity of spirit, and in faith on the promised Messias.^[18. Our information as to the first year of our Saviour’s ministry is derived almost exclusively from John. The other Evangelists confine themselves to his preaching in Galilee, with the exception of what took place at Jerusalem immediately preceding the crucifixion. ] He then visited the whole of Galilee, everywhere accompanying the instruction he gave, in synagogues, or in private houses, or in the open fields, with miraculous proofs of his divine character and commission. ln Nazareth he was first subjected to personal violence, his townsmen taking offence at his lowly origin. To avoid their malice, he passed on to Capernaum, which henceforth became the place of his general residence, and from which, as from a centre, he visited the whole surrounding country. The first year of his ministry seems to have been attended with almost universal success. He met with no outward obstruction in his work, except in Nazareth; his approach was everywhere welcomed, and increasing multitudes followed him in his progress.

During the second year of his ministry, his followers became so numerous that he chose twelve persons who might assist him in his work, and be prepared to propagate his religion when he should leave the world. These he named Apostles, an appellation which was appropriated at that time among the Jews to certain public officers who were the ministers of the high priests, and who were occasionally despatched on missions of importance to foreign parts.^[19. Mosheim De Relus Christianis, &c. i. 6. ] The number twelve had probably a reference to the twelve tribes, as the seventy whom he afterwards chose might be from the number of the Jewish Sanhedrim. The increasing success of Jesus raised up against him a host of enemies, and from this time he was continually subjected to the cavilsof the Sadducees, and still more of the Scribes and Pharisees, whose objections were of such a nature as might be expected from unprincipled and hypocritical men, who witnessed with jealousy any proceeding likely to diminish their influence among the people, and who were inflamed with resentment at the exposure which was made of their true character.

It has already been observed that Galilee was the chief scene of our Saviour’s ministerial labours. He did not, however, confine himself wholly to that province, but occasionally visited other parts. We find him at one time on the coasts of Tyre and Sidon; at another beyond Jordan; and at the passover he uniformly went up to Jerusalem. As the Evangelists do not relate events in chronological order, we are without any precise information as to the exact degree of success that from this period attended his labours; it seems probable that his followers continued to increase, and that a deep and general impression was made upon the public mind. His proceedings at last excited the attention of all classes in Judea. Herod Antipas was haunted with the idea that he must be John the Baptist restored to life, and was desirous to have a personal interview with him; and there is not wanting reason to suppose that he received the homage of princes more remote. The eyes of the chief men of Judea were now upon him. The subject of his miracles was discussed in the Sanhedrim, and frequent attempts were made to seize and bring him before the council, though without any settled purpose, perhaps, how they were to proceed against him. At last, after the restoration of Lazarus to life, which led to the conversion of a multitude of the Jews, a meeting of the Pharisaic party was held, when it was finally determined that he should be put to death. The resuitis well known. In the dead of the night he was surprised in the midst of his secret devotions, hurried before the Sanhedrim, and, after the mockery of a trial, in which even his judgeacknowledged his entire innocence, he was adjudged to suffer death. He was then carried to the usual place of execution, on a small hill named Calvary, on the west of Jerusalem, a little without the walls, [7:12:560] and there he was crucified. This dreadful scene was accompanied with signs and wonders which proclaimed the dignity of the sufferer. A supernatural darknessoverspread the land of Judea, “and behold the veil of the temple was rent in twain, and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent, and the graves were opened.” After his death his body was taken down from the cross, and laid in a tomb hewn out of a rock, after the manner of the Jewish sepulchres. Every precaution was used to prevent the removal of the body by the disciples. A great stone was rolled upon the door of the tomb, and a watch of Roman soldiers, consisting of sixty men, was appointed to guard it. This was on our Friday. The following day was the Jewish Sabbath; the stone remained in its place fixed and secure, and the soldiers continued their watch undisturbed. But on the morning of the third day, amidst a display of supernatural agency that mocked the precautions of the Jewish rulers, Jesus arose from the dead. After this he continued some time on earth, affording the most indubitable evidence of his identity, and of the reality of his resurrection from the dead, and instructing his disciples in the nature of the doctrine they were to teach mankind. At last, at the end of forty days, he led forth his disciples to Bethany, and there, while giving them bis blessing, “he was parted from them, and carried up into heaven.”^[20. Luke, xxiv. 51. ]

