Handbook for Bible Students

91/174

“J” Entries

Jacob’s Well.—Jacob passes on in peace to Shechem, again probably following the route of Abraham. He buys a parcel of ground and erects an “altar”-not a menhir this time. It seems somewhat strange that nowhere in the Old Testament is it stated that Jacob dug a well here, and yet the distinct statement of the Samaritan woman establishes the fact. St. John 4:12. All traditions-of Jews, Samaritans, Moslems, and Christians-agree in this. The whole history of Jacob shows his caution. Buying the field, he would have the right to dig a well, and so would avoid all the quarrels his father had had; and his practical wisdom was never more shown than in thus securing a possession in this the garden of Canaan. It became his homestead, while his flocks could roam on the plain now called El M HBS 285.3

Many springs exist all around, but he feared trouble, lest the natives should quarrel with his sons when the flocks and herds wanted water. This well is probably the deepest in Palestine. Originally it is believed to have been 150 feet deep. Rubbish has, however, fallen in; but when I was camped there in 1875, on dropping a stone down, it was many seconds before I could hear the splash. Three granite columns were lying on the ground, and there was a ruined arch. The masonry extends down the well about twenty feet; after that the shaft is bored through the rock. The Palestine Exploration Fund, in 1879, proposed to clear it of rubbish and build a low stone wall around it. Plans were drawn. The design was frustrated, and the site was bought by the Greek Church. HBS 285.4

However, in 1881 a most interesting discovery was made by Rev. C. W. Barclay. In a letter to the Palestine Fund, 17th May, he relates how he had often visited the place. But on this occasion, with his wife, they clambered down into the vault, when he chanced to notice, a few feet from the opening, a dark crack between the stones. They removed some stones and earth, and were then able to trace part of a curved aperture in a large slab of stone. They cleared more earth and stones, and soon distinguished the circular mouth of the well, though it was blocked by an immense mass of stone. Calling in aid two men who were looking on, with considerable labor they managed to remove it, and the opening of the well was clear! There was the ledge on which, doubtless, the Saviour rested; there were the grooves in the stone caused by the ropes by which the water pots were drawn up. The next day they completely laid bare the massive stone which forms the mouth. It is of hard limestone in fair preservation. The exact measurements are given. A boy was lowered to the bottom. It was found to be sixty-seven feet, and then there was a large accumulation of rubbish. In 1866 it was seventy-five feet, and Captain Anderson, of the Survey party, had a narrow escape, for he fainted away, and was insensible for some time on the stones at the bottom. The difference of depth shows what amount of rubbish had been thrown in in those few years. HBS 286.1

According to Jerome, the noble Lady Paula found a church round about Jacob’s well, which she entered. The Bordeaux Pilgrim, who visited Gerizim 333 a. d., speaks of “plane trees,” and a bath supplied with water from the well, but no church, though other writers do mention it. Bishop Arculf, in 700 a. d., saw the church and sketched it. It was, however, destroyed before the Crusaders’ time. Doubtless, the heaps of ruins, which in 1875 I found scattered about, belonged to that ancient church.—“The Bible and Modern Discoveries,” Henry A. Harper, pp. 33-35. London: Printed for the Committee of the Palestine Exploration Fund by Alexander P. Watt, 1891. HBS 286.2

Jehovah, Origin of the Name in English.—When God appointed Moses to his mission of leading his enslaved brethren out of Egypt, he at the same time revealed himself by the name of “Jehovah,” the special name by which he was henceforth to be known to the children of Israel. It is unfortunate that this sacred name has descended to the readers of the Authorized Version of the Old Testament in a corrupt and barbarous form. The Hebrew alphabet was designed to express consonants only, not vowels; these were supplied by the reader from his knowledge of the language and its pronunciation. As long as Hebrew was still spoken, there was little difficulty in doing this; but the case was changed when it ceased to be a living language. A traditional pronunciation of the sacred records was preserved in the synagogues; but it necessarily differed in many respects from the pronunciation which had actually been once in use, and was itself in danger of being forgotten or altered. To avoid such a danger, therefore, the so-called Masoretes, or Jewish scribes, in the sixth century after the Christian era, invented a system of symbols which should represent the pronunciation of the Hebrew of the Old Testament as read, or rather chanted, at the time in the great synagogue of Tiberias in Palestine. It is in accordance with this Masoretic mode of pronunciation that Hebrew is now taught. But there was one word which the Masoretes of Tiberias either could not or would not pronounce. This was the national name of the God of Israel. Though used so freely in the Old Testament, it had come to be regarded with superstitious reverence before the time when the Greek translation of the Septuagint was made, and in this translation, accordingly, the word Kyrios, “Lord,” is substituted for it wherever it occurs. The New Testament writers naturally followed the custom of the Septuagint and of their age, and so also did the Masoretes of Tiberias. Wherever the holy name was met with, they read in place of it Adônai, “Lord,” and hence, when supplying vowel symbols to the text of Old Testament they wrote the vowels of Adônai under the four consonants, Y H V H, which composed it. This simply meant that Adônai was to be read wherever the sacred name was found. In ignorance of this fact, however, the scholars who first revived the study of Hebrew in modern Europe imagined that the vowels of Adônai (or i, o, and) were intended to be read along with the consonants below which they stood. Th e result was the hybrid monster Yihovâh. In passing into England the word became even more deformed. In German the sound of y is denoted by the symbol j, and the German symbol, but with the utterly different English pronunciation attached to it, found its way into the English translations of the Old Testament Scriptures. HBS 286.3

There are two opinions as to what was the actual pronunciation of the sacred name while Hebrew was still a spoken language. On the one hand, we may gather from the contemporary Assyrian monuments that it was pronounced Yahu. Wherever an Israelitish name is met with in the cuneiform inscriptions which, like Jehu or Hezekiah, is compounded with the divine title, the latter appears as Yahu, Jehu being Yahua, and Hezekiah Khazaki-yahu. Even according to the Masoretes it must be read Yeho (that is, Y) when it forms part of a proper name. The early Gnostics, moreover, when they transcribed it in Greek characters, wrote Iaô (that is, Yah On the other hand, the four consonants, Y H V H, can hardly have been pronounced otherwise than as Yahveh, and this pronunciation is supported by the two Greek writers Theodoret and Epiphanios, who say that the word was sounded Yavé. The form Yahveh, however, is incompatible with the form Yahu (Yeho), which appears in proper names; and it has been maintained that it is due to one of those plays on words, of which there are so many examples in the Old Testament. The spelling with a final “h” was adopted, it has been supposed, in order to remind the reader of the Hebrew verb which signifies “to be,” and to which there seems to be a distinct allusion in Exodus 3:14.—“Fresh Light from the Ancient Monuments,” A. H. Sayce, M. A., pp. 61-64. London: The Religious Tract Society, 1890. HBS 287.1

Jehovah, Meaning of.—This title occurs about 7,000 times, but it is generally rendered “the Lord,” and only occasionally “Jehovah.” The signification is, He that always was, that always is, and that ever is to come. In Revelation 1:8 it is thus translated: “I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending,” saith Jehovah, “which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.” This title speaks of him who is “the same yesterday” (past), “today” (present), “and forever” (future). Hebrews 13:8. “Who created” (past) “all things” (Colossians 1:16); who “upholds” (present) “all things” (Hebrews 1:3); and “for whom” (future) “all things were created” (Colossians 1:16). It speaks of him who in the past “appeared to put away sin,” and now “appears in the presence of God for us,” and will yet “appear a second time apart from sin unto salvation.” Hebrews 9:24-28. HBS 287.2

Lord, printed in our Bibles with capitals, is the translation of Jehovah; and Lord, in small letters, is the translation of the word Adon, which means Lord, Master, Possessor, or Proprietor. This distinction is important. (See Psalm 90:1.) HBS 287.3

“Jehovah” expresses the covenant relationship of God with his people. See Exodus 6:2-8, where God speaks unto Moses, saying, “I am Jehovah,” “I have established my covenant,” “I have remembered my covenant,” “I will bring you out,” “I will rid you of bondage,” “I will redeem you,” “I will take you to me,” “I will be to you a God,” “I will bring you in,” “I will give you the land for a heritage,” “I am Jehovah.” As one has said, “It was all that he would do, as founded upon what he was. HBS 288.1

The question has sometimes been asked, “How can Exodus 6:3 be true, when we read of Abram in Genesis 15 addressing the Lord as ‘Lord God’ (Adohnay Jehovah)?” To this we can only reply, that God’s name in relationship to the patriarchs was El Shaddai (God Almighty), just as now his name to us is “Father.” Jehovah was not the special name of God to Abram as it was to Israel in Exodus 6:3, whereas God Almighty was. Bishop Wordsworth thus writes on this subject: “The name Jehovah is a word of higher import (than Elohim); it is derived from the old verb havah, to be, and signifies self-existence. Its proper meaning seems to be ‘he is’ (see Gesenius, p. 337). It was rarely uttered by the Jews, on account of their reverence and awe for the Divine Being, the Everlasting, ... but in its stead, they uttered the word Adonai. HBS 288.2

The name, so precious to the children of God-Jesus-means “Jehovah the Saviour.” It is the Greek form of Joshua, which itself is a contraction of Jehoshua, that is, “the help of Jehovah,” or “the salvation of Jehovah,” or “Jehovah the Saviour.” This name was given by divine command (see Matthew 1:21), and it is his only name, all other names being titles.—“Jehovah Titles,” James Sprunt, pp. 11-13. London: George Stoneman. HBS 288.3

Jephthah’s Vow.—The story of Jephthah’s vow is celebrated by artist and poet, and most writers say: “There is no sadder story in the Bible;” but have not some considerations been overlooked? HBS 288.4

1. Jephthah was a believer in Jehovah. He says to the elders when they come to request him to be leader: “The Lord deliver them before me.” Again: “The Lord shall be witness between us,” in his message to the king of Ammon; “And the Lord the God of Israel delivered Sihon into the hand of Israel:” “The Lord our God;” “The Lord the judge be judge this day.” He contrasts Jehovah with Chemosh. “Then the Spirit of the Lord came upon Jephthah.” From his message he was evidently well acquainted with the Mosaic books. He would know that a human sacrifice was an abomination to Jehovah. Leviticus 18:21; 20:2-5. Was it therefore likely he would propose a human sacrifice? HBS 288.5

2. He would know by the Mosaic law that burnt sacrifices were to be males: “a male without blemish.” Leviticus 1:3. When the Lord says: “All the first-born are mine,” “mine they shall be” (Numbers 3:12, 13), there is no suggestion ever made that they were offered as burnt sacrifices: they were dedicated to God. Abraham’s sacrifice of Isaac was not a literal burnt offering; he was redeemed. Jephthah says: “Whatsoever cometh forth of the doors of my house.” He is met by his only child-a maiden! She the only chance of his name and blood to be perpetuated. This is the agony to him: that his name and race must die with himself. As for the daughter, she asks to bewail her virginity. Why? Because now she never could be the mother of the hoped-for Messiah-that hope which from the earliest time had ever been the most cherished dream of every Hebrew woman; to fulfil the promise “that the seed of the woman should ‘bruise the serpent’s head.’” Genesis 3:15. The daughter asks for two months to bewail her virginity; she is celebrated four times every year by the maidens. Would they have praised a human sacrifice? Remember her father was no worshiper of Molech. He offers her as a spiritual offering-a lifelong virginity. Like those Gibeonites in the days of Joshua, whose lives were spared, she would be a servant in the sanctuary all the days of her life. HBS 288.6

And lastly, where was the altar to Jehovah on which she could be sacrificed? Altars in plenty to Chemosh; but neither Jephthah nor she worshiped that false god! HBS 289.1

