pioneers of races and of nations. With this idea and opinion, we can readily concur in what has been aptly called "the most sober and practical" of the many modern speculations regarding the nature of the Eleusinian Mysteries: "They were the remains of a worship which preceded the rise of the Hellenic mythology and its attendant rites, grounded on a view of nature, less fanciful, more earnest, and better fitted to awaken both philosophical thought and religious feeling."-Thirlwall's "History of Greece." One other point there is which deserves mention. Since it is only after the event has come to pass that dark sayings and obscure prophecies concerning it become understood, lucid, and prized, it is evident that there would be no period comparable with that of the early post-Christian centuries, when the inner meaning (if such there were) of ancient classic writings would be so apt to be recognized. Paul was not above quoting from them in the Areopagus at Athens; and that they were held in high esteem and diligently studied by the Fathers, from Justin to Augustine, is not doubted. If idolatrous in essence and in teaching, they would surely not have recommended themselves for perusal to those religious lights, especially in the early centuries when Paganism and Christianity were so bitterly opposed on all questions involving faith and morals. On the supposition, however, that they contained the truth, though in covert language, regarding Him who was to come, we cease to feel surprised at the classical and philosophical proclivities of those learned and pious clerics. Philosophy, it may be objected, had much to do in leading some of the early Christian writers into heterodox and devious paths. It may be so; but this comment only emphasizes the religious current of thought permeating the ancient classics, and is as reasonably unreasonable as that which would blame the four evangelists for the diverse opinions and sectarianism of to-day.

On the same supposition, too, we may find a clue, different from what has been assigned, to the numerous subscribed dots and dashes in connection with the Greek and Latin text of the codices and older manuscripts. For what purpose were they employed? To mark certain words and beautiful passages, it is said. It is even so; but the words are (let us say in anticipation) the names of our Lord, His mother, and Joseph, of Bethlehem, Nazareth, Jerusalem; and the beauties consist in fervent aspirations to God, and descriptive passages connected with His coming and His mission. The chrestomathy of the ancients and. mediævals is really a Christomathy; and, considered as such, we

can well understand and appreciate the painstaking and labor bestowed by the monks of old upon the transcription and preservation of the classics. To enter into harmony with the inmost thoughts of Homer, Plato, Vergil, Ovid; to render a passage with the same spirit in which it was originally penned; to see what others had not seen, find what others had passed by, to draw attention to certain letters by underdotting them, and make a few brief scholia indicating and elucidating what was obscure; to exult over a prophecy of the Messiah, or thrill over a piteous appeal that He would come; to wonder at their wisdom, be fascinated with their language, and admire their skilful choice of words; to feel humble at their unwavering belief and trust in Him who was to come-all these, and not the mere rhetoric, eloquence, poetry, and grace of sage or bard, would cheer and comfort the cowled figure in his cell, would render light his task, and make the labor of transcription one of love.

Let us conclude by saying that, judged purely upon its own merits, there seems to be no valid reason for a negative response to the query, "Could the ancients have acquired a knowledge of the promised Christ?" On the other hand, some of the arguments adduced for the affirmative tend to show that they not only could but that they did possess this knowledge. If so, would they persistently keep it locked in memory-would they allow the mouth to freeze and the heart to ache in silence? Or would this mute knowledge become unbearable—would the very aching and ardor thaw their tongues, and open in some fashion or other the floodgates of remembrance? These thoughts naturally lead up to that other and most important query, "Have they mentioned Him by name?"

CHAPTER IV.

DID THEY MAKE MENTION OF HIS NAME?

Did the cultured initiated mention Christ in their writings? If by this be meant, "did they write the words Χριστός and ̓Ιησοῦς, literatim et seriatim?" the answer, so far as we know, must be in the negative. But this, let us hasten to add, is not conclusive; if it were, there would be no value attached to synonyms; if it were, Shakespeare and "the bard of Avon" would be different personages; if it were, "Boz" would not spell Charles Dickens, nor "Boanerges" the sons of Zebedee.

"What's in a name? That which we call a rose,

By any other name would smell as sweet."