The year of our Saviour’s death cannot be exactly ascertained. Two extreme points, however, can be mentioned, within which that event must have taken place. The one is the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius,^[21. Luke, iii. í. ] in which John the Baptist began his ministry, and the other, the year in which that emperor died, when Pilate had left the province of Judea. As Jesus entered upon his ministry soon after the public appearance of John,^[22. John, i. 19, 29, 35; ii. 1. ] it would bring us to a near approximation to the date sought for, could we say how many pass-overs were celebrated by our Saviour. Even this, however, cannot be determined with certainty. The most probable opinion seems that of those who fix the number at three, and this would bring us to a. u. 783. Irenaeus states that Jesus was forty or fifty years of age when he was put to death;^[23. Iren. ii. 22, 5; John, viii. 57. ] but it is generally agreed upon that his opinion was founded, not on authentic records, but to suit a fanciful theory.^[24. Pisanski de errore Irenaei in determinanda actate Christi, 1778. ] Most of the Christian fathers assign only a single year to the ministry of Christ, and fix his death in a. u. 782. Their conclusions are drawn from an erroneous view of Isaiah, lxi. 1, and Luke, iv. 19.^[25. Tertul.; Lact. Instìt. ; Aug.; Clem. Alex. i. ]

We have little authentic information respecting the character or history of Jesus additional to what is contained in the New Testament. The name Chrestus is mentioned by Suetonius; but it has been disputed whether he referred to Jesus.^[26. In his Life of Claudius , c. xxv. Judaeos impulsore Chresto assidue tumultuantes Roma expulit. ] Tacitus alludes to the fact of his death, and speaks of him as the founder of the sect of the Christians.^[27. Auctor nominis ejus Christus, qui Tiberio imperante per procuratorem Pontium Pilatum supplicio affectus erat. (Ann. 1. xv. c. 44.) ] The chief notices of him by the fathers have been embodied in the preceding narrative. There is a passage in Josephus,^[28. Antiq. xviii. 3, 3. ] where his life and character are referred to in the following terms: “At that time lived Jesus, a wise man [if he may be called a man], for he performed many wonderful works. He was a teacher of such men as received the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him manv Jews and Gentiles. [This was the Christ.] And when Pilate, at the instigation of the chief men among us, had condemned him to the cross, they who before had conceived an affection for him did not cease to adhere to him [for on the third day he appeared to them alive again, the divine prophets having foretold these and many wonderful things concerning him]. And the sect of the Christians, so called from him, subsists to this time.” This remarkable passage is referred to by Eusebius,^[29. Hist. Eccles, i. ii.; Demonstr. Evangel, iii. 5. ] and its genuineness was never called in question from his time till the sixteenth century, when Gifanius and Osiander refused to receive it. Since that period it has afforded matter for much controversy among the learned. In favour of the genuineness of the passage, it has been argued, that we have the undisputed fact that it is found in all the copies of the works of Josephus from the time of Eusebius. It also exists in a Hebrew translation in the Vatican; and there is an Arabic version preserved by the Maronites of Mount Libanus. In addition to this external evidence, it is urged that the number of Christians in the time of Josephus was too great to admit of the supposition that he should pass them over altogether unnoticed, an improbability which is increased by the fact that he makes mention of John the Baptist,^[30. Antiq. xviii. 5. ] and of the death of “James, the brother of Jesus, called the Christ.”^[31. Antiq xx. 9, 1. ] On the other hand, it is certain that Josephus was not himself a Christian; and yet the passage, as it stands in his writings, involves the profession of belief in the divine mission of Jesus. It is farther to be remarked, that this testimony in favour of Christ is not quoted by any of the apologists of Christianity who preceded Eusebius; and in particular, Origen,^[32. C. Ceis. ] while he refers to the allusion made by Josephus to the death of James, and to his account of John the Baptist, passes over in silence the passage in question, though it would have afforded a more decisive answer had it been contained in the copies of the Jewish historian then in circulation. The arguments on both sides appear plausible, and the difficulties upon either supposition cannot perhaps be removed but by the conjecture, that Josephus did introduce into his work a notice of Jesus, though without admitting him to be the Messias, and that some over-zealous Christian about the time of Eusebius had inserted some additional clauses. This opinion is now generally gone into by the continental critics. Those parts which are usually looked upon as interpolations are marked within brackets in the preceding extract.

