THE SON OF MAN.

HUNDRED years ago a distinguished company of eminent men, most of them decided antagonists of religion and Christianity, was assembled in a drawing-room in Paris. Again, as it was customary in that circle, Holy Scripture had been the general drudge; from all sides the sharp and envenomed arrows of mockery being aimed at its seemingly weakest and most vulnerable points. At once one of the boldest among these free-thinkers, the famous Diderot, rose from his seat, and, to the general amazement of the company, in a tone which put a stop to the discussion, uttered these remarkable words: "All right, gentlemen, all right! I am ready to declare all of you are clever writers and competent judges, and few in France or abroad would be able to speak or write better than you do. But still, notwithstanding all the evil we have just been saying about this accursed Book, and which no doubt serves it compose a his

right, still I think I might defy any of you to torical tale so ingenuous and at the same time so sublime, so touching and fit to produce such a deep and lasting influence for centuries to come, as the gospel relation of Christ's suffering and death." No wonder, indeed, an unwonted but most significant silence followed this quite unexpected utterance in Baron de Holbach's salon.

Wherefore, it may be asked, this anecdote as introduction to a new research concerning that vital question for Christian truth and conscience, "What think ye of Christ? Whose Son is He?" For this reason too that it reminds us how unbelief itself can be urged to acknowledge the undeniable greatness of our Lord, and how, this being the case, Christian faith must

never relent when called again and again to account for its heartfelt conviction. More especially in our days the Lord asks his disciples, "Whom say ye that I am?"'' and more than ever it is avowed by those most competent to judge that Christology is the very central point in the whole doctrine of truth and salvation. But it cannot be denied, the answer to this question has been rendered far more difficult in consequence of the position the negative criticism of our century has taken with regard to most of the sources from which that is to be drawn. This, to be sure, would be relatively easy, if the authenticity, trustworthiness, and divine authority of the four Gospels and of the Apostolic epistles were universally acknowledged; the main question would then of course be restricted to a mere exegetical research. It is well known, however, how utterly different the state of things actually is, as not opinions only, but the very principles themselves are irreconcilably opposite one against another. That the written word of the New Testament ever and anon sides with supernaturalism, and clearly states the Godhead of Christ, no honest unbeliever will even try to deny ; but he will not therefore be ready to confess that this testimony of Holy Writ may be relied upon as a testimony to truth. The days are long gone when there was an end to all discussion by merely stating: Téɣpañταı: “It is written." That these things are written, unbelief itself knows full well; the question remains whether that which is written be considered as truth.

This being, the interest and importance increases of the inquiry whether we are able to ascertain something about Jesus Christ as duly averred, derived from sources which must be acknowledged as authentic and authoritative by ALL contending parties; and if so, to what appreciation of the Saviour's personality the investigation of those unsuspected sources must lead.

To this question we are going to seek an answer in the subsequent pages. Voluntarily we desist from making use of such weapons, the virtue of which is not in the least doubtful to ourselves, but which are deemed worthless or antiquated by our antagonists. We will not exclusively pay attention to testimonies against which no man of science can afford any thing essen

1 Matt. 16: 15.

tial; and if, then, it appears that, even on the ground only of these indubitable testimonies, a quite unique place must necessarily be ascribed to Christ, then-but we do not wish to anticipate on the final result of our investigation, desiring to enable every one to judge for himself on a question which to all Christians is of the highest import.

I. First of all, it lies on our way to trace such sources as are to be found beyond the precincts of Christianity. So we ask if we can get some information concerning Jesus' person and history anywhere outside the biblical reports. An extravagant unbelief united with the grossest ignorance will indeed go so far in our days as to regard even the fact of Jesus' historical existence as highly dubitable. Therefore we have to recollect immediately how heathen authors of undeniable authority have not merely roused the certainty of Jesus' existence, but the historical importance of his life, beyond every shadow of doubt. Even if we knew no other testimonies than those of Tacitus,' Suetonius, and Lucianus,' they would be quite sufficient to certify, that with regard to this history we do not stand on the moving legendary sand of poetical fiction, but on the firm and living rock of well-founded historical truth and of the most sober and earnest reality. From Tacitus we learn at least this, that the so-called Christians took their name from Christ, who, during the reign of Tiberius, was sentenced under Pilate, whilst Lucianus mentions expressly his crucifixion. He calls Jesus, "the great man who was crucified in Palestine ;" and elsewhere, "the crucified Sophist, who had been the author of a new religion." What mighty impulse this "crucified Sophist" has communicated to the religious life of his age appears more indirectly, but with the more evidence, perhaps, from that curious passage in Suetonius, where he mentions "the Jews rebelling in Rome on the instigation of Christ" ("Judæos, impulsore Christo, Roma tumultuantes')—an utterly erroneous statement of course, but in its inaccuracy itself bearing a most remarkable testimony to the personal influence ascribed to that so-called Sophist, and in its very mistake showing the unmistakable