There were divers reasons and good ones why the Name should not be written in so plain and conspicuous a fashion. Here are some:

(1). While kings and princes would not be opposed to the indefinite idea of a Supreme Being who ruled the heavens and the earth-who, while everywhere, dwelt peculiarly in the highest distance-and who judged men after death, they would look with very different eyes upon the Christ that was to come on earth. The Jews themselves, overlooking the spiritual meaning, looked for Christ as a temporal personage, gifted with extraordinary attributes, who would deliver them from the yoke of nations, conquer the world, and reign over it as king. If such was the opinion of the chosen people and of their priests, who supposedly ought to be best informed, how could we expect the kings and princes of the Gentile world to entertain a different one? A ruler "from afar" did not disturb them much, provided only he remained afar; but a suzerain coming for the purpose of overthrowing thrones and dynasties was not productive of pleasant thoughts. The Earth His Kingdom! What, then, would they be? Satraps, petty chiefs, tributaries? Exiles, prisoners, menials? Condemned to instant

death, or forced as gladiators to fight each other in the arena?

Since open mention, then, of the Name would necessarily attract attention, and since continuous inquiry would elicit all the known details regarding Him who bore the Name, the belief entertained by the Jews would be sure to come to light among the rest. The inevitable consequences would be that all public or private mention of the coming king would be proscribed, literature would be jealously watched and hampered, and all who favored, or might be supposed to favor Him would be condemned to exile or to death on the popular charge of "impiety toward the gods." It is even within the range of possibility that some one or more of earth's mighty rulers would endeavor to obliterate the tradition by making a determined effort at exterminating the entire Jewish nation, since from it was to spring the dreaded Lord. The magnitude of such a holocaust by a barbarous Eastern potentate would be no greater than was that of the early Christians by imperial and civilized Rome: in atrocity it would be no more hellish and inexcusable than that of Herod, when he massacred four thousand babes in the hope that a child Christ would be among the number; nor than that of the Pharaoh "who knew not Joseph," when-to save his dynasty, and lest (as Josephus and the Talmudists assert) "a child should be born to the Israelites who, if he were reared, would bring the Egyptian dominion low" he ordered all the male children of the Hebrews to be thrown into the Nile, and condemned to death the parents who would not thus voluntarily destroy their offspring. If these two kings, ruling in different ages and over different races, could conceive and carry into execution such monstrous iniquities in order to save their thrones from a danger that existed only through a tradition, what would or could be expected from others of their kind if the name and traditional details of Christ were openly written in the works of poets and philosophers? The annals of their days relate how, lusting for supreme and single sway, they sacrificed their nearest of kin-brothers, sisters,

mothers even-sacrificed all who barred the way to undisputed rule, all whom they hated or feared, irrespective of sex, age, rank, good services, or uprightness. What mercy, then, would they show to the humble bard or sage who named the One to whom would be given "dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages should serve him"?

(2). Even among the enlightened themselves it was not deemed advisable or meritorious to openly write and preach the Christ. There was too much at issue, too many lives at stake, too much of what was comparatively good to lose, without a corresponding benefit. No one knew absolutely when the Christ would come. The best informed minds of the Augustan age, guided by presages of war and peace, by past events, by Jewish prophecies, and, possibly, by a mystic acquaintance with Chaldean numbers, looked for His appearance at or about the time they lived: the same guides must have led the illuminati who flourished with Theocritus, Menander, Plato, Sophocles, Hesiod, and Homer, to feel that century after century would elapse previous to the Coming. Supposing, then, that they did openly preach the gospel of truth, and got a respectful and attentive hearing, what could they offer in the meantime to kings and people? A promised Good-man could have no more or better effect on these than the Promised Land had upon the Jews in the desert. Time and again, fretted with delay and expectation, and hankering after the old flesh pots, would they lapse into Paganism; and there would be no God pledged to them, as His chosen people, to lift them from the mire. Into Paganism, we have said; it might even be into worse, humanly speaking, for Paganism had an assured repressing influence of its own over the minds of the governed class from a political and social standpoint, as, in a less degree, from a moral one-seeing that it inculcated much that was essentially good, namely, respect for law, obedience to rulers, filial love, observance of social and moral rights, patriotic sentiment, justice, mercy, truth, industry, hospitality to strangers, and impartial judg