Chapter 5 of 5 · 13226 words · ~66 min read

CHAPTER V.

JESUS OF NAZARETH.

I. The difference between ancient and modern times in Europe is vital. Human society is never stagnant; development in one direction or another is constant; so that in the course of a few centuries changes, both numerous and noticeable, take place everywhere. Thus the Europe of the middle ages differs very markedly from the Europe of to-day. Yet the one is the direct outcome of the other. On the other hand, the civilizations of Greece and Rome, although we owe them an incalculable debt, are marked off from modern civilization by differences which can only be spoken of as essential. For it is not any single element that has been added externally to ancient life so as to produce modern society; it is rather a subtle spirit, which has modified all thinking, altered the values of things, produced organic changes in government and society, and recreated art and literature. The unexampled development of science and invention, and the extraordinary activity and vigour of European commerce and arms, which are often spoken of as the chief characteristics of modern civilization, are rather to be regarded as indications of unparalleled vitality and efficiency in the social organism than as essential products of its spirit. Science and invention flourished among the Greeks; the Roman empire was as vigorous as any modern state in matters of war. These things prove the healthy vitality of the society of the West; its essential spirit is to be sought elsewhere.

A comparison of ancient and modern life reveals differences at once very numerous and greatly significant. The economics of Europe have been revolutionized; for the labour, the manufacture and the commerce of ancient times rested on a basis of slavery.[163] Government has been turned upside down; for the ruling principle of ancient politics was hereditary and exclusive citizenship in a city-state;[164] while modern politics have been created by the great principles of the equality of men irrespective of birth or station and the indefeasible sovereignty of the people.[165] In ancient society human life as such had no value: infanticide was practised openly by all as a right and proper thing necessary for the well-being of the family and the state;[166] prisoners taken in war, if not killed, were made slaves, and as slaves their lives and persons were absolutely at the mercy of their masters;[167] aliens had a place in the state only on sufferance: society stood in no relation to them and had no duties towards them.[168] The social organism of modern times, on the other hand, is a new creation, produced by the conception of the inherent sanctity of human life and the divine dignity of the human personality.[169] Modern education is in form and method Greek; but the results it produces are altogether new; first, because it carries the modern spirit within the ancient forms, and secondly, because modern men regard education as part of the birthright of every human being. Moral ideals show very important differences, chiefly in the direction of the elevation of humility, meekness, sympathy, forgiveness and self-sacrifice, and the extraordinary advance in the conception of the right of individual freedom. In ancient times the individual citizen had no rights as against the State;[170] now we demand not only freedom in matters of profession and business, as against caste restrictions, but intellectual, moral and religious liberty. The differences between ancient and modern religion are very extraordinary in many ways. For the present we need only note the one far-reaching distinction, that to the ancients religion was a _political duty_, which the citizen was bound to fulfil, and a _civic privilege_, which only those in whose veins ran the sacred blood of the community could share;[171] while modern religion is the loftiest activity of the human spirit, as far transcending the narrow limits of the State as it does the petty distinctions of race and blood. The differences, then, between ancient and modern life are not accidental but essential.

A second thing to be noticed is the altogether unexampled vitality and pervasiveness of modern civilization. During the nineteenth century alone, while the population of the rest of the world remained nearly stationary, the actual numbers of the European peoples rose from 170,000,000 to 500,000,000.[172] Here is physical life on a gigantic scale. Let readers think, next, of the extraordinary advances made during the nineteenth century in every province of natural science, from mathematics and physics up through the biological sciences to psychology and the science of religion, the swift upward progress made in literary, historical and philosophical method, and the innumerable inventions that have been produced for facilitating every form of human activity. Are not these facts evidence of an amazing store of intellectual vitality in the society of the West? Think also of the buoyancy, the hope, the youthful delight in action, the glance into the future, which characterize the progressive peoples of Europe and America. Colonization, on the other hand, exploration, missions, world-wide commerce, domination over other races, whether you call them bad or good, are incontestable proofs of energy, physical, moral and intellectual. Further, these forms of vital force are clearly of the greatest practical importance in the world. In the process of natural selection which, whether we like it or not, is ceaselessly being carried on among the races of mankind, the possession of such energy is one of the crucial factors in the struggle. But this civilization has also an altogether unique power of entering into other civilizations and working revolutionary changes there: its pervasiveness is almost as remarkable as its vitality. We need only point to India and Japan to-day for proof of this.

Western civilization, then, is a thing by itself, not more clearly distinguished from ancient life than from the civilizations that have arisen in other parts of the world. What is it that has made the difference? What subtle spirit is it that appears in every aspect of the civilization, that assumes so many forms, and generates such transcending energies?

There can be but one answer: it is Christianity. In every community religion is the life principle, the central fire, which fills the whole with living force, and communicates its own spirit to every cell of the organism.[173] That is a law which is becoming ever more apparent in all anthropological, sociological and religious science. From this general law we might conclude in this particular case, that it is the religion that gives the civilization its character. But we need not appeal to general principles; history tells us in the clearest tones that the peculiarities which distinguish Western civilization from every other spring directly or indirectly from the Christian faith.

Now one way of classifying religions is to divide them into two groups, spontaneous and founded. The former are results of the united unconscious action of a tribe or people: for example, the religions of Greece and Rome. The latter spring from some particular man, and are inseparably connected with his life: for example, Buddhism, Christianity and Mohammedanism.

That Christianity is a founded religion, and that it springs from Christ, admits of no question. Tacitus, the Roman historian, in speaking of the great fire at Rome in 64 A. D., which devastated ten of the fourteen districts into which the Imperial city was divided, says that the people got their heads filled with the suspicion, that the Emperor himself (Nero was then on the throne) had used his agents to set the city on fire. He then continues:—

“Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished; or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired.

“Nero offered his gardens for the spectacle, and was exhibiting a show in the circus, while he mingled with the people in the dress of a charioteer or stood aloft on a car. Hence, even for criminals who deserved extreme and exemplary punishment, there arose a feeling of compassion; for it was not, as it seemed, for the public good, but to glut one man’s cruelty, that they were being destroyed.”[174]

Christ, then, is a historical person. He was a Jew; He founded Christianity; and He was executed by Pontius Pilatus during his procuratorship of Judæa, _i.e._, between 27 and 37 A. D.[175] Other facts enable scholars to fix the date of His death within narrower limits: a few adopt 30 A. D., but by far the greatest number prefer 29 A. D.;[176] and that date we adopt here.

Here, then, are the facts: Christ was put to death by the Roman Governor of Judæa in 29 A. D., but this did not extinguish Christianity; for it spread not only in Judæa but beyond; so much so, that in 64 A. D. “an immense multitude” of Christians were found in Rome, and were for their faith put to death with horrible barbarities.

Such is the first chapter of the history of Christianity in Europe. From this point onwards the facts are well known. The furious hostility visible here in the spirit of the Roman Empire against the Christian faith ended in the victory of the latter, in its gradual acceptance by the races of Europe, and the continuously increasing infiltration of Christian ideas into the minds of the people. The process is far from complete; for the contrast between the old spirit and the new is so extreme that only long ages of discipline and the slow processes of evolution will suffice to work the transformation. We have seen how essentially different the spirit in our modern life is from the spirit of Græco-Roman life: how much greater would be the contrast, if one were to oppose the pure spirit of Christ to the spirit of Paganism! When men accept Christ, they are conscious of the authority of His perfect character and His heavenly life, and they know that He claims their complete submission to Him; but they have no idea how far-reaching this claim is. Christ demands that not only every part of the individual’s life—thoughts, feelings, words, deeds—but every aspect of social and political life as well should be made subject to His law of love. This is easily stated: how hard is it to work it out, except in a long series of generations!

But imperfect as has been the perception of Christ’s aims, and still more imperfect the execution of these by the peoples of Europe, yet the results of even their very partial submission to them have been, as we have seen, momentous in the highest degree. Christ has made modern Europe.

Now we found from our study of Virgil’s prophecy that he believed that a new age was just about to open. Like other thinking men of his day, he felt that the civilization under which he lived was played out, that new life was needed, new morals and a fresh organization of society. He believed that in the new age the leader and king would be a great Roman, and that under him the world would be transformed.

Further, it is sufficiently striking that, while his prophecy received no literal fulfilment, yet the new age did actually begin shortly after the time when he wrote, an age which has produced a new race of men, new moral ideas and an altogether fresh organization of society, and vitality and virility, besides, such as Virgil never dreamed of. He spoke of a great leader favoured of the gods, a noble Roman. The new age did come in under the guidance of a new leader, but he was no aristocratic Roman, but a Jew, and a man of the people, Jesus of Nazareth.

