To have attempted to promulgate these truths in their naked form would not only have been useless, but would have defeated our Lord's object; for no one would have listened to what would have seemed an utter absurdity. In the first instance, therefore, he could only preach the Kingdom of Heaven as John had preached it before him; and although he knew that, sooner or later, this must inevitably lead to his recognition by his disciples in his true character, and that eventually he would be compelled to avow himself openly, still his only practical course of action was to postpone, until the latest moment, and by every means in his power, the manifestation of his true character; and when at last that manifestation should be inevitable, he must then take care that it did not lead to a collision with the temporal power. He plainly foresaw that he would have to give his life a ransom for many *; but when that sacrifice had to be made, it was essential that he should not suffer in the character of an unsuccessful rebel against imperial Rome, as the would-be restorer of the temporal kingdom of David, but in that of the Messiah, the Son of God, and the Prince of the heavenly kingdom on earth.

It has been asserted that a crucified or suffering Messiah or Anointed king-Xpioτos køтavρwμeros-is a contradiction in terms; but this is not true: it is its opposition to preconceived ideas that alone has caused it to be so imagined by those who could not be brought to relinquish those ideas, even when their erroneousness had been demonstrated. Nevertheless it is quite true that before Jesus could represent himself in that character, the last tie which bound him to the popular traditional belief had to be irrevocably broken by his ignominious death on the Cross.

It has also been contended that our Lord's offer of the Kingdom of Heaven, first to the Jews and then to the Gentiles, was inconsistent with the office he is alleged to have assumed, as showing that Jesus himself had not made up his mind in the first instance, was not himself conscious of the true nature of his mission, had not then assumed the character of the Messiah. But this a great mistake. The course adopted by our Lord was the * Mark x. 45.

same as is naturally pursued by every one. The propounders of novel doctrines, whether true or false, generally present them first to those nearest to them; and when they have done so, they, with rare exceptions, do not meet with the favour they had calculated on. The treatment our Lord received from his fellowtownsmen at Nazareth caused him to say, 'A prophet is not without honour, save in his own country and in his own house '*. It was the same at Antioch in Pisidia, where Paul and Barnabas preached the Gospel to the Jews in vain, whereas the Gentiles received it favourably; so that the former, when they saw the multitudes, were filled with envy, and spake against those things which were spoken by Paul, contradicting and blaspheming. 'Then Paul and Barnabas waxed bold and said, It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you; but seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles'.

It may perhaps be objected further that, by acting as he did, Jesus was guilty of deceit, duplicity, falsehood. But in truth he merely acted with that prudence and discretion which every leader of an enterprise, every ruler or head of an establishment, is bound to exercise. No general announces publicly beforehand the plan of his campaign: he may not even, in the first instance, communicate it to the officers of his staff most in his confidence. He does not tell them any falsehoods, be does not mislead them by misrepresentations or insinuations of what is untrue he simply keeps his plans secret within his own bosom, until the moment shall arrive when he may deem it expedient to reveal them-first to his intimates, then to those more remote from him, and lastly to all the world. It is recorded that Jesus expressly commanded his disciples to tell no man that he was the Messiah ; that they were not to speak of the vision on the mount till the Son of Man be risen again from the dead §; that he expounded parables to them, the meaning of which he kept secret from the generality of his hearers ||; in all which

* Matth. xiii. 57. +Acts xiii. 46. § Matth. xvii. 9; Mark ix. 9.

Matth. xvi. 20; Mark viii. 30.

|| Matth. xiii. 10; Luke viii. 10.

instances, as in so many others, he simply put into practice his own precept to his disciples, 'Be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves' *.

CHAPTER XII.

THE GOOD TIDINGS.