It was scarcely possible that the appearance of so remarkable a character as that of our Saviour should not have induced many individuals, from various motives, to commit an account of him to writing. Accordingly, it appears,^[33. Luke, i. 1. ] that from the earliest period many histories of his life were in circulation. The words of St Luke seem to imply that these narratives were.defective or erroneous; but there is nothing to prevent us from supposing that some of them might be the productions of men of good intentions, though deficient in the talents or information requisite for so important an undertaking. It was otherwise, however, in succeeding times. After the four gospels had been written by the Evangelists, and had been generally received as of divine authority in the Christian church, heretics and others, who departed from the true faith, had recourse to the expedient of forging gospels, epistles, &c. under the name of some of the apostles, or that of our Lord himself, to which they might refer in support of their tenets. These works were frequently formed out of the genuine gospels, with such additions and omissions as the purposes of the [7:12:561] writers required. There were not wanting members of the true church who followed the same practice, with the mistaken idea that the piety of the faithful might thus be promoted, or that an answer might be afforded to some of the objections of Jews and Heathens. In the second century, Irenaeus^[34. S'J , c 'A ∙ ] tells us that the Gnostics had an innumerable multitude of spurious and apoeryphal books; and in the following age they were greatly increased. The greater part of these writings perished in the course of ages. Of such of them as remained, a collection was published by Fabricius, about the beginning of last century, in his Codex Apocryphus Novi Testamenti. A full account of them is given, with translations, in Jones’well-known work on the Canon. Several of them were republished in London some years ago, in a work entitled The Apocryphal New Testament.

That these works are not to be received as genuine, may be proved by their vast inferiority to the canonical gospels, and still more decidedly by the faet, that they were not recognised by the Fathers. In The Gospel of our Saviour s Infancy, there arc some passages which are referred to by Eusebius, Athanasius, and Chrysostom, as containing some trifling particulars of true history connected with the life of Christ, but it is not ranked by them among the inspired writings. It is worthy of remark, that it was from this production, and from The Gospel of the Birth of Mary, and the Protevangelion of St James, that Mahommed derived all his knowledge of our Saviour’s life. Indeed he does not seem to have been at all acquainted with the canonical gospels; and the legends of the East in general concerning our Lord are all from apocryphal sources.^[35. jones, vol ∙ t 3 ]

There is an account in Eusebius,^[36. IIIst ‘ Eccles - i, 13 ∙ ] of a message having been sent by Agbarus, king of Edessa, who had heard of the miraeles of Jesus, and who requested him to come and cure him of a malady with which he was afflicted. It is added, that our Saviour wrote to him a letter, in which he promised to send one of his disciples to heal him. A translation of this correspondence from the Syriac original, contained in the archives of the church of Edessa, is given by Eusebius. Additions were afterwards made to the story,— as that Thaddeus, one of the seventy, was deputed by Thomas, after the resurrection, to fulfil the promise of the Saviour; and Evagrius^[37. Eva g. iv. 26. ] mentions, that our Lord not only wrote a letter, but that he sent a handkerchief also, with his picture drawn upon it. There can be no doubt that the letters mentioned by Eusebius actually existed among the records of Edessa, and that they were seen by that historian. But, in addition to the external evidence from the letters themselves, the fact that they are taken notice of by no preceding Christian writer affords demonstration that they are forgeries, which owe their existence probably to the national vanity of some of the early Christians of Edessa. We are not informed that our Saviour ever committed anything to writing, and we may be assured that if he had, it would not have passed unnoticed by his first followers.

There is another statement contained in Eusebius, deserving of more attention. He mentions that Pontius Pilate, after the crucifixion of our Lord, wrote such an account of his character and miracles to the Emperor Tiberius, as induced that prince to propose to the senate that a place should be assigned to Jesus among the deities worshipped by the Romans, but that the senate opposed the wishes of the emperor. It was certainly the custom of the governors of provinces to write memoirs of the remarkable occurrences of the places where they presided; and there is nothing improbable in the idea that Pilate, who was convinced of the innocence of Christ, should send an account of him to Tiberius. It is certain also that Justin Martyr,^[38. Apol. i. ] in his Apology for the Christians, presented to the Emperor Antoninus Pius, refers to the acts of Pilate, as containing an account of the circumstances connected with the crucifixion; and Tertullian,^[39. Tertul. Αpolοg. c. v. 21. ] towards the end of the century, appeals to the same records. Still, however, we conceive that the evidence for the existence of these acts is defective; and the proposal alluded to by Tiberius to the Roman senate, though mentioned by Tertullian, and repeated by writers who succeeded him, is irreconcilable with the character of Tiberius, and the state of the Roman empire at that period. At a later period, a spurious work, entitled The Acts of Pilate, ^[40. Iras was during the persecution of Maximin. Euseb. Hist. Eccles, ix. 5. ] was circulated by the Jews, containing many slanders against Jesus; and it appears that acts of a contrary nature were fabricated by certain Christians, to do away the impression.^[41. Epiphan. Haer. 1. i. ]