1 Annal. xv. 66. 2 In Claudio, cap. 25. 3 De morte Peregrini, c. 11, 12, 13.

vestiges of historical truth. All these testimonies are most emphatically, though involuntarily, supported by one of the oldest and fiercest antagonists of Christianity, Celsus, who speaks about Jesus as the Founder of Christianity, and makes several allusions to his doctrines, deeds, and fate, and especially to his death and resurrection. But enough already to justify the German poet Wieland's saying to Napoleon I., who, when the Emperor jeeringly spoke, "I do not believe that Jesus Christ ever existed," answered without hesitation, "Then, Sire, I may quite as well deny your own Majesty's existence." one indeed is as thoroughly proved as the other.

The

Of much higher importance still is the often quoted witness of the Jewish historian, Flavius Josephus,' the authenticity of which must be accepted on external and internal grounds, though it has been probably interpolated by a later Christian hand. It is now generally believed that the author must have written in the original text as follows-that which seems to date from a later period we place in parentheses and signalize by italics: "In those days lived Jesus, a wise man (if we may call him a man), for he perpetrated several extraordinary works (as a teacher of those who gladly accepted the truth) and made many Jews and heathen his followers (this man was the Christ). When Pilate had condemned him on the accusation of our most prominent men, those who first loved him did not forsake him (for he reappeared to them living, on the third day, as the Divine Prophets and thousands of wonderful prognostications had predicted before). And to this day the sect of Christians, called after his name, has not died out." This, trifling as it may appear, which remains after taking away the probable interpolation, has still a very great weight indeed, as it gives an indubitable testimony to the wonderful character of Jesus' personality, calling him a perpetrator of extraordinary (uncommon, miraculous) works (zapadóža έypa), thus confirming and explaining the above-cited words of heathen writers. In Philo, it is true, we do not find any mention made about Jesus, and in the Jewish Mischna very little; but even the calumnies to be found there against him, and in the later Gemara against his mother, do prove this at least, that the

'A. T. xviii. 3, 3. Compare 5, 2, xx. 9, I; D. B. J. vi. 5, 4.

account about his miraculous conception and immaculate birth was then generally known.

From Paganism and Judaism now turning to Mahometan. testimonies, we hardly feel surprised that communications about Jesus are very scarce in the Koran, and those few signalized by the grossest ignorance. The four gospels themselves appear to have been utterly unknown to Mahomet; this is certain, he cannot seriously have examined them, though he may have got a certain vague and defective knowledge of the main truths of the Christian creed. John the Baptist he mentions as the Precursor of the Lord Jesus, and Issa himself he calls, "the Messiah," born in a miraculous way, a prophet often wonderfully supported by the Holy Ghost," "a man who worked several miracles," once healed a blind-born man, has cured leprosy, raised the dead, and lastly ascended to heaven, whilst his enemies erroneously thought that he died on a cross." The Prophet of Mecca indeed leaves us far more of the divine in the gospel history than a certain so-called Christian theological school. Still, of course, no real elucidation of the sun's bright daylight can be expected from the fading rays of the pale half moon.

A modern theologian in Germany, Fr. Keim, as the final result of his critical researches, lately gave the Saviour this encomium, "That Jesus may indeed be said to have excelled most of us common men from the shoulder upward"-like a Saul among the other Israelites. We might ask, I think, if the impartial trial even of those non-Christian testimonies we have been quoting, would not lead to the acknowledgment of a far higher minimum than this. A Jewish rabbi, who, notwithstanding the offence of the cross, has made such a deep and lasting impression on the Jewish and heathen world, and in a short time masters both of them by his word and spirit, must necessarily have occupied a much higher position than modern Naturalism assigns to him.

II. In this conviction we are strongly confirmed, when— leaving still aside the New Testament itself-we pay our attention to the testimonies of Christian antiquity of the first two centuries. Like the glowing evening sky after the sun's setting bears witness to the far greater splendor of the already vanished