* * * * *

II. Christ’s name and life are well-known outside Christendom. He is spoken of in very high terms in the book which all Mohammedans revere; and contact with the West has brought a certain amount of knowledge about him to the peoples of India, China and Japan. Now the most striking fact in this connection is this, that while most of these Mohammedans, Hindus, Buddhists, and Confucians condemn Christians violently, and many write against Christianity, _they one and all speak with the highest praise of the character of Christ_. The same is true of sceptics and agnostics in Christian lands. One might compile a most fascinating volume consisting merely of extracts from non-Christian writers, in which Christ is spoken of as the best of men, as the ideal man, as the man whom all men should not only admire, but imitate.

Now we have in this a most remarkable fact. There is no other character in history that is so universally revered. There is no other man whom all men join in praising with so much heartiness. Charles Lamb speaks for the human race when he says: “If Shakespeare were to enter this room, we should all spring to our feet; if Christ were to enter, we should all fall on our knees.”

But HE WAS CRUCIFIED. This, the purest and noblest of men, was subjected to the most shameful form of death possible. Nor was there only the bare execution: every circumstance that could make death bitter to the noble human spirit was added. He was betrayed by one of His own chosen Twelve; the remaining eleven deserted Him; one plucked up heart and followed at a distance, but only to deny him. Indeed the universal breakdown of human character around Him is one of the saddest things in history. The Jewish priests and scribes, the common people, the Roman Governor and the common soldiers, all reveal their worst passions in the presence of Christ, while He stands amongst them in all the silent majesty of innocence.[177]

We here quote three short paragraphs from St. Matthew’s Gospel.[178] The first describes what took place after the members of the Jewish Sanhedrin had decided that Jesus deserved to be put to death:—

“Then did they spit in His face, and buffet Him; and some smote Him with the palms of their hands, saying, Prophesy unto us, Thou Christ: who is he that struck Thee?”[179]

Then those model judges carried their prisoner before Pontius Pilate, the Roman Governor, and after much persuasion got him to condemn Jesus to death, when the following scenes took place:—

“Then the soldiers of the Governor took Jesus into the palace, and gathered unto Him the whole band. And they stripped Him, and put on Him a scarlet robe. And they plaited a crown of thorns and put it upon His head, and a reed in His right hand; and they kneeled down before Him, and mocked Him, saying, ‘Hail, King of the Jews!’ And they spat upon Him, and took the reed and smote Him on the head. And when they had mocked Him, they took off from Him the robe, and put on Him His garments and led Him away to crucify Him.”[180]

“And as they came out, they found a man of Cyrene, Simon by name; him they compelled to go with them, that he might bear His cross. And when they were come unto a place called Golgotha, that is to say, The place of a skull, they gave Him wine to drink mingled with gall: and when He had tasted it, He would not drink. And when they had crucified Him, they parted His garments among them, casting lots: and they sat and watched Him there. And they set up over His head His accusation written, THIS IS JESUS THE KING OF THE JEWS. Then are there crucified with Him two robbers, one on the right hand, and one on the left. And they that passed by railed on Him, wagging their heads, and saying, ‘Thou that destroyest the temple and buildest it in three days, save Thyself: if Thou art the Son of God, come down from the cross.’ In like manner also the chief priests mocking Him with the scribes and elders said, ‘He saved others: Himself He cannot save. He is the King of Israel; let Him now come down from the cross, and we will believe on Him. He trusteth on God; let Him deliver Him now, if He desireth Him: for He said, I am the Son of God.’ And the robbers also that were crucified with Him cast upon Him the same reproach.”[181]

How was it that of all men Jesus should be the man subjected to all this? How can we reconcile His character and His destiny?

Let us recollect what Plato had written 400 years earlier:—

“The just man will be scourged, racked, fettered, will have his eyes burned out, and at last, after suffering every kind of torture, will be crucified.”

Now we do not insist on the correspondence in detail between the words of Plato and the death of Christ, although that, while not complete, is sufficiently remarkable; but we wish to emphasize, with all possible force, this most extraordinary fact, that Plato foresaw that a man of the character of Jesus would suffer as He did.

How are we to explain the fact? What is the reason why the men of Christ’s day treated this most humane of men with such barbarous inhumanity? The answer is that it was inevitable. Jesus is the revelation of the uttermost holiness of God, and _His attempt to lay that standard upon the human spirit_[182] roused to its utmost fury against Him all the sinfulness of our common human nature. It is the same contest of which we are each conscious in our daily life between inclination and conscience; only, in the case of Jesus, it seems as if all the little battles of every individual life had met in one gigantic struggle between sinful human nature and its Lord. And the same struggle necessarily continues wherever Christianity goes. The persecutions of the Roman Empire are merely the external signs of the convulsive efforts of the spirit of Paganism to resist the march of the Spirit of God. In every land Christ is met by the same opposition. Everywhere selfishness, self-interest and passion dissuade men from following the Man of Sorrows; and the struggle is there, terrible in its reality and intensity, even if it never break out into open persecution. But, in surveying these surging battles, the careful observer is much struck with this fact, that, while human passions inevitably fight against Christ, yet He has in Conscience an ally, which neither by bribes nor by bullying can be made to desert Him. He is the objective conscience of the human race. He is Plato’s just man.

* * * * *

III. Let us now try to realize what kind of a being the founder of Christianity was. Our chief sources of information are the Gospels; for from the other books of the New Testament and from outside literature we learn only scattered facts about His life on earth. We shall not appeal to the fourth Gospel, for there are still numerous questions with regard to it unsettled, but shall confine ourselves to Matthew, Mark and Luke, books recognized on all hands as of high historical value, and as having been written between 65 and 95 A.D.[183] Anyone may very speedily convince himself of the splendid historical reliability of these simple narratives. From Josephus and other Jewish writers of the first and second centuries, and from casual remarks in Greek and Roman books, we are able to learn what the life of these days was like;[184] but nowhere do we get such vivid, detailed, realistic pictures as in the Gospels. “They are full of feeling for the time; they understand its men, schools, classes, parties; they know the thoughts that are in the air, the rumours that run along the street; they are familiar with the catchwords and phrases of the period, its conventions, questions, modes of discussion and style of argument. And all is presented with the utmost realism, so grouped round the central figure as to form a perfect historical picture, He and His setting being so built together as to constitute a single organic whole.”[185]

How then does Christ appear in them?—His name was Jesus;[186] Christ is a title springing from his teaching, as we shall see. He lived in the small town of Nazareth, in the district of Galilee[187] in Palestine, and worked as a carpenter there.[188] At length, in 26 A.D., He gave up carpentry and began His public career as a preacher.[189] The picture given of Him in the Gospels is a most attractive one. Wherever He goes, the sick, the suffering, the distressed crowd around Him. Blind beggars, outcast lepers, hopeless paralytics, even uncontrollable lunatics, receive help from His healing power. He feeds the hungry, breathes hope into the downcast, lifts up the enfeebled patient, helps the helpless. But while every form of suffering and sorrow appeals to His compassion, His heart is set on winning the souls of men. So we find Him preaching in the synagogue and by the sea, on the mountain-side and in the busy street, now stirring vast crowds, now dealing with an individual, and again pouring His rich teaching into the ears of the chosen Twelve. No man ever had such power of convincing men of sin and leading them to repentance: the simple fisherman,[190] the fallen woman,[191] the wealthy custom-house officer[192] and the dying robber,[193] all felt condemned in His presence, and through Him entered into the new life.

The character revealed in His words and deeds is beautiful beyond comparison. The most outstanding feature of it is His love for God and the perfect and unbroken serenity of His intercourse with Him. Love for man also shines out everywhere. But the most extraordinary point is this, that He in whom the moral ideal was so lofty, so deep and so broad, He who was so keenly conscious of sin in others, and had such power to make them feel it, betrays absolutely no consciousness of sin Himself, never asks for pardon, and never speaks of having repented, or of having passed through any crisis of the nature of conversion.[194] On the other hand the perfect balance of His character is almost as marvellous as His sinlessness: judicial severity controlled by perfect love; supreme authority that is also supreme gentleness; strength filled with tenderness; regal dignity shown in acts of lowliest service; holiness that led Him among the unholy;(sublimest self-consciousness, never leading to anything but self-effacement and self-sacrifice.) And yet again, is there anything about Him so wonderful as His power of winning human love? The Gospels are full of instances of it, and to-day how many millions of men, women and children would count it a supreme joy to die for His sake!