From the time that the Jews returned from the Babylonian captivity, a belief in magie formed a borrowed part of the national character; and at an early period the natural expedient was resorted to by the enemies of Jesus, of disparaging his character, by representing him as a magician. It was believed among them that there was a mystic word which enabled those who had learned it to direct at will the current of events; and a foolish story was circulated as early as the second century,^[42. Orig. Co „ řr . VOL. XII. ] respecting the means by which Jesus discovered and remembered this potent sign. Upon this fable a life of Jesus was ultimately constructed, entitled Toldoth Jeschu. The substance of this abominable fabrication is, that Jesus was born in adultery, the particulars of which are detailed with revolting minuteness; that he contrived to steal the sacred word, by pronouncing which he performed miraeles at will, healed the sick, opened the eyes of the blind, raised the dead; by means of such works he gained over many converts, and would have been still more successful had not another Jew disabused the minds of his countrymen by learning the same word, and disclosing to the people how the same miracles could be performed. The work terminates with an account of the death of Jesus, and of his body being stolen away by his disciples. It was published, with a Latin translation and learned notes, by Wagenseil, in his Tela Iynea Satanae, h. e. Arcani et horribiles Judocorum adversus Christum Deum et Christianum religionem libri ΑΝΕΚΔΟΤΟΙ, 1681. It can scarcely be believed that the more learned among the Jews gave credit to its mendacious absurdities; though they long encouraged its circulation, to inspire their brethren with a deeper contempt for Christianity and its followers.

The determination of the questions relative to the person and character and history of Jesus involves all the essential particulars connected with the evidences and doctrines of the Christian faith. But in an article like the present, we cannot enter fully upon the consideration of any of these important subjects. We shall merely offer a few remarks upon such particulars as depend upon elements of a historical nature, leaving the discussion of matters of doctrine for other departments of this work.

The existence of such a person as Jesus Christ has scarcely ever been seriously denied; and the general tenor of the narrative of the Evangelists, with the omission of the miraculous parts, has been received as substantially correct by many who refuse to acknowledge the truth of our religion. The evidences for the genuineness and authenticity of the four Gospels will be stated under the proper [7:12:562]heads, from which it will appear that no history whatever is supported by stronger external proof; and that were it not from internal grounds as to the nature of the facts recorded, and the consequences which flow from them, the truth of the narrative would never have been called in question. Even the miracles were admitted by the earliest opponents of Christianity, Celsus, Philostratus, and Hierocles. These individuals did not deny the reality of the works performed by Jesus; they only, upon internal evidence, objected to the idea that a person in circumstances so lowly should be supposed to be divine, or explained away the supernatural appearances by the supposition of the exercise of magical arts,^[43. Celsus. ] or maintained that the few miracles which were performed did not warrant the idea of a divine character.^[44. Hierocles. ]

Different ground has been taken up by infidels in modern times, who, while they have been constrained to admit the truth of the general statements of the Evangelists, have rejected altogether the supernatural machinery. In setting aside the miraculous part of the gospel history, the chief difficulty has been found in giving a consistent view of the character of Jesus. If the miracles performed by Christ were not real, the conclusion seems irresistible that he must have been either a deliberate impostor, or a self-dc-ceived enthusiast. By some writers, accordingly, Jesus has been held up to ridicule and contempt, as exhibiting many weaknesses, and even vices—as a pretended miracleworker and false prophet. Several of the deistical writers of our own country took up this position, and were followed by Voltaire and other French authors. The anti-Christian views of Voltaire were adopted by Frederick the Great,^[45. trederick, while he treated with contempt the doctrines of the Gospel, acknowledged the excellence of its morality, which he considered (it is unnecessary to remark how erroneously) as essentially the same with that of the Stoics. ] whose example and encouragement gave rise to the spirit which has unto Innately led so many of the theologians of Germany to exclude from Christianity every trace of supernatural agency.