Jephthah dies. He had known no father’s home; he had been “driven out” (Judges 11:2), and no child, no grandchildren, are there to cheer him in his old age, or close his dying eyes. Would his name have been included by Paul in Hebrews 11:32, as one of those of whom it is said, by “faith” they did their great works, and “wrought right-eousness,” if he had slain his daughter? Impossible!-“The Bible and Modern Discoveries,” Henry A. Harper, pp. 192-194. London: Printed for the Committee of the Palestine Exploration Fund by Alexander P. Watt, 1891. HBS 289.2

Jerusalem, Sieges of.—The following is a complete list of the sieges [of Jerusalem]: HBS 289.3

1. By the tribe of Judah against the Jebusites, about 1443 b. c. This was some 700 years before Rome was founded. It was only partial, for in David’s reign we still find the Jebusites occupying the citadel (the future Zion). The solemn words in Judges 1:8, describing this first siege, vividly portray the after history of the city. HBS 289.4

2. By David against the Jebusites (2 Samuel 5:6-10; 1 Chronicles 11:4-7), about 960 b. c. HBS 289.5

3. By Shishak king of Egypt, against Rehoboam (1 Kings 14:25, 26; 2 Chronicles 12:2-12), about 875 b. c. To this there was only a feeble resistance; and the temple was plundered. HBS 289.6

4. By the Philistines, Arabians, and Ethiopians, against Jehoram (2 Chronicles 21:16, 17), about 794 b. c. In this siege the royal palace was sacked, and the temple again plundered. HBS 289.7

5. By Jehoash king of Israel, against Amaziah king of Judah (2 Kings 14:13, 14), about 739 b. c. The wall was partially broken down, and the city and temple pillaged. HBS 289.8

6. By Rezin king of Syria, and Pekah king of Israel, against Ahaz (2 Chronicles 28), about 630 b. c. The city held out, but Ahaz sought the aid of Tiglath-Pileser king of Assyria, for whom he stripped the temple. HBS 289.9

7. By Sennacherib king of Assyria, against Hezekiah (2 Kings 18:13-16), about 603 b. c. In this case the siege was raised by a divine interposition, as foretold by Isaiah the prophet. HBS 289.10

8. By Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, against Jehoiakim (2 Chronicles 36:6, 7), about 496 b. c., when the temple was partly pillaged. HBS 289.11

9. By Nebuchadnezzar again, against Jehoiachin (2 Chronicles 36:10), about 489 b. c., when the pillage of the temple was carried further, and 10,000 people carried away. HBS 289.12

10. By Nebuchadnezzar, against Zedekiah (2 Chronicles 36:17-20), 478-477 b. c. In this case the temple was burnt with fire, and the city and temple lay desolate for fifty years. HBS 289.13

11. By Ptolemy Soter king of Egypt, against the Jews, 320 b. c. More than 100,000 captives were taken to Egypt. HBS 289.14

12. By Antiochus the Great, about 203 b. c. HBS 289.15

13. By Scopus, a general of Alexander, about 199 b. c., who left a garrison. HBS 289.16

14. By Antiochus IV, surnamed Epiphanes, 168 b. c. This was the worst siege since the tenth. The whole city was pillaged, 10,000 captives taken, the walls destroyed, the altar defiled, ancient manuscripts perished, the finest buildings were burned, and the Jews were forbidden to worship there. Foretold Daniel 11. HBS 289.17

15. By Antiochus V, surnamed Eupator, against Judas Maccabaus, about 162 b. c. This time honorable terms were made, and certain privileges were secured. HBS 290.1

16. By Antiochus VII, surnamed Sidetes, king of Syria, against John Hyrcanus, about 135 b. c. HBS 290.2

17. By Hyrcanus (son of Alex. Jannaus) and the priest Aristobulus. The siege was raised by Scaurus, one of Pompey’s lieutenants, about 65 b. c. HBS 290.3

18. By Pompey against Aristobulus, about 63 b. c. The machines were moved on the Sabbath, when the Jews made no resistance. Only thus was it then reduced; 12,000 Jews were slain. [Antigonus, son of Aristobulus, with a Parthian army, took the city in 40 b. c.; but there was no siege, the city was taken by a sudden surprise.] HBS 290.4

19. Herod with a Roman army besieged the city in 39 b. c. for five months. HBS 290.5

20. By Titus, a. d. 69. The second temple (Herod’s) was burnt, and for fifty years the city disappeared from history, as after the tenth siege. Jeremiah 20:5. HBS 290.6

21. The Romans had again to besiege the city in a. d. 135 against the false Messiah, Bar-Cochebas, who had acquired possession of the ruins. The city was obliterated, and renamed Alia Capitolina, and a temple was erected to Jupiter. For 200 years the city passed out of history, no Jews being permitted to approach it. This siege was foretold in Luke 19:43, 44; 21:20-24. HBS 290.7

22. After 400 years of so-called Christian colonization, Chosroes the Persian (about a. d. 559) swept through the country; thousands were massacred, and the Church of the Holy Sepulchre was destroyed. The emperor Heraclius afterward defeated him, and restored the city and the church. HBS 290.8

23. The caliph Omar, in a. d. 636-637, besieged the city against Heraclius. It was followed by capitulation on favorable terms, and the city passed into the hands of the Turks, in whose hands it remains to the present day. [Jerusalem was captured by the British forces in 1917.—Eds.] HBS 290.9

24. Afdal, the vizier of the caliph of Egypt, besieged the two rival factions of Moslems, and pillaged the city in 1098. HBS 290.10

25. In 1099 it was besieged by the army of the first Crusade. HBS 290.11

26. In 1187 it was besieged by Saladin for seven weeks. HBS 290.12

27. The wild Kharezmian Tartar hordes, in 1244, captured and plundered the city, slaughtering the monks and priests.—“The Companion Bible,” Part II, “Joshua to Job,” Appendix, pp. 76, 77. London: Oxford University Press. HBS 290.13

Note.—The system of chronology from which quite a number of these dates are derived, varies in some cases about one hundred years from the chronology usually accepted.—Eds. HBS 290.14

Jerusalem, Cestius’s Withdrawal from.—It was during the Feast of Tabernacles, in the year 66 a. d., that Cestius Gallus came up to assault Jerusalem. (The dates are so precise that we can exactly assign the several transactions to their proper days in the Julian calendar.) On the 22nd of Hyperberetaus, or Tisri, the last day of the Feast of Tabernacles, a. d. 66, the Jews having notice of Cestius’s approach, desisted from the solemnities of that great day of the feast, rushed to arms, poured out tumultuously from the city, and attacked the Roman legions at Gabao or Gibeon. The assault was successful. Cestius, almost panicstricken, remained on the spot three days, and after this, three days more at Scopus. On the 30th of Hyperberetaus = 8 October, he came up to the city, and wasted five days in unsuccessful attempts. After the last assault, when he was on the very point of success, when a strong party within the walls was just about to open the gates to him, and so in all human probability an end would have been put to the war, under the influence of some unaccountable panic he precipitately drew off his forces and made a tumultuous retreat to Scopus. “Had he only a little longer persisted in the assault, he would have taken the city immediately. But, methinks, God, who now on account of the wicked had turned himself away even from his holy place, hindered the war from coming that day to an end.” (B. J., ii, 19, 6.) This, it appears, occurred on the 5th Dius = 13th October. From Scopus, Cestius continued his retreat to Gabao, and thence on the third day, seeing the numbers of the enemy increasing, he determined to retreat still farther northward, and accordingly, with the sacrifice of most of the incumbrances, engines, and heavy armor, rapidly retraced his steps through the defiles, and with immense difficulty and great loss gained Bethhoron at nightfall, 8 Dius = 16th October. That same night he stole a march upon the enemy, and escaped undiscovered until the morning. The Jews pursued him as far as Antipatris without overtaking him, and thence returned in triumph to Jerusalem. “These things were done on the 8th Dius, in the 12th year of the reign of Nero.” HBS 290.15

Unquestionably this is the crisis of the rebellion, the fatal epoch of the last times of Jerusalem. “Immediately after this catastrophe, many of the Jews of rank forsook the city, as men swim away from a drowning ship.” “Then they which had pursued Cestius returned to Jerusalem, and being assembled in the temple, elected them generals for the war.” HBS 291.1

It was in the year 70, and at the Passover (13th April), when multitudes of Jews from all parts of the world were gathered into Jerusalem for the feast, and precisely three and one half Jewish years from the Feast of Tabernacles at which Cestius came up, that Titus and the Roman armies arrived before Jerusalem.—“Chronology of the Holy Scriptures,” Henry Browne, M. A., pp. 387, 388. London: John W. Parker, 1844. HBS 291.2

Jesuits, Their Services to the Papacy.—When the Jesuit order came into being, a fatal hour had struck for the Papacy. The movement originated by Luther, in connection with other causes, had caused the ship of St. Peter to rock dangerously. A world with a new philosophy of life was coming into view, which no longer recognized the Pope-God of the Middle Ages, the sovereign lord of the whole world in that capacity. Ultramontanism which, since Gregory VII, had been firmly established in its seat, and was ruling the world, in particular the political world, from Rome, under religious forms, felt the onset of the new age, whence the cry, “Free from Rome,” was already resounding. HBS 291.3

Then the threatened Papacy found in the Jesuit order an ultramontane auxiliary regiment of extraordinary power and pertinacity. The papal dominion was to be re-established. The ultramontane system, with its secular and political kernel disguised under a garb of religion, was concentrated, as it were, in the constitutions of the Jesuit order, and even more in its well-calculated labors directed from central points. Words and deeds, teaching and example, of the new order, were a single great propaganda for the ultramontane Papacy. The doctrine of the “direct”-that is, the immediate dominion of the vicar of Christ over the whole world-had become untenable; the Jesuit order (e. g., Bellarmin and Suarez) replaced it completely by the doctrine of the “indirect” power. HBS 291.4

There is not the least fraction of religion in this doctrine. Every thing in it is irreligious and anti-Christian, but it is quite specially calculated for religious display, for it makes a pretense of God’s kingdom, which embraces this world and the next, which tolerates only one supreme ruler-God and his vicar-and thus makes this comprehensive political universal dominion an acceptable, even desirable, religious demand in the eyes of Catholics. The love of dominion implanted in the Jesuit order finds the greatest possibility of development in this doctrine, hence its never-resting zeal in trying to raise the indirect power of the Papacy to a fundamental dogma of church policy. The order, as such, cannot openly aspire to universal dominion; however powerful its equipment may be, it must always appear as a mere auxiliary member, a subordinate part of the Catholic whole, the Papal Church; the more it furthers the temporal political power of Rome and extends the religious belief in its justification among men, the more political power will it attain itself; the Papacy and its indirect power serve but as a screen behind which are concealed the Jesuit order and its aspirations for power. By its zeal and skill it becomes an indispensable servant of the Papacy, and thus acquires direct dominion over the wearers of the papal crown, and through them indirect dominion over the whole world. HBS 292.1

Hence the continuous and detailed occupation with politics, forbidden by the constitutions as unreligious, but which became its most comprehensive sphere of activity by the religious road of confession. HBS 292.2

It was this very political activity of the order which let loose the storm against it. And, as I have already shown, it was in the first instance the Catholic courts, at which the Jesuit confessor had carried on his religious activity for centuries, which demanded more and more eagerly the suppression of the order, and finally attained it from Clement XIV.—“Fourteen Years a Jesuit,” Count Paul von Hoensbroech, Vol. II, pp. 427-429. London: Cassell & Co., 1911. HBS 292.3

Jesuits, Work of, Explained from the Roman Catholic Standpoint.—The society was not founded with the avowed intention of opposing Protestantism. Neither the papal letters of approbation nor the constitutions of the order mention this as the object of the new foundation. When Ignatius began to devote himself to the service of the church, he had probably not heard even the names of the Protestant Reformers. His early plan was rather the conversion of Mohammedans, an idea which, a few decades after the final triumph of the Christians over the Moors in Spain, must have strongly appealed to the chivalrous Spaniard. HBS 292.4