His teaching is a perfectly articulated and unified whole, as may be seen from the scientific studies of it that have been published during the last twenty years.[195] But we must not attempt to deal with that fascinating subject here, except in so far as the whole is implied in what He says about Himself. For it is only that part of it, namely, His account of Himself and His mission, that we propose to touch on.

We shall understand it best, if we begin with what happened at His crucifixion; for it was only at the end of His life that He made perfectly clear to the whole world what His claims were. People often wondered whether He were not THE CHRIST, _i.e._, _The Messiah_, the Anointed One, the great national deliverer whom the Jews were so earnestly expecting and praying for;[196] but during the three years of His public life He seldom openly made the claim.[197] When, however, He went to Jerusalem for the last time, He made a royal entry into the sacred city,[198] cleansed the Temple from the desecration of its cattle-market,[199] and began to teach in the Temple courts,[200] thus by both word and act publicly claiming recognition as the Christ.

The Jewish leaders had been often bitterly incensed by His teaching and His actions before. His bold seizure of authority now decided them: they resolved on His death.[201] He was apprehended[202] and brought before the Sanhedrin,[203] _i.e._, the High Court of Judæa. Evidence was led against Him, but it proved very unsubstantial;[204] so the High Priest, the president of the court, formally asked Him, “Art thou the Christ, the Son of God?” and He answered in the affirmative.[205] Since they did not believe His claim, they could only come to the conclusion that He was an irreligious impostor, impiously arrogating divine authority to Himself. Consequently they declared that He ought to be put to death for blasphemy against God.[206]

But the Sanhedrin could not put anyone to death; the sanction of the Roman Governor was necessary.[207] He was therefore dragged before Pilate. Here they did not charge Him with blasphemy, but with rebellion against the Roman Emperor. ‘The King of the Jews’ was a synonym for ‘the Christ’; so they argued that Jesus, in claiming to be the Christ, claimed the sovereignty of the Jews, and was therefore guilty of rebellion against Tiberius.[208] Pilate knew perfectly well that the Jewish leaders were jealous of Jesus, and that the charge was a mere pretence;[209] his Roman sense of justice revolted against the execution of an innocent man; and he wished to save Him; but they played upon his fears, and finally succeeded in wringing a condemnation from him.[210] It was because the Roman soldiers were struck with the extreme absurdity of the idea of Jesus being a rival of Tiberius, that they got up their pitiable comedy of a court, and did Him mock homage as King of the Jews.

So He was led away to Calvary and crucified, and above His head on the cross was written, in three languages (Hebrew, Greek and Latin), the charge against Him,—

JESUS OF NAZARETH, THE KING OF THE JEWS.

Thus Jesus took good care that there should be no doubt as to what He claimed to be: He did not write a book, nor cut an inscription on a rock, _but He let Himself be crucified_, that all men to the end of time might know that He claimed to be the Christ.[211]

* * * * *

Now let us see what He meant when He called Himself the Christ. To get to understand this fully would be to learn the complete meaning of His teaching; for it is such a perfect organism that every member of it is closely related to every other member; yet we may gain sufficient insight for our purpose from a broad survey.

The subject of the whole teaching of Jesus was _the Kingdom of God_. He held that God had been working from the very beginning for the winning of man to Himself, and that especially among His own people Israel He had shown His hand. They had not only come to know Him as the God of righteousness whose law was holiness; they had enjoyed His love; they had experienced His mercy and His power to redeem. But with the coming of Jesus Himself a new era of the world had opened:[212] God was now drawing near to all men, in a new relationship of love and mercy, with the purpose of saving them.[213] This was the coming of the Kingdom of God.[214] The history of Israel had been a long discipline in preparation for this.[215] On the ground cleared in Israel, and on the basis of the revelation already made to them, God would now reveal Himself to all men. The destiny of Israel—“I will give thee for a light to the Gentiles”[216]—would now be fulfilled.[217]

God, then, was about to enter into a new relationship with the whole human race. That new relationship would be, like the old one with Israel, characterized not only by His righteousness, but by His redeeming love. His eternal purpose, which had been in contemplation all through the centuries of Israel’s training, would now be unfolded. The childhood of the world was over: its first simple lessons had been learned; the real business of Time could now be begun. The partial unveiling of God’s face which it had been Israel’s privilege to behold would now become a full revelation in the sight of the nations. The King of Israel would be seen to be the Father of men. Further, as Israel had learned her lessons through Jehovah’s redemptive acts at the Red Sea, on Zion, and in Babylon, so mankind would learn the Father’s love through the great redemptive acts involved in the coming of the Kingdom.

The chief conviction that Jesus had about Himself was that _in and through and by Him the Kingdom of God was coming_: this it was that constituted Him THE CHRIST. His self-consciousness is the most marvellous phenomenon within the compass of history; there is nothing else comparable with it. The primary element in it seems to have been the knowledge that He was the true man, man as God wishes Him to be, faultless both morally and religiously.[218] Closely connected with this is another element, quite as unparalleled in human experience, a feeling of close kinship to all men, a consciousness of solidarity with the whole race and of personal connection and sympathy with every individual.[219] These two elements of His nature—His perfection as man, and His relationship to the race as a whole—He summed up in the phrase which He used so often to describe Himself, THE SON OF MAN.[220] Correspondent to this double relationship to man stands a double relationship to God: first, He stands in the closest personal kinship to God—the Son with the Father—; so that He alone can reveal God, and God alone can reveal Him;[221] and secondly, He is God’s representative to the human race.[222] This dual relation to God He expressed by calling Himself THE SON OF GOD.[223]

The life of a being of this order, standing in great, pregnant relations to God on the one hand and to the human family on the other, would necessarily be of transcendent significance. So we find that He regarded His own words and acts and all the great experiences of His life as of supreme importance in the history of the world:[224] His coming opens a new era;[225] His public life is a wedding feast in the otherwise grey experience of men;[226] His teaching is the final revelation of God;[227] His acts are glimpses of the divine activity;[228] His death, which to the casual observer is but a coarse judicial murder, is the solemn sacrifice that ratifies the establishment of the new relationship between God and man.[229]

Since such were the chief convictions Jesus held about Himself and His mission, _authority_ was naturally the chief note of His teaching. His hearers marked that characteristic at the very outset;[230] and a modern student cannot fail to be impressed with it as he reads the Gospels. He states quite frankly that He has come to fulfil the law and the prophets;[231] He sets up His own “I say unto you” not only against the Jewish traditions,[232] but against the definite provisions of the Mosaic law;[233] and over and over again He demands from men such love, faith, submission, obedience, as can be rightly given only to a Divine Master.[234]

In Jesus of Nazareth, then, we have a historical person, whose time and environment are well known to us, and whose teaching and life also stand out clear and unmistakable; and the most prominent thing about Him is this, that, by word and deed, and finally by His crucifixion, He made it clear to all men that He claimed to be both Son of Man and Son of God.

Here, then, we have the secret of that similarity which we are all so clearly conscious of, when we read a Gospel alongside of the _Gītā_. In the Gospels we have in historical form the authoritative utterances of the historical Jesus; in the _Gītā_ we have the imaginations of a poet-philosopher who was clear sighted enough to realize that an incarnate god would have many things to say about himself, and that his teaching would bear the note of authority. When, however, we look for exact parallels between the two, they are hard to find: the books are so utterly diverse in origin and teaching that they have little in common except the tone of the master. In a few cases, however, the resemblance is rather striking: here, then, we place side by side the words of Jesus and the imaginations of the writer of the _Gītā_.

SAYINGS OF JESUS.

All authority hath been given unto me in heaven and on earth. _Matt._, 28, 18.

VERSES FROM THE GĪTĀ.

Nature gives birth to movables and immovables through me, the supervisor, and by reason of that the universe revolves. IX, 10.

All things have been delivered unto me of my Father: and no one knoweth who the Son is, save the Father; and who the Father is, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son willeth to reveal him. _Luke_, 10, 22.

I know the things which have been, those which are, and those which are to be; but me nobody knows. VII, 26.

Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. _Matt._, 11, 28.

Forsaking all duties, come to me as thy sole refuge. I will release thee from all sins: do not grieve. XVIII, 66.

But that ye may know that the Son of Man hath authority on earth to forgive sins,—_Mark_, 2, 10.

Of all mortals, he who knows me to be unborn, without beginning, the great Lord of the world, being free from delusion, is released from all sins. X, 3.

If any man would come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me. _Mark_, 8, 34.