The notices of the English deists of the last century, respecting the miracles and character of Jesus, in many instances at least, were little more than incidental, and formed merely a part of their general argument against the truth of our religion. In Germany the work has been more systematically pursued. With the characteristic industry of that learned people, the writings of the Evangelists have been considered in every possible form. Different theories have been framed as to the secret views of Jesus, as to the real causes of his success, and as to the true character of the alleged miracles which were performed. Voltaire, after our English authors, had endeavoured to account for the exalted morality taught by Jesus, by supposing that it was borrowed from the self-denying tenets of the sect of the Essenes.^[46. Diet. Phil. art. Essenes. The untenableιιess of the theory had long before been well exposed by Prideaux, Connections, vol. ii. p. 264. ] The idea was followed out by various German authors; while the lofty theology of the Alexandrian Pla-tunists, and the liberal spirit of Sadduceism, were referred to by others as sufficient to originate in an enthusiastic mind the system taught by Jesus. Some, like Edelmann, while they have not disputed that a virtuous Jew named Jesus actually existed, have refused to acknowledge the genuineness and authenticity of the Gospels. 1leimarus, in a posthumous tract^[47. fins tract was published in 1788, by the celebrated Lessing, åmong his “Wolfenbüttel Fragments by an anonymous person. ’ It is entitled Fragment von dem Zwecke Jesu und seiner junger. It is now universally ascribed to Reimarus, well known as an able critic, and the author of a work on natural religion. He was born at Hamburg in 1694, and died in 1765. He published nothing respecting his views as to the subject of revealed religion during his life, but he left various manuscripts of an anti-christian character, some of which falling into the hands of Lessing, who at that time had the superintendence of the ducal library at Wolfenbiittel, were published by him in the Beitrage zur Geschichte und Literatur, aus den Schatzen der Hezoglichen Bibliothek zu Wolfenbüttel. Ihey excited great attention; and, more perhaps than any other work, led to the neologian spirit that has since so much prevailed in Germany. Various answers were called forth. Of these, by far the ablest was that by Reinhard, a celebrated German preacher, in a woik entitled Versuch über den Plan den der Stifter der Christ, rdigion zum besten der Menschen entwarf. The main object of the author is to show that the mere plan for effecting the happiness of the species; a plan which he pu. posed to carry into effect, not by violence or force of arms (in opposition to the theory of Reimarus), nor by the influence of a secret society (in opposition to the v√il< t imagination of βahrdt), but by means of moral suasion alone, a plan which no great man of antiquity had ever conceived, and which entered into no other religious system; proves Jesus to have been a messenger sent by God. This work by Reinhard is one of the most valuable contributions to 'the evidences of the truth of Christianity. It has been translated into French; and a tianslatiou of it into English has been published in America, though it seems little known in this country. ] on the object of Jcsus and his disciples, while he acknowledges the excellence of the morals, and even of the doctrines, of the Gospel, accuses Jesus of not observing the rules which he prescribed, and of making use of his system as a means for promoting his political views; and while he does justice to many of the high qualities of Jcsus, he represents him, upon the whole, as actuated by ambition, and as aiming at the establishment of his own power under the character of the triumphant conqueror to whom the Jews looked forward in their promised Messias. His arguments are chiefly founded upon the acknowledged ideas of the Jewish people respecting the Messias, upon the caution exhibited by Jesus in arrogating that character, and upon his entering Jerusalem in royal state, when be conceived that his cause was sufficiently advanced to insure his success; while the grief he exhibited in the garden of Gethsemane, and his exclamation on the cross, “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me ?” are considered as tokens of his disappointed hopes. This view has been taken by other writers, with various minor modifications, and with different degrees of learning and presumption. Others have represented Jesus as the dupe of his own imagination,—as one who, by the dreams of a fond mother, and the workings of an unrestrained fancy, was led to believe himself to be the Messias; and who, partly by his superior knowledge of the occult qualities of matter, and partly by the sympathetic influence of a highly-wrought enthusiasm, favoured occasionallyby accidental circumstances, performed many works that seemed to exceed the limits of natural causes, which were afterwards exaggerated into real miracles. Another class of the neologian school describe Christ as a pure and exalted character, who was animated with the desire of raising the condition of his degraded countrymen, and of promoting the general interests of humanity; and who, in the lowly situation in which he was placed, found no other means of accomplishing this end but by personating the character of the Jewish Messias. As the Jews expected miracles to be performed by their long-looked-for Saviour, Jesus accommodated himself to their views in this respect. According to this class of writers, he is supposed sometimes to have availed himself of fortunate contingencies, representing the restoration from a faint as a resurrection from the dead, as in the case of the daughter of Jairus, and of Lazarus, and sometimes to have succeeded, perhaps beyond his own expectations, by the aids of animal magnetism.^[48. A list of the writers who hold these opinions is given in Winer’s Biblishes lìealreõrterbuch, s. 671. ] His appearance to his disciples after his burial has [7:12:563]been also explained away, as if it had been the result of natural causes; it being argued that the suspension from the cross for a few hours was insufficient to occasion death, though in a worn-out frame it might occasion a temporary swoon, from which he might be restored by the myrrh and aloesand odoriferous substances which his disciples brought to embalm him.^[49. See, in particular, the Leben Jesu by Dr Paulus of Heidelberg, who conceives that his opinion is strengthened by an attempt to prove (which he has endeavoured to do in a separate tract upon the subject) that only the hands of Jesus were nailed to the cross, his feet being merely bound to it by a strong cord. But even supposing this to have been the case, which we consider as by no means established, the evidence of actual dissolution is decisive. AVe have in the first place the testimony of the Evangelists, then the proceedings of the soldiers in general (John, xix. 33), and then the wound inflicted by one of them with a spear, which, from the account given of it, must have entered the heart itself (v. 34.) ]