THE object of the mission of John was accomplished by the baptism of the Messiah, of whose advent he was the messenger. Soon afterwards the Baptist was arrested by King Herod Antipas. The multitudes that had flocked down to the banks of the Jordan, to hear his preaching and to prepare themselves for the approaching Kingdom of Heaven, could not have been a matter of indifference to the civil and military authorities of the country. The Romans themselves had reason to know that the frequent revolts among the Jews all partook more or less of a religious character. Still, as a rule, they were tolerant of merely religious movements among the nations subjugated by them; and as they could not detect in John's preaching and practice any thing absolutely dangerous and likely to lead to practical results, they did not deem it requisite to put a check on him. As to any interference with themselves on the part of the national god, they could afford to disregard that. Pilate would doubtless have said in the name of Tiberius Cæsar, as Rabshakeh had said in that of Sennacherib, Who are they among all the gods of these lands that have delivered their land out of my hand, that Jehovah should deliver Jerusalem out of my hand?'† And he might have contentedly awaited the recurrence of a miracle, such as that which had delivered King Hezekiah and his people from the hosts of the Assyrians.

But with Herod the case was different. Being better ac† Isa. xxxvi. 20.

* Matth. x. 16.

quainted with the nature of the expectation of his countrymen, he may have entertained a superstitious dread of such an occurrence, even though not believing in its realization; and, therefore, for reasons that did not present themselves to the mind of Pilate, he would have regarded John's preaching as symptomatic of revolt. In fact, this is alleged by the historian Josephus to have been Herod's motive for imprisoning the Baptist, and eventually putting him to death. The Scripture narrative gives a more special reason for Herod's conduct, namely, John's reproof of his incestuous intercourse with Herodias, his brother Philip's wife, and his other misdeeds*. The two motives are not incompatible, though the latter, as is most natural, may have been the immediate cause of action on the part of the Jewish monarch.

Be this as it may, it does not appear that Jesus made any public manifestation of his own mission till after the Baptist's ministration had been summarily put an end to by his imprisonment by Herod. But when he heard of John's imprisonment, he ‘returned in the power of the Spirit into Galilee't, and there began 'preaching the Good Tidings of the Kingdom of God, and saying, The time is fulfilled, and the Kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the good tidings'‡.

It is not intended to dwell here on the various circumstances of the brief but eventful public life of our Lord Jesus, as recorded in the Scriptures of the New Testament. The main facts of his personal history, set forth in the three synoptical Gospels, are known to all inquiring Christians, and to many Jews likewise, especially since the appearance of the numerous works that during the last few years have issued from the press in elucidation of that history. But though it is unnecessary to discuss the occurrences of our Lord's life generally, there are a few salient points in it that require to be specially noticed.

In the first place it must be remarked that though Jesus preached the Good Tidings of the Kingdom of God as John had done before him, he was in no wise his successor and represen* Matth. xiv. 3, 4; Luke iii. 19. + Luke iv. 14. ‡ Mark i. 14, 15.

tative, as Elisha had been of Elijah. He was not an ascetic like John; he did not baptize for the remission of sins as John had done; and the fact that the disciples of John came, and John himself sent, to inquire about him, is a convincing proof that there was nothing between the two in common, except the Kingdom of Heaven, which they both preached.

As regards the specific character of our Lord's preaching, not the slightest hint is given of his having said any thing that should lead the people, or even his own disciples, in the first instance, to entertain any novel opinions respecting the Messiah. His origin, nature, and attributes remained according to the existing Jewish notions on these subjects; and the expectation of the disciples of Jesus were the same as those of their countrymen generally; and these previous notions the disciples, as Jews, continued to entertain during their Master's lifetime, and likewise after his death, excepting so far only as the same were modified by events which, however much opposed to their preconceived ideas, they could not gainsay. History shows how signally they were disappointed, first by the crucifixion of the Messiah, and afterwards by the destruction of the Holy City, Jerusalem, and how grievously they felt the non-realization of their expectations. But it stands to reason that they would not have been so disappointed had they known the truth; and therefore we may understand and make allowance for the erroneous views entertained by the primitive Christians respecting the second coming of the Messiah, the New Jerusalem, the Millennium, and various other subjects. They were men like ourselves; and we have witnessed how, even with the lights' of the nineteenth century, the birth of Shiloh, the imminent approach of the Millennium, the immediate personal appearance of our Lord, and other fancies, are as fervently and devoutly believed by professors of Christianity at the present day, as they were by the members of the early Church, on whose authority and after whose example they have been accepted,-not to speak of the host of monstrous modern opinions and practices, for which most Christians cannot perceive any warrant in the Scriptures or in the early history of Christianity.