In thought renouncing all actions unto me, intent on me, applying thyself to the yoking of thine intellect, be thou always thinking of me. XVIII, 57.

So, therefore, whosoever he be of you that renounceth not all that he hath, he cannot be my disciple. _Luke_, 14, 33.

Having thyself yoked by the yoke of renunciation, thou shalt come to me. IX, 28.

Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. _Matt._, 11, 28.

In him seek shelter with all thy might: by his grace thou shalt attain supreme peace, the eternal dwelling-place. XVIII, 62.

If they have called the master of the house Beelzebub, how much more shall they call them of his household? _Matt._, 10, 25.

hating me in their own bodies and in those of others. XVI, 18.

And blessed is he, whosoever shall find none occasion of stumbling in me. _Matt._, 11, 6.

Deluded people, ... not knowing my highest nature as great lord of entities, disregard me, as I have assumed a human body. IX, 11.

My yoke is easy, and my burden is light. _Matt._, 11, 30.

To the constantly-yoked Yogi, who constantly remembereth me, never thinking of another, I am easy of access. VIII, 14.

Learn of me. _Matt._, 11, 29.

Learn from me. XVIII, 50.

It would lead us far afield to set forth in detail all the striking things that Jesus has to say about His own person and mission, but it may be well to quote a few passages exhibiting lines of character and thought not exemplified above:—

(_a_) His meekness and lowliness.

“I am meek and lowly in heart.” _Matt._, 11, 29.

(_b_) The conditions of His earthly life.

“The foxes have holes, and the birds of heaven have nests; but the Son of Man hath not where to lay His head.” _Luke_, 9, 58.

(_c_) The necessity that He should die for men.

“And He began to teach them, that the Son of Man must suffer many things, and be rejected by the elders, and the chief priests, and the scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again.” _Mark_, 8, 31.

(_d_) His spirit of service and self-sacrifice.

“Even as the Son of Man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give His life a ransom for many.” _Matt._, 20, 28.

“But I am among you as he that doth serve.” _Luke_, 22, 27.

(_e_) His claims on the allegiance and love of men.

“Every one who shall confess Me before men, him shall the Son of Man also confess before the angels of God: but he that denieth Me in the presence of men shall be denied in the presence of the angels of God.” _Luke_, 12, 8-9.

“He that loveth father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he that loveth son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me.” _Matt._, 10, 37-38.

(_f_) His universal sympathy.

“Inasmuch as ye did it unto one of these My brethren, even these least, ye did it unto Me.” _Matt._, 25, 40.

(_g_) His declaration that he will return to judge all men.

“Many will say to Me in that day, Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy by Thy name, and by Thy name cast out devils, and by Thy name do many mighty works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from Me, ye that work iniquity.” _Matt._, 7, 22-23.

(_h_) His presence with his followers.

“For where two or three are gathered together in My name, there am I in the midst of them.” _Matt._, 18, 20.

* * * * *

The _Gītā_ is one of the most eloquent possible proofs of the fact that the human heart cries out for an incarnate Saviour. Scarcely less impressive is the evidence furnished by the reception of the _Gītā_ by Hindu readers: not the greatest of the Upanishads, neither the _Chāndogya_ nor the _Katha_, has had one quarter of the influence exercised by this late poem; and the secret undoubtedly is to be found in the attraction of the man-god Krishna. How many generations of pious readers have found in the story of the life and teaching of the incarnate god something to which their deepest and most persistent religious instincts have responded! How many to-day turn to Krishna in their trials and troubles!

On the one hand, then, we have the imaginative portrait of Krishna, surrounded by millions of adoring worshippers—touching spectacle! On the other, stands the historical Jesus of Nazareth, Son of Man and Son of God, stretching out His nail-pierced hands to India, as He says, “Come unto Me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.” Rightly read, the _Gītā_ is a clear-tongued prophecy of Christ, and the hearts that bow down to the idea of Krishna are really seeking the incarnate Son of God.

IV. We have been able to see some little distance into the self-consciousness of Jesus, and to realize in part at least that on which He grounds His claim to the heart of every man; but we have not yet learned the secret of that most marvellous of His powers, His power to win human love. To that we must now address ourselves.

It is a well-known fact of history that, shortly after the death of Christ, His followers began to preach in His name, and that very soon the new faith began to spread rapidly. We have already learned from Tacitus that in 64 A. D. there was “an immense multitude” of Christians in Rome itself. Now the greatest of all the early missionaries was Paul. He was the apostle of Europe. We mention his name here, because we wish to refer to one of his Epistles. These letters are the earliest of our Christian documents. The series begins with two brief letters, both written, with a short interval between them, to the church at Thessalonica. The most probable date for them is 49 A. D., that is, only twenty years after the death of Christ. But the letter we wish to use is one sent from Ephesus to the church of Corinth[235] about 55 A. D.,[236] that is, twenty-six years after the death of Jesus. We must not stay here to speak of the splendour of the ethical feeling and teaching of the Epistle further than to say that it manifestly has its source in Jesus. We must direct our attention to other facts which appear in it.

Christianity, we note, has already spread from Judæa into the provinces of Asia[237] and Galatia[238] in Asia Minor, and Macedonia[239] and Achaia[240] in Europe. Phœnicia, Syria, Cilicia and Cyprus are not mentioned; but we know from other sources[241] that they too were already evangelized. Thus in twenty-six years the Church of Christ has become a great organization, extending through many lands, yet conscious of its unity in Christ.[242] We note also that then, as to-day, BAPTISM is a solemn ceremonial act, in which a man through the action of the Holy Spirit becomes a member of the body of Christ,[243] while THE LORD’S SUPPER is a recurrent feast, in which the members of the Church have fellowship with the Lord and with each other.[244]

But what we would call special attention to is _the place assigned to Christ_ in the Epistle. With reference to the Christian, Christ is THE LORD;[245] with reference to the Father, He is THE SON;[246] He is spoken of as the Lord of Glory,[247] the Power of God,[248] and the Wisdom of God;[249] and prayer is offered to Him.[250] All spiritual authority and power are attributed to Him.[251] The Church is His body,[252] and He supplies His grace and power to every member.[253] He will come back again to earth in glory,[254] and will then reveal all secrets and judge all men.[255]

But there is another point still more noteworthy, and that is _the way in which the crucifixion of Christ is interpreted_. Instead of regarding that judicial murder as a regrettable incident, like the assassination of Cæsar or the death of Socrates, Paul and his fellow-believers glory in it,[256] not only as the crowning event of the divine revelation made in Christ, but as the consummation of His work as the Saviour of men.[257] Paul makes it the basis of all his preaching,[258] and in it he finds all the wealth of spiritual wisdom which Christianity contains.[259] He contrasts the wisdom of God wrapped up in that divine tragedy with the worldly wisdom of earthly rulers.[260]

What can be the explanation of this extraordinary attitude to such an event?—The basis of it is the solemn declaration, which Paul makes in the Epistle, and which he says he made to his converts first of all, that ON THE CROSS CHRIST DIED FOR OUR SINS.[261] The crucifixion, as a bare event in history, is but an act of wicked folly on the part of the rulers of Judæa; but, viewed from the standpoint of morality and religion, it is a divine act of world-wide significance. In the blood of Christ a new covenant had been made between God and man.[262] This is the Gospel, which all the Apostles teach, and which all the churches believe.[263] Through faith in Christ, on the basis of this tremendous assertion, the Corinthian Christians, like the rest, had been saved,[264] _i.e._, they had received _the forgiveness of their sins_[265] and _the sanctifying Spirit_.[266] They thus no longer belonged to themselves: they had been bought with a great price, the blood of the Son of God.[267] They were no longer part and parcel of heathen society; each one was a member of the body of Christ.[268]

What led Paul and all the other Apostles and all the early Christians to form such an extraordinary theory? How did they come to the conclusion that the crucifixion was not a squalid tragedy, but a divine sacrifice? This letter tells us quite plainly; the reasons were these: Jesus Himself declared before He was crucified, that _His death was to be the basis of the New Covenant_,[269] and this declaration of His _had been divinely confirmed by His Resurrection_.[270]

Now mark: this letter was written within twenty-six years of the event. The majority of the twelve Apostles, and multitudes of other men who had known Jesus, were still alive.[271] Paul’s good faith is beyond all question; and, as he was intimate with Peter and John and the rest of the Apostles, and also with James the brother of Jesus,[272] he had access to the very best information possible. Further he had been one of the most violent opponents of Christianity. His testimony is, therefore, evidence of the very highest value. We may conclude, then, with the utmost certitude that we are standing on an immoveable historical foundation, when we say that _Jesus, before His crucifixion, said He was about to die for the sins of men_.

