When we turn to the first three Gospels, we find the same thing.  Here are books with a more worldwide range than Homer or Virgil, translated again and again from the first century of their existence on to the latest—­and then more than ever—­into all sorts of tongues, to reach men all over the globe; and that purpose they have achieved.  They have done it not so much for the literary graces of the translators or even of the original authors, though in one case these are more considerable than is sometimes allowed.  That the Gospels owe their appeal to the recorded sayings and doings of our Lord, is our natural way of putting it to-day; but if for “our Lord” we put a plainer description, more congenial to the day in which the Gospels were written, we shall be in a better position to realize the significance of the worldwide appeal of his words.  Thus and thus, then, spoke a mere provincial, a Jew who, though far less conspicuous and interesting, came from the region of Meleager and Philodemos—­not from their town of Gadara, nor possibly from their district, but from some place not so very far away.

It was not to be expected that he should win the hearts of men as he did.  He had not the Greek culture of the two Gadarenes.  Celsus even found his style of speech rather vulgar.  But he has, as a matter of common knowledge—­so common as hardly to be noted—­won the hearts of men in every race and every land.  The fact is familiar, but we have as historians and critics to look for the explanation.  What has been his appeal?  And what the heart and nature, from which came this incredible power and reach of appeal?  “Out of the abundance (the overflow) of the heart the mouth speaketh,” he said. (Matt. 12:34).  This he amplified, as we have seen, by his insistence on the weight of every idle word (Matt. 12:36)—­the unstudied and spontaneous expression or ejaculation—­the reflex, in modern phrase—­which gives the real clue to the man’s inner nature and deeper mind, which “justifies” him, therefore, or “condemns” him (Matt. 12:37).  The overflow of the heart, he holds, shows more decisively than anything else the quality of the spring in its depths.

Here is a suggestion which we find true in ordinary life as well as in the study of literature.  If we turn it back upon its author, he at least will not complain, and we shall perhaps gain a new sense of his significance by approaching him at a new angle, from an outlook not perhaps much frequented.  How did he come to speak in this manner, to say this and that?  To what feeling or thought, to what attitude to life, is this or the other saying due?  If he, too, spoke “out of the overflow of his heart”—­and we can believe it when we think of the freshness and spontaneity with which he spoke—­of what nature and of what depth was that heart?