The name “Societas Jesu” had been borne by a military order approved and recommended by Pius II in 1459, the purpose of which was to fight against the Turks and aid in spreading the Christian faith. The early Jesuits were sent by Ignatius first to pagan lands or to Catholic countries; to Protestant countries only at the special request of the Pope; and to Germany, the cradleland of the Reformation, at the urgent solicitation of the imperial ambassador. From the very beginning the missionary labors of Jesuits among the pagans of India, Japan, China, Canada, Central and South America were as important as their activity in Christian countries. HBS 292.5

As the object of the society was the propagation and strengthening of the Catholic faith everywhere, the Jesuits naturally endeavored to counteract the spread of Protestantism. They became the main instruments of the counter-Reformation; the reconquest of southern and western Germany and Austria for the church, and the preservation of the Catholic faith in France and other countries were due chiefly to their exertions.—The Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. XIV, art.Society of Jesus,” p. 81. HBS 292.6

Jesuits as Politicians.—It was chiefly as politicians that the Jesuits have won, and probably deserved, an infamous renown in history. The order was aggressive and ardent-full of grand schemes for the extirpation of heretics and the subjugation of England and the hardy North. Every member of the mighty league had sworn to give his life, if necessary, for the advancement of the faith; was ready to fly at a sudden notice to the farthest lands at the bidding of his superior or the Pope; and perhaps might merit some frightful punishment at home did he not obey his commander to the uttermost. The irrevocable vow and the long practice in abject submission made the Jesuits the most admirable instruments of crime. In the hands of wicked popes like Gregory XIII, or cruel tyrants like Philip 2, they were never suffered to rest. Their exploits are among the most wonderful and daring in history. They are more romantic than the boldest pictures of the novelist; more varied and interesting than the best-laid plots of the most inventive masters. No Arabian narrator nor Scottish wizard could have imagined them; no Shakespeare could have foreseen the strange mental and political conditions that led the enthusiasts on in their deeds of heroism and crime. Jesuits penetrated, disguised, into England when death was their punishment if discovered; hovered in strange forms around the person of Elizabeth, whose assassination was the favorite aim of Philip II and the Pope; reeled through the streets of London as pretended drunkards; hid in dark closets and were fed through quills; and often, when discovered, died in horrible tortures with silent joy. The very name of the new and active society was a terror to all the Protestant courts. A single Jesuit was believed to be more dangerous than a whole monastery of Black Friars. A Campion, Parsons, or Garnet filled all England with alarm. And in all that long struggle which followed between the North and the South, in which the fierce Spaniards and Italians made a desperate assault upon the rebellious region, strove to dethrone or destroy its kings, to crush the rising intellect of its people, or to extirpate the hated elements of reform, the historians uniformly point to the Jesuits as the active agents in every rebellion, and the tried and unflinching instruments of unsparing Rome. HBS 293.1

A Jesuit penetrated in strange attire to Mary Queen of Scots, and lured her to her ruin. Another sought to convert or dethrone a king of Sweden. One conveyed the intelligence to Catherine and Charles IX that produced a horrible massacre of the reformers. One traveled into distant Muscovy to sow the seeds of endless war. Mariana, an eminent Jesuit, published a work defending regicide which was faintly condemned by the order, and soon Henry III fell by the assassin’s blow; William of Orange, pursued by the endless attempts of assassins, at last received the fatal wound; Elizabeth was hunted down, but escaped; Henry IV, after many a dangerous assault, died, it was said, by the arts of the Jesuits; James I and his family escaped by a miracle from the plot of Fawkes and Garnet; while many inferior characters of this troubled age disappeared suddenly from human sight, or were found stabbed and bleeding in their homes. All these frightful acts the men of that period attributed to the fatal vow of obedience. HBS 293.2

The Jesuit was the terror of his times. Catholics abhorred and shrunk from him with almost as much real aversion as Protestants. HBS 293.3

The universities and the clergy feared and hated the unscrupulous order. The Jesuit was renowned for his pitiless cruelty. The mild Franciscans and Benedictines, and even the Spanish Dominicans, could not be relied upon by the popes and kings, and were cast contemptuously aside; while their swift and ready rivals sprung forward at the slightest intimation of their superior, and, with a devotion to their chief at Rome not surpassed by that of the assassins of the Old Man of the Mountains, flung themselves in the face of death.—“Historical Studies,” Eugene Lawrence, pp. 128, 129. New York: Harper & Brothers, 1876. HBS 294.1

Jesuits, Probabilism.—The doctrine of probabilism was not originated by the Jesuits, but was wrought out by their writers during the seventeenth century with more minuteness than by earlier Roman Catholic writers. According to this teaching one is at liberty to follow a probable opinion, i. e., one that has two or three reputable Catholic writers in its favor, against a more probable or a highly probable opinion in whose favor a multitude of the highest authorities concur. To justify any practice, however immoral it might be commonly esteemed, a few sentences from Catholic writers sufficed, and these were often garbled. Some Jesuits and some popes repudiated this doctrine. In 1680 Gonzales, an opponent of the doctrine, was made general of the society through papal pressure; but he failed to purge the society of probabilism, and came near being deposed by reason of his opposition. Another antiethical device widely approved and employed by members of the society is mental reservation or restriction, in accordance with which, when important interests are at stake, a negative or a modifying clause may remain unuttered which would completely reverse the statement actually made. This principle justified unlimited lying when one’s interests or convenience seemed to require. Where the same word or phrase has more than one sense, it may be employed in an unusual sense with the expectation that it will be understood in the usual (amphibology). Such evasions may be used under oath in a civil court. HBS 294.2

Equally destructive of good morals was the teaching of many Jesuit casuists that moral obligation may be evaded by directing the intention when committing an immoral act to an end worthy in itself; as in murder, to the vindication of one’s honor; in theft, to the supplying of one’s needs or those of the poor; in fornication or adultery, to the maintenance of one’s health or comfort. Nothing did more to bring upon the society the fear and distrust of the nations and of individuals than the justification and recommendation by several of their writers of the assassination of tyrants, the term “tyrant” being made to include all persons in authority who oppose the work of the papal church or the order. The question has been much discussed, Jesuits always taking the negative side, whether the Jesuits have taught that “the end sanctifies the means.” It may not be possible to find this maxim in these precise words in Jesuit writings; but that they have always taught that for the “greater glory of God,” identified by them with the extension of Roman Catholic (Jesuit) influence, the principles of ordinary morality may be set aside, seems certain. The doctrine of philosophical sin, in accordance with which actual attention to the sinfulness of an act when it is being committed is requisite to its sinfulness for the person committing it, was widely advocated by members of the society. The repudiation of some of the most scandalous maxims of Jesuit writers by later writers, or the placing of books containing scandalous maxims on the Index, does not relieve the society or the Roman Catholic Church from responsibility, as such books must have received authoritative approval before publication, and the censuring of them does not necessarily involve an adverse attitude toward the teaching itself, but may be a mere measure of expediency.—The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, Vol. VI, art.Jesuits,” pp. 146, 147. HBS 294.3

Jesuits, Selections from Moral Theology of.—One who is asked concerning something which it is expedient to conceal, can say, “I say not,” that is, “I say the word ‘not;’ since the word “I say” has a double sense; for it signifies “to pronounce” and “to affirm:” now in our sense “I say” is the same as “I pronounce.” HBS 295.1

A confessor can affirm, even with an oath, that he knows nothing of a sin heard in confession, by secretly understanding “as a man,” but not as a minister of Christ. The reason for this is, because he who asks has no right to any information except such as may properly be imparted, which is not the kind in the possession of the confessor. And this, even though the other may ask whether he has heard as the minister of Christ; because a confessor must always be held to reply as a man, when he is not able to speak as a minister of Christ. And if any one rashly demands of a confessor whether he has heard of such a sin in confession, the confessor can reply, “I have not heard it,” that is to say, as a man, or for the purpose of making it public. Likewise as often as one is bound to conceal the disgrace of another, he may lawfully say, “I do not know,” that is to say, “I do not have any knowledge of the matter which it is profitable to impart in reply,” or, “I do not know anything suitable to disclose.” HBS 295.2

A penitent, when asked by a confessor concerning a sin already confessed, can swear that he has not committed it, understanding “that which has not been confessed.” This, however, must be understood unless the confessor rightly asks for the purpose of becoming acquainted with the state of the penitent. HBS 295.3

A poor man who has hidden some goods in order to maintain himself can reply to the judge that he has nothing. In the same manner an heir who without an inventory has concealed some property, if he is not bound to satisfy creditors with this property, can reply to the judge that he has concealed nothing, understanding “of the property with which he is bound to satisfy [the creditors].” ... HBS 295.4

A creditor can assert with an oath that nothing has been paid to him on an account, even though in fact a part has been paid, if he himself has a loan from another person [or source] which he is not able to prove; provided, however, that he does not swear that this sum is due him on that account, and that he does not inflict injury upon the other former creditors.... HBS 295.5

It is permissible to swear to anything which is false by adding in an undertone a true condition, if that low utterance can in any way be perceived by the other party, though its sense is not understood; not so, if it wholly escapes the attention of the other.—“Theologia Moralis,” Ligorio (R. C.), Vol. I, pp. 128-130, 3rd edition. Venice, 1885. HBS 295.6

Jesuits, Their Moral Theology Dominant.—There is no other domain in which Jesuitism has succeeded so completely in forcing its domination on Catholicism as that of moral theology. The development which the practice of the confessional, i. e., the domination of the private and public life of Catholics by means of the confessional, has attained since the end of the sixteenth century within the Church of Rome-and it is the practice of the confessional which is concealed under the term “moral theology”-has been mainly brought about by the moral theologians of the Jesuit order. The present-day Catholic morality is penetrated throughout with Jesuit morality. HBS 295.7

This important fact is most strikingly expressed by the circumstance that the greatest authority on moral theology in the Romish Church, Alfonso Maria di Liguori (died 1787), whom Gregory XVI canonized in 1839, and Pius IX in 1871, honored with the rank and dignity of a doctor of the church, was merely the commentator of the moral theologians of the Jesuit order, especially the two most influential, Busenbaum and Lacroix.—“Fourteen Years a Jesuit,” Count Paul von Hoensbroech, Vol. II, pp. 286, 287. London: Cassell & Co., 1911. HBS 296.1

Jesuits, Teaching of, Concerning the Power of the Church.—The Jesuits, though not the authors, are the most energetic champions and propagators of the doctrine of the indirect supremacy of the church (Papacy) over the state. HBS 296.2

Since the two greatest theologians of the Jesuit order, Bellarmin and Suarez, reduced this doctrine, inclusive of the right of the Pope to depose princes, to a properly articulated system, it has been a rocher de bronze of ultramontane Catholic dogmatics and canon law, until at length the Syllabus of Dec. 8, 1864, and the encyclicals of Leo XIII and Pius X raised it from the sphere of theological opinions to the height of a dogmatically established doctrine. And this promotion is the work of the Jesuit order. HBS 296.3

No matter what dogmatic, canonical, or moral-theological books by Jesuits we open, we encounter in all the indirect power of the church over the state. The subject is so important that I will cite numerous proofs. I will begin with the present general of the Jesuit order, Francis Xavier Wernz, a German from Würtemberg: HBS 296.4

“The state is subject to the jurisdiction of the church, in virtue of which the civil authority is really subordinate to the ecclesiastical and bound to obedience. This subordination is indirect, but not merely negative, since the civil power cannot do anything even within its own sphere which, according to the opinion of the church, would damage the latter, but rather positive, so that, at the command of the church, the state must contribute toward the advantage and benefit of the church.” HBS 296.5