But this evidence does not stand alone. It is a historical fact, acknowledged by scholars of every school, that all Christian churches have from the very beginning celebrated the Lord’s Supper.[273] Now this universal usage in so many churches, divided not only by long distances but in many cases also by minor differences in doctrine, cannot be explained at all except as a result of a command of Jesus Himself. If any single disciple had started such a practice, it could never have won its way to universal acceptance. Now consider the significance of this fact: Jesus, on the night in which He was betrayed, took bread, broke it, and bade His disciples eat it, saying, ‘This is My body.’ He then took a cup of wine and bade them drink it, saying, ‘This is My blood.’[274] The scene is absolutely without a parallel in the history of the world; and it can have but one meaning, _viz._, that Jesus regarded His death as a sacrifice.

But the direct statement of Paul is corroborated, not only by the institution of the Supper, but also by this fact, that the doctrine, that Christ died for our sins, is an integral part of the teaching of Jesus as that is handed down to us in the Gospels. We have already seen that He held that His death was necessary for the establishment of the Kingdom. We must now set out His teaching on this subject with a little more fulness. We shall restrict ourselves to a single Gospel. In the earliest saying that refers to it, His death is a future event, coming inevitably, and destined to bring sorrow to His disciples. “And Jesus said unto them, Can the sons of the bride-chamber mourn, as long as the bridegroom is with them? but the days will come, when the bridegroom shall be taken away from them, and then will they fast.”[275] In the next it is much more clearly defined. Its necessity is emphasized; we are told that the agents are to be the religious leaders of Israel; and it is to be followed by the resurrection. “From that time began Jesus to shew unto His disciples, how that He must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and the third day be raised up.”[276] Twice over this same prophecy is repeated, the last time with more detail.[277] Then follows a most striking saying, in which He speaks of His death as voluntary: it is a giving away of His life; and it is explained as the climax of His life of service; for the gift is ‘a ransom for many,’ that is a price paid, in order to redeem many from sin. “The Son of Man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give His life a ransom for many.”[278] We need not linger over the next sayings, though each has its own interest.[279] The last saying occurs in the account of the institution of the Supper. In these words He teaches in the clearest way, first, that His death is to be the ground of forgiveness, and secondly, that after His death He is to be the source of the spiritual life and strength of His followers. “And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and brake it; and He gave to the disciples, and said, ‘Take, eat; this is My body.’ And He took a cup, and gave thanks, and gave to them, saying, ‘Drink ye all of it; for this is My blood of the covenant, which is shed for many unto remission of sins.”[280] The teaching of Jesus is an organic whole, and is incomplete without this, His own interpretation of His death of shame.

Jesus, then, gave Himself up to death as the sacrifice for the sins of men. Our Christian documents go on to declare that _He rose from the dead on the third day_, and that this resurrection of His was God’s confirmation of the sacrifice of His Son. That men should at first sight disbelieve the astounding assertion, that the crucified Jesus rose from the dead, is not to be wondered at; but _the fact remains_. Sceptical scholars have laboured for centuries to explain away this extraordinary occurrence, but no one of these scholars themselves will venture to say that any explanation hitherto given is satisfactory. The latest attempt, that made by Schmiedel in the _Encyclopædia Biblica_, is a farcical failure. The following are the adamantine facts which no rationalism has ever yet succeeded in crushing or melting:—(_a_) the Christians declared that they had seen Christ and spoken with Him after His resurrection; (_b_) they were absolutely sincere in this belief[281]; (_c_) the Christian Church arose as a result of this conviction; (_d_) the grave was empty. The account of Christ’s appearances given in the fifteenth chapter of our Epistle is well worth study. Those who wish to look into this question further may consult Ballard’s _Miracles of Unbelief_, pp. 135 ff.

We have thus, by a serious historical inquiry, reached the conclusion, that Jesus of Nazareth, the founder of the Christian religion, declared, before His crucifixion, that He was about to die for the sins of men, and that this assertion of His was sealed with the divine approval by the unique miracle of the resurrection. We have also seen that this was _the Good News_, which Paul and all the other Apostles preached, and on which the early Church was founded. It is this that has won for Jesus the love of myriads; it is this that has been the magnet to draw them away from sin. It is the source of the joy and vital power of the Christian life.

Now let us recollect the poem upon _The Servant of Jehovah_, which we considered in our third chapter. How marvellously Jesus corresponds to the extraordinary idea which that poem discloses, the despised and oppressed prisoner who endures in uncomplaining meekness the uttermost shame of a violent death, and is finally recognized as having been “pierced because of our trangressions, and crushed because of our iniquities.” That anyone should write such a poem, seems strange in the extreme; that Jesus should have fulfilled it, is infinitely more wonderful.

How comes it that this Jewish carpenter, with His three years of public life and His cross of shame, fulfils so many ideals and aspirations? He brings in the new age which Virgil and his contemporaries sighed for; He is Plato’s just man; He utters from His own self-consciousness such things as the author of the _Gītā_ imagined an incarnate god would say; He gives Himself up to death, in sheer love, as a sacrifice for sin, thus fulfilling the deepest needs of man, as expressed by the old Hebrew seer; and He is the only human being whom men of every race and clime can heartily admire and unhesitatingly imitate. Nor is this all: many other convergent lines of thought might be suggested, in the light of which Jesus stands out as the ideal of our common humanity and the fountain of the love of God.

How is all this to be explained? Wide chasms sever the Hindu sage, the Greek philosopher, the Hebrew prophet and the Roman poet; yet in Jesus their several ideals are reconciled in a loftier unity. Once in the course of the centuries East and West have actually met! Nor was the meeting merely the resolution of antitheses in a wider conception: what the Jew and the Indian, the Greek and the Roman, dreamed of as the unattainable, that Jesus actually accomplished in this work-a-day world of ours, amid storms of the cruellest hatred and calumny.—What is your candid opinion about Him, brother? How are you to solve the problem raised by His life, death and place in history? Can He be better described than in His own words, SON OF MAN and SON OF GOD?

Footnote 163:

See article _Slavery_ in _Encyclopædia Brittanica_; and _cf._ Gibbon, Chaps. II and XXXVIII; Cunningham, _An Essay on Western Civilization in its Economic Aspects_; Wallon, _Histoire de l’Esclavage dans l’Antiquité_.

Footnote 164:

Fowler, _The City-State of the Greeks and Romans_; Mahaffy, _Social Life in Greece_, 44; Kidd, _P. W. C._, Chap. VI.

Footnote 165:

Kidd, _P. W. C._, Chaps. VII to IX.

Footnote 166:

Kidd, _P. W. C._, 190, 223-4.

Footnote 167:

Sohm, _The Institutes of Roman Law_; Wallon, _Histoire de l’Esclavage dans l’Antiquité_.

Footnote 168:

Bury, _History of Greece_, I, 72.

Footnote 169:

Kidd, _P. W. C._, 223.

Footnote 170:

Kidd, _P. W. C._, 168.

Footnote 171:

Kidd, _P. W. C._, 160-172; Seebohm, _The Structure of Greek Tribal Society_, 4, 138.

Footnote 172:

Sir Robert Giffen, _Address to the Manchester Statistical Society_, 15.

Footnote 173:

Kidd, _Social Evolution_, Chaps. IV & V.

Footnote 174:

Tacitus, _Annals_, XV, 44, Church and Brodribb’s translation.

Footnote 175:

Church and Brodribb’s _Annals_, 374.

Footnote 176:

For all the facts and the opinions of various scholars, _see_ Hastings, _Dictionary of the Bible_, I, 410-415.

Footnote 177:

_Matthew_, Chapters 26 & 27.

Footnote 178:

For the criticism of the Gospels _see_ below, pages 49-50.

Footnote 179:

_Matt._, 26, 67-68.

Footnote 180:

_Matt._, 27, 27-31.

Footnote 181:

_Matt._, 27, 32-44.

Footnote 182:

It was not the _teaching_ of Jesus, but His _interference_, in the interests of His own supreme standards, with the traditional worship and customs of the Jews, that led the Jewish hierarchy to determine on His death. See below p. 52.

Footnote 183:

See Hastings, _Dictionary of the Bible_, _ad loca_, and Moffatt, _Historical New Testament_, pp. 272-274. The most probable dates are, for _Mark_, 66 to 70 A.D., and for _Matthew_ and _Luke_, 70 to 75 A.D.