In regard to the theory which is founded on the idea that Jesus was actuated by selfish or worldly or ambitious motives, it may safely be affirmed that it is altogether inconsistent with the facts connected with every part of his history. The whole tenor of his proceedings showed that his views were above this world. He used none of the arts necessary for gaining a party among his countrymen. He did not flatter one sect at the expense of another. He neither courted the favour of his countrymen, by inflaming their prejudices against the Romans, on the one hand; nor did he, on the other hand, artfully conciliate the favour of the Romans to be employed as a means towards attaining the sovereignty of Judea. He openly denounced the vices of the reigning sects; and though his benevolence led him to such a course of conduct as could not but excite the admiration of many among the lower orders, he made no attempt to render his popularity subservient to his personal interests; he shunned the demonstrations of popular favour, and unsparingly exposed the unworthy motives that led many to pay court to him. Not a single instance can be mentioned in which he had recourse to any means for establishing a temporal authority. His whole conduct showed that he was animated with more exalted aims. From the commencement of his ministry he asserted his divine commission, and spoke with undoubting confidence of the success of his cause. But the success of which he spoke was not in schemes of worldly greatness, but in the diffusion of truth and righteousness. He availed himself of every suitable opportunity for correcting the erroneous impressions that were entertained respecting the character of the Messias. And so far was he from entertaining views of personal aggrandisement in the character he assumed, that from the very first he intimated that the good he was to render to mankind was to be procured by laying down his life for them. And the tenor of the evangelical history proves, that in proportion to the increasing clearness with which he communicated to his chosen followers the information as to his divine character, was the expressness of his declaration that his death was at hand.

There is only a single instance that can be adduced in which there was any appearance on the part of Jesus, of the assumption of temporal authority, viz. in the case of his last entrance into Jerusalem. This has been represented by Reimarus as an unsuccessful attempt made by him, counting upon the support of the populace, to take possession of the temple and of the city. But such a view is inconsistent, not only with the proceedings of Jesus upon former occasions, but also with his conduct in Jerusalem at that very period. There was no concert between the people and Jesus or his apostles. The city of Jerusalem was filled with strangers from all parts, who had come up to attend the passover; the report of the resurrection of Lazarus had been widely circulated; when Jesus approached, curiosity assembled multitudes to behold him, and, in the enthusiasm of the moment, they rendered homage to him as a king. But Jesus did not avail himself of the feeling that was excited. He addressed to the multitude nothing calculated to rouse their passions. The jealousy of the Roman governor, sufficiently awake to the danger of an insurrection,^[50. In pioof of this, see Joseph. Anti<1. xviii. 3, 2. ] took no alarm at the approach of the procession to the temple, and Pilate made no allusion to it when Jesus was brought before his tribunal. The same day that Jesus entered into the temple he voluntarily left it for Bethany, though it is obvious, that if he had entertained the views ascribed to him, he would have availed himself of the advantages it presented to him, as the citadel that commanded the whole of Jerusalem.^[51. Michaelis. ] After this he openly returned to the temple on the following days; he made no appeal to the passions of the people, but continued to address to the chief priests such denunciations as could not fail to rouse those vengeful feelings of which he had foretold that he was to be the unresisting victim.

The attempt to prove that Jesus was merely an ambitious adventurer is now generally abandoned. But many, while they admit the excellence of the personal character of Christ, endeavour to account for the supernatural parts of the gospel history on what is called the principle of accommodation, supposing that Jesus suited his proceedings to the expectations of the Jews respecting the miraculous power of their Messias. But to act upon such a principle is surely inconsistent with the simplicity and integrity of a spotless character. It is admitted by the defenders of the hypothesis referred to, that we have in Jesus Christ a character which stands single and alone in the history of mankind, free from any defect, and combining every species of excellence. We have this same Jesus, without advantage of education or outward condition, introducing a system of religion and morals such as the world had never witnessed; the only system of positive religion that does not bear on its face evidence of its falseness; a system to which the most enlightened men in every age since its first propagation have yielded their homage; and a system of nnorals so pure in its nature, and so comprehensive in its requirements, that while the most extraordinary progress has been made in every other subject, it might easily be proved that all that ethical inquirers have attempted is an analysis of the principles of our nature, on which the rules of the New Testament are founded, or an application of these rules to the circumstances of mankind in new conditions of society. If such a sjstem had been originated by an individual who made no claim to supernatural assistance, we would have been presented with a moral phenomenon altogether inexplicable. But this is not the state in which we find the question. Jesus declares that he received from God all that he reveals to man. Had he offered no proof of this assertion, his moral qualities, even supposing him to have been in error, might have remained unimpeached, and he might have moved our compassionate respect, as the self-deceived enthusiast of virtue or religion. But our Saviour not only demands credence on his own authority; he makes an appeal^[52. John xiv. 11. ] to the miracles which he wrought, in proof of his divine mission. Now, the miracles which our Saviour refers to are of such a nature, that either they must have been performed or he must have lent himself to a deceit. There is no other alternative. He could not but know whether they were actually wrought, or whether they [7:12:564]were only seeming and illusory. And if the miracles were not truly performed, then we have the individual whose moral character stands in all other respects higher than that of any other of the children of men, and who was made the instrument of conferring the greatest boon that ever was made to mankind,—we have that individual guilty of an artful and criminal imposture.