“Boniface VIII pointed out for all time the correct relation between church and state in his constitution Unam Sanctam, of Nov. 18, 1302, the last sentence of which [that every person must be subject to the Roman Pope] contains a dogmatic definition [a dogma].” “The legislative power of the church extends to everything that is necessary for the suitable attainment of the church’s aims. A dispute which may arise as to the extent of the ecclesiastical legislative authority is not settled only by a mutual agreement between church and state, but by the infallible declaration or command of the highest ecclesiastical authority.” HBS 296.6

“From what has been said [namely, that the Pope may only make temporal laws in the Papal States], it by no means follows that the Roman Pope cannot declare civil laws, which are contrary to divine and canonical right, to be null and void.” “The theory which calls the concordats papal privileges, while denying the co-ordination of state and church, assumes the certain and undoubted doctrine that the state is indirectly subject to the church. This opinion is based on the Catholic doctrine of the Pope’s irrevocable omnipotence, in virtue of divine right, the valid application of which cannot be confined or restricted by any kind of compact.” HBS 296.7

“As it not infrequently occurs that, in spite of attempted friendly settlement, the dispute [between church and state] continues, it is the duty of the church authentically to explain the point of dispute. The state must submit to this judgment.”-“Fourteen Years a Jesuit,” Count Paul von Hoensbroech, Vol. II, pp. 338, 339. London: Cassell & Co., 1911. HBS 296.8

Jesuits, A Famous Maxim of.—The oft-quoted maxim, “The end sanctifies the means,” does not occur in this abrupt form in the moral and theological manuals of the order. But its signification, i. e., that means in themselves bad and blamable are “sanctified,” i. e., are permissible on account of the good ends which it is hoped to attain through them, is one of the fundamental doctrines of Jesuit morals and ethics. HBS 297.1

It is well known that many violent disputes have raged about this maxim. The Jesuit Roh offered a reward of 1,000 florins to any one who could point it out in the moral and theological writings of the order. The matter was not decided. In April, 1903, the Center deputy, Chaplain Dasbach, repeated Roh’s challenge at a public meeting at Rixdorf, increasing the sum to 2,000 florins. I took Herr Dasbach at his word, published the proofs from Jesuit writings, which appeared to me convincing, in the magazine Deutschland, edited by myself, and called on the challenger, Herr Dasbach, to pay the 2,000 florins. He refused. I sued him for payment at the county court at Treves (Dasbach’s place of residence). The court pronounced that the matter was a betting transaction, and that the money could not be recovered at law. On appealing against this to the high court of appeal at Cologne, my case was dismissed on March 30, 1905, on the ground that the passages brought forward from Jesuit authors did not contain the sentence, “The end sanctifies the means,” either formally or materially. My counsel advised against applying for a revision at the supreme court of the empire, as the facts of the case would not be discussed there, only technical errors in the previous judgments.—Id., p. 320. HBS 297.2

Jesuits, Roman Catholic Criticism of.—As we have already had occasion to see, the Society of Jesus had done great service in the cause of the church. In the course of time, however, when nearly all the schools of the Catholic world had come under its control, and when its members were everywhere in demand as confessors and confidential advisers to the princes, it attained a position not devoid of danger. The society soon acquired a strong spirit of independence, which it did not hesitate to display even toward the holy see. In effect, the determination with which the Jesuits adhered to their rites and usages in Malabar and China, in spite of their condemnation by Rome, can only with difficulty be reconciled with their vow of obedience, even though all allowances be made for their being convinced of the necessity of their methods. Their conduct was repeatedly made a subject of complaint by Benedict XIV. In his bull Immensa pastorum (Dec. 20, 1741), he was compelled to recall to the Jesuits and to other orders the precepts of Christian charity, and to forbid them to hinder the progress of the gospel among the Indians by trading in slaves, and other inhuman practices. In this matter he was indeed obeyed, but in other directions the proceedings of the society remained open to criticism.—“Manual of Church History,” Dr. F. X. Funk, Roman Catholic Professor of Theology in the University of Tubingen, Vol. II, p. 173. London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trübner & Co., 1910. HBS 297.3

Note.—This work was published in London in 1910, having the imprimatur of Archbishop Bourne’s vicar-general, dated May 16, 1910.—Eds. HBS 297.4

Jesuits, Martyrs Compared with.—Yet, if we compare all the heroic sufferings of the Jesuits in the cause of obedience with those of the countless martyrs who have died for religious liberty in the dungeons of the holy office, on the battlefields of Holland, or in the endless cruelties of Romish intolerance, they seem faint and insignificant; and where obedience has produced one martyr, a thousand have fallen to attest their belief in Christianity.—“Historical Studies,” Eugene Lawrence, p. 105. New York: Harper & Brothers, 1876. HBS 297.5

Jesuits, Later History and Suppression of.—The growing secularization of the society and its need of vast resources for the maintenance and extension of its world-wide work and the diminution of free-will offerings that had sufficed in the times when religious enthusiasm was at its height, led the society to engage in great speculative business enterprises, those conducted in Paraguay and Martinique resulting in disaster to many innocent investors (1753 onward), and brought upon the society much reproach in Portugal and France. In Portugal the Marquis of Pombal, one of the foremost statesmen of his time, became convinced that the liberation of the country from ecclesiastical rule, in which Jesuits had long been predominant, required the exclusion of the latter. An insurrection in Portuguese Paraguay by the natives furnished an occasion to Pombal for denouncing the Jesuits to the king and for demanding papal prohibition of their commercial undertakings. The papal prohibition was issued in 1758 and priestly privileges were withdrawn from Jesuits in Portugal. An attempt upon the life of the king (Sept. 3, 1758) was attributed to Jesuit influence, and led to a decree for the expulsion of the society and the confiscation of its property (Sept. 3, 1759). The Pope tried in vain to protect them, and his nuncio was driven from the country. Malgrida, a Jesuit, was burned at the stake in 1761. Speculations by Jesuits in Martinique, in which vast sums of money were lost by French citizens, led to a public investigation of the methods of the society, and on April 16. 1761, the Parliament of Paris decreed a suppression of Jesuit establishments in France, and on May 8 declared the entire order responsible for the debts of the principal promoter of the collapsed enterprise. Other parliaments followed that of Paris. King, Pope, and many bishops protested in vain. Eighty of their colleges were closed in April, 1762. Their constitution was denounced as godless, sacrilegious, and treasonable, and the vows taken by Jesuits were declared to be null and void. On Nov. 26, 1764, the king agreed to a decree of expulsion. In Spain 6,000 Jesuits were suddenly arrested at night and conveyed to papal territory (Sept. 2-3, 1768). Refused admission by the Pope, they took refuge in Corsica. A similar seizure and transportation of 3,000 had occurred at Naples (Nov. 3-4, 1767). Parma dealt with them similarly (Feb. 7, 1768), and soon afterward they were expelled from Malta by the Knights of St. John. HBS 298.1

The Bourbon princes urged Clement XIII to abolish the society. He refused, and when he died (Feb. 2, 1769) there was much intriguing among friends and enemies of the Jesuits in seeking to secure the election of a pope that would protect or abolish the society. Cardinal Ganganelli was elected, and it is highly probable that he had bargained with the Bourbons for the destruction of the Jesuits. From the beginning of his pontificate powerful pressure was brought to bear upon him by Spain, France, and Portugal for the abolition of the order. He gave promises of early action, but long hesitated to strike the fatal blow. He began by subjecting the Jesuit colleges in and around Rome to investigation. These were promptly suppressed and their inmates banished. Maria Theresa of Austria, who had been greatly devoted to the Jesuits, now regretfully abandoned them and joined with the Bourbons in demanding the abolition of the society by the Pope. This combined pressure of the chief Catholic powers was more than the Pope could withstand (“Coactus feci,” he is reported to have afterward said). On July 21, 1773, he signed the brief Dominus ac Redemptor noster, which abolished the society, and on August 16 the general and his chief assistants were imprisoned and all their property in Rome and the states of the church confiscated (Eng. transl. of this brief is most easily accessible in Nicolini, “History of the Jesuits” pp. 387-406, London, 1893). The brief recites at length the charges of immoral teaching and intolerable meddlesomeness in matters of church and state, of the abuse of the unlimited privileges that the society has enjoyed, and virtually admits that it has become totally depraved and a universal nuisance. To restore peace to Christendom its abolition is declared to be necessary. A papal coin was struck the same year in commemoration of the event, with Christ sitting in judgment and saying to the Jesuit fathers arraigned on his left, “Depart from me, all of you, I never knew you.”-The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, Vol. VI, art.Jesuits,” pp. 147, 148. HBS 298.2

Jesuits, Action of French Parliament of 1762 Concerning.—The court has ordered that the passages extracted from the books of 147 Jesuit authors having been verified, a collated copy shall be presented to the king, to enable him to know the perversity of the doctrine maintained by the so-called Jesuits from the foundation of the society up to the present moment, with the approbation of the theologians, the permission of the superiors and generals, and the applause of other members of the aforesaid society: a doctrine authorizing theft, lying, perjury, impurity, all passions and all crimes, teaching homicide, parricide, and regicide, overthrowing religion in order to substitute superstitions for it, while favoring magic, blasphemy, irreligion, and idolatry; and the said sovereign lord shall be most humbly entreated to consider the results of such pernicious teaching combined with the choice and uniformity of the opinions of the aforesaid society. Done in Parliament, the 5th March, 1762.—“Our Brief Against Rome,” Rev. Charles Stuteville Isaacson, M. A., Appendix C, p. 269. London: The Religious Tract Society, 1905. HBS 299.1

Jesuits, Extracts from the Brief of Clement XIV Suppressing the.—We have seen, in the grief of our heart, that neither these remedies [applied by former popes], nor an infinity of others, since employed, have produced their due effect, or silenced the accusations and complaints against the said society [e. g., Jesuit]. Our other predecessors, Urban VII, Clement IX, X, XI, and XII, and Alexander VII and VIII, Innocent X, XII, and XIII, and Benedict XIV, employed, without effect, all their efforts to the same purpose. In vain did they endeavor, by salutary constitutions, to restore peace to the church; as well with respect to secular affairs, with which the company ought not to have interfered, as with regard to the missions. [p. 394] ... After a mature deliberation, we do, out of our certain knowledge, and the fulness of our apostolical power, suppress and abolish the said company: we deprive it of all activity whatever, of its houses, schools, colleges, hospitals, lands, and, in short, every other place whatsoever, in whatever kingdom or province they may be situated; we abrogate and annul its statutes, rules, customs, decrees, and constitutions, even though confirmed by oath, and approved by the Holy See or otherwise; in like manner we annul all and every its privileges, indults, general or particular, the tenor whereof is, and is taken to be, as fully and as amply expressed in the present brief as if the same were inserted word for word, in whatever clauses, form, or decree, or under whatever sanction their privileges may have been conceived. We declare all, and all kind of authority, the general, the provincials, the visitors, and other superiors of the said society, to be forever annulled and extinguished, of what nature soever the said authority may be, as well in things spiritual as temporal. [p. 398]-“History of the Jesuits,” G. B. Nicolini, pp. 394-398. London: George Bell & Sons, 1884. HBS 299.2

Jesuits, Roman Catholic View of Their Suppression.—In the Brief of Suppression the most striking feature is the long list of allegations against the society, with no mention of what is favorable; the tone of the brief is very adverse. On the other hand, the charges are recited categorically; they are not definitely stated to have been proved. The object is to represent the order as having occasioned perpetual strife, contradiction, and trouble. For the sake of peace the society must be suppressed.—The Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. XIV, art.Society of Jesus,” p. 99. HBS 300.1

Jesuits, Restoration of.—The execution of the Brief of Suppression having been largely left to the local bishops, there was room for a good deal of variety in the treatment which the Jesuits might receive in different places. In Austria and Germany they were generally allowed to teach (but with secular clergy as superiors).... But in Russia, and until 1780 in Prussia, the Empress Catherine and King Frederick II desired to maintain the society as a teaching body. They forbade the local bishops to promulgate the brief until their placet was obtained. Bishop Massalski in White Russia, 19 September, 1773, therefore ordered the Jesuit superiors to continue to exercise jurisdiction till further notice. [p. 99] ... HBS 300.2

The Restored Society.-Pius VII had resolved to restore the society during his captivity in France; and after his return to Rome did so with little delay, 7 August, 1814, by the bull Sollicitudo omnium ecclesiarum, and therewith the general in Russia, Thaddaus Brzozowski, acquired universal jurisdiction. [p. 100]-Id., pp. 99, 100. HBS 300.3

Jesuits, Present Activity of.—A striking parallel is found in the secret society of the Jesuits-that indefatigable order which undoubtedly saved the Romish Church from destruction at the period of the Reformation, and has ever since proved the chief stay and strength of the system of disguised paganism which we have been endeavoring to expose. But energetic as its members showed themselves to be in times that are past, it is probable that they were never more so than in the last few years. To their exertions we may refer the fact that the tide of popery is again setting in upon the Protestant countries of England, America, and Germany.—“Rome: Pagan and Papal,” Mourant Brock, M. A., p. 266. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1883. HBS 300.4

Jesuits, Work of, Against Protestantism.—The movement which began at Trent and was consummated in our own day, and which made unity of organization and absolute submission to the Pope the supreme tests, was chiefly the work of the Jesuits, who emerged on the scene as the great dominating force before the second assembling of the council in 1551, and whose influence was supreme throughout its later doings. Their policy was not merely to put an end to the idea of reunion through reform, but to silence the cry for compromise. “Cease your discussions and crush Protestantism,” was their motto; and for a time their success was extraordinary. They secured the removal of the grosser abuses which weakened Rome; they carried Romish doctrines among the heathen in an era when there were no corresponding Protestant missions; and they drove back the Reformation movement to the limits which are still its practical boundaries.—“The Arrested Reformation,” Rev. William Muir, M. A., B. D., B. L., p. 155. London: Morgan and Scott, 1912. HBS 300.5

Jesus Christ, Various Views as to Time of Birth of.—As the early tradition of the church designated this month [December], as the time of the Lord’s birth, it has been generally accepted, but not universally. Lightfoot makes it to have been in September; Newcome, in October; Paulus, in March; Wieseler, in February; Lichtenstein, in June; Greswell, in April; Clinton, in spring; Lardner and Robinson, in autumn; Strong and Lewin, in August; Quandt, in May.—“The Life of Our Lord upon the Earth,” Samuel J. Andrews, p. 17. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1891. HBS 301.1

Jesus Christ, Time of Birth of.—These four chronological data lead us to the same year, 750 a. u. c., and, what is more, the same period of the year, viz., its beginning. While, then, we consider it not impossible that Jesus was born toward the end of 749 a. u. c., 5 b. c., yet we must on these grounds hold it to be far more probable that he was born in one of the early months of 750 a. u. c.=4 b. c.—“A Chronological Synopsis of the Four Gospels,” Karl Wieseler, p. 114, translated by Rev. Edmund Venables, M. A. Cambridge: Deighton, Bell & Co., 1864. HBS 301.2

The result of our investigation as to the exact date of our Lord’s birth, then, is as follows,-that the day cannot now be determined at all; while, as regards the months, our choice lies between the close of December [b. c. 5], January and February [b. c. 4], of which, however, December is the least probable, January more so, and February decidedly the most probable of all.—Id., p. 129. HBS 301.3

Jesus Christ, Date of Birth of.—Our inquiries lead us, then, to these general results. We find it most probable that the Lord was born near the end of the year 749 [b. c. 5]. At this period all the chronological statements of the evangelists seem most readily to center and harmonize. In favor of December, the last month of that year, as much may be said as in favor of any other, and this aside from the testimony of tradition. As to the day, little that is definite can be said. The 25th of this month lies open to the suspicion of being selected on other than historic grounds, yet it is not inconsistent with any data we have, and has the voice of tradition in its favor. Still, in regard to all these conclusions, it must be remembered that many elements of uncertainty enter into the computations, and that any positive statements are impossible.—“The Life of Our Lord upon the Earth,” Samuel J. Andrews, p. 20. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1891. HBS 301.4

We give the opinions of some of the older and of the more modern chronologists and commentators [as to the time of Christ’s birth]: HBS 301.5

For the year 747 [b. c. 7], Sanclemente, Wurm, Ideler, Münter, Sepp, Jarvis, Alford, Patritius, Ebrard, Zumpt, Keim; 748 [b. c. 6], Kepler, Lewin; 749 [b. c. 5], Petavius, Usher, Norris, Tillemont, Lichtenstein, Ammer, Friedlieb, Bucher, Browne, Godet, McClellan; 750 [b. c. 4], Bengel, Wieseler, Greswell, Ellicott, Pressensé, Thomson; for 751 [b. c. 3], Keil, Quandt; 752 [b. c. 2], Caspari, Reiss; Lardner hesitates between 748 and 749; so Robinson, “not later than the autumn of 749, perhaps a year earlier;” so Beyschlag, Schenkel; Pound, “August 749 to August 750.” Clinton finds the earliest possible date the autumn of 748, the latest that of 750; Woolsey, undecided.—“The Life of Our Lord upon the Earth,” Samuel J. Andrews, p. 12. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1891. HBS 301.6

Jesus Christ, Length of Earthly Ministry of.—The opinion that the death of Christ was separated from his baptism by an interval of exactly three years and a half, was entertained by many of the church Fathers. [p. 240] ... HBS 302.1

It is on the Gospel of John particularly that the decision of this question depends. Three feasts of the Passover are expressly mentioned by him, during the public life of Christ (see John 2:13; 6:4; and 13:1). It is a disputed point whether there is a fourth or not; and the decision of the question, whether the death of Christ is to be placed in the third or fourth year of his public ministry, rests entirely upon the interpretation to be given to John 5:1, “After this there was a [the] feast of the Jews, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem.” HBS 302.2

The question what feast is intended here is considerably simplified by the fact that of late it has almost universally been admitted that, if the apostle refers to any particular feast at all, the choice must lie between the feast of Purim and the Passover. But so far as the opinion that the apostle does not refer to any particular feast is concerned, we must at the very outset pronounce it untenable; though we do not feel called upon to enter more minutely into the reasons for rejecting it. It is a sufficient objection that, in every other case, John speaks of particular feasts; that, throughout his Gospel, the arrangement is regulated by the feasts,-in this instance, for example, the feast mentioned introduces the third group,-and that the references to the feasts have a chronological significance, for which reason the Passover is mentioned in chapter 6:4, even when Christ did not take part in it. [pp. 240, 2411 ... HBS 302.3

The dispute is decided at once in favor of the Passover, if the article is to be regarded as genuine. 21 That we cannot deal so summarily with it as Wieseler does, who says, “Both exegetically and critically the conclusion is indisputable that the article is a later correction,” is evident from the fact that Tischendorf has restored it to the text. It is enough to excite suspicion that even Wieseler places the exegetical before the critical. The omission of the article might very easily have originated with those who did not know what to make of it. The feast must either be the feast par excellence, or the feast mentioned before. In the former case, it must be the Passover. [p. 244] ... HBS 302.4

According to Winer, the definite article may be omitted “when the omission does not introduce any ambiguity into the discourse, or leave the reader in any uncertainty whether he is to understand the word definitely or indefinintely.” This is the case here. Every unbiased reader thinks at once of the Passover. The decision of this point rests upon what goes before, especially as the expression, “and Jesus went up to Jerusalem,” precludes the possibility of any other being intended than one of the three leading festivals; and among these it is most natural to fix upon the Passover, inasmuch as this was the only one at which it was a universal custom to make a pilgrimage to Jerusalem. [pp. 244, 245] ... HBS 302.5

But we are not restricted to the proof derived from John 5:1. By the side of this we may place another from the parable in Luke 13:6 sqq., from which, in addition to its own independent significance, we may obtain a guaranty for the correctness of the result, to which we have been brought by John 5:1. At the time when Jesus related this parable, three years of his ministry had already passed. According to verse 7, the owner of the vineyard (God) says to the husbandman (Christ), “Behold these three years I come seeking fruit on this fig tree, and find none.” [p. 248] ... HBS 302.6

At this time, at least two years and a half had gone by. But according to verse 8, the fig tree was to receive a respite of another year: “Lord, let it alone this year also, till I shall dig about it and dung it.” From this we obtain, in all, at least three years and a half, answering to the four Passovers of John. Those who allot a shorter space of time to the public teaching of Christ are obliged to resort to forcible expedients. [p. 249]-“Christology of the Old Testament,” E. W. Hengstenberg, Vol. III, pp. 240-249, translated from the German by James Martin, B. A. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1858. HBS 303.1

Jesus Christ, Three Stages of Public Life of.—In the Lord’s public life we seem to find three stages distinctly marked. The first is that period extending from the first Passover (John 2:13) to the feast when the impotent man was healed (John 5:1), and embracing about a year. It began with the purgation of the temple, and ended with the attempt of the Jews to kill him because he made himself equal with God. During this time his labors were confined mainly to Judea. Near the close of this period, we may place the imprisonment of the Baptist. The second stage is that period following his return to Galilee immediately after the feast, and embraces the whole duration of his ministry there, or about a year and six months. This period may be divided into two, of which the death of the Baptist will serve as the dividing line. The third stage begins with his final departure from Galilee, and ends with his death at Jerusalem, and embraces five or six months.—“The Life of Our Lord upon the Earth,” Samuel J. Andrews, p. 136. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1891. HBS 303.2

Jesus Christ, Time of Crucifixion of.—The early Fathers were not wholly unaware of the uncertainty of their chronology, and several of them state that they had not the data for a conclusive judgment. Irenaus says: “We cannot be ignorant how greatly all the Fathers differ among themselves, as well concerning the year of the Passion as the day.” Again: “Concerning the time of the Passion, the diversities of opinion are infinite.” Augustine says, that except the fact that He was about thirty at his baptism, all else is obscure and uncertain. Tertullian, as we have said, is inconsistent with himself, and now makes His ministry to have continued one year, and now three; now puts his baptism in the fifteenth year of Tiberius, and now in the twelfth. Some began early to put his death in the sixteenth, others in the seventeenth or eighteenth, and finally in the nineteenth of Tiberius. HBS 303.3

One point, however, in patristic chronology may here be noticed, the early and general belief that the Lord was crucified in 782 [a. d. 29]. It is well known that almost all the Fathers of the first three centuries, particularly the Latins, accepted this date.—Id., p. 49. HBS 303.4

On what day of the week was our Lord crucified? The unanimous answer of the evangelists is, “On a Friday.” Luke, after speaking of our Lord’s burial, which followed immediately on his death, says “it was the ?ánáó eaí?” [paraskeuâ], i. e., “it was Friday.” Luke 23:54. And what he immediately adds, “the Sabbath drew on,” agrees with this. Besides, the day following the [Greek word] [paraskeue] on which the women who had been present at our Lord’s burial rested, is called the “Sabbath,” i. e., Saturday (Luke 23:56), and it was “on the first day of the week,” i. e., on Sunday, “very early in the morning” (Luke 24:1), that they came to the sepulcher. In Mark, too, the day of our Lord’s death is called [Greek word] [paraskeue], which is explained by the universally intelligible addition [Greek words][ho esti prosabbaton]. When the Sabbath was over, that is on Saturday evening, the women brought spices. “Very early in the morning, the first day of the week, they came unto the sepulcher.” Mark 16:2; cf. v. 9. Matthew defines the day succeeding that of our Lord’s death with still greater precision by adding [Greek words] [hetis esti meta ten paraskeuen] (Matthew 27:62); and describes the hour of the day of resurrection when the women were hastening to the sepulcher, as [Greek words] [te epifoskouse eis mian sabbaton]. Matthew 28:1. John, too, agrees with the Synoptists. He also places the day of crucifixion on a [Greek word] [paraskeue] (John 19:31, 42), which is followed by a Sabbath (v. 31), and it is on Sunday morning that Mary Magdalene visits the grave of him who had risen (John 20:1). All four evangelists therefore agree in naming Friday, or the [Greek word][paraskeue], as the day of our Lord’s death.—“A Chronological Synopsis of the Four Gospels,” Karl Wieseler, pp. 308, 309, translated by Rev. Edmund Venables, M. A. Cambridge: Deighton, Bell & Co., 1864. HBS 303.5