Footnote 184:

See the masses of evidence gathered in Schürer, _H. J. P._

Footnote 185:

Fairbairn, _The Philosophy of the Christian Religion_, pp. 328-9.

Footnote 186:

_Mark_, 1, 9.

Footnote 187:

_Mark_, 1, 9.

Footnote 188:

_Mark_, 6, 3.

Footnote 189:

_Luke_, 3, 1; 1, 4, 14.

Footnote 190:

_Luke_, 5, 8.

Footnote 191:

_Luke_, 7, 36-50.

Footnote 192:

_Luke_, 19, 1-10.

Footnote 193:

_Luke_, 23, 39-43.

Footnote 194:

See Harnack, _What is Christianity_, pp. 32-35.

Footnote 195:

See specially Weiss, _N. T. Theology_; Beyschlag, _N. T. Theology_; Wendt, _Teaching of Jesus_; Stevens, _Theology of the New Testament_; Robertson, _Our Lord’s Teaching_; and many others.

Footnote 196:

See Schürer, _H. J. P._, Div. II, Vol. II, pp. 126 ff.

Footnote 197:

The reason for His silence is to be found in the fact that the Messianic hope, as popularly held, had become largely political: to have confessed Himself the Christ would have been to precipitate a revolt against Rome. Cf. McGiffert’s _Apostolic Age_, 28.

Footnote 198:

_Matt._, 21, 1-11.

Footnote 199:

_Matt._, 21, 12-17.

Footnote 200:

_Matt._, 21, 23-23, 39.

Footnote 201:

_Matt._, 26, 3-5.

Footnote 202:

_Matt._, 26, 47-56.

Footnote 203:

_Matt._, 26, 57 and 59.

Footnote 204:

_Matt._, 26, 59-62.

Footnote 205:

_Matt._, 26, 63-64.

Footnote 206:

_Matt._, 26, 65-66.

Footnote 207:

Schürer, _H. J. P._, Div. II, Vol. I, 188; _John_, 18, 31.

Footnote 208:

_Matt._, 27, 1-2; 27, 11.

Footnote 209:

_Matt._, 27, 18.

Footnote 210:

_Matt._, 27, 11-26.

Footnote 211:

McGiffert’s _Apostolic Age_, 27-32.

Footnote 212:

_Mark_, 1, 15.

Footnote 213:

See the parables in _Matt._, 22, 2-14; and _Luke_, 14, 15-24.

Footnote 214:

_Mark_, 1, 15.

Footnote 215:

_Matt._, 11, 13-14; _Luke_, 16, 16.

Footnote 216:

_Isaiah_, 42, 6; 49, 6.

Footnote 217:

_Matt._, 24, 14; 26, 13; 28, 19.

Footnote 218:

_Matt._, 11, 28-29.

Footnote 219:

_Matt._, 25, 40; 25, 45.

Footnote 220:

See _e.g._, _Matt._, 9, 6; 11, 19; 12, 8; 16, 13; 20, 18; 20, 28; 25, 31; 26, 64.

Footnote 221:

_Matt._, 11, 27; 16, 17; 17, 5.

Footnote 222:

_Matt._, 21, 37; 11, 10; _Mark_, 8, 37-38; 9, 37; _Luke_, 10, 16.

Footnote 223:

_Matt._, 3, 17; 17, 5; 26, 63-64; 21, 37; 22, 41-45; _Luke_, 10, 22.

Footnote 224:

_Luke_, 10, 23-24.

Footnote 225:

_Mark_, 1, 15.

Footnote 226:

_Matt._, 9, 15; 22, 2-14.

Footnote 227:

_Luke_, 10, 22.

Footnote 228:

_Luke_, 11, 20.

Footnote 229:

_Matt._, 20, 28; _Luke_, 22, 20.

Footnote 230:

_Mark_, 1, 22; 1, 27.

Footnote 231:

_Matt._, 5, 17.

Footnote 232:

_Matt._, 5, 44; 15, 20.

Footnote 233:

_Matt._, 5, 32; 5, 34; 5, 39; 15, 11; 19, 7-9.

Footnote 234:

_Matt._, 5, 11; 8, 22; 10, 37-39; 11, 28-30; 16, 24-25.

Footnote 235:

_i.e._, _I Corinthians_.

Footnote 236:

For the dates of Paul’s Epistles, see the articles in Hastings’s _Dictionary of the Bible_, or Moffatt’s _Historical New Testament_, 121-137.

Footnote 237:

16, 19.

Footnote 238:

16, 1.

Footnote 239:

16, 5.

Footnote 240:

16, 15.

Footnote 241:

_Acts_, 11, 19; _Galatians_, 1, 21-24.

Footnote 242:

12, 13.

Footnote 243:

12, 13.

Footnote 244:

11, 20-34; 10, 16-17.

Footnote 245:

Very frequent: cf. 1, 2; 1, 3; 1, 7; 8, 6; 12, 3; 16, 22. _The Lord_ takes in the Epistles the place held by _the Son of Man_ in the Gospels.

Footnote 246:

1, 9.

Footnote 247:

2, 8.

Footnote 248:

1, 24.

Footnote 249:

1, 24; 1, 30.

Footnote 250:

1, 2.

Footnote 251:

5, 4; 7, 10; 14, 37; 15, 24-28.

Footnote 252:

12, 12-13; 12, 27.

Footnote 253:

1, 4-7; 1, 30; 3, 5; 12, 5; 16, 23.

Footnote 254:

1, 7; 4, 5.

Footnote 255:

4, 5.

Footnote 256:

1, 17-18.

Footnote 257:

11, 23-26; 15, 3.

Footnote 258:

1, 18; 1, 21; 2, 2; 15, 1; 15, 11.

Footnote 259:

1, 22-24.

Footnote 260:

2, 6-8.

Footnote 261:

15, 3.

Footnote 262:

11, 25.

Footnote 263:

15, 1; 15, 2; 15, 11.

Footnote 264:

1, 18; 1, 21.

Footnote 265:

15, 17.

Footnote 266:

1, 2; 1, 30; 3, 16; 6, 11; 6, 19.

Footnote 267:

6, 19; 7, 23.

Footnote 268:

6, 15; 10, 17; 12, 12-13; 12, 27.

Footnote 269:

11, 23-25. Cf. _Jeremiah_, 31, 31-34.

Footnote 270:

15, 4 compared with 15, 14.

Footnote 271:

15, 6.

Footnote 272:

_Galatians_, 1, 18-2, 10.

Footnote 273:

See McGiffert’s _Apostolic Age_, 536.

Footnote 274:

The event is described in _Matt._, 26, 26-30; _Mark_, 14, 22-26; and _Luke_, 22, 14-20; as well as in _1 Corinthians_, 11, 23-26.

Footnote 275:

_Matt._, 9, 15.

Footnote 276:

_Matt._, 16, 21.

Footnote 277:

_Matt._, 17, 22-23; 20, 17-19.

Footnote 278:

_Matt._, 20, 28.

Footnote 279:

_Matt._, 21, 39; 26, 2; 26, 12.

Footnote 280:

_Matt._, 26, 26, 30.

Footnote 281:

Now universally acknowledged.

APPENDIX. NEO-KRISHNA LITERATURE.

The Neo-Krishna movement is about twenty years old. Before 1880 Vaishnavism does not seem to have been in great favour with the higher castes of Bengal. Traditionally they were Saivas or Sāktas rather than Vaishnavas; and English education, which bore very heavily for half a century on every form of Hinduism seems to have told with peculiar severity on Krishnaism. But shortly after 1880 a great change becomes visible: Krishna begins to be praised on every hand, and ancient Vaishnava books are read and studied with avidity. The new movement seems to have owed its origin, on the one hand, to the teaching and influence of Ramkrishna Paramhansa, Keshub Chundra Sen, Bijoy Krishna Goswami and Shishir Kumar Ghose; and on the other, to the efforts of two or three noteworthy literary men, who threw themselves into the task of painting the character of Krishna with extraordinary enthusiasm. The _Gītā_ at once leaped into greater prominence than ever: numberless editions and translations of it have been published. Many essays have appeared comparing Krishna with Christ and Vaishnavism with Christianity. Thus a large Krishna literature, both in English and Bengali, has sprung up. The following seem to be the more important books of this literature:—

1884

Essays in _Prachār_ on _Krishnacharitra_ by Bunkim Ch. Chatterji.

1886

1. _Krishnacharitra_, Bunkim Ch. Chatterji, 1st edition. A volume in Bengali prose on the character of Krishna.