In regard to the theory that the apostles filled up the picture of the character of Jesus from what they read in the Ohl Testament Scriptures respecting the Messias, it may be remarked, that the conception of such a character in such circumstances is a phenomenon as inexplicable upon ordinary principles as the actual existence of the prototype. And that four different writers, or that even two different writers, without having a common subject, should have given so many points of resemblance of such an extraordinary natnre, and in so many varied circumstances, is altogether incredible.

Among those who admit the divine commission of Jesus, different opinions have been entertained as to the rank he holds in the scale of being. The general doctrine of the Christian church, as expressed in ancient creeds and in the confessions of reformed churches, is, that Christ exhibited in his person a union of the divine and human nature; that the second person in the Trinity was united to the man Jesus, who was God and man in one person. To avoid the difficulties which have been supposed to be involved in this mysterious doctrine, it has been maintained by some that the Son is not equal with the Father, and did not exist from eternity, but that the first created being, the highest angelic nature, was made flesh and dwelt on earth. The essence of this theory is, that the Son of God was a creature, but that he existed in a separate state previously to his manifestation in the form of man. It is variously modified according to the higher or lower character that is given to the Son of God; and is distinguished by the name of Arianism, from the individual who in the early part of the fourth century first brought the question into general discussion. According to a third class, Jesus Christ was a mere man, distinguished from other men only by being employed by God in making a revelation of his will to mankind, and superior in no respect to the prophets who appeared among the Jewish people, except in superior virtue, and in a more enlarged measure of divine countenance and assistance. This view, in its essential features, was embraced by the Ebionites, and also by Artemon and others during the second and third centuries; by Socinus in the sixteenth century, from whose name those who adopt this opinion are frequently named Socinians, though they assume to themselves the name of Unitarians ; a title which is sometimes conceded by Trinitarians for the sake of distinction, though they equally hold the doctrine of the unity of the Deity. In America the name Unitarian is applied to all those who reject the doctrine of the Trinity. The differences of opinion respecting the person of Christ are connected with different views as to the object and nature of his commission. Trinitarians consider him as not only teaching a purer system of morality than the world had before known, but also as making an atonement for human guilt by his death; while Socinians and many Arians deny the doctrine of the atonement, and look upon Jesus merely as a teacher of religion and virtue.

The character of Christ, as exhibited in the Gospels, presents to us the only example, anywhere to be found of the perfection of humanity; and the contemplation of it has ever been considered by his followers as one of the most edifying and delightful exercises of piety.^[53. A catalogue of some of the most important treatises upon this subject in English is given by Bishop Newcombe, in the preface to bis work on our Lord’s conduct and character. ] A constant regard to the will of God, and a delight in doing it, form the distinguishing features of his character. With this was connected the absence of all sordid, or selfish, or ambitious aims, and an enlarged and enlightened philanthropy. There is perhaps nothing more remarkable in the life of Jesus than the apparently inconsistent qualities which are blended together in one harmonious whole. We see in him the most unbending constancy united with great tenderness of feeling—hatred of sin, and compassion for the offender—a heart superior to all the allurements of pleasure, with a condescending indulgence for the innocent relaxations of life—a mind of universal philanthropy, alive to all the domestic charities·—views that extended to the whole human race, and a generous compliance with national and individual peculiarities. It is difficult to conceive that the portraiture presented to us in the sacred history can be contemplated without benefit; but the chief benefit will be lost if it is forgotten that he whose life was the model of every virtue laid down that life for the sins of the world.

Those who hold the highest ideas of the divinity of Christ, admit to the fullest extent that he was also man; and the curiosity is not unnatural as to the personal appearance assumed by the Son of God. Upon this subject no direct information is given in the New Testament. From incidental notices, it has been conjectured that he was of a robust frame, and that there was nothing particularly marked in his appearance;^[54. John, XX. 15, and xxi.∙ ] but it may be doubted how far the passages referred to bear out these conclusions. There is better evidence that the mixture of divine benignity and commanding authority which he everywhere displayed in his character, were conspicuous also in his voice and aspect.^[55. Jhn, xviii. 6; Matt. vii. 29; John, vii. 46, &c. ]

The most judicious of the fathers agree that nothing was known of the personal appearance of Christ, though inquiry upon the subject was not prohibited. During the first ages of Christianity, the church, under persecution, required a model of patient endurance; and the general opinion of the fathers^[56. Ιertull. De Cαrne Christi, 9; adv. Jud. 14; Clem. Alex. Paed. iii. 1; Orig. Contr. Cels. li. ] during that time seems to have been, that the personal appearance of Christ corresponded literally with the description in Isaiah, liii. 2, 3. There was at the same time a prohibition, founded on the second commandment, against attempting to frame any pictorial likeness of the Son of God. We read, however, of pictures of Christ in the hands of one of the Gnostic sects.^[57. lren 1.25 ] Alexander Severus had his bust in the chamber set apart for his devotional exercises;^[58. Lamprid. c. 29. ] and Eusebius relates, that many among the heathens had pictures of Christ and of his apostles, which he himself had seen.^[59. L. vii. c. 18. ] At a somewhat later period, when paintings began to be admitted into churches, the attempt to present a likeness of Christ was no longer considered as unlawful; and full scope being given to the imagination of the artist, attempts were made to embody the purity, and elevation, and loveliness of the Saviour’s character, in lineaments of extraordinary beauty. Certain theologians justified the attempt by explaining the description in Psalm xlv. as literally applicable to Jesus. There is a minute description of the personal appearance of Christ by the Greek ecclesiastical historian Nicephorus, who flourished about the year 1330; and another in a letter purporting to be addressed by Publius Lentulus, governor of Judea, to the Roman senate. Both of these, [7:12:565]however, are altogether without value. As the prosopo-graphia in the pretended letter of Publius is from time to time brought before the public in various forms, without any hint as to its real origin, it may be proper to state, that there is most decisive evidence of its being a mere fabrication. No trace of it is to be found before the fourteenth century. No such person as Publius Lentulus was ever governor of Judea. From the style, it is probable that it was written by some monk in the middle ages.^[60. There are several manuscripts of this epistle, none of them, however, older than the fourteenth century. One of these was brought forward about twenty years ago as newly discovered in the library of the Vatican, and treated as a matter of much importance. The subject was taken up in a work entitled “In àvSwna. Epistoìae Publii Lentuli ad Senatum Romanum de Jesu Christ, scriptae denuo inquirit J. P. Gables,” 1819, in which the whole question is fully discussed. An exposure of the fabrication is also to be found in the American Biblical Repository, vol. ii. p. 3C7∙ ]

In regard to pictures which tradition has represented as having been made while our Saviour was on earth, in addition to that already mentioned as having been sent to the king of Edessa, there was another supposed to have been imprinted upon a handkerchief belonging to Veronica. The legend is, that when Christ was led to crucifixion, Veronica, who followed him, put a handkerchief to his face, on which Christ impressed his likeness. This holy relic is still exhibited at Rome on certain festivals.^[61. Boland, ad d. 4 řeb. ] Eusebius speaks of a statue of Christ erected by the wo man who was cured of the issue of blood, and mentions that he saw it himself at Caesarea Philippi.^[62. Hist. Eccles, vii. 18. ] Julian the Apostate is said^[63. Soz. V. 21; Philostorg. vii. 3. ] to have taken it down, and erected his own statue in its place. From the representations on some ancient coins, it has been conjectured that the pillar referred to was originally erected in honour of Hadrian.^[64. Giesler’s Kirchengeschichte, i. p. 79. ] In the Romish church it is believed that there existed a picture of Christ by St Luke, and that there was an image of him cut out by Nicoemus in cedar wood; but these traditions are without support from antiquity, and inconsistent with many passages in the writings of the fathers. A general resemblance is to be observed in all the pictures of the Saviour; but though this has probably arisen from admiration of one traditional model, there is no evidence whatever of its genuineness. After all our inquiries, while we are warranted in supposing that the benignant majesty which distinguished his character beamed forth in his countenance, yet, in regard to any thing more definite, we must rest in the conclusion of St Austin, “qua fuerit ille facie penitus ignoramus.”^[65. De Trin. 4, 5. ] (d. d. d. d.)