Jesus Christ, Resurrection, Purpose of the Record in the Gospels.—Thus we see that to prove the fact of the resurrection by citing all possible witnesses, was by no means the chief end of the evangelists. His resurrection was the beginning of a new and higher stage of the Lord’s redemptive work, and it was essential that his disciples, and especially his apostles, should be convinced of this by his personal manifestations to them, and thus be prepared to be his witnesses (Acts 10:41; 13:31), whose testimony the world should believe. But the object of the evangelists was to show, each from his own point of view, how the Lord first by repeated revelations of himself brought the apostles to such faith in him as risen, that he could instruct them during the forty days of his stay on earth, and carry on his new work by them after his departure. HBS 304.1

We are not, then, to expect in the evangelists any full and orderly statement of the manifestations of the Risen One, as proofs of his resurrection. No one of them designs to give anything like a complete summary of the evidence to establish it. Of course, every appearance mentioned is a proof; every one who saw him became a witness. But the purpose of their narratives is not only to show the fact of his resurrection, but also what means he employed to assure them that he had risen in true though glorified manhood, the gradual growth of their faith, and the nature of the work he commissioned his church to do.—“The Life of Our Lord upon the Earth,” Samuel J. Andrews, pp. 592, 593. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1891. HBS 304.2

Jesus Christ, Period Between Resurrection and Ascension of.—The forty days, or five weeks and five days, beginning Easter Sunday, April 9, and ending Thursday, May 18, may be divided into three periods: 1. That in Judea from Easter Sunday to the departure into Galilee; 2. That in Galilee; 3. That after the return to Jerusalem to the ascension. HBS 304.3

During the first period, from Easter Sunday till the Sunday following inclusive, there were six appearances, five on Easter Sunday: (a) to Mary Magdalene; (b) to the other women; (c) to the two at Emmaus; (d) to Peter; (e) to the eleven; on the next Sunday (f) to the eleven. That the Lord may have appeared to his mother on Easter day or during the week, is probable, but not recorded. HBS 304.4

During the second period, after the arrival in Galilee, there were two, probably three, recorded appearances: (a) to the seven at the Sea of Tiberias; (b) to the five hundred, the eleven being present; (c) to James. HBS 305.1

During the third period, after the return to Jerusalem to the ascension-some two days-there were two appearances: (a) to the apostles first assembling somewhere in the city; (b) to them in the city to lead them out to Bethany. HBS 305.2

The length of each of these periods can only approximately be given: 1. In Jerusalem, and including time of journey to Galilee, twelve days; 2. In Galilee, twenty-three days; 3. Journey from Galilee to Jerusalem and in the city, five days.—“The Life of Our Lord upon the Earth,” Samuel J. Andrews, pp. 637, 638. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1891. HBS 305.3

Jesus Christ, The Gift of the Holy Spirit a Witness to.—The body of the New Testament writings, but peculiarly the epistles of St. Paul, both from their manifest character and their known origin, afford irresistible and conclusive evidence to the operation of a new principle in the world to which there is no parallel in secular literature. This principle openly declared itself as the influence of the Holy Spirit. As to its novelty there can be no doubt, for the only instance of a similar agency at work, and this is but a partial parallel, is to be found in the Scriptures of the Old Testament. As to its tendency, also, there can be no doubt, unless we are prepared to assert that the moral tendency of the Pauline writings is pernicious, and the principles inculcated bad. As to its origin, therefore, there can alone be any doubt, whether it was righteous and true, or whether it was virtually unrighteous because inherently and radically false. And this is practically determined by the former consideration, for “by their fruits ye shall know them.” HBS 305.4

But further, this gift of the Holy Spirit, which was continually appealed to and claimed by the first preachers of the gospel, and implied and evidenced in the early Christian correspondence of St. Paul, was ever promised and bestowed in confirmation of the truth which was embraced when Jesus was acknowledged as the Christ. As a matter of fact, there is no evidence of a principle at work analogous to that of which the writings of the New Testament, regarded merely as writings, are the abiding monument, outside the limits of the early Christian society. This is simply a question of literature, and not at all an assertion of dogma. “These are written that ye might believe,” may fairly and conclusively be taken as the motto of the New Testament Scriptures. We do not assume inspiration in order to exalt those scriptures; but we take those scriptures as they are, and deduce from their existence and their highly exceptional phenomena, the necessary postulate of a special and unique inspiration. As a matter of fact, the confession of the name of Jesus as the Christ was followed by results new and unparalleled in the history of the world. If the Gospels and the Acts were lost to us, the measure of those results would be preserved imperishably in the known and undoubted epistles of St. Paul. As they could not have been written but for the conviction and confession that Jesus was the Christ, so neither are the phenomena they present and imply to be accounted for on the supposition that Jesus was not the Christ: on the supposition, that is, either that the facts which proved him to be the Christ were fallacious and unreal, or that there was something essentially hollow and unsound in the conception of that office, and those hopes which he was declared to have fulfilled. For Jesus was proclaimed as the Christ, not to the Jews only, but to the Gentiles also. Jesus was accepted as the Christ, not by the Jews only who believed, but by the Gentiles also. HBS 305.5

There is therefore, in the Christ-office of Jesus, that which is alike independent of nationality and of time. We, in the present day, cannot afford to surrender the claim advanced for Jesus to be the Christ, for, in so doing, we shall renounce our title to the name of Christian. It was to the validity of this claim, no less than to the historic reality of the person advancing and fulfilling it, that the gift of the Holy Ghost was promised and bestowed as an attesting witness. His testimony would have been invalidated, and God, in the language of St. John, have been made a liar, had there been any flaw in the cardinal facts of the life of Jesus, or in the reality of that office which he claimed to fill. HBS 306.1

And thus, lastly, the fact of Jesus being the Christ, which is witnessed to by the historic gift of the Holy Ghost, which alone will enable us adequately and satisfactorily to account for the essential and characteristic features of the earliest Christian literature, as we find them in the writings of St. Paul, becomes the effectual and conclusive seal of the substantial and essential truth of the Old Testament Scriptures as a whole. There was a hope embodied in those Scriptures, which was not of man’s discovery or conception, which was divinely inspired, and based on a promise which was God-given. It was a hope which grew brighter and brighter as the time of its fulfilment drew near. It was a hope of which we can clearly trace the development, and yet a hope to which, neither in its origin nor in its development, can we assign a sufficient natural cause. It has never been given to any nation but one to indulge instinctively an irrepressible hope like that of the Messiah, which the progress of the ages has fulfilled. It has never been given to any literature but one to express this hope in a thousand forms, unconsciously to conceive, to nurture, and to develop it, in manifold parts and in divers manners, till it became a substantial and consistent whole, and to leave this expression for centuries as an heirloom to mankind, the significance and preciousness of which time alone would declare and history conclusively reveal. HBS 306.2

But to this nation and to this literature it was given. The national mind of Israel was pregnant with a mighty thought, a thought which we cannot fail to detect from the earliest to the latest monuments of its literature. As it was impossible that this thought should be self-originated, we can only recognize it as the fruit of the nation’s exceptional nearness and dearness to God, the offspring of God’s covenant and union with the nation; and when the life of Jesus could be looked back upon and regarded as a whole, then it was found, and not before, that that life was the fullest and the complete realization of the mighty thought. When he was recognized as the man-child whom Zion travailed to bring forth, the fulness of the hope which, for long ages, patriarchs, prophets, and poets had cherished, and the law itself had foreshadowed and symbolized,-when he was accepted as the Christ and the Prophet that should come into the world, then it was seen that the hope of the fathers was not a dream, and that he who had spoken by the prophets was none other than the Holy Spirit of truth.—“The Religion of the Christ,” Rev. Stanley Leathes, M. A., pp. 306-310. New York: Pott, Young & Co., 1874. HBS 306.3

Jesus Christ, Two Natures of.—Along with more indefinite and general expressions concerning the higher nature of Jesus, the elevation of his doctrine and person, and his Messianic character, we find, even in the primitive church, allusions to the intimate union between the divine and the human in his person. But the relation in which they stand to each other is not exactly defined, nor is the part which each takes in the formation of his personality sharply or philosophically determined. The earlier Fathers endeavored, on the one hand, to avoid the low views of the Ebionites and Artemonites (Alogi), who considered Jesus as only the son of Joseph and Mary (while the more moderate Nazarenes, in accordance with the Catholic confession, admitted a supernatural conception). On the other hand, they combated still more decidedly the tendency of the Doceta, who rejected the true humanity of Christ. They also opposed the opinion (held by Cerinthus and Basilides) that the Logos (Christ) had descended upon the man Jesus at his baptism, according to which the divine and human are united only in an external, mechanical way; and the still more fanciful motions of Marcion, according to which Christ appeared as Deus ex machina; and lastly, the view of Valentinus (also docetic), who admitted that Christ was born of Mary, but maintained that he made use of her only as of a channel, by which he might be introduced into this finite life.—“A History of Christian Doctrines,” Dr. K. R. Hagenbach, Vol. I, p. 239. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1880. HBS 307.1

Jesus Christ, The Center of Doctrine.—We cannot, therefore, separate Christ’s doctrine from his person. For the peculiar and harmonious relation in which Christ, as the Son of God, stood to his heavenly Father, the decision with which he bore witness to this relationship, and the spiritual and moral renovation which were to flow from himself, as the Saviour, unto mankind, form the kernel and center of his doctrine. It has not essentially the character of a system made up of certain definitive notions, but it is a fact in the religious and moral sphere, the joyful news ([Greek words], [euangelion, kerugma]) of which was to be proclaimed to all men for their salvation, on condition of faith, and a willingness to repent and obey in newness of life. Jesus is not the author of a dogmatic theology, but the author and finisher of faith (Hebrews 12:2); not the founder of a school, but in the most exalted sense the founder of a religion and of the church. Hence he did not propound dogmas dressed in a scientific garb, but he taught the divine word in a simply human and popular manner, for the most part in parables and proverbs.—Id., p. 51. HBS 307.2

Jesus Christ, Divinity and Humanity of.—Though the promised Messiah was to be a divine person, a powerful conqueror, and a glorious king, and to bring to man the most blessed tidings of divine mercy, and be a minister of healing to the sick, comfort to the afflicted, and deliverance to the oppressed, he was also to be poor and despised, oppressed and persecuted by man, “a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief,” subjected to every species of ignominy and reproach, and at last wounded, and bruised, and cut off out of the land of the living. Isaiah 53; Psalm 22; Isaiah 50:6. HBS 307.3

No human eye could have foreseen a character compounded of such apparent contradictions, a Being in whom such seemingly irreconcilable characteristics should all meet. HBS 307.4

Are these characteristics, then, also to be found in the person of Jesus of Nazareth? We have only to consult the records, not merely of the apostolic writings, but of his enemies, to find abundant evidence on this point. HBS 307.5

Behold the helpless infant lying, as the offspring of parents in the lowest grade of society, in a manger at Bethlehem. Could there be a condition of more abject poverty and weakness? True, the star pointed down upon him from above as the King of the Jews; the wise men from the East traveled from their far country to worship him, and pour out before him their offerings of frankincense and gold; and the angels proclaimed his advent to the shepherds, as bringing glory to God in the highest, peace on earth, and good will to men; but, nevertheless, he had but a manger for his cradle, lying among the poorest of the poor, as a helpless child, dependent upon a mother’s care. HBS 308.1

The world heeded him not. They were paying their court to the great, the noble, and the wealthy. His own highly favored people, whose cherished oracles clearly proclaimed all the circumstances of his advent, looked upon him with disdain. The heathen poets, whom the faint gleam of ancient traditions, founded, no doubt, on the testimonies of the inspired prophets, had enabled to anticipate the advent at this very period of a great deliverer and restorer of peace to the world, pointed to the Roman emperor, as clearly fulfilling the predictions which had been so long the hope of the world. By none other, in the eyes of the world, could these prophetic announcements be fulfilled but by him at whose will, apparently, peace reigned throughout the earth, and whose throne was supported by all the earthly elements of glory, majesty, and power. The nations of the earth had been subdued by him into a state of submission, and at his fiat, apparently, peace reigned. But was this the consequence of his will? No; the word of prophecy had foretold that such should be the state of the world when the Messiah appeared. The true Deliverer, the true Prince of Peace, was the humble and despised babe in the manger at Bethlehem. Time has borne its witness, and will bear more abundant witness, to this fact. HBS 308.2

Ah! how little do we know of the true character even of the scenes in which we live, and the events that are happening around us; how little can the human mind fathom the divine counsels, or recognize, before the issue, the operations by which they are accomplished! HBS 308.3

View Him again wandering in the streets and mountains in and about Jerusalem, “not having where to lay his head.” True, at this very time he gave sight to the blind; and one word from him calmed the stormy sea; with authority and power he commanded the unclean spirits, and they came out; and his summons brought back the departed spirit, in a moment, to its former moldering tabernacle in the flesh. Glorified in the mount of transfiguration, so as to dazzle the eyes of his disciples by the splendor of his appearance, he had the testimony from above, “This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.” But from that same mount he descended to wander as a very outcast from society. Matthew 17:2-5; Mark 9:7; Luke 9:35. HBS 308.4

As the prophetic psalmist had foretold, he was “a stranger even unto his brethren, and an alien unto his mother’s children” (Psalm 69:8), for, as St. John tells us, “neither did his brethren believe in him.” John 7:5. HBS 308.5

View him finally as he wept tears of blood in the garden of Gethsemane; as he went a prisoner, deserted even by his disciples, to the judgment hall; as he gave his back to the scourge and his head to the crown of thorns; as he was nailed to the cross, and yielded up his life amid all the external signs of abject helplessness. HBS 308.6

True, even in that hour of apparent weakness he claimed power to obtain legions of angels for his defense (Matthew 26:53); he healed with a touch one of his captors (Luke 22:51); he forewarned his judge that he would see him hereafter “sitting on the right hand of power and coming in the clouds of heaven” (Matthew 26:64); and when he yielded up his spirit on the cross, such were the signs that accompanied that event, that even the Roman centurion and his companions “feared greatly, saying, Truly, this was the Son of God.” Matthew 27:54. HBS 308.7

But nevertheless his outward condition is only that of a man of sorrows, given over to the will of his enemies, deserted apparently both by God and man. HBS 309.1

His disciples, staggered at the apparent discrepancy between this scene of humiliation and suffering and the triumphs to which their eager hopes had led them to look forward, were ready to bewail the failure of all their expectations. “We trusted,” they said, “that it had been he which should have redeemed Israel” (Luke 24:21), but now all hope of this seemed to them to be gone. HBS 309.2

But herein, as they were soon taught, was the fulfilment of the divine predictions in the person of Jesus of Nazareth most conspicuously manifested. “Ought not Christ,” they were reminded, “to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory?” and they were referred to the predictions of Moses and all the prophets as showing that all that had recently happened at Jerusalem had been clearly foretold. Luke 24:26, 27, 44-46. HBS 309.3

We see, then, that in all these various points the person and character of him to whom we look as our Saviour correspond with the predictions of the Old Testament prophets respecting the Messiah, the divine Deliverer, who, in God’s appointed time, was to come into the world. In the person of Jesus of Nazareth, God, in the language of our text, has “raised up a horn of salvation for us in the house of his servant David, as he spake by the mouth of his holy prophets which have been since the world began;” for, let us remember, that, as holy Simeon testified at his advent, he is “a light to lighten the Gentiles,” as well as “the glory of his people Israel.” Luke 2:32. HBS 309.4

What is the conclusion, then, which we draw from all this evidence that Jesus of Nazareth was the subject of one continued chain of prophecy from the beginning of the world, and that the nature of his person and work was accurately described by the prophets many centuries before his advent? Reason requires us to bow the knee before him, in humble submission to his authority, and thankful recognition of him in the character he claims to bear, and the offices he came to fulfil. With Thomas we are compelled to exclaim, “My Lord and my God.” John 20:28.—“Fulfilled Prophecy,” Rev. W. Goode, D. D., F. S. A., pp. 146-149. London: James Nisbet & Co., 1891. HBS 309.5

Jesus Christ, Revolution Produced by.—Certainly, no revolution that has ever taken place in society can be compared to that which has been produced by the words of Jesus Christ. Those words met a want, a deep want, in the spirit of man. They placed in the clear sunlight of truth a solution of those profound problems and enigmas, in relation to man and his destiny, about which the philosophers only disputed. They more than confirmed every timid hope which the wisest and best of men had cherished. HBS 309.6

He pointed men to a Father in heaven, to the mansions of rest which he would prepare. He “brought life and immortality to light.” HBS 309.7

He erected a perfect standard of morals, and insisted upon love to God and love to man, and he stood before men in the glorious light of his own perfect example. HBS 309.8

He spoke, and that spiritual slumber of the race which seemed the image of death was broken up, and a movement commenced in the moral elements that has not ceased from that day to this, and never will cease. HBS 309.9

Those who were mourning heard his voice, and were comforted; those who were weary and heavy laden heard it, and found rest unto their souls. HBS 310.1

It stirred up feelings, both of opposition and of love, deeper than those of natural affection. It therefore set the son against the father, and the father against the son, and caused a man’s foes to be they of his own household. HBS 310.2

Having no affinity with any of the prevalent forms of idolatry and corruption, and making no compromise with them, it turned the world upside down wherever it came. Before it, the heathen oracles were dumb, and the fires upon their altars went out. HBS 310.3

It acted as an invisible and secret force on society, communing with men upon their beds by night, dissuading them from wickedness, seconding the voice of conscience, giving both distinctness and energy to its tones, now whispering, and now speaking with a voice that made the stoutest tremble, of righteousness, temperance, and of a judgment to come. HBS 310.4

It opened heaven, and spoke to the ear of hope. HBS 310.5

It uncovered that world, “where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.” HBS 310.6

It was stern in its rebukes of every sin, and encouraged everything that was “pure, and lovely, and of good report.” HBS 310.7

Being addressed to man universally, without regard to his condition or his nation, it paid little regard to differences of language or habits, or the boundaries of states. HBS 310.8

Persecution was aroused; it kindled its fires, it brought forth its wild beasts. Blood flowed like water, but the blood of the martyrs was the seed of the church. No external force could avail against a power like this. The word was spoken, and it could not be recalled. The hand of God had made a new adjustment in the movement of the moral world, and the hand of man could not put it back. No other revolution has ever been so extensive or so radical. HBS 310.9

Moving on directly to the accomplishment of its own more immediate and higher objects, the voice of Christ has incidentally caused, not only moral, but social and civil revolutions. HBS 310.10

It has banished idolatry and polytheism, with their inseparable degradations, and pollutions, and cruelty. Human sacrifices, offered by our own ancestors, by the Greeks, and Romans, and Carthaginians, and the ancient worshipers of Baal and Moloch,-offered now in the islands of the Pacific, and in India, and in Africa,-cease at once where Christianity comes. It was before its light had visited this continent, that seventy thousand human beings were sacrificed at the consecration of a single temple. HBS 310.11

It has banished the ancient games, in which men slew each other, and were exposed to the fury of wild beasts, for the amusement of the people. HBS 310.12

It has banished slavery, once so prevalent, from Europe, and from a large portion of this continent. HBS 310.13

To a great extent it has put an end to the exposure of infants. HBS 310.14

It has elevated woman, and given her the place in society which God designed she should occupy. HBS 310.15

By putting an end to polygamy and to frequent divorces, it has provided for the cultivation of the domestic and natural affections, for the proper training of children, and for all the unspeakable blessings connected with the purity and peace, and mutual love and confidence, of Christian families. HBS 310.16

It has so elevated the general standard of morality, that unnatural crimes, and the grosser forms of sensuality, which once appeared openly, and were practised and defended by philosophers, now shrink away and hide themselves in the darkness. HBS 311.1

It has diminished the frequency of wars, and mitigated their horrors. HBS 311.2

It has introduced the principle of general benevolence, unknown before, and led men to be willing to labor, and suffer, and give their property, for the good of those whom they have never seen, and never expect to see in this life. HBS 311.3

It has led men to labor for the welfare of the soul, and, in connection with such labors, to provide for the sufferings and for the physical wants of the poor; and it is found that these two go hand in hand, and cannot be separated. HBS 311.4

If there be here and there a mistaken zealot, or a pharisaical professor of Christianity, who would seem to be zealous for the spiritual wants of men, and yet would say to the hungry and the naked, Be ye clothed and be ye fed,-at the same time giving them nothing to supply their wants,-it is also found, not only that the truest regard for the present well-being of man must manifest itself through a regard for his spiritual wants, but also that, when a regard to those wants ceases, the lower charity which cares for the body will decay with it. When the tree begins to die at the top, where the juices are elaborated that nourish it, it will die down. Christianity alone has built hospitals for the sick and for the insane, and almshouses, and houses of refuge, and provided for the instruction and reformation of those confined as criminals. Was there ever anything in a heathen land like what is to be seen at South Boston? What book is it that the blind are taught to read? If there had been no Bible, and no such estimate of the worth of man as that contains, can any one believe that the great work of printing for the blind would have been performed? or that the deaf and dumb would have been so provided for? When I recently saw those blind children so instructed, and heard them sing; when I saw thoughts and feelings chasing each other like light and shade over the speaking countenance of Laura Bridgman, deaf and dumb and blind, I could not but feel, though the ordinary fountains of knowledge were still sealed up, yet that in a high sense it might be said to them and to her, as Peter said to Eneas, “Jesus Christ maketh thee whole.” HBS 311.5

Present Effects.-And what Christianity has hitherto done, it is now doing. It is to some extent embodying its force in missionary operations, and it has lost none of its original power. Men are found ready to take their lives in their hands, to forsake their country and friends and children, and go among the heathen, for the love of Jesus; and it is found that the same simple preaching of the cross that was mighty of old to the pulling down of strongholds, is still accompanied with a divine power; and nations of idolaters, savages, cannibals, infanticides, are seen coming up out of the night of paganism, and taking their place among civilized and literary and Christian nations.—“Evidences of Christianity,” Mark Hopkins, D. D., pp. 347-351. Boston: T. R. Marvin & Son, 1874. HBS 311.6

Jews, Condition of, in Babylon.—When Cyrus issues his decree giving them permission to return to the land of their fathers, these sons of the captives do not present the appearance of bondmen just escaping from their chains. They are men capable of patriotism, and of every high and noble feeling. They have prospered even in their captive state, and much more in the circumstances of their emergence from it. HBS 311.7

It is a delightful picture that is sketched by the prophet Isaiah, where he presents the daughter of Zion as lifting up her eyes like one awaking from a dream, and saying in her heart, “Who hath begotten me these, seeing I have lost my children and am desolate; a captive and removing to and fro; and who hath brought up these? Behold I was left alone; these, where had they been?” It was the first generation of the captives,-those who felt the strong tie of home and native land from which they had been torn away,-that “hanged their harps on the willows by the rivers of Babylon, and wept as they remembered Zion.” Their children knew no other home but the land in which they were born, except as the religious instruction, and the history with which they were made familiar, and nursery hymns, brought the past and the distant to their minds. With many in the second and third generation even this impression was deep and strong enough to create a yearning for the Holy Land and the temple service. As a religious feeling it never died out till the temple was finally destroyed by the Romans. As a sentiment it is living still, as is attested by the wailing-place of the Jews which is kept in weekly remembrance. When the strength of this feeling was put to the test by the several appeals that were made in the times of Zerubbabel and Ezra, there were many thousands to respond, and their caravans were as armies of the ransomed of the Lord. But there was a larger number whose engagements and interests had already become a tie of sufficient strength to hold them to a permanent home in other lands. It has been estimated that those who returned to Palestine in connection with the three above-mentioned rallies were to those who preferred to remain in their scattered and distant homes about in the proportion of one to six. HBS 312.1

When we come to inquire into the condition of this larger portion outside of Palestine, as regards their outward prosperity, and their intellectual, moral, and spiritual state, there are some points that may be easily established. We should infer from the whole subsequent history of the Hebrew nation that they were prompt to discover every opportunity to rise above poverty and want, and to find in every employment that was open to them an avenue to sure and steady gain. It has been the story of Jacob and Laban, over and over again, through all the ages, and all over the world. What we might regard as thus inferentially certain in the time of Xerxes is very clearly shown by the stipulation of Haman, in which he engaged to pay into the king’s treasury a large sum of money to be derived from the confiscated estates of the Jews. Doubtless he understood the case well enough to be sure that he could pay the ten thousand talents, and yet be a large gainer by the transaction. The same thing could be shown from the testimony of the post-exilic prophets, and their numerous complaints of the tendency on the part of their brethren to overdo in their zeal for commercial thrift. As it was with the returned exiles, so it was with those who did not return. In this matter of unfailing industry and shrewd bargaining the Jews of that day are proved to have been true to the national instinct and history, and their condition, of course, became, as Haman saw it, one of growing prosperity.—“The Book of Esther, A New Translation,” edited by Rev. John W. Haley, M. A., pp. 130-132. Andover: Warren F. Draper, 1885. HBS 312.2

Josiah, at Megiddo.—As the power of Assyria had dwindled, the power of Egypt had increased. The Egyptian kings began to dream again of an Asiatic empire, such as they had once held in days long gone by, and their first efforts were directed toward securing afresh the cities of the Philistines. Gaza and Ashdod were captured after a long siege; Cyprus became an Egyptian province, and Pharaoh Necho, whose Phonician fleet had circumnavigated Africa, set about the task of conquering Asia. HBS 312.3

Josiah was now on the throne of Judah. He still called himself a vassal of Assyria, and could not but see with alarm the rise of a new enemy, just as the old one had ceased to be formidable. In the name of his suzerain, therefore, he attempted to bar the advance of Necho; the two armies of Egypt and Judah met on the plain of Megiddo, where the battle ended in the death of the Jewish king and the slaughter of the flower of the Jewish soldiery. The death of Josiah proved an irremediable disaster to the Jewish state. He left behind him a family torn by jealousies and supported by rival factions, a people hostile to the religious reforms he had carried through, and an army which had lost both its leader and its veterans. From henceforth Judah was no longer able to defend itself from an invader, whether Egyptian or Babylonian; and even the strong walls of Jerusalem no longer proved a defense in days when the method of warfare had changed, and a victorious army was content to sit down for years before a fortress until its defenders had been starved out. HBS 313.1

Necho’s triumph, however, was short-lived. Three years after the battle of Megiddo (b. c. 606), he had to meet the Babylonian army, under its young general Nebuchadrezzar, the son of Nabopolassar, at the ford of the Euphrates, which was protected by the old Hittite city of Carchemish. Nabopolassar was now independent king of Babylonia, and his son had given evidence of great military capacities. He had disputed with the Median kingdom of Ekbatana the possession of Mesopotamia; and though the ruins of Nineveh and other Assyrian cities on the eastern bank of the Tigris continued to remain in the hands of the Median ruler, as well as the high road which led across northern Mesopotamia into Asia Minor, and passed through the patriarchal city of Haran, he had secured for his father the southern regions inclosed between the Tigris and the Euphrates. The battle of Carchemish finally decided who should be the master of Western Asia. The Egyptian forces were completely shattered, and Necho retreated with the wreck of his army to his ancestral kingdom. Judah and the countries which adjoined it passed under the yoke of Babylonia.—“Fresh Light from the Ancient Monuments,” A. H. Sayce, M. A., pp. 129, 130. London: The Religious Tract Society, 1890. HBS 313.2

Jubilee, Year of.—The jubilee was a more solemn sabbatical year, held every seventh sabbatical year, that is, at the end of every fortynine years, or the fiftieth current year. Leviticus 25:8-10. Concerning the etymology of the Hebrew word jobel (whence our jubilee is derived) learned men are by no means agreed; the most probable of these conflicting opinions is that of Calmet, who deduces it from the Hebrew verb hobil, to recall, or bring back; because estates, etc., that had been alienated were then brought back to their original owners. Such appears to have been the meaning of the word, as understood by the Septuagint translators, who render the Hebrew word jobe l by [Greek word] [aphesis], remission, and by Josephus, who says that it signified liberty. HBS 313.3

This festival commenced on the tenth day of the month Tisri, in the evening of the day of atonement (Leviticus 25:9), a time, Bishop Patrick remarks, peculiarly well chosen, as the Jews would be better disposed to forgive their brethren their debts when they had been imploring pardon of God for their own transgressions. It was proclaimed by the sound of trumpet throughout the whole land, on the great day of atonement. All debts were to be canceled; all slaves or captives were to be released. Even those who had voluntarily relinquished their freedom at the end of their six years’ service, and whose ears had been bored in token of their perpetual servitude, were to be liberated at the jubilee; for then they were to “proclaim liberty throughout all the land, unto all the inhabitants thereof.” Leviticus 25:10. Further, in this year all estates that had been sold, reverted to their original proprietors, or to the families to which they had originally belonged. This provision was made, that no family should be totally ruined, and doomed to perpetual poverty; for the family estate could not be alienated for a longer period than fifty years. The value and purchase money of estates therefore diminished in proportion to the near approach of the jubilee. Leviticus 25:15. From this privilege, however, houses in walled towns were excepted: these were to be redeemed within a year, otherwise they belonged to the purchaser, notwithstanding the jubilee. Verse 30, During this year, as well as in the sabbatical year, the ground also had its rest, and was not cultivated.—“An Introduction to the Critical Study and Knowledge of the Holy Scriptures,” Thomas Hartwell Horne, B. D., Vol. III, p. 321. London: T. Cadell, 1839. HBS 313.4

Judges, Servitudes under.— HBS 314.1

1486.The first servitude, Chushan Rishathaim of Mesopotamia, 8 years. Judges 3:8.
1478.The first judge, Othniel s. of Kenaz. Verse 9. The land had rest 40 years. Verse 11.
1438.The second servitude, Eglon of Moab, 18 years. Verse 14.
1420.The second judge, Ehud. Verse 16. Rest, 80 years, during which time, after the death of Ehud, the third judge was Shamgar.
1340.The third servitude, Jabin of Canaan, 20 years. Chap. 4:3.
1320.The fourth judge, Barak, 40 years. Chap. 5:31.
1280.The fourth servitude, the Midianites, 7 years. Chap. 6:1.
1273.The fifth judge, Gideon, 40 years. Chap. 8:28.
1233.Abimelech reigns 3 years. Chap. 9:22.
1230.The sixth judge, Tola, 23 years. Chap. 10:2.
1207.The seventh judge, Jair, 22 years. Verse 3.
1185.The fifth servitude, Philistines and Ammonites, 18 years. Verse 7.
1167.The eighth judge, Jephthah, 6 years. Chap. 12:7.
1161.The ninth judge, Ibzan, 7 years. Verse 9.
[1157.Eli, high priest, 40 years.]
1154.The tenth judge, Elon, 10 years. Verse 11.
1144.The eleventh judge, Abdon, 8 years. Verse 14.
1136.The sixth servitude, Philistines, 40 years. Chap. 13:1.
The twelfth judge, Samson, 20 years. Chap. 15:20.

-“Chronology of the Holy Scriptures,” Henry Browne, M. A., pp. 280, 281. London: John W. Parker, 1844. HBS 314.2

Judges, Six Invasions in.—The book of Judges is so named because it records the exploits of some of those great men. It makes us more or less acquainted with twelve of these judges: 1. Othniel, of the tribe of Judah; 2. Ehud, Benjamite; 3. Deborah, a prophetess, who was assisted by Barak; 4. Gideon, of Manasseh; 5. Abimelech, his son; 6. Tola, of Issachar; 7. Jair, of Gilead; 8. Jephthah, also of Gilead; 9. Ibzan, of Bethlehem; 10. Elon, of Zebulun; 11. Abdon, a Pirathonite; and 12. Samson, of Dan. The office of Samuel was so unlike that of the military judges, that he can hardly be classed among them. HBS 314.3

The Six Invasions.-Of several of these judges little or nothing is told us beyond the fact that they judged Israel for a certain number of years. The military judges of greatest eminence were Othniel, Ehud, Deborah (with Barak), Gideon, Jephthah, and Samson. Each of these achieved a great deliverance for his country from a particular enemy,- HBS 314.4

Othniel, from the Mesopotamians; Ehud, from the Moabites; Deborah and Barak, from the Canaanites; Gideon, from the Midianites and Amalakites; Jephthah, from the Ammonites; and Samson, from the Philistines. It must not be supposed that each of these different enemies brought the whole country under their dominion. Sometimes, indeed, they did; but on other occasions it was only the part of Palestine that lay nearest to their respective territories that suffered from their attacks. The Mesopotamians, the Moabites, the Midianites, and the Ammonites would make their attack on the eastern border, and would, therefore, be most troublesome to the tribes east of the Jordan; the Canaanites would give most annoyance on the north, and the Philistines on the southwest. HBS 315.1

Insecurity of the Eastern Tribes.-It thus appears that, though the territories on which Reuben, Gad, and the half tribe of Manasseh had set their hearts, were remarkably fertile and beautiful, they were very insecure; and often, no doubt, these tribes must have felt that it would have been wiser for them to have gone with their brethren, and to have had the Jordan and its deep valley between them and their Eastern foes. Apostasy from the true faith seems to have broken out oftener among them than among the other tribes, owing to their proximity to so many idolatrous neighbors. For this reason they suffered heavier chastisements, and they were the first to go into captivity.—“A Manual of Bible History,” Rev. William G. Blaikie, D. D., LL. D., pp. 194, 195. London: T. Nelson & Sons, 1906. HBS 315.2

Judges, Scheme of.— HBS 315.3

JudgeTribeEnemyOppressionRestJudgeship
1. OthnielJudahMesopotamians840
2. EhudBenjaminMoabites1880
3. ShamgarJudah(?)Philistines
4. DeborahEphraimCanaanites2040
BarakNaphtali
5. GideonW. ManassehMidianites740
6. AbimelechW. Manasseh3
7. TolaIssachar23
8. JairE. Manasseh22
9. JephthahGadAmmonites186
10. IbzanZebulun (?)7
11. ElonZebulun10
12. AbdonEphraim (?)8
13. EliLeviPhilistines40
14. SamsonDan20
15. SamuelLeviPhilistines

-“Syllabus for Old Testament Study,” John R. Sampey, D. D., LL. D., p. 60. Louisville, Ky.: Baptist World Publishing Co., 1908. HBS 315.4