1887

2. _Raivatak_, Nobin Ch. Sen. An epic poem in Bengali on Krishna’s youth. 3. _The Bhagavad Gītā, or the Lords Lay_, Mohini M. Chatterji. An English prose translation of the text and of parts of Sankara’s commentary. An attempt is made to put the _Gītā_ on the same level as the New Testament.

1888

4. _Krishna Jivani_, Prosanna Kumar Vidyaratna. A life of Krishna in Bengali prose.

1889

5. _Srikrishner Jivana O Dharma_, Gaur Gavinda Ray. The life and religion of Krishna from the standpoint of the New Dispensation: Bengali prose.

1890

6. _Srimadbhagavadgītā_, Krishnananda Swami (_i.e._ Krishna Prasanna Sen). The text in the Bengali character with a Bengali commentary and translation.

1892

_Krishnacharitra_, Bunkim Ch. Chatterji, 2nd edition. This edition contains a great deal of new matter.

7. _Amiya Nimai Charity_, Shishir Kumar Ghose. First part. A life of Chaitanya in Bengali prose.

1893

_Amiya Nimai Charit_. Second part.

8. _Kurukshetra_, Nobin Ch. Sen. An epic poem in Bengali on Krishna at Kurukshetra.

1894

9. _The Landmarks of Ethics according to the Gītā_. Bulloram Mullick.

_Amiya Nimai Charit_. Third part.

1895

10. _Kālā Chānd Gītā_, Shishir Kumar Ghose. A sort of Krishnaite Song of Solomon in Bengali verse. It is said to have been composed in 1888.

1896

11. _Srikrishna, his Life and Teachings_, Dhirendra Nath Pal. 3 vols.

12. _Srikrishner Kalanka Kena?_ Nava Kumar Devasarma. A Bengali prose defence of the character of Krishna.

13. _The Bhagavad Gītā_, Annie Besant. New and revised edition. An English prose translation with an introduction and a few notes.

14. _Prabhās_, Nobin Ch. Sen. An epic poem in Bengali on the later years of Krishna’s life.

1897

15. _Lord Gaurānga_, Shishir Kumar Ghose, 1st volume. A life of Chaitanya in English prose, with a discussion of the doctrine of Incarnations.

1898

16. _Krishna and Krishnaism_, Bulloram Mullick.

_Lord Gaurānga_, 2nd volume.

17. _Hindu Theism_, Sitanath Tattvabhushan.

18. _An Elementary Treatise on Universal Religion._ Kshetra Mohan Mukerji. The religion of the _Gītā_ is here put forward as the universal religion.

1899

19. _Incarnation_, Nanda Krishna Bose. This treatise follows in most points the theory of Incarnation put forward in _Lord Gaurānga_.

1900

20. _The Young Men’s Gītā_, Jogindranath Mukharji. An English prose translation with introduction and notes.

21. _Srimadbhagavadgītā_, Prasanna Kumar Sastri, 2nd edition. The text in the Bengali character, with several commentaries, and a Bengali translation by Sasadhar Tarkachuramani.

1901

22. _The Imitation of Sreekrishna_, S. C. Mukhopadhaya. A daily text-book, containing extracts in English from the _Gītā_, the _Mahābhārata_, and the _Bhāgavat Purāna_.

23. _Sree Krishna_, Muralidhur Roy. An account, in English prose, of the life and character of Krishna.

24. _Srimadbhagavadgītā_, Bhudhur Chattopadhaya, 4th edition. The text in the Bengali character, with a Bengali commentary.

1903

25. A most elaborate edition of the _Gītā_, edited by Damudar Mukerji, is being published in parts.

26. A Bengali verse translation of the _Gītā_ by Satyendra Nath Tagore is appearing in _Bhārati_.

This revival of interest in Krishna and his worship is clearly part of the great national movement which has been so potent in Bengal, religiously, socially and politically, these last twenty years. This period has witnessed the appearance of the whole Neo-Hindu movement, with its literature, lectures, societies and missionary propaganda, the rise of the Indian National Congress and of the social reform movement, the advance of native journalism to its present extraordinary influence, and the establishment of the native unaided colleges, which have so seriously changed the balance of influence in Higher Education. Neo-Krishnaism, then, is one result of the operation of that potent spirit whereby India has become conscious of her unity, and her sons have been roused to a vigorous defence of all that they have inherited from the past. This rise of the national spirit, though it may be troublesome in small matters to the rulers of India, is undoubtedly the last and greatest justification of English rule; and, while, with its exaggerations and insincerities and follies, it cannot fail to provoke criticism,[282] yet its power to awake self-reliance, self-respect and the passion for freedom ought to win for it the approval and the encouragement of all good men.

There can be no doubt that among the influences which have produced Neo-Hinduism, Christianity is one of the most potent, if not the chief. This is peculiarly evident in the case of the Neo-Krishna literature we are discussing. In 1899 the Bengal Librarian wrote, “There is no denying the fact that all this revolution in the religious belief of the educated Hindu has been brought about as much by the dissemination of Christian thought by Missionaries as by the study of Hindu scriptures; for Christian influence is plainly detectable in many of the Hindu publications of the year.” But beyond this general influence, which cannot fail to be noticed by anyone who will take the trouble to read the volumes, it is, we believe, perfectly plain that the very ideas which have given birth to the literature are the result of Christian influence. A distinct taste for such books as the Gospels has sprung up; and men have come to feel the need of a perfect character, such as Christ’s is, for daily contemplation and imitation. The Neo-Krishna movement endeavours to supply these needs from within Hinduism, offering the _Gītā_ instead of the Gospels, and Krishna instead of Christ.[283]

Nobin Ch. Sen seems to have been the first to conceive the idea of a modern rendering of the character of Krishna; for he laid the project before some of his friends in 1882.[284] His famous epic trilogy, _Raivatak_, _Kurukshetra_ and _Prabhās_, are the result of this pregnant thought. But, while he and Shishir Kumar Ghose have done a great deal to popularize the movement, there can be no doubt that Bunkim Ch. Chatterji’s _Krishnacharitra_ has been by far the most influential volume in the whole of this literature. Gaur Gavinda Ray’s work, _Srikrishner Jivana O Dharma_, is a piece of excellent characterization, and has won the high regard of many thoughtful men.

The books on our list fall into two classes, _Historical_ and _Traditional_. In the Historical class there are only two volumes, Tattvabhusan’s _Hindu Theism_, and the _Young Men’s Gītā_. These two frankly acknowledge that the _Gītā_ is a late book. In the _Young Men’s Gītā_[285] its date is said to be a century or two before, or a century or two after, the Christian era; while in _Hindu Theism_[286] the _Gītā_ is regarded as the point of transition from the old Vedānta to the religion of the Purānas. The standpoint of these two books is thus thoroughly historical, but it necessarily implies the abandonment of the divinity of Krishna.

All the rest of the books on the list fall into the second class; for they hold the traditional position about Krishna. Most of them make no attempt at criticism of the sources, but treat the _Mahābhārata_, the _Gītā_, the _Harivansa_ and the Purānas as all historical and all equally trustworthy. A few of the authors, however, state plainly their own critical conclusions, and two or three enter into some discussion of the main problems. These attempts at criticism are the most pitiable parts of the whole literature. The talented author of _Srikrishner Jivana O Dharma_, by far too sincere and candid to ignore the Puranic elements in the sources, frankly confesses their presence; yet, believing these books to be genuine representatives of the age of Kurukshetra, he is driven to the extraordinary conclusion that the Vedic, the Vedantic, and the Puranic ages were contemporaneous.[287] The late Bulloram Mullick, in discussing the eighteen Purānas, goes so far as to say, “Whatever may be the views of European savants, there is indubitable proof that some of these Purānas existed in the eleventh or twelfth century before Christ.”[288] Even Bunkim Chundra Chatterji himself not only unhesitatingly adopts Goldstücker’s rash guess, that Pānini’s grammar was written before the Brāhmanas and the Upanishads, but on the basis of that unwise conjecture, pushes back Pānini’s date to the tenth or eleventh century B. C.,[289] _i.e._, four or five centuries earlier than the pre-Buddhistic date which Goldstücker[290] wished to establish. Dhirendra Nath Pal, seeing that Bunkim Babu found it so easy to leap over a few centuries, goes a little further and suggests the twelfth or thirteenth.[291] But, indeed, without some such strange perversion of history, it is impossible to construct an argument for the authenticity of the _Gītā_ and the historicity of the _Mahābhārata_ that shall have even the semblance of reason.

