THE HONESTY OF THE HISTORIANS IN THIS CASE. 41

He could not speak more plainly than he had already done by word and work. And if these failed to satisfy them, it was in vain that further evidence was asked for. He had nothing else to offer-nothing different in kind, nothing that those who were as yet unconvinced could appreciate, if they were not impressed by what he had already done. There were other things about to take place fitted to vindicate his authority. Events were approaching, as he intimated, his death and resurrection, which in their significance and consequences would, like signs from heaven, attest that he was sent by God.

But although the refusal of Jesus to comply with the demand of those who sought from him a sign admits of so ample a justification, yet it is not obvious; neither is it urged by the historians. And here again is the characteristic to which I wish to direct particular attention. They have not shrunk from recording, with simple and fearless brevity, the fact that, on different occasions, when Jesus was asked to exercise his miraculous gifts, he refused to accede to the request. They show no apprehension that the motive of his refusal may be misunderstood, or that he would come under the imputation of shrinking from a fair test of his power. They interpose no explanation to guard him against misconstruction. I can account for this characteristic of their narrations only by supposing, either that the explanation was so obvious to them that they never thought it could be necessary to give it, or else, that their confidence in Jesus was so perfect and entire, an unconscious feeling of their bosoms, that they never once dreamed that he could be suspected of an unworthy motive, however inexplicable his language or his conduct on certain occasions might appear. Whether his words and works were understood or not, they

42

THE CONSISTENCY OF THE PASSAGES

do not appear to be aware that an injurious construction could by any possibility be put upon them. I know not what others may think, but it seems to me there is something so genuine, healthy, and natural, both in this state of mind, and in the way in which it manifests itself, that I cannot but refer it to truth and reality.

There is a consistency so remarkable and evidently so wholly undesigned, on the part of the narrators, in the passages in which mention is made of "a sign from heaven," that I cannot help taking notice of it in this connexion, although it does not properly come under our present head.

On one occasion we read, that just after Jesus had cured a demoniac in the presence of a multitude, some of the Pharisees asked him for a sign. He replied that he could give them no sign but his death and resurrection. At another time, immediately after he had driven the money-changers from the temple, he was asked to give a sign-to produce his credentials for the authority he had assumed. In this instance, also, his reply is an obscure allusion to his death and resurrection. "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will build it up." Once more, just after he had fed a large multitude in a miraculous manner, the people followed him demanding a sign, intimating that he had not done as much as Moses, who had given their ancestors bread from heaven, alluding to the manna gathered by the Israelites in the wilderness. To this request Jesus answers at length, and obscurely, but the main points of his reply are his death and resurrection.

Now, we cannot fail to observe that the authors of these histories appear to be wholly unconscious of any remarkable keeping in these passages, and yet it is most curious. The circumstances upon these three occasions are entirely different, and so is the language

IN WHICH THE "SIGN" IS MENTIONED.

43

of Jesus. But the ideas expressed, the feelings evinced, are in perfect harmony. On each occasion, the demand for a sign was made just after Jesus had performed a remarkable work. So that it would seem as if those present had really been in some degree impressed with his extraordinary power, and only wanted to be satisfied that he was such a person as they were looking for, to give into his claims at once. His reply is invariably the same in substance, though differing entirely in form. He will give, he declares, no stronger evidence of the divinity of his mission, than would be expressed in events shortly to occur, his death and resurrection. These, he intimates, would furnish the most imposing proofs of his authority.

I confess I want words to express the sense of reality produced by these passages, so different in detail, so singularly consistent in substance. Of the consistency here, the writers do not appear to be at all conscious. They have taken no pains to make it apparent. It is perfectly natural and easy, but it is not obvious. I do not know that it has ever before been remarked upon.

I alluded just now to the driving of the moneychangers from the temple. It is related that "when Jesus found in the temple those that sold oxen, and sheep, and doves, and the changers of money sitting, he made a scourge of small cords, and drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep and the oxen, and poured out the changers' money, and overthrew their tables, and said unto them that sold doves, 'Take these things hence; make not my Father's house a house of merchandise." " This incident certainly appears, at first sight, to be inconsistent with the usual gentleness of Jesus, and that abstinence from all violence which he so emphatically inculcated, and on all other occasions exemplified. The reader has probably seen a

44

THE MONEY-CHANGERS.

picture representing him in the temple, with outstretched arm, wielding the scourge with great vigour ; I need not say how offensive it must have been.

Without the least violation of probabilities, we may suppose, that on this occasion Jesus went into the temple attended by a large concourse of people; and that, upon the first intimation of his will, the traders and money-changers, overturning the tables in their precipitation, fled before one who had the populace with him, as Jesus then had. The "scourge of small cords," so far from being an instrument purposely fashioned for violence, we may conjecture, was nothing more than a piece of cord found on the spot, and originally used, for obvious purposes, by the dealers in oxen and sheep, and taken and folded up into a sort of whip by Jesus, not perhaps with reference to the men, but the cattle. It is not by any means necessary to suppose that he even struck these animals, or that he assumed any attitude inconsistent with what we feel must have been the habitual dignity of his deportment. Candour justifies us in putting such a construction upon this incident, involving, certainly, no improbability. But the narrators do not hint at it. They have not feared to relate this event in the briefest and most careless manner. They have not told us how the dealers in oxen and sheep and doves, and the money-changers came to be in the temple; although upon reflection it is clear that they were there to supply the demand for sacrifices and offerings for the temple-service, and to accommodate those who, coming from distant places, were under the necessity of exchanging their foreign money for the currency of Jerusalem. The authors of the Gospels have not told us these things, obviously because it never occurred to them that they needed to be told. Now, their confidence in the reality of what they were re

A SENSE OF THE GREATNESS OF JESUS

45

lating, and in the correctness of the conduct of Jesus, is precisely like their knowledge of these circumstances, so settled and familiar a feeling with them, resulting from such obvious realities, so perfectly natural, that it does not occur to them that others may be deficient in these respects, and may require explanations. In the familiarity of their own information, and in the unconscious fulness of their own faith, they forget the possible ignorance and incredulity of others. Who can fail to recognise here the simplicity and integrity of their minds?

Once more. It is obvious that the authors of these writings must have considered Jesus as possessed of extraordinary spiritual strength, great firmness or fortitude. If in the composition of their narratives they have had any earthly object but a distinct and honest statement of what they had seen, known, and believed, if they have fabricated, coloured, or even selected incidents for any particular purpose, we may suppose that it was for the sake of showing the superiority of Jesus to every human infirmity. The suspicion of such a purpose becomes exceedingly natural when we consider two things.

1. In the Epistles Jesus Christ is spoken of in the most exalted terms. He is described as the image of God and the brightness of his glory. In him, it is said, dwelt the fulness of the Divinity. And again, in him it pleased the Father that all fulness should dwell. But it is unnecessary to specify passages. The Apostles appear to exhaust language in expressing their sense of the excellence of their master.

2. But not only do the Apostles in their letters express in the strongest manner possible, and by the loftiest figures of speech, their sense of the greatness of their master, at an early period, the idea sprung up,