We note next that of all the books of the second class, Bunkim Chundra’s _Krishnacharitra_ is the only work that gives any independent criticism: all the rest, with the single exception of _Srikrishner Jivana O Dharma_, merely echo his arguments. Thus Bunkim Babu’s theory is the only one we need discuss.

Now the whole critical structure of the _Krishnacharitra_ rests upon the passage on pages 41 and 42, where the date of Pānini is discussed. Pānini is pushed back to 1000 B. C.; and, the ‘original’ _Mahābhārata_ being earlier than Pānini, we are asked to believe that it was produced within a century or two of Kurukshetra, and that it is in consequence trustworthy historically. The whole argument thus rests on the date of Pānini.

We translate this important passage:—

“Goldstücker has proved that, when Pānini’s Sūtra was composed, Buddha had not arisen. In that case Pānini must belong to the sixth century B. C. But not only that, in his time the Brāhmanas, the Aranyakas, the Upanishads and the other parts of the Vedas had not been composed. Apart from the Rig, the Yajur, and the Sāma Vedas, nothing else existed. Asvalāyana, Sānkhāyana and the rest had not appeared. Max Müller says that the age in which the Brāhmanas were composed began about 1000 B. C. Dr. Martin Haug says that that was the end of the age, and that it began in the fourteenth century B. C. Therefore, if we say that Pānini must belong to the tenth or eleventh century B. C., we do not say too much.”

Now the first remark we make on this extraordinary piece of criticism is this, that Goldstücker and Max Müller are most unfairly conjoined to support a date which both of them would have indignantly repudiated. For Müller’s date for Pānini is the fourth century B.C.,[292] and Goldstücker never proposed to push him further back than the sixth century; indeed all that he claims is that he has brought forward evidence which affords a strong _probability_ that Pānini preceded the origin of the Buddhistic creed.[293] Our next remark is that, though more than forty years have passed since Goldstücker’s book appeared,[294] he has convinced no one that the Brāhmanas and the Upanishads are posterior to Pānini’s grammar: opinions still differ as to Pānini’s precise date, but no scholar to-day puts him before the Brāhmanas.[295]

Can the grounds for this unanimity among modern scholars be vividly set forth? We believe they can. Here, as in our first chapter, we shall not attempt to fix a definite chronology, but shall simply aim at reaching _the relative age_ of the great books we are dealing with; and we shall not deal with the meaning of disputed passages, but shall rest the case altogether on the clear and prominent features of history which every one can appreciate. There is, then, first of all the great broad fact that the Sūtras depend on the Brāhmanas, and are, in general, posterior to them, and that _the language and style of Pānini’s Sūtras show that he belongs to about the middle of the Sūtra period_.[296] All the detailed study of the last forty years _has gone to strengthen this stable conclusion_.

But there is another and still more conclusive proof that Pānini comes long after the early Brāhmanas. _These ancient books are written in Vedic Sanskrit._[297] The early Upanishads are more modern in character, but even they belong to a stage of the language a good deal earlier than the Sūtras: Professor Macdonell’s words are, “the oldest Upanishads occupying a position linguistically midway between the Brāhmanas and the Sūtras.”[298] Thus the Brāhmanas were composed while Vedic Sanskrit was still the language of the Indo-Aryans. Now Pānini’s grammar _deals with classical Sanskrit_, not the Vedic speech. He deals with many points of Vedic grammar, it is true, but he deals with them as exceptions; his subject is classical Sanskrit. He laid down the law, which has ruled Sanskrit throughout the centuries since his day. Thus he arose at a time, _when the language of the Brāhmanas had become archaic_, and modern Sanskrit had taken its place.[299] It is thus absolutely impossible to believe that Pānini lived and wrote before the Brāhmanas were composed: to propose to put him back before their composition is much the same as proposing to push Johnson’s Dictionary back before Chaucer.

Another line of proof may also be indicated. Careful study of the early Brāhmanas has made it plain that they were composed after the collection of the hymns of the _Rigveda_, but before[300] the formation of the _Sanhitā_ text (_i.e._, the text in which the words are joined according to the rules of _Sandhi_) and the _Pada_[301] text (_i.e._ the word by word text). The author of the _Pada_ text is Sākalya.[302] Now Yāska refers to Sākalya as a predecessor;[303] and Yāska himself is earlier than Pānini.[304] Thus the historical order is the early Brāhmanas, the _Sanhitā_ text, Sākalya, Yāska, Pānini.

Bunkim Babu’s date for Pānini being thus altogether untenable, his whole argument for the historicity of the _Pāndava Mahābhārata_ and Krishna’s character as therein pourtrayed tumbles in ruins, and brings down with it all the rest of this Krishna literature.

We would invite our readers to turn away from these vain attempts to turn a myth into sober history, and to listen to the teaching of those really scholarly Indians who study Hinduism from a scientific standpoint. We have already referred to Sitanath Tattvabhushan’s _Hindu Theism_, and we have frequently used Bose’s _Hindu Civilization under British Rule_ and R. C. Dutt’s works as authorities. We would now call attention to a monograph by one of the greatest scholars in Bengal (_Comparative Studies in Vaishnavism and Christianity_, by Brajendra Nath Seal), where[305] the growth of the Krishna legend is frankly discussed;[306] also to a very remarkable essay on _Buddhist and Vishnuite_ in a recent number of _Sāhitya_[307] by the late Umes Chundra Batabyal, in which grave historical reasons are given for concluding that the _Gītā_ is in part at least a polemic against Buddhism; and to the late Mr. Justice Telang’s introduction to his translation of the _Gītā_ (_S. B. E._, vol. VIII), with regard to which readers will note, that, although the date is put a little earlier than most scholars would put it, no attempt is made to defend the traditional theory of the origin of the Song.

Footnote 282:

Many of the wisest Indians have spoken out on this subject. The latest utterance is an article on _Pseudo-Nationalism_ in _the Indian Messenger_ for August 9th.

Footnote 283:

Many other signs of Christian influence might be noted: thus _the Young Men’s Gītā_ is a counterblast to a Christian edition of the Song, and it is besides most evidently arranged and printed in imitation of some tasteful edition of _the Imitation of Christ_; while _the Imitation of Sreekrishna_ proclaims its origin by its very name.

Footnote 284:

See an essay by Hirendra Nath Dutta, which originally appeared in Sāhitya, now republished as an appendix to Nobin Chundra Sen’s _Kurukshetra_.

Footnote 285:

p. ii.

Footnote 286:

pp. 74-76.

Footnote 287:

p. 1.

Footnote 288:

_Krishna and Krishnaism_, 16.

Footnote 289:

_Krishnacharitra_, 42.

Footnote 290:

_Pānini, his Place in Sanskrit Literature_, 227.

Footnote 291:

_Srikrishna, his Life and Teachings_, vol. I, p. xxv.

Footnote 292:

_Physical Religion_, 76.

Footnote 293:

_Pānini, his Place in Sanskrit Literature_, 227.

Footnote 294:

It was published in 1861.

Footnote 295:

Macdonell, 430-431; Kaegi, 7; Max Müller, _Physical Religion_, 63-64; Haraprasad Sastri, _A School History of India_, 4-7; R. C. Dutt, _Brief History of Ancient and Modern India_, 17, 27; Böhtlingk’s _Pānini_ (Leipsic, 1887); Weber, _Indische Studien_, V, 1-172; Hopkins, _R. I._, 350; Bühler in _S. B. E._, vol. II, pp. xxxv, xxxix-xlii; Eggeling in _S. B. E._, vol. xii, p. xxxvii; Bhandarkar, _Early History of the Deccan_, 5.

Footnote 296:

Max Müller, _A. S. L._, 311-312; Macdonell, 36, 39, 268. Cf. what Whitney says, “The standard work of Pānini, the grammarian-in-chief of Sanskrit literature, is a frightfully perfect model of the Sūtra method” (_Oriental and Linguistic Studies_, I, 71).

Footnote 297:

Max Müller, _Natural Religion_, 296; Macdonell, 203-4.

Footnote 298:

Macdonell, 205.

Footnote 299:

Max Müller, _A. S. L._, 138; _Natural Religion_, 297-298; Macdonell, 22-23.

Footnote 300:

Macdonell, 50.

Footnote 301:

On these texts see Kaegi, Note 77; Macdonell, 48, 50.

Footnote 302:

Macdonell, 51.

Footnote 303:

Macdonell, 268.

Footnote 304:

Macdonell, 269. Goldstücker (_op. cit._ p. 225) acknowledges that Yāska earlier than Pānini.

Footnote 305:

pp. 8-10.

Footnote 306: