. - . .
Ꮒ
[ .
.
' , .
[ •
A 584,990
:
,
. . . . . . .
. . . :
· ·
· .
.
.
. .
.
.
. . . . . ,
1Ꭸ
"
"
"
"
,
s
T
.
;
[ : '
ᏕᏕ
.
[
4
'
;
.
;
*
.
$
•ys
*
.
;
: Ꭵ•i•5•ic•3Ꮝ
Ꮲ

MICHIO
xkY UK
S
TO
KIVERS
UNO 2011
THE SYNÅGOĞUẾ AND THE
CHURCH
BM
648
Go53
My wife
Donna di virtù, loda di Dio vera,
Ti ringrazia colui che t'ama tanto,
Ch'uscio per te della volgare schiera.
INTRODUCTION
THE fortunes and achievements of the Jewish people
were for a period of over a thousand years, and well
into modern times, considered in Europe as the pivot
of Universal History. A larger view of historiography
has brought about a more proportionate appreciation
of the various elements which go to the making of
civilization, but the Jews still remain the people of
religion par excellence. Now, we may regard Religion
as exercising a good or evil influence, but we must
recognize its importance as a determining factor in
human life, and, while we may condemn or applaud,
we cannot ignore, the decisive part played by the Jews
in the religious evolution of mankind.
It is the object of this book to bring out the extent
of the contribution which the Jews have made to
religious thought, and to point to the imperishable
import of the truths embodied in Judaism. In order,
however, to demonstrate the claim of Judaism to the
attention of the world, it is above all necessary to con-
trovert the historic attitude and teachings of the Christian
faith. The Church, declaring the existence of the
Synagogue as unjustifiable, regards itself as having
in the history of Judaism has yet to be written.
vii
viii
INTRODUCTION
In the vision of the prophet, Israel," the servant
of the Lord,” is represented as reviled and misunder-
stood by those who have reaped the beneficent fruits
of his sorrows, but there is held out the assurance that
he will nevertheless live to see the time when ideal justice
will be meted out to him. It is my hope that this
work, which I submit to the attention and indulgence
of the reader, may help towards this great end.
My thanks are due to the Very Rev. the Haham
Dr. M. Gaster for the trouble he has taken in reading
the MS., and for the valued suggestions he made to me.
It is likewise a pleasure to record my deep obligation
to the Rev. David Bueno de Mesquita for the friendly
and valuable services he has rendered to me in the
revision of this book.
I am indebted for the reading of the proofs to Mr.
Charles B. Mabon, as well as to the Rev. Charles Voysey,
the venerable head of the Theistic Church in London.
P. G.
LONDON,
On the Anniversary
of the Birth of
Theodor Herzi, 1908.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
CHAPTER I
JUDAISM, THE MOTHER OF RELIGIONS
.
.
.
I
The birth of a people~Rome compared with Israel
The oracle of Micah predicting the religion of the future
- Judaism-Ethical Monotheism–The Jewish concep-
tion of God—The Jewish rule of life-Its essence-
The Shema–Moses—The Torah of Moses—The Mis-
sion of Judaism--The birth of Christianity and Moham-
medanismThe ignorance of ancient Greeks and
Romans regarding the Jews and Judaism-The irre-
trievable collapse of heathenism—The wrong tendency
of Christianity—Its corruption--Its hostility towards
Judaism—The collapse of the Catholic Church- Juda-
ism justified by Protestantism-The fate of Protestan-
tism-The 45th chapter of Isaiah an indication of the
Jewish attitude towards the world—The first Jewish
controversy with a great religion-Judaism recognizes
the workings of God in history—The separation of
Church and State initiated by the Jews—The reconcili-
ation of Judaism with all forms of government - No
dualistic principle in Judaism, as in Christianity-
God, the Creator of both light and darkness—The dif-
ference between the Jewish and the Christian outlook-
The moral of the history of Israel.
ix
X
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER II
THE SIGN OF THE COVENANT .
PAGE
. 27
N OF THE COVENANT
.
.
A Covenant the first mark of the religious conscious-
ness of the Jewish people—The vitality of Israel—The
sign of this Covenant-A unique phenomenon- Jews
compared with Phenicians and Armenians—The respec-
tive value of their literatures—The literature of the
Jews—The cause and significance of Jewish vitality-
The continuity of Jewish life.
CHAPTER III
“YE ARE MY WITNESSES ” .
.
.
.
.
37
The Jews have always been a protesting body-A
minority amidst majorities—The part played by Elijah
-Israel personified by that prophet—The Maccabean
struggle—The rise of Christianity as a persecuting
power—The sufferings of the Jews—"The man of
sorrows ”—The Jewish opposition to the false-" The
servant of the Lord "_The service of Judaism to the
cause of liberty and to the freedom of the human con-
science.
CHAPTER IV
• THE TREE OF LIFE
.
.
53
futility—The life-giving force in Judaism, the Torah-
The fatal effects of persecution on Christianity-Perse-
cution not necessary to the vitality of Judaism—The
TABLE OF CONTENTS
xi
PAGE
spontaneity of Jewish faith-Judaism existing by its
own inner strength_Trust in God—The depth of the
Jewish God-idea—The happy mean of the spiritual and
ceremonial elements in Judaism--Ceremonialism in the
Churches founded by Paul and his disciples—The bene-
ficial effect of ceremonialism in Judaism-All things
utilized in the service of God–The family tie in
Judaism—The feeling of solidarity among Jews—The
hallowing of social life-The effects of education among
the Jews—The passion for study—The loyalty of the
Jews to God.
CHAPTER V
THE UNIVERSALITY OF JUDAISM
.
.
.
.
76
The defensive attitude of the Jews, Judaism not
tribal - The Jews a Holy Communion—The Return
to Palestine-Zionism—The adaptability of the Jew
to the highest level of the national life surrounding
him—The width of Jewish sympathies—The position
of the stranger and the proselyte in Judaism-Exten-
sive Jewish proselytism at the beginning of Christianity
-Philo and Maimonides on the proselyte in Judaism-
Active proselytizing propaganda by Jews—Paul not
original in preaching to Gentiles-Christianity owes its
early missionary successes to Judaism—The later Jew-
ish view on proselytism-Check to Jewish proselytism
-The present attitude towards the question-Judaism
not a missionary religion, but a fermenting force—The
universality of Israel—Israel compared to ancient
Hellas—The reign of the true in Judaism.
xii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER VI
PAGE
THE MISSIONARY ASPECT OF CHRISTIANITY
.
· 109
The charge of exclusiveness against Judaism-—The
exclusiveness of Christianity and Mohammedanism-
The intolerance of Christianity-The manner in which
Christianity was introduced among its followers-
My first controversy with Christians--The Esthonians
converted by the "Saxons ”—They themselves had
been turned Christian by the sword of Charlemagne-
The manner of Clovis' and Vladimir's conversion-The
mutability and rule of chance in religious profession-
The Mohammedan conquest of the Christian Orient-
The success of Mohammedanism-The untenability of
the Christian claim for universal dominion-Christi-
anity the religion of the Occident and of a particular
civilization-The bright side of Christian missionary
work-Its evil effects--Its unjustified optimism-Mis-
sionary work not the highest expression of universality
in religion-The Christian denominations bounded
by local and ethnical limitations—The attitude of
hostility towards non-believers—The division of man-
kind according to Christianity—The progress of man-
kind is not advanced by one religious system only,
The Jewish recognition of the great religions—The
faith of Judaism in the peaceful working of the spirit
of God—The difference between the Jewish and Chris-
tian ideals of universality.
CHAPTER VII
THE OLD COVENANT AND THE NEW
.
.
. 145
Judaism is positive and pacific, Christianity des-
tructive and aggressive-Christianity's claim to have
TABLE OF CONTENTS
xiii
PAGE
superseded Judaism-Christianity does not apply the
same measure to itself as to Judaism-The failure of the
Church to carry out its professions—The moral state of
the apostolic age—The primitive Christians not exempt
from the general decadence—The body of the clergy
not better than the general mass of the believers~The
idea of deferring baptism until as late as possible—The
Dark Ages—The claim for the Church of special divine
guidance-The striving for unity—The quarrel about
the nature of the triune Godhead-Dogmatic and cere-
monial disputes—The ritualism of the Church-The
cult of saints and relics—Christianity a compromise
between Judaism and paganism—This constitutes no
advance on Judaism-The moral state of Jerusalem
under Christian rule-–The significance of the Refor-
mation-Christianity has not realized the Jewish ideal
of life.
CHAPTER VIII
MESSIANIC PROPHECIES
. . . . 186
The Jewish Scriptures the meeting-ground of Juda-
ism and Christianity~The attempts of the early Chris-
tian writers to adduce Christianity from the Old Testa-
ment-The hermeneutics of the early Christians—The
misinterpretation of biblical texts—The conditions
favouring it–The interpretation of "Shiloh " as an
instance of Messianic prophecy—The allegorical, in-
stead of the literal, interpretation adopted by early
Christianity--Condemnation of the literal and critical
interpretation by Cardinal Newman-Example of
Nestorian Church-Aversion to original texts-The
Septuagint and the primitive Church—The danger
exemplified by the rendering of "a virgin ” in Isa.
xiv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
vii. 14–The Christian objections to the Jewish mode
of interpretation-Jews and fanciful interpretations-
Many Christians have abandoned their traditional inter-
pretation—The necessity to prove that a prophecy is
not merely Messianic, but that it has been fulfilled by
Jesus—The evangelists hypnotized by words and
phrases—"A virgin shall conceive "-"I called my
son out of Egypt "_" In Ramah there was a voice
heard "-The place of Jesus' birth—The difficulties of
the Christian exposition " But thou, Bethlehem
Ephrathah "_" The land of Zebulun and the land of
Naphtali "_" For unto us a child is born "_" Kiss
the son "_" The Lord said unto my lord "_" The
servant of the Lord ”—The new Covenant of Jeremiah
-"A redeemer shall come to Zion "-"A prophet like
unto me "_" The glory of the latter house "_" A
bone of him shall not be broken ”-“ Unto me whom
they have pierced ”—The thirty pieces of silver-
“Riding upon an ass”-Cardinal Newman's admis-
sions—The want of understanding by the apostles of
what Jesus foretold—The Jewish views coincide with
the modern scientific interpretation, Jesus did not
fulfil the signs of the Messianic times.
CHAPTER IX
JESUS OF NAZARETH
.
.
.
.
.
. 229
The appearance of Jesus--His extraordinary influ-
ence—The paradox of the Jews and Jesus—His Jewish-
ness—The Christian explanation of the Jewish opposi-
tion to Jesus—The Jewish view of Jesus—The differ-
ence between the Jewish and Christian views of the
question_Hillel and Jesus—The Pharisees—The
Sadducees—The Essenes-John the Baptist-The
real Jesus—The four Gospels_Their untrustworthy
TABLE OF CONTENTS
XV
PAGE
composition—The virgin-birth of Jesus—His resurrec-
tion-His ascension--His miracles—The Christian
dogma of the Incarnation—The claim of his unap-
proachable moral greatness—The mistake of comparing
the highest Christian theory with perverse Jewish
practice—The charge of tribalism against the Jews-
Jesus not free from prejudice against Gentiles—The
New Testament and the Talmud-Count Tolstoy on
the sayings of the Rabbis and of Jesus—Non-resist-
ance~The test of the specific teachings of Jesus-
The Mosaic rule of life as a contrast–The idea of a
mediator between God and man—The Jewish view of
the divinity of Jesus—The Christ legends—The spread
of Christianity—The teachings of the Gospel—The
sufferings of Jews as a proof against them—The treat-
ment of religious reformers in Christendom-The
cases of James Naylor and John Huss—The destruc-
tion of the Jewish State as a punishment of the Jews-
The case of the Christian martyrs—The power of Chris-
tianity and the Jews—There can be no place for Jesus
in Judaism—The decisive question is : “Was he God
or man ?”—He was a man with human failings-His
fallibility-- Jesus casting put devils—His expected
return-The proof against the other-world promises of
Jesus.
CHAPTER X
THE CHURCHES OF CHRIST . .
.
.
. 295
The original disciples of Jesus zealous adherents of
the Mosaic institutions—The Hellenistic Jews-Paul
and the Law—The opposition of Paul to the elder
apostles—Paul following others in preaching to Gentiles
The conflict between the elder apostles, and Paul
xvi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
-The Gnostics-The Manicheans—The "Nazarenes
and Ebionites—The Arians--Catholicism-The unity
of the Church-The doctrines of Catholicism-The
Catholic priesthood-Its lust for power--Its struggle
with the laity-Its intolerance-Its use of war--The
moral record of Catholicism—The saints—The Popes
-Protestantism-Its hatred of Romanism-Its de-
spotism-The changes in doctrine—The translation of
the Bible into the vernacular-Protestantism not
wholly based on the Bible-Its dependence on the
early Catholic Church-The break of Protestantism
with primitive Christian ideas and practices--The
Greek Church-The outlook for the various Churches
-It was not moral questions which divided the
Churches--The justification of Judaism in the struggles
of Christian sects.
CHAPTER XI
✓ THE SCHEME OF SALVATION .
.
.
.
. 344
The Christian “scheme of salvation"-The fall of
man-The redemption of man-Sacrifices in Judaism
and in Christianity-The extent of the atonement pro-
duced by Christ's death-Man's freedom and pre-
destination-Faith and works—The Catholic and
Protestant views on the question-Luther on the power
and all-sufficiency of faith-Catholicism and sacra-
ments-Baptism-The Lord's Supper—The artificiality
of the Christian theory of salvation–The effect of
Christ's sacrifice not equal to its claims-Judaism on
total depravity_The presumed unhappiness of the
unbeliever --The fear of the Christian—The argument
of hell-fire-Christianity and civilization–The pessim-
ism of Christianity-Monachism as its dominant note
TABLE OF CONTENTS
xvii
PAGE
of life—The fight for power and wealth-The highest
form of civilization is intellectually non-Christian-
The humanitarian aspects of our civilization—The con-
ception of universal brotherhood—Anti-Semitism, a
symptom of Christian exclusiveness—The first principle
of true progress-- Judaism not inferior to Christianity
-The inexhaustible vitality of Judaism–The relative
position of the supernatural in Judaism and Christi-
anityJudaism in the political and social fields-
Judaism and modern thought-The election of Israel
Judaism and the truth.
INDEX
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. 391
CHAPTER I
JUDAISM, THE MOTHER OF RELIGIONS
"And many nations shall join themselves to the Lord in
that day, and shall be My people ; and I will dwell in the midst
of thee, and thou shalt know that the Lord of hosts hath sent
me unto thee.”—Zechariah ii, II.
WHEN the histories of great men come to be told, cer-
tain traits and characteristics of their childhood are
often recollected, or are at least assigned to them, which
are said to have already then indicated their future
career, and the same process of thought likewise meets
the historian of a great nation, as he traces its develop-
ment from humble beginnings until it becomes a power-
ful factor in the life of the human race. The account
which such a nation gives of its birth and early growth
assumes a special significance when it is viewed from the
vantage ground which its subsequent history affords.
The story of the founders of Rome and of its founda-
tion is an interesting example of this kind. It was said
that Mars ravished a vestal virgin, who was delivered
of twins, Romulus and Remus. The mother and chil-
dren were ordered to be drowned ; but while the mother
became a goddess, the children were saved by a she-
wolf who gave them suck, and a woodpecker who brought
them food. Thus the boys remained until they were
discovered by a shepherd, who became their foster-
father. They grew up to be strong shepherd youths,
fighting against wild beasts and robbers, until " they
2 THE SYNAGOGUE AND THE CHURCH
turned might into right." 1 After various predatory
adventures, the brothers founded the city of Rome,
which eventually became the cause of a fratricide, in
which Remus was killed by Romulus.
Now, if we think of the Rome of history, the city
which, like a wolf, swallowed nation after nation in
its ferocity and insatiable greed of power, and which
afterwards, like its founders, turned might into right,
the legend of its foundation becomes pregnant with a
remarkable significance.
As a contrast to this, stands the record we possess of
the creation of a small people, the Jews, whose political
independence was destroyed by the Romans. Israel,
unlike Rome, was founded on an ethico-religious basis.
Isaac was born because of the faith in God's righteous-
ness that was in his father Abraham. The descendants
of Abraham were to be a blessing to all the nations of
the earth, but it was only because “he will command
his children and his household after him, that they may
keep the way of the Lord, to do justice and judgment.” 2
So a people developed, more or less conscious that
the exceptional position in which it considered
itself as standing in the eyes of God entailed an equally
exceptional responsibility. While still young and
obscure, it felt within itself a superhuman strength,
“the spirit of the Lord,” which would inspire it to
conquer the world. Thus, an oracle which was current
about twenty-seven centuries ago,' and which has been
preserved to us, gives a delineation both of the religious
i Niebuhr, History of Rome (4th ed.), i, p. 222.
2 Cf. Gen. xii. 1-3 ; xviii. 18, 19; xxii. 18; xxvi. 3-5, etc.
3 Amos iii. 2.
4 The time coincides almost with the legendary date of the
foundation of Rome.
(D
LIII
JUDAISM, THE MOTHER OF RELIGIONS 3
evolution of the human race, and of the part Israel was
to play in it; and, in the light of the future history
of this people, there is perhaps no portion of the whole
of the Jewish writings more deserving of our attention
than the following discourse, which a competent autho-
rity has declared to be the most sublime passage in the
whole range of universal literature 1:-
“But in the latter days it shall come to pass, that the
mountain of the Lord's house shall be established in the
top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the
hills; and peoples shall flow unto it. And many
nations shall go and say, Come ye, and let us go up to
the mountain of the Lord, and to the house of the God
of Jacob; and He will teach us of His ways, and we will
walk in His paths : for out of Zion shall go forth instruc-
tion and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem. And
He shall judge among many people, and reprove strong
nations afar off ; and they shall beat their swords into
ploughshares and their spears into pruning hooks :
nation shall not lift up sword against. nation, neither
shall they learn war any more. But they shall sit every
man under his vine and under his fig tree; and none
shall make them afraid ; for the mouth of the Lord of
hosts hath spoken it. For all the peoples will walk
every one in the name of his god, and we will walk in the
name of the Lord our God for ever and ever.” 2
If we reflect on the circumstances under which this
1" Höheres als jenes Fragment gibt's auf Erden nicht."
H. Steinthal, Zu Bibel und Religionsphilosophie, 1890, p. 77.
2 Micah iv. 1-5. The same prophecy, with some slight verbal
variations and the omission of the last two verses, is found also
in Isa. ii. 2-4. It was probably at the time a well-known oracle,
but the one in Micah seems more complete, and more appro-
4 THE SYNAGOGUE AND THE CHURCH
prediction was delivered, we shall be able to appreciate
the better the grandeur of its conception. The descen-
dants of Abraham were then à people which could
hardly keep its independence among the small neigh-
bouring tribes, and stood comparatively insignificant
among the polities of antiquity. Had these utterances
of the nabi (prophet) reached the ears of a contemporary
Egyptian or Assyrian, the Hebrew could not but have
appeared arrogant and meriting only contempt, just as
we might now treat a claim on the part of, say, a Bul-
garian patriot that the capital of his little principality
was destined to become the intellectual or moral centre
of the world. But to us, living in another age, it has
been vouchsafed to see the realization of the prophet's
vision. What would have appeared incredible in his
time, is so commonplace to us now that we require to
be continually reminded of this wonderful and un-
exampled fact in the history of humanity.
This passage, however, not only defined the course
religion was to take, that instruction should go forth out
of Zion to all the nations of the earth, but it also gave
a hope and an ideal, both to mankind and to Israel.
It is this portion of the prophecy which is still too
much overlooked, but which bears within itself the
pith of the Hebrew prophet's ideal. It is of " the last
days," " the far-off divine event," that the prophet
speaks, and we are told that, through the word of the
Lord which will go forth to the peoples from Jerusalem,
the hostility of man against man, and nation against
nation, will cease. When the art of war will have been
priately placed. The last verse is considered by some not to be
part of the original prediction, but a few centuries sooner or
later do not affect its significance.
JUDAISM, THE MOTHER OF RELIGIONS 5
forgotten, every man will securely enjoy the fruits of
his labour. To an age which is becoming more and
more conscious of those great defects of all civilizations,
the curse of war and the economic struggle, the utter-
ances of the prophet come with a special significance.
The student of history will find that, like the prediction
of the course of religious evolution, the vision of human
happiness is surely, though slowly, making its way
towards realization.
The prophet then proceeds to give us the reason and
proof for the salvation of the human race. “For,"
says he to his Jewish audience, “all the peoples will walk
every one in the name of his god, and we will walk in
the name of the Lord our God for ever and ever.” It
is here, amidst the universalistic outlook of the prophet,
that the peculiar character of the Jewish people, and the
part assigned to it in the world's history, is proclaimed
and emphasized. The continued existence of Israel
and his faithfulness to God is the sign of the eventual
ingathering of the nations unto Him. As Israel is
the fruit of Abraham's faith, so through the fidelity of his
descendants to the Lord shall the world be blessed.
Conformably with the prophet's outline of the spiritual
and material salvation of the human race, Judaism,
the concrete development of his philosophy, has two
aspects—the Synagogue and the World—which combined
form a harmonious whole. If Judaism rests securely
on the recognition of its position in the world, it is
because it has firmly established the inalienable duties
of every man to his Creator, to himself and to his neigh-
bour. These relations are laid down in a literature
which is distinguished from the expression of the mind
of all other peoples by a uniform, unswerving tendency
6
THE SYNAGOGUE AND THE CHURCH
concentrating itself on one point-ethical Monotheism.
This idea has become the master-passion of Judaism,
and, together with the consciousness of its possession
and of its import, has remained through all times the
undisputed cardinal doctrine of Judaism.
The Jewish conception of God is not the result of
philosophical reasoning, nor is His essence defined and
limited by the finite mind of man. The Jewish view of
the Godhead is ethical, not metaphysical ; He is not the
object of speculative or dogmatic conflicts, but the
Inspirer of the human conscience, the Being to whom
every knee bends in worship. It is not so much His
omnipotence, as the complementary attributes, justice
most prominent characteristics. The grandeur of God
in His loving care for His creatures is well brought out
in the observation of R. Jochanan that in every passage ·
of the Scriptures where the majesty of God is men-
tioned, there is also proclaimed His condescension to
man. When the Lord is declared as “the mighty and
revered God who regardeth not persons nor taketh a
bribe," there follows the assurance that “He doth exe-
cute the judgment of the fatherless and widow, and
loveth the stranger in giving him food and raiment,”
“A Father of the fatherless, and a Judge of the widows
is God in His holy habitation," "For thus saith the High
and Lofty One that inhabiteth eternity, and whose name
is Holy, I dwell in the high and holy place, with him
that is also of a contrite and humble spirit, to revive
the spirit of the humble, and to revive the heart of the
contrite ones.” 1
1 Megillah 310. There is an analogous idea expressed in
Ecclesiasticus ii. 18:.“ As His majesty is, so is His mercy."
JUDAISM, THE MOTHER OF RELIGIONS 7.
If the awe-inspiring holiness of this Divine Father is
thus only a measure of His infinite grace to man, it is
his grateful duty to fulfil God's Will, which has been
revealed by Him with the object of procuring the highest
state of man's happiness. The rule of life is to be found
in a literature which bears divine traces in its pages.
Taking this literature, as containing God's revelation of
Himself to man,1 Jewish sages have tried to deter-
mine its essence. These opinions furnish us with the
definitions of Judaism arrived at by them and, though
varied in expression, they are evidence of the uni-
formity in their lofty religious conceptions, and of
the spiritual and ethical richness of Jewish life and
faith.
To Hillel, Judaism was comprised in the golden rule :
“Do not unto others what thou wouldest not that others
should do unto thee.” The rest, he said to a would-
be proselyte, was only a commentary.2
1 There is a typical passage in the Pivké Aboth, iii. 18, in
which the reason of the superiority of revealed over natural
religion is thus stated : “Rabbi Akiba used to say, Beloved is
man, for he was created in the image of God; but it was by a
greater love that it was made known to him that he was created
in the image of God, as it is said, For in the image of God made
He man (Gen. ix. 6). Beloved are Israel, for they were called
children of the All-present; but it was by a greater love that
it was made known to them that they were called children of
the All-present, as it is said, Ye are children unto the Lord, your
God (Deut. xiv. I). Beloved are Israel, for unto them was
given the desirable instrument; but it was by a special love
that it was made known to them that that desirable instrument
was theirs, through which the world was created, as it is said,
For I give you a good doctrine, forsake ye not My Law (Prov.
iv. 2)."
* Bab. Talmud, tr. Sabbath, 31a.
8
THE SYNAGOGUE AND THE CHURCH
Discussing as to what is the most comprehensive
commandment of the whole Torah, or the Sacred Scrip-
tures of Judaism, R. Akiba said that it was to be found
in the verse" Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.” 1
Against this, Ben Azai contended that it was rather con-
tained in the “Book of the generations of Adam,” 2
meaning thereby that the fundamental idea of Judaism
was to be sought in the account of the creation of man
in the image of God and in the descent of all men from
one common father.3
According to Rabbi Simlai,4 the 613 affirmative
and negative commandments to be found in the
Pentateuch are contained in the eleven character-
istics of the pious Jew as delineated in the fifteenth
Psalm : “ Lord, who shall sojourn in Thy tabernacle ?
Who shall dwell in Thy holy hill ? He that walketh
uprightly, and worketh righteousness, and speaketh the
truth in his heart. He that slandereth not with his
tongue, nor doeth evil to his friend, nor taketh up a
reproach against his neighbour. In whose eyes a
reprobate is despised; but he honoureth them that
fear the Lord. He that sweareth to his own hurt, and
changeth not. He that putteth not out his money to
usury, nor taketh reward against the innocent."
Rabbi Simlai, however, added that Isaiah had reduced
these eleven commandments to six ; 5 further, that
Micah had brought them down to three : 6 “ He hath
shewed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth
the Lord require of thee, but to do justly, and to love
mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God ? ” Isaiah
1 Lev. xix. 18.
4 Maccoth, 236, 240.
2 Gen. v. I.
5. xxxiii. 15.
3 Siphra, Kedoshim, iv.
6 vi. 8. ?lvi, I.
JUDAISM, THE MOTHER OF RELIGIONS 9.
again comprised them in two:"Keep ye judgment and do
righteousness," and that, lastly, the whole was summed
up by Habakkuk in the one assurance that "the just
shall live by his faith.” 1
To impress the teachings of Judaism on the minds and
hearts of men, an institution has been ordained, which,
as old as the establishment of synagogues for study and
prayer, has remained to this day the central part of
Jewish faith and worship. This is the reading of the
Shema,2 a collection of portions from the Pentateuch,
to be repeated twice daily, beginning with the verse :
“Hear, O Israel, IHWH is our God, IHWH is One,"
and comprising Deut. vi. 4-9; Deut. xi. 13-21 and
Num. xv. 37-41.
The Shema is the articulate expression of the Jewish
soul, laden with its memories of thousands of years.
It is hallowed by the first prayerful lisp of the infant,
by the last breath of the dying, by the confession of
innumerable Jewish martyrs. It has never been dese-
crated by the wrangling of factions, nor has it been used
as a battle-cry for bloodshed. The Shema is not, as is
often erroneously assumed, the counterpart. of the
Mohammedan chief article of belief : “Allah is one,
and Mohammed is his Prophet.” The Jewish declara-
tion of the unity of God has in itself something alto-
gether different from the stern, almost fierce, spirit of
the Mohammedan formula. Since Abraham's appeal :
1 ii. 4. According to Simon the Just, one of the last of the
Men of the Great Synod, the foundation of the world
rests on three things : the study and practice of the Torah,
acknowledgment of God in worship, and works of mercy. Pirké
Aboth, i. 2.
2 It is called the Shema from the first word of 5879 yow
“ Hear, O Israel.”
10 THE SYNAGOGUE AND THE CHURCH
“Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right ? ”1 God
is considered in Judaism as exercising an ideal justice,
which, in its divine form, is tempered by mercy and
love: “The Lord is merciful and gracious, longsuffering
and abundant in beneficence and truth, keeping mercy
even unto the thousandth generation," 2 and the recip-
rocal feeling is expressed by the Jew in the following
sentence, which, in the Shema as in the Pentateuch,
immediately follows the declaration of the unity of God :
“And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thine
heart, with all thy soul and with all thy might.” 3 The
heart, the eyes, the hands, the whole man is to be devoted
to this ideal ; he is to remember it at every opportunity
and in every circumstance of life; the home is to be
pervaded by it; he is to carry it into the cloister and
into the mart.
Intimately with this is here connected the exhortation
to carefully impart this truth to one's descendants.
According to Jewish teachers, the words of God to Adam :
“Be fruitful and multiply," 4 is the first commandment,
in the form of a blessing, given by God to man, and the
propagation of the species is therefore a religious duty.
The childless man or barren woman is considered as
having missed his or her purpose in life. It is man's
natural bent to look after the material welfare of his
offspring, but the obligation of the moral and intellectual
training of the young is an integral portion, and one of
the most beautiful aspects, of Judaism. The moral
continuity of the human race, the responsibility of one
generation for the other, man's duty to the past as to
1 Gen. xviii. 25.
.
3 Deut. vi. 5.
2 Exod. xxxiv. 6, 7.
4 Gen. i. 28.
.
JUDAISM, THE MOTHER OF RELIGIONS II :
the future, his debt to the one as to the other—as it is
inculcated in the Torah-fixes the true position of the
individual in the world.
The command in the Shema to love the Lord will,
if followed, lead to real happiness, while its rejection
will result in misfortune and eventual destruction. It
is the law of reward and punishment, such results as our
actions deserve. There is no promise of another world
in this Deuteronomic portion of the Pentateuch; this
was developed later on out of the instinct and experi-
ence of the human soul. God appeared unto Moses
as 7078 7WN 17978, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and
Jacob, the Eternal, whose faithfulness to man is ever-
lasting.1
In serving the Lord, we are told not to follow the
desires of our heart and our eyes, but to be holy as the
Lord is holy. It is an appeal for personal purity of the
mind and heart, so momentous a question in Judaism
that the lesson from the Pentateuch on perhaps the
most important occasion of the year, the afternoon
service of the Day of Atonement, has been taken from
Lev. xviii., containing the laws regulating this aspect of
human life.
This is the theme of the Shema, the rule of life, as it is
to be found in the Torah of Moses. Moshé Rabbenu,
Moses our Master, as the illustrious prophet is affec-
tionately called, is distinct in character from all other
founders of religions by his unselfish labours and by the
absence of any claim of authority in his own words.
His greatest praise is contained in the simple statement :
1 Cf. the first two blessings of the Amidah. This may have
suggested the remark of Jesus in Matt. xxii. 31, 32.
12
THE SYNAGOGUE AND THE CHURCH
“The man Moses was very meek, above all the men
which were upon the face of the earth."i He left no
dynasty, no hierarchy, no successors with extravagant
claims; his name has not been used as a battle cry ;
he is not the object of superstition ; his grave has not
become the confluence of sordid gains and passions.
The greatest of the prophets, the Lawgiver, to whom the
world owes the Decalogue, the corner-stone of our moral
system, passed away after having accomplished a work
more lasting, certainly more beneficent, than the pyra-
mids which his people helped to build, but yet his place
of rest is not known“ unto this day.” 2
The Torah of Moses, the Charter of Judaism, is to be
continually and publicly proclaimed to men, women and
children. In this Charter the spirit of righteousness
reigns supreme. Human life is sacred, for man is made
in the image of God. There is an equal law for every-
body: for the home-born and for the stranger, for the
freeman and for the slave. Nobody is above or beneath
the law. Not only is there a perpetual injunction in
the Torah to be merciful and generous to the poor, but
the whole is pervaded with such a spirit of sanity un-
paralleled in religious legislation, that we are told not
to favour the poor in an unjust quarrel with the rich.3
Even the beast of burden is not left to the possible
cruelty of man ; it has also a right to the Jewish obliga-
tory day of rest, and the ox which treads the corn must
not be muzzled. The Torah of Moses does not require
the belief of man in certain speculative or supernatural
theories ; such hidden things belong to God, man's
happiness consists in following the commands of the
1 Num. xii. 3.
2 Deut. xxxiv. 6.
3 Exod. xxiii. 3. ,
JUDAISM, THE MOTHER OF RELIGIONS 13
Lord, which can be impressed on his heart, and which
his hands are able to do.1 The Torah prohibits the
shirking of man's duties to his fellow-men or his sinking
in the barren attempt to obtain salvation by castigating
the flesh. On the contrary, Judaism is impregnated
with the spirit of optimism and the joy of life. When
Ezra the Scribe read the Torah to the assembled men
and women, they broke out in a passion of grief at their
sinfulness, but Ezra, Nehemiah and the Levites, the
men who knew the Torah, told the people not to mourn
or weep, but to celebrate the solemn day with feasts
and by assisting those who were in want, for “the joy
of the Lord is your strength.”? This is the true philo-
sophy of Jewish life.
The mission of Judaism was to upraise the whole of
humanity as much as the individual human soul. From
the womb of Judaism sprang Christianity, a faith whose
founder, apostles and first believers were Jews, and
whose foundations are so deeply imbedded in Judaism
that the sacred Scriptures and prophets of the mother-
religion are also the sacred Scriptures and prophets of
its offspring. Mohammedanism is likewise a Jewish
product. The recognized predecessors of Mohammed,
the prophets of the successive true religions, were taken
by him from Jewish history. The chief dogma of Islam,
the unity of God, was directly borrowed from Judaism,
and so were most Mohammedan doctrines and practices.
Judaism is thus indisputably acknowledged by its
children, Christianity and Mohammedanism, the great
monotheistic and world-conquering religions, as the
channel through which flowed the word of the living
.
1 Deut. :XXX. 11-14. 2 Cf. Neh. viii. .
3 Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses and Jesus..
14
THE SYNAGOGUE AND THE CHURCH
God in order to empty itself into the sea of humanity.
Yet the ignorance and levity with which Judaism has
been judged, and the contempt and hatred which have
been meted out to it, both in ancient and modern times,
represent an injustice and misunderstanding unparalleled
in history.
There are scarcely any Greek or Roman writers who
have left us any impressions of Judaism which show an
even fairly approximate appreciation of its real meaning.
Statesmen, orators and historians, men who are even
to-day considered among the brightest intellects of
antiquity, spoke with habitual and undisguised con-
tempt of the Jews and Judaism. They did not care to
inform themselves at first hand, and were accustomed
to superficially judge the Jew only by his lowest stan-
dard. That is why a man like Cicero could talk of
Judaism as "a barbarous superstition."i The spiritual
idea of God entertained by the Jews was admittedly
unique in the ancient world, but to the enlightened
Greeks and Romans it appeared nothing more than
the eccentricity of a small barbarous people in Syria,
which would not acknowledge the gods like all rational
beings. If Dion Cassius has to mention the God
of the Jews, he cannot help expressing his impatience at
such an evident absurdity by adding “whoever that
may be.” 2 To refuse to believe in the grotesque animal
gods of Egypt, in the gods of the Olympus, whose
ascribed vices rivalled those of men, not to participate
in the obscene rites of the Syrian and Babylonian neigh-
bours, not to adore the statue of a half-crazy voluptuary
of an Emperor, who was everywhere unanimously en-
1 Pro Flacco, xxviii. 67. ? Hist. Rom., xxxvii. 15.
JUDAISM, THE MOTHER OF RELIGIONS 15
rolled among the gods, or even to stake one's life against
the introduction of such a statue in the Temple of Jerusa-
lem, above all the unwillingness to cease to be a bar-
barian and to merge completely into life and religion
of the glorious Græco-Roman civilization, could only
call forth angry denunciations, or, at best, a benevolent
smile at the miserable fanaticism of such people. The
Sabbath, which, as a periodical day of rest, has become
an invaluable institution in modern life, could only pro-
duce raillery at the expense of the Jews and their God;
to rational men it seemed a most foolish custom to
waste a seventh part of man's existence in sheer idle-
ness.
Such was the state of mind of the leaders of thought
at one of the most brilliant periods of antiquity when
applied to Judaism. This feeling was often embittered
by the discovery of the many imitators whom the Jews
found. Jewish proselytism was regarded as an attempt
to corrupt the morals of the people. Seneca, noticing
the constant filling of the Jewish ranks with proselytes,
breaks out in the angry exclamation : “The conquered
have given laws to the conquerors ! ”
We know that the whole fabric of heathenism in the
Roman Empire, and far beyond its boundaries, has long
ago collapsed completely and irrevocably, never to rise
up again,1 and that Judaism, either directly or indirectly,
has become the ideal towards which humanity is irre-
1 In what light the gods " believed in by Homer, worshipped
by Socrates, immortalized by Phidias " are now regarded, is
well expressed by Max Müller (The Science of Religion, p. 336) :
“Can we imagine anything more silly, more savage, more sense-
less, anything more unworthy to engage our thoughts even for
a single moment ?'
16 THE SYNAGOGUE AND THE CHURCH
sistibly moving. Out of these longings of the world for
the Jewish light, Christianity and Mohammedanism
were born. These religions brought to the world a large
measure of Jewish truth, but, like Hellenism when
it conquered Asia, they soon lost a great deal of their
original purity, and have ever had to seek it at their
source. This was almost inevitable with the rapid
strides which they made and in the wholesale conversions
they effected. But if Christianity and Mohammedanism
soon placed themselves on wrong bases, their subsequent
history still further increased the instability of their
pretensions. They were forced to mingle their original
characteristics with the superstitions of the people who
became their votaries. This accounts for the fact that
while Christianity became occidentalized, it lost its hold
on the Orient, which turned Mohammedan. They
became so far geographical in their diffusion that for
those living in Europe it is considered unnecessary to
seriously study or combat the claims of Mohammedan-
ism.1 This would only have an academic value for us,
and is, therefore, excluded from the scope of this work.
But it is remarkable that both Christianity and Mo-
hammedanism concur in the divine mission of the Jews ;
the views of those distinguished pagans who so miscon-
strued and despised Judaism are nowhere more warmly
repudiated than by their own countrymen.
Our modern civilization, whilst fully recognizing
the greatness of the ancient Greeks and Romans, has
completely discarded their notion of Judaism. Whether
it be those who acknowledge allegiance to the doctrines
1 Just as for the Mohammedan in Mecca or Teheran, Chris-
tianity represents nothing more than the name of a false and
alien religion, without the slightest claim to his consideration.
JUDAISM, THE MOTHER OF RELIGIONS 17
enunciated by the Jews, or those who are more or less
opposed to them, all may be said to agree to the in-
comparable position which the Jews occupied in the
realm of Religion, and that, therefore, the proud and
cultured Greeks and Romans were hopelessly wrong in
their estimate of the religion of the so-called barbarous
Jews. It would be superfluous to quote any evidence
substantiating this, but two opinions culled from oppo-
site poles of thought may perhaps be taken as represen-
tative. Prof. Carl Heinrich Cornill, a Christian biblical
scholar of note, says : “The history of the whole human
race has produced nothing which can even remotely be
compared with Israelitish prophetism; through this
prophetism, Israel became the prophet of humanity.
May it never be overlooked or forgotten : the most
precious and noble which humanity possesses, it owes
to Israel." i Nietzsche, the anti-Jewish and anti-Chris-
tian philosopher, continues in the same strain : “ In the
'Old Testament,' the book of the divine Righteousness,
there are to be found men, things and utterances in so
exalted a style that Greek and Indian literature have
nothing to place beside it. One stands with dread
and awe before these mighty remains of humanity's
past." 2
Christianity, which had been at first a part of Juda-
ism, broke away from it as soon as it assimilated ideas
opposed to the mother-religion. As an independent
organism, Christianity evolved dogmas, ceremonies and
a ritual of its own. The Holy One was explained and wor-
shipped as a Trinity-the Father, the Son and the Holy
Ghost; God had appeared in the body of a man, and,
i Uber d. Isy. Prophetisinus, end.
a Jenseits von Gut und Böse, $ 52.
18 THE SYNAGOGUE AND THE CHURCH
SO
overriding the second commandment, which had saved
Judaism from the fantastic material representations of
the deities in the Egyptian, Hindu, Greek and Roman
pantheons, Christianity established the worship of
images. A complex, yet sharply defined, system of all
things human and divine, of the fall and subsequent
redemption of man, was elaborated as a code of beliefs
only to be doubted at the risk of body and soul. A
gallery of all sorts and conditions of saints, with an
attendant worship of their relics ; a monasticism, per-
nicious in its working, sprang up and spread, and a
hierarchy was created which, in extent and power, is
unequalled in history.
The attitude of the Church towards the Synagogue
was one of unqualified hostility. Though the priests
in Christian Rome voluntarily confessed that the scribes
in ancient pagan Rome had taken up a decidedly false
position towards Judaism, Christianity contended that
the existence of Judaism was now inexcusable. Now,
as then, the almost unlimited power and splendour of
the Roman Church were pitted against the poor, hunted
denizens of the Jews' quarters. But if the might of
heathen Rome was powerless against the irresistible
tide of truth, and was overwhelmed by it, the same fate
overtook also Christian Rome. If the heathen Empire
lacked ten righteous men who could prove its salvation,
the Catholic Church was practically saved in so far as
righteousness had not altogether left her. The collapse
of her carefully built edifice occurred with a startling
suddenness, and the so-called Reformation of the Chris-
tian Church took place. It was a cry for the source of
the religion : a longing, even though an unconscious one,
to regain the Jewish faith and life. The Reformation
JUDAISM, THE MOTHER OF RELIGIONS S
19
was to a very large extent a failure, but it proclaimed
that for at least twelve centuries, out of fifteen, Chris-
tianity had pursued a wrong track, and that Christianity,
only a little time subsequent to the death of its founder,
became corrupt in doctrine, and even in conduct.
If the Reformation left the Trinity and other Christian
dogmas undisturbed, it cleared them of many accretions
they had received in Catholicism. The “Mother of
God," as well as the saints, were thrown down from
their pedestals, and the world saw the curious spectacle
of vast multitudes of people tearing down the images
of Jesus and the Christian saints, and irreverently
scattering their relics, with the same fanaticism with
which they had adored them only yesterday. Most
of the sacred practices of the Church and its holiest
institutions were unhesitatingly abandoned ; the monastic
orders were torn up root and branch; the once
venerated Holy Mother Church became in the eyes of
its former votaries an abomination—and the erstwhile
Holy Father was proclaimed the Anti-Christ.
If we overlook the undoubted imperfections and the
violence of this Reformation, we find in it nothing less
than a confession of the false teachings of the Church,
and a justification of the Jewish opposition to her. The
Church, the depository of the truth of Christ, had gone
terribly astray from almost the commencement of her
career, and Judaism had been right in many things in
which the Church had been wrong. History repeated
itself, and we find here again an exact repetition of the
blindness and pride and subsequent fall of the religion
and polity of ancient Rome. In both instances the
reparation to Judaism was awful in the extreme.
Some of the Reformers, like Luther, considered that
20
THE SYNAGOGUE AND THE CHURCH
the Jews might be won over to Christianity, now that
it had, in their view, been purified from the dross with
which it had for so long been mingled. · But they tried
in vain to compress the waters of a great river into the
narrow bed of a canal, instead of allowing it to fulfil its
destined purpose in the economy of the world. Judaism
is too large to be contained in any Christian sect, how-
ever eclectic it might be rendered and however attrac-
tive it might be fashioned by its founders.
Instead of learning its lesson of Christian history to
the end, Reformed Christianity retained many of the
false positions held by the ancient Church, and occu-
pied new, and some even more untenable, ones. The
fate of the Reformed Churches is becoming as power-
ful a witness to the truth of Judaism as that of the
Roman Church. Not only have many of the essential
doctrines of the new Churches proved a source
of weakness to them, but some of them have been
dropped or are becoming obsolete. The beliefs which
they took over, or which they created, have been sub-
jected to the test of criticism and have been found
wanting. The fundamental ideas and doctrines of all
Christian Churches—the Trinity, the birth, resurrection
and ascension of Jesus, the fall and salvation of man,
have no place in our modern thought. They may be
recited as an iron-bound creed in the churches and
chapels, but no philosopher will build his system on them,
and the scientist only looks at them with disdain. In
glancing over the works of our great writers, poets and
thinkers we find that they are almost all hostile to the
dogmatic side of Christianity; if they are not positively
anti-Christian—and in a sense even some avowed
Christians, like Tolstoy, are actually anti-Christian-they
JUDAISM, THE MOTHER OF RELIGIONS 21
are, like Goethe, distinctly non-Christian 1, and can only
appreciate the moral aspect of Christianity. It is now
being gradually recognized that Christian morality is
in reality Jewish, and had, with an incomparable
power and grace, been proclaimed by Jewish prophets
and psalmists many centuries before Jesus, without the
admixture of the dogmas and false science with which
it was indissolubly interwoven even in the earliest form of
Christianity. To this source of morality and righteous-
ness all may come and quench their thirst. Even those
who stand perplexed, not knowing whither to turn in
their demand for a rule of life, may in effect agree with
the confession of Professor Huxley, the godfather of
Agnosticism : “I have a great respect for the Nazaren-
ism of Jesus—very little for later Christianity. But the
only religion that appeals to me is prophetic Judaism." 2
The spread of ethical Monotheism, the subordination of
the great crises of history to this all-absorbing object,
the fundamental difference between Judaism and the
religions opposed to it, are set out by one of the most
illustrious minds which have shaped the thought of
the Synagogue, in the forty-fifth chapter of Isaiah
—the first Jewish controversy with a noble religion,
worthy of Judaism itself.
To this Jewish prophet, Cyrus is not only the mighty
conqueror of Empires, but God's Anointed, the Messiah,
the Christ, who in the overthrow of the Babylonian
State is the instrument of God's far-seeing purpose.
Cyrus is indeed quite unconscious of the transcendent
rôle he is called upon to play ; his wonderful martial
1 This is his own description of his religious position in :
letter to Lavater.
? Prof. Huxley in a letter to Romanes.
22
THE SYNAGOGUE AND THE CHURCH
successes are to him only feats of arms, and his permis-
sion to the Jews to re-establish a small community in
their country might be to him nothing more than an
unimportant incident in his wise statesmanship. But it
was the God of Israel who had crushed the forces of
many peoples, and smoothed the way for Cyrus, that
the Jewish ideal might proceed towards its realization ;
that the world should ultimately know that there is
only one God, “Who formeth light and createth dark-
ness,” Who is the source of righteousness, and the sole
Saviour of the human race.
The condition of the Jews under Cyrus has become
typical, and furnishes lessons that hold good for all times.
In his great Empire, the Jews formed a small people,
doubly insignificant on account of their homeless condi-
tion, and their helpless subjection to the mercy of every
capricious king. Yet the Jewish heart was large and
wise enough to adapt itself to circumstances, and, unlike
every other religion, Judaism alone can sincerely call
the unbelieving, but beneficent, ruler, the Shepherd
and the Anointed of God. The Jews represented then
the unprecedented spectacle (and in this respect they
have remained unchanged ever since) of a nation that
not only faithfully maintained its beliefs and hopes
amidst unsympathetic and hostile surroundings, but
were contented and loyal under the authorities of a
foreign religion. That this absence of the intransigent
spirit, unavoidable in Christianity and Mohammedan-
ism under such conditions, that the separation of
Church and State thus initiated by the Jews, does not
betoken mere callousness on the part of Judaism as
1 Isa. xliv. 28; xlv. i.
JUDAISM, THE MOTHER OF RELIGIONS 23
regards the welfare of humanity at large, is simply
disproved by the great prophet, by whom the crisis of
which he was a witness was construed as another step
in God's education of mankind through His servant
Israel.
The Jewish philosophy of Universal History finds a
similar explanation for the cataclysms to which the
struggles of man have perodically given birth from
primitive to modern times—from the fall of Babylon
down to the French Revolution. Whatever their appar-
ent imperfections, the great conquerors—from Cyrus to
Napoleon I-are instruments of an all-directing and
beneficent Will 1; whatever their undoubted errors, the
great religious reformers—from Zoroaster to Luther-
are carrying out God's purpose in the education of the
race. The God of Judaism is the God of History. It is
through man that He works, and through this manifesta-
tion of Him we recognize His sway over our conscience
and destiny, far beyond our transient existence. For
religions like Christianity and Mohammedanism, each
claiming to be the sole depository of truth, the course of
history presents perplexing and inexplicable difficulties.
If Mohammedanism can only bemoan the eclipse of its
fortunes, Christianity cannot account for the insuper-
able check it received by the appearance and wonderful
success of that rival religion. To the Roman Catholic,
who sees in his sect the Church of Christ, outside of
which there is no salvation for the human race, the Greek
schism, the Reformation, the French Revolution, the
1 Even Nebuchadnezzar, the man who destroyed the Jewish
polity and temple, and carried the people away captive, is
called by a Jewish prophet “God's servant” (Jer. xxv. 9).
24 THE SYNAGOGUE AND THE CHURCH
slow but sure decline of the power and influence of Rome,
are insoluble mysteries. Nor can the countless divi-
sions of Protestantism find any explanation of their own
positive assertion, to which their very existence bears
witness, that the Church of Christ has been corrupt for
the longest part of her existence, and that to the present
day those who have truly found him, even in his own
Church, represent but a small number.
He formeth light and createth " יוצר אור ובורא חשך
darkness," 1 is a formula that we can take as a Jewish
touchstone of truth. In Judaism there is no equal
combat, with a doubtful issue, between a god and a
devil, between the light and the darkness, no evil
"prince of this world” opposing a beneficent king-
dom" not of this world.” This argument was ap-
plied by the prophet to the religion of Zoroaster, the
faith of Cyrus, the generous protector of the Jews.
The prophet boldly attacked its fundamental error
-the doctrine of the warring principles of light and
darkness, good and evil, Ormazd and Ahriman.
At the time of Cyrus, Zoroastrianism was at its full
strength, and, as the religion of the powerful Persian
Empire, it became supreme in Central Asia ; it was also
a religion full of high spiritual ideas, with sufficient inner
strength to produce a revival many centuries after its
birth. But it has passed away, and now exists only as
a relic among a very small community in India. The
Book of Zoroaster, the Zend Avesta, is only studied as
one of the dead literatures of ancient times, and it is not
without interest that among those who have done most to
resuscitate it for the world at large has been a Jewish
scholar, the late James Darmesteter.
1 Isa. xlv. 7.
JUDAISM, THE MOTHER OF RELIGIONS 25
19
1
The idea of an irreconcilable conflict of the principles
of light and darkness, matter and spirit, the world and
the Church, is also the initial error inherent in Christi-
anity. The fall of man and his subsequent redemption
by Jesus make it, in this respect, the counterpart of
ancient Parseeism. . The Redeemer was born of a virgin,
because marriage and the propagation of the species are
intrinsically evil. Man, as he stands, is utterly bad
by reason of his very birth; he lives under a perpetual
curse and dies eternally damned. The Gnostic sects,
which arose in the Christian Church soon after its
foundation, logically placed the First Person of the
Trinity, as the power of evil, in antagonism to the
Second Person, the power of good—the former condemn-
ing the world, the latter saving it: one representing
Judaism, the other Christianity.
Against this rock the Church is being wrecked. At
every shock Christianity quakes to its foundations.
These shocks are becoming more frequent and sustained,
and at no period of its history was the number of those
who discerned the true position, and tried to save them-
selves, so large as at the present day.
To these new '90 90952, to those who have escaped
from the dominant and popular Christian Churches,
indeed to all those who have either sunk into materialism
or are floundering in the midst of a pseudo-spiritualism,
Judaism submits the moral to be derived from the
history of Israel, the witness to the Holy One, and
appeals to them in the words of the prophet, when he
concluded his controversy with the Zoroastrianism of
old :-
" Assemble yourselves and come ; draw near together,
0227 0999, ye that are escaped of the nations: they have
26
THE SYNAGOGUE AND THE CHURCH
no knowledge that carry the wood of the graven image,
and pray unto a god that cannot save. Declare ye, and
bring it forth; yea, let them take counsel together ;
who hath shewed this from ancient time ? who hath
declared it of old ? have not I the Lord ? and there is no
God else beside Me ; a just God and a Saviour; there is
none beside Me. Look unto Me and be ye saved, all the
ends of the earth : for I am God, and there is none else.
By Myself have I sworn, the word is gone forth from My
mouth in righteousness, and shall not return : that unto
Me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear.
Only in the Lord, shall one say unto Me, is righteousness
and strength : even to Him shall men come; and all
that are incensed against Him shall be ashamed. .
"In the Lord shall all the seed of Israel be justified
and shall glory.” 1
i Isa. xlv. 20-25.
CHAPTER II
THE SIGN OF THE COVENANT
“They gat not the land in possession by their own sword,
neither did their own arm save them : but Thy right hand, and
Thine arm, and the light of Thy countenance, because Thou hadst
a favour unto them.”—Psalm xliv. 3.:
In the religious consciousness of Judaism there looms
as the first mark of its life a covenant by which God had
consecrated Israel for its mission. The sign of this
covenant and of its continuance was differently expressed,
but it is contained in the pledge that Israel was for ever
to remain not only a people, but a people before God.1
The two conditions are interdependent, for the dedication
of Israel to God is synonymous with its existence. The
Jewish people could not live were it to deny its purpose
and justification of being, just as, on the other hand, the
power of endurance and rejuvenation, by which it has
defied every misfortune, makes its existence to-day
the guarantee of an inner strength which can rise
superior to the force of external circumstances.
In order to realize the wonderful vitality displayed by
the Jewish people, we have only to reflect on the fate of
the nations amidst which it has been placed during its
chequered and eventful career. We need hardly refer to
those of whose existence we know almost only through
1 Jer. xxxi. 36.
27
28
THE SYNAGOGUE AND THE CHURCH
the literature of the Jews, but even the mighty Empires
connected with early Jewish history have passed away
like a stately procession on the stage of time, leaving of
their glory but a few melancholy ruins and inscriptions,
in the elucidation of which Jewish scholars are contribut-
ing their share. On the other hand we also know how
small was the political power of the ancient Israelites.
They were generally subject to one of the great
Empires of the East-Egypt, Assyria, Babylonia,
Persia-names which most people have become ac-
quainted with through the history of the Jews.
The Jews are not indeed the only existing people which
dates its origin back into remote antiquity, but there is
no other people which can claim at the same time both
the age and the indomitable vigour of the Jews. For
not only has it been allotted to them to see the ancient
Empires of Asia and Africa pass away like shadows, and
to witness the fall of Rome and Constantinople, but also
to have actively participated in the creation of a new
German Empire and an united Italy at the end of the
nineteenth century. Nor was it because, like the
Chinese, they surrounded themselves with a material
or intellectual wall that the Jews have survived to this
day; we need only look through the pages of Jewish
history to find that there has been scarcely a great
event in medieval or modern times, within that civili-
zation which traces its source from the borders of
the Mediterranean, in which the Jews have not taken
their share, whether it was in the discovery of new
worlds or the dissemination of new ideas.
In order to fairly measure the power of existence
it is only necessary to compare them to two peoples,
THE SIGN OF THE COVENANT 29
both analogous to the Jews in many respects--the Pheni-
cians and Armenians.
The Phenicians were not only of the same Semitic
stock as the Jews, but, living near each other, they must
have intermixed to a considerable extent. A Jew
might still find a peculiar interest in reading in the scanty
records about Carthage (the city founded by Phenicians
in North Africa) which have come down to us from
Roman writers, such names as Barca (Barak) and of
those joined with that of the heathen God Baal-like
Asdrubal or Hannibal, the implacable foe of Rome.
Lastly, the fate of the mother-city and of its great colony
recalls in its tragic character the destruction of Jerusa-
lem; but here the bond and similarity between the
Phenicians and the Jews come to an end.
The commercial genius of Tyre is acknowledged, and
the greatness of Carthage, the rival of Rome for a long
period, is well known, but how little lasting has been the
influence of the Phenicians ! The Phenicians have
indeed fulfilled their purpose in the world's economy,
but we know that their disappearance left no gap. The
world has been better served in the work of civilizing
colonization by Greeks and Romans, by Latin and
Anglo-Saxon races. With the fall of Carthage there
perished also the mighty Carthaginian people with its
immense resources, and of all its ancient grandeur it has
left us but a few relics.
The Armenians, on the other hand, whose origin dates
back into a remote antiquity, have, like the Jews,
preserved their individuality, in spite of very great
obstacles, to the present day. There is much that is
common in the political history of the Jews and Armen-
ians. Both for a long time kept up a certain
30
THE SYNAGOGUE AND THE CHURCH
amount of national independence in the midst of the
neighbouring Empires, whose fall meant for their vassals
only a change of masters. The later sad fortunes of the
two people also offer many analogies. They have under-
gone a continual persecution at the hands of their here-
tical or unbelieving rulers, and both peoples have pas-
sionately clung to their religion. No States founded
outside their original countries by Jews or Armenians
have subsisted for any lengthy period, while by their
keen intelligence they have been the means of consider-
ably benefiting their oppressors. The Armenians, by
assimilating through Christianity in a considerable
measure the Jewish loyalty to an ideal, have preserved
their nationality from a decadent Byzantinism, and,
like a rock, they have withstood the onslaught of the
waves of Mongolian hordes without being merged by
them, thus serving, even if unconsciously, as a barrier
of civilization.
But if we apply to the Armenians the same test as we
did to the Phenicians—if we inquire into the amount of
influence exercised by Armenia on the world, we shall
find that, in spite of certain promising qualities undoubt-
edly possessed by the Armenians, their history has to
this day remained a barren field. We look among them
in vain for men who have stirred the world by the might
of their intellect. In the thousands of years of Armenian
life, there has not been produced one Armenian whom the
world honours among its great sons.
To further estimate comparatively the contributions .
of the Phenicians, Armenians and Jews to civilization,
their respective literatures may fairly be taken as an
index. The literatures of Greece and Rome are the
greatest glories of these peoples, and form perhaps the
THE SIGN OF THE COVENANT
31
most imperishable benefits which they have conferred
on the human race. It might indeed be said that there
has been no nation which has made a lasting impression
on civilization without having produced a literature
worthy of the name.
Of the Phenicians very little can be said in this respect.
It is now impossible to state to what an extent Car-
thaginian literature flourished; they have left us almost
nothing. The little we know of their history and in-
stitutions we owe to their enemies..
The Armenians, of course, possess a literature, which
has even experienced a revival in the nineteenth century,
particularly through the labours of the Mechitarist
monks on the island of St. Mark, near Venice, and
other agencies in Edchmiadzin, Constantinople, Vienna,
and Moscow. But it is just by the efforts in these centres
of Armenian intellectual life that its eminently sterile,
if not desolate, character becomes evident. For not
only is the nature of the work of those bodies very
limited, but even their contribution to the sum total of
our knowledge of Armenia itself is very disappointing.
For a critical knowledge of old Armenian literature,
which forms a large part of their literary output, we
have to go to French and German scholars. If I add
that even the Mechitarist order at St. Mark, which has
been the principal factor in the revival of Armenian
letters, owes its existence to heretical Roman Catholi-
cism, it will be seen how slight the merit of the Armenians
is in this respect. Armenian literature, whether eccles-
iastical or secular, is conspicuously poor. An example
may be taken from a field in which learned Armen-
ians have shown themselves most proficient. I refer to
Armenian historical literature, Its greatest achievement is
32
THE SYNAGOGUE AND THE CHURCH
the first history of Armenia, written by Moses of Chorence
in the fifth century, a ponderous compilation of a not
particularly high order. This production has hitherto
not been superseded ; and the most modern histories of
Armenia are still of the same uncritical and primitive,
if of a more slender, kind.
The Jews, on the other hand, are essentially what
Mohammed termed “the People of the Book.” In spite
of their conquest of Palestine, the Maccabean victories
and the heroic struggle with the Romans, the Jews do
not stand out as a martial people. Whenever they
fought, in their later national wars, it was for a higher
cause than even patriotism mostly affords, and if they
have conquered the world, it was not by the sword, but
by their ideas, by “the spirit of the Lord,” as the
prophets have it. It is, therefore, in the mind or
literature of the Jews that we have to seek for their
victories. It is so rich and varied that few have mas-
tered it in all its aspects. Its age carries us from
remote antiquity into our own day. Before Homer
appeared in Greece, the Hebrews already possessed a
literature, and prior to the time of Herodotus,” the
father of history," the life of Israel had already found
its chroniclers. In ancient as well as in medieval times,
the Jews have ever been active and creative, and by its
union in the eighteenth century with a new-born
civilization, the Jewish intellect has acquired renewed,
strength, and has developed into one of the great living
forces of our age.
With the writings that are collected in the Bible, the
Book, as the civilized world calls it, everybody is more or
less acquainted, though it is not yet sufficiently appre-
ciated for one of its great distinctions—nobility of diction,
1
**
33
THE SIGN OF THE COVENANT
Unlike the hieroglyphics or Sanskrit, which are studied
for their antiquarian or philological value, or even the
Greek and Roman literatures, which have so enormously
contributed to our modern civilization, the Hebrew Bible
is not the property of the select. In every country, in
every clime, and among all races its words are a mighty
influence ; it is diligently read by all classes—in the
prince's palace and in the peasant's hut. There are
few phases of human life which, directly or indirectly,
have not been shaped by the Bible-whether it be
politics and social life, literature, music or painting.
Great nations have had their language fixed and beauti-
fied by a translation of the Hebrew Book, aud many
peoples owe to it the beginnings of their literatures.
The earlier history of the Jewish people is better known
than that of any other nation, and to countless millions
that comprises their whole range of historical knowledge.
The heroes and prophets of the Jews have become the
master minds of the world, and it has learned to find in
their teachings the words of the living God.
Had the Jews disappeared two thousand years ago,
the biblical writings would have constituted a force
which would have been sufficient to keep the memory
of the Jews in the mind of the world, but, though a very
important, the Bible is only a small part of their
literature. The value of the Jewish Apocrypha is being
more and more appreciated; the New Testament is, in
substance, a Jewish, if heretical, production, and the
Talmud is an ocean, which, in spite of a vast amount
of labour, is still to a large extent unexplored, and
harbours many potentialities to the historian, arch-
eologist and student of religion.
This is not the place to enlarge upon the medieval
34
LI
THE SYNAGOGUE AND THE CHURCH
and modern literature of the Jews, but its importance
is not the less because it is not so well known as the more
ancient portion. Beginning with Chaldaic and Greek,
it has been written in almost all the languages of civiliza-
tion. Hebrew has indeed retained an honoured place,
even experiencing its golden age in medieval Spain and
a revival in the nineteenth century, but the Jews have
invariably written in the tongue of the land where
they lived, for they liked to regard themselves as an
integral part of their surroundings. There is no Euro-
pean language of any importance to which the Jews
have not added their share, but the chief medium of the
literature of the Jews has in the Middle Ages been
Arabic, and in modern times German. The wealth and
variety of their medieval culture, and their accompany-
ing unique work as the interpreters and intermediaries
between East and West, can only be appreciated by a
perusal of writings on the subject by competent authori-
ties. Of their achievements in the Gerinan language
the Jews may indeed be proud. There is scarcely a
phase of the rich intellectual life of Germany during
the nineteenth century to which Jews have not made
an appreciable contribution.
In the term “ Jewish Literature” we should include
not merely those writings which apply to the narrower
circle of Jews, but every literary production that is the
fruit of a Jewish mind—whether it be the scientific work
of Maimonides in Arabic, the philosophical treatises of
Spinoza in Latin, or the poems of Heine in German. So
wide and varied has been this sphere that even in such
an unexpected quarter as Christian literature we meet
with Jewish writers, who, like Neander, have left their
mark on Christian thought.
THE SIGN OF THE COVENANT
35
Independently therefore, of its unequalled religious
influence, the Jewish people looms large in the realm
of thought, while also in the social, not less than in
the intellectual, world, Jews have played a conspicu-
ous part. The great conflicting forces of our modern
civilization, Capital and Labour, have both found
amongst the Jews some of their most powerful re-
presentatives : on the one side, the Rothschilds and
other kings of finance, and, then, Karl Marx and Ferdi-
nand Lassalle, modern prophets of the ideal social
order which was proclaimed by some of their Hebrew
ancestors over twenty-five centuries ago. .
The cause and profound significance underlying this
perpetual vitality of the Jews has been well expressed
by Goethe. The great test of the value of a people
seemed to him to be its power of life :-"At the ethnic
judgment seat of the God of Nations, it is not asked
whether it is the best, the most excellent nation, but
only whether it lasts, whether it has maintained
itself.” He saw few virtues in the Jewish people
but acknowledged that “in independence, steadfastness,
and valour, and, when all this would not prove sufficient,
in tenacity, it has no match. It is the most persever-
ing nation in the world. It is, it was and will be to
glorify the name of Jehovah throughout all time.” 1
It is this unfaltering faithfulness to God, which the
Jews presented under the greatest trials and tempta-
tions, their steadfast adherence to what they considered
to be the Truth, and the recognition of their indebted-
ness to the past as well as to the present and the future,
that stamp the unique position of Israel in the world.
i Goethe, Wilhelm Meister's Wanderjahre, 2tes Buch, 2tes
Kapitel.
36 THE SYNAGOGUE AND THE CHURCH
There is a continuity of life and faith in Judaism, to
which no other religion can lay claim. The Bible, the
Book of Religion, is, after all a Jewish production,
and Judaism, say in modern Germany, is a reflex of it as
it existed in old-time Babylonia. The same emotions
and problems which agitated the Jewish prophets and
psalmists vibrate through the hearts of all men of every
clime and colour, but they touch the Jewish soul with
the special force and charm which is the result of a direct
and conscious inheritance of a glorious past. Here the
long-promised and now partially fulfilled past engen-
ders the future, and becomes its pledge : “This is My
covenant with them, saith the Lord : My spirit that is
upon thee, and My words which I have put in thy
mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the
mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed's
seed, saith the Lord, from henceforth and for ever." 2
1 The Bible is an admirable illustration how the Jewish mind,
can be universalistic without ceasing to be Jewish-intensely
Jewish and yet intensely universalistic.
2 Isa. lix. 21.
CHAPTER III
“YE ARE MY WITNESSES"
l'éveodé moc páptupes kal dyw náptus, Néyel Kúplos ó Deós.
Isaiah xliii. 10 (LXX).
"17 TAN7698059 77VR 987"-
Isa. lxvi. 9.
If we review the long course of Jewish history, we shall
easily observe that the feature which we have already
seen ascribed to it at a very early age, 1 has ever remained
dominant. Throughout the ages, the Jews have been
a protesting body, a minority against a majority, facing
the world with ideas and ideals running counter to
those current and conventional, but, at the same time,
in spite of every obstacle, gaining ground, and con-
quering “strong nations afar off.”
This protesting trait became so engraven in their
character that it was ascribed by them to their fore-
father Abraham, who had to adopt it as the first con-
dition of showing himself worthy to become the pro-
genitor of the Jewish people, and, through it, a source
of blessing to the world. The earliest and most
powerful manifestation of this national spirit was pro-
duced by the Hebrew nebiim (prophets). There is
perhaps no more pathetic fight for truth than the one
1 “For all the peoples will walk every one in the name of his
and ever” (Micah iv. 5; cf. supra, p. 3).
2 Gen. xii. 1-3.
38
THE SYNAGOGUE AND THE CHURCH
by Elijah, the champion of the Lord God of Israel,
against Baal and his priests. The victory of Elijah
over the priests of Baal might not at first seem moment-
ous, but the victory of heathenism then, would, humanly
speaking, have obscured for a long time the light of
ethical Monotheism. The Israelites seem to have
almost instinctively grasped the immeasurable import-
ance of this contest, and the impression then produced
on them has never been effaced. It is indeed appro-
priate that this powerful figure of early Jewish history
should be represented by Jewish mysticism as being
present in spirit at the initiation of a child in the cove-
nant of Abraham, for there could have been no finer
symbol of the future loyalty of the young Israelite to
the God of his fathers. Not less significant was it that
Elijah should have been designated by Jewish hope as
the forerunner of humanity's golden age : it seems to
have been felt that only one who was as true to his
higher self as he was could be its harbinger.
If the name of Elijah is so closely intwined with
Jewish life, it is because his people became the Elijah
of the world. Elijah was the type of his people ; what
Elijah was to Israel, Israel has been to the world. Like
that prophet, Israel has fought, and is fighting, against
overwhelming odds, against the mighty of the earth,
the good fight of truth.
Like Elijah, Israel has had frequent reason to bitterly
lament as the explanation of his misfortunes : "I have
been very jealous for the Lord God of hosts” because
they “have thrown down Thine altars and slain Thy
prophets with the sword; and I, even I only, am left,
and they seek my life to take it away." And again,
like to Elijah, also to Israel, came God in the still small
“YE ARE MY WITNESSES”
39
voice, telling it that it has still a purpose to fulfil, and
not to despair in the ultimate victory of its cause, for
there are yet left very many who have not bowed their
knees unto Baal.1
So throughout Jewish history. Whenever there was
the alternative of truth and persecution unto death to
error and honours, the overwhelming bulk of the Jewish
people has unhesitatingly chosen the former. If other
peoples or religions have not had so many opportunities
of testing the strength of their faith in a higher power,
it was because they never as unflinchingly and con-
sistently preserved the same loyalty to it. When the
Greek came into touch with the Jewish mind, the un-
avoidable antagonism soon broke out into a flame, and
it became a question whether the Jews, like so many
other Asiatic peoples, would also be consumed by the
fire of the Greek intellect. But it failed in the case of
the Jews. Even when Antiochus Epiphanes backed
his proselytizing efforts with the might of the Seleucid
Empire, when he became the first in the long dynasty
of Jewish persecutors, Judaism not only withstood
the storm, but ultimately triumphed. In the words of
Graetz we may say that the Jewish people victoriously
overcame this first temptation, and with the blood of its
martyrs sealed its covenant with God and His Law.2
The events of the Maccabean times produced a
lesson for all ages. Not only to the Jews does the
Maccabean victory teach by its annual commemoration,
the Feast of Hanucah, that, because of their faithfulness
to God, He delivered “the strong into the hands
of the weak, the many into the hands of the few," as the
11 Kings xix.
· Gesch. der Juden, vol. ii, part ii, p. 316.
40
THE SYNAGOGUE AND THE CHURCH
Jewish Prayer-Book has it, but the Christian martyrs
have found in these Jewish witnesses to the truth an
example for their own sufferings and trials of faith.
The three martyr scenes in the book of Daniel were
those which most visibly encouraged the early Christians.
In the catacombs and in the ancient usages of the Eastern
Church the story of the three youths was repeated over
and over again; the martyr Eleazar was honoured in
the ancient Church as the proto-martyr, and he, to-
gether with the mother and her seven sons, were con-
verted into Christian martyrs and saints, the Sancti
Maccabæi. The struggle of the Jews against Antiochus
Epiphanes is the first instance of a people which fought.
solely for its spiritual possessions. The pure and heroic
spirit of martyrdom then engendered was not only
first produced by the Jews, but they themselves have
personified it in an unique manner. “If there be an
ascending scale of sufferings,” said Zunz, “ Israel reached
its highest degree. If the duration of afflictions, and
the patience with which they are borne, confer nobility
upon men, the Jews may vie with the aristocracy of
any country. If a literature which owns a few classical
tragedies is deemed rich, what place should be assigned
to a tragedy which extends over fifteen centuries, and
which has been composed and enacted by the heroes
themselves ? ” ?
1 This characteristic anachronism is capped by the usual
accompaniment of a saint's day, which happens to be in this
case on August 1, and naturally, also, of relics, which are now
exhibited in Rome. Cf. Stanley, Jewish Church, ii, pp. 35, 36, 300 ;
Max Maus, “Die Maccabäer als Christliche Heilige," in Monats-
schrift für Geschichte und Wissenschaft d. Judenthums, 1900, p. 147.
· 2 Die Synagogale Poesie, ch. ii, “ Leiden.” The translation
here is by Dr. A. Löwy, and the passage is quoted by George
Eliot in Daniel Devonda, at the head of chapter xlii.
“YE ARE MY WITNESSES ”
41
The attempt of Antiochus Epiphanes was not repeated
religious persecution. The religious and political develop-
ment of the Roman Empire brought, however, a new
element into the field. The long constancy of the Jews
Judaism gave birth to Christianity. This new religion
not only assimilated the Jewish sense of loyalty to God,
but added to it the theory_which was put into practice
at the earliest possible opportunity—that those who were
not for Christianity were against it. In short, the non-
Christian came to be considered as an enemy to God
and man, and, whilst it was expected that the unbe-
liever would certainly be eternally punished in the
next world, the Christian felt it his duty to convert him.
to the true religion, and, if due admonition should prove
ineffectual, to oppress, persecute, nay, to exterminate
him. It is true that the Christian heretic suffered as
much, if not even more, than the unbeliever, but heresy
was at all times a rather loose term in the Christian
Church, the word being generally applied by the stronger
to the weaker party. As, besides, both of them had a
firm belief in the duty of religious coercion, only the
necessary power was wanted to turn the persecuted
into persecutors. The Jews, however, formed every-
where a small minority, with no material power to
defend themselves against the Christian majority. Those
who have studied the quarrels of the Christian sects are
aware how little the claims of humanity weighed against
the dictates of religious passions, and it can readily be
imagined that the unbelieving Jews were certainly not
treated with any particular tenderness. Historic events
helped to give the antagonism between Judaism and
42
THE SYNAGOGUE AND THE CHURCH
Christianity an additional bitter feeling. As soon as
Christianity gained the secular power in the Roman
Empire by the adhesion of Constantine, the Jews were
subjected to a series of harassing laws, which were
intended to make life unbearable to them, where exile.
or death did not become the penalty of Judaism. There
is, indeed, very little in the conduct of Jesus and his
apostles towards their people to warrant its being
persecuted by their followers, but it must be stated as a
noteworthy fact that it was the exponents of the Christian
faith, the clergy, with the Bishops at their head, who
were invariably the instigators of Jewish persecutions.1
We have many instances where the Jews have lived in
intimate social relations with their non-Jewish neigh-
bours, until these teachers of the religion of Christ
preached their gospel of hatred.2
.“ It would be a terrible and thankless task," says a
Christian historian, speaking of the sufferings of the
medieval Jews,“ to collect the testimonies of centuries
of bigotry, barbarity, avarice and superstition of both
the rulers and the people, and the unexampled power
of resistance, perseverance, and courageous sacrifice
of the Jews, who suffered persecutions with the same
energy with which they once opposed the Romans,
and yet retained their vitality. There is no interest to
pursue the same monotonous tale of atrocities com-
mitted by the whole Christian world, by people and
priests; the same accusations, the same cruelties, the
same heroism." 3
1 M. L. Schleiden, Die Romantik des Martyriums bei den
Juden im Mittelalter, p. 18.
i Zunz, Die Syn. Poesie, pp. 10, II; Döllinger, Studies in
European History (the Jews in Europe), p. 216; Stobbe, Die
Juden in Deutschland, p. 4. 8 Stobbe, ibid., pp. 181, 2.
"YE ARE MY WITNESSES"
We have only to take a short survey of the history
of Jewish martyrdom to recognize the truth of these
words. The Church vied with the Christian State in
devising new restrictions to be imposed on the hapless
Jews. With the adoption of Christianity in any country,
the exercise of Judaism was beset with every possible
hindrance and restriction, and the highest conceivable
punishment was provided against the spread of that
religion beyond the pale of its professors. The Jews
could not hold any office in the State, they were for-
bidden to intermarry, and even to eat, with Christians, 1
or to possess Christian servants. The Jews could
acquire no landed property; all the honourable trades
were gradually closed to them, and the Christian guilds
were the means of excluding them from handicrafts.
When, with the crusades, the Europeans came into
personal touch with the East, associations of Christian
merchants were founded, and the Jews were excluded
from the commerce between Europe and Asia, in which
they had taken so prominent and useful a part. One
calling only the Church permitted the Jews-money-
lending. By a stupid, but gigantic, mistake in the
interpretation of a biblical text, the Church forbade
the faithful to lend money at interest, and, as the Jews
were not considered to be within the pale of salvation,
and the supposed Christian precept was quite impractic-
able, the Jews received the monopoly of 'money-lending.
In this connexion it should always be remembered that
the Jews as money-lenders were in the Middle Ages
1 It will be observed that in the social relations between the
Jew and the Christian, Christianity was more exclusive than
Judaism, as restrictive laws in this respect would else have had
no justification.
44
THE SYNAGOGUE AND THE CHURCH
not only an indispensable, but even a beneficial, element
of the population. To the Jews, however, money-
lending became a curse by the notoriously evil effects
on character produced by that calling. Then the piti-
less extortions of Kaiser and king, down to the pettiest
official, forced the Jews to take exorbitant rates of
interest, though the Lombardian money-lenders showed
later on that Christians, albeit more favourably placed,
could demand an even higher percentage than Jews.
It did not seem to have been considered wrong to rob a
Jew; even a Christian saint like Louis IX (and he
certainly has a better right to this title than many of
his. fellow-saints) did not disdain to force money out of
Jews by imprisoning them, but, evidently not satisfied
with this, he confiscated all their possessions and hunted
them out of his kingdom. The Jews were purposely
deprived of every human right, and declared beyond
the pale of the law, so that they had to pay for so-called
protection, and even for bare justice.2
The German Emperors, owing to being frequently
called-upon to give the Jews some protection, of course
for a consideration, declared by a bold fiction that the
Jews were their serfs (Kammerknechte), and were bound
to pay a special tax to them. Indeed, the protection
of Jews became so lucrative that, when they found
life unbearable and decided to emigrate, they were
frequently held back by force; nay, sometimes when
1 Döllinger, ibid., p..228; Hallam (Middle Ages, iii, p. 337)
calls usury, or lending money for profit, “one of the most useful
and legitimate branches of commerce."
2 Referring to the extortion of money from the Jews for every
common right of mankind, Hallam says : “ It is almost incredible
to what a length this was carried " (Middle Ages, i, p. 209 ;
ii, p. 320).
“YE ARE MY WITNESSES”
they had fled into another principality, their extradition
was demanded. They were such a valuable commodity
that an Emperor would often present a number of Jews
to princes or cities he wished to reward.1
If it was not found possible to exterminate the Jews
physically, no effort was left untried to degrade them
morally. “The Jew was to be avoided as one that is
plague stricken, whose breath is infectious." ? The
have felt for the Jews as fellow-men ; they were taught
to regard them as belonging to Satan. With fear and
the populace saw degraded and held up to oppro-
brium by the highest and wisest in the land. Every
calamity, every unexplained misfortune, was imputed
by the ignorant and superstitious people to the Jews,
and the mysterious horror with which they had been
inculcated to regard them gave rise to unspeakable
tragedies. The Jews were charged with being the
authors of plagues, with poisoning the wells, with the
profanation of the host and the murder of Christian
children for ritual purposes an infamous charge which
is still spread by anti-Jewish agitators, both lay and
clerical, in the twentieth Christian century. Upon the
slightest pretext, Jewish homes were wrecked, Jews
murdered, and often whole Jewish communities swept
away by the desperate fury of frenzied mobs. Op-
pressed and degraded, distinguished from other human
beings by an obligatory badge on their clothes, which
1 In the Golden Bull of Charles IV in 1356, the Emperor
characteristically granted to certain princes all the mines of
gold and other metals in their territories, as well as the per-
mission to hold Jews (Stobbe, ibid., p. 25).
? Döllinger, ibid., p. 217.
46 THE SYNAGOGUE AND THE CHURCH
made the Jews the butt of all the brutalities of which
the high and low rabble were capable, it may indeed be
said that "it is scarcely possible to imagine a more
painful existence than that of a Jew in the Middle
Ages." 1
The frequent wholesale expulsions and murders, the
unmentionable dark deeds and horrors of the Church's
Inquisition, the countless autos-da-fé, the many laws
and customs of bestial brutality under which the Jews
suffered, are too sad to recount. The aspect of their
tormentors, fanatical hordes clad in religious rags, is too
painful a sight.2
Naturally, life would have been wellnigh impossible if
been mitigated by that ineradicable human feeling of one
fellow-being for another, which is rarely totally absent
in man. Of those obscure individuals who generously
helped the Jews in their time of distress, history has
left us no record, but we have the names of many princes,
Popes and Bishops, who stayed the hand of the perse-
cutor, or at least lessened the horrors of an exile or
massacre. Several Popes have indeed distinguished
themselves in this respect, and a name like St. Bernard
of Clairvaux will never fade from Jewish memory.
But, as has been well pointed out, “whereas in other
matters, even the most trifling, ban, interdict, inquisi-
employed, bulls to protect the Jews never went beyond
1 Döllinger, ibid., p. 237.
2 The spirit of the crusaders is typical. On their passage to
the conquest of the sepulchre of Jesus they exterminated the
Jewish communities along their route, and when they at last
entered Jerusalem, they drove all the Jews there into a synagogue
and then burned them alive.
US
47
“YE ARE MY WITNESSES ”
general exhortation ; the general sanction was wanting.”i
Worse still, instead of proclaiming the persecution of
Jews un-Christian and inhuman, the Popes, in the
spirit of the Christian historians, who related Jewish
martyrdoms without a word of pity for the victims,
based their letters of protection solely on the prophecy
that a remnant of Israel will remain which will ultimately
be saved. “The declaration of Innocent III that the
entire nation was destined by God on account of its sins
to perpetual slavery, was the Magna Charta continually
appealed to by those who coveted the possessions of
the Jews and the earnings of their industry.” 2
But this relentless persecution of unbelievers and
heretics, wherever Christianity was in power, soon and
unexpectedly brought its Nemesis. Judaism, which
after the destruction of its national centre, had found
an asylum in Arabia, was not only largely represented
there, but had even built up several independent Arabian
principalities. About six centuries after the rise of
Christianitý, Judaism again fulfilled its vocation as the
mother of religions : Mohammedanism was born. Had
Judaism been absent from the deserts of Arabia,
Mohammed would undoubtedly have drifted into one
of the many forms into which Christianity was then split;
probably into Nestorianism. The virile vigour of early
Mohammedanism, which carried truth and righteousness
into many dark places of the earth, would not have been
produced, and the consequent regeneration of Chris-
tianity, to which the new religion furnished a strong
impetus, would have been indefinitely deferred. The
wonderful spread of Mohammedanism was immensely
1 Döllinger, ibid., p. 218.
2 Döllinger, ibid., p. 219.
48 THE SYNAGOGUE AND THE CHURCH
facilitated by the strife of the Christian sects among
themselves and their common hatred of the Jews,
and although the early history of Mohammedanism was
not altogether free from the stains of Jewish persecu-
tion, the Jews gladly exchanged the intolerable oppres-
sion of the Christian for the rule of the Mohammedan.
If the Jews were not capable of physically resisting
Christian oppression, they had power enough to become
useful allies of the Mohammedans in their marvellous
victories against Christianity, extending from Armenia
to France, and to assist in the consolidation of this new
and mighty Empire. Later on, when a noble civilization
was created in Moorish Spain, the Jews claimed a large
share of its work as well as of its achievements.
But whether it was in Christian or Mohammedan
lands, the Jew became the persecuted" man of sorrows."
He was a living protest against the national or geo-
graphical limitations of truth, and everywhere the witness
to its unsubduable force.
It is true that the Jews have not been aggressive in
their protest against the errors of these religions, nor
have they sought by violent means to counteract them.
But, with a deeper insight, we shall observe that it is not
a mere want of energy and faith that has determined
this seemingly passive attitude towards other forms of
life and thought-nay, we shall find that Judaism has at
all times presented an uncompromising opposition to the
false and the evil, to the shams and idols of humanity.
When the Jewish prophets and psalmists declared to
their people that besides the Holy One of Israel there
is no other God, and that the idols are 095958, mere wood
and stone, their words have had, in spite of the very
limited circle to which they were uttered, an eternal and
“YE ARE MY WITNESSES” 49
far-reaching influence. The fine irony of an Isaiah is as
true to-day as it was in his generation, when he recounts
how out of a piece of wood the idol is fashioned by the
workman, who then falls down, worships the work of
his hands, and prays unto it: “Deliver me, for thou
art my God!” how, moreover, a part of the same wood
left over he burns in the fire,” with part thereof he
eateth flesh; he roasteth roast and is satisfied ; yea,
he warmeth himself and saith, Aha, I am warm, I have
seen the fire." 1 Does not the impassioned denunciation
of the Jewish prophet apply with the same force to the
present age—not merely to the fetishism of savages and
to the cultured idolatries of India and China, but also
to the dominant religion of European peoples ? Are the
words of Isaiah less applicable to actual life if we employ
them in reference to Christianity with its Madonnas
in the highways and byways, with its adoration of
innumerable saints and of their images and icons, with
its crucifixes, the Mass, the consecrated wafer and wine,
and countless other devices to represent God and to
satisfy the craving of man after Him? It is only
Judaism which has been, and is at the present day, the
lineal descendant-not merely in the flesh, but also in
the spirit-of its own prophets and martyrs; Judaism
alone has risen to the fullest and highest conception of a
God, holy, immeasurable and invisible, loving justice
and righteousness, hating iniquity, the source of mercy
and truth, Who cannot be contained in any Temple, and
Who yet lives in the human heart. “For thus saith the
high and lofty One that inhabiteth eternity, whose name
is Holy ; I dwell in the high and holy place, with him
also that is of a contrite and humble spirit, to revive
1 Isa. xliv.
50 THE SYNAGOGUE AND THE CHURCH
the spirit of the humble, and to revive the heart of
the contrite ones." i
To this transcendent truth the Jews have been living
witnesses in all ages and in all climes where men have
acknowledged the God of Abraham. To the majestic,
but peaceful, triumph of Israel," the servant of the
Lord,” ? we may well apply the words of the prophet :
“He shall not cry, nor lift up, nor cause his voice to be
heard in the street. A bruised reed shall he not break,
and the smoking flax shall he not quench: he shall
bring forth judgment unto truth. He shall not fail
nor be discouraged, till he have set judgment in the
earth; and the isles shall wait for his law.” 3 True,
the world has ever been saying of Israel: “He hath no
form nor comeliness, and when we see him there is
no beauty that we should desire him."4 And there
has indeed but too often been good cause for the
lament: “Who is blind but My servant ? or deaf
as My messenger that I send ?" 5 But those outside
Israel, who will remember his loyalty to God, and the
incalculable results of his testimony to Him amidst an
unparalleled martyrdom; all those who value and
rejoice in Israel's service to the cause of human faith,
righteousness and freedom, will exclaim, in contem-
plating "the most moving drama in the history of the
world”: 6 "Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried
our sorrows : yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of
God, and afflicted.”? To the Jew himself the word of
the Lord comes with the consolation of divine tender-
ness : "In a little wrath I hid My face from thee for a
(
1 Isa. lvii. 15. 2 Ibid., xli. 8, etc. 3 Ibid., xlii. 2-4,
4 Ibid., liii. 2.
6 Ibid., xlii. 19.
8 Döllinger, ibid., p. 211. ? Isa, lii. 4,
“YE ARE MY WITNESSES": ..51
moment; but with everlasting kindness will I have
mercy on thee, saith the Lord thy redeemer.”'i And
then the great aim and accomplishment of the “ travail
of soul ” which Israel had undergone, and the fruits
of which he was to see, 2 is declared : “Behold, a nation
that knew not thee shall run unto thee because of the
Lord thy God, and for the Holy One of Israel ; for He
hath glorified thee." 3
It is not only in the wide, almost all-embracing, realm
of Religion and Morals that the debt to Judaism is now
recognized by the world, but there is also another sphere
in which its acknowledgment, “with his stripes we are
healed," 4 may be demanded.
To realize to some extent the service of Judaism to
the cause of liberty and the freedom of the human
conscience, we need only go back to a time when Europe
was synonymous with Christendom, when not to be a
Christian was considered to be beyond the pale of civili-
zation, nay, unworthy of the rights of humanity. Until
modern times, there was hardly to be found in Europe
a solitary dissenting voice against Christianity. The
* Jews, the progenitors of Christianity, were for many
centuries the only antagonists of its pretensions living
in its midst; they enforced as far as possible the lesson
of toleration, they taught that God was also to be
found outside the Church, and that charity and good-
ness were not bound up with a belief in the Trinity
or in the fall of man. For this work the Jews felt the
brunt of the hatred with which Catholicism, Greek
or Roman, not less than Protestantism, met the unbe-
liever, the miscreant or infidel, as he was significantly
1 Isa. liv. 8.
3 Ibid., lv. 5s
2 Ibid., liii. 10, II.
4 Ibid., liii. Sa
52
THE SYNAGOGUE AND THE CHURCH
called. Through this, the Jews have borne, and to a very
large extent they still bear, all the shame and suffering
which power combined with malignity can inflict. It has
been the destiny of Judaism, too often unconsciously and
unrecognized, to be the bulwark of truth against error,
of conviction against mere submissive belief. Even
the truth of its own position does not alter this fact.
The Jews, unaided and despised, have fought for over
two thousand years, and are still fighting, the battles
of the human conscience, not with the might of the
flesh, but with that of the spirit. Judaism, with a power
not put forth by any other agency, has demonstrated
the transcendent and unconquerable force of a great
living idea, which has furnished a beautiful unity and
unique strength of resistance to an hundred generations.
To the potency of this idea no other religious sys-
tem, largely created and living by the sword and social
coercion, is in a position to testify; it is pre-eminently
the mission of Judaism to be the bearer of this message
to the human race.
CHAPTER IV
THE TREE OF LIFE
"Whom have I in heaven but Thee ? and there is none upon
earth that I desire beside Thee. My flesh and my heart faileth :
but God is the strength of my heart, and my portion for ever."-
Psalın lxxiii, 25, 26.
WHATEVER may have been the various causes of the
barbarities that have been directed against the Jews,
there was one common basis underlying all Jewish per-
secutions. “In all countries," says a Christian historian
already cited," when fanaticism was aroused, often the
only choice left to the Jews lay between conversion
and the most terrible tortures of death. Even if in
many persecutions the real motives were avarice and
other low passions, the banner of Christianity was always
raised aloft. It was in the name of the Lord, in order
to spread the worship of Christ and to punish the traitors
to the Christian faith, that these atrocities were pre-
tended to have been enacted.”i Throughout the ages,
in modern Russia no less than in medieval Spain and
the old Byzantine Empire, the great comprehensive
crime of the Jews has been their religion, and all their
shortcomings, real and alleged, could have been expiated
by the abjuration of their creed. It cannot be said that
there was an unwillingness on the part of the Church
to instruct the Jew and to show him the error of his
1 Stobbe, Die Juden in Deutschland, p. 164.
53
54
THE SYNAGOGUE AND THE CHURCH
ways. Nor was there any possible encouragement
wanting to smooth the path of the would-be convert:
Everything was done to make visible to him the
material blessings that followed upon the profession of
Christianity. It is true that human nature, being what
it is, could not help making the average Christian dis-
trustful of the Jew who evidently made a virtue of
necessity or whose conversion was followed by tangible
advantages, but the Church has done its utmost to
gather " the lost sheep of the House of Israel ” into
its fold. With all the manifold means at its disposal,
Christianity has left nothing untried to win the Jews
over to its side. When all the terrors which the State
could apply in the supposed service of religion were
exhausted, the Church stepped in with instruments of
its own. The Inquisition, that Moloch to whom
Christianity has offered countless Jewish sacrifices, and
which in its devotion was almost itself swallowed by the
insatiable monster, is the most comprehensive agency
by which the Church sought to save Jewish souls. The
means adopted towards this end, and the manner in
which they have been applied, form an instructive
measure of the secularization of the civil power, and
the consequent proportionate weakening of ecclesias-
tical authority. There has not, indeed, been a revolu-
tion of ideas within the Church itself as to the justifi-
ability of coercion in matters of religion ; Greek Catholi-
cism in Russia is as bigoted as the Government of that
country, and Roman Catholicism allies itself with anti-
Jewish movements where it aspires to undisputed sway.
But the methods which once shone with the splendour
of tragic ferocity have, in many instances, through
force of circumstances, sunk to a commonplace materi-
THE TREE OF LIFE
55
alization of religion or to attempts bearing marks of
ludicrous senility. All the same, efforts to win the Jews
over to Christianity are unintermittingly being made,
in the most unscrupulous manner as to the means em-
ployed. The deprivation of political and civil rights
is still to-day used towards the great majority of the
Jewish people as sticks to drive them into the Christian
fold. Where the State does not make itself the guardian
of the Christian faith, or where, by legal and illegal
methods, it does not use the honours and offices at its
disposal as baits for Jewish souls, missionary organiza-
tions are being maintained, which, with vast resources
at their command, seek to obtain the same results by
means which are despicable where they are not immoral.
If by this incessant attack on the Jewish citadel, with
weapons ranging from wholesale massacre and robbery
to a deluge of silly tracts, it was intended to bring about
the gradual annihilation of Judaism, it is not necessary
to demonstrate how futile the effort has been. All
forms of coercion have been fully tried, and the result
cannot but be pronounced a failure. In the mighty
contest between Judaism, supported solely by the spirit
of its inner consciousness, and Christianity, commanding
and utilizing to an enormous extent all the forces of
social life, Judaism has come forth. triumphant.
If we, however, ask the question : “Why has the
Synagogue been triumphant ? ” we are faced by the
problem as to what were the elements which constituted
the life-giving force in Judaism. It may be said that
they were both internal and external; on the one side
there was a hostile world, hostile both in thought and
action, and on the other the warm sunshine of com-
munity of sentiment and brotherly feeling. But a
56
THE SYNAGOGUE AND THE CHURCH
deeper investigation into the subject will bring out
more clearly the relative importance of the various
elements and their ramifications, and it will b found
that, whatever were the causes which contributed to
the vitality of the Jewish people both in its physical
and spiritual aspects, it was the Torah, the religion of
Israel, which was the great source of strength-the Torah,
the incorporation of that wisdom of which an old
Jewish thinker has truly said: “It is a tree of life
to them that hold fast to it, and all its supporters are
rendered happy."
Persecution, hostility from without, has undoubtedly
had a certain determining influence on Jewish life. On
a considerable number of Jews the physically unequal
struggle between Judaism and Christianity has had a
disastrous effect. The advantage of the very easy
transition from an oppressed and weak minority into a
ruling and all-powerful majority, which conversion to
Christianity at all times offered, was evident to all, and
made use of by not a few. But it is now some time
that it has gradually become recognized that, since the
memorable occasion when a ruler of Egypt began his
attempts to counteract the growing numbers of the
children of Israel by making their lives“ bitter with
hard bondage,” the action of the Pharaohs of all ages
has led to the same result : "the more they afflicted
them, the more they multiplied and grew.” The case of
the Jews in this respect is indeed but a proof of the
general futility of religious persecutions; the object for
which they are instituted often defeats its own end
if they are applied to a spirited body, and they then have
the effect contrary to that intended, by consolidating
and intensifying the mass of the persecuted.
THE TREE OF LIFE
57
While this may almost be laid down as an axiom, it can-
not be claimed that persecution has always had the same
effect when it has been exercised on other monotheistic
religions. Christianity in itself supplies the evidence
that the storm of persecution may very frequently
work with fatal results. Had the Christians of Asia
and Africa not lacked conviction in their religious pro-
fession, or had they possessed in their faith a strong moral
support against the attacks of Mohammedanism, this
religion could never at its first onslaught have so irrevo-
cably appropriated those vast tracts which once formed
the richest possessions of Christianity. It is astonish-
ing with what comparatively slight pressure the Moham-
medans had in about a century, annihilated some of
the numerically greatest sections of Christendom.
Spain, which in its heathen state was able to hold out
against the Romans for hundreds of years, was, as a
Christian country, conquered by the Mohammedans in
one decisive battle.
If the rough wind which blew from Mohammedanism
uprooted and destroyed the Christian Churches within
its reach, the same phenomena were repeated within
the inner circle of Christianity itsell. The internecine
struggles of the Christian sects were invariably decided
by the secular arm of the more powerful party. Arian-
ism, whose strength rivalled, if it did not at times
exceed, that of the Trinitarian or Catholic Churches,
was extinguished by persecution and the sword. This,
as a matter of fact, became the method of keeping the
Churches free from heretics, or of subduing them. It
was the arm of the flesh, not the Holy Spirit, which crushed
the innumerable Christian sects of the first four or five
centuries into one mould. The same process was also
58
THE SYNAGOGUE AND THE CHURCH
adopted later on when the protesting spirit arose in
Europe, and, there again, coercion proved the most
efficacious instrument of destruction. Where the sword
was not capable of successfully defending a cause, there
it perished. Protestantism was thus rooted out of the
Catholic dominions, and Catholicism out of the Protes-
tant countries.
If we are to assess the value of the moral forces pos-
sessed by Judaism and Christianity at the same rate, it
is only logical to assume that Judaism must long ago
have been completely banished from the realms of Chris-
tianity and Mohammedanism, particularly as the material
power and auxiliary assistance by which Christianity
and Mohammedanism, as well as the various militant
Christian sects, were always backed, were absolutely
wanting to Judaism. But the miraculous effects which
persecutions have had on the vitality of Judaism, nay,
their frequently bracing results, have been often con-
sidered without regard to the inner strength of Judaism,
and it has, therefore, been erroneously assumed in some
quarters that persecution was the agency by which the
blood of Judaism was kept in circulation. With such
an opinion, a large number of Christian theologians, too
tolerant and generous to advocate oppression, and too
rational to rely on certain stereotyped misinterpretations
of biblical texts, have wearily resigned themselves to
the complacent hope that Judaism would gradually
succumb if no material opposition were offered to it.
But such a view takes no account either of Jewish his-
tory or of the nature of Judaism. That freedom of
development and unreserved acceptation of the highest
culture of the time is not injurious to the interests of
Judaism is amply proved by the fact that the most
THE TREE OF LIFE
59
flourishing epochs of Judaism have been worked out
under free conditions. Jewish life in ancient Alex-
andria and Babylonia, or in medieval Spain, furnishes
evidence that Judaism needs not the aid of compressive
appliances in order to maintain a vigorous state of
health. It is, of course, true that adversities generally
prove as trusty a means of fortifying the character of a
religion as that of its individual professors, and that,
as has already been pointed out, the feeling of Jewish
solidarity was actually intensified by outside pressure.
But, apart from the fact that the consciousness of Judaism
has been steeled by this process, the intrinsic strength
of that religion is alone sufficiently capable of main-
taining its position without the least coercive support.
Wherever a small number of Jews meet, whether it be
on the ice-fields of Canada or the mining-camps of South
Africa, there a nucleus of a Jewish congregation for the
purpose of worship and benevolence is formed. The
unrestricted freedom they enjoy, the diversity of nation-
ality, station, speech and thought, the materialistic
atmosphere, the pecuniary and moral sacrifices they are
called upon to make, prove no bar to the purely voluntary
grouping of Jews for an ideal object.
The spontaneity with which the Jews ever clung to
their religion is a fact which may perhaps to a great
extent be explained by the spontaneous manner in which
that religion grew into being. It is the distinction of
Judaism to stand unique as a world-religion, both by
reason of the mode in which it has evolved from the
hearts and minds of its adherents, and by its endeavour
to bridge the gulf between the human and the divine,
the mortal and the eternal. The Jews do not owe their
faith to chance or to outside influences. The religion
60
THE SYNAGOGUE AND THE CHURCH
of Israel has been created, it might almost be said, out
of Israel itself. It was by a long process which has
taken place within its own history, by sufferings and
trials, in which it has always seen the hand of God,
that Judaism developed. It is now being more and
more recognized that the Hebrew prophets were not
merely the mechanical mouthpieces of a higher Power,
but that they were endowed with warm hearts and
sympathies for their own people and the world outside it.
The Jewish prophets were not mere seers, foretellers of
the future, but, what their name xa denotes: preachers,
proclaimers of the Divine Will ; they were in the highest
sense patriots, politicians, reformers, who were bent
upon impressing a spirit of righteousness on their people.
To the prophets, who did not form a distinct hierarchic
or aristocratic caste, but were found in all stations of
life, the people responded out of its own free will. The
discourse addressed to the Israelites calling upon them
to choose between “life and good and death and evil,” i
was a reality pregnant with mighty consequences.
The free choice was “life and good.” In spite
of the many temptations which the Israelites
had to merge into the idolatry and sensuous worship
surrounding them, they rallied again and again round
those leaders who upheld an exceptionally. lofty ethical
and spiritual conception of the divine and human ele-
ments of religion. From what we can judge from
the history of Elijah and subsequent events in the life
of pre-exilic Israel, those who remained faithful to the
Lord God of Israel against the wishes and efforts of the
numerous princes who were zealous for the introduction
of heathen deities and customs, must already in early
1 Deut. xxx. 15 ffg.
THE TREE OF LIFE
6г
times have frequently been forced to conform to their
king's commands, even at the penalty of death. The
religion of Israel thus existed by its own strength, and
its further development was the expression of a people's
conviction. Like the prophets, their successors, the
Rabbis, were an integral part of the people ; they formed
a circle to which everybody who devoted himself
to the study of the Torah and carried out its precepts
had access. Nor was this learning the property of the
few, or the esoteric doctrine of scholars. It was the
bounden duty of every Israelite to study the Torah,
though at the same time it was expressly declared
that the study of the Torah without an accompanying
occupation would lead to sin.1 Unlike the Christian
priest, with his claim to power from heaven to bind and
to loose, the official or professional Rabbi was a savant,
a teacher, the freely elected head of his community.
As a matter of fact, there is no office of priest in medieval
and modern Judaism. Every Jew, without distinction,
possessing the necessary moral and intellectual qualities,
is entitled to perform the ritual requirements of the
Jewish religion. If we, therefore, speak of Rabbinical
Judaism, we have to remember that it is not the pro-
duct of a priestly caste, but, so far as the designation
has at all a meaning, it is the most democratically con-
stituted creed, indeed the only monotheistic religion
i Aboth, ii. 2. Cf. the saying of Rabban Gamaliel.
2 It is only during the last few centuries, when, owing to
various causes, the official Rabbis have tended to become a pro-
fessional body, that the custom of conferring rabbinical diplomas
came into vogue, but this was done more with the view of check-
ing abuses than to confer any special powers. Among the
Karaites, the ecclesiastical functionary is still to the present day
only a learned artisan or trader.
62 THE SYNAGOGUE AND THE CHURCH
which has been developed purely from within. "The
history of Israel from Moses downwards," said Dean
Stanley, "is not the history of an inspired book or an
A passionate attachment to the Torah and unfaltering
trust in God's guidance became, since the Babylonian
captivity, the most marked Jewish characteristics.
They were adhered to in the face of the most discouraging
obstacles and adverse influences, so that there was
an appropriate significance in the words of the prophet :
“Thus saith the Lord, I remember thee, the kindness of
thy youth, the love of thine espousals ; how thou wentest
after Me in the wilderness, in a land that was not sown." 2
The historic religion of Israel is not merely the “fear of the
Lord,” but pre-eminently“ a hope in the Lord”; it is the
expression, continually emphasized, of Israel's unswerving
the world. “Thou lovest all things that are," runs
a Jewish meditation, “and abhorrest nothing which
Thou hast made : for never wouldest Thou have made
anything, if Thou hadst hated it. And how could any
thing have existed if it had not been Thy will, or been
preserved if not called by Thee! But Thou sparest all,
for they are Thine, O Lord, Thou lover of souls." 3
With such a conception of "the lover of souls,” the
relations of man with God become personal, intimate,
tender; hope grows into an unquestioning certainty
in the immeasurable love of the Most High for His
creatures. Under His all-powerful guidance and pro-
tection, man feels that whatever might befall him, the
Eternal is an unfailing source of life and joy; at the
i Jewish Church, i, p. 136.
2 Jer. ii. 2
3 Wisd. of Sol. xi. 24-26.
THE TREE OF LIFE
.
63
moment of the deepest anguish and utter loss of all
hope, one thought emerges triumphant from the Jewish
heart: “Yea, though I walk through the valley of the
shadow of death, I will fear no evil : for Thou art with
me." 1
.
We thus find that the Jewish idea of God possesses on
the one hand the rational spirituality of that elaborated
by the best Greek minds, and on the other that touch-
ing intimacy of relationship with the Deity that may
particularly be met with in medieval Christianity. But
these two aspects, blended in Judaism, appear without
the cold detachment of the pagan and the superstitious
idolatry of the Christian. This is the oldest and greatest
inheritance of the religion of Israel, which has been
jealously kept intact and unimpaired to the present day
and has been enriched by the experience, and intensified
by the conviction, of ages. Various hypotheses have been
unsuccessfully advanced as to the origin of ethical
Monotheism in Israel, but equally important and more
profitable is the consideration how this fundamental
basis of Judaism has been maintained in its pristine
purity, and unpolluted amidst unclean surroundings.
Whenever corruption is detected in religions like
Buddhism or Christianity, the purity of the faith is
sought at its source. However degraded modern
Buddhism may be, its present professors and its many
European admirers claim an unsurpassed grandeur
for the religion as it was originally enunciated by the
Buddha. It is likewise the case with those Christians
who are trying to fashion their faith according to the
words of Christ, instead of taking the misinterpretations
of his apostles or the rapidly growing corruptions of the
1 Ps. xxiii. 4.
64 THE SYNAGOGUE AND THE CHURCH
first few centuries as the exact form of his religion. In
a comparison which may be instituted between Judaism,
Buddhism and Christianity, in so far as it relates to the
most fundamental and vital part of their systems
their conception of God-it will be found that, while
Judaism has undoubtedly preserved its ethical Mono-
theism unchanged through all time, the original Mono-
theism of Buddhism and Christianity has been woe-
fully marred by the dicta of priests and theologians
and the decisions of Emperor and Councils; the
Divinity set up has been overlaid and transformed
beyond recognition by idolatrous excrescences.
If we seek for the cause of the different effects of time
on these religions, we shall very probably find it in the
attitude which they assumed in their early age towards
the divine and human elements of religion. It is the
happy mean which, like in less important matters, be-
comes also the saving equilibrium between the two
contending forces of materialism and spiritualism
claiming man's allegiance. It is essential for the healthy
condition of a religion that these two aspects should be
equally and evenly represented, neither trenching upon
the other's ground. Yet this balance is constantly
endangered by the strong tendency on the one side to
confine itself to things earthly, and the temptation on
the other side to throw off the restraints and shackles
imposed by this tendency, and to roam in the undefinable
domain of spiritualism. The most memorable and far-
reaching conflict between the two phases occurred
within Judaism, and ultimately led to the establishment
of Christianity. It is Paul who brought the whole
question to an issue, by not only warning against the
evil effects of an excessive ceremonialism in religion-
THE TREE OF LIFE
65
which had been done long before him, and formed a
theme of denunciation by Jewish teachers at the very
time of his activity-but by declaring that the very
existence of ceremonial observances led to sin. In the
new dispensation which he proclaimed there were to be
no ritual ordinances fettering the believer. This theory
became a battle cry of the Church against the Synagogue.
But what has been the result in practice? We can see
this in the Greek and Oriental Churches which arose
out of the la bours of Paul and his successors. In these
Churches, in which Paul and his collaborators have
been idolized, opposition to ritualism is not merely
resented but branded as a deadly heresy, as a treason
against the religion of Christ. In the Greek Churches
planted by Paul, and in the ecclesiastical kingdoms of
the East, there exists an idolatry, which is expressed
in the lowest form of ceremonialism mixed with sorcery.
“For ninety-nine per cent. of these Christians,” says
Harnack, “religion exists only as a ceremonious ritual,
in which it is externalized.” i Nay, even in the remain-
ing one per cent. of Oriental and Greek Christianity,
Harnack still finds the same ritualism regarded as an
absolute necessity, without which Christian doctrine
could not receive its proper application and obtain its
due results. It would be difficult to conceive a more
complete reversal of the fundamental idea of a teacher
by followers who still maintain an unabated reverence
for his words, and this surprising result becomes espe-
cially significant if, as in the case of Christianity, the idea
was (and, strangely enough, is still) one of the chief points
of opposition against the original source from which
the religion took its course.
1 What is Christianity ? p. 238.
66 THE SYNAGOGUE AND THE CHURCH
More remarkable, however, is the fact, which has al-
ready been noted, that Christianity degenerated from
its earliest standard in all essentials. Not only did
Christianity become hopelessly entangled in the meshes
of metaphysical speculation, but to a very con-
siderable extent it has been petrified into a ritualistic
mummy, particularly as far as the Oriental and
Greek Churches—the oldest in Christendom-are con-
cerned. This striking phenomenon may be explained by
the fatal attitude which primitive Christianity took up,
not only towards ceremonialism in religion, but towards
all matters of worldly interest. The confidently expected
end of the world gave the new religion for the moment
a supermundane character, while the opposition to
Judaism led the Gentile Christians to reject every
possible trace of Jewish custom. The freedom
from all material forms, which, as a negative doctrine,
was preached by some Christian apostles, is indeed re-
garded in many quarters as constituting the strength of
Christianity, but in its fuller development this attrac-
tive theory has proved a fatal weakness. It is impos-
sible for a community of human beings to exist for any
length of time in a healthy religious condition without due
regard to the material as well as the spiritual constitution
of man,1 and when Christianity rejected the Jewish
system of life and thought, it was soon obliged to assume
1 On this point the following words of an Anglican theo-
logian may be quoted with advantage : “And so long as this
world is real as well as the next; so long as man is body as
well as soul; so long all attempts to evaporate the body and
its realities are foredoomed to a necessary and salutary failure.
The religion, which attempts to be rid of the bodily side of things
spiritual, sooner or later loses hold of all reality. Pure spiritual-
ism, however noble the aspiration, however living the energy
THE TREE OF LIFE
1
a heathen dress, with heathen ideas and ceremonies. In
short, in the endeavour to extricate itself from Judaism,
Christianity lost its equilibrium and fell into Poly-
theism.
But Judaism, by duly recognizing the human element
in religion, and by adapting every manifestation of
social life to the service of God and man, created a source
of power which continually guarded its purity and
replenished its strength. It is only by further preserving
the bark which has so well maintained the core of the
faith, by adhering to the Jewish principle of the hallow-
ing of all the phases of our being, that Judaism will
also in the future escape the failure which has hitherto
attended all attempts of a purely spiritual nature. The
late Prof. Francis William Newman, one of the greatest
theists of the nineteenth century, a man whose saintly
life was devoted to the refining and spiritualization of
religion, sufficiently appreciated the significance of
this fact, as well as the value of the Jewish scheme of
life. “If a little sect, ever so enlightened,” said Prof.
Newman, “ were flung into the midst of a dark world,
it would in the second and third generation ordinarily
be absorbed back into that world. Persecution,
hereditary institutions and strict intermarriage with
none but Church members may, as in the case of the
Israelite people, perpetuate the original religion without
loss of purity.” 1
with which it starts, always has ended at last, and will always
end, in evanescence.” R. C. Moberly, in Lux Mundi, p. 272.
1 F. W. Newman, Miscellanies, ii, p. 352. In this connexion
it is remarkable to note that, endowed with still greater mental
powers than John Henry Newman, Francis William Newman
did not by any means exercise so powerful and permanent an
influence on his generation as his brother the Cardinal. Prof.
68
THE SYNAGOGUE AND THE CHURCH
Judaism was particularly successful in utilizing for
its ethical aims all the functions of social life. Even
nature and the natural desires and affections were
pressed into a religious channel. Every enjoyment;
whether it be the purely sensuous one of food and drink,
or æsthetic and intellectual pleasures, whether the
sight of the ocean or of a wise man, was connected with
the glory of God. It was thus that the natural instincts
of self-preservation and the propagation of the species
were turned into some of the most potent sanctifying
forces of life. The civilizing and refining influences
to which the instinct of man has raised his mere animal
feeding can hardly be too highly estimated ; the periodi-
cal nourishment of the body has been converted into
occasions for the nourishment of the soul, the streng-
thening of our friendships and of our family bonds. In
Judaism the table became a centre of religion, an altar,
at which the breaking of the bread and the drinking of
the wine became solemn acts; the preparation, as well
as the consumption, of the food which was to sustain
and keep him in mental and bodily health were, with a
fine insight into the physiological and psychological
effects of diet, turned into matters of serious import.
Like the feeding of man, the relations arising out of
the married state, were also led into an ethical channel.
Newman, the anti-Christian theist, like Prof. Huxley, the anti-
Christian agnostic, was buried with Christian rites.
1 The following saying of R. Simon is characteristic in this re-
spect: “ If three have eaten at a table and have not spoken there
any words of Torah, it is as if they had eaten of sacrifices to
dead idols, ... but if three have eaten at a table and have
spoken there words of Torah, it is as if they had eaten of God's
table, as it is said : ' And he said unto me, This is the table
that is before the Lord' (Ezek. xli. 22).” Aboth, iii. 4.
ÎHE TREE OF LIFE
Perhaps in no religion has the family tie exhibited such
a strength as in Judaism, where the propagation of the
species was considered as the first commandment of
God, and the religious and moral upbringing of one's
children an inalienable duty. One of the earliest and
the most sacred precepts was to honour father and
mother, and the highest reward is promised for its fulfil-
ment. Developed in the spirit of Judaism, this beautiful
statute has been maintained without the superstition
worship. The spirit of the reciprocal love of parents and
children extended among the Jews to the other family
relations, particularly to those of husband and wife ;
even where the Jews have in this instance lacked the
courtoisie of the Christian knight, it ought to be re-
membered that the Jew did not possess the coarse
vices to which galanterie was only a necessary cloak
—to be divested at the pleasure of the wearer.
To the just appreciation by the Jew of the value of
the family bond is due that to the present day the say-
ing "all Israel are brethren” is not a mere empty
formula, and to the practical application of this by its
professors Judaism owes no small share of its vitality.
a stranger ; the rays of Christian love were not strong
enough to penetrate to those outside the pale of Christi-
anity, except by allurements directly intended to wean
the Jew from his faith and his people. To leave father
and mother and all friends dear to the human heart, to
join the stranger, the persecutor, the men who frequently
hated his own flesh and blood with a hatred of death,
was an outrage which no one capable of even a slight
amount of generous feeling for his kith and kin could
70
THE SYNAGOGUE AND THE CHURCH
perpetrate. The truth and beauty of Christianity as they
were represented to the Jew, were never commensurate
with the terrible sacrifice of apostasy, the cutting off of
glory and future hopes. .
The hallowing of all the acts of social life by the spirit
of Judaism, by its profound charity and all-pervading
joyousness, more than compensated the Jew for all
the sufferings and humiliations he experienced at the
hands of the stranger. Not only the ordinary joyful
events of man's being, but also the Sabbath and the
cycle of festivals were invested with manifold pleasures,
and proved a source of consolation to the Jewish heart.
The Sabbath, pictured by the Christian theologian as
a day of gloom and a heavy yoke, was a day of rest in
the highest sense ; where, outside Judaism, can we
find anything corresponding with raw ay, “the
delight of the Sabbath"? The beautiful poem of
Heine,“ Die Prinzessin Sabbath ”, is not the mere crea-
tion of a poet's fancy, but the description of a reality.
The hallowing influence of the Sabbath transforms in
verity the dog-like existence of the pedlar into the life
of a prince, and the invocation of the angels, who are
supposed to visit him on the Sabbath eve, to bless his
home, is after all no mere illusion. The coming in, as
well as the going out, of the festive days is marked by
a family gathering; the solemnity and serene joyous-
ness of some of these events, like the synagogue services
on the Day of Atonement or the family celebrations on
the Passover nights, leave an indelible impression in
the hearts of those who have participated in them.
Wherever the Jew went among his brethren, he was
sure of a helping hand. He was certain to find at the
THE TREE OF LIFE
71
house of a more fortunate, if perhaps very poor, co-reli-
gionist, a hospitable welcome. Moreover, even the very
names of the benevolent agencies prevalent everywhere
indicate the delicate feeling with which they were
generally administered. Every possible contingency
in life calling for the assistance of our fellow beings was
met with by Jewish charity, and no community was
without the chief, indispensable institutions. The
child of the poor man was educated at the
1717 71950 (“' the Study of Torah”), when in need
he received help from the O'700 77502 (“the Bestowal
of Mercies ''), when destitute on a journey, he could turn
to the 01718 70321 (" the Reception of Guests"') and
when he died, the last rites were reverently performed
by a voluntary brotherhood, the xu7px720 (“the Holy
Society").
The old biblical injunction, " thou shalt teach thy
children and speak of them," 1 daily repeated in the
Shema, has been fruitful of that universal education
which has from very early times prevailed in Judaism,
so that Josephus could already say of the Jews that
above all it was their principal care to educate their
children well. The imperative obligation of Jewish
parents, or, in their absence, of the community, to give
religious instruction to the child, as well as the intel-
lectual pursuit from which even the humblest Jew is
not exempt, are the reasons why the Jews have perhaps
never sunk to the barbarism and ignorance with which
they were so frequently surrounded. It is generally
overlooked that the poor Jewish pedlar in Russia or
Poland, who is invariably familiar with the Hebrew
1 Deut. vi. 7.
2 Cont. Ap. i, 12.
72
THE SYNAGOGUE AND THE CHURCH
Bible and, more or less, conversant with the ethics, his-
tory, and jurisprudence of the Talmud and other
Jewish compilations, stands intellectually high above the
Russian or Polish peasant and tradesman with whom he
comes into contact. In those semi-civilized countries
the illiterate Jew is an anomaly ; to study the foundations
of his faith, to read the Pentateuch and the Prophets,
the drama of Job, the Lamentations of Jeremiah, the
Ethics of the Jewish Fathers, philosophical treatises
like Bachya's Duties of the Heart, and to pray with the
psalmist-all this in the original-is a religious duty
preached and practised second to none. We have only
to imagine a community, where the study of, say, Greek
literature (and that, if it were possible, with an ethical
purpose) is a precept religiously fulfilled by every man
in every station of life, from early childhood to death,
in order to realize the incalculable effects of such an
education. It is only thus that we can account for the
extraordinary vigour of intellect which the genius of
Judaism was able to maintain among its adherents
under the most unfavourable circumstances, even
during the darkest days. Mr. Lecky, in his History
of Rationalism, has with an earnest enthusiasm recorded
the services of the Jews to the human race during such
periods. “The heroism of the defenders of every other
creed,” he tells us, “ fades into insignificance before
this martyr people, who for thirteen centuries con-
fronted all the evils that the fiercest fanaticism could
devise, and the infliction of the most hideous sufferings,
rather than abandon their faith. . . . But above all this
the genius of that wonderful people rose supreme.
While those around them were grovelling in the dark-
ness of besotted ignorance; while juggling miracles
THE TREE OF LIFE
73
and lying relics were the themes on which almost all
Europe were expatiating ; while the intellect of Christen-
dom, enthralled by countless superstitions, had sunk
into a deadly torpor, in which all love of inquiry and
all search for truth were abandoned, the Jews were still
pursuing the path of knowledge, amassing learning and
stimulating progress with the same unflinching con-
stancy that they manifested in their faith. They were
the most skilful physicians, the ablest financiers, and
among the most profound philosophers; while they
were only second to the Moors in the cultivation of
natural science.” 1
Of course, the passion for study engendered by
Judaism was not to be a mere acquisition of knowledge,
nor was it to be used for purely material ends, but it
was to have an ethical purport and was to be sought
nous, for its own sake, with the view of finding the Will
of God and understanding our duties towards Him and
our fellow-men. If, through this insistence upon study,
there were sometimes produced les défaits de ses qualités,
Judaism certainly encouraged and sanctified intellectual
pursuits, and the late Benjamin Jowett only expressed
an ordinary Rabbinical axiom, when, from his wide and
profound experience, he bade us remember that study
is a service, perhaps the highest service, that we can
tender to God.?
1 Lecky, History of Rationalism, i, p. 282.
2 College Sermons, p. 200. In connexion with the well known
dictum of Hillel (in Aboth, ii. 6) on the incompatibility of true
piety and religion with ignorance, it may be well to quote here
a strikingly analogous opinion of Buckle, as a sociologist and
historian. He says: “There is no instance on record of an
ignorant man who, having good intentions and supreme power
to enforce them, has not done far more evil than good. And
74 THE SYNAGOGUE AND THE CHURCH
The real living and inspiring force which upheld the
Jews in their most anxious moments was, however,
an element mightier than human love or the thirst for
knowledge. The persecutions directed against the Jew
were intended to degrade him to the lowest depths of
infamy, but his faith raised him far above his perse-
cutor. The real feelings of the Jews at the time of their
greatest sorrows can be found expressed in those liturgi-
cal compositions which the medieval Jews have be-
queathed to us under the name of Selichoth. Here the
appeals for mercy or help alternate with joyful expres-
sions that Israel has still remained true to God.
It is natural that the faithful, conscious Israelite
should feel a profound emotion in contemplating the
chequered course of Jewish history, where, in spite of
many frailties and failures, there stands out the un-
paralleled self-sacrifice of a whole people. To this day,
the majority of them, living in the midst of a throbbing
civilization, and with a keen appreciation of the realities
and vanities of this world, are still struggling in agony
because of their faith-here denied advancement in
life, there even deprived of the elementary rights of
man—yet they have laid all on the altar of God. To
generation after generation has temptation come in the
shape of everything that men desire, but flesh and blood
has withstood it. It is, therefore, no idle boast or
empty pride if a descendant of those who brought with
them the legacy of a living heroism, recalls in pious
reverence the moral triumphs of the past.
whenever the intentions have been very eager and the power
very extensive, the evil has been enormous” (History of Civiliza-
tion, i, p. 183. Cf. likewise ibid., i, p. 253 ſfg.).
THE TREE OF LIFE
75
And ever since the Jews started on their martyr
mission, there have been echoed and re-echoed in the
hearts of the sons of Israel the words of that grand,
stirring psalm which one of them composed over two
thousand years ago, when, overwhelmed with danger,
they clung to their faith; and this eternally repeated
pledge of loyalty to God is still expressed in the anguish
of many a Jewish soul :-
All this is come upon us ;
Yet we have not forgotten Thee,
Neither have we dealt falsely in Thy covenant.
Our heart is not turned back,
Neither have our steps declined from Thy way.
Though Thou hast sore broken us in the place of dragons,
And covered us with the shadow of death.
If we have forgotten the name of our God,
Or stretched out our hands to a strange god,
Shall not God search this out ? 1
1 Ps. xliv. 17 ffg.
CHAPTER V
THE UNIVERSALITY OF JUDAISM
“Thus saith the Lord : Israel is My son, My firstborn."-
Exodus iv. 22.
It has been the fate of Judaism to maintain its exist-
ence by an apparently defensive attitude. As a body,
Judaism has never gone out into the world to proclaim
its doctrines and obtain converts to the same. It has
been a constructive force among its own adherents, but
never has it set itself the task to alter the existing order
of things by violent means. At a time when even
Christianity and Mohammedanism justify the life of
Judaism, and do not deny the unique value of its
work as the guardian of truth, the religion of Israel
moved within its own sphere. This is the principle
and policy acted upon by its best minds from the earliest
ages. Elijah's jealousy for the Lord did not extend
beyond the confines of Israel. Isaiah with his
universalistic sympathies and aspirations, with his
prediction that the word of God would go out of Jeru-
salem to all the nations of the earth, with his vision
that the Lord will bless " Egypt My people, and Assyria
the work of My hands, and Israel Mine inheritance," 1
that great Hebrew prophet took no active part in the
spiritual affairs of foreign nations. Hillel, who gave
to a would-be proselyte his famous declaration that
1 Is. xix. 24, 25.
76
THE UNIVERSALITY OF JUDAISM 77
the essence of the Torah consists of the rule,“ Do
not unto others what thou wouldest not that others
should do unto thee,” even this liberal-minded sage
did not propagate his religious views outside the Jewish
communion.
This attitude of Judaism has given rise in many
quarters to the misconception and misrepresentation
that Judaism is a tribal religion, a faith confined to
one people, jealously guarding its borders against
foreign intrusion and limiting its selfish hopes to its
own narrow circle. Such a view of Judaism brings
with it so perverted an idea of its character, that it is
most essential to place the nature of its functions and
the scope of its aspirations in a true light.
It has first of all to be recognized that Judaism is
not dependent upon any nationalistic embodiment.
As a matter of fact, since the Babylonian Captivity
Judaism ceased to be, in practice as well as in theory, a
religion limited by geographical and racial boun-
daries. The loss of their country had turned the Jews
from a nation, in the usual sense of the word, into a
Holy Communion, 5x90 ODIO, the Synagogue of Israel.
Assemblies for Divine Service and the reading and
exposition of the sacred literature multiplied in the
Jewish settlements all over the Babylonian Empire ; in
these houses of study and worship, prayer superseded
sacrifices, and became the recognized medium of praise
and supplication of the Creator, while the Temple of
Jerusalem was regarded either as a sacred memory,
or, at most, the hallowed centre of the Jewish religion.
Wherever God was invoked, there was a temple,1 every
1“ In every place where I cause My name to be remembered
I will come unto thee and bless thee ” (Exod. xx. 24; cf. Aboth,
iii. 7).
78
THE SYNAGOGUE AND THE CHURCH
table at which people partook of food and thanked the
Lord for it, became an altar.1
As the absence of the Temple did away with the
sacrificial service, so through the loss of the Judean
independence, Judaism tended to become a religion of
world-wide extent. Before Jerusalem was destroyed
by Titus, the Jews were to be found in all parts of the
Roman Empire, and in very considerable numbers
outside it. An harmonious diversity of life and thought
was produced by the various sections of Judaism,
notably in Egypt, where the Jews had developed a
religious philosophy almost independent of the Pales-
tinian, and in Parthia, where the Babylonian Talmud
was evolved and with it the foundation of a decentralized
Judaism. Judaism had so far outgrown its former
home that, from the meagre help the very numerous
Jews in Parthia gave to the Jewish insurrection against
the Romans, it is evident that the troubles in Judea
did not very greatly affect the position of Judaism as
a whole. It was only when the consequences of the fall
of Jerusalem, and the sad failure of the Bar Cochba revolt,
became evident; when some centuries later Christian
persecution began its long, dreary course, that the Jews
felt so bitterly the loss of their former home. Thus the
coming future reign of freedom became associated with
the return to Zion. In their intense faith that God
was always with them, that "in their affliction He
was also afflicted,' 2 they even thought that His glory
was in exile with His people. Wherever, as in Baby-
lonia or Spain, they were able to live and thrive, Zion
i Cf. Aboth iii. 4.
superseded the altar.
2 Isa. lxiii. 9.
R. Jochanan considered the table to have
Ber. 55a.
5
THE UNIVERSALITY OF JUDAISM
79
practically became a source of purely spiritual aspirations.
The longing for a return to the Holy Land, for which
the Jews prayed in dark and troublous times, has
indelibly impressed itself on the Jewish Prayer Book,
but the modern Jew in Western Europe and America,
while generally retaining the old prayers, has invested
them with a larger meaning.
Even Zionism, which aims at re-creating a Jewish
Commonwealth in Palestine, where the wandering and
harassed Jew should at last find rest for his weary feet,
is a proof of the evolution of the nationalistic sentiment
in Judaism.
The modern Zionist movement is practically the off-
spring of the fierce Jewish persecutions in Russia and
Rumania, as well as of the anti-Semitic crusade in such
enlightened countries as Germany, Austria and France,
during the last quarter of the nineteenth century; it is
the result of the partial failure of the Jewish attempt
to merge as completely as possible in the national life of
European peoples. The sincere efforts of the Jews
in this direction have been spurned with contempt, and
Christian Europe has invented the pseudo-scientific
theory of Anti-Semitism, based on the alleged super-
iority of the Aryan over the Semitic race-the race to
which Jesus and his apostles belonged. This struck
indiscriminately at every man of Jewish birth; it
indicted the most indifferent, even the baptized Jew. 1
Most deeply did it affect that large and important class
of Jews, who, discarding more or less their Jewish
sympathies, affected a cosmopolitan humanitarianism.
1 A man like the late Paulus Cassel, who had embraced
Christianity from conscientious motives, felt that he had at
least "graves" to defend.
80
THE SYNAGOGUE AND THE CHURCH .
Their dream of universal brotherhood was destroyed
by the touch of reality. But the enthusiasm once
engendered was not lost; it was turned into a different
channel, shaped into a tangible form and applied for
the benefit of one's own kith and kin. The universalistic
aspirations of the western Jew and the hope so long
nursed by his eastern brother, that Israel shall once
again like an eagle renew its youth, were now fused
into the old Messianic ideal of human happiness and
joy. Nevertheless, in spite of the fascinating genius and
noble personality of the late Theodor Herzl, to whom this
nationalistic idea owes its present embodiment, and in
spite of some of his distinguished coadjutors, the move-
ment is treated with a certain hostility by a majority
of the emancipated Jews. Here we can discern the
true sentiments of the modern Jews in regard to the
return to Palestine. Those who are still bound to a
literal interpretation of the biblical phraseology in
reference to the Return, no less than those who regard
it metaphorically, partly repudiate the Zionist scheme
out of fear that it might tend to rob Judaism of its
world-citizenship.1.
1 The above is the general view of Western Jews on the subject,
but I feel bound to add my own profound conviction, in support
of the opinion of many others, that the opposition to the Zionist
movement is neither desirable nor justified in the best and high-
est interests of the Jewish people. It is the ultimate aim of
Zionism—which represents a synthesis of the needs and aspira-
tions of modern Jewry—to again create in Palestine (as in the
time of the Second Temple) a rallying centre for the Jews, which
will raise their morale all over the world, and where their spiritual
genius, once more in touch with its native soil, may be quickened
into a new birth. It is surely the inalienable duty of every
conscious Jew and Jewess to lend a sympathetic heart and a
willing hand towards this end,
THE UNIVERSALITY OF JUDAISM
81
It is remarkable that the power of the Jew to com-
pletely adapt himself to the highest level of the national
life surrounding him has been noticed and acknowledged
as early as the fourth century B.C.E., by one of the
greatest thinkers of ancient times. Referring to a Jew
whom he had met in Asia Minor, Aristotle says that
this Jew had become a Hellene not only in language,
but in soul, and that in his intercourse with Aristotle
and other Greek philosophers he had given more than
he received. 1 . The capability of the Jews of being
faithful citizens of diverse nations, whilst maintaining
their religious individuality, is one of the testimonies
to the continuity of the spirit of Jewish life. Like so
many other prominent phases of modern Judaism, this
can be traced as far back as the Babylonian Captivity.
When Jeremiah advised the Jews in Babylonia to estab-
lish a permanent home in the land of their exile, he
exhorted them in the name of the Lord : “ Seek the
peace of the city whither I have caused you to be carried
away captive, and pray unto the Lord for it, for in the
peace thereof shall ye have peace.” 2 Writing at a
time when a Jewish State was actually in existence, the
following words of Philo may, with equal truth, be
practically used in the twentieth century: "For no
one country can contain the whole Jewish nation, by
reason of its populousness, on which account they
frequent all the most prosperous and fertile countries
of Europe and Asia, whether islands or continents,
looking indeed upon the holy city as their metropolis
in which is erected the sacred temple of the most High
God, but accounting those regions which have been
occupied by their fathers and grandfathers and great-
1 Josephus, Cont. Apion., i, 22. 2 Jer. xxix. 7.
82
THE SYNAGOGUE AND THE CHURCH
grandfathers, and still more remote ancestors, in which
they have been born and brought up, as their country ;
and there are even some regions to which they came
the very moment that they were originally settled,
sending a colony of their people to do a pleasure to
the founders of the colony." 1. Finally, the Talmudic
legislation, which, in secular matters, culminates in
the law of the land " ,דינא דמלכותא דינא the dictum
is supreme," may be said to have laid a secure and
correct basis for the relations between Jews and their
nationality.
Just as Paul, though a Jew, appealed with pride to
his Roman citizenship, so truly conscious is the modern
Jew of the nationality with which he is intimately
bound up by the ties of sentiment and interest; by birth,
speech and thought; by social and historical con-
nexions; by the privileges and responsibilities of a father-
land.
It seems to be the destiny of the Jews to have to
demonstrate that there is not only a broader basis for
national life than physical affinity can provide, but that
there is also at the same time a higher test of truth than
conformity to the dominant national system of religion,
whether as defined by decrees of kings or by the force
of numbers. It has been claimed that one of the greatest
services of the Roman Catholic Church, and her peculiar
value to mankind, consisted in her championship of
the liberty of conscience against the tyranny of the
State. This, however, is only in so far true as this
plea is directed against the national Protestant Churches,
particularly where they have been degraded into a mere
Philo, Against Flaccus, Yonge's transl., iv. p. 70.
THE UNIVERSALITY OF JUDAISM
83
department of the secular government. In practice,
Roman Catholicism only proclaims the freedom of
worship where it finds itself threatened ; in countries
under complete Catholic rule, like the former Papal State,
this idea seemed unknown, and was not even claimed
as a virtue. Catholic Christianity, by aspiring not only
to an absolute supremacy over all souls, but also to an
unlimited secular power in the State, can hardly, with
a long history of an uninterrupted struggle for political
dominion, be considered a purely spiritual agency. But
boundaries in matters of faith, is always loyal, and
owes no allegiance except to the government whose
protection it enjoys. Invariably existing as a minority
amidst a majority, Judaism has assimilated to an un-
usual extent the wisdom of toleration and fellowship, 1
while the generous and practical application of the
Talmudic adage that one Israelite is responsible for
the other, has made the Jewish citizen of any country
also a member of a world-wide spiritual brotherhood.
poor of Israel; the sick of the stranger are to be tended like
the sick of Israel ; the dead of the stranger are to be buried with
the dead of Israel, and the mourners of the stranger are to be
comforted like the mourners of Israel-on account of the ways
of peace” (Gittin, 61a. Cf. Maimonides, Hil. Mel., ch. x. 12). .
The meaning of the words,“ on account of the ways of peace,"
is not the mere selfish prudence into which it ,מפני דרכי שלום
has been sometimes misconstrued by unfriendly critics, but, as has
been pointed out by Prof. Lazarus, it really denotes the bringing
together into closer harmony of the divisions of the human race
by means of mercy and kindness, and, as an illustration of the
true meaning, he appropriately quotes the well-known Rabbinical
maxim : 0,5W 779 nba ya 770 Sa 12 AS, “The
whole Torah was only created on account of the ways of peace.”
Cf. Die Ethik d. Judenthums, i, $174.
84
THE SYNAGOGUE AND THE CHURCH
But the interest of Judaism is not confined to its own
adherents ; its outlook is co-extensive with humanity.
In the Bible, the history, as well as in the prayers, of the
Jews, the salvation of the whole human race is indis-
solubly bound up with the hopes and destiny of Israel.
This fundamental standpoint of Judaism lies in its
very inception. The promise to the Patriarchs that
God will bless their descendants is coupled with the
statement that the world will be blessed through them.
This is the key to the history of Judaism. The election
of Israel as a medium of the divine purpose was not
merely for the sake of the sons of Jacob, but to fulfil
a function in the economy of the world. In Daniel, the
fortunes of the Jews are intimately connected with the
great events of history. The prophets did not occupy
themselves in their discourses with Israel only, but
with all the peoples of the earth known to them. Jere-
miah was sanctified and ordained to be a prophet unto
the world, and God set him "over the nations and over
the kingdoms, to root out and to pull down, and to
destroy and to throw down, to build and to plant.” 1
Jonah, Obadiah and Nahum address themselves
exclusively to foreign nations; the prophets were
sent by God direct to them, for “the Lord is the God
of the spirits of all flesh.” Isaiah delivers special dis-
courses to Assyria, Babylonia, Philistia, Moab, Egypt,
Persia, Media, Arabia, Idumea, and Tyre; he takes a
sympathetic interest in them, and, in the name of God,
laments their sad fate : “Therefore I will bewail with
the weeping of Jazer the vine of Sibmah ; I will water
thee with my tears, O Heshbon and Elealeh : for upon
thy summer fruits and upon thy harvest the battle-
1 Jer. i. 5-10.
THE UNIVERSALITY OF JUDAISM
85
shout is fallen."1 Nor is the power of prophecy and
greatness of soul confined in the Hebrew Scriptures
to Israelites only. The remarkable prophecies of
Balaam, and the noble discourses of Job and his friends
are ascribed to men who were not children of the Cove-
nant. It was fully recognized that “God extends his
goodness over all His creatures and His tender mercies
over all His works.” 2
Incomparably just and generous is the treatment
accorded to the 77, the sojourner, the stranger, in the
Mosaic legislation. The consideration and love to be
shown to the alien is constantly inculcated, with the
significant reminder : “For ye know the heart (or
soul) of the stranger, seeing ye were strangers in the
land of Egypt; I am the Lord your God." 3 His feelings
are to be regarded and spared : “ Thou shalt neither
vex a stranger nor oppress him.” 4 The largest measure
of love was to be held out to him : “The stranger that
dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among
you, and thou shalt love him as thyself.” 5 The alien
was to be equal before the law with the native Israelite :
“One law shall be to him that is homeborn and unto
1 Isa. xvi. 9.
2 Cf. Psalm cxlv. It is particularly notable that this Psalm
(709) 201708), which embraces in God's kingdom "all flesh,"
and declares that “the Lord is nigh unto all them that call
upon Him, to all that call upon Him in truth," is the most fre-
quently repeated Psalm in the whole Jewish Liturgy.
3 Note the sentiments with which the Hebrews were to regard
the Egyptians. There was to be no touch of revengeful or
bitter feeling against the former oppressor, but lessons of
love towards strangers were deduced from the position of the
Israelites in Egypt, and the treatment of the Egyptian was to
be particularly tender.
• Exod. xxii. 21 ; xxiii. 9. 5 Lev. xix. 34.
86
THE SYNAGOGUE AND THE CHURCH
the stranger that sojourneth among you."i In the
beautiful custom to leave the gleanings of the vineyard
to the poor, the stranger is included among them. 2
The rest of the Sabbath day is also intended that "the
stranger may be refreshed,” 3 and this forms part of the
fundamental Ten Words. 4 For the sojourner was also
a brother: “And if thy brother be waxen poor, and
fallen in decay with thee; then thou shalt relieve him :
yea, though he be a stranger or a sojourner ; that he
may live with thee." 5 In the sight of the Lord, to
whom the whole universe belongs, the Jews are in no
way higher than the so-called strangers and sojourners : 6
“He regardeth not persons, nor taketh reward : He
doth execute the judgment of the fatherless and
widow, and loveth the stranger. . : . Love ye there-
fore the stranger : for ye were strangers in the land of
Egypt.” ?
Nor was Judaism averse to the complete incorporation
of the stranger within its own body. It is a popular,
but no less decided, fallacy that Judaism, by reason
of its constitution, has ever been hostile to the recep-
tion of proselytes. From the time of the Mosaic legis-
lation we can discern the process by which non-Israelites
were admitted into the privileges and responsibilities
of the covenant of Abraham. The original inhabitants
of Canaan gradually became merged with the invaders,
and in the biblical writings we catch frequently recur-
ring glimpses of people who attached themselves (0973377 or
D' 8077) to Israel. Solomon's prayer at the dedication
1 Exod. xii. 49 ; Lev. xxiv. 22.
2 Lev. xix. 10; xxiii, 22. 3 Exod. xxiii. 12.
4 Exod. xx. 10; Deut. v. 14.
6 Lev. XXV. 35.
0 Lev. XXV. 23.
? Deut. x. 17-19.
THE UNIVERSALITY OF JUDAISM 87
of the Temple is a measure of the large-hearted view
which was taken of the functions of the Sanctuary on
Mount Zion. He supplicates that God may not only
grant the prayers of the Israelites, who will come there
in times of sorrow and distress, but should also answer
the stranger : “Moreover concerning the stranger that is
not of Thy people Israel, but cometh out of a far country
for thy name's sake; (for they shall hear of Thy great
name and of Thy strong hand and of Thy stretched out
arm ;) when he shall come and pray towards this house ;
hear Thou in heaven Thy dwelling place, and do accord-
ing to all that the stranger calleth to Thee for : that all
the peoples of the earth may know Thy name to fear Thee
as doth Thy people Israel, and that they may know that
this house which I have builded is called by Thy name.” 1
It was particularly from the time of the Babylonian
Captivity, when in spite, or rather, because, of this
terrible disaster, Judaism became ineradicably estab-
lished in the hearts of its adherents, that many heathen
turned from their idolatry to serve the Holy One of
Israel. It was at this period that there appeared those
soul-stirring discourses in Isaiah, which have provided
a source of inspiration to Israel and the world. The
prophet proclaims that God will gather all nations
unto Him; He will set the Jews as a sign among the
Gentiles afar off to declare His glory among them.
And all those who have entered his covenant are equal ;
the strangers like the born Israelites are to become priests
and Levites in the service of God. Those who have ac-
cepted the God of Israel shall also share in the blessings of
Israel's covenant with Him. “Neither let the stranger,
that hath joined himself to the Lord, speak, saying, the
11 Kings viii. 41-43. 2 Isa. lxvi. 18–21.
88
THE SYNAGOGUE AND THE CHURCH
Lord will surely separate me from His people ; neither
let the eunuch say, Behold, I am a dry tree. For thus
saith the Lord of the eunuchs that keep My sabbaths and
choose the things that please Me, and hold fast by My
covenant: unto them will I give in Mine house and
within My walls a place and a memorial better than of
sons and daughters; I will give them an everlasting
name that shall not be cut off. Also the strangers that
join themselves to the Lord to minister unto Him, and
to love the name of the Lord, to be His servants; every
one that keepeth the sabbath from polluting it, and
holdeth fast by My covenant; even them will I bring to
My holy mountain and make them joyful in My house
of prayer. .. for My house shall be called an house of
prayer for all peoples."i The heart of the prophet
goes out to those who, though not of Israel, cleave
unto the Lord and confide in Him, Who is the father of
every human soul : “Doubtless Thou art our Father,
though Abraham be ignorant of us and Israel acknow-
ledge us not: Thou, O Lord, art our Father, our redeemer,
Thy name is from everlasting.” 2
So long as these noble utterances form a part of the
sacred records of the faith and hopes of Israel, the words
of the great Jewish prophet will ever provide the
standard by which the proselyte should be regarded in
Judaism. The idyllic story of Ruth, by which the
Moabite woman became the ancestress of the most
illustrious Jewish family, the house of David, has cast
a halo round the head of the proselyte.3 To become
one of them was no reproach ; on the contrary, it was a
1 Isa. lvi. 3-7.
2 Ibid., lxiii. 16.
3 Ruth is to the present day a favourite name given to Jewish
female proselytes; thus, the gifted Nahida Remy, who has
THE UNIVERSALITY OF JUDAISM
89
privilege and a distinction. Not only were such eminent
Talmudic sages like Shemaiah and Abtalion, R. Akiba
and R. Meir, proselytes, or immediate descendants of
them, but there is no name in post-canonical Jewish
literature better known than that of Onkelos the
proselyte, the author of the Targum that bears his
name.
The influence of Jewish legislation over the non-
Jewish population of the Judean State was the means
of bringing many new adherents to Judaism. The old
distinction between the on, the native and foreign
strangers, who were at peace with the Israelites and
probably observed to a certain extent their laws and
customs, and the D'iv17, the aborigines of Canaan, who
still maintained their paganism and were more or less at
war with their conquerors, fell into desuetude when the
· heatheninhabitants of Palestine were eventually absorbed
into Judaism. But from the time of the Babylonian Cap-
tivity, the Jews found themselves, even partly in Judea,
amidst heathen surroundings and under a heathen
government. The various altered circumstances which
came into existence at the time of the second Temple
also affected the position of Judaism towards those who
had completely-embraced its teachings and practices,
as well as those who, imbued with reverence and attach-
ment to Judaism, had not yet signified their intention
of seeking admission into the community of Israel. The
former category of proselytes, the p73 72, proselytes
of righteousness, have remained to this day.1 Those,
secured a high place among the distinguished women of Israel
she has so sympathetically described in Das Jüdische Weib, took
the additional name of Ruth on her conversion to Judaism.
1 The following ancient prayer, which forms part of the so-
90 THE SYNAGOGUE AND THE CHURCH
again, who did not entirely submit to Judaism, but
abstained from idolatry, and in some measure con-
formed to the ethical and ceremonial code of the Jewish
religion, became known as avin 92, proselytes of the
gate. For various reasons they have ceased to be recog-
nized in Judaism, but a description of their qualifications
gives us a good idea of what the Rabbis considered a
Gentile ought to be in order to be practically a Jew, and
to be regarded as such by the Israelite. The book of
Genesis told them that there was a covenant before the
Jewish covenant; that before Abraham, the father of
Judaism, God had revealed Himself to man and made
a covenant with him, and they, therefore, composed a
system of morals which was deduced from the com-
mandments of God to Noah. While it was recognized
that the Torah was only obligatory on the sons of
Jacob, the laws given to Noah, the father of the human
race after the Deluge, were considered to be universal and
binding on all mankind. These laws were called the
ז' מצות בני נח ,Seven Commandments of the Noachidae
and consisted in the acknowledgment of the one and
only true God, and the consequent rejection of idolatry,
the inviolability of human life, abstention from the flesh
and blood of living animals, the prohibition of blasphemy,
incest and robbery, and obedience to lawfully con-
stituted authorities. Not only was a non-Israelite
called Eighteen Blessings in the Jewish Liturgy, gives some idea
of the regard in which the proselytes of righteousness have
been held in Judaism : “ Towards the righteous and the pious,
towards the elders of Thy people the House of Israel, towards
the remnant of their scribes, towards the proselytes of righteous-
ness, and towards us also may Thy tender mercies be stirred,
O Lord our God” (Daily Prayer Book, Singer, p. 48).
1 Sanh. 56b, ffg. ; Abodah Zara, 646.
THE UNIVERSALITY OF JUDAISM
91
who faithfully observed these commandments assured
of the bliss of the future world, but he was declared to
be equal to the High Priest.1 During several centuries
before and after the fall of Jerusalem there was a vast
number of these Judaizing heathen in the Roman and
Parthian Empires whom, attached or unattached to the
Synagogue, we meet under the names of ' 87" they
that fear the Lord,”' 2" devout people," etc. 3 As to
such, it was declared that any one who rejected the
worship of idols was already called a Jew.4
If the living power of a religion be measured by the
zeal with which it is propagated and spread, Judaism.
never showed greater vitality than during the period!
which is considered by most Christian theologians as:
under the power of Rome, and the Jews spread over
sion to the Jewish ranks. The works of Philo and
Josephus, as well as the New Testament and contem-
porary Roman writers, give ample evidence of the
extensive Jewish influence on the Roman world of that
time. It was little of an exaggeration when Josephus
said that “the multitude have for a long time a
great inclination to follow our religious observances,
for there is not in any city of the Grecians nor any of
the barbarians, nor any nation whatsoever, whither
our customs had not come. So that if any one will but
reflect on his own country and his own family, he will
have reason to give credit to what I say.” 5. A great
1 Abodah Zara, 3a; Sanh. 50a; Maimonides, Mishné Torah,
Hil. Mel., viii. 2.
2 Psalm cxviii. 4.
3 In the Acts.
4 Megillah, 13a.
6 Jos., Cont. Apion, ii. 40.
92
THE SYNAGOGUE AND THE CHURCH
number of Greeks formed part of the Jewish commun-
ion, and Dion Cassius, writing at the beginning of the
third century, knew that there were Jews by race as
well as by adoption.2 Juvenal lamented the fact that
even where the father was only a half-Jew, the children
became complete, and even fanatical, Jews, and the
satirist's inclusion of Judaism among the superstitions
indulged in by many Roman women is well-known.4
Indeed, the high moral tone of Judaism, as opposed to
the prevalent licentiousness among the heathen, attracted
many female proselytes to Judaism. In some places,
like Damascus, most women had become converted, and
we read of many noble matrons who turned Jewesses
and even suffered martyrdom for their new faith. The
recurring edicts of Roman Emperors against the adop-
tion of Judaism by Romans show that it was regarded
as a danger to be combated ; some of the highest in the
land were guilty of “ Judaizing,” and the religion of
Israel had its adherents sometimes even in the Imperial
family. The Empress Poppæa became a Jewess, and
was buried as such at her request; Domitian ordered his
relative Flavius Clemens (whose sons had been destined
as successors to the throne) to be executed, because he,
with many others, had been guilty of adopting Judaism.5
That there existed no social or religious barriers
between those who were Jews by birth and those by
affiliation, may be gauged by the fact that proselytes
were studying in the Rabbinical academies. These
1 Jos., B.J. vii. 3, 3. 2 Dion Cassius, Hist. Rom., xxxvii. 17.
3 Sat., xiv. 95 ffg.
4 Ibid. vi. 541 ffg.
5 Cf. Graetz, Die jüdischen Proselyten im Römerreiche, etc.,
annexed to the Jahresbericht des jüd.-theol. Seminars in Breslau,
1884.
THE UNIVERSALITY NI
OF JUDAISM 93
good feelings and relations also extended to female
converts; there was one of them in Rome named
Beturia Paulina, who seemed to have rendered important
services to the Jewish community there and to have
been held by them in high esteem, as she was entitled
“mother of the synagogues.” 1
There was altogether a sufficient sense of appreciation
of the importance of the new members of the faith,
and the reception accorded to them was commensurately
generous. Writing of the laws of Moses regarding
proselytes, Philo said : “ Accordingly, having given equal
rank and honour to all those who came over, and having
granted to them the same favours that were bestowed
on the native Jews, he recommends those who are
ennobled by truth not only to treat them with respect,
but even with special friendship and excessive benevo-
lence." 2
If it were necessary to broadly define the position
of the Talmud towards the proselyte, we cannot take
a higher authority than Maimonides, the greatest
exponent of Talmudical Judaism. His opinion on the
subject of proselytes is contained in a correspondence
with a convert named Obadiah, who is respectſully termed
9.7 792917 boyuan 7731 83277 8979. In answer
to the question as to whether he could rightly use in
his prayers such formulas as: “Our God and the God
of our fathers," “Whom Thou hast chosen,” etc.,
Maimonides said that the proselyte was to use
these phrases, because Abraham, the father of all the
faithful, was also his father, and he is referred to the
passage in Isaiah: “Neither let the stranger that
1
i The synagogue in Capernaum in which Jesus used to wor-
ship was built by a proselyte—the centurion whose servant was
healed by Jesus (Luke vii. 5). 2 Yonge's tr., iii, p. 186.
94
THE SYNAGOGUE AND THE CHURCH
hath joined himself to the Lord speak, saying, the
Lord will surely separate me from His people."1 Mai-
:monides then continues
אין שום הפרש בינינו ובינך"
There is absolutely no difference between us and thee;
for the Creator hath also chosen thee from among the
nations ; let thy Dint (pedigree) not be light in thine
eyes, for if we pride ourselves upon our connexion
with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, thou mayest pride
thyself of being connected with Him, who spake and
the world existed.” In answer to Obadiah, who com-
plained of having been called a fool by his teacher,
Maimonides said that the teacher had grievously sinned;
he ought to beg the disciple's pardon and pray to God
for forgiveness. “Doth he not know,” exclaims
Maimonides, “that the Torah commandeth us
in thirty-six places to be kind to the proselyte ?
Great is the commandment in regard to our duties to
proselytes. We are told to honour and to fear father and
mother, to hearken to prophets, but, as to the proselyte,
love the stranger (or proselyte)', in the same way as we
are commanded to love God Himself : ‘And thou
shalt love thy God, for the Lord Himself loveth the
proselyte : 'He loveth the stranger.'" Maimonides
likens the-proselyte, who has left everything behind
him in order to follow the truth and to rest under the
wings of the Shechinah, to Abraham, and declares
that, as the Lord blessed him, so will He also bless
the proselyte in this and the future world, and will
cause him to participate in the salvation promised
1 Isa. lvi. 3.
2 Dp.mp,"\PS2,1n17287 01077 maswn yaip, ed. Abra-
THE UNIVERSALITY OF JUDAISM
95
Among those debts which Christianity owes to
Judaism, there is hardly one which has been so much
ignored, if not repudiated, than the active proselytizing
religion developed out of the spiritual riches which had
been accumulated in Israel. There was not, indeed, an
organized effort to bring the heathen over to Judaism ;
there were also no threatening denunciations against
the unbeliever and the announcement of the immediate
destruction of the world, as we find in the Christian
propaganda from its beginning; but the Jews felt
how superior their religion was to that of paganism,
and this feeling was frequently translated into word and
deed. Apart from the mere existence of very numerous
proselytes, we have a great deal of evidence to this effect
in the writings of Hellenistic Jews, particularly in the
Jewish Sibylline Oracles, which were specially written
for the purpose of glorifying the God of Israel in the
eyes of the nations. There were men who made it their
task to acquaint the heathen with the heritage of Israel,
and to urge its acceptance by them. Like the modern
Mohammedan missionary, the Jewish missionary was
frequently a merchant who was as zealous for the
propagation of his religion as for the sale of his wares.
The story of the conversion of the royal house of Adia-
bene, some of whom distinguished themselves by their
attachment to Judaism, illustrates the process by which
a knowledge of Judaism was often imparted to the
heathen. Whilst Izates, the heir to the throne of Adia-
bene, resided at the court of Abennerig, the King of
ham Lichtenberg. These two letters ought to be read by everyone
who wishes to have an authoritative view of the Talmudical
position on the proselyte question.
96
THE SYNAGOGUE AND THE CHURCH
Charax-Spasini, a Jewish merchant named Ananias, who
got among the women of the King's harem,“ taught
them to worship God according to the Jewish religion.
He, moreover, by their means became known to Izates,
and persuaded him in like manner to embrace that
religion.” When Izates returned to his native country,
he found that his mother Helená had meanwhile also
been converted to Judaism by a Jewish teacher. 1
Paul's preaching to the heathen was, as a matter of
to the first and immediate disciples of Jesus, who,
as Galilean peasants, impregnated with the narrow
views of their class, confined themselves, as once
directed by their master, to "the lost sheep of the
House of Israel,” Paul, who had come under the en-
lightened influences of Rabban Gamaliel and the Hellen-
istic Jews of Tarsus, was indeed “the apostle of the
Gentiles.” But in the Jewish Diaspora there were
others before him who compassed sea and land to make
proselytes.2 Before Christianity arose, before Paul
had declared the equality of all believers in Christ,
Philo boasted that the Laws of Moses" lead after them
and influence all nations, barbarians and Greeks, the in-
habitants of continents and islands, the eastern nations
and the western, Europe and Asia ; in short, the whole
habitable world from one extremity to the other. " 3
Nor was Paul the first to recognize the rite of
circumcision as a serious obstacle in the rapid conversion
of the heathen, and to repudiate it as a necessary means
of admission. The Talmud records strong differences
of opinions among the Rabbis as to whether circum-
i Jos. Ant. xx. 2.
2 Matt. xxiii. 15.
3 Life of Moses, Yonge's tr., ii. 137 ffg.
THE UNIVERSALITY OF JUDAISM 97
cision was an essential part in the reception of pro-
selytes of righteousness. 1
With some Hellenistic Jews (whom we may divide
into conservatives and radicals) the ceremonial law
was not an indispensable part of Judaism. Among the
conservatives the commandments were explained, or
explained away, with an allegorical meaning, while
many radicals rejected their observance, as being
philosophical Greeks.
An interesting example of a Jewish propagandist,
whose Judaism was a Paulinism without Christ, meets
us in Apollos. This Alexandrian Jew, who is described
as “an eloquent man and mighty in scriptures," came
to Ephesus to preach “ the things of the Lord." He
had not heard of Jesus, and was only probably aware
of the rite of baptism among the Essenes, but when some
believers of Christ met him, they found it only necessary
in order to turn the Jewish into a Christian propagandist.2
It is owing to the wide diffusion by the Jews of their
religious doctrines, and to the spread of the Bible,
translated by Jews into the dominant literary language
of the time, that Christianity was able to propagate
itself so rapidly during the first and second centuries.
The Christian apostles went on their missionary journeys
from one synagogue to another, where they preached
their doctrine and now and again found a sympathetic
ear. One example will suffice to show the state of the
synagogues at that time, and the advantages provided
by the existence thereof to the apostles.
When Paul came into the synagogue in Antioch on
1 Yęb, 46a.
2 Acts xviii. 24-28.
H
98 THE SYNAGOGUE AND THE CHURCH
a Sabbath day, he was invited by the authorities of
the synagogue, after the reading of the Torah and the
prophetical lesson, to say a word of exhortation to the
worshippers there. He addressed the audience, which
consisted of Jews by adoption as well as by birth,
as “Men of Israel and ye that fear God," and also as
“Men and brethren, children of the stock of Abraham,
and whosoever among you feareth God," and it was
quite in accord with Jewish sentiment when he spoke
to these men of different origin, but of one faith, that
God chose " our fathers." We are told that Paul made
such an impression on the “Gentiles " there that, when
he preached the next Sabbath, there “came almost
the whole city to hear the word of God." But when
it was found that this “brother” had taken advantage
of the invitation to preach in the synagogue to deliver
a discourse wherein he proclaimed the doctrine of a
man by whom “all that believe are justified from all
things from which ye could not be justified by the Law
of Moses,” the Jews, it is said, “spoke against those
things which were spoken by Paul, contradicting and
blaspheming," and even “stirred up the devout and
honourable women and the chief men of the city"
against the apostle. Then, the narrative says : “Many
of the Jews and religious proselytes followed Paul and
Barnabas, who, speaking to them, persuaded them to
continue in the grace of God.” 1
The theories of some of the apostles regarding a semi-
human saviour of men found little favour and credence
among those Jews who were well acquainted with their
religion, but a ready soil was prepared for nascent
Christianity among the neo-Jews, who, enthusiastic
1 Cf, Acts xiii. 14 ffg.
THE UNIVERSALITY OF JUDAISM
99
in their new faith, generously gave a willing ear to every
Jewish teacher. This is well shown by the conversion to
Christianity of a Jewish proselyte, a chamberlain of
the queen of Ethiopia. This man was met reading
in his chariot the book of Isaiah, by a Christian named
Philip. Philip inquired of him whether he understood
what he read, and was answered : “How can I, except
some one shall guide me ?” and he asked Philip to
sit down with him in his chariot. The Ethiopian, who
had been reading the fifty-third chapter of Isaiah, in-
quired of whom the prophet spoke. Philip thereupon
explained to him the history of Jesus, and as they came
to a water, the Ethiopian said: "See, here is water,
what doth hinder me to be baptized ?” He was told
that if he believed with all his heart this could be done,
and the answer being : “I believe that Jesus Christ
is the Son of God,” he immediately went down into the
water and was baptized. 1
The character of the proselytes, as well as other
attendant circumstances, brought about a reaction in
Judaism which led to the adoption of a critical, if not
an unfavourable, view of missionary efforts. The
converts were found to be deficient in their understand-
ing of the new religion, and their very enthusiasm was
sometimes mixed with a naïveté which, as in the case
of the Ethiopian chamberlain just cited, made them the
prey of the many philosophies and superstitions which
floated about in the Roman Empire during the first
two or three Christian centuries.2 To the spiritual
1 Acts viii. 27-38.
2 Modern Christian missionaries among civilized pagans will
easily appreciate the difficulties which have to be contended
with in the case of proselytes subjected to the controversies of
many opposing sects.
100 THE SYNAGOGUE AND THE CHURCH
anarchy which prevailed at the time was added the
subtle metaphysical reasoning to which the Greek
mind was addicted, and the Jewish leaders were well
advised in not turning their religion into a battle-
ground of those conflicting opinions which made the
Christian Church from its beginning a body rent by in-
numerable theories of questions beyond human ken. The
famous policy of Paul of being all things to all men, which
worked so successfully, but has burdened Christianity
to the present day with a heavy load of dried-up
metaphysics, was not adopted by the Rabbis, whose
religion concerned itself more with life than with specu-
lation. Nevertheless, if, through experience and policy,
certain Rabbis were led to use depreciatory or even
condemnatory opinions regarding proselytes, it would
be as just to consider these expressions as constituting
the position of Judaism in the matter as to judge the
nature of Christianity by the well-known passage in the
Sermon on the Mount : “Give not that which is holy
unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine,” i
or by the answer of Jesus to the appeal of the Canaanite
woman : “ It is not meet to take the children's bread
and to cast it to the dogs.” 2 If one Rabbi said that
proselytes are to Israel like ulcers on a body, another
one declared that Israel was purposely spread about
the world to gain proselytes. 4
It is now becoming more and more recognized that so
far from being intensely exclusive and hostile to the
reception of strangers, Judaism has actually absorbed
into its body millions of proselytes, but the inestimable
service which was rendered by Judaism to its daughter-
1 Matt. vii. 6.
2 Matt. xv. 26.
3 Yeb. 476.
4 Pes. 876.
THE UNIVERSALITY OF JUDAISM
101
religion by providing it with universalistic sympathies,
and in pointing the way to the conquest of the human
race, is not yet adequately appreciated by Christian
theologians. Renan has justly measured this when he
says that, in considering the causes of the early pro-
gress of Christianity among the heathen, the glory
of Christianity is really confounded with that of Juda-
ism.1
A decided check was given to the spread of Judaism
in countries under Greek and Roman influence when the
Church allied itself with the power of the sword, and
used the latter without compunction and to the fullest
extent possible. It was not of its own accord that the
Synagogue had to strengthen its defences and to prepare
for a long and unremitting siege, for this was forced upon
it by outside changes in the political and religious world.
If Judaism had been intrinsically exclusive and hostile
to outsiders, there would have been no cause for the
many restrictive enactments of the Church and
Christian governments against the social and even
religious intercourse between Jew and non-Jew. The
Fathers of the Church, Church Councils and Christian
kings and Emperors, vied with each other in attempts
to crush any possible spread of Judaism. These decrees
have been more or less in force almost to our own
generation, until, in Western Europe at least, they have
been gradually relaxed or abolished. With such bar-
barous penalties as, in the Russian Empire even to the
present day, have been meted out to converts to Judaism
and to those involved in their conversion, the Jews
have naturally lost all desire for a missionary activity.
When, as it is so often exemplified in Jewish history, a
1 Renan, Les Apôtres, p. 260.
102 THE SYNAGOGUE AND THE CHURCH
Jewish proselyte became a source of the greatest danger
to the Jewish community at large; when, on his account,
it was threatened with pillage, expulsion and massacre,
it will readily be imagined why the Jew became un-
willing to enlist converts to his faith.
A few examples will suffice. The persecutions which
broke out against the Jews in the Frankish dominions
after the very favourable conditions under which they
had lived there under Charlemagne and his son Louis le
Débonnaire, may be directly attributed to the envy
and hatred of the Christian clergy at the preference for
Judaism shown by many Christians, and the sub-
sequent conversion of some of them, notably that of
Bishop Bodo. This distinguished ecclesiastic, the
spiritual adviser and favourite of the Emperor Louis,
went on a pilgrimage to Rome, to visit the graves of the
apostles and martyrs and to receive the blessing of the
Pope. But the sights that presented themselves to
the pious pilgrim in the metropolis of Christendom
and the city of the vicar of Christ, produced the same
disastrous effect on Bishop Bodo as they did on Martin
Luther about five centuries later. Bodo forsook
Christianity and, sacrificing his friends and high position,
went direct to Spain, where he embraced Judaism
and adopted the name of Eleazer. This event created
a great sensation at the time and, as Graetz says, is
spoken of by the chronicler in as impressive a manner
as extraordinary natural phenomena like comets and
earthquakes. The Jews were indeed for a time gener-
ously protected by the Emperor, though he himself felt
the occurrence deeply, but the implacable fury of the
1 This can be seen by the violent anti-Jewish writings of
Agobard; Bishop of Lyons, and of his successor Amolo.
KM
THE UNIVERSALITY OF JUDAISM
103
clergy could only be expiated by the humiliation, if
not the annihilation, of the Jews.
The first of a long series of Jewish persecutions arose
at the beginning of the eleventh century through the
conversion of Wecelinus, chaplain to the Duke Conrad,
a relative of the reigning Emperor.
The expulsion of over 16,000 Jews from England in
1290 was also greatly due to the conversion of a Domini-
can friar, Robert de Reddinge. An eloquent preacher,
he had studied Hebrew to enable him to convert the
Jews from their own writings. But the Christian
missionary became a convert to Judaism. He was cir-
cumcised and took the name of Hagin. When called
upon to answer for his action, he defended his new
faith with great warmth, but was handed over to
the Archbishop of Canterbury for punishment. Robert
de Reddinge probably escaped, but vengeance was
wreaked upon the Jews for having been the indirect
means of his conversion. The friars made common cause
with the bigoted queen-mother Eleanor, and she did not
rest until the Jews were delivered from their long agony
of persecution by their complete expulsion from the
country.1
Outside the Christian area, Judaism still continued
for a time to attract a considerable accession of pro-
selytes. In Arabia and Abyssinia there arose several
independent Jewish States, and one of them in the
latter region maintained itself till some time in the
eighteenth century. It is impossible to say how much
1 Graetz, History of the Jews, iii, p. 662 ffg. Cf. also his
Geschichte d. Juden, vii, note Il.
2 The remnant of this people, called the Falashas, are now
said to number about 100-200,000 souls. Although in a stag-
104 THE SYNAGOGUE AND THE CHURCH
of the Mongolian race has been assimilated into Judaism, 1
but we know that for several centuries there existed
near the shores of the Black Sea a powerful nation
converted to Judaism-the Chazars. The famous book
of Judah Halevi, Hakuzari, which he wrote in con-
nexion with their conversion, shows that there was then
as much grateful satisfaction at these accessions to
Judaism as there is now when we hear of the many
thousands of Russians who have in masses voluntarily
embraced Judaism within our own generation. Under
favourable conditions the Jews have never repudiated
those who would share their duties and privileges, and
within the last half-century tens of thousands of pros-
nant state, this outlying branch, cut off long ago from the Jewish
stem, yet retaining its individuality and, according to an un-
sympathetic eye-witness (Flad, The Falashas, p. 70), a morality
superior to their surroundings, Christian and heathen, is an
eloquent testimony to the sustaining power of the Jewish faith.
The efforts that are being made to bring the Falashas under the
vivifying influence of European Judaism will, it is to be hoped,
be attended with the same good results as was the case with
the community of the Beni-Israel in India, who, also very largely
composed of proselytes, and though until lately separated from
the main Jewish body, have now become an integral and useful
part of Judaism.
1 The information relating to this question is very scanty
and widely scattered, but of great interest. Thus, R. Petachiah,
a Jewish traveller in the twelfth century, relates how he saw
ambassadors from a Tartar people in the mountains of Armenia,
who came to Samuel ben Ali, the Gaon of Bagdad, to ask him
to send Jewish teachers to their nation to instruct the people,
since seven of their princes had resolved to embrace Judaism
(Graetz, Hist., iii. p. 453).
2 Among those who pressed their religion on the heathen
prince Vladimir of Kiev were also Jewish teachers, probably
from the neighbouring Chazars ; but the simplicity of Judaism
could not compete with the barbaric splendour of Byzantine
Christianity.
THE UNIVERSALITY OF JUDAISM
105
elytes have entered the Jewish fold. 1 But whether the
missionary sentiment be dormant or whether, as in
English-speaking countries, it tends to become active,
it is always imbued with that large-hearted spirit with
which Moses Maimonides and Moses Mendelssohn
have re-asserted as an integral part of Judaism the old
Talmudical maxim that all idealists, without distinction
of creed, will share in the bliss of the future world.2
The view of Judaism on the proselyte question is,
therefore, based on the theory that there is no particular
necessity for the non-Jew to embrace Judaism, for
either he lives according to moral principles, when
“faith "is not essential, or he lacks the moral conscious-
ness, which cannot be replaced by mere faith.3
Recapitulating, we may say that Judaism was not
to be a missionary religion, whose highest aim it was
to bring the whole human race under its absolute sway,
but a force which should ferment and generate many
thoughts and aspirations tending to bring about the
Kingdom of Heaven upon earth. As such, Israel is the
people of Religion par excellence. This office of the
mediator of religion is contained in the Abrahamic
blessing, as well as in the corporate constitution of
Israel as a kingdom of priests. As the oldest and most
faithful guardian of ethical Monotheism, as the acknow-
ledged source of Christianity and Mohammedanism,
the only other monotheistic religions with a future,
1 The number of conversions to Judaism at the present time
is, on the whole, much larger than is generally supposed.
2 “The pious of the nations of the world have a share in the
world to come ” (Sanhedrin, 105a). D'7'on has in this case been
appropriately rendered by Prof. Lazarus by “idealists,” a
term of which I have availed myself in the text here.
3 Lazarus, Die Ethik des Judenthums, i, p. 160.
106 THE SYNAGOGUE AND THE CHURCH
Israel stands forth as the people chosen by God in the
education of the human race. It is only in this sense,
and in no other, that the pre-eminence claimed by
Jews must be understood. The view that it possesses
a tribal deity, giving His special protection to the Jews,
both in this world and the next, to the exclusion of
non-Jews, is an absurd theory and a mischievous
atavism, which seems to cling even to those who have
emancipated themselves from the thraldom of traditio-
nal Christian theology. Israel is truly the first-born son
of God, not merely because God chose Israel, but because
it was this people which voluntarily devoted itself to
God.1 Israel, it should also be noted, does not claim
to be the only son of God, but the first-born only.
Judaism is the religion of Israel, but Israel is universal.
Judaism is independent of race or country. In it have
found salvation not only Semites, but millions of Aryan
and other races. The basis of Jewish unity, to use the
words of Prof. Lazarus, is not to be found on earth but
in heaven, not in a fatherland but in the Father above.3
Judaism has adapted itself to every clime, and the
Holy One of Israel has been worshipped in the tongues
of many nations. Judaism has, indeed, rarely forsaken
to any serious extent the language of its Lawgiver, of
its prophets, psalmists and sages, but it is its pride that
the original language of its sources and records is made
known to every son of the Covenant. The profession
1 Cf. Deut. xxxiii. 2-4 (God loves all nations, but chose
Israel) and the aggadic amplifications of this idea.
2 This fact had given rise to the question as to whether the
modern Jews can at all be regarded as Semites. It has notably
been answered in the negative by Renan in Le Judaisme comme
Race et comme Religion.
3 Lazarus, Die Ethik des Judenthums, i, p. 28.
THE UNIVERSALITY OF JUDAISM 107
of Judaism is not conditioned by any particular stage of
thought or civilization ; Judaism has combated, and
partly assimilated, the great philosophical systems from
Plato and Aristotle to Kant; it is the common faith
of the simple-minded Galician and Persian hawker as
of the learned German Professor and brilliant French
Academician.
. There is only one agency in the history of humanity
that can strictly be compared to Israel—ancient Hellas.
Out of the little Greek peninsula there issued a stream
of civilization which fructified many a tract of uncul-
tivated land. The colonies which thus sprang up
everywhere along the coasts of the Mediterranean and
the Euxine, claimed the little country across the sea
as their original home. Their common culture was the
sole bond which united them. Thus also was it with
Israel : all who accepted its heritage regarded them-
selves as of one brotherhood; all claimed descent from the
people to which God had revealed Himself. As Athens
became the chief city of the Greek world by reason
of having produced the ripest fruits of Hellenic civili-
zation, so in Israel the hegemony belongs to those who
most distinguish themselves in scholarship and philan-
thropy.
But between Judaism and Hellenism there are at
least two fundamental differences. The world-mission
of Judaism is consciously altruistic. It knows of no
Bápßapor; on the contrary, viewed from the highest stand-
point, the 0°22 (Gentiles) are inseparably connected with
its very existence from the time when the divine promise
And " והתברכו בזרעך כל גויי הארץ : came to Abraham
in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed.” 1
1 Gen. xxii. 18.
108 THE SYNAGOGUE AND THE CHURCH
While, again, the Greeks considered the beautiful co-
extensive with the good and the true, if not paramount,
there ever reigned over all phases of Jewish life and
faith one supreme idea, which may be expressed in the
well-known maxim of Boileau ,—“Rien n'est beau que
le vrai, le vrai seul est aimable."
These respective Greek and Jewish Weltanschauungen
decided the fortunes of Hellenism and Judaism. When
Hellenism became a material world-conquering power
under Alexander the Great, it already bore the seed of
death within itself. It gradually withered away in the
absence of a life-sustaining element in its composition.
Hellenism has risen again in Europe, but only as one
of the enriching components of our civilization; as an
independent organism it has no power of existence.
Judaism was conquered by Hellenism by the arm of
the flesh, but Hellenism was ultimately in its turn
absorbed by the Jewish spirit. In this struggle for
supremacy, the Jews were the few and the weak, the
Greeks the strong and the many. Judaism prevailed
because the fulfilment of the Mission of Israel does not
require the support of numbers. In the course of the
ages many dry leaves may drop off, but the
old Jewish tree bears within itself an ever-renewed
power of rejuvenation, for “holy seed is the substance
thereof." 1
1 Isa. vi. 13.
CHAPTER VI
THE MISSIONARY ASPECT OF CHRISTIANITY
“ In that day shall Israel be the third with Egypt and with
Assyria, a blessing in the midst of the earth : for that the Lord
of hosts hath blessed them, saying, Blessed be Egypt My people,
and Assyria the work of My hands, and Israel Mine inheritance."
-Isaiah xix. 24, 25.
THE central point in the argument against Judaism
as the religion ultimately destined to embrace the
human race lies in the assumption that Judaism, con-
fined to one people, is merely national, and therefore
exclusive in its character. As an un-missionary (if
not anti-missionary) faith, Judaism is taken to confess
to the justice of the judgment thus passed upon it.
God, it is rightly said, could not have intended that the
truth should be restricted for ever within the narrow
limits of a single people. The unique position of Judaism
in the ancient world is granted as evident, but as
Judaism failed in its mission to communicate to others
the truths entrusted to it, its place has been taken by
a religion universal in its scope, uniting the whole of
humanity under its sway. Thus Christianity, as the
successor of Judaism, claims to be fulfilling this func-
tion ; Mohammedanism, as the successor of Christianity
as well as of Judaism, pretends that it has superseded
its predecessors because of their exclusive and imper-
fect nature. Both Christianity and Mohammedanism
109
IIO THE SYNAGOGUE AND THE CHURCH
are intensely missionary; each of them in its turn
considers itself destined for universal dominion, and,
therefore, as the ultimate expression of the Divine Will
to the world.
However conclusive such an argument might appear
at first sight, it nevertheless assumes an altogether
different complexion when it is submitted to a detailed
criticism of its practical working.
Both Christianity and Mohammedanism claim to be
not only a religion, but the religion of the human race.
With them there can be no question of legitimate rivals ;
whoever is deliberatly outside the religion can neither live
according to the Will of God nor hope for His salvation.
Here the Kingdom of God is circumscribed by the
frontiers of the only true religion, outside of which is
only the kingdom of Satan. We thus find that this
striving after an absolute sway over all men is accom-
panied by corresponding limitations. History and
experience teach us that the proselytizing spirit, which
is bred by the craving after universality, generally
engenders a tendency which develops into an indirect
negation of human brotherhood. There is a lust of
power in spiritual, as well as in material, realms, and
the struggle for supremacy is even more profound
and sustained, more fierce and uncharitable, in
the former than in the latter. The missionary spirit of
a religion is, therefore, anything but a test of its true
universality. Roman Christianity may consider the title
of Catholic as its greatest glory; Mohammedanism
may embrace in a common fellowship the most diverse
races, yet in both these religious systems an extreme
missionary ardour is intimately bound up with an
equally extreme spirit of exclusiveness towards the
MISSIONARY CHRISTIANITY
III
rest of mankind. In this instance it may be said
that the one aspect supplies the measure of the other.
If we inquire into the propelling force in the spread
of Christianity and Mohammedanism, we shall find
that it was that particular temper best described as
enthusiastic intolerance, which led these creeds from
victory to victory. In their early history the enthu-
siasm of their followers rose to such a pitch that death
lost its terrors and became invested with charms, which
made the Christian deliberately court martyrdom, and
the. Mohammedan long to fall in the field of battle in
the good fight for Islam. And this contempt for life
itself was occasioned by the intense desire to extirpate
false beliefs and to subdue everything to the power
and glory of the one and only true faith. Such waves
of enthusiastic intolerance were mighty in the extreme,
and almost irresistible. Early Christianity worked
itself into the fabric of the Roman Empire with a steady,
irresistible advance, while the marvellous progress
of early Mohammedanism can be compared to the
overwhelming suddenness of a great natural catastrophe.
Christianity in the sixteenth century supplies another
instance, whether in the case of Protestantism or in that
of the so-called counter-Reformation. But it must be
specially noted that in these outbursts of religious
enthusiasm intolerance played, the chief part. To
the Moslem as to the Christian, questions of love or
humanity were of little moment in the spread of their
religion; the stranger could only become their brother-
in-faith, or remain their implacable foe.
Further still, the unbeliever, by reason of his unre-
deemed state, being considered spiritually and morally
an inferior being, the belieyer too often claims a corres-
112 THE SYNAGOGUE AND THE CHURCH
ponding superiority over his less favoured neighbour.
Imbued with this lofty opinion of himself, the aggressive
orthodox Christian, Catholic and Protestant, assumes
a position in keeping with it, and the method of con-
troversy adopted by him in his religious discussions
with those who differ from him has been thus described
by the masterly pen of the late Dr. Martineau :-
"He assumes it as absolute fact, not merely that
the ideas of Christ were true, but that his own are
identical with Christ's. He evidently imagines that he
has possession of some certainty more than human,
something much more secure than a probable opinion.
He comes to me with the air, not of a man who desires
to recommend a rational conviction, but of one who is
charged with a message of inspiration. He calls himself
an ambassador of heaven, and speaks as if he were ; he
assures me that I am in the bondage of iniquity, and
treats me as if I were. He tells me that he approaches
me in the spirit of a divine love—which he proves by
showing me no human respect. He brings me his own
peculiar notions, which he denominates the truth of
God that cannot lie'; he proposes to eradicate mine,
which he entitles 'delusions of Satan.' His are the
breathings of the Holy Spirit, mine the offspring of a
carnal understanding. Instead of reasoning with me,
he prays for me ; feeling, I suppose, that he has greater
influence on the mind of God than on that of man.” 1
On what grounds is based this presumption of the
absolute and sole possession of the truth and of salva-
tion? It is nothing less than grotesque when we
remember that, after all, ninety-nine of every hundred
of these people have only inherited their enviable posi-
1 The Rationale of Religious Inquiry, pp. 43, 44.
MISSIONARY CHRISTIANITY 113
tion by being born in the particular Church for which
they appropriate the fullest measure, if not a monopoly,
of divine guidance and enlightenment, and that the
hundredth has only passed from one form of Christi-
anity to another; that the overwhelming majority of
Christians know almost nothing of any other religion
than their own, and that the minute remainder derive
their knowledge of other faiths from second-hand and
prejudiced sources ; that, at best, a true appreciation of
the religion of others, especially if their mode of thought
and expression be foreign to us, is very imperfect, if
not almost impossible ; that millions of human beings
know nothing of Christianity, or have not even heard of
it, and that, still more, Christendom itself, forming only
a small minority of the race, is divided into number-
less divisions and subdivisions, strenuously disputing
and denying each others' pretensions. Here the Pro-
testant is a heretic in the eyes of the Roman Catholic,
with whom the latter only lives at peace by the sheer
force of necessity and of the un-Catholic spirit of the
times, and he, in his turn, is regarded by the Protestant
almost as an idolator, the member of a corrupt Church ;
the High Church Anglican, a mere schismatic from the
Romanist point of view, looks with contempt, mingled
with fear, on the Nonconformist, into whose chapel
it would be a sin to enter; the Greek Orthodox sect
regards all others as ungodly disturbers of the Church
of Christ, of which it is the only faithful representative.
If, in addition to this, the views of the many shades of
so-called evangelical Protestantism and of the innumer-
able minor sects were to be reduced to their real and
logical meaning, it would have to be said of Christen-
dom itself what Chrysostom declared of the Bishops
114 THE SYNAGOGUE AND THE CHURCH
of his day: that the number of those who might be
saved bore a very small proportion to those who would
be damned. 1
But in order to test at its proper value the assertion
that Christianity is the sole depository of truth, and
that in Christianity alone can eternal salvation be
found, it is only necessary to inquire into the manner
in which this religion has been introduced among most
of the European peoples professing it.
The Christians who first drew me into religious dis-
putes, with the view of showing me their superiority
in religious matters, were Esthonians, a small Finnish
people in the Baltic provinces of Russia. The process
by which the ancestors of my Esthonian friends attained
the happy position in which their descendants are now
placed by the accident of birth, is instructive for the
present purpose. In the Middle Ages there was formed
in the wake of German commercial and missionary
enterprise in the regions of the Baltic Sea a religious
military Order of Knights, the Brethren of the Sword
(Schwertbrüder), whose, main object it was to convert
the heathen of the land. This the saintly army accom-
plished effectively. After a struggle, the Esthonians
were either massacred, or German rule and Christianity
were literally imposed on them by the sword. The
German conquerors then submitted the Christian
aborigines of the land to a degrading servitude which
lasted well into the nineteenth century, when it was
considered politic to liberate them from their crushing
yoke. They did not share the culture brought by the
Germans, who became known to the Esthonians as
Saksad (Saxons), an appellation even now synonymous
} Gibbon, Roman Empire, iii, D: 504,
MISSIONARY CHRISTIANITY
115
with both Germans and gentry. When at the time
of the Reformation their German masters considered
it right to turn Protestant, the Esthonians became so
as a matter of course. Now, again, when the Lutheran
confession common to German and Esthonian alike is
oppressed by the Greek Orthodox Church, we have
had the spectacle of wholesale conversions of Esthonians
to the religion of their modern Russian rulers.
A few centuries before their invasion of the Russian
Baltic provinces, the Saxons themselves became con-
verted wholesale- to Christianity, not out of a recog-
nition of its truths, but simply by the might of Char-
lemagne's sword, and the same people afterwards became
Protestant, or remained Catholic, according to the
chances of war, the skill of their generals, or the policy
of their princes.
It is remarkable that similar phenomena meet us as of
the ordinary kind throughout the history of Christendom.
Clovis, the first Christian predecessor of Charlemagne,
owes his salvation to a mere chance, though it can be dis-
puted how far he deserved being saved in spite of his con-
version. He had married a Christian wife, the beauti-
ful Clotilda, who incessantly urged her husband to accept
her faith. When in a battle with the Alemanni the
army of Clovis gave way, he implored Jesus to help
him, and promised that if he won he would become
baptized. Clovis conquered the Alemanni, and after-
wards related the story of his promise to his wife, who
at once sent for the Bishop of Rheims, asking him to
influence the king that he should become converted.
To this he agreed, and accepted baptism with 3,000 of
his warriors, who were now, in the words of the Bishop,
to adore that which they had burned and burn that
116 THE SYNAGOGUE AND THE CHURCH
C
which they had adored. The new faith of this "eldest
son of the Church,"as Clovis was called, did, by the way.,
very little to influence his life. “His ambitious reign,"
says Gibbon, “was a perpetual violation of moral and
Christian duties; his hands were stained with blood
in peace as well as in war; and as soon as Clovis had
dismissed a synod of the Gallican Church, he calmly
assassinated all the princes of the Merovingian race.” 2
It is not less worthy of notice that the most treacherous
acts of Clovis are related by the effusively pious Gregory
of Tours with the utmost complacency, and, after
relating a particularly aggravating case, he says approv-
ingly: “ Day after day God put his enemies in his
hand and enlarged his kingdom, because he walked
before the Lord with an upright heart and did what
was agreeable in His eyes.” This success of Clovis the
historian ascribes to his merit in believing in the
Catholic conception of the Trinity, as against the ruin
in body and soul of the Arians, who asserted that, since
the Son was born of the Father, the Father existed
before the Son.3
Thus, then, was laid the foundation of the Christian
State which has been, and, in spite of its intellectual
and political renunciation of Christianity, still remains,
a bulwark of the Roman Church. It is only necessary
to relate the story of the conversion of the first Christian
prince of the Russian Empire, now the powerful cham-
1 It is instructive of the state of mind in which Clovis found
himself on this solemn occasion that, when he heard from the
priest the pathetic story of the passion and death of Jesus, he
exclaimed furiously : “Had I been present at the head of my
valiant Franks, I would have revenged his injuries !”
2 Roman Empire, iv, p. 352.
: Gregory of Tours, History of the Franks, books ii. and iii.
MISSIONARY CHRISTIANITY
117
pion of Byzantine Christianity, in order to show how
identically superficial were the reasons which led those
savage kings to accept Christianity. Their simple
subjects either embraced it because, as the Russian
annalist Nestor puts it, they said that if the new re-
ligion were not good, their princes would not have
accepted it, or the latter considered it as an affront
to their authority if their vassals and serfs did not sub-
mit to the faith they had chosen for themselves.
The existence of Judaism and of Roman and Byzantine
Christianity in Kiev, led Prince Vladimir to recognize
the barbarous character of the paganism prevailing
there. He and the Boyars were particularly attracted
by the gorgeous worship of the Greeks, which impres-
sion was intensified by the tales of merchants and
ambassadors who had seen the glories of Tsargrad
(Constantinople) and the splendour of the services in
the great Cathedral there. When Vladimir asked
for the hand of the sister of the mighty Emperors,
they consented to the wish of their troublesome neigh-
bour, with the stipulation that he should adopt
their religion. On agreeing to this, Vladimir at once
set about demolishing the statues of the old pagan
deities, of whom he had only just been a zealous wor-
and the chief God Perun was attached to the tail of a
horse and dragged from the mountain from where he
was worshipped to the valley of the Dnieper; here he
was belaboured with sticks and then thrown into the
stream. Thereupon Vladimir had it proclaimed that
whoever of the inhabitants of Kiev, rich or poor, should
not on the following day appear on the banks of the
Dnieper in order to be baptized would be regarded as an
118 THE SYNAGOGUE AND THE CHURCH
enemy by him. When the next morning Vladimir
and the priests went to the river, they found in it
numberless people paddling about; the priests recited
the necessary prayers, and thus accomplished the
conversion of the multitude. Although there seems
to have been some opposition to the new faith
on the part of the adherents of the pagan deities, the
scene enacted in Kiev was the common process of
converting the masses. The Lithuanians, a once
powerful people, were likewise converted in this sum-
mary fashion. “They were divided into groups and
the priests then sprinkled them with the holy water,
pronouncing, as he did so, a name of the Latin Calendar;
to one group he gave the name of Peter, the others
Paul or John.” 1
These instances show sufficiently how the choice of
a particular form of religion by heathen chiefs, who at
the same time enforced it on their followers, 2 was gener-
ally due either to mere chance or policy, to a political
alliance or a marriage ; and in the latter case, the
Christian wife was, by the nature of her faith, anx-
iously concerned for the salvation of her husband's
soul. It would not be fair to contend that there were
never higher motives than these brought into play, and
it may be readily admitted that in many fine souls,
as is exhibited by the well-known story of the Anglo-
Saxon thane's reflection on the fleeting life of man,
1 Rambaud, History of Russia, i, p. 187.
2 Döllinger says: “It is well to observe that conversion to
Christianity was brought about by free choice only in the smallest
degree, chiefly by compulsion and by the assistance of those
means of intimidation and favour with which despotic rulers
are able to enforce the triumph of a religious faith " (Studies
in European History, p. 172).
MISSIONARY CHRISTIANITY
IIQ
there was a deep and sincere belief in the Christian
ideal. The moral and intellectual qualities of the great
Teutonic race, which have made the history of the
English people an epic on the dignity of man, and have,
to no inconsiderable extent, produced in the Germans
a nation of thinkers and poets, were, no doubt, also
frequently exercised in the service of religion, but it
cannot be contended that the Germans and Anglo-
Saxons had any other religious opportunities than those
which were brought to them by the culture and prestige
of Rome, or that these people were in a position to pro-
perly test the teachings of Christianity as it was offered
to them. Even when, arrived at a state of manhood,
they revolted against the Roman Church, only a refor-
mation in its superstructure took place : the basis and
form remained the same, because there was nothing
else available..
There is a profound conception of the mutability
and rule of chance in the dominion of religious pro-
fession in the remark of Gibbon that if the Saracens
had conquered Charles Martel they would now have
been expounding the Koran at Oxford and Cambridge
to a circumcised audience. This is not a mere whimsical
fancy of the great historian, but is quite borne out by
the course of events described by him. Palestine, the
scene of the life of the Christian Saviour, has remained
Mohammedan, in spite of the most gigantic efforts of
Christian nations to wrest it from the infidel. Not
only Jerusalem, but the great cities like Antioch, Alex-
andria, Constantinople, places which played so impor-
tant a part in early Christianity, where the new religion
received its very name, developed and rose into power-
they all, with the sole exception of Rome, have become
120 THE SYNAGOGUE AND THE CHURCH
Mohammedan both in their government and dominant
religion.
The almost total loss by Christianity of the immense
territories in Asia and Africa, stretching from the
Caspian Sea to the Straits of Gibraltar, is suggestive of
several important considerations. The fact that the
countries where Christianity was born, and where it
grew into a world-religion, should be lost to it, in a
religious sense at any rate, shows how delusive is the
idea that Christianity is destined to supersede every
other creed. Those Christians who base a large part
of their evidence of the truth of their faith on the pre-
sent dominant position of the nations professing Chris-
tianity, which is sometimes, as in Russia, only due to
their military character, not only forget the saying of
their master that his kingdom is not of this world, but
also the lessons of history. There was a time when
Christianity was perhaps only saved to Europe by the
sword of Charles Martel and the heroism of John Sobieski,
when the Mohammedans disputed with the Christians
in the south of France and before the gates of Vienna
the possession of the continent. There was a time when
some bold Saracens went up to Rome and with impunity
insulted the tombs of St. Peter and St. Paul, and carried
away to Africa the silver altar of the former apostle.
But, above all, the rapid, extensive and complete destruc-
tion of Christianity in Asia and Africa stands almost
unparalleled in the history of religions. The great
Nestorian Church, which is said to have surpassed in
numbers the Roman and Greek Churches combined-
that Church, which extended from Egypt to India and
China, has shrunk before the advance of Mohammedan-
ism to a small, mournful remnant of a few thousands.
MISSIONARY CHRISTIANITY
I21
By the action of the same force, the Donatists in North
Africa, who once possessed about 400 episcopal sees,
vanished almost suddenly from the face of the earth,
and the world knows them no more.
Now, when the time for wholesale religious revolu-
tions in the civilized and semi-civilized world seems to
be past, we find that not only has Mohammedanism
kept its ground in Asia and Africa, but its missionary
successes among the heathen peoples inhabiting these
continents are much greater than those of Christianity.
While in India we find people going over in masses to
Mohammedanism, no such claim can be put forward
on behalf of Christianity. The Christian missionary
in India belongs to a foreign, conquering race, a fact
which by word and deed is on the whole not at all dis-
guised by the evangelist. In North and Central Africa
the Mohammedan trader is a far more efficient propa-
gandist than the Christian missionary, and, by its better
adaptive power, Mohammedanism makes much greater
headway among the millions of the Dark Continent
than does Christianity.
These facts become of far-reaching consequence
when it is remembered that where once Mohammedan-
ism has been planted among a people it withstands
successfully the rivalry of Christianity. In spite of
all efforts from the latter quarter, it is acknowledged
that nothing is so barren as missions to Mohammedans.
A candid Roman Catholic writer, speaking of Moham-
medanism, has stated that “its converts during the
last half-century, beyond all question, vastly outnumber
those of Christianity. Nay, it has made far more
proselytes from us than we have made from it.” 1
1 Lilly, The Claims of Christianity, p. 37.
122 THE SYNAGOGUE AND THE CHURCH
In the present state of transition in the culture and
thought of Eastern Asia it is probably impossible to
accurately test the power of life yet to be found in the in-
digenous religions of India, China, and Japan. We know,
however, that some of them possess hundreds of millions
of adherents with a powerful priesthood, and that they
form part of an old civilization with which they have
become inseparably intertwined. The studies that
have been made by European scholars in their sacred
books have only tended to heighten, if possible, the
value and veneration of this literature in the eyes of
its believers, and any religious reforms attempted are,
for evident reasons, and even as a matter of honour and
self-respect, pursued on the old lines. In India, the
adaptation of the old Brahman faith to modern thought
has resulted, among other developments, in the formation
of the Brahma Somaj, a religious brotherhood with
doctrines much akin to those professed by Judaism. As
in India, so in Japan, the introduction of modern
European civilization has engendered a prevailing
intellectual opposition to official Christianity. In
China the national mind is so averse to Christianity
that, in spite of an immense missionary propaganda,
the European religion is either a sickly growth, or, as in
the case of Protestantism; almost a complete failure.
Not only does Christianity not occupy a predominant
position in the religious world in point of numbers,
but its immense and irreparable losses in the past, the
effective opposition and rivalry it experiences at pre-
sent, and, lastly, the dissensions and growing estrange-
ment within, prove that the conception of an ultimately
universal Christianity, imperatively claiming our allegi-
ance, is a dream corresponding to no realities. The
MISSIONARY CHRISTIANITY
123
traditional attitude of Christianity becomes quite
untenable when it is applied to actual life. Thus, the
invading hordes who were successful in massacring
and dispossessing the original Christian inhabitants
of Europe, became children of God, while those Mongols
who either stayed at home in Asia or were unsuccessful
in their invasion of Europe, remained with their descend-
dants children of the devil. The Aryan Persian is now
as practically debarred, by reason of his origin, from
the blessings of Christianity, as the means of salvation
are placed in the hands of the Aryan Frenchman. In
fact, not so long ago, when the hundreds of millions
of souls in China had never heard of the name of Christ,
every human being in a Christian country at that time
had to be saved, whether he liked it or not. In the
midst of Christianity itself, we notice that its several
large divisions have each a sphere allotted to it in
Europe; the East is, thanks to Russian despotism, Greek
Orthodox, and, in spite of the great religious upheavals
that have taken place in the West, the Northern
portion of it, with its Teutonic peoples, is as preponderat-
ingly Protestant as the Southern, with a Latin popula-
tion, is decidedly Catholic. Those that are born in Spain
are as strongly Catholic as those born in Sweden are
Protestant. Even in the New World, where there
has been gathered together a conglomeration of all
European nationalities, Christianity in North America
presents only a copy of that in Great Britain, while
the religious conditions in Central and South America
have all the peculiarities of those to be found in Spain
and Italy.1
1 Locke has well pointed out this idea in the following words :
“Have the bulk of mankind no other guide but accident and
124 THE SYNAGOGUE AND THE CHURCH
We thus also observe that Christianity is as much sub-
ject to geographical and national influences and
limitations as is, say, Mohammedanism.
The latter religion has, through various causes, not
taken any abiding hold on peoples inhabiting Europe,
but it has assimilated the civilized Persians and Hindus
with the same ease as it has the negroes of Central
Africa and the Tartars of China. Christianity has
appropriated the Christian nations, to whom it has
become practically synonymous with the conception of
absolute religion, but there is no question but that it
has not been found to answer the needs and modes of
thought of just those races which have furnished the
most numerous contingents to the believers of Islam.
It is not necessary to pronounce on the relative merits
of Christianity and Mohammedanism : it is sufficient
to know that even the two most missionary religions
are not actually universalistic, even in the sense in
which it is understood by themselves. Each of them
has a more or less defined and limited region where it
has stamped or acquired the peculiar culture and civili-
zation of the land. In fact, it may be laid down
as an axiom that Christianity represents the religious
expression of the Occident, as Mohammedanism
blind chance to conduct them to their happiness or misery ?
Are the current opinions and licensed guides of every country
sufficient evidence and security to every man to venture his
greatest concernments on ? Or, can those be the certain and in-
fallible oracles and standards of truth which teach one thing in
Christendom, and another in Turkey ? Or shall a poor country-
man be eternally happy for having the chance to be born in
Italy ? Or a day labourer be unavoidably lost because he had
the ill luck to be born in England ?” (Essay, Book iv, ch.
xx. 3).
MISSIONARY CHRISTIANITY
11
does that of the Orient. Either of these creeds may
invade the domain of the other, but the chances
of conquest are distinctly unpromising. Christianity,
in the shape of the Anglican Church, may perhaps
obtain a footing among the Persians or Arabs,
in Teheran or Mecca, but the native community that
would be formed would be as unacclimatized and exotic
as the Liverpool Mohammedan congregation (which
is chiefly composed of, and conducted by, English con-
verts), appears to the English Christian.
Just as Christianity bears the ineradicable starnp of
a particular civilization, so the dogmas of that religion,
which are proclaimed as eternal verities, are in reality
the products of the culture of a certain age and of the
problems which agitated that time. It is true, Christi-
anity early acquired a very wide field for its activity
when, from policy and circumstances, it accommodated
itself to the Græco-Roman life and thought which
were predominant in the missionary area of the first
Christian propagandists, but that age has left its impress
on Christianity for all time. The doctrines of Chris-
tianity were not only fashioned, but even generated, by
the philosophical schools of that period, and thence pro-
ceeded those subtle problems which have troubled the
religion of Christ from its infancy to the present day.
The ineffable mysteries of the Christian faith are actu-
ally the offspring of the speculations of heathen
Greek thinkers. Thus, for instance, the Logos, a crea-
tion of Hellenic philosophy, was not, as among the
Alexandrian Jews, merely a metaphysical conception,
but became one of the three Persons of the Godhead
formulated by Christian theology. As the fountain
of the Christian religion, so the ideas which flowed from
126 THE SYNAGOGUE AND THE CHURCH
it, were conditioned by local intellectual forces, whose
outcome they invariably were.1
If the doctrines of Christianity were born from, and
nourished by, Græco-Roman philosophy, so Christendom
grew into manhood by the aid of the Græco-Roman
Empire. The conversion of Constantine decided the
political fortunes of Christianity, which was henceforth
backed by the force of the world's greatest military
power. The prestige and terror of the Roman name
were utilized to the full by the Christian propagandists,
who came also armed with the gentle and insinuating
charms of Roman pagan civilization. The throne of
the Cæsars in Rome was changed gradually into the
see of St. Peter ; the power of the one became almost
imperceptibly transferred to the other, and the Christian
priests became the legionaries of the new Roman Empire,
which afterwards vastly enlarged its old boundaries
and more than revived its ancient glories.
So long as the dominion of Rome was considered
co-extensive with the civilized world, the new Roman
religion shared the honour of the claim to this position.
But, since our horizon has been widened, we have to
recognize that the heirs of Rome, both eastern and
western, are spiritually by no means the lords of the
world. Great religions—great by reason of their innate
qualities as well as by the numbers of their adherents
-have opened themselves to our gaze, and we behold
the wonders of a new heaven and a new earth. To
1 Milman points out in regard to the conceptions of Homoou-
sios and Homoiousios, the quarrels in connexion with which
for a long time deluged Christianity with blood, that the Latin
tongue—the language of Catholic theology—was not able to
furnish terms to express this fine, peculiarly Greek, distinction.
Cf. History of Christianity, ii, p. 446, note e.
MISSIONARY CHRISTIANITY 127
few has it been given accurately to conceive the hidden
potentialities of the teeming hundreds of millions of
Eastern Asia, whose weakness lies only in the
unconsciousness of their strength, and whose civiliza-
tion is rich with the spoils of thousands of years.
Of these great manifestations of the human heart
and mind, the universalistic ambitions of Christianity,
as expressed in its outside missionary propaganda,
have practically taken no cognizance. Here the
opinion of St. Augustine that the virtues of the heathen
are only splendid vices finds complete acceptance.
The civilization of non-Christian peoples is considered
almost as a contravention of God's purpose for the
evangelization of the world. So much more stress
is laid upon the forces of civilization which are at the
command of the missionary ; on the one hand, on that
intellectual element with which he is at open, and even
deadly, warfare at home, and on the other, on that
material aspect which is absolutely a direct negation
of the Christian profession. Such has, on the whole,
been the position of the Christian propagandist since
he had a sword placed at his command. In olden times
he relied on the prestige of the Roman name, on that
Empire which had once been considered as the Anti-
Christ, and in recent days we have had the propaganda
of the greatest missionary Church in Christendom
carried on in non-Christian lands under the protection
of France, a country with a government frequently
composed of men whose lives were spent in undis-
guised hostility to official Christianity. The work of the
modern Christian missionary in China is as much
indebted to the arm of the flesh, which he is quite ready
to invoke, as the successes of Boniface in conyerting
128 THE SYNAGOGUE AND THE CHURCH
the Germans were due to the invaluable material aid
which he received from the Frankish kings, under
whose special protection his labours were carried on.1
There is, indeed, a bright side of the Christian
missionary movement which, though likewise springing
from the lust of spiritual power and from the rivalries of
sects, has nevertheless carried life and hope into many
dark places of the earth. It would be ungenerous not
to acknowledge the immense saving and civilizing work,
the rescue from barbarism, ignorance and sin, which
has been effected by men who have taken their lives in
their hands in order to bring eternal salvation to their
fellow-beings, of whatever race, colour or civilization.
The missionary achievements of the Jesuits in the six-
teenth, or of some Protestant apostles in the nineteenth
century, present feats of heroism and self-sacrifice
unsurpassed in any sphere of human activity.
But while cheerfully recognizing the general value
of Christian missionary efforts among the heathen,
it must not be overlooked that the heroism exercised
in that field does not bear necessarily any greater pro-
portion to that displayed in certain other phases of the
religious or charitable life in our own midst. There is
not to be found more self-sacrifice in the clergyman who
goes out to form part of a missionary station among
the heathen than is expected, and is so often met with,
in the Christian pastor at home, working in all directions
i Boniface frankly acknowledged this : "Without the
patronage of the Frankish ruler I can neither govern the people,
nor defend the presbyters, deacons, monks or handmaidens of
God, nor even could I forbid the pagan rites and sacrilegious
idolatries in Germany without his mandate and the fear of his
name." Quoted by Ranke, History of the Popes (Bolin's ed.), i,
P, 12, note,
MISSIONARY CHRISTIANITY
129
CA
for the welfare of the flock he has been called to minis-
ter unto. Those, however, who gather their knowledge
of Christian missionary activity from the appeals of
missionary societies, or from the publications issued
by them for the purpose of enlisting the moral and
material aid necessary for their work, know next to
nothing either of the difficulties or of the shady side of
what is invariably so optimistically described. There
is no branch of religious work in which vested
interests play a more sordid part, and nowhere are
rivalry and arrogance displayed with equal uncharit-
ableness. The diplomatic etiquette with which any
conflicting relations between the English and French
Governments would be treated, is altogether absent in the
normal attitude towards each other of the English and
French missionary bodies who claim the protection of
their respective national flags. There is, however,
one similarity between the secular and spiritual organi-
zations, and that is their land-hunger. It is of no
consequence how arid the region may be which they
appropriate in order to civilize or to evangelize ; it is con-
sidered of paramount importance to have wrested it
from, or forestalled, the supposed covetous grasp of
another Power. Hence the feverish activity of mission-
ary work regardless of cost or energy ; hence, also, the
necessity of investing the same with a romantic glamour
which not infrequently covers a hideous reality.
This is more particularly evident in the propaganda
which is carried on by Christian sects among one another,
or among Mohammedans and Jews. Of course, the
spreading of a knowledge of Christianity, or of a particular
view of it, among those who are opposed to the same,
must be pronounced entirely legitimate if it is done by
130 THE SYNAGOGUE AND THE CHURCH
means of the pen or of the living voice ; naturally,
there are few who like to see attacked views held by
them as sacred, but it is too much to ask that religious
opinions should not be subjected to the same fair
criticism which is applied to all our theories and practices.
The test of criticism, like that of public opinion, is
beneficial, even though it might at first be unripe and
misdirected. But in no department of life should we
tolerate for a moment the methods which are adopted
in the missionary work of Christian sects among civilized
people. The insuperable difficulties which present
themselves to the conversion of such men by the numer-
ous bodies who cater for their salvation might be ex-
pected to have driven the agents engaged in this task to
sheer despair, were it not that their patience and hope
are boundless. The conversion of Mohammedans to
Christianity is acknowledged by competent authorities
to be a hopeless undertaking, 7 yet who appears braver
than the missionary entrusted with this duty ? To
the ordinary observer the adoption of Christianity by
the Jews has remained to this day the same pious hope
which has been indulged in by Christians from the
earliest age of their religion, but here again the missionary
takes a cheerful view of the whole question. Nothing
is more instructive as to the insincerity or ignorance
displayed by this complacent attitude, nothing more
condemnatory of the activity of Christian missions to
Jews, than the perusal of a missionary periodical of, say,
1 " La semence de l'Evangile n'a jamais levée sur la terre de
l'Islam" (Forget, L'Islam. et le Christianisme dans l'Afrique
Centrale, p. 13). The difficulties of Mohammedans seem
to begin with the settled idea that Islam has superseded Chris-
tianity-a line of thought generally adopted by Christians
towards Judaism.
MISSIONARY CHRISTIANITY
131
50 or 100 years ago. The glowing accounts then given
of the imminent dissolution of Judaism and of the pro-
mising Christian harvest which would soon be gathered
in that field, will have been found to have been totally
falsified. In spite of inevitable defections, it will be
admitted that Judaism has emerged from the nineteenth
century vastly stronger in numbers, self-consciousness
and prestige than it was at its beginning. Neverthe-
less, the seed of hope was sown by Christian propagan-
dists with a serene assurance as to the fruits it would
produce; now and again some enthusiast makes an
attempt at statistics, when he does not blush to include
among the victories of the Church those Jews who have
notoriously entered the Christian communion with a
blasphemous lie on their lips, those who have forsworn
their ancestral faith because of the social oppression
and ostracism of their Christian rulers or Christian neigh-
bours, or because of the weakness of the flesh inherent
in all of us.
Much more serious, however, than the insincerity
which accompanies this propaganda are the methods by
which it is too frequently maintained. If the most
enlightened and impartial Jews, Irish or Italian Catholics
be asked as to the procedure of the Protestant agencies
which work for their conversion, there will be one
unanimous reply of utter condemnation. The maxim
that the end justifies the means is largely put into
practice, and here the only difference between the
Protestant and the Catholic Jesuits is the want of
success among the former. For the sake of ensuring
a conversion, no scruples are made in attacking the
sacredness of the family tie : the child is set against
its father and brother against brother, so that there is
132 THE SYNAGOGUE AND THE CHURCH
often a terrible fulfilment of the word of Jesus : “ Think
not that I am come to send peace on earth. I came
not to send peace but a sword.” 1
The favourite method of reaching “inquirers” by.
combining a pseudo-philanthropy with propagandist
aims is a prevailing feature in all poor quarters of
Jewish centres ; in fact; among unprincipled Jews, the
missionary is regarded as a man with vast resources
and as one who in case of need can always be relied
upon. The missionary who uses dispensaries, hospitals,
homes and other “charitable" institutions, as well as
large funds at his disposal, to win converts, may con-
sider that he possesses the best means for attaining his
object, but those who benefit by them, as well as those
beyond his reach, can only feel the deserved contempt
for this trafficker in souls—a contempt which must
attach to the creed of which he is a chosen exponent
and champion.
Still, it might perhaps be thought in certain circles that
these measures have considerable advantages over such
as were manifested by wars and persecutions; they
lend themselves to a better construction than the short
and easy methods of conversion generally in vogue in
former days, and that if, in the present mode, there is
room for improvement, there is the paramount import-
ance of the Christianization of the world which has
to be considered. In this connexion it is forgotten
that among non-Christian civilized people there is a
i Matt. X. 34, ffg. Such a standpoint may appear very
heroic in the eyes of those who consider themselves called upon
to inflict the injury, but their view of the matter certainly
undergoes a total change when it is applied to themselves. Here,
if anywhere, should be applied the great maxim: “Do not unto
others as ye would not that others should do unto you."
MISSIONARY CHRISTIANITY
133
public opinion on the character and actions of Chris-
tianity--a fact which ought to be taken into account by
those whom it may concern.
The unjustified optimism of the Christian missionary
has by his attitude been communicated to the entire
body of Christians, where there exists a comfortable
assurance that the whole world is standing still in order
to allow Christianity to win its battles, and that it needs
only to fight in order to be certain of victory. Against
this false view of things, Dr. R. N. Cust, an experienced
and influential missionary writer, has raised his voice
in a remarkable lecture he delivered on the “ Difficulties
of Missions." i We are reminded by him that the
number of non-Christians was much greater at the end
of the nineteenth century than it was at the beginning.
“ India may be taken as a fair test, as we have a decennial
census : the population has increased between 1881
and 1891 by thirty millions, or three millions per annum.
The result of the labour of Christian missionaries of
every kind during the last three hundred years, the
old Syrian Church, the Church of Rome, and Protestants,
does not reach three millions, and this includes all the
British soldiers and the European population. The
annual dead weight of non-Christians increases by the
generation of children and preservation of life ; for the
great Pax Britannica of nearly one century has put
down, or restricted, the influence of war, famine and
pestilence; there is no immigration into India, but
1 Dr. Cust, in spite of his endeavours to further the
cause, says: “It may be disheartening to listen to my
words; but I am not addressing an ordinary missionary
meeting, in the emotional way so common, nor with the purpose
of making a collection” (“' Difficulties of Missions," in The
Gospel Message, p. 331).
N
134 THE SYNAGOGUE AND THE CHURCH
annually the pagan tribes of the hills, without any
attempt at conversion, gravitate into the great
reservoirs of the Hindu and Mohammedan systems, be-
cause they are indigenous. Christianity is presented as
an exotic from Europe and in a non-Asiatic form. And
yet enthusiasts talk and write of the conversion of the
population of the great globe within a near future !”1
Apart from any criticisms that may be directed
against the prospects and methods of Christian mission-
ary work—which, by the way, is not to be regarded as one
combined effort for the evangelization of the world, butas
a conglomeration of many mutually hostile and exclusive
elements, only drifting into the same direction 2_such
a work must not be mistaken for the highest expression
of universalism in religion. Indeed, it would be errone-
ous to regard Christianity as intrinsically world-conquer-
ing. It has been such only since the sixteenth century,
when Roman Catholicism, losing its hold upon the most
valuable parts of Europe, sought to recoup itself by
an extended activity beyond this continent; Greek
Catholicism was practically satisfied to confine any mani-
festation of propaganda, which now is largely dictated by
political motives, within its own sphere of influence;
1 Ibid., p. 320.
2 According to Dr. Cust, there were thirty-one Christian
denominations represented in British India, and these, more or
less antagonistic, were rather increasing than diminishing in
number (ibid., pp. 471, 472). “Each denomination thinks its
own views the right ones, and regards with pity the errors of
its neighbours ; of course, the Church of Rome justifies every
form of proselytism, and would sooner leave the people in their
native heathen state than allow them to become Protestants.
The Protestants lose no opportunity of saving the soul of a
poor deceived Romanist” (ibid., p. 475). Protestants are also,
we are told, not free from the tendency to proselytize among
the other Protestant denominations.
MISSIONARY CHRISTIANITY
135
and the foreign missions of the Protestant sections are
generally of recent date, and to no inconsiderable
extent more the effect of denominational jealousy than
of love for the negro or Chinese heathen. And, after
all, whatever may be the theory, the idea of the equality
between the white and coloured Christian is not attempted
to be carried into effecť, in this world at any rate.
It is a very significant commentary on the claim of
universality made by Christianity that the most widely
extended, and only unnationalized, Church in Christen-
dom tacitly and persistently refuses to apply the
pretended equality of the various divisions of mankind
in a field where it is absolutely unhampered by social,
racial, or any other impediments : no coloured Bishops
are being appointed by the Roman Catholic hierarchy
to represent the head of the Church, even among their
own racial brethren.
There is no Christian denomination which by its
very constitution is not bounded by local limitations.
The Protestant sects owe their birth to the idiosyncrasies
of the particular nationality among which they were
elaborated or adopted. The Anglican Church was
fashioned by the caprice of kings whose utter moral
incompetency to decide as to the terms on which their
subjects should obtain eternal salvation is notorious,
and to this day the ruler of England, whatever be his
qualifications, is considered by the great Anglican
Church to be on earth the official head of that com-
munion. The creation of the other prominent Protes-
tant sections, the Lutheran, Presbyterian, Wesleyan
Churches, is due entirely to some local convulsion, and
their character has been determined by the nature of
these events. Lutheranism, in its origin and govern-
136 THE SYNAGOGUE AND THE CHURCH
7
ment, is as German as Wesleyanism is English, and it is
difficult to think that any Turk or Chinaman could,
with the best intentions, feel a particular enthusiasm
or predilection for any of these divisions of Christendom.
As for the Greek Orthodox Church, the self-appointed
headship of the Tsars of the Russian national Church
is not in the least conditioned by the personal character
of the occupant of the Russian throne ; he governs the
Church, as he rules the army, as one of the institutions
of the country; he is, in an indirect way, in a position
to determine the tenets and formulas by which his
Orthodox subjects can alone be saved, so much so
that in the eyes of his government a Russian of the
Orthodox faith could, until recently, no more law-
fully forswear his religion than his allegiance to the
Tsar. Roman Catholicism is indeed, with greater
justice than any other Church, able to advance a claim
to the universality of its sway, but the government
and institutions of the Romanist Church do not permit
any such assumption to be made good. Not only are
the highest dignities of the Church withheld from
so-called inferior races, but the European peoples are
by no means all equally acceptable to the Church.
Here, as well as in any other similar body, but more
unjustifiably, geographical and national prejudices
are allowed full play. Just as Roman Christianity
was evolved out of the Roman Empire, and the Popes
succeeded and imitated the Emperors; just as in other
respects the city of Rome was under both régimnes
regarded as the mistress of the earth and Latin as the
official language, so we find that to the present day the
citizens of Italy take an altogether disproportionate
share in the governing of the Roman Catholic realm.
MISSIONARY CHRISTIANITY
137
In fact, it may be said without exaggeration that the
Roman Church is very largely an Italian institution,
directed by an overwhelmingly Italian administration.
This is notably evident by the representation of the
various nations at the Vatican. In 1899, Italy had
30 cardinals, while Germany and the British Empire
had only 3 each, France 8, Austria-Hungary 5, Spain 4,
Portugal 2, and of the 12 new Cardinals created in
April, 1901, as many as lo were Italians. The Italian
majority in the Sacred College over all the other nations
was then 13, numbering as they did 27 out of a total
of 40. This extraordinary preponderance of the Italian
element at the Vatican has also led to the result of giving
Italy a majority among the Saints. The office of
Prefect of Propaganda—the next in importance to the
position of Pope—has, with only one exception, been
for centuries held by an Italian. But still more strik-
ing is the absolute monopoly which the Italians have
possessed for hundreds of years in providing the succes-
sors of St. Peter. Ever since the time of Adrian VI
(1522) the Pope has always been an Italian, and it
almost appears as if the Roman saying, that since the
sixteenth century the Holy Ghost has not crossed the
Alps, will become in the future one of the tacit rules
in the election of the Vicars of Christ. 1
The consideration of the whole question in all its
phases shows that one of the fundamental errors of
1 The ultramontane character of Roman Catholicism is an in-
ternal question which has long troubled that Church, but the
determined opposition on the part of the authorities in Rome
to anything which may tend towards decentralization has
been successful hitherto. Now, as at all times, those who
object to the tutelage of the Italian rulers of the Church,
have no remedy but to leave it.
138 THE SYNAGOGUE AND THE CHURCH
historic Christianity lies in the assumption that the
grasp of an exclusive spiritual, and a consequent material,
dominion, expressed by a proselytizing activity, represents
the highest manifestation of religion. The great test
is here not the measure in which the necessity and
freedom of human fellowship is generally recognized,
but the willingness to extend it to as large as possible
a number of individuals who shall think and act in
unison in matters of faith. In addition, it is assumed
that God loves the world, but only so far as it believes in
Christ and is thereby actually not of the “world,” while
those, on the other hand, who are not believers are sons
of perdition, as Jesus is made to say in a prayer for his
disciples : “I pray for them. I pray not for the world,
but for those whom Thou hast given me ; for they are
Thine."i This attitude becomes already evident in
Paul, though in him there did not yet appear some of
its more objectionable aspects. The imminent dis-
solution of the world which he preached was naturally of
concern to every living soul, but he feels assured that his
gospel of sauve qui peut will only benefit his few brethren
in Christ, and that, with this infinitesimal exception, the
world is doomed. With the growth of the new religion
the same conception was tenaciously maintained. The
Roman Empire, with its greedy hands stretched out to
crush every free people within its grasp, was succeeded by
the Roman Church, jealously suppressing every sign of life
and thought which was not absolutely controlled by it.
The priestly dignitaries of this Church have ever believed
that it is in their power to grant, or refuse, the blessings of
religion, and that God would undoubtedly support all
they did ; nay, in thus being able to command His Will,
1 Cf. Jolin xvii. 9 ffg.
MISSIONARY CHRISTIANITY
139
they shut out from His presence all those who do not
unquestioningly bow under the yoke of that ecclesiasti-
cal institution. No virtue, no sacrifice on behalf of
Christ himself, not even martyrdom for the sake of his
name, could in the least expiate “ the sacrilege of
schism which surpasses all wickedness ” (St. Augustine),
and the assumption that God could be approached,
not necessarily direct, as in Judaism, but even through
the sole intervention of Christ, is most strenuously
denied by the Roman Church. “He can no longer
passage, “who has not the Church for a Mother. If
any man was able to escape who remained without the
Ark of Noah, then will that man escape who is out of
doors beyond the Church.”
If this view of the scope of the Church could, of
course, not be maintained, and had even to be attacked,
by the Protestant confessions, nevertheless, as with so
many other Romanist ideas and doctrines, they have
been accepted with some modifications. This could not
well be otherwise. Christianity stands for the dualistic
division of humanity into the children of God and the
children of the devil, and the words of the apostle :
“We know that we are of God and the whole world
lieth in wickedness," certainly expresses the historic
attitude of the Church. The position thus adopted
by it towards the world outside its borders has, no doubt,
had the advantage of consolidating and spreading the
Christian faith (though we could not measure the moral
and material losses which have resulted through the
carrying out of a policy based on these lines), but it can
surely lay no claim to being the noblest ideal of our
trust in God and love of our fellow-men. The most
140 THE SYNAGOGUE AND THE CHURCH
precious achievement of our modern age is freedom of
conscience-a first principle which has been developed
out of the recognition of the innate goodness to be
found in man and of the equal striving of all creeds to
attain the highest. It is almost a truism to say that
the progress of mankind is not necessarily advanced
by one religious system only. On the contrary, the
rivalry of creeds, in all the aspects where they touch
human needs, is a powerful factor for good, one sect acting
upon the other as a lever stimulating to greater effort,
each in its own sphere endeavouring to reach its highest
ideal. The existence of powerful religious bodies side
by side renders exclusiveness and arrogance innocuous
and absurd. This is completely borne out by every-day
experience. In Germany, where the two great sections of
Western Christendom are checked by each other, there
is much more freedom of development for Roman
Catholicism than there is in France, where it is numeri-
cally the ruling faith. It is not the least worthy of notice
that in countries like England and the United States
of America, where that denomination is in a minority,
it has practically abandoned its well-known feature of
hostility towards those outside its pale. In England,
where there is a healthy competition among the numer-
ous sects, every form of religion which justifies its
existence by earnestness and social work is met with
respect on all sides. Far different is the attitude
towards religion where the dominant Church has, for
fear of competition, shut out every other religious
manifestation. In Russia, the official denomination,
which stands unimpeachable by any one, has never
been more than a barbarous superstition to the ignorant
and a conventional sham to the cultivated classes.
MISSIONARY CHRISTIANITY 141
In Italy and Spain, where Roman Catholicism held,
until recently, absolute sway over every institution
of the national life, the Church has reaped a harvest
of contempt and hatred amidst peoples seething with
atheism and anarchy.1:
Nowhere has the justification of the existence of the
galaxy of great religions been more readily and fully
recognized than in Judaism. Already in early Jewish
literature we find numerous indications that although
God chose Israel for His instrument yet He loved the
other peoples and His light shone upon all. The
prophet Malachi, in reproving his wayward people,
boldly proclaims that God does not require their worship,
for under whatever name the Supreme may be called
upon in the supplication and adoration of the world,
they are all directed to the glory of the Eternal : “From
the rising of the sun even unto the going down of the
same My name is great among the heathen ; and in
every place incense is offered unto My name, and a
pure offering : for My name is great among the heathen,
saith the Lord of Hosts." 3 The later Jewish teachers
were often eager to prove in their discourses and parables
that it was only by the special willingness of Israel to
hearken to the Lord that He communicated to them the
commandments of the Torah, but it was thought that
1 In this connexion, the endeavour of Roman Catholicism to
impose its yoke upon Protestant England is characteristic of
the tendency of Christian missionary propaganda. Here it is
not the virtues of flourishing England, its upright and religious
character, which are considered by the Italian Church; but
the fact that every good is of no avail if not accompanied by
that faith, which, after all, has proved itself so impotent in its
own home.
2 Deut. xxxiii. 2, 3.
3 Mal, i. II.
142 THE SYNAGOGUE AND THE CHURCH
God had nevertheless proclaimed the Ten Words from
Mount Sinai in every language of mankind, so as to be
understood by all. It was again and again pointed out
that purely moral principles were not merely enjoined on
the Israelite, but on man generally, and, at the time of the
rise of Christianity, R. Jochanan ben Zaccai said that as
sacrifices reconciled Israel with God, so the works of love
of the heathen were the means of bringing them nearer to
Him.1 With such views of the relations of mankind to
God, Judaism gradually accommodated itself to the exis-
tence of the hostile daughter-religions—those two streams
of living water which, as in the vision of Zechariah,2
issued from Jerusalem and were to overflow all the earth.
The greatest minds of medieval Judaism, Maimonides
and Judah Halevi, explained in their religious philosophy
that Christianity and Mohammedanism were the
agencies appointed by God to gradually bring the
human race to a true knowledge of Him, and modern
Jewish theologians have completely adopted this opinion.
The Jews are represented as "a kingdom of priests," 3
and Judaism, therefore, as the mediating element by
which the word of the Lord is, in the purest form, trans-
mitted to the world, and as the communion in which
His Will is most faithfully carried out.
Judaism believes in the peaceful working of the spirit
of God in the advancement of the human race, 4 and is,
1 Baba Bathra, Iob. 2 xiv. 8, 9. 3 Exod. xix. 6.
4 The following prayer may, I think, be fittingly given here
as an expression of the Jewish hope in the coming of the Kingdom
of Heaven: “We therefore hope in Thee, O Lord our God,
that we may speedily behold the glory of Thy might, when
Thou wilt remove the abominations from the earth, and the
idols will be utterly cut off, when the world will be perfected
under the Kingdom of the Almighty, and all the children of flesh
MISSIONARY CHRISTIANITY 143
therefore, distinctly against the practice which sets out
to conquer the brotherhood of man by the sword.
While refusing admission to no one who wishes to enter
its fold, Judaism strenuously opposes the inconsis-
tencies which underlie the force of proselytizing propa-
ganda, fully recognizing that the aim of the missionary
is not primarily directed to the moral salvation of the
convert, but only to his subjugation to a particular
credo. Judaism feels that, in spite of diversity in
religious profession, which is, after all, practically
determined by accident, the moral consciousness is
present in every human being, and that a belief in
particular dogmas could add little to this supreme
guide.1
This, then, is the difference between the Christian
and the Jewish ideal of the universality of their religions.
Christianity seeks it in the complete subjugation of all
to Christ as the only Saviour, and to his religion as the
undisputed rule of faith and conduct. Judaism con-
cedes the divine mission of the great world-religions,
and, faithfully adhering to its own appointed task,
has an unquenchable trust in the unswerving purpose
will call upon Thy name, when Thou wilt turn unto Thyself
all the wicked of the earth. Let all the inhabitants of the world
perceive and know that unto Thee every knee must bow, every
tongue must swear. Before Thee, O Lord our God, let them
bow and fall; and unto Thy glorious name let them give honour;
let them all accept the yoke of Thy Kingdom, and do Thou
reign over them speedily, and for ever and ever. For the King-
dom is Thine, and to all eternity Thou wilt reign in glory; as
it is written in Thy Law, the Lord shall reign for ever and ever.
And it is said, And the Lord shall be King all over the earth :
in that day shall the Lord be One and His name One" (Daily
Prayer Book, Singer, pp. 76, 77).
1 Cf. supra, p. 105.
144 THE SYNAGOGUE AND THE CHURCH
of God in the uplifting of those He has created in His
own image. Christianity proclaims the salvation of
the believing, self-conscious sinner, Judaism the ultimate
happiness of all who strive for righteousness according
to the highest light that is implanted in them. If we
were to seek for formulas to express clearly the
respective positions, we may quote on the Christian side
the classic declaration of Paul : “ There is neither
Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is
neither male nor female : for ye are all one in Christ
Jesus,"1 and then on the part of Judaism the words of
the Midrash : “I call upon heaven and earth as witnesses
that be it a non-Israelite or Israelite, man or woman,
manservant or maidservant, according to their deeds
the holy Spirit rests upon them.” 2
1 Cf. the analogous statement by Philo, supra, p. 96.
2 Tanah debe Eliyahu, on Judges iv, 4.
CHAPTER VII
THE OLD COVENANT AND THE NEW
"And yet for all that, when they be in the land of their
enemies, I will not reject them, neither will I abhor them, to
destroy them utterly, and to break My covenant with them : for I
am the Lord their God.”—Leviticus xxvi. 44.-
To estimate properly the fundamental difference between
Judaism and Christianity, it is essential to understand
the characteristic forces which underlie the birth and
growth of each of these religions. In comparing the
historic developments of Judaism and Christianity,
there is nothing more remarkable than the different
lines which have been uniformly adopted by both of
these systems in their struggle for life, whether it be
in the evolution of principles of faith or in demonstrating
the justification of existence. Judaism has shown
itself positive and pacific, Christianity destructive and
aggressive. These respective tendencies will be found
to prevail in all phases of life and thought. What could
be more striking than a comparison in this direction
between the records of early Judaism and those of
primitive Christianity, between the distinctively Jewish
and Christian Bibles ? In the one we have presented
to us the unvarnished and unpartisini tale vi the achieve-
ments and failings of Israel ; while on the other side
are described the life of Jesus and the doings of his
apostles in such a way as to bring out the particular
445
146 THE SYNAGOGUE AND THE CHURCH
lessons and dogmatic teachings which the dominant
section of the Church at the time wished to see adopted.
Some of the sacred books of Judaism were no doubt
also written with the object of edification or to accen-
tuate certain aspects of the religious life; nevertheless
these attempts were constructive in their purpose.
The sacred books of Christianity stand in direct contrast
to this position. The Gospels, Epistles, etc., are not
the faithful records of the acts of Christ and of his
community, but party pamphlets combating, directly
or indirectly, current opinions within and without the
body of believers, and shaping facts and fancies to suit
the occasion. This is at once evident if we place side
by side the Jewish and Christian accounts of the begin-
nings of all things—in the one case represented by the
creation of the universe, the other centring in the position
of Christ in the Divinity-as they are depicted respect-
ively in the introductory passages of Genesis and the
Gospel according to St. John. In the one we have a
plain statement that God created the heavens and the
earth out of chaos : “And the Lord said, Let there be
light, and there was light.” On the Christian side, it
opens with an argumentative, pseudo-philosophical
discourse on the nature of God, and continues with a
tirade against those who do not believe it.
This outline is indicative of the position of Judaism
and Christianity towards the world and towards each
other. The fact that Judaism stands on its own ground
and that Christianity disputes everybody else's, must
necessitate different points of view from which to criti-
cize these religions, in order to observe them each in the
right perspective. The justification of the appearance
of Christianity is not the absence of divine truth in the
-
THE OLD COVENANT AND THE NEW 147
.
world, but the claim of absolute superiority of its life and
faith over everything which had preceded it, and with-
out which the world would have been utterly lost. Chris-
tianity, especially as it is enunciated in the Sermon on
the Mount or the Gospel of St. John, stands as the anti-
thesis of Judaism, as having superseded it by reason of
the higher standard of faith and morals proclaimed
by Jesus Christ. In conformity with such an attitude,
we have to judge not so much whether Judaism is
able to guide its adherents through a good and godly
life, but whether, with the presumed failure of Judaism,
Christianity has taught and maintained a nobler
ideal among its believers.
That Judaism is able to guide its adherents through a
good life is, indeed, hardly disputed, but if the words of
Jesus : " I say unto you, that except your righteousness
shall exceed the righteousness of the Scribes and
Pharisees, ye shall in no wise enter into the kingdom of
heaven,' 1 are to be accepted to mean what they plainly
convey, it is essential to know whether Christianity does
not only claim in theory, but has also maintained in
practice, an ideal above that to be found among the
people of Israel.
This idea has almost instinctively been grasped by
Christian apologists, for it is evident that, unless Chris-
tianity could show that it was in reality the light and
Judaism the darkness, there is lost the purpose of the
alleged incarnation of God in a man, and the whole
"scheme " for the redemption of the world falls to the
ground; Christianity would then at best only appear as
one of the numerous other agencies of the Divine Will.
Judaism is, therefore, declared as merely the pre-
1 Matt. v. 20.
148 THE SYNAGOGUE AND THE CHURCH
cursor, preparing the path for the advent of Christ,
and that with his appearance its mission came to a
definite and absolute end. The believer in the Gospel
of Christ is considered to stand incomparably higher
than the follower of the Torah of Moses, and we are told
that “in revealed knowledge, in illimitable hope, in
conscious closeness of relationship to his Father and his
God, the humblest child of the New Covenant is more
richly endowed than the greatest prophet of the Old.” 1
It is interesting to pursue the uniform trend of thought
with which the birth of Christianity is introduced by
Christian writers. Of course, as the basis of the new
religion, Judaism is discussed in the various relations
which it bore to the age, but great care is taken, on the
one hand, not to put its achievements on too high a
level, and, on the other, to emphatically point out its
shortcomings, notably in such directions in which the
Church is assumed to have excelled. Once this task
accomplished, a determined attempt is made by the
Christological historian to bury the Jews and Judaism,
so that their presence should no longer haunt him in his
course.
In order to maintain a justification for this attitude,
the Christian theologian utilizes for his purpose certain
traits and events within Judaism. For instance, one
of the striking characteristics of the Jewish Scriptures
is the severe treatment they accord to the people from
which they emanate. The failings of Israel, its hardness
of heart and many sins, are the constantly recurring
themes of its prophets. Judaism has never repudiated
the ancient idea ? that the punishments inflicted by God
upon Israel were to be the greater just because, more
1 Farrar, Life of Christ, i. p. 294. 2 Anios iii. 2.
THE OLD COVENANT AND THE NEW 149
than any other people, it had been favoured by Him
in the knowledge of right and wrong. The calamities
and sufferings which have befallen the Jews are not
considered as the work of an arbitrary fate, but " because
of our sins.” But this feature of the Jewish sacred
records has rendered plausible reasons for the condemna-
tion of the Jews, with a demand for the abolition of the
Old Covenant on account of its manifest failure, and
the establishment of a new dispensation, which, free
from the limitations and imperfections of the “ Law” of
Moses, was to introduce the grace and truth which came
by Jesus. 1
Yet with such a norm of religious development,
Christianity has never applied the same measure to
itself. The principles which, according to the Christian
view, brought about the abrogation of the Jewish Cove-
nant, have likewise been recognized, and put into effect,
by Mohammedanism, which claims for the Arabian
Prophet the office of " Comforter," who, as Jesus pro-
mised to his disciples, would come after him, and “re-
prove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of
judgment.” 2 With historic justice, Islam points to the
degraded state of Christianity in the seventh century,
and to its failure to carry out its appointed mission.
Of course, Christians reject with contempt and scorn
the idea that Mohammedanism superseded Christianity;
indeed, the abrogation of the Covenant of Christ would
be considered by Christians as beyond the range of possi-
bility, or even of discussion. Unlike Jewry, Christendom
owns to no sins of which it has been guilty. It is only
in sectarian quarrels that failings are discovered which
prove the condemnation of the rival. Roman Catho-
1 John i. 17.
2 Ibid., xvi. 8.
150 THE -
SYNAGOGUE AND THE CHURCH
licism knows of no crimes to repent of; it is only from
Protestant quarters that we are reminded of the fatal
failure of Romanism to represent in spirit and in truth
the Church of Christ. Nor does a Protestant, after
having pronounced such judgment on the errors and fail-
ings of the most important section of the Christian
faith, find anything serious with which to charge his own
particular sect; for this we should have to seek in
unfriendly sources.
The different value which Judaism and Christianity
assign to the study of their own past is characteristic
of these religions. While Judaism demands from every
one of its adherents a knowledge of the Torah and of
its institutions, and the history of Israel, post-biblical
as well as biblical, is being utilized for the purposes of
exhortation and edification, in Christianity, ecclesias-
tical, as distinguished from biblical, history is a neglected
subject, despised by the cultured and unknown to the
masses. The average Catholic is, therefore, fed on
legendary lives of the saints, and the Protestants,
forced to reject the whole development of the Church
Universal, confine themselves to the biblical origins
of Christianity according to the interpretations of
Reformed theologians. As the reading of the Bible is
discouraged among Catholics, so the study of the history
of the Church is avoided in Protestant circles. There
is a just recognition on both sides of the dangers involved;
in the one case, that the words of Jesus and of his apostles
1 It has been pointed out by Cardinal Newman that “the
chief, perhaps the only, English writer who has any claim to be
considered an ecclesiastical historian is the unbeliever Gibbon.”
The Cardinal added that“ to be deep in history is to cease to be
a Protestant."
THE OLD COVENANT AND THE NEW 151
would bear evidence against the Church, and in the
other, that its history would be a running commentary
on the failure of Christianity to live up to its ex-
travagantly superior professions.
The high-strung professions, and the failure to carry
these out, are evident from the earliest period of the
Church. It is, indeed, most probable that the noble
ethical ideas inherent in the religion raised the primitive
Christian communities morally much above the general
heathen surroundings, and that the generous enthusiasm
produced by the birth of every great spiritual or
social effort also operated on numerous men and
women who sought salvation in the nascent Christian
faith. In spite of the popular assumption, however,
there is sufficient indication to show that the apostolic
age was by no means free from corruption and vice.
In considering this subject we have not only to remem-
ber the shrewd suggestion of Gibbon that the virtues of
the primitive Christians, like those of the first Romans,
were very frequently guarded by poverty and ignorance,
but also that Christianity served as a city of refuge to
many who were outcasts of society. While this fact,
far from being a ground for reproach, undoubtedly
constitutes one of the strongest claims of Christianity,
and has furnished some of the brightest chapters of its
history, it yet lies in the nature of the case that many
doubtful elements must have entered the Christian
body. The eclectic character of primitive Christianity
gave it points of contact with the various religious and
philosophical opinions then floating about, and the
unsettled state of men's minds at that time brought the
new faith many converts, to whom its ethical character
1 Roman Empire, ii. p. 45.
V
152 THE SYNAGOGUE AND THE CHURCH
was quite a secondary consideration. The testimonies
we have to this effect from the pagan writers of the first
three centuries would prove very unfavourable to,
if not utterly condemnatory of, the reputation of the
early Christians, were it not that the views of those
accomplished men lose all their value by the ignorance
and carelessness they display in the matter, not to
speak of the untrustworthiness of men whose judgments
had been warped by blind hostility towards a movement
they had not even taken the trouble to investigate at
first hand. But, in spite of the apologetic tone of the
New Testament writings, the primitive Christian litera-
ture furnishes ample proof of the many difficulties which
the apostles had to contend with in repressing the evil
propensities of the black sheep in the fold, and even of
the indulgence with which the vices of the weaker
brethren were regarded in some of the Christian com-
munities. The frequent injunctions of the apostolic
writers against gross vices, the reproofs directed against
many sins, show that the first Christians were as freely
conquered by temptation as the Israelites of old, and
that the Gospel could not make man immune from
evil any more than did the Torah. Such catchwords as
spirit, grace, liberty, the yoke of the Law, etc., so freely
indulged in by the early Christian propagandists, were
sometimes interpreted in a sense hardly expected by
them, leading their disciples to consider themselves
free from the restraints imposed on men still living
1“ It is reported commonly that there is fornication among
you, and such fornication as is not so much as named among
the Gentiles, that one should have his father's wife. And ye
are puffed up, and have not rather mourned that he that hath
done this deed might be taken away from among you” (1 Cor.
V. I, 2).
THE OLD COVENANT AND THE NEW 153
in the “darkness” of the Mosaic Dispensation. The
true value of the energetic denunciation of the Law, and
of the extravagant claims for the effect of the new Cove-
nant made by the followers of Paul, are sufficiently illus-
trated by the necessity for such pathetic appeals to
them by their leaders : “You have been called unto
liberty ; only use not liberty for an occasion of the flesh;”
“Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound ? "
“Shall we sin because we are not under law, but
under grace ?”1
The apostolic age is admittedly the ideal period of
Christian history. The incarnation of God had appeared
on earth to free the world from sin, and to bring back
the innocence lost by man through the disobedience of
Adam. A new life had begun with the appearance of
the Christ, and the few years of his ministry among
men are considered the golden age of the Church. Jesus
had just quitted the scene of his activity, and his first
disciples had had the immeasurable advantage of a
direct inspiration which immediate contact with him
should have given to them. But it is clear that,
troubled as was the short public life of Jesus, his teach-
ings did not bring perfection, nor even peace, to those
who received his message from his own lips. With the
passing away of the apostles and the further spread of
the new faith, the moral tone of the Christian com-
munity did not improve. That, as a whole, the Chris-
tians were superior in this, as in some other respects,
to the general pagan population amongst which they
lived is very probable, but, all the same, it would be a
fallacy to picture the primitive Christians as exempt
from the general decadence from which society was then
1 Gal. v. 13; Rom. vi. I, 15.
1
154 THE SYNAGOGUE AND THE CHURCH
suffering. When Christianity entered all classes, and
was professed by a substantial part of the population,
any distinctions which formerly marked out the Chris-
tian were more or less obliterated. He approached his
pagan neighbour to such an extent that the division
between them became undistinguishable in ordinary
life. This was not the result of social or civic virtues,
for, to the true Christian, the Empire, with its power and
glory, was an evil which was expected to vanish at the
advent of Christ, when the unbelieving would surely be
damned for having rejected him as the Saviour. But
the assimilation of the Christian grew rapidly, and the
Christian community soon adapted itself to the habits
and thoughts of the rest of the population. This
appears the more certain, as the most, perhaps the only,
distinctive mark of the Christian-his religion-became
deeply impregnated with pagan ideas and practices. 1
The true picture of the inner life of the early Christians
must not be sought in the panegyrical literature of the
religion any more than in the writings of its contem-
porary enemies, and least of all, is it to be found in the
Christian sectarian controversies, which are full of
abuse and malice towards the opponent. Perhaps the
best sources can be found in the homiletic and devo-
tional outpourings of the Church Fathers, and, though
this kind of literature has inherent failings, the truth is
represented there in the largest possible extent. And the
picture there unfolded for us is absolutely condemnatory
of the superior pretensions of the Church.
1 Mosheim tells us that already in the fourth century " the
religion of Greeks and Romans differed very little in its external
appearance from that of the Christians" (Ecclesiastical History,
Engl. tr., 1838, i. p. 194).
THE OLD COVENANT AND THE NEW 155
Christianity was, after a few centuries, represented
by innumerable sects, combating each other with a
bitterness and hatred which excited the surprise and
derision of the outside world, and the average Christian
was, in spite of his baptism and all the means of grace
placed at his disposal, of no appreciably higher moral
standing than the average pagan. That the Christian
had the ordinary weaknesses of human nature in common
with the pagan need cause no surprise or indignation
to the outside observer, but it is a convincing refutation
of the claims of Christianity when we see the baptized
share with the unregenerate the worst vices of a decadent
age. No doubt, Christianity produced new types of a
higher life, and did much to create amongst its followers
a greater sense of responsibility, to abate the excesses
of sexual and other popular sins, but the special virtues
of the Christians were too often tainted with the pre-
vailing corruption, while new failings made their appear-
ance. It was not only the body of Christians who were
strongly infected, but the clergy, who are not only the
flower of the Christian communion, but, according to
the Christian system, occupy a distinctly privileged
spiritual position, were hardly, if at all, better than the
general mass of believers. Mosheim, speaking of the
ministers of the Gospel in as early as the third century,
gives us the following description of them at that time :
“Though several yet continued to exhibit to the world
illustrious examples of primitive piety and Christian
virtue, yet many were sunk in luxury and voluptuous-
ness, puffed up with vanity, arrogance and ambition,
possessed with a spirit of contention and discord, and
addicted to many other vices that cast an undeserved
reproach upon the holy religion of which they were
156 THE SYNAGOGUE AND THE CHURCH
the unholy professors and ministers. This is testified
in such an ample manner by the repeated complaints
of many of the most respectable writers of this age, that
truth will not permit us to spread the veil which we
should otherwise be desirous to cast on such enormities
among an order so sacred.”1 This severe judgment
does not exhaust the reluctant censure which the his-
torian has to pass on the leaders of the Church, who,
with the growth of its power, lost more and more of the
saintliness which they claimed in so large a measure.
In the fifth century, we are told that “the vices of the
clergy were now carried to the most enormous lengths ;
and all the writers of this century, whose probity and
virtue render them worthy of credit, are unanimous in
their accounts of the luxury, arrogance, avarice and
voluptuousness of the sacerdotal orders.” 2 As to the
monks, their licentiousness had already then become a
proverb.3 In the sixth century," the monastic orders
in general abounded with fanatics and profligates." 4
Such was the moral record of Christianity, from its
crystallization into a religion claiming to have brought a
new order of things into the world down to the time
when Christianity reigned at the seat of the Cæsars, and
the cross on which Jesus died became the hope and
symbol of victorious warfare. If we want to estimate
the extent of the failure of the mission of Jesus Christ, as
it is represented in the Christian creed, we need only
read the New Testament with the history of Christianity
as a commentary. The ideal of Christ's kingdom
"not of this world,” was as much absent from the minds
of the leaders of the Church, as was his unequivocal
*
1 Mosheim, ibid., i. p. 132.
3 Ibid., i. p. 229.
? Ibid., i. p. 228.
* Ibid., i. p. 271.
THE OLD COVENANT AND THE NEW 157
condemnation of the possession of wealth. The whole
force of Christendom was bent on the acquisition of
power, and the rivalry of its numerous antagonistic
sections expended itself, not in works of love, but in
an acrimonious dogmatic warfare against one another.
Then, as now, the churches were great believers in the
virtue of multitudes, and frantic efforts were made for
the conversion of the largest numbers. In this lies
both the cause and the excuse of the early degeneration
of Christianity. That it was not able to arrest the decay
of the Roman Empire, which experienced its greatest
humiliations when it had already turned Christian, is
due to a variety of reasons, but it is not surprising that
the new religion should have exercised but little influence
on the ethical conduct of the masses, especially of the
barbarians who submitted to its sway, when the methods
of their conversion are kept in view. Augustine's
baptism of 10,000 Angles in Kent, on Christmas of the
year 597, does indeed seem a glorious feat, but what
effect could, after all, such a wholesale conversion
have on the lives of these neophytes ? The conversion
of the barbarians by order of their own princes, or if
forcibly imposed by a foreign conqueror, scarcely pos-
sessed any spiritual value as a regenerative power.
The fundamental requirement in these cases was a blind
submission to the authority of the priest. The entrance
into the Christian communion did not necessarily denote
a break with the pagan past, either in life or doctrine.
“Many of the first Christian missionaries," to quote
again the authoritative Christian historian Mosheim,
“required nothing of these barbarous people that was
difficult to be performed, or laid any remarkable restraint
upon their appetites or passions. The principal injunc-
158 THE SYNAGOGUE AND THE CHURCH
tions they imposed upon their proselytes were that they
should get to heart certain summaries of doctrine, and
pay the images of Christ and the saints the same religious
services which they had formerly offered to the statues
of the gods.” 1
The explicit declaration : “Unless ye be born again
ye cannot enter the kingdom of heaven," was either
overlooked (as it is largely now) in the sense that the
man who wants to be "saved ” must completely adapt
his mode of life to that proclaimed by Jesus, or was
interpreted as being complied with by the act of baptism,
with its supposed magic effect of instant redemption.
Hence baptism in itself was regarded as a sure passport
to heaven, even though life was being polluted by all
manner of wickedness; or, to give a wider and more
unhampered scope to sin and crime and yet to make
doubly sure of salvation, it became a common practice
to defer the rite until the very last moment, when the
probability of death made it dangerous to delay it any
longer. That such a doctrine, which could speciously
point to the instance of the penitent thief on the
cross, should have had a disastrous effect on morality,
is evident. We know this, for instance, from the glaring
historic example of the first Christian Emperor Con-
stantine, who, in spite of his adoption of Christianity,
prudently delayed the act of baptism until his death.2
1 Mosheim, ibid., i. p. 262.
2 That the real spiritual value of such death-bed baptisms
was pretty well understood in those days is proved by the follow-
ing story told by Athanasius : "An angel said to my great
predecessor : Peter (the bishop of the see), why do you send
me these sacks (these wind-bags) carefully sealed up, with
nothing whatever inside ? '" (Quoted by Dean Stanley, in
History of the Eastern Church, p. 231.)
The whole extent of the immorality underlying the idea of
nothing whatever (these wind-D2of the sees, whid
THE OLD COVENANT AND THE NEW TT
159
“The age was sinking daily from one period of cor-
ruption to another," 1 is the pithy description given
of Christian life in the fourth century, and the decline
was very rapid. With the irresistible invasion of the
tottering Roman Empire by the northern barbarians,
. and their formal adoption of Christianity; with the
growth of the ecclesiastical power as the predominant
and decisive force, there began in Europe an epoch of
profound moral anarchy, coupled with an undisputed
belief in the dogmas of the religion of Christ, and a
scrupulous performance of its ritual practices. This
eclipse of morals and social progress marks the Christian
Ages of Faith, the Dark Ages in the history of
European civilization.
It would be a most uncongenial task to pursue at
length the various aspects of depravity, social, political
and religious, which mark this period of intense ignor-
ance. In the chaos which resulted from the demora-
lization which had overtaken Christianity, two great
events stand out as of far-reaching importance in its
history: the conquest of Europe on the one side, and
the loss of Asia and Africa on the other. It is most
significant that the conversion, whether voluntary or
enforced, of the Teutonic and Slavic races took place
while they were still in a savage state, and that at the
deferred baptism is fully revealed by the remark of St. Augus-
tine, the great Church Father, who, referring to his own case,
exclaims: “Why does it still echo in our ears on all sides :
'Let him alone, let him do as he will, for he is not yet baptized '?”
(Confessions, book i. chap. ii.). And yet, speaking of a sin he
had committed, he says : “But hast not Thou, O most merciful
Lord, pardoned and remitted this sin also, with my other most
horrible deadly sins, in the holy water ?”' (ibid., book ix. chap, ii,).
* Mosheim, ibid., i. p. 189,
160 THE SYNAGOGUE AND THE CHURCH
same time Mohammedanism completely overwhelmed
that section of Christendom which had reached the
greatest maturity and had produced its ripest and
European blood brought it renewed life and strength,
and was the ultimate means of giving an unexpected
moral and rational tendency to the development of
that religion. But the practical extinction of the Chris-
tian Churches in Asia and Africa proved conclusively
that the religion of Christ was as much liable to the
accidents of decay and death as any human institution,
and that the possession of the Christian faith and
means of salvation are not prophylactic against ethical
corruption and final religious dissolution.
Although this is a fact not open to serious dis-
pute, it is claimed that the Church, as a body, is subject
to a special divine guidance which precludes the possi-
bility of its annihilation, or its sinking into error and
corruption. How far this immunity extends is a point
on which Christian theologians are not at one. The
Catholic conception of the Church is based on that of
the 1870' ), the Synagogue of Israel, held among
the Jews, but the Christian pretension loses its force by
there being too many claimants for the same exclusive
honour. The Catholic Churches-Greek and Roman
--each believing itself to be the only true exponent
of the faith of Christ and of the saints, assert that
truth in its entire purity, and that, notwithstanding
any individual failings, the Church of Christ stands
unassailable. The Protestant views (divergent on
most points) are not so unanimous or clear, but,
among the numerous theories, that of Election,
THE OLD COVENANT AND THE NEW 161
viz., that the true Church consists of members
elected for salvation by the grace of God only, is the
most distinct. This latter doctrine has in it all the
merciless logic characterizing a system which has
reduced the hypothetical elect to an infinitesimally
small number of the Christian communion, while
peopling hell with the vast majority of mankind.
The Christian Church considers itself the heir of the
Jewish Synagogue, and of the promises made unto it.
With a healthy selfishness, Christendom has only chosen
to inherit the blessings to be vouchsafed to Israel, while,
with an equally judicious discrimination, it has taken
it as a matter of course that the Jews, on account of
their wickedness, should alone bear all the curses pro-
nounced against them in case of their disobedience of
the commands of the Lord.1 As a matter of fact, there
is no justification whatever for this entirely arbitrary
assumption on the part of Christianity.2
It is asserted that Christ came to bring to the world
a new Covenant, which should not only differ from the
old in principle, scope and functions, but would also
1 True, it is also assumed that the Jews, who are doomed to
exist both as an awful example and to prove the truth of Chris-
tianity, will one day be saved by adopting that religion, of course
in an approved form.
2 It appears that the Mohammedans have, in their turn, also
appropriated the blessings once belonging to Israel, and so
deprived of them the Christians as well as the Jews. As to this,
Ockley, in his History of the Saracens (Bohn's ed., p. 206) says
from his Christian standpoint : “ Nor have our own parts of
the world been altogether destitute of such able expositors who
apply to themselves, without limitation or exception, whatever
in Scripture is graciously expressed in favour of the people of
God; while whatever is said of the wicked and ungodly and of
all the terrors and judgments denounced against them, they
bestow with a liberal hand upon their neighbours.”
M
162 THE SYNAGOGUE AND THE CHURCH
be distinguished by having a complete effect on the
heart of man. The new Israel created by the mission
of Jesus was to have been more than a continuation of
the “ ancient "people of God; it was, in a way, to have
been its antithesis. It was the imperfection of the one
that had to be superseded by the perfection of the other,
and the unbelieving and disobedient Jew had to give
way in the grace of God to the believing, faithful Chris-
tian. The past, as well as the present, shows that the
anticipated regeneration has not been attained in the
case of the individual Christian, but, as has been said,
it is nevertheless still maintained that the Church,
whether as a visible or invisible body, is under the special
guidance and protection of the Holy Ghost, who has
ever kept it, and will always preserve it, from all error.
Here we are met by another instance of the singular
application of scriptural passages to Christian life and
doctrine. As it seems to be considered a sufficient
merit in itself to quote exhortations regarding charity
and forgiveness ascribed to Jesus, so his predictions
are, as a matter of course, considered as already accom-
plished. The promise that the Spirit of truth shall
guide them into all the truth,1 is assumed by Christians
to denote that this has actually taken place. Protes-
tantism, which, by its very name and existence, stands
as a witness that, soon after its birth, Christianity
lost the guidance of the Spirit of truth, adopted the
expedient of elaborating the idea of an invisible Church,
while the Catholic Churches claim to have fully experi-
enced this guidance in their respective spheres. But,
in addition to these mutually destructive assumptions,
the history of Christendom gives ample proof how little
1 John xvi. 13.
THE OLD COVENANT AND THE NEW 163
it is justified in its claim as the new and perfect
Israel.
How far the ideal and the real Christianity are from
each other is best seen in its striving for unity on the
one hand and in its dissensions on the other. The
exaggerated value that is attached to the mere form of
unity within the Church is a measure of the absence of
the spirit of true unity. Sectarian quarrels have been a
characteristic feature of the religion from its very birth
to the present day. Even the apostles themselves were
not at one as to their aims and actions, and the recrim-
inations between Paul and Peter, and their respective
factions, assumed serious proportions within the nascent
creed. In spite of the attempt in the Acts to reconcile
the views and methods of the two apostles, it is evident
that the conflict between them became at times very
pronounced, and the pliable Paul, who, in order to make
converts, endeavoured to be "all things to all men,"1
went so far as to accuse Peter of duplicity. It was
not only with the original disciples of Jesus, the so-called
Judaizers, that the apostle of the Gentiles and his
followers were at variance. The small communities
which he formed were often rent with dogmatic disputes
which were carried on under various names and auspices. 2
These splits soon became so general that his Epistles
are full of declarations against false teachers and their
evil doctrines.
We have thus the striking fact that, from its incep-
tion, the religion of Christ, which claimed to be the
truth specially revealed to man by an incarnation of
the Deity, was turned into a battle-ground of sectarian
quarrels and hatreds. It is equally remarkable that
1 I Cor. ix. 22. 2 I Cor. i. II, 12.
7
164 THE SYNAGOGUE AND THE CHURCH
the dissensions between the first Christians were not concern-
ing the advancement of morals, but were entirely occupied
with questions of doctrine and ceremonial observance.
With the spread of the new religion, and the continued
introduction of philosophizing theories, these dog-
matic disputes extended both in scope and intensity.
Heresy, that peculiar feature in the history of Chris-
tianity, made its appearance at a very early stage, and,
within a short period, was represented by innumerable
sects. While some of them differed from others in
very important essentials, most varied in incredibly
trifling and unintelligible points. A large proportion
of the primitive Christian sects was built on distinctive
notions so flimsy and grotesque that the truths they
considered it their special mission to propagate are
unknown or incomprehensible to the present age. After
the question of the position of the Mosaic ordinances in
the Christian dispensation had been settled by the force
of numbers, it was the nature of the Godhead which be-
came the central point of dispute. Here speculation and
imagination held full sway, and while Gnosticism threat-
ened to turn the Trinitarian Deity into a mere fanciful
shadow, the Arian and Catholic sections carried on
a ferocious warfare as to the exact quality of the divine
substance. There were endless disquisitions as to the
nice distinctions to be drawn between the composition
and relations of the various persons of the Trinity. It
was claimed by the Arians that the Son, who was
who begot him ; the Trinitarians, on the other hand,
maintained the equality in the nature and substance
During the first three centuries ninety sects are said to have
made their appearance.
THE OLD COVENANT AND THE NEW 165
of Father and Son. To make the controversy still more
involved, both sides were constantly in danger of falling
into the various subsidiary heresies which divided the
Church on the subject; these disputes became so violent
and confused that they were turned into a theme for
mirth among the heathen.1
On taking Christianity under his protection, the
Emperor Constantine endeavoured to put an end to
the disorder which reigned among the Christians, and
to settle the central doctrine, which had assumed the
form of a veritable chaos. He, therefore, convoked
the Council of Nice, and there it was that, by the autho-
rity of this pagan ruler, and not by the free influence
of the Holy Spirit, the precise nature and essence of
the Christian Deity was fixed. Arius was condemned,
and his followers anathematized. By direction of the
Emperor, all the writings of Arius were to be burned,
and those who retained them were to be punished with
death. The Nicene doctrine of the Trinity was not
accepted by Christendom at large. The fierceness
with which the quarrel was continued, the calumnies,
intrigues and base means with which it was endeavoured
to crush the opponent are hardly to be matched in
secular warfare. The efforts that were made to bring
about a settlement or a reconciliation culminated in
Councils, which were supposed to represent the authority
of the universal Church. The second Council of Ephesus,
convened for such a purpose in 449, was disgraced by
1 Referring to the great controversy respecting the relations
of the Son to the Father, the historian Socrates says : “ It was
like a battle fought in the dark; for neither party seemed at
all to understand on what ground they vilified each other” (i.
chap. 23).
166 THE SYNAGÓGUË AND THE CHURCH
so much violence that it became known as the Council
of Robbers, 1 and then there took place in 451 the Council
of Chalcedon, which, on the one hand, nullified the
decisions of the Council of Ephesus and, on the other,
confirmed doctrines enunciated at previous other
Councils. It was there recognized that in elaborating
in precise terms the idea of the incarnation of God, there
was to be either a difference between the three Persons
of the Deity, or that, if they are the same in every respect,
there can be no distinction between them. A com-
mission appointed by the Council thereupon formulated
the following belief concerning Jesus Christ :-
"Following in the footsteps of the holy Fathers, we
declare with one voice, that we ought to confess one
sole and the same Jesus Christ, who is perfect in deity,
and perfect in humanity, truly God, and truly man,
composed of a reasonable soul, and of a body, consub-
stantial with the Father as to the deity, and consubstan-
tial with us as to the humanity, and in everything
resembling us except sin ; begotten of the Father before
the ages according to the deity, and in later times, born
of the Virgin Mary, Mother of God, according to the
humanity, for us and for our salvation; one sole and
the same Jesus Christ, unique son, Lord in two natures,
without confusion, without change, without division,
without separation, without. the union removing the
difference of the natures ; on the contrary, the idioms
of each are preserved and concur in one sole person,
and one sole hypostasis ; in such a way that he is not
divided or separated into two persons, but is one sole
and the same unique son, God Word, our Lord Jesus
1 The Bishop of Constantinople was trampled to death by.
, the Bishop of Alexandria.
.
THE OLD COVENANT AND THE NEW 167
Christ. The Council forbids each and all to think or
to teach differently, under pain to bishops and clerks
of being deposed, to monks and to laics of being anathe-
matized.”
This authoritative resolution was, however, as little
successful in bringing peace to the Christian camp as
were former decisions on the subject. The various
parties and heresies triumphed alternately by the favour
of princes, whose touchstone of Christian truth seemed
to be their own caprice. Thus we find that Constantine,
who had proceeded so severely against Arius, afterwards
recalled him, and was himself baptized on his deathbed
by an Arian bishop. While Constantius, the son of
Constantine, supported the Arians, it was another
Emperor, Theodosius, who earned the gratitude of the
Catholic Church by his ruthless suppression of the
1
adopted by the barbarians outside the Empire, and
there the creed maintained itself until the force of
political and ecclesiastical events brought about the
downfall of Arianism also among those peoples. Semi-
Unitarian conceptions of the Christian triune Divinity
arose afterwards now and again in the Christian Church,
and many other ideas on the subject asserted them-
selves, but the Trinitarian view evolved at Nice and
other Councils ultimately triumphed, and was embodied
in the so-called Athanasian Creed, which is read in the
Christian public worship, and runs as follows:-
Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary
that he hold the Catholic Faith.
Which Faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled,
without doubt he shall perish everlastingly.
And the Catholic. Faith is this : That we worship one God in
Trinity, and Trinity in Unity;
168 THE SYNAGOGUE AND THE CHURCH
Neither confounding the Persons nor dividing the Substance.
For there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son,
and another of the Holy Ghost.
But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy
Ghost, is all one, the Glory equal, the Majesty co-eternal.
Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy
Ghost.
The Father uncreate, the Son uncreate, and the Holy Ghost
uncreate.
The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible,
and the Holy Ghost incomprehensible.
The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Ghost
eternal.
And yet they are not three eternals, but one eternal.
As also there are not three incomprehensibles, nor three un-
created : but one uncreated, and one incomprehensible.
So likewise the Father is Almighty, the Son Almighty, and
the Holy Ghost Almighty.
And yet they are not three Almighties, but one Almighty.
So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost
is God.
And yet they are not three Gods, but one God.
So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy
Ghost Lord.
And yet not three Lords, but one Lord.
For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to
acknowledge every person by himself to be God and Lord ;
So are we forbidden by the Catholic Religion to say, There be
three Gods, or three Lords.
The Father is made of none : neither created, nor begotten,
The Son is of the Father alone : not made, nor created, but
begotten.
The Holy Ghost is of the Father and of the Son: neither
made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding.
So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three
Sons; one Holy Ghost, not three Holy Ghosts.
And in this Trinity none is afore, or after other; none is
greater, or less than another ;
But the whole three Persons are co-eternal together, and
co-equal.
So that in all things, as is aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity,
and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshipped.
He therefore that will be saved must thus think of the
Trinity.
THE OLD COVENANT AND THE NEW 169
Furthermore, it is necessary to everlasting salvation that
he also believe rightly the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ.
For the right Faith is, that we believe and confess that
our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and Man;
God, of the Substance of the Father, begotten before the
worlds : and Man, of the Substance of his Mother, born in the
world ;
Perfect God, and perfect Man, of a reasonable soul and human
flesh subsisting;
Equal to the Father, as touching His Godhead, and inferior
to the Father, as touching His Manhood.
Who although He be God and Man, yet He is not two, but
one Christ;
One; not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but by
taking of the Manhood into God;
One altogether; not by confusion of Substance, but by
unity of Person.
For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man, so God and
Man is one Christ;
Who suffered for our salvation, descended into hell, rose
again the third day from the dead.
He ascended into heaven, He sitteth on the right hand of
the Father, God Almighty : from whence He shall come to
judge the quick and the dead.
At whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies,
and shall give account for their own works.
And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting,
and they that have done evil into everlasting fire.
This is the Catholic Faith, which except a man believe faith-
fully, he cannot be saved.
This most remarkable statement is the last word of
Orthodox Christianity on the Deity. In comparing
the Old Covenant with the New, it is impossible to avoid
being struck above all by the extraordinary contrast
which is afforded by the conception of God in Judaism
on the one, and in Christianity on the other, hand. In
Judaism, the basis of the religion is the purest form of
Monotheism, where the only doctrines concerning it are
affirmations of the transcendent, ethical, and beneficent
character of the Divinity. In spite of the philosophical
170 THE SYNAGÓGUE AND THE CHURCH
7
interpretations and theories of the Hellenistic and
medieval Jewish thinkers, this purity has remained
unimpaired. Even at the most decadent period of Juda-
ism, when, forced back by a hostile world, the Jewish
mind took refuge in the mysticism of the Cabbala, specu-
lation on the Divine essence produced no abiding result.
Entirely different has been the effect of the views
on the Deity held in Christendom. The strongly
anthropomorphic conception of God prevailing in the
Church has made it possible for God the Father to be
a popular subject for pictorial representation among
Greek and Roman Catholics, and in the Middle Ages
He was even made to appear on the stage. From the
earliest times the nice adjustment of the various positions
assigned to the three Persons in the Christian Godhead
proved a fruitful cause of strife. “ Disputes on the
nature of Christ,” says Dean Milman, “were indeed
coeval with the promulgation of Christianity." 1 The
profound significance and consequences of this fact can
only be properly estimated if it is realized that the
personality of Christ is the centre of Christian life and
faith. By making him the cause of division and
hatred, not merely between Christendom and the rest
of mankind, but between Christian and Christian, the
streams of Christian life and faith were poisoned at
their sources.
Besides this main theme for Christian dissension,
many points of dogma and ceremonial gave rise to strife
and schism. The doctrine of the Procession of the
Holy Spirit-whether the Third Person of the Trinity
proceeded from the Father only or passed also through
the Son—was for centuries a subject of acrimonious
1 History of Christianity, ii. p. 355.
1
THE OLD COVENANT AND THE NEW 171
dispute, and led to the ultimate separation between the
Eastern and the Western Churches. The time at which
Easter is to be kept, the use of leavened or unleavened
bread, and similar contentions, were considered of
equally fundamental importance by Rome and Con-
stantinople.
Almost as prolific as the divisions of early Christianity
were the sects that were born of the Reformation in
the sixteenth century, and which are computed to have
amounted to something like the imposing number of
eighty. The Lutheran and Reformed Churches in
Germany were divided from each other, as they were
both from Roman Catholicism, because they could not
agree on the exact definition of the nature of the
Sacrament of the Lord's Supper. The much-belauded
heroism of the Scottish Covenanters was largely ex-
pended in the rejection of a certain form of Church
Government, which their opponents tried to force upon
them with a cruel fanaticism. The leaders of the
Reformation had each their favourite dogma, which
was propagated by them with great ardour, and was
opposed by others with equal vehemence. The Greek
and Oriental Churches are even more earnest in upholding
their dogmatical and ceremonial distinctions than the
Roman Catholics and Protestants. The spirituality
of those communions, which share in common the
Christian pride of being free from the yoke of the Jewish
Law, can be gauged by the reforms which were intro-
duced by Nicon in the Russian Church amidst the deter-
mined opposition of the believersman opposition which,
in spite of persistent persecution, is continued to the
present day. The reforms of that ecclesiastic concerned
such questions as benedictions with three fingers instead
LO
172 THE SYNAGOGUE AND THE CHURCH
of two, a white altar cloth instead of an embroidered
one, pictures kissed only twice a year, the cross signed
the wrong way, wrong inflections in pronouncing the
creed, the number of transverse beams of the cross, the
repetition of the name of Jesus in two syllables instead
of three, the repetition of the Hallelujah twice instead
of once, the direction of processions from right to left
or from left to right.1 All these points were considered
as matters of spiritual life and death, and this, the only
“reformation” of Russian Christianity, has in the
course of time produced more martyrs than the early
Church.
Such a pronounced ritualism, as is thus manifested
in Greek Catholicism, is by no means abnormal in
historical Christianity. The Apostolic Church either
admitted the validity of the Jewish ordinances or had
to create its own. This activity seems to have been
carried on most energetically, to judge by the rapid
growth of Christian ceremonial. The religion for-
mulated by Paul, which had considered the Torah of
Moses as the greatest offence of Judaism, gradually
adopted in its turn a considerable portion of Jewish
ceremonialism, and all the paraphernalia of pagan
worship. At the end of a few centuries, the ceremonial
of the Christians was hardly distinguishable in external
appearance from that prevailing among the Greeks and
Romans. It is rather instructive to note the tone of
growing impatience with which the Protestant Church
historian Mosheim traces the degeneration of the Church
in that direction, until, writing of the fifth century, he
tells us that to "enumerate the rites and institutions that
1 Dean Stanley, Eastern Church, pp. 344, 383, 384.
2 Cf. supra, p. 154, note 1.
THE OLD COVENANT AND THE NEW 173
were added in this century to the Christian worship
would require a volume of considerable size."i Even
the pagan festivals were turned Christian; the saints
took the places vacated by the idols, and the Virgin
Mary was accorded the attributes and veneration
assigned to a goddess.
The assumed contrast between Jewish and Christian
ritualism is the result of the delusive comparison that
is generally instituted between Christian theory and
non-Christian practice. Thus the Talmud is made to
serve as a glaring example of dead ceremonialism against
the living spirituality of the New Testament. The
comparison between the two is unwarranted. The
sole purpose of the Gospels and Epistles is to glorify
the life of Jesus and the work of his apostles, while the
Talmud contains not only the post-biblical literature
of the Jewish religion for a period extending over 500
years, but also the civil and criminal code of Jewish
secular government. A compilation like the Talmud
-which stands unique by itself-can perhaps be com-
pared to the somewhat analogous literature of medieval
Christianity. It will then be found that both err in an
equal degree in the minute attention which they pay
to the contingencies of the ecclesiastical polity, and in
the excessive importance which they attach to it. Both
the Jewish Rabbi and the Catholic theologian treat
ceremonial questions with the same earnestness and
interest. Numerous volumes were written during the
Middle Ages on the conduct which a Christian ought
to adopt in every sphere and act of life. The priestly
and monastic life has, in addition, a very extensive
literature of its own. Questions relating to the tonsure,
1 Eccles. Hist., i. p, 240.
174 THE SYNAGOGUE AND THE CHURCH
the cowl, and other pieces of dress have given rise to
some of the fiercest debates and dissensions which have
agitated monachism, and the rules governing the con-
duct of monks are frequently ludicrous in their minute-
ness. Sacraments, which, as means of salvation, are
naturally of the greatest importance, have also received
very much attention from their material aspect.1 In
regard to the fast to be observed before taking the
Sacrament, the Roman Catholic casuists have care-
fully drawn up a list of substances according as they
are digestible or otherwise (because indigestible sub-
stances, taken in small quantities, do not break the
natural fast) ; hence the communicant is informed that
glass, sawdust, silk, metal, etc., do not break the fast,
but chalk, linen, butter, etc., do. A fly taken deliber-
ately would exclude from communion; a fly taken
involuntarily, in the course of its volitation, would not
exclude. A quarter of a teaspoonful of water taken
deliberately, or a few drops of blood from gums, would
break the fast; swallowed involuntarily in washing
the teeth, there must be at least half a teaspoonful to
exclude from communion. There was even a dispute,
and a concomitant heresy, on the question whether the
Eucharist passed through the usual course of digestion.
So essential indeed is the ceremonial part in the Chris-
tian religion that no sect admitting the validity of the
historic tradition and development of the Church can
repudiate, or dispense with, those ritual regulations
1 The case of the “water” of baptism, tea, beer, broth, soap-
as valid or invalid matter of the Sacrament. Soup, chocolate
and milk are forbidden; beer, tea, coffee, etc., are permitted
(Joseph McCabe, Life in a Modern Monastery, p. 82),
? McCabe, ibid., pp. 80, 81.
C
THE OLD COVENANT AND THE NEW 175
TN
and ordinances which have been elaborated by the highest
and most revered authorities of the faith, and hallowed
by the practice of ages. But in addition to this ritual-
ism, which, in spite of the Pauline charge against
Judaism, is considered as legitimate in Christianity,
the Church contains an important materialistic element
from which the Synagogue is entirely free. The idea
of the incarnation of God in the form of a human being,
who was born, lived and died as a man among men,
has afforded full opportunity for the introduction of
an earthly embodiment of the Divinity. The declara-
tion of Jesus to the woman of Samaria that the day
was coming when neither Jerusalem nor Mount Gerizim
would be considered holy places, but that the Father
would be worshipped in spirit and in truth, had little
point then, when in many synagogues over a large
part of the world God was already worshipped in spirit
and in truth, but if the prediction referred to a time
when there would be no special holy places, the prophecy
lras not been fulfilled in the case of Christianity. Where
Judaism had only one Temple as the central sanctuary
and place of pilgrimage, the life of Jesus has created
for Christendom many holy places in the land where
he lived. From his birth to his burial, every supposed
trace of his career is marked by sanctuaries. In this
connexion, even the river Jordan is a sacred Christian
stream, whose waters are credited with certain mystic
virtues.
It is not only in Palestine that Christianity has its
holy places. Catholicism, Oriental and Occidental, has
established them in such a profusion that they recall the
paganism which it supplanted. This is the result of
the creation of the host of saints which is so remarkable
.
176 THE SYNAGOGUE AND THE CHURCH
a feature of Catholic devotions. The images of the
Madonna with her child are an ordinary object of Catholic
adoration, and, dressed up in tawdry fineries, they are
set up for the edification of the faithful in the high-
ways and byways of Romanist countries. Her fame is
not less in the Greek and Oriental Churches, and many
are the rival shrines dedicated to her. Like the cry
of old : “Great is the Diana of Ephesus," we now hear
in one part of Europe the watchword : “Great is our
Lady of Lourdes," and there comes from the other end
of the continent the answer : “Great is the Mother of
God of Kazan.” In addition to the “ Mother of God," 1
there is a vast body of saints, who have provided innu-
merable centres of concourse to the faithful. To all
intents and purposes, these saints are distinct deities,
inferior indeed to the Supreme God, but popular to an
extreme, with a cult of their own. The churches are
filled with altars dedicated to the saints, and Greek
Catholicism, especially its important Russian section,
has turned the religion of the masses into a crude
iconolatry.
Closely connected with the cult of saints is that of
their relics. One is the corollary of the other, and both
assumed great importance at an early period of Chris-
tianity. To meet an unhealthy craving for material
1 It was no doubt the popular appellation, "Mother of God,"
which must have suggested to Jerome, the Church Father, to
apply to Paula, a rich Roman lady who had consecrated the
virginity of her daughter, the title of “Mother-in-law of God”
(Gibbon, Roman Empire, iv. p. 115).
2 Dean Stanley says : "No veneration of relics or images in
the West can convey any adequate notion of the veneration for
pictures in Russia. It is the main support and stay of the
religious faith and practice” (Eastern Church, p. 293).
THE OLD COVENANT AND THE NEW 177
objects of worship, there grew up everywhere a most
extraordinary supply of all kinds of relics. Those
assigned to Jesus were, of course, considered of the
greatest sanctity, and the Empress Helena, Constan-
tine's mother, who set out for Palestine in search of
them, seems to have found everything she was looking
for. In discovering the unknown place of burial-of
Jesus, there were, strangely enough, also found three
crosses on which he and the two thieves were crucified,
together with the inscription that had been over the cross
of Jesus. As it was not known, however, which of the
crosses was the one on which Christ had suffered, the
difficulty was settled by a miracle. This cross, and
the nails attached thereto, have since been regarded
as some of the most treasured spiritual possessions of
Christendom.2 Exceptionally favoured is still considered
the sanctuary which possesses a piece of wood, or a nail,
of the cross, and these are used on special occasions
for the edification of the faithful.3 Of superlative
1 The extent of this demand may be gauged by St. Augustine's
statement that pilgrimages were made to Arabia to visit the
dunghill on which Job is supposed to have sat.
2“ The precious treasure was divided, part enshrined in a
silver case remained at Jerusalem, from whence pilgrims con-
stantly bore fragments of the still vegetating wood to the West,
till enough was accumulated in the different churches to build
a ship of war. Part was sent to Constantinople; the nails of
the passion of Christ were turned into a bit for the warhorse of
the Emperor, or, according to another account, represented the
rays of the sun around the head of his statue” (Dean Milman,
History of Christianity, vol. ii. p. 348).
3 Never have I been so struck by the radical difference be-
tween Judaism and Christianity, as when I successively visited
in Paris the ancient cathedral of Notre Dame and the synagogue
in the rue de la Victoire.
In the synagogue the joyful character of the service was
dignified by a beautiful simplicity and embellished by one of
178 THE SYNAGOGUE AND THE CHURCH
sanctity and fruitfulness were also other relics con-
nected with Jesus. There are many lances that lay
claim to have pierced his side, and numerous crowns
of thorns. 1 What can there be more characteristic
of the materialization of the Christian faith than the
present of the baby-linen of the Son of God which
was made by Baldwin II, Emperor of Constanti-
nople, to Louis IX, King of France ? 2 Unblushing
cupidity on the one hand, and an abject credulity on
the other, seem to have proved a favourable soil for relic-
mongery, and it is, therefore, by no means surprising
that during the Crusades the Templar Knights carried
on a profitable trade by selling to the Christian armies
bottles of milk of the Virgin Mary, or that a monastery
in Jerusalem even claimed to possess one of the fingers
of the Holy Ghost.3
Two incidents which happened in Spain give a true
indication of the distinction which divides Judaism
from Christianity in their attitude towards the material-
those discourses, the charity and light of which are manifested
in the published addresses of the late Grand Rabbin Zadoc
Kahn. In the cathedral, amidst the solemn gloom characteristic
of Catholic churches, and intended to create a mystic and mys-
terious effect, there was a congregation pressing into an enclo-
sure, where, behind rails, priests were offering to the devout to
kiss on their knees two little cases containing a nail and some
wood of the Cross. With all deference and reverence, I wondered
how this could possibly be reconciled with the worship of God
in spirit and in truth.
1 In the Middle Ages there was to be found in Rome almost
every object mentioned in the Gospels that Jesus or his mother
had either worn or touched-vessels, utensils, stones, garments,
and even, in contradiction to dogma, portions of his body
(Döllinger, Studies in European History, p. 69).
2 Gibbon, Roman Empire, vii. p. 30.
3 J. W. Draper, The Conflict between Religion and Science, p. 270..
THE OLD COVENANT AND THE NEW 179
TY
istic aspects of religion. When, at the end of the fif-
teenth century, hundreds of thousands of Spanish Jews
preferred exile to baptism, the most cherished posses-
sions that accompanied them in their wanderings were
their sacred books and literary treasures, but when
the Spanish Christians had to seek in the north of the
peninsula a refuge from the Mohammedan onslaught
the highest and holiest that they took with them was
a chest filled with relics of their saints.1
It would be unfair to charge historic Christianity
with every one of its excrescences. The truth is the
same, and yet it presents itself so differently to the
philosopher and the peasant. Thus the gross idolatry
on which Catholicism thrives in South America does
not represent a criterion of the purity of that
faith, and Christendom cannot be held responsible
for the putridity of the Church in Abyssinia. In Juda-
ism, where an effective barrier seems to have been
erected against saint worship, so that it is specifically
stated in the Pentateuch that the place of the grave of
Moses is not known "unto this day,” the invocation of
nax 0923-ancestral merit-has not only found its
way into the liturgy, but, in certain Oriental parts, visits
to the grave of some famous Rabbi are resorted to
periodically, or in cases of distress. There, however, the
matter rests. There is no question of adoration, cer-
tainly not the slightest tinge of image and relic worship.
In Catholic Christianity, on the other hand, not only
are images and relics part of the approved ritual, but
even in the most authoritative and enlightened quarters
there is no condemnation of the extraordinary venera-
tion that is paid to the bones, hair, pieces of clothing,
1 Buckle, History of Civilization, ii. p. 441.
180 THE SYNAGOGUE AND THE CHURCH
etc., which are reputed to have belonged to some holy
person. Nor is the Church slow to utilize for its' pur-
poses this belief in the spiritual value which is supposed
to be inherent in some inanimate things. At the end
of the nineteenth century, and in the very centre of
European civilization, the Roman Catholic Church
offered at Treves for the adoration of the faithful a
"holy" coat said to have been worn by Jesus.
An examination and survey of the doctrines, practices
and history of Christianity show that it has been built
up and maintained as a compromise between Judaism
and paganism. The basis of the Church is strongest
where it was formed by the Monotheism and ethics
of Judaism, while the superstructure consists largely
of the mythology and ritualism of the heathen. In
so far as it has remained on its Jewish foundation,
Christianity has succeeded in preserving its pure and
lofty character, while every extension of the heathen
elements has served to further the corruption of the
Church. Such, however, is the nature of Christianity
that, while Israel has breathed into it a soul, it was
the corruptible body it obtained from paganism which
has ensured its material existence.1 Of course, this
does not constitute an advance on Judaism. Neither in
the domain of faith nor of morals does the superiority
of Christianity become apparent thereby, and in both
it has always fallen very far short of the ideal set up
· by the Jewish prophets and sages.
Judaism is condemned, according to denunciation
by Jesus (no indulgent critic of his opponents) of the
ethical state of its adherents in Jerusalem at that period,
a time of exceptional trouble. This judgment on
1 Cf. Hallam, Europe in the Middle Ages, iii. p. 291.
THE OLD COVENANT AND THE NEW 181
T
Judaism is held to constitute the necessity for its abro-
gation in favour of Christianity.
A few hundred years after Jesus we find Jerusalem
under full Christian sway. The Holy City had become
entirely Christian, and there were no outside influences
to oppose the complete application of Christ's rule of
life in the place where the most dramatic events of his
activity were enacted. The religion which gloried in
his name was still in a stage of primitive purity. Yet
so great was the prevalence of sin in the Christian Jerusa-
lem that in the fourth century the Church Father Gre-
gory of Nyssa, who had been on a pilgrimage there,
had to warn others against following his example of
Christian piety. The immorality of the Christian
inhabitants of the Holy City had, according to him,
reached such a degree that "there is no form of unclean-
ness that is not perpetrated amongst them ; rascality,
adultery, theft, idolatry, poisoning, quarrelling, murder
are rife; and the last kind of evil is so excessively
prevalent that nowhere in the world are people so ready
to kill each other as there, where kinsmen attack each
other like wild beasts and spill each others' blood, merely
for the sake of lifeless plunder.” 1
One of the most prominent arguments for the super-
session of the Old Covenant by a new one, is the
Pauline theory of the freedom of the faith of Christ
from the shackles of Jewish ceremonialism. Yet,
while maintaining this reason as a standing indict-
ment against Judaism, Christian ritualism developed
rapidly to such an extent that St. Augustine already com-
plained that the yoke under which, according to him,
the Jews had formerly been weighed down, was more
1 In his letter on “ Pilgrimages."
182 THE SYNAGOGUE AND THE CHURCH
tolerable than that imposed upon many Christians in
his day.1
These facts of transcendent importance are, however,
completely overlooked in a Christian consideration of
the claims of Christianity against Judaism. It is not
remembered in this connexion that fifteen centuries
after the birth of Christ there took place a revolution
within Christianity because the moral sense of a large
part of Christendom was shaken to its depths by the
utter corruption of the religion in its doctrines and
practices, and by the gross depravity of its teachers.
It is not considered that, while boasting about the
freedom from the yoke of the Law, Christianity
raised ceremonialism to a position of such importance
that at one time ferocious persecutions were instituted
against those who had been guilty of eating meat on
Fridays, the culprits being burnt alive, hung or sub-
mitted to various other barbarous punishments.2 And,
it may be noted, laxity of morals and strict attention
to ceremonialism were often closely connected. Erasmus
complained that if a priest has his hair grown or wears a
lay habit, he is punished, but if he debauches himself
and others he is still a pillar of the Church.3
The Jews have been justly castigated for their sins
by their own prophets and leaders, and one of the most
remarkable facts is the care with which these denuncia-
tions have been zealously collected and treasured by
1 Cf. Mosheim, Ecclesiastical History, i. p. 194.
2 Lecky, Rationalism, i. p. 312. An edict of Charlemagne,
and also a law of the Saxons, condemned to death any one who
ate meat in Lent, unless the priest was satisfied that it was a
matter of absolute necessity (Lecky, European Morals, ii. p. 243).
3 Quoted by Fairbairn, The Place of Christ in Modern Theo-
logy, p. 136.
THE OLD COVENANT AND THE NEW 183
the very people against whom they have been directed.
The failings laid to the charge of the Jews are not dis-
owned by them, but fully recognized in all their bearings
and consequences. “We are not so shameless of face
or stiff-necked as to declare in Thy presence, O Lord,
our God, and God of our fathers, that we are righteous
and have not sinned; verily we have sinned, we and
our fathers.” 1. It has, on the other hand, to be remem-
bered that, since the time of Antiochus Epiphanes,
Judaism has lived more or less under the depressing
influences of religious persecution, and has always been
surrounded by hostile forces. In spite of these evident
disadvantages, the Jews have, during these two thousand
years, maintained their religious ideal with at least as
much of that unflinching faith and courage which have
raised the early Christian martyrs so high in the esti-
mation of subsequent Christian generations. As to
the purity and simplicity of the Jewish creed, it is still
an unattained, if unconscious, object of desire of the most
enlightened Christians of the present time. In the
sphere of morals, it must be accounted a matter of the
greatest significance that reforms in Judaism have
never been called forth by the corruption of its teachers.
In Christianity, however, it was the morals of the
priesthood, from the Holy Father in Rome downwards,
which produced the Reformation in the sixteenth cen-
tury. For instance, the existence of mulieres subin-
troductæ, the system by which Christian pastors kept
secret wives, and yet claimed the presumed sanctity
of celibacy, is an impossibility in Judaism, owing to its
healthy view of the matrimonial state, whereas such
1
1 In the Amidah for the Day of Atonement.
184 THE SYNAGOGUE AND THE CHURCH
a practice must necessarily have vitiated the whole atmo-
sphere of the Christian clergy.1
It cannot be too often insisted upon that if Chris-
tianity has not only not exceeded, but has not even
realized the Jewish conception of the higher life, then the
claim of superiority assumed by Christianity over Juda-
ism is entirely unjustified. Whatever Christianity may
have given to others, and with all the unstinted admi-
ration and high respect we ought justly to entertain for
the ethics of Christ, it is to the Jews that it owes its
existence and moral force, and it can give them nothing
of value which they do not already possess themselves.
But this is not all. If Judaism failed in its mission,
and was therefore cast off, then, according to the Chris-
tian theory, the failure of Christianity is still more
evident, and a still heavier punishment ought to have
been meted out to it. “For unto whomsoever much
is given, of him shall be much required,” 2 and if
Christendom measured its failings by the standard of
its theoretical claims, we should hear less about the
sins of Israel of old. The Old Covenant, we are told,
was imperfect, and so was its people; then Christ, the
incarnation of God, came into the world to proclaim
the perfect New Covenant. To his disciples he said:
“Ye are the salt of the earth," and up till now they
readily claim this position; yet they have never con-
templated the contingency and the ensuing result fore-
shadowed by Jesus in the conclusion of his statement :
" but if the salt have lost its savour, wherewith shall it
1 According to Dean Milman, the system of mulieres sub-
introductæ seems to have been almost general from the middle
of the third century (History of Christianity, iii. p. 282).
2 Luke xii. 48.
THE OLD COVENANT AND THE NEW 185
be salted ? it is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be
cast out and to be trodden under foot of men."i And
in unfolding the New Covenant in opposition to the Old,
Jesus addressed to his followers this solemn admonition :
“I say unto you, that except your righteousness shall
exceed the righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees,
ye shall in no wise enter into the kingdom of heaven.” 2
We are then told that, to crown his appointed task,
Jesus died to save the world from error, sin and eternal
damnation. How far his disciples are saved from
eternal damnation in another world, we know not; but
we know that those believing in Jesus and calling upon
his name are not exempt from error, sin and evil in
this world. What then are we to think of the prospects
of the kingdom of Christ on earth and of its glories in
heaven, if, according to the infallible witness of history,
the righteousness of the sons of his kingdom has not
exceeded, nay, has even fallen short of, the righteousness
of the Scribes and Pharisees ?
1 Matt. v. 13.
2 Matt. v. 20.
CHAPTER VIII
MESSIANIC PROPHECIES
“Now all this is come to pass that it might be fulfilled which
was spoken by the Lord through the prophet.”—The Gospel
according to St. Matthew.
THE Jewish Sacred Scriptures constitute the common
meeting ground of Judaism and Christianity. Before
the compilation of the Gospels and Epistles, and their
circulation among the believers, the Old Testament
was to the primitive Christians the only revealed Word
of God and authoritative basis for the faith of the
Church. The New Testament and other writings
were then gradually added, as records of the life and
work of Jesus and of his disciples. The New Testament
did not, however, oppose the Old, but served as its
amplification, as the Gospel of Christ was considered
to be the consummation of the Law of Moses. The
figures and incidents of the history of the Jews retained
their sacred character, and the promises of Hebrew
prophets were devoutly searched for the necessary justi-
fication of Christianity, which, it was felt, they alone
could provide. Hence the elaborate attempt of the
early Christian writers to adduce from Jewish sources
the proofs of Christ's mission and of the truth of the
various events attending his life. It was in the interpre-
166
MESSIANIC PROPHECIES
187
tation of certain biblical passages that there arose funda-
mental differences between the Jews and the Christians.
The Christian views were incorporated in the New
Testament, and so obtained a fixed and sacred character,
which, as a whole, they have retained to this day. The
passages from the Old Testament cited by Matthew or
Paul to illustrate or enforce their statements and
arguments, are still utilized by the Christian for the
samé purpose. For, being founded on the inspired
writings of the apostles, these Christological passages of
the Old Testament thereby become an indissoluble part
of their teachings, and so clothed with an authority
which neither tradition nor commentators could equal.
The hermeneutics of the Sacred Scriptures in vogue
among the Jews of the time had its influence on the early
Christians. Among the former, the application of biblical
passages to all sorts of ideas and circumstances was carried
out with the greatest freedom of selection. The irrele-
vancy of such quotations was not considered as of any
consequence to the theme in question. This mode of
interpretation and quotation was, however, generally
confined to the aggadic (homiletic) part of the study of the
Scriptures, and this method has always been in vogue
among preachers, whether ancient or modern. How far
such a system is to be condemned, is a point that need not
be touched upon here, since homilies have in their very
nature a roving tendency, the evil of which is generally
not over-serious. But if such a use of Scripture is
applied to the formation of some dogma or ritual
practice, then there arises a perversion with incalculable
results to the future of religious development.
The history of the origins of Christian sects is largely
occupied with the misinterpretation of biblical texts.
188 THE SYNAGOGUE AND THE CHURCH
7
1
The tremendous edifice of the Papacy hangs on the
view taken of the declaration : “Thou art Peter,
and upon this rock will I build my Church.” If the
Romanist contention be right, what a terrible responsi-
bility rests on the Christian world repudiating the
supremacy of the Pope; but if wrong, what an abyss of
self-deception is there opened before our eyes! Yet
the whole turns on the exegesis of one single passage.
Now, these texts on which depend such great issues
are by no means clear. They are oracles foretelling
the future, frequently in shadowy, mysterious terms.
The wealth of Oriental imagery has given to the whole
a dazzling glamour, through which we are not always
able to discern the true character of the future portrayed
for us. Under such circumstances, the imagination
is left the widest scope, and ignorance still adds to the
bewilderment engendered thereby.
The mode of life prevailing among the primitive
Christians was very conducive to such a result. The
humble station and want of learning which characterized
them may be taken as a boast or as a reproach, according
to taste, but, with very few exceptions, such was their
condition. Galilee, whence they hailed at first, was
noted for the want of Jewish culture among its inhabi-
tants, who, in a country aptly termed O' 595a, the
district of the Gentiles, were in a "dim twilight of
Judaism and heathenism."i The people, aroused to a
high pitch of religious excitement by the troublous
times and Messianic hopes, were eagerly ready to wel-
come the expected deliverer and to justify by the
Sacred Scriptures any of his actions or the views they
may have formed of him. The system of types and alle-
1 Stanley, Jewish Church, ii. p. 468.
MESSIANIC PROPHECIES
189
:
VITO
gories, by which the persons and incidents of olden times
were supposed to foreshadow similar figures and events of
the future, was fruitful of the most varied combinations
and fancies. It should also be remembered that not
only the Christians, but also the Jews, have been very
fond, whether as a consolation in time of distress or as a
theological subtlety, of tracing references to the Messiah
in every conceivable manner. For instance, the declara-
tion in the blessing of Jacob: “The sceptre shall not
depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his
feet, till he come to Shiloh " (or, " until Shiloh come,”
as others translate it), “and unto it (or, ‘him ') shall
the gathering of the peoples be,” i has been given a
Messianic turn. “Shiloh ” was supposed to repre-
sent a name for the Messiah, and Christians argued
therefrom that whereas Judah, or the Jews, were to
retain their own government until the coming of Jesus,
the sceptre was to depart from them after this.
Modern critics, however, assume that “Shiloh " in
this obscure passage refers to the famous place of
pilgrimage of that name, and that what is meant in the
blessing is that as long as the Israelites should come to
Shiloh, the supremacy would be retained by the tribe of
Judah, the leading tribe of Israel. In any case, the
Christian view does not hold good, for the sceptre
departed from Judah long before the advent of Jesus.
Already at the Babylonian captivity, the whole of
Judah, with their king Zedekiah, were led into exile.
During the period of the secondTemple no members of the
house of David sat on the throne, and at the time of
Jesus the Jews could say: "We have no king but
Cæsar.” 2 Of course, after the Babylonian captivity the
1 Gen. xlix. 10.
2 John xix. 15.
KTY
190 THE SYNAGOGUE AND THE CHURCH
tribe of Judah again obtained the supremacy in Israel,
and became the ground stock of the Jewish people.
The rationalist interpretation of the text of Holy Writ,
commenced by the medieval Jewish exegetists and
brought to a high state of scientific development by
modern Protestant theologians, could have found no
place in the process which formed Christianity out
of the Bible. Dean Stanley says: “The allegorical
interpretations (of Scripture) given by the early Fathers
are virtual confessions that they have not attempted
to expound the original meaning of the sacred authors," 1
and this holds equally true of those who fashioned
Christianity before the existence of the Fathers. Indeed,
whenever any part of Christendom commenced to search
the Scriptures, not merely for the support of favourite
doctrines, but as to the real meaning of the Word of
God, then, as in the case of Protestantism, the ultimate
result was the formation of some heresy. It is, therefore,
not surprising that in the Catholic Church the plain
meaning of the biblical text has never been in favour,
and any serious attempt to obtain it has always been
looked upon with a well-founded suspicion and dread.
This is clearly brought out by Cardinal Newman, who
says: “The immediate source of that fertility in
heresy, which is the unhappiness of the ancient Syrian
Church, was its celebrated Exegetical School. The
history of that school is summed up in the broad
characteristic fact, on the one hand that it devoted
itself to the literal and critical interpretation of
Scripture, and on the other that it gave rise first to
the Arian and then to the Nestorian heresy." 2 Then
1 History of the Eastern Church, Introd., p. 71.
* The Development of Christian Doctrine, p. 285.
1
MESSIANIC PROPHECIES
191
the Cardinal, referring to Theodore of Mopsuestia, the
great leader of Nestorianism, makes the following signi-
ficant admission as to the danger and consequences of
the critical method of biblical exegesis : “ Theodore
was bent on ascertaining the literal sense, an object
with which no fault could be found : but, leading him,
of course, to the Hebrew text instead of the Septuagint,
it also led him to Jewish commentators. Jewish com-
mentators naturally suggested events and objects
short of evangelical as the fulfilment of the prophetical
announcements, and, when it was possible, an ethical
sense instead of a prophetical.” 1
This train of thought, and the objections raised here
against the Jewish influence on the Nestorian Church, are
highly interesting and instructive. Especially strange
seems at first the somewhat depreciatory reference to
Theodore's unconventional study of the original text
of the Hebrew Bible, instead of having utilized, as usual,
the corrupt Septuagint translation. But this aversion
to the original texts, whether of the Old or the
New Testament, was a well-established feature of
Christianity, and was only broken at the Reformation.
The primitive Church relied on the Greek Septuagint
version of the Hebrew Scriptures, and any errors that
had crept in owing to the ignorance of the translators
have, by a citation of any such passage by a New
Testament writer, been stamped as authoritative. It is
not sufficient to point to the Hebrew original and
show, for instance, that “A virgin shall conceive and
bear a son” 2 is not a true rendering; the fact that
the unknown Septuagint translator had mistakenly
turned ioby (a maiden or young woman) into “ virgin,"
| The Development of Christian Doctrine, p. 288. 2 Isa. vii. 14.
192 THE SYNAGOGUE AND THE CHURCH
and so perpetrated a monstrous blunder, is not con-
sidered; the fact that this declaration of the prophet
is taken by the apostle as a proof of the virgin-birth
of Jesus is sufficient for the Christian world. True,
in 1884 a number of leading English divines authori-
tatively entered in the margin of the Revised Version
of the Bible the following variation : "The maiden is
with child and beareth,” but the original Authorized
Version is still retained as the text, and to the believing
Christian the emendation is merely a matter of subsidiary
interest, not of authority or inspiration. Libraries have
been written maintaining that the rendering of " virgin"
is the true one, and though scholars now in
increasing numbers sustain the Jewish view of the
text and of its application, the Church still adopts
and defends the version of the “inspired ” New
Testament writer, who was led astray by the Septuagint
translation.
The Christian objections to the Jewish interpretation
of those passages which Christians assume to refer to
the Messiah in general, or to Jesus Christ in particular,
are varied. As Cardinal Newman mentions in the
quotation just referred to, the Jewish views of prophecy
fall short of the evangelical spirit, meaning thereby
presumably that the Jews take a more "carnal”
(or common-sense) view of the prophecies, and the
fact that, whenever possible, they adopted an ethical,
instead of an apocalyptic, standpoint in the interpreta-
tions of biblical events or visions, is considered by him
as an unfavourable factor in Jewish exegesis. The
statement of this eminent English theologian as to the
difference between the Jewish and Christian commen-
tators is fairly well founded. Not that Jews did not
MESSIANIC PROPHECIES
193
YA
indulge in eschatological and far-fetched speculations on
the divine word in the Torah. The books of Ezekiel and
Daniel and some of the Apocrypha, down to the Zohar
and the numberless Cabbalistic writings of the modern
Chassidim, show clearly enough that the Jews have not
always been looking at the Sacred Scriptures and
divine mysteries with the cold eyes of a rationalist critic.
An extensive literature bears evidence that they did not
concern themselves exclusively with earthy things,
as is so often erroneously assumed. But with all the
musings about things heavenly and divine, the Jew never
lost entirely the earth from under his feet. A mis-
understood passage could give rise to a superstition
among the vulgar or to a fanciful idea among the learned,
but, with the exception of certain ritual practices, such
errors have left no abiding impress on Judaism. So
also, though the Apocryphal part of Jewish literature
prior to the time of Jesus possesses all those various
conceptions of the New Testament which are supposed
to be peculiarly Christological, they have not proved of
the slightest influence on Jewish doctrine. Wisdom,
the Logos, the Sephiroth, all found their place in Jewish
theology, but they did not affect permanently the
purity of Jewish Monotheism. Thus also, whatever
interpretations certain passages of the Bible might
have had among Jews are not necessarily of command-
ing importance, for no speculation or view, emanating
from however prominent a source, could obtain universal
recognition, unless it preserved intact Jewish traditon
and sentiment. The attempt occasionally made to show
that the Targum, or certain Jewish commentators,
considered a particular word or passage to refer
to the Messiah has, therefore, little force, for, unlike
194 THE SYNAGOGUE Y
AND THE CHURCH
Y
similar quotations in the New Testament, they possess in
themselves no intrinsic value or binding authority.
The Jews have always felt too much love and reverence
for their Sacred Scriptures to commit any falsification,
either of text or interpretation, in order to suit their
own purposes. The Jews have at no time maintained
interpretations antagonistic to the views of the Christians
in order to spite them, any more than some Jewish
commentators had agreed with these opinions in order
to please them. Time and study have modified the
biblical exposition of the Jews as well as that of the
Christians, but it is among the latter that the changes
have been truly revolutionary.
A very large number of Christian theologians of the
present day whose opinions are not ossified by dogma or
bound by the disciplinary bonds of superior authority,
have to a greater or lesser extent given up the old
interpretation of Christological passages. As Christians,
they do indeed admit or claim that the Old Testament
prophecies received their highest fulfilment in the person
of Jesus, but they are at least equally satisfied that
the majority of, if not practically all, the passages in
question cannot be applied according to the traditional
interpretation of the Church. Many Christian scholars
are already constrained to regard this as ein überwun-
dener Standpunkt, a theological point of view of the old
school which can be understood but not shared. This
attitude is so widespread that it is almost impossible,
and indeed unnecessary, to set out here testimonies to
this remarkable, if entirely involuntary, justification
of Judaism in one of its most important issues against
Christianity. To those who are imbued with the
exegetical opinions of the critical school it seems a rather
MESSIANIC PROPHECIES
195
1
thankless task to enter on an examination of the basis
of the traditional interpretation of the so-called Christo-
logical passages of the Hebrew Scriptures. Yet this
mode of interpretation is so deeply rooted in the Christian
mind, and still enjoys there such implicit authority,
that a criticism of those passages from a Jewish stand-
point is a necessity which cannot be avoided.
But here it is not enough merely to discuss whether
such and such a prophecy referred to the Messiah, but
it is much more to the purpose to know whether this
prediction was fulfilled by Jesus. Theoretically an
oracle might be made to bear various interpretations,
and the fact that the original, biographers of Jesus
were anxious to prove that by his words and actions
he did realize the dream of the seer, lends colour to the
Christian interpretation and makes it so much more
difficult to disprove its assumption. But these bio-
graphies, which we possess in the shape of the Gospels,
afford us by their numerous discrepancies, both in them-
selves and in their relation towards one another, valuable
opportunities to test in a decisive form the true exposition
of the prophets' words and their ultimate fulfilment in
history.
It is in the prophecies applied by the evangelists to the
birth and death of Jesus that the centre of gravity of the
whole issue lies. Throughout we are struck by the
strange fact that, while it is assumed by Christians
that the evangelical interpretation of. Scripture is
distinguished by a freedom of treatment which is
particularly opposed to the narrowness by which the
Jewish views are supposed to be bound, the apostles
and other primitive Christians seemed to have been hyp-
notized by any word or phrase which appeared to suggest
196 THE SYNAGOGUE AND THE CHURCH
anything uppermost in their minds. This is, of course,
not an uncommon phenomenon in the history of exegesis,
but, having regard to the far-reaching importance of the
present instance, one is led to suppose that the famed
evangelical freedom was exhausted in the freedom of
misinterpretation.
The account of the birth and childhood of Jesus
in the first chapter of Matthew commences with his
genealogy, and is intended to show his Messiahship by
reason of his assumed Davidic descent. Whether the
genealogical tree of Jesus was preserved up till his
time may be more than doubted, and the following two
lists given by Matthew and Luke show that they were
specially manufactured to meet the requisite proof
demanded by Jewish tradition and opposition.
Matthew's List. 1
Luke's List.2
The book of the generation And Jesus himself began to
of Jesus Christ, the son of be about thirty years of age,
David, the son of Abraham. being (as was supposed) the
Abraham begat Isaac; and son of Joseph, which was the
Isaac begat Jacob; and Jacob son of Heli.
begat Judas and his brethren; Which was the son of Mat-
And Judas begat Phares that, which was the son of
and Zara of Thamar; and Levi, which was the son of
Phares begat Esrom; and Melchi, which was the son of
Esrom begat Aram ;
Janna, which was the son of
And Aram begat Aminadab; Joseph,
and Aminadab begat Naasson; Which was the son of Matta-
and Naasson begat Salmon ; thias, which was the son of
And Salmon begat Booz of Amos, which was the son of
Rachab; and Booz begat Naum, which was the son of
Obed of Ruth; and Obed begat Esli, which was the son of
Jesse ;
Nagge,
And Jesse begat David the Which was the son of Maath,
king; and David the king which was the son of Matta-
- 1 Matt. i. 1-16.
2 Luke iii. 23–38.
MESSIANIC PROPHECIES
197
begat Solomon of her that had
been the wife of Urias ;
And Solomon begat Roboam;
and Roboam begat Abia ; and
Abia begat Asa ;
And Asa begat Josaphat;
and Josaphat begat Joram;
and Joram begat Ozias ;
And Ozias begat Joatham ;
and Joatham begat Achaz;
and Achaz begat Ezekias ;
And Ezekias begat Manasses;
and Manasses begat Amon;
and Amon begat Josias;
And Josias begat Jechonias
and his brethren, about the
time they were carried away to
Babylon :
And after they were brought
to Babylon, Jechonias begat
Salathiel ; and Salathiel begat
Zorobabel;
And Zorobabel begat Abiud;
and Abiud begat Eliakim;
and Eliakim begat Azor;
And Azor begat Sadoc;
and Sadoc begat Achim; and
Achim begat Eliud ;
And Eliud begat Eleazar;
and Eleazar begat Matthan;
and Matthan begat Jacob;
And Jacob begat Joseph
the husband of Mary, of whom
was born Jesus, who is called
Christ.
thias, which was the son of
Semei, which was the son of
Joseph, which was the son of
Juda,
Which was the son of Joanna,
which was the son of Rhesa,
which was the son of Zorobabel,
which was the son of Salathiel,
which was the son of Neri,
Which was the son of Melchi,
which was the son of Addi,
which was the son of Cosam,
which was the son of Elmodam,
which was the son of Er,
Which was the son of Jose,
which was the son of Eliezer,
which was the son of Jorim,
which was the son of Matthat,
which was the son of Levi,
Which was the son of Simeon,
which was the son of Juda,
which was the son of Joseph,
which was the son of Jonan,
which was the son of Eliakim,
Which was the son of Melea,
which was the son of Menan,
which was the son of Mattatha,
which was the son of Nathan,
which was the son of David,
Which was the son of Jesse,
which was the son of Obed,
which was the son of Booz,
which was the son of Salmon,
which was the son of Naason,
Which was the son of Amina-
dab, which was the son of
Aram, which was the son of
Esrom, which was the son of
Phares, which was the son of
Juda,
Which was the son of Jacob,
which was the son of Isaac,
which was the son of Abraham,
198 THE SYNAGOGUE AND THE CHURCH
which was the son of Thara,
which was the son of Nachor,
Which was the son of Saruch,
which was the son of Ragau,
which was the son of Phalec,
which was the son of Heber,
which was the son of Sala,
Which was the son of Cainan,
which was the son of Arphaxad,
which was the son of Sem,
which was the son of Noe,
which was the son of Lamech,
Which was the son of Mathu-
sala, which was the son of
Enoch, which was the son of
Jared, which was the son of
Maleleel, which was the son of
Cainan,
Which was the son of Enos,
which was the son of Seth,
which was the son of Adam,
which was the son of God.
It is clear from this at a glance that any attempts
which may be made to reconcile the two lists by argu-
ments and hypotheses, however ingenious, must remain
futile. · The two New Testament writers were both
anxious to prove that Jesus belonged to the royal house
of David, but, without direct reference to each other,
they compiled their respective genealogical lists from
as much as seemed to them available from the Hebrew
Scriptures, and by filling in the blanks with such names
as were suggested by necessity or fancy. While Matthew
traces Jesus' descent through David's son Solomon,
Luke does so from David's other son Nathan, and the
names of Shealtiel and Zerubbabel, father and son,
emerge somehow in the middle of both registers. It
is a desperate method of reconciliation to assume with-
out any justification whatever that Matthew gave the
MESSIANIC PROPHECIES 199
genealogy of Joseph, and Luke that of Mary. Luke
distinctly mentions the name of Joseph as being
descended from Heli, and there is no reference in any
way to Mary. It is, indeed, quite useless to attempt
to collate these two lists, which are bewildering enough
taken by themselves. The artificial endeavour of
Matthew to show that there are fourteen genealogies
during the periods from Adam to David, from David
to the Babylonian captivity, and from thence to Christ,
breaks down by simple arithmetic, for the third division
contains only thirteen names. That the whole genealogy
is mixed is further shown by the fact that while the
original Jewish records 1 give the names of Ahaziah,
Joash and Amaziah between Joram and Ozias, they
were omitted for the evident reason that they inter-
fered with the magic figure of fourteen. Likewise, be-
tween Josiah and Jechoniah (verse 11) there has been
omitted the name of Jehoiakim, but this is a mistake
of the writer, who has been led astray by the apparent
similarity of the names. The same method, so far
as a check is at all possible, may be observed in
Luke, where, in verse 36 Arphaxad is put down as the
father of Cainan, who was the father of Sala. According
to the Hebrew records,2 Sala was the son of Arphaxad.
Cainan had somehow crept into the Septuagint version,
and this was utilized by the evangelical writer for his
purpose.
The assumption of Christian apologists that the
genealogical records of the family of Jesus existed in
his time, and that those in the New Testament are copies
of such registers, is entirely gratuitous. The errors,
12 Kings viii. 24; I Chron. iii. 11; 2 Chron. xxii. 1, 11.
2 Gen. x. 24; xi. 12; I Chron. 1. 24.
200 THE SYNAGOGUE AND THE CHURCH
both unconscious and intentional, contained in the two
lists are enough proof that they were patched up to
satisfy the claims of Davidic descent made by Jesus
or by others on his behalf. But, in spite of all their
evident impossibilities, they are still made to serve the
same purpose. Moreover, not only does this show
the impossibility of basing that claim on such a proof,
but, in view of the assumed virgin-birth of Jesus, the
genealogy of Joseph, who then was merely the
betrothed, or protector, of his mother, has no bearing on
the subject and becomes of no consequence what-
ever.
The supernatural birth of Jesus from a virgin is based 1
הנה העלמה הרה וילדת 2:on the following words of Isaiah
12 “Behold, the maiden is with child and beareth a
son, and shall call his name Immanuel.” The New
Testament rendering of the passage is : “ Behold, a
virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and they shall
call his name Immanuel,"3 a translation which sets at
defiance both the grammar and the sense of the original
Hebrew. The mistake is due to the ignorance of
Hebrew by the author of Matthew, who was led astray by
the Septuagint version of aby as Ý Tapő évos, which
has also been used by the evangelist. But the definite
article 17 shows that somebody was pointed to by Isaiah 4
is not עלמה and the word ,העלמה when he referred to
only never used to indicate the virginity of any female
1 Matt. i. 23.
2 vii. 14. The translation is according
to the amended marginal rendering of the Revised Version.
3 Strangely enough, this prophecy is given in connexion with
the command of an angel to call the child by the name of Jesus.
The Hebrew text says : "She shall call his name," which the
New Testament quotes as “ They shall call his name."
4 Most probably it was his own wife. Cf. Isa. viii. 3, 4, 18.
MESSIANIC PROPHECIES 201
(when the word kind would be appropriate), but is
applied indiscriminately to any young woman. Thus
Toy in Prov. XXX. 19, is not only translated “a
maid,” (as it is in Exod. ii. 8) but proves that it may
refer to those who are not virgins.
The context of the passage in Isaiah shows, however,
that the quotation of Matthew can only be due to an
egregious blunder, which can well be understood by
considering the methods of quotation then in vogue, but
which cannot be excused if still cited at the present day
to substantiate the assumed supernatural birth of
Jesus. The seventh chapter of Isaiah sets out fully the
circumstances in which the words in question were
uttered by him. Rezin, the king of Assyria, and
Pekah, the king of Israel, were warring against Ahaz,
king of Judah, who was frightened by the turn things
were taking. Isaiah then appears before him, and
counsels him to have no fear, for the Lord will destroy
his enemies. As the terrified Ahaz does not believe
this, Isaiah, in order to calm him, offers him a sign.
Referring to a woman who was then with child, Isaiah
promises Ahaz that “ before the child shall know how
to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land whose two
kings thou abhorrest shall be forsaken." In view of
this, it would be preposterous to imagine for a moment
that Isaiah endeavoured to allay the fears of Ahaz by
referring him, as an evident sign, to the miraculous
birth of Christ seven centuries after. Were it not
that the evangelist has committed himself to this mis-
interpretation in connexion with the divinity of Jesus,
it would require very much courage to commit and
defend such an exegetical abnormity.
Not only did the author of Matthew arrange the
202 THE SYNAGOGUE AND THE CHURCH
Scriptures for his special ends, but his misconception
of certain passages seems to have suggested to him
events which, though of striking importance, were
unknown to the other evangelists. We are told that,
to evade the danger threatened by Herod, Joseph and
Mary fled with the child to Egypt," that it might be
fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet,
saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son."i It would
be hard to find a more far-fetched quotation than this one.
The verse in Hosea (xi. I) runs thus : “When Israel was
a child, then I loved him, and called My son out of
Egypt.” Israel is referred to as God's son, and His
first-born son, in other parts of the Jewish Scriptures,
notably when Pharaoh is called upon by Moses to let
the children of Israel depart from Egypt. But the
application of that passage to Jesus must be considered
to be the more inappropriate, as not only is there not a
shadow of a doubt to whom it refers, but it is not even
adaptable to that peculiar method of interpretation
by which almost any word or incident can be turned
into any desired shape. The prophet Hosea, referring
to God's love of Israel, proceeds immediately to speak
of its perverse ways : “ they sacrificed unto Baalim,
and burned incense to graven images.” 3 No stretch
of the imagination could find in this an allusion to
Jesus, and Christians would surely not think it a refer-
ence worthy of application to him.
We are then told by Matthew that Herod, finding
himself disappointed by the escape of Jesus, ordered
that all the children in Bethlehem from two years and
under be killed. “Then was fulfilled that which was
CS
1 Matt. ii. 15.
2 Exod. iv. 22, 23.
8 xi. 2.
MESSIANIC PROPHECIES
203
spoken by Jeremiah the prophet, saying, In Ramah was
there a voice heard, lamentation and weeping, and
great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children, and she
would not be comforted, because they are not."i This
slaying of the children at Bethlehem, an act extraordin-
ary in its cruelty and caprice, is not mentioned by the
contemporary historians or even by any of the other
evangelists, and we are, therefore, again led to assume
that ignorance of the Scriptures led Matthew to imagine
the story. It could certainly not have been the fulfil-
ment of a prophecy, for Jeremiah spoke of the restoration
of Israel to its land, and, in response to the grief of
Rachel at the exile of the children of her people, there
comes God's promise that “they shall come again from
the land of the enemy." 2 There is here not the slightest
scope for the idea that Jeremiah prophesied thereby
the slaying of the children at Bethlehem, nor is there
any warrant for Matthew's use of the passage for his
purpose. That the stories of the flight to Egypt and
the massacre of the babies at Bethlehem were merely
invented to meet supposed prophecies is shown by the
fact that Luke relates in their stead the presentation
of the child Jesus in the Temple at Jerusalem. That
this misconstruction of Scriptural texts was not entirely
accidental, may also be seen by the Old Testament
quotation in Matthew in regard to the place of Jesus'
birth. According to the supposed requirements of the
prophets, Jesus was to have been born at Bethlehem,
but since he was known as a native of Nazareth, it was
necessary to show that the Scriptures were also instru-
mental in the selection of the latter place. For the writer
seems not to have known that the parents of Jesus were
i Matt. ii. 17, 18.
? Jer. xxxi. 15-17.
204 THE SYNAGOGUE AND THE CHURCH
likewise natives of Nazareth, and he presumed
that they only came there by an accident, so that the
Scriptures might be justified. “And he came and
dwelt in a city called Nazareth : that it might be
fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet : He shall
be called a Nazarene." 1 This prophecy, however, is
not even to be found in the Jewish Scriptures.
A criticism of the quotations cited shows the peculiar
difficulties with which Christian expositors of the Bible
have to contend. The authors of the Gospels are
considered to have been inspired, and their interpreta-
tions have, therefore, to be implicitly adopted, if not
in the letter, at least in spirit. It is a delicate position,
which the adherent to any historic faith ought well to
appreciate, but one who does not submit to the authority
of the apostles cannot shut his eyes and swallow manifest
contradictions and errors. And while it is a very easy
matter to demonstrate the misinterpretation of such
passages as have been quoted, the critic is put to an
additional disadvantage where proof has either to be
sought by negative internal evidence or where a check
is not at all available. As we have seen, the New
Testament writer, whenever he appealed to the Hebrew
Scriptures to corroborate his view of the event narrated
by him, would take care to bring both sides in accord,
so that it is sometimes impossible to say whether an
incident suggested the quotation or the quotation sug-
gested the incident. To complicate matters, Christian
theologians are content to say that if certain cited
passages are not appropriate in form, they are so in
substance, whilst any word or phrase which gives some
apparent sanction to Christian theories is clung to
1 Cf. ii. 19-23.
MESSIANIC PROPHECIES
205
1
according to its literal or misunderstood translation
with a tenacity which defies all sense or reasoning.
An example of the latter category of texts is the follow-
ing from Micah (v. I), by which Matthew (ii. 6) refers
to Bethlehem as the birthplace of the Messiah, and the
birth of Jesus there as proof of his Messiahship: “But
thou, Beth-lehem Ephrathah, though thou be little
among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall
come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel.” This
prediction is not truly Messianic, for it deals with events
of the time ; and the promise that there would arise
one who would lead back the Jewish captives to their own
land was fulfilled by Zerubbabel. But faith gave
it a wider scope, and the wealth of Micah's language
helped to place the prediction among those which
still awaited their fulfilment. Nevertheless, Matthew's
deduction therefrom that the Messiah was to be born
in Bethlehem is a mistaken one, and no other Old
Testament writer bears out this view. The prophet
merely referred to a scion of the house of David, 1 and
contrasted the greatness of his fame with the insignifi-
cance of the place from which the family traced its
descent. Nor does the concluding part of the verse :
“Whose goings forth have been from of old, from ever-
lasting," lend colour to the assumption that it proves
the eternal existence of the Messiah. The phrases
Oopo and on 99"from of old “and "from everlast-
ing”-are not mystical or obscure enough to allow any
such extraordinary interpretation. Op ," from
the days of old,” is used by the same prophet in refer-
ence to the covenant made by God with the patriarchs.
1 “The son of that Ephrathite of Beth-lehem in Judah, whose
name was Jesse” (1 Sam. xvii. 12).
206 THE SYNAGOGUE AND THE CHURCH
Isaiah speaks of Tyre as a city "whose antiquity is of
ancient days.” 1
The New Testament itself bears out that it is the
Christological interpretation of that passage which is
more or less responsible for the story of the birth of Jesus
at Bethlehem. Matthew and Luke have, indeed, given
circumstantial details of his birth at Bethlehem, but
these are entirely at variance with each other; Matthew
considered that Bethlehem was the original home of
Joseph and Mary, and that it was only by a providential
turn that they settled “in a city called Nazareth,” 2
while Luke assumed, on the other hand, that their stay
at Bethlehem was merely an incident due to a special
event, and that in the end “they returned into Galilee,
to their own city Nazareth.” 3 Neither Mark nor
John seems to have known anything of the legends
connected with Bethlehem.4
Apart from the stories of the nativity, so full of glaring
contradictions, of the mythological magi and their
pursuit of a star which performed the impossible feat
of shining exactly over the spot where the child was
born, of the numerous legends, each of which more than
strains our credulity, Bethlehem is never mentioned
afterwards in the New Testament as the birth-place
of Jesus, nor did he ever maintain any relations with
that town. When there was raised the taunt: "Can
1 Isa. xxiii. 7. 2 Cf. ii. I, 19–23.
3 ii. 39.
4 The census which is stated to have led the parents of Jesus
to Bethlehem took place ten years later than that in which he
was born, viz., after the deposition of Archelaus. Cf. Josephus,
Antiquities, xvii. 13, 5; xviii. I, I; xviii. 2, I. Besides, it is
not likely that the Roman authorities would have required that
Joseph and Mary, who were only betrothed, should have to go
to Bethlehem for the purpose of taxation, merely because some
MESSIANIC PROPHECIES
207
there any good thing come out of Nazareth ?”i or
“What, shall the Christ come out of Galilee ? " 2 the
Bethlehemite descent of Jesus was not brought up by
his friends as a convincing reply. Among them he
was known as Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph, 3 and
the Ebionites and other Jewish adherents of Christianity,
who had been in personal touch with Jesus, denied the
royal origin and the authenticity of the genealogies
ascribed to him.
The inauguration of the public work of Jesus is thus
introduced by Matthew 5: “And leaving Nazareth
he came and dwelt in Capernaum, which is by the sea,
in the borders of Zebulun and Naphtali : that it might
be fulfilled which was spoken by Isaiah the prophet, say-
ing: The land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali,
toward the sea, beyond Jordan, Galilee of the Gentiles,
the people which sat in darkness saw a great light, and
to them that sat in the region of the shadow of death, to
them did light spring up." Here the evangelist has un-
doubtedly made effective use of the eloquent declaration
of Isaiah, but it can nevertheless not be admitted that
it refers to the advent of Jesus. The quotation com-
mences thus : “When at first he lightly afflicted the land
of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali, and afterwards
did more grievously afflict her by the way of the sea,
beyond Jordan, in Galilee of the Gentiles, etc.” The
prophet refers here to the providential destruction of
the mighty host of Sennacherib by the angel of the
Lord, and announces a period of great blessing and joy
for the nation. “For the yoke of his burden and the
3 Ibid., i. 45.
1 John i. 46. 2 Ibid., vii. 41.
4 Renan, Vie de Jésus, ch. XV.
5 iv. 13-16.
Isa. ix.
208 THE SYNAGOGUE AND THE CHURCH
staff of his shoulder, the rod of his oppressor, Thou
hast broken as in the day of Midian.1 For all the armour
of the armed man in the tumult, and the garments rolled
in blood shall even be for burning, for fuel of fire.”.
Certainly this graphic description of the utter con-
fusion and rout of Sennacherib's army cannot be mis-
taken, nor is it possible in any legitimate way to refer it
to the days of the Messiah. Isaiah continues to point
out another existing factor in this state of affairs and as
a happy token for the future. This was the son of King
Ahaz, Hezekiah, whose reign ushered in a new era,
distinguished by a remarkable religious revival, as well
as by the peace and prosperity of the people. “For
unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given ; and
the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his
name shall be called wonderful counsellor, mighty God,
father of eternity, prince of peace. Of the increase of
his government and of peace there shall be no end,
upon the throne of David and upon his kingdom to
establish it and to uphold it with judgment and with
righteousness from henceforth even for ever.” But
the overwhelming magnificence of diction and the
exuberant Oriental imagery of Isaiah has provided
here a fruitful opportunity for those who maintain
that the Hebrew prophet believed and proclaimed the
divinity of the Messiah. Neither context nor the
licence of prophetic style is allowed to hold good, but
the literal interpretation of words is insisted upon.
Fortunately, Jesus himself, in his claim of being the son
of God, pointed out ? that the term "god" is sometimes
1 The destruction of Sennacherib's army is compared to the
memorable defeat of the Midianites by Gideon.
2 John x. 34 ffg.
MESSIANIC PROPHECIES
209
1
(
also applied in the Scriptures to mere men, and he
quoted the eighty-second Psalm, where God "judgeth
among the gods." The psalmist does not scruple to
apostrophize the heads and rulers of the nation in the
following words : " I said, ye are gods and all of you
sons of the Most High, nevertheless ye shall die like
men." On the authority of Jesus himself, we know
that these “gods” were not only "like" men, but
were in reality mere men; otherwise, if we are to accept
the plain meaning of words, we must assume that the
author of that psalm was undoubtedly a polytheist. If,
however, in spite of this, we form no such conception,
we have to permit the same rule to hold good also in
the case of Isaiah, for in both instances the genius of
Judaism, the innumerably repeated and unmistakable
declarations of the absolute unity of the Deity do not allow
the faintest shade of an idea which makes it possible for
any one to take the form of the Eternal or to share the
attributes of His divinity. There is no text or doctrine
which can in any way be put in the balance against the
declaration of the prophet to Israel : “Ye are My wit-
nesses, saith the Lord, and My servant whom I have
chosen : that ye may know and believe Me and under-
stand that I am He; before Me there was no God formed,
neither shall there be after Me. I, even I, am the Lord ;
and beside Me there is no Saviour.” 1
In the face of this, it is surely not worth consideration
whether the verse :“In the beginning God created heaven
and earth," because the word 09738 (God) is in the
plural, proves the existence of a Triune Godhead, since
this plural of 1728 is used always, with hardly an excep-
1 Isa. xliii. 10, 11. 2 Gen.i. 1,87), "created,"is in the singular.
210 THE SYNAGOGUE AND THE CHURCH
tion, even when it refers to men. Of the same value
is the Trinitarian exposition of the passage : “And God
said, Let us make man in our image, after our
likeness," 2 especially as following this it is said : "And
God created man in His own image." But while such
theological jugglery has now become obsolete for all
practical purposes, there are several texts which, coming
with the authority of the evangelists, are still tenaciously
held to as bearing a Christologically Trinitarian inter-
pretation. The second psalm has offered a particularly
grateful field, since it speaks both of a "son," and an
“anointed.” The word "son" in the Jewish Scriptures
seems, indeed, to have had a fatal fascination for the
primitive Christians, anxious to prove Jesus as the Son
of God. The author of Hebrews, in quoting the verse :
“Thou art My son, this day have I begotten thee,”
follows immediately for the same purpose with the
passage : "I will be to him a Father, and he shall be
to Me a son.”'3 It is the straining after the word “son”
which led to the translation of 72 pw, in Psalm ii. 12 as
“kiss the son.” 72, as the Chaldaic term for “son,"
can have no justification in this purely Hebrew com-
position, and the Revised Version, while faithfully
retaining the traditional Christian rendering, adds as
a marginal note: “Some ancient versions render,
Lay hold of (or, receive) instruction ; others, Worship
in purity.” It is the latter which is the more acceptable
version. The passage about father and son, just
quoted, invites no argument, for, in the prosaic narratives
C
.
1 Exod. xxi. 6, where it is rendered “judges.” This is another
i nstance where the word “God” in Hebrew bears, an altogether
different sense. Cf. also Exod. xxii. 7, 8.
? Gen. i. 26.
3 Heb. i. 5:
. MESSIANIC PROPHECIES
211
in which it occurs, it refers, without any ambiguity, to
Solomon, and consists of the promise of the Lord to him :
“I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to Me a son."
This affords another proof of the reckless carelessness
with which biblical texts were pressed into service by
the New Testament writers, and of the total lack of
authority that must consequently attend on their
method of quotation. Once this fact is recognized, it
becomes superfluous to make any laborious attempt at
disproving them. The second Psalm, in spite of its
poetical style and Messianic tinge, was composed in
honour of David, the conquering king of Israel. He
was the anointed of the Lord, 1 and like his son Solomon,
or any other pious Israelite, he was termed a son of God.
The phrase “ this day have I begotten thee,” is purely
rhetorical and cannot be taken in any literal sense, as
God, from the monotheistic point of view, cannot be
expected to "beget," nor would this take place on
“this day.” 2 The poem is a fitting glorification of the
warrior and psalmist, whose prowess and piety were
invested with so much glamour and glory.
The lioth Psalm also celebrates the triumph of a
victorious king. In the second Psalm he is apostrophized
in the following manner: “Thou shalt break them
with a rod of iron; thou shalt dash them in pieces like
a potter's vessel," and in the Iroth it is said of him that
“He hath filled the places with dead bodies ; he hath
stricken through the head over a wide land." While
both these Psalms are graphic and virile descriptions
1" Then Samuel took the horn of oil, and anointed him in
the midst of his brethren, and the Spirit of the Lord came
mightily upon David from that day forward ” (1 Sam. xvi. 13).
2 Cf. Deut. xxxii. 18.
212 THE SYNAGOGUE AND THE CHURCH
of an earthly monarch, who, after terrible slaughter
and relentless pursuit, crushes the foe under his iron
heel, they certainly do not represent the picture of
Jesus as painted by the evangelists, of the Prince of
Peace, whose kingdom is not of this world. But just
as in the secondPsalm the term "son of God” exercised
an irresistible fascination, so the introductory passage of
the lioth Psalm has been adopted as a proof of the
divinity of Christ. It runs thus : “The Lord saith unto
my lord : Sit thou at My right hand until I make thine
enemies thy footstool.” The error follows from a want
which ,נאם ה' לאדני of understanding of the original
should be translated : “The word of YHWH (God) to my
lord.” 7778, Lord, can be used, as in English, both in
referring to the Almighty and as å mere title, and is also
the equivalent of the German "Herr” or the French
“Seigneur." In the Psalm,“ The word of YHWH to my
lord,” is an expression used by a courtly minstrel to
introduce the celebration by him of the valorous deeds
of his royal master. “Sit thou at my right hand,” is
naturally only meant in the figurative sense of being high
in the favour of the Eternal, since there can be no
question of the right or left hand of God, or of any one
sitting at His side. The concluding part of the verse,
“until I make thine enemies thy footstool," as well
as the martial tenor of the whole Psalm, show the utter
inappropriateness of applying it to Christ.
Like the divinity of Jesus, so the Christian doctrine
of salvation through the merit of his passion and death,
is based on prophecies in the Hebrew Scriptures. It
is particularly the fifty-third chapter of Isaiah, in which
i Certainly, 378 in the singular, as is used in the quotation
in question, can only be an earthly title.
MESSIANIC PROPHECIES
213
the tragic end of Jesus seemed to be mirrored, and in
which the features of his humiliation and subsequent
glory appeared to be faithfully predicted.
There the great Jewish prophet had sketched out
with an infinite pathos the striking picture of a "servant
of the Lord,” who, misconceived and misrepresented,
suffered for the good of mankind, but, truth conquering
in the end, the noble part played by him in the achieve-
ment is at last recognized. Who was this “servant
of the Lord” ?
We are fortunately not left to our own devices, for,
although the name of the “servant of the Lord” is not
mentioned in the fifty-third chapter of Isaiah, the
preceding and following chapters leave no doubt what-
ever on the point. The Lord is constantly made to
address Himself to " Israel, My servant, Jacob, whom
I have chosen, the seed of Abraham, My friend. Thou
whom I have taken from the ends of the earth, and called
thee from the corners thereof and said unto thee,
Thou art my servant."1 There can, therefore, be no
question but that in the eyes of the prophet it is the
Jewish people which has been selected as “ the servant
of the Lord.” To the old appeal to Israel is now added
the declaration, “And My servant whom I have
chosen ”; there is the repeated refrain, “O Jacob, My
servant, and Israel whom I have chosen”; or, “O Jacob,
My servant, and thou Jeshurun, whom I have chosen ”;
or," Jacob and Israel, thou art My servant”; or, simply
“my servant." 2 It might sometimes appear as if the
prophet had in his mind one particular man, and it
has been suggested with some show of reason that the
fifty-third chapter of Isaiah refers to Jeremiah. As
1 Isa. xli. 8, 9. 2 Cf. ibid., xliii. 10; xliv. 1, 2, 21.
C
214 THE SYNAGOGUE AND THE CHURCH
a homiletical quotation, it could, of course, be applied
also to Jesus of Nazareth or some other great martyr,
whose sufferings have served the salvation of mankind.
But the prophet's words bear no such construction,
and, at most, we can assume that he spoke not of the
people at large, but of the faithful remnant of Israel,
which is conscious of the mission entrusted to it by
God. In the vision, this mission and the glory of
Israel are depicted in glowing language, but, even reduced
to reality, who can contemplate the moving history of
the Jews, their martyrdom and their triumphs, without
feeling that here is a people, which, alone of all the
nations of the earth, suffered for righteousness' sake ? 1
It is this idea which underlies the fifty-third chapter of
Isaiah. Though the Churches have not yet publicly con-
fessed it, is it not all the same a fact that through the
constancy of the Jews their Sacred Scriptures were pre-
served for the benefit of posterity, and that, in spite of all
their failings, from which Christians themselves have
not been exempt, it was the despised and misunder-
stood Jews who have been the vessels in which salvation
has been brought to the world ? Is it quite realized
that Christianity itself owes its existence entirely to
those Jews who took upon themselves the Messianic faith
because they believed it to be the fulfilment of Jewish
hopes ? Were not these true pillars of Christianity
fervent Jews, and did not even Paul, “the ugly, little
Jew," as Renan called him, have an unaltered conviction
in the greatness of his people ? If we could imagine
ideal Justice speaking out aloud, should not the Gentiles
1 This idea is more fully set out in chap. ii. p. 48 ffg.
2 The extant descriptions of Paul's personal appearance
show that he also had "no form nor comeliness.”
MESSIANIC PROPHECIES
215
who found salvation in Christianity confess their former
error in the words of Isaiah ? Do not at the present time
even Protestant detractors of the Jews proclaim the
priceless indebtedness of the world to “the ancient
people of God”? Did not Voltaire, as do so many of
his followers to-day, rail at the Jews for being the
originators of Christianity and, therefore, the source
of all evil, and yet what nations have struggled and
achieved so much for the cause of liberty of mind and of
conscience as the despised Jews ?
The Christian dogmatist who is usually wont to refer
contemptuously to the “ Judaic narrowness” of the
Jewish interpretation of Scripture, maintains that the
precise meaning of the utterances of Isaiah, conveying
the notion of a vicarious atonement, cannot be properly
applied to the people of Israel. But leaving out for
the present the consideration whether or not the words of
the prophet constitute the proof that the death of
Christ was an atonement for the sins of the world, it
must be pointed out that other passages in the same
connexion cannot be fittingly applied to Jesus.1 It
must again be emphatically repeated that the prophet's
reference to “the servant of the Lord " directly applies
to Israel, and that, as has already been shown, there
can be no ambiguity on the point. It is a purely
arbitrary selection to allocate identical declarations to
the Jews or to Jesus, as may be considered desirable by
preconceived dogmatic views. Yet these are the
straits to which Christian theologians are reduced. For
1 I may perhaps be excused if I do not go into a minute
examination of the text, tending to show that the prophecy
was not actually fulfilled by Jesus. Such a puerile criticism
proves little one way or another.
216 THE SYNAGOGUE AND THE CHURCH
if “ the servant of the Lord " be the man-God Jesus,
who atoned by his death for the sins of all mankind, how
then could the prophet have addressed to God Himself,
who came to save the world, this strange remonstrance :
“Hear, ye deaf; and look, ye blind, that ye may
see. Who is blind but my servant ? or deaf. as my
messenger that I send ? Who is blind as he that is
made perfect, and blind as the Lord's servant ? Thou
seest many things, but thou observest not; his ears are
open, but he heareth not.”1 But this incongruity
is at once removed if it is recognized, what the prophet
himself states over and over again, that he refers to
Israel, with his failings and his virtues, as the humble
and humiliated martyr, spurned by the world, yet
being a source of blessing to the human race. The
traditional conception of the selection of the descendants
of Abraham for a high purpose of universal import is
expressed by the seer in language of an unusually lofty
style, and in his grand vision the Jews become a light
to the Gentiles, and in his ecstasy he exclaims in the
name of God: “Thou art my servant, O Israel, in whom
I will be glorified.” 2
Besides the Christological prophecies, there are a
number of others which have been pressed into service
by the evangelists for the support of certain of their views.
Jeremiah,3 for instance, refers to the ineffective results
of the covenant made by God with the people of Israel
when they went out of Egypt, and predicts that the
covenant of the future would be written in their hearts,
so that He “will be their God and they shall be My
people.” In this connexion, Christian theologians have
1 Isa. xlii. 18-20.
3 Isa. xlix. 3.
3 xxxi. 31 ffg.
MESSIANIC PROPHECIES
217
also endeavoured to prove that the repeated injunctions
of the prophets to observe the commands of the Torah
“for ever" do not exclude its abolition in the course of
time, as “ for ever” is sometimes only an expression
denoting an age. It is of no consequence to the present
issue whether or not a new covenant may have been
desirable or even intended; we are only concerned to
know whether the words of Jeremiah are a sufficient
basis for a change of so fundamental a character as is
involved in the supersession of the covenant made by
God with the people of Israel, and of the Torah of Moses,
which the Lord commanded them faithfully to observe
unto the end of all time. The rhetorical style of Jeremiah
does not permit us to take his utterances about the
“new” covenant literally, for it is no more than a
striking emphasis of his constant demand for a religion
of the heart, as opposed to a merely external ritual.1
And, apart from the incongruity of Christian dogmatism,
which demands on the one hand that the casual expres-
sion" a new covenant "must be taken literally, while, on
the other hand, the repeated declarations of the eternal
duration of the Torah of Moses were not to be under-
stood in their full significance, Jeremiah himself furnishes
us with the means of gauging his meaning. In the name
1 That Judaism and religion of the heart are identical is
shown by the following declaration of the “ legalistic ” prophet
Ezekiel to Israel : " A new heart also will I give you, and a new
spirit will I put within you : and I will take away the stony
heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh. And
I will put My spirit within you and cause you to walk in My
statutes, and ye shall keep My judgments and do thein” (chap.
Xxxvi. 26, 27). It should be noted that the promised new spirit
was not to abrogate, but strengthen the force of, the Law, which
also commanded to circumcise the foreskin of the heart. (Cf.
Deut. X. 16.)
2 Jer. vii. 22, 23.
218 THE SYNAGOGUE AND THE CHURCH
of the Lord, he solemnly tells the Israelites that they
had not been commanded to offer sacrifices to Him,
but what was wanted was that they should do the Will
of God. The Christian, who believes that the sacrifices
were truly a part of that divine dispensation which
culminated in the great sacrifice of Jesus, can surely
not admit the categorical statement of the prophet, unless
he adopts the view (which must, of course, also extend
to the expression “a new covenant') that Jeremiah,
aglow with a feeling of indignation at the superficiality
of the current faith, condemned without hesitation
or reservation the popular ideas and practices, which
were a bar to the dissemination of true religion.
Nor, on examination, does the Christian interpretation
of the passage in question hold good in the slightest
degree. Jeremiah addresses “the house of Israel and
the house of Judah ” who were brought out of Egypt
(clearly, the descendants of Abraham according to the
flesh) and he promises that the new covenant would
not fail, but be perfect in its results : “ I will be their God
and they shall be My people ” and “they shall all know
Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them,
saith the Lord," "for I will forgive their iniquity and
their sin will I remember no more." Taken from the
Christian view of events, this prophecy has not been
fulfilled. It was the Jews who were intended to pro-
fit by the new covenant, but it has brought them no
spiritual happiness of any kind. If it be contended that
it was the Jews who deprived themselves of the blessings
of the new covenant, where remains the value of prophecy,
which, we must assume, predicts that which will actually
happen ? Else the exact opposite can always be ex-
plained on account of attendant circumstances, over
MESSIANIC PROPHECIES
219
which, so to speak, Divine Providence has no control.
Further, apart from other reasons, Christianity cannot
claim to have superseded Judaism, for the new covenant
of Christ has not by any means shown that perfect
result which the prophet anticipated as a contrast to
the imperfect obedience rendered to the covenant of
old.1
Moreover, the announcement as to the “new cove-
nant” is most significantly followed by a declaration
as to the eternal election of Israel as a nation of the
Lord. Referring to the manifestations of nature, the
prophet says: “If these ordinances depart from Me,
saith the Lord, then the seed of Israel also shall cease
from being a nation before me for ever. Thus saith
the Lord: If heaven above can be measured and the
foundations of the earth searched out beneath,
then will I also cast off all the seed of Israel for
all that they have done, saith the Lord.” 2
There are various Old Testament passages quoted
by Christian authorities which deserve only to be
slightly touched upon. For instance, the warning of God
to Adam that “on the day” on which he eats of the
Tree of Knowledge he will surely die, or that the seed of
Eve would bruise the Serpent's head, 4 are referred to
1 And it may not be out of place here to point out that the
announcement of the "new" covenant in the thirty-first chap-
ter of Jeremiah, on which Christians lay so much stress, is
immediately preceded by the following declaration, which dis-
poses effectively of the Christian conception of atonement :
" In those days they shall say no more, the fathers have eaten
sour grapes, and the children's teeth are set on edge. But
every one shall die for his own iniquity : every man that eateth
the sour grapes, his teeth shall be set on edge." (Cf. xxxi. 29, 30.)
2 Jer. xxxi. 35-37. 3 Gen. ii. 17. 4 Ibid., iii. 15.
220 THE SYNAGOGUE AND THE CHURCH
as evidences of the sentence of death pronounced on all
the descendants of Adam, and that Jesus had crushed
Satan, who was personified in the serpent. It can only
be said here that while Adam did not die “on that day,"
death is the natural end of man, and Satan's power
still extends even over the believers in Christ, who
might reasonably be expected to be immune from the
influences of the tempter. A remarkable piece of
exegetical jugglery is furnished by the argument in
Galatians iii. 16, that the promises were made to
Abraham: “He saith not, and to seeds, as of many ;
but as of one, and to thy seed, which is Christ."
Of course, the Hebrew uses the word "seed”
in the sense of descendants : “And thy seed I will
make as the dust of the earth."1 Likewise Paul
quotes in support of his theory of the ultimate conver-
sion of the Jews the following: “And so all Israel shall
be saved: even as it is written, There shall come out
of Zion the deliverer and shall turn away ungodliness
from Jacob" ;? whereas the original passage runs thus :
“A redeemer shall come to Zion and unto them that
turn from transgression in Jacob,” 3 and while Paul
adds : "and this is my covenant unto them when I
shall take away their sins," 4 the quotation should
conclude instead with the promise that the words of the
Lord through the prophet shall not depart from Israel
for ever. In both cases the sense of the prophecy has
been entirely changed to suit Paul's argument in favour
of his views, and we may here fairly accuse him of a
deliberate misrendering of the text. The prediction
of Moses that God would send a prophet “like unto
1 Gen. xiii. 16.
* Isa. lix, 20.
2 Rom. xi. 26.
4 Rom. xi. 27.
MESSIANIC PROPHECIES
221
me” (or," as he raised up me ")1 has been taken to mean
that Jesus was a prophet equal in authority to Moses,
and that, therefore, as Moses had given the Torah,
Jesus was justified in abolishing it. If this reasoning
thus not only claimed to be “like” Moses, who only
received the Law, but is considered to be greater in every
respect. The passage really means nothing more than
that other prophets would arise in Israel after Moses.
The declaration of Haggai 2 that "the glory of the
latter house shall be greater than that of the former"
is assumed to mean that the second Temple would be
distinguished above the first by having been visited by
Jesus. The “ latter house” refers to the Temple to
be erected in Messianic times, and to point the differ-
ence that would exist between that and the second
Temple, which was often filled with strife and then
destroyed, it is here said: “And in this place will I
give peace.”
The Gospel according to John tells us that while the
side of Jesus was pierced by a spear, the soldiers did
not break his legs, as they did in the case of those
crucified together with Jesus, so that the Scripture
And again another Scripture saith, They shall look on
him whom they have pierced.” 4 The desire to see
Scripture fulfilled has led the evangelist to make a
far-fetched reference to the observance in connexion
with the eating of the Paschal lamb, and it seems as if
the fatal mention of an “only son" in a passage in
Zechariah has led to the citation in this connexion.
1 Deut. xviii. 15; Acts iii. 22. Cf. marginal note of the R.V.
3 Exod. xii. 46. 4 John xix. 31-37.
2 ii. 9.
222 THE SYNAGOGUE AND THE CHURCH
The context shows that the prediction could not refer
to Jesus, nor could it be applied to the hoped-for con-
fession by the Jews of the wrong they had done him.
To make this clear, it is sufficient to quote the following
introduction to the prophecy: “And it shall come to
pass in that day that I will seek to destroy all the nations
that come up against Jerusalem. And I will pour upon
the house of David and upon the inhabitants of Jeru-
salem the spirit of grace and supplication, and they
shall look unto me whom they have pierced, etc."I The
partition of the garments of Jesus among the Roman
soldiers and the casting of lots by them for his coat, is
said to have taken place " that the Scripture might be
fulfilled, which saith, They parted my raiment among
them, and for my vesture they did cast lots.” 2 The
whole significance of the incident and of the use of the
Hebrew Scriptures by the evangelists is laid bare by the
pregnant sentence which immediately follows the above
passage: “These things therefore the soldiers did.” 3
This is a good illustration of the state of mind of the
early Christians in approaching the Old Testament,
and the purpose and value of their biblical quotations.
A similar roundabout story is that relating to the
ultimate destination of the thirty pieces of silver which
Judas received for his betrayal. The New Testament 4
refers us by mistake to Jeremiah for a passage which
is to be found in Zechariah xi. 13. The reference to
the thirty pieces of silver for which the Jewish " chief
1 Zech. xii. 10. It should be observed that the New Testa-
ment quotation has it : “And they shall look unto him, etc.,'
which conveniently transforms the pronoun from the first to
the third person, changing thereby entirely the sense as given
by the Massoretic text.
2 Ps, xxii, 18, 3 John xix., 23, 24, 4 Matt. xxvii. 9, 10.
MESSIANIC PROPHECIES 223
DON
priests " bought the potter's field has in Zechariah
not the remotest connexion with any such event as the
New Testament relates, and is only another attempt
at“ fulfilling” the Scriptures. In Acts (i. 18) we are told
that Judas bought the field himself and was killed
there by an accident; according to Matthew, it was
the High Priest who bought the field and Judas hanged
himself in remorse, while Zechariah says that the
money was cast into “the mint (or treasury) of the
house of the Lord.”
Sometimes a fanciful method of interpretation will
be used to bolster up a preconceived idea, as the words :
“Thou wilt not suffer thine holy one to see corruption,"1
are brought up in support of the theory of the resurrec-
tion of Jesus, whereas the psalmist actually refers to
himself only. But sometimes a citation is deliberately
changed to suit the circumstances in view. Thus, as
an additional proof of the resurrection, the passage :
“Thou hast received gifts for men ” is turned into :
“He gave gifts unto men."2 Or, there is assumed
to be the fulfilment of a prediction which is nowhere
to be found, as is the case with the following declaration
ascribed to Jesus: “He that believeth on me, as the
Scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers
of living water." 3
This straining after effect, coupled with ignorance
of the Hebrew idiom and mode of thought, has produced
strange errors, as, for instance, in the triumphal entry
of Jesus into Jerusalem," riding upon an ass and upon
the foal of an ass.” 4 It would seem that, in this case,
Ps. xvi. 10; Acts xiii. 35.
? Ps. lxviii. 18; Eph. iv. &,
3 John vii. 38.
4 Zech. ix. 9; Matt. xxi. 5.
224 THE SYNAGOGUE AND THE CHURCH
Jesus, or the enthusiasts who accompanied him, tried
to shape his acts according to the Scriptures. We are,
therefore, told that, before entering Jerusalem, Jesus
sent two of his disciples,“ saying unto them, Go into
the village over against you, and straightway ye shall
find an ass tied, and a colt with her : loose them and
bring them unto me. And if any man say ought into
you, ye shall say, The Lord hath need of them; and
straightway he will send them. All this was done that
it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet,
saying, Tell ye the daughter of Zion, Behold, thy king
cometh unto thee, meek, and riding upon an ass, and
a colt the foal of an ass. And the disciples went and
did even as Jesus appointed them, and brought the ass,
and the colt, and put on them their garments, and he
sat thereon (or, upon them, érávw aŭtôv).” The
fact that Jesus and his disciples went out of their way
to procure“ an ass and a colt the foal of an ass,” and
that Jesus was placed on the two animals at the same
time, to fulfil a Scriptural passage which merely expresses
a redundancy of form common in Hebrew, is sufficient
evidence that the quotations from the Old Testament
were not spontaneous manifestations of divine inspira-
tion, but artificial and cumbrous devices of controver-
sialists, hard driven to find a justification for their claims
and arguments, and, therefore, not only entirely devoid
of any authority, but subject to the legitimate suspicion
which such a method engenders. The endeavours in
certain instances to take every possible advantage of
most irrelevant texts and to shape the narration of events
accordingly, are sufficient to condemn the course adopted
by the New Testament writers, and to cause all their
quotations to be submitted to a critical scrutiny. Here, if
MESSIANIC PROPHECIES
225
anywhere, it may be said : falsus in uno, falsus in
omnibus.
The views which a discerning Christian believer must
take of this aspect of the evidences of Christianity is best
shown by the following unconscious admission of Car-
dinal Newman, speaking as a Christian to Christians :
“We readily submit our reason on competent autho-
rity, and accept certain events as an accomplishment
of predictions which seem very far removed from them;
as in the passage ' Out of Egypt have I called My Son.'
Nor do we find a difficulty when St. Paul appeals to a
text of the Old Testament, which stands otherwise
in our Hebrew copies; as the words 'A body hast thou
prepared Me.' We receive such difficulties on faith,
and leave them to take care of themselves. Much
less do we consider mere fulness in the interpretation,
or definiteness, or again strangeness, as a sufficient
reason for depriving the text, or the action to which
it is applied, of the advantage of such interpretation.
We make it no objection that the words themselves
come short of it, or that the sacred writer did not con-
template it, or that a previous fulfilment satisfies it.
A reader who came to the inspired text by himself, beyond
the influence of that traditional acceptation which
happily encompasses it, would be surprised to be told
that the prophet's words, 'A virgin shall conceive
etc,' or 'Let all the angels of God worship him,' refer
to our Lord; but assuming the intimate connexion
between Judaism and Christianity, and the inspiration of
the New Testament, we do not scruple to believe it." 1
It is, however, not alone this modern Father of the
Church who confesses that it is only faith which could
1 The Development of Christian Doctrine, p. 103.
226 THE SYNAGOGUE R
AND THE CHURCH
make him see in certain prophecies a reference to Christ.
The apostles themselves, for instance, did not under-
stand the significance of the death and atonement of
Jesus which we are to suppose is clearly foretold in the
fifty-third chapter of Isaiah, until the force of events
obliged them to seek for an explanation of the unex-
pected and ignominious crucifixion of their Messiah.
Hence there was evolved the idea that the
sufferings of the Messiah were already foreseen by the
prophets of old, but the stupefaction of the disciples at
the tragic end of Jesus is evidence that this was a mere
afterthought. Although Jesus repeatedly told them
of his coming sufferings and death, they never antici-
pated them, and were stunned when the blow came.
There could, for instance, not have been a more explicit
warning than the one contained in the following narra-
tive: “And he took unto him the twelve, and said
unto them, Behold we go up to Jerusalem, and all the
things that are written by the prophets shall be accom-
plished unto the son of man. For he shall be delivered
up unto the Gentiles, and shall be mocked and shamefully
entreated and spit upon: and they shall scourge and
kill him, and the third day he shall rise again. And
they understood none of these things ; and this saying
was hid from them, and they perceived not che things
that were said."i Yet, though even his resurrection
was unmistakably announced by Jesus (if we are to
accept the testimony of the Gospels) we are told in all
the descriptions of that event that the apostles did
not know of it, and, in fact, they could not believe, or
even grasp, what they thought was mere “idle talk.” 2
We are told: “For as yet they knew not the Scripture,
. . 1 Luke xviii. 31–34.
2 Ibid., xxiv. II.
MESSIANIC PROPHECIES
227
that he must rise again from the dead." 1 It is only
necessary to reflect for a moment in order to appreciate
the significance of this predicament, in which even the
immediate disciples of Jesus who had been in daily
contact with him, and to whom he had revealed his
innermost thoughts, found themselves when judging
Jesus according to the Scriptures.2 Who dare, therefore,
speak about the "carnal” minds of the Jews when
the apostles also expected the restoration of the earthly
throne of David and imagined themselves sitting on
thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel ? Are the
Christians of later times more "spiritual” than the
apostles because events proved that Jesus neither founded
an earthly kingdom, as the Jews expected of their
Messiah, nor came back to reign over the world as he
promised, and as became the firm hope of his disciples ?
If they who knew the mind of their master, went wrong
in their judgment and expectations, who can condemn
those who have not been so favoured ?
The Jewish view of Christological passages practically
coincides with the scientific interpretation of them
by the most distinguished non-Jewish biblical scholars
of the present day. Here, as in so many other aspects
of the long controversy between Judaism and Christianity,
the growing independence of thought within the pro-
gressive sections of the Church has brought about a
remarkable vindication of the Jewish contentions.
It is now admitted by almost every Protestant biblical
critic who has a reputation to uphold that loose and
disjointed figures of speech or passages cannot be taken
in their literal sense without reference to the time and
1 John xx. 9.
2 On the arrest of Jesus, "all the disciples left him, and fled.”
Matt. xxvii. 56; Mark xiv. 50. .
228 THE SYNAGOGUE AND THE CHURCH
Un
context in which they were delivered. Finally, if the
traditional manner of the Christian exposition of Scrip-
ture regarding the Messiah be extended to the whole
text, then there should also have to come to pass that
remarkable, if rather improbable, state of affairs when
“the wolf shall dwell with the lamb, the leopard shall
lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young
lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall
lead them."1 But though this may be interpreted
in a metaphorical sense, it is contended that in "those
days ” when the Lord "shall set up an ensign for the
nations,” He shall also“ assemble the outcasts of Israel,
and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the
four corners of the earth.” 2 And the Jew does not
only look forward to his own freedom from physical and
spiritual thraldom, but anticipates that the whole of
mankind will share these blessings. The appearance
of the Anointed is to usher in a new era of universal
peace and happiness, the Messianic times—that æon of
human felicity so fondly described by the Jewish prophets.
Whatever be in dispute, there cannot be any doubt but
that the advent of the Messiah is to put an end to
all war and bloodshed, to hatred and strife, crime and
error, and that this epoch is to synchronize with the
reign of concord and love between man and man, with
justice in social relations and with the supremacy
of truth and enlightenment in every human soul.
We know that this kingdom of God foretold by the
Hebrew prophets has not yet been vouchsafed to us,
and, therefore, the Jews maintain that the Messiah and
the Messianic times are still to come, bringing in their
train the golden age of the human race.
1 Cf. Isa, xi. 6 ffg.
2 Ibid., xi. 12.
CHAPTER IX
JESUS OF NAZARETH
“And one of the Scribes came and asked him, what com-
mandment is the first of all ? Jesus answered, The first is :
Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one : and thou.
shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart and with all
thy soul and with all thy mind and with all thy strength (Deut.
vi. 4, 5). The second is this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour
as thyself (Lev. xix. 18, 34). There is none other commandment
greater than these. And the Scribe said to him: Of a truth,
Master, thou hast well said that He is one ; and there is none other
but He : and to love Him with all the heart and with all the
understanding, and with all the strength, and to love his neigh-
bour as himself, is much more than all whole burnt offerings
and sacrifices. And when Jesus saw that he answered discreetly,
he said unto him, Thou art not far from the Kingdom of
God.”-Mark xii. 28–34.
ABOUT nineteen centuries ago there appeared in an
obscure corner of the Roman Empire a Jew, who, like
many others of his nation at that time, proclaimed
that the new era foretold by their prophets was at hand.
He secured a following, with which he moved from place
to place, but on endeavouring to bring his claim to be
the promised deliverer of his people to the test in their
capital itself, he fell a victim to the turbulence of the
times. He was charged with sedition against the Roman
authorities, and dealt with in the summary manner usual
in similar cases. With the brutal contempt inherent
in the Roman governors and soldiery towards all con-
229
230 THE SYNAGOGUE AND THE CHURCH :
quered races, whose“ barbarous” views and customs
they did not care to understand, and with a malicious
mockery at the expense of the people of the country,
there was placed an inscription over the cross on which
the Jewish popular leader was crucified : " Jesus of
Nazareth, King of the Jews.”
This tragedy has become a source of inspiration to
untold human souls, to whom the death of Jesus has
been transformed into a symbol of their immortality.
Jesus is now acclaimed by vast masses of the most
civilized and progressive of our fellow-men as having
been the incarnation of God on earth. His figure
stands out like a beacon in whose light they seek security
and comfort. The charm of his personality has sent
its rays all over the world, and infused countless human
hearts with the spirit of love and self-sacrifice. His
message comes to them often like an elemental force,
proclaiming his ringing admonition: “What does it
profit a man if he gain the whole world and lose his own
soul ? " yet imbued with an exceptional touch of tender-
ness for the “publican and sinner," and full of promise
to those who believe in his power to save them from
sin and evil.
It is one of the most extraordinary paradoxes of history
that, in spite of this fact, the Jews, the kinsmen of Jesus,
have to this day remained the most consciously deter-
mined opponents of his supremacy. Yet the roots of the
life and thought of Jesus lie entirely in Jewish soil. He
was born and bred a Jew, and practically never went be-
yond the limits of the land of Israel ; his relations and
immediate disciples were all Jews, as were his sympa-
thisers and enemies. His ideas and teachings were
those in vogue among his people, and even where it is
JESUS OF NAZARETH
231
thought that he was not at one with them, he appealed to
them on the common ground of the sacred Scriptures.
He seems hardly ever to have come in direct personal
touch with any one outside Israel, and on one of the very
rare occasions when he did so, in the case of the Samaritan
woman, he uttered his most profound and significant
remark in favour of Judaism : “Ye worship that which
ye know not; we worship that which we know : for
salvation is from the Jews.”i Here his genius recog-
nized the radical difference between the religion of the
Jews, which is inspired and self-evolved, and that of
others, where, as with the Samaritans, it was due to a
mere geographical accident, or, as it often happened,
to a speculation spread and supported by the vicissi-
tudes of circumstances.2
In what then does the Jewish opposition to the
authority of Jesus consist? The Christian explanation
is that the Jews will not see the truth. This is the de-
spairing cry of all who, from Paul downwards, have failed
to convince the Jews, and it has assumed in varying
ways and degrees the forms of persecution or rhetoric,
which have been tempered by the flattering hope that
the eyes of the Jews will one day be opened. Yet this
does not seem, after all, a very convincing and triumphant
way of solving the perplexing problem, and it is perhaps
1
1 John iv. 22. His attitude towards the Canaanitish woman
was inspired by a mixture of hostility and repugnance. Cf. Matt.
XV. 21–28 ; Mark vii. 24-30.
2 His announcement of the ultimate universality of the faith
which was to proceed from the Jews had been long ago anti-
cipated by the higher conception of a Jewish prophet that every
manifestation of divine worship, under whatever form it may be,
was in reality an adoration of the Creator of the universe and
the Father of all mankind. Cf. Mal. i. II.
232 THE SYNAGOGUE AND THE CHURCH
just this circumstance which increases the violence of
Christian controversy against the Jews. There is not
even recognized the undoubted fact that the Christians
themselves have never been able to agree on the words
of Jesus, either through misunderstanding or sheer
perversity of mind. What, for instance, can be more
sacred to the Christian soul than the Lord's Supper ?
Yet to what atrocities and bloodshed has this not given
rise ? We are told by a distinguished Anglican
theologian : “ The'transubstantiation' and 'sacramen-
tal' controversies which have raged for centuries round
the Feast of Communion and Christian love are as heart-
saddening as they are strange and needless. They
would never have arisen if it had been sufficiently ob-
served that it was characteristic of Christ's teachings to
adopt the language of picture and of emotion. But to
turn metaphor into fact, poetry into prose, rhetoric into
logic, parable into systematic theology, is at once fatal
and absurd.”. We are not concerned here with the
extent to which this system has been adopted in the
Christian interpretation of the Jewish Scriptures, or
with the fact that this error lies at the root of all Chris-
tian dogma, certainly not with the rebuke thus admin-
istered to the other Christian denominations differing
from the particular views held on the subject by the
writer quoted, but, having the main point in mind, it is
interesting to see how utterly the Jews are condemned
when it was they who did not understand Jesus. He had
told them: “Except ye eat the flesh of the son of
man and drink his blood, ye have not life in yourselves.
He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath
1 F. W. Farrar, Life of Christ, 23rd edition, ii. p. 292, note 2.
JESUS OF NAZARETH
233
eternal life."i It is admitted on the authority of the
evangelist that "some even of the disciples found the
saying harsh and repulsive.” 2 But when the Jews
did not grasp the meaning of Jesus' words, then we are
told: “Thus they were carnally-minded, and to be
carnally-minded is death. They did not seek the truth,
and it was more and more taken from them. They
had nothing, and therefore from them was taken even
what they had.” 3
Surely, the Jewish people, so true to the faith that is
in them, and, withal, so thoughtful and adaptable,
cannot have remained deaf to the expressed Will of God
in their own Scriptures, and so utterly unapproachable
by the dictates of reason.
The argument of the Jews against the claim of Jesus
is now practically the same as the objection with which
certain of his contemporary opponents replied to him :
“For a good work we stone thee not, but for blasphemy
and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself
God." 4 It is the Jewish view that Jesus added no
important original element to the religious and moral
assets which had been accumulated by the Jewish
prophets and sages, and that he has certainly been the
more or less direct cause of lowering the pure and lofty
ideas about God and man current in Judaism. Nothing
could more offend the inner springs of the noblest
Jewish susceptibilities than the fundamental Christian
belief that Jesus Christ is God himself, the Lord and
Saviour of mankind. It is not hardness of heart nor
blindness of pride which has prevented the Jews from
recognizing Jesus of Nazareth in this light, but, as the
1 John vi. 53, 54.
2 Farrar, ibid., i. p. 418.
3 Ibid., i. p. 415.
4 John X. 33.
234 THE SYNAGOGUE AND THE CHURCH
standard-bearers of the highest form of ethical Mono-
theism, they cannot believe that the Almighty was
born of woman, lived for about thirty years as an ordi-
nary mortal, and then died; convinced of the righteous-
ness and mercy of God, they cannot admit that there
is any other Saviour but He Himself. Those who do
not know, or cannot understand, the intense feeling of the
Jews on these questions and the impassable chasm be-
tween the Jewish and the Christian standpoints, will do
well to ponder over the following quotations, which
serve to bring out this contrast :-
I, even I, am the Lord ; and
beside Me there is no
Saviour.1
O Israel, hope in the Lord ;
For with the Lord there is
mercy,
And with Him is plenteous
redemption,
And He shall redeem Israel
from all his iniquities. 2
Joseph, thou son of David, fear
not to take unto thee Mary
thy wife ; for that which is
conceived in her is of the
Holy Ghost.3 And she shall
bring forth a son; and
thou shalt call his name
Jesus, for it is he that shall
save his people from their
sins.
It is not a mere sympathetic appreciation of the great-
ness of Jesus which can bridge over such a gulf. In
view of the fact that he is regarded as God Himself,
Jesus Christ is to the Christian beyond any comparison
whatever, and thelanguage employed about him is, there-
fore, pitched in the highest possible key. F. W. Farrar,
whose Life of Christ may be taken as expressing the
cultured orthodox standpoint of English Christianity,
provides us with an example of the characteristic style
in which the admiration of the believer exalts the
1 Isa. xliii. II.
2 Ps. cxxx. 7, 8.
3 i.e., God Himself, or the third person of the Trinitarian
Deity.
4 Matt. i. 20, 21.
JĒSÜS OF NAŽARETH
235
S
character of Jesus. If we take, for instance, the reflec-
tion, which might legitimately trouble the Christian
mind, that Jesus, who was God incarnate, whose every
word should have been treasured up as a precious
inheritance to mankind, spent all his life, with the
exception of an exceedingly short period, in a useless
retirement from the world, the Christian might well
think that if a mere glimpse of Jesus gives us so much,
how much more would have been the sight of all his
glory! Yet Farrar is not merely satisfied to note this
fact, but he actually breaks out in pæans of boundless
gratitude in contemplating the moral to be derived from
this effacement of Jesus. He wishes us to believe that
it was all an arrangement of eternal wisdom, of which he
speaks in such exaggerated language : “ That Christ
should have passed thirty years of his brief life in the
deep obscurity of a provincial village ; that he should
have been brought up not only in a conquered land, but
in its most despised province; not only in a despised
province, but in its most disregarded valley, etc.” 1
The silence of the evangelists on what happened to
Jesus from his infancy to his ministry more than pleases
him : “What eloquence in their silence! May we not
find in their very reticence a wisdom and instruction,
more profound than if they had filled many volumes
of minor details ? " 2 And in surveying the whole of
this total silence on the life of Jesus before his public
appearance, a period of which no one knows anything
whatsoever, we are told: “They were the years of a
sinless childhood, a sinless boyhood, a sinless man-
hood, spent in that humility, toil, obscurity, submission,
contentment, prayer, to make them an eternal example
i Life of Christ, i. p. 57. 2 Ibid., i. p. 56.
1
236 THE SYNAGOGUE AND THE CHURCH
ir race. .
to all our race. . . . It was during these years that his
life is for us the main example of how we ought to
live.” 1
Now, while a prominent Christian divine can thus
go into ecstasies, not at what Jesus did or said, but be-
cause he did and said nothing, those who have not come
under his spell cannot share this beatific feeling simply
because for the space of thirty years that Jesus passed
on earth he did nothing to heal the sufferings or improve
the character and minds of his fellow-men, and that,
although conscious of his supernatural powers, which
for the first time he manifested by turning water into
wine for a festive gathering, he did nothing to save
his distracted people or an erring world from material
and spiritual ruin. The critic can draw no lesson and
pronounce no opinion, except a negative one, on that
period of the life of Jesus of which no records exist and of
which, therefore, nothing at all is known. Yet it is
his duty to examine, as far as is possible, those evidences
which relate to the short public life of Jesus and adopt
such a standard as is applicable to his case. As he
assumed to have given to the world a new covenant in
contrast to that of the Jews, their religious teachings
must be compared with those which proceeded from him.
If before Jesus certain lofty doctrines or ideas existed
among the Jews, it would only be just to credit Judaism
with their original possession, while the adoption and
reiteration by Jesus of such views and maxims cannot be
entirely ascribed to him. Christian theologians, and
Dean Farrar was among them, like to take great pains
and elaborate care to point out the originality of Jesus
whenever an opportunity is considered available, but
1 Life of Christ, i. p. 94.
JESUS OF NAZARETH
237
it is nevertheless thought presumptuous by them if this
method is continued to its logical conclusion. Dean
Farrar's views on the matter are well worth quoting at
length, as those of an enlightened Christian ecclesiastic.
He says : “Now, I would premise at once that these
questions about 'originality' seem to me supremely
idle and irrelevant in all cases, but most of all when they
are irreverently applied to the teaching of our Lord.” 1
“ Hillel was a 'sweet' and 'noble’ Rabbi ; he is the
happiest figure which Rabbinism has produced; he
seems to have been really learned, humble, peaceful and
enlightened, but the distance between him and Jesus
is a distance absolutely immeasurable, and the resem-
blance of his teaching to that of Jesus is the resemblance
of a glow-worm to the sun." 2 "Hillel was undoubted-
ly a great and good man, and he deserved the wail
uttered over liis grave-'Ah, the gentle, the holy,
the scholar of Ezra '—but to compare his teaching
with that of the Saviour is absurd." 3 "The shortest
and slightest of our Saviour's parables is worth all that
he ever said." 4 "To compare Rabbinism with Chris-
tianity, and Hillel with Christ, requires either a consum-
mate effrontery or a total paralysis of the critical
faculty.” 5
Still, while the innate fairness of the English scholar
was not strong enough to suppress the irascible temper
of the theologian, Dean Farrar admits that Hillel was
“undoubtedly a great and good man.” But Hillel
was also a contemporary of Jesus; he died when
Jesus was only a child. He was the spiritual leader of
his people, and his name became among them a house-
2 Life of Christ, Append. "Jesus and Hillel,” ii. p. 454.
2 Ibid., p. 455. 3 Ibid., pp. 459, 460. 4 Ibid., p. 460.
6 Ibid., p. 460, note 2.
238 THE SYNAGOGUE AND THE CHURCH
hold word for broad-mindedness and saintliness of life.
Is it not likely that Jesus, as a student of the Scriptures,
should in the ordinary course have been influenced by
this eminent master in Israel ? Is it really impossible
that Hillel's famous reply to a would-be proselyte :
“Do not unto others what thou wouldest not that others
should do unto thee : this is the whole Law; the rest is
only commentary,” should have reached Jesus ? Or is
Jesus to be glorified as the author of the golden rule,
even though it was declared before him as the law of
life by the highest representative of Judaism at that
time ? It is surely unjust to maintain that Jesus was
the first to proclaim that religion consisted in the love
of God and man, while even Christian records show 1
that quite an ordinary Jewish scribe concurred with
Jesus on this point. As a matter of fact, the Jewish
spiritual authorities had long ago ordained that the
pentateuchal passage enjoining the love of God be
recited daily, and the Mosaic legislation expressly
provided that the neighbour, including the stranger,
should be loved as oneself.2
In order to enhance the greatness of Jesus, it is a tacit
rule in Christian circles to describe his Jewish sur-
roundings in appallingly dark colours. Even so sober
a writer and non-professional theologian as R. H.
Hutton, tells us that Jesus “entered into the poorest of
lots, among nearly the most degraded generation of the
1 In Luke x. 25-28, it is the scribe who points this out in reply
to a question by Jesus.
2 Cf. Deut. vi. 4, 5; Lev. xix. 18, 34. The view that the
essence of religion consists in the love of God and of one's fellow-
men, as well as the golden rule in its negative form, was to be
found in the Didache, a Jewish manual of instruction for prose-
lytes in use at the beginning of the Christian era.
JESUS OF NAZARETH
239
f
most narrow-minded race that the world has ever
known.” 1
It is particularly the Scribes and Pharisees who have
suffered from this furious indulgence in superlative
denunciations whenever they cross the path of Chris-
tianity. The fashion was set in the New Testament,
and Christian theologians have, with few exceptions,
followed it faithfully ever since. But it should be re-
membered that the authors of the Gospels and Epistles
were opponents of the Scribes and Pharisees, and in
violent conflict with the religious leaders of the Jewish
people. It is, therefore, not fair to take the denunciations
of the Scribes and Pharisees in the New Testament at
their face value, and it is certainly a very gross injustice
to apply those partisan diatribes to all the Scribes and
Pharisees. Sometimes, it is true, we would allow our
sense of justice to be overridden because only one side
of the case is available to us. Thus, for instance, we are
obliged to judge the Carthaginians according to the views
of their Roman enemies. But, unlike the Carthagin-
ians, the Pharisees have left us very ample records of
themselves, while their bodily and spiritual descen-
dants are still living to-day within our very midst, and
though the Christian world is naturally saturated with
the New Testament opinions concerning them, those
who are willing to examine with an unprejudiced mind
the other side of the case will have their set views very
materially, if not entirely, recast on this subject.
According to the judgment of Jewish history, the
Pharisees constituted the best religious element of the
Jewish nation, and their leading principle was the
1 Theological Essays, 4th ed., p. 290.
240 THE SYNAGOGUE AND THE CHURCH
championship of the religious rights of the people as a
whole, in opposition to the priestly and aristocratic
pretensions of the worldly and materialistic Sadducees.
It was the Pharisees who established the synagogues
and schools, where prayer superseded sacrifice, and
the instruction of the whole people was turned into one
of the most sacred duties of the Israelites, and even in
the Temple itself, where the Sadducees held sway, the
Pharisees instituted daily prayers in addition to the
ordained sacrifices. They turned the priest into a mere
deputy of the people, and even the power of forgiveness
of sin, which the High Priest assumed on the Day of
Atonement, was made by the Pharisees to consist in
the virtue of genuine repentance of each individual on
that day. :
It is evident that a party which fights against sacer-
dotal and oligarchical domination and makes the educa-
tion of the masses obligatory, could not have been an
exclusive and selfish caste, nor could it have won the
confidence of the nation to the extent it did. The
Pharisees were indeed strict in the observance of the
ritual commandments, and, as is almost unavoidable
in such cases, their efforts, like those of the Puritans,
occasionally drifted into excesses. But to the faithful,
this was no hateful burden ; it was only “the yoke of
the Kingdom of Heaven ” which they took upon them-
selves daily by the recitation of the Shema: “ Thou
shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, with all
thy soul, and with all thy might." Nor, in spite of
their theory and practice of Jewish separatism, were
they necessarily the enemies of non-Jews. They were
not averse to the reception of proselytes, as is shown
even by an exaggerated charge against them in the
JESUS OF NAZARETH
241
New Testament 1 that they traverse sea and land to
make one proselyte, and it is significant that they con-
sidered it an honour that some of their most eminent
masters were descended from non-Jews. The denun-
ciations of the Pharisees in the New Testament have
stamped them as pious hypocrites par excellence, but,
since the Talmud also condemns the hypocrisy of certain
Pharisees, the fact that such reproofs are not a standing
feature there, is some evidence that this vice was by no
means so common, as was asserted by their rivals. 2
The free spirit which reigned among the Pharisees
is also shown by their introduction of money compen-
sation instead of the lex talionis, and by the fact that
their penal system was distinguished by such enlighten-
ment that capital punishment was hardly ever resorted
to. Finally, in spite of the collisions into which Jesus
seems to have come with Pharisees, it should be
remembered by Christians that a number of them were
also his friends. It has indeed been pointed out by
Dean Farrar as a most remarkable fact that the Phari-
sees had little part in his arrest and condemnation,
and that they are not once directly mentioned in any
event connected with the arrest, the trial, and the
crucifixion of Jesus.3
Opposed to the Pharisees, were the Sadducees, a
1 Matt. xxiii. 15.
2 A Jewish authority, referring to this charge, says : " It is
a slanderous misrepresentation of the Pharisees to state that they
divorced morality and religion, when everywhere virtue, probity
and benevolence are declared by them to be the essence of the Law.
Nothing could have been more loathsome to the genuine Pharisee
than hypocrisy.” “Whatever good a man does he should do
it for the glory of God” (Aboth, ii. 13). Cf. Jew. Encyclopedia,
vol. ix. article “ Pharisee,”
Life, ii. p. 332,
242 THE SYNAGOGUE AND THE CHURCH
section composed of the priesthood, as well as of the
aristocratic, rich and Hellenised Jew. The political
and religious views of the Sadducees have no living
interest to modern Judaism, except as an example to
be avoided, while they must have been too worldly to
have any sympathy or understanding for the tendencies
which led to the establishment of Christianity.
The link between the Pharisees and the Nazarenes
(or primitive Christians) were the Essenes, O'TDN, whose
three most prominent virtues were, according to Philo
and Josephus, the love of God, the love of goodness and
the love of man. The Essenes endeavoured to emulate
the Pharisees in the rigour and purity of their lives.
Their general benevolence, their state of communism,
their objection to marriage, their contemplative mys-
ticism, their eager expectation of the Messiah and
their strong reliance on prophecy, are features which
make the Essenes closely akin to the followers of Jesus,
though some of his teachings, and reasons beyond our
knowledge, evidently led him to separate himself from
them.
Certainly, John the Baptist, whose preaching had
a great effect on the birth of the new spiritual move-
ment, belonged to the Essenes. The appeals he made
to his people to be baptized and repent (which was a
common practice among the Essenes in their striving
for holiness) stirred the imagination of his countrymen.
It was at one of those weird scenes which were enacted
by John and his followers at the banks of the Jordan
that there occurred the fateful moment in the life of
Jesus which created a new era in the history of mankind.
The contact of Jesus with John the Baptist gives us
the first historical foothold in our knowledge of the life
JESUS OF NAZARETH
243
of Christ. But, it may be asked, what do we know of
him at all as historically certain ? For there is a dis-
tinction between the real Jesus and the Christ of the
Gospels; or between the conception formed of him by
his first disciples, and the Jesus Christ of the Church.
Of Jesus of Nazareth, as he was in reality, we know,
no more than we choose to fancy according to the
descriptions left of him in his biographies in the New
Testament. The orthodox theologian will, after
numerous irreconcilable difficulties, piece together a
life of Jesus based on the Gospels, but to those Chris-
tians who are troubled with critical considerations such
an undertaking is practically hopeless. They will
either, like D. F. Strauss, end by asking whether they
can still, under the, circumstances, call themselves
Christians, or, like Renan, they might construct some
historical romance on the fascinating subject.
The four Gospels are not biographies of Jesus by
men who knew him and were eye-witnesses of what
they recorded. These Gospels were composed at dif-
ferent periods, certainly long after the death of Jesus,
and one of them is considered by competent authorities
to be as late as 100 years after that event. The
writers themselves never claim to have been present
at the incidents whose history they relate, and nowhere
do they assume to be in any way inspired or protected
from error. The names of Matthew, Mark, Luke and
John given to the Gospels do not show that these men
actually composed them, for not only was it customary
in Christian circles of that time to ascribe spurious
writings to famous men, but it will be observed that
1 I will only quote the classical testimony of Lecky: “ The
immense number of forged documents is one of the most dis-
244 THE SYNAGOGUE AND THE CHURCH
the Gospels are only entitled as “ according to Matthew,"
etc. There is a great uncertainty as to how and by
whom the Gospels were compiled, and numerous theories
have been put forward, but none of them can claim
anything like convincing authority. There seem to
have been made a number of attempts at chronicling
various sayings and doings of Jesus as the recollection
of them was floating about in the primitive Church,
and the canonical and apocryphal Gospels are the per-
manent results. As to the value of the canonical Gospels,1
it is sufficient to know the method by which at least
one of them, that of Luke, came into being. Its intro-
duction runs thus : "Forasmuch as many have taken
in hand to draw up a narrative concerning those matters
which have been fulfilled among us, even as they de-
livered them unto us, which from the beginning were
eye-witnesses and ministers of the word, it seemed good
to me also, having traced the course of all things accu-
rately from the first, to write unto thee in order, most
excellent Theophilus, that thou mightest know the
certainty concerning the things wherein thou wast
instructed." 2 Now it is clear that what is related in
the Gospel of St. Luke is, at best, second- or third-
hand evidence only, giving in an improved form the
graceful features of the Church history of the first few centuries.”
European Morals, i. p. 341.
1 The only test between a "canonical ” and an " apocryphal”
Gospel was that of agreement with the views of the dominant
Church. Anything that differed from these latter was declared
apocryphal. It is not absolutely certain who fixed the present
canon, but it is said that at the Council of Nice all the books
were put together near the holy table, with a prayer that the
canonical books might be found above and the apocryphal below.
The prayer seems to have had the desired result.
2 Luke i. 1-4.
JESUS OF NAZARETH 1.
: 245
accounts of men of whom we know nothing whatever,
nor are we assured in the slightest degree that either
the original records or their compilers and redactors were
infallible, or even trustworthy beyond suspicion. As
regards the latter point, it should be particularly observed
that “the Gospel according to St. Luke” was written
in order to confirm the faith of one who had only recently
entered the fold of the Church, so that we may legiti-
mately presume that everything was done by the author
to put his narrative in such a light as to make it serve
that ulterior purpose. In like manner the author of
the fourth Gospel unconsciously avows his bias by
declaring that the book was written to show that Jesus
is the Christ, the Son of God. The same inherent
weakness is also evident throughout the first Gospel,
the writer of which has always in mind the object of
demonstrating that “all this is come to pass that it
might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through
the prophet.”' 2 It is, therefore, well to remember
that we have to deal with partisan records related by
men who were most anxious to prove the claims of
Jesus as the Messiah and Saviour of the world.
But we have not always even the original Gospels
before us. It was the tradition of the Church that
the Gospel according to Matthew was written in Hebrew,
and after some time translated into Greek. The
Hebrew original had been lost, and it is expressly stated
by the Church Fathers that no one knows who made
the Greek translation which is represented in our
present copies. It appears, however, that this Greek
version is so unfettered that it does not at all read as
if it were a translation from the Hebrew. Considering
i John xx. 31. Matt. i. 22, etc.
246 THË SYNAGOGUE AND THE CHURCH
1
the fact that every word in the Gospels is regarded as of
the greatest value, especially in the formation of dogma,
such unreliability ought to be duly recognized. But
this far-reaching fact is entirely overlooked or evaded.
We are told by a notable Christian theologian in regard
to it: “This is merely a proof of its excellence. It
bears the mark of an original. The author was so fully
competent of his task as to produce a version having
all the appearance and character of an original. The
translation is free. The unknown individual appears
not to have adhered slavishly or literally to the document
before him. He cast it into the mould of another
language, retaining the spirit and force of the original.
Had it been a literal translation, it is almost impossible
to conceive of the want of some marks, at least, of a
version. If it faithfully adhered to the letter of the
original, there would have been indications of a trans-
lation. But the author not only exercised his own mind
on two languages, but also on the entire substance and
contents of the Hebrew Gospel. In this way he may be
said to have been to some extent an independent author,
as well as translator. Still, however, he was under
infallible guidance. He could not err. He had nothing
to correct, nothing to alter essentially. The Gospel
passing through his hands was always Matthew's
Gospel.” 1
It is impossible to follow the logic of this reasoning.
For even if we had the original Gospel in Hebrew, and
had been satisfied that it was written by the apostle
Matthew himself, we need not necessarily believe in
his inspiration, but what faintest: guarantee is there
1 Dr. Samuel Davidson, Introduction to the New Testament,
. i. p. 52.
JESUS OF NAZARETH
247
that his Greek translator, who, admittedly, not only
felt himself free to deal with the substance of the Gospel
but of whom we do not know in any way, whether by
name or as to his fitness and character, was under
infallible guidance and could not err ?
It is this freedom of translation and adaptation of
previously existing material which renders the Gospels
untrustworthy, and our hesitation to take them as
reliable records is justified by the eager readiness
with which Christians have ever been willing to accept
them as beyond suspicion. Having regard to the
dispute of the early Christians and to the objection of
the Jews and Jewish Christians to admit the divinity
of Jesus, the temptations of the compilers of the Gospels
were particularly great. We have only to consider
what would be the result if a Roman Catholic or a
Protestant had it in his power to adapt the Gospels in
accordance to his own dogmatic notions. In spite of
the venerable and learned Vulgate translation of the
Bible by the Roman Church, it is not accepted as
authoritative by the Protestants, while members of
the Latin Communion are actually forbidden the use
of the exceedingly careful Protestant versions. How
much more is it necessary to be on our guard when a
free translation and revision has been made in the most
critical period of the development of the Church, when
the system of pious frauds flourished luxuriantly, and
by people of whose names and qualifications we have
not the slightest knowledge ? Not the least part of
our care should be devoted to the manner in which the
relations of Jesus to his people are presented to us.
There are numerous instances in which the malevolence
of the author may be detected in the turn which is
248 THE SYNAGOGUE AND THE CHURCH
1
given to certain incidents telling against the Jews. It
is particularly so in the Gospel according to John,
where, in addition to the pronounced ignorance of
local colour and Jewish life, there is a bitter attitude
towards “the Jews," as they are pointedly termed,
reminding one of the time when the name was turned
by Christians into an opprobrious epithet. In the fourth
Gospel Jesus assumes an unnaturally detached point
of view, and refers to the Scriptures as “your” and
“their” Law, in the same way as the writer repeatedly
speaks of "the Jews' feast.” And in view of the
account of the crucifixion given in that Gospel, it is essen-
tial to remember the habitual manner in which he
states that “for this purpose did the Jews persecute
Jesus” and “the Jews sought to kill him.”] In one
instance we are told that Jesus stayed in Galilee, and
would not go to Judea “because the Jews sought to
kill him." But when the feast of Tabernacles was at
hand, his disciples urged him to go to Jerusalem, and
he would not. Nevertheless, when his friends had
departed for the feast, he also went there secretly,
and found that he had been asked for, and that there
was a great deal of discussion for and against him. “And
there was much murmuring among the multitudes con-
cerning him: some said, he is a good man; others
said, Not so, but he leadeth the multitude astray.
However, no man spake openly of him for fear of the
Jews.” 2 The author forgot that the "multitudes"
in Jerusalem who were both for and against Jesus were,
of course, Jewish, but he wanted to show that no one
dared to speak openly about Jesus “for fear of the
1 John v. 16, 18; vii. 19, 25; viii. 37, 40.
2 Ibid., vii. 1-3, 13.
JESUS OF NAZARETH
249
Jews." The same sinister purpose is also evident
when we are told that the Jewish disciples said to
Jesus, himself a Jew, living in the country of the Jews :
“Rabbi, the Jews were but now seeking to stone thee.” 1
It is on the most important points touching Christian
belief that the Gospels fail us entirely. The virgin-
birth and divinity of Jesus, his resurrection and ascen-
sion, are related to us on such unsatisfactory evidence
that it is only a credulously inclined mind, or faith incul-
cated in childhood, that can make the narratives of those
events appear to the Christian as at all acceptable.
On what basis does the proof of the virgin-birth of
Jesus rest? On a very doubtful dream and the con-
flicting testimonies of still more doubtful angels. We
are told that when Joseph found that his betrothed
was with child, he intended to put her away, but an
angel came to him and said that he need have no fear,
as she was with child from the Holy Ghost. It is only
in the Gospel of Matthew where this dream is related,
there being no reference to it anywhere else. Luke
tells us, on the other hand, that it was to Mary that
the angel Gabriel came announcing to her that she
would bring forth a child which should be called the
Son of the Most High. It is Luke, also, who alone
relates that when Jesus was born in Bethlehem, an
angel came to shepherds in the neighbourhood and
told them of the great event which had just happened,
and with the angel there was a multitude of the heavenly
host. Matthew, however, says that wise men from
the East, led by a star, came to Jerusalem, asking :
“Where is he that is born King of the Jews ? " so that
they might worship him, and that the star ultimately
1 John xi. 8.
250 THE SYNAGOGUE AND THE CHURCH
stopped over the house where Jesus was born. Herod,
having been much troubled at the reported birth of
the “ King of the Jews,” tried to kill the infant, so God
warned the wise men of the East not to return to
Herod, and "an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph
in a dream” telling him to escape to Egypt. " But
when Herod was dead, behold an angel of the Lord
appeareth in a dream to Joseph in Egypt” bidding him
to return home. Joseph, however, on arriving in Judea,
was still afraid of Herod's son, Archelaus, so he was
again warned in a dream ; he ultimately withdrew to
Galilee," and came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth :
that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the
prophets, that he should be called a Nazarene.” 1
Although the story is naturally well known, it deserves
repetition at length, in order to bring home its purely
mythical character. In the first place, we have seen
that we do not know who wrote the original Hebrew
Gospel according to Matthew, nor who translated it
into the present Greek "original,” and also that Luke
obtained his information from sources which we have no
possibility of tracing or testing. Of Mary we know
very little and of Joseph nothing whatever. Matthew
speaks of a dream which came to Joseph ; Luke only
knows of a dream to Mary; the other two Gospels
confirm neither. The stories about "the wise men
from the East,” the star which led them and stood
still over a particular house, as well as of the shepherds
who worshipped the newly born babe, have not even
the colour of probability about them, while throughout
the narratives of Matthew and Luke, who agree in
none of the particulars they give, the whole moving
1 Cf. Matt. and Luke, chaps. i. and ii.
O
JESUS OF NAZARETH
251
power is furnished by angels and dreams, the most
shadowy of unrealities.1
Are these, the only records we have of the supernatural
birth of Jesus, sufficient evidence to establish it for us ?
Strangely enough, while relating all the wonders that
happened to Jesus and his family, Luke says that when,
at the presentation in the Temple, one Simeon broke
out into thanksgiving at seeing the child Jesus, " his
father and mother were marvelling at the things which
were spoken concerning him" ; 2 also, that when Jesus,
at the age of twelve, had been found in the Temple by
his parents, and his mother asked him why he had
so behaved, saying: “Behold, thy father and I sought
thee sorrowing," and he replied: "How is it that ye
sought me ? wist ye not that I must be in my Father's
house ?'” it is added that " they understood not the
saying which he spake unto them.”3 It is not likely
that these stories have anything historical in them, but
it may be taken that the pronounced want of belief of
the mother and brothers of Jesus in his mission when
he commenced his public career was a notorious, though
unpleasant, fact, a point on which the three synoptical
evangelists are in accord. His family were against him
and asserted that “he is beside himself," 4 while he,
on his part, seemed to have broken with them. If
the divine origin and life of Jesus had been known to
his parents, it is impossible to conceive such a develop-
ment.
We are met with equal difficulties when we come
1 The reference to the angel Gabriel is sufficient in itself to
stamp these stories as fictitious.
· Luke ii. 33. 3 Luke ii. 48-50. 4 Mark iii. 21.
5 Matt. xii. 46 ffg.; Mark iii. 31 ffg. ; Luke viii. 19 ffg.
252 THE SYNAGOGUE AND THË CHURCH
to consider the evidences on which the stories of the
resurrection and ascension are based. The fact that
the records concerning the resurrection do not contain
the childish mythology which we have observed in the
case of the nativity, is one of the reasons why greater
stress is laid on the evidences at our disposal. The
famous declaration of Paul that if the resurrection be
not true the whole Christian faith is nought, 1 seems to
inspire Christian believers with daring and desperate
courage. R. H. Hutton paraphrases Paul by saying:
“If any one could prove the charge that we believe it
on evidence on which we should refuse to accept any
other fact not affecting our spiritual hopes at all, he
would, I think, make out his case that our Christian
faith rests on no secure grounds. Evidence which is
not good enough to prove ordinary events, can hardly
be offered in good faith in proof of extraordinary
events." 2
Now, it is an unquestionable fact that the resurrection
represents an event absolutely beyond our experience,
and, if it really took place, it was contrary to all laws
of nature. Indeed, it is just this which can alone con-
stitute the significance ascribed to it, and not only are
we called upon to believe it as a fundamental truth,
but we are also told that the evidence in support of it
is overwhelmingly convincing.
Various unsuccessful efforts have been made by some
rationalist critics to take the story of the resurrection
out of the realm of the miraculous. It is certainly a
thankless task to try to please all parties, nor is the
suggestion that Jesus was taken off the cross alive,
11 Cor. xv. 14 fig.
2 Theological Essays, p. 130.
JESUS OF NAZARETH
253
based on Pilate's surprise at the rapid end of Jesus, at
all likely. After all, little faith was required by the
primitive Christians to believe in the resurrection of
their master, who had been so ignominiously done to
death, and had thereby shattered all their visions of
the Kingdom of Heaven, which, they were told, had
come with Jesus as the promised Messiah. The idea
of life after death is so much based on our ineradicable
belief in the immanent justice in the government of
the world that the disciples of Jesus could easily be
persuaded, or persuade themselves, that his death
was not his end, and we thus hear of his resurrection,
and then of his ascension to heaven, where he "sat
down at the right hand of God.'! 1 But, above all, it
should be remembered that to the believers the resur-
rection was not a stumblingblock, for did not the
ancient Scriptures and the wonderful deeds of Jesus
prove that dead people can rise to life again, just as
subsequently many holy men of Christendom performed
the same manner of miracle ? 3
The records of the resurrection of Jesus contained in
the Gospels show that the writers heard of the event
more as of a current rumour turned into a tradition than
as an actual occurrence of which they knew the real
facts. All the four contradict each other in the most
important details concerning what happened, and where
we should hardly believe a miracle even if it came
i Mark xvi. 19.
? Cf. also Matt. xiv. 1, 2.
3 The Church has altogether been strongly inclined to a belief
in miracles. St. Augustine, the ablest of the Fathers, says that
in his own diocese alone so many miracles had occurred that
it would require volumes to relate them all, and among them
no less than five cases of restoration of life to the dead. Cf.
Lecky, Rationalism,. i. p. 163.
254 THE SYNAGOGUE AND THE CHURCH
from a probably reliable source, we are left helplessly
groping about among four irreconcilable narratives.
·Matthew, with his irrepressible desire to prove all
things from the Scriptures, tells us that “the chief
priests and the Pharisees " went together to Pilate
on the day following the burial of Jesus to ask that
proper precautions be taken, lest his disciples, remem-
bering his promise that after three days he would rise
again, should steal his body away and say that he had
risen from the dead. To this Pilate replied that they
could make the grave as sure as they liked, and they then
went and sealed the stone and placed a guard over the
tomb. All the Gospels, however, agree that the
disciples were completely taken by surprise, “for as
yet they knew not the Scripture that he must rise
again from the dead.” 2 Since it is not at all likely
that the enemies of Jesus should have understood him
better, and thought of his prediction with greater
interest and faith, than his disciples, the whole story
is merely an indication of the efforts that were made
by the evangelist to bolster up his tale by turning “ the
chief priests and the Pharisees "into unwilling witnesses
to the truth. This is further shown by his subsequent
story that when some of the guard came into the city
and told the “chief priests " what had happened, the
latter met “the elders," and after deliberation, "they
gave large money unto the soldiers, saying, Say ye, his
disciples came by night and stole him away while we
slept. And if this come to the Governor's ears, we will
persuade him and rid you of care. So they took the
money and did as they were taught : and this saying
was spread abroad among the Jews and continueth
1 Matt. xxvii. 62-66. 2 John xx. 9.
JESUS OF NAZARETH
ILI
255
until this day." i It has to be pointed out that “the
chief priests and the Pharisees” could not have carried
out this business on the Sabbath day, nor is it necessary
to comment on the unquestioning faith of the unbelieving
Jews in the resurrection of Jesus and on their wicked-
ness in bribing the soldiers set to watch the tomb, who
were to say that “his disciples came by night and
stole him away while we slept.” That such a version
should have been current among the Jews at the time
the Gospel was written, shows that they, like the
Christians, had so little difficulty in believing in the
possibility of the resurrection of a dead body, that it
was thought worth while to find some reason for the
event alleged to have taken place, just as the Christians
did not deny that their pagan opponents could, and did,
perform miracles, only that they were the work of
demons.
Matthew tells us further that at the dawn of the
first day of the week there came Mary Magdalene and
the other Mary to see the sepulchre ; Mark adds to
them the name of Salome ; Luke speaks of “the women
which had come with him out of Galilee," and he then
says that there were among them Mary Magdalene,
Joanna and Mary, the mother of James; but John
maintains that only Mary Magdalene came to the
grave. It is needless to point out the importance of
such irreconcilable evidence as to who it was who are
alleged to have found the grave of Jesus empty, and
our difficulties are increased by the conflicting accounts
of what they are supposed to have seen. In Matthew
it is said that on the arrival of the women there took
place a great earthquake, on which an angel descended
1 Matt. xxviii, 11-15.
256 THE SYNAGOGUE AND THE CHURCH
from heaven and rolled away the stone. The guard
“ became as dead men,” but to the women the angel
said that Jesus had risen from the dead and that he had
gone before them into Galilee, where they would see him.
On going to the disciples to tell them the news, the
women met Jesus, who said that his disciples should
go to Galilee, where they would meet him. “But the
eleven disciples went into Galilee, unto the mountain
where Jesus had appointed them. And when they
saw him, they worshipped him : but some doubted.”
The remarkable vagueness of the description of the
meeting place and the fact that, in spite of all, some
of the apostles are still said to have doubted, are par-
ticularly worthy of note.
In Mark, the women, on arriving at the tomb and
asking themselves how the stone from the door could
be rolled away, “for it was exceedingly great,"
suddenly saw that the stone was removed. In the
sepulchre they saw a young man, who gave them the
information that Jesus would meet his disciples in
Galilee. But the women were so afraid that “they
said nothing to any one." Jesus then appeared first
to Mary Magdalene, and when she told the disciples of
what had occurred, they disbelieved her. Then Jesus
“was manifested in another form unto two of them,
and when these told their friends, they also found no
belief.” “And afterward he was manifested unto the
eleven themselves as they sat at meat; and he upbraided
them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because
they believed not them which had seen him after he
was risen."
Luke agrees with neither of the foregoing mutually
contradictory accounts. The women, we are told by
C
JESUS OF NAZARETH
257
YYAT
him, found the stone already removed from the tomb,
and on entering it they did not find the body of Jesus.
While they were perplexed at this discovery, “behold,
two men stood by them in dazzling apparel,” who told
them that Jesus had risen, as he had predicted. The
women returned and told this “to the eleven and all
the rest," but it was looked upon as “idle talk." Peter,
however, went to see for himself, and, only finding the
linen cloth, went home wondering at what had hap-
pened. Later on Jesus appeared to two of the disciples,
who did not recognize him at first, and when he had
explained to them what was to have happened to the
Christ, according to the Scriptures, they asked him to
stay with them. They then sat down to eat, and when
he had blessed the bread and given it to them, they
found who he was, but “he vanished out of their
sight.” The two disciples returned to their companions,
and, as they were discussing the mysterious resurrection
of Jesus, he “himself stood in the midst of them.”
They were, however, so terrified by his appearance,
that he told them to feel him, that they might believe
that he was no ghost, and he also asked them for some-
thing to eat. They gave him a piece of broiled fish,
which he ate in their sight.
Finally, the narrative of the Gospel according to
John differs from the preceding three. It is related
there that Mary Magdalene, on arriving at the tomb
and finding it empty, communicated the news to Peter
and “the other disciple,” who both went to see the
grave. While Mary stood weeping outside the sepulchre,
she saw two angels sitting in the tomb, who inquired
of her the cause of her sadness. On her replying, she
turned round and beheld Jesus standing, but she did
258 THE SYNAGOGUE AND THE CHURCH
not recognize him, thinking him to be the gardener.
He also asked her why she cried, and, calling her by
her name, she knew who it was. Jesus, however, said
to her: “Touch me not, for I am not yet ascended
unto the Father," and then bade her go and tell his
disciples of his impending ascension. On the same
day, when the doors were shut where the disciples
were, " for fear of the Jews,” Jesus appeared among
his followers, and he also came to them eight days
afterwards, “the doors being shut.” “ After these
things.” Jesus manifested himself again to the disciples
at the Sea of Tiberias, where they were fishing, and they
all had a meal together. 1
Such, in substance, are the different and differing
accounts which we possess of the resurrection of Jesus.
There is such an undeniable contradiction between the
various writings, as regards persons, places and events,
that no reliance can be put on the accuracy of what
they relate. The Gospels, as we now have them, were
composed long after the death of the apostles, when
the tradition of the resurrection had become one of the
remarkable incidents in the life of the Son of God.
From the significant concurrence of the evangelists, it
Mary Magdalene, that weird figure among the followers
of Jesus, who had been cured by him of a mental afflic-
tion by having " seven devils " cast out of her. Con-
sidering the nervous tension created in her excited mind
by the death of Jesus, and her devoted attention to
1 It is then said in the fourth Gospel that this was the third
time that Jesus had manifested himself to the disciples ; nothing
is here known of his appearance to the two disciples, related
by Mark and Luke.
JESUS OF NAZARETH
259
his grave after his burial, it is possible that she may
have imagined that she had seen angels, and even Jesus
himself. The other particulars of the story, which
do not agree, were constructed for the purpose of giving
the alleged resurrection of Jesus a circumstantial back-
ground.
What we are told of the concluding intercourse of
Jesus with his disciples bears the stamp of ecclesiastical
dogma about it, or is contained in the following naïvely
vague and exaggerated summary: “And there are
also many other things which Jesus did, the which if
they should be written every one, I suppose that even
the world itself would not contain the books that should
be written.” 2
The Acts of the Apostles relate that Jesus remained
forty days with the disciples, and that "he charged
them not to depart from Jerusalem.” Luke also says
that he told them to wait there,4 but, according to
Mark, they were commanded to go to Galilee.5 Matthew
has it that they went to Galilee, “ unto the mountain
where Jesus had appointed them,” 6 but John, contrary
to all the others, takes Jesus into both regions. There
is practically nothing left to us from which we might
learn what transpired during that precious time which
Jesus then passed among his disciples. We can draw
our own conclusions. For there was really no object
in this re-appearance on earth, just as no purpose was
served by the resurrection. True, much eloquence
1 The reference to baptism in the name of the Father, Son
and Holy Ghost betokens a late period in the history of the
primitive Church.
2 John xxi. 25. 3 i. 3. xxiv. 49. 6 xvi. 7.
xxviii. 16.
? XX. 19, 26; xxi. I.
260 THE SYNAGOGUE AND THE CHURCH
has been expended on the lesson to be derived from
that miracle, which is assumed to have demonstrated
the immortality of the human soul. But the resur-
rection of Jesus, like his virgin-birth, can only affect
the person of the Son of God, to whose privileged position
we are not able to lay any claim. The resurrection
lost all its convincing and demonstrative value by his
having appeared only to the intimate circle of the apostles,
whereas it was before his enemies, before all the world,
that he should have shown himself if the required
impression was to have been made. His disciples
required no proof of the possibility of resurrection, for
we are told that when Jesus had died there was an earth-
quake," and the tombs were opened, and many bodies
of the saints that had fallen asleep were raised; and
coming forth out of the tombs after his resurrection
they entered into the holy city and appeared unto
many."i Now, this occurrence is as well authenticated
as the resurrection of Jesus, and we are told that those
who guarded Jesus on the cross were witnesses of that
event. Yet what importance are we to attach to this
story ? and do Christians of to-day really believe that
many dead people rose from their graves on Friday,
remaining alive, we know not where, up till Sunday,
when they entered Jerusalem, where they “appeared
unto many," and then presumably went back to their
graves ? What was the value and object of these
wholesale resurrections, or, indeed, of the resurrection
of Jesus himself ?
But once come back bodily from the dead, it was a
question for the evangelists how Jesus finally quitted
this earth. Hence the story of the ascension. The
1 Matt. xxvii. 51–53.
JESUS OF NAZARETH
261
accounts of this are so bald that we can easily appraise
at its true value the evidence supporting it. Mark
says: “So then the Lord Jesus, after he had spoken
unto them, was received up into heaven, and sat down
at the right hand of God.”1 According to Luke, while
Jesus was blessing his disciples, "he parted from them
and was carried up into heaven.” 2 Matthew and
John contain no reference to the event at all. The
Acts of the Apostles tells us that, as Jesus was speaking
to his disciples," he was taken up and a cloud received
him out of their sight." And as they were looking at
the sky,“ two men stood by them in white apparel,”
and said: “This Jesus which was received up from you
into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye beheld him
going into heaven.”3
The story of the ascension indicates the character
of the narratives of the other superhuman occurrences
in the life of Jesus. Can we truly believe that Jesus
went up bodily into “heaven,” or “sat down at the
right hand of God”? The writer of the Acts brings in
two men“ in white apparel,” meaning thereby the
conventional angels, who always seemed to have been
ready at hand, and then conveniently vanished. The
promise that Jesus would come down to earth in the
same manner as he went up to heaven was indeed the
very firm belief of the primitive Christians, but we know
that their faith did not prove true, and that to all
intents and purposes Christendom has even been obliged
to abandon all hope of any such occurrence in the future.
There is one feature in the life of Jesus which seems
to be considered of paramount importance to many
Christians, though their number is rapidly diminishing.
1 xvi. 19.
? xxiv. 50, 51.
3 i. 10, II.
262 THË SYNAGOGUE AND THE CHURCH
It is the miracles which Jesus is supposed to have per-
formed, and which are taken to prove his claims, or
those assumed for him by his disciples and the Church.
The evidences in regard to the miraculous deeds of
Jesus, such as his supernatural birth, resurrection and
ascension, suffer very materially by being wholly based
on the partial evidences of the evangelical writers.
We may apply to all this what has been said about the
many miracles performed by the monks of Egypt to
substantiate the truth of their faith : “Right, but
what proves the truth of those miracles ? ”i Miracles
are the common and commonplace property of all
historic religions, and some of them, like the Catholic
Churches, still presume to possess it at the present day,
though they characteristically dispute with each other
the monopoly of supernatural power. The wonder-
working images, icons, relics, wells, etc., exist even now
all over Europe, and attract innumerable believers;
yet who, outside the communions immediately con-
cerned, would be led to accept the testimony of the
many living beneficiaries as evidence of the actuality
of the reputed miracles, or of the truth of the creeds
under whose auspices they take place ? The miracles
attributed to Jesus are not by any means beyond the
ordinary range of similar acts of other wonder-working
prophets and teachers. The casting out of devils was
one of the most frequent thaumaturgic deeds of mercy
from which Jesus seems to have derived a particular
satisfaction, but this power he also conferred on his
disciples (though the art seems to have been lost) and
it appears that even some who were not his followers
1 Jortin, quoted by Gibbon, Roman Empire, iii, 88 (note).
2“ Behold, I am casting out devils ” (Luke xiii. 32).
JESUS OF NAZARETH
263
were also acknowledged by the New Testament writers
to have performed this exorcism.1 On the Jews, no
miracles performed by Jesus could have had the slightest
claim to recognition if he diverted them in any way
from the accepted form of Theism. There is a declara-
tion by Moses, which sets out categorically that if a
prophet should arise whose predicted signs and wonders
should come to pass, but who should entice the Israelites
to serve strange gods, they should withstand him, and
he was even to be, put to death as the evil genius of
his people.
It is conceded by those who have utilized the accu-
mulated results of New Testament criticism that there
is no acceptable basis for the Christian dogma of the
Incarnation, and that the Christian idea of a Logos
and of a Trinitarian Deity can be easily traced to pre-
Christian Jewish and heathen philosophical conceptions
which were grafted on to the Monotheism of the Jews.
It is recognized that, after all, the words of Jesus him-
self do not bear out the interpretation which his later
disciples gave them. The recorded claim of Jesus to
being one with God is more than suspected to be
endeavours by them to bolster up their attitude by
attributing to him declarations which he had never
uttered. It is particularly the Gospel according to
John which makes Jesus speak entirely unlike the way
he does in the other Gospels, and this is explained by
the fact that the Gospel of John was composed at a
date when the idea of the divine nature of Jesus had
already taken firm root in Christian circles.' On the
other hand, there are various passages which completely
1 Mark ix. 38; also Acts xix. 13 ffg.
2 Deut. xiii. 1-5.
1
264 THE SYNAGOGUE AND THE CHURCH
do away with the claim that he had given himself out
to be equal with God. A Christian scholar, who did not
deceive himself as to the difficulties of orthodoxy, has
well put it: “When maintaining the Athanasian doc-
trine of the Trinity, we do not readily recall the verse,
of that hour knoweth no man, not the angels of
God, neither the Son, but the Father.'"1 A frequent
New Testament expression is that there is one God, the
Father, and that there is “one mediator between God and
men, the man Christ Jesus," ? and in the so-called Lord's
Prayer, which Jesus taught his disciples, he did not even
enjoin them to mention his name—an indisputable
proof that Jesus, as a Jewish monotheist, thought it
sufficient to call upon God without any reference to a
mediator. There are numerous evidences that Jesus con-
sidered himself, or was considered, at least distinctly in-
ferior to God. When he was addressed by one as “good
Master,” Jesus replied : “Why callest thou me good ?
There is none good but One, that is God.” 3 “The
Father is greater than I." 4 " Ye are Christ's, and
Christ is God's." 5 "The head of Christ is God.” 6
"I do nothing of myself."'? "I have not spoken of
myself; but the Father which sent me, He gave me a
commandment what I should say."8 The Son can
do nothing of himself.” 9 “I can of mine own self
do nothing." 10" Then cometh the end, when he shall
deliver up the kingdom to God, even the Father.” 11
“And when all things have been subjected unto Him,
1
(
1 Mark xiii. 32. Benjamin Jowett, in Essays and Reviews,
p. 366.
2 1 Tim. ii. 5. 3 Mark x. 17, 18. 4 John xiv. 28.
6 I Cor. iii. 23.
Cor. xi. 3. ? John viii. 28.
8 Ibid., xii. 49; also ibid., xvii. 7, 8. 9 John v. 19.
10 Ibid. v. 30. 11 I Cor. xv. 24.
JESUS OF NAZARETH
265
then shall the Son also himself be subjected to Him
that did subject all things unto Him, that God may
be all in all.” 1
There is abundant and unequivocal indication in the
language of the New Testament that Jesus was regarded
by his contemporary adherents as a man chosen by God,
and that even where he was acclaimed as a higher
being, he was considered by them as inferior to God.
We are told that “God so loved the world that He gave
His only begotten son," 2 and there is a reference to
“Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God unto
you." 3 Jesus himself spoke to his disciples of “My
Father and your Father, and my God and your God," 4
and at the close of his earthly career, in the most solemn
moment of his life, he broke out in the cry: “My God,
my God, why hast Thou forsaken me ? "5
Those who have perforce turned their backs on
traditional Christianity, admit that, like the Incarna-
tion, the supernatural power of Jesus, his miracles,
resurrection and ascension are neither supported by
experience and reason, nor by any unimpeachable
written records. The death of Jesus, as an atonement
for the sins of the world by means of his blood, is found
to be utterly repugnant to our moral sense. That one
god should have died an ignominious death to appease
the implacable fury of another god, can only be recon-
ciled by unworthy conceptions of the Divinity enter-
tained by polytheists, and it is indefensible to assume
that, on the one hand, God charged all the descendants
of Adam with a sin committed by him, while the death
of the Son of God was imputed as a set-off against
1 I Cor. xv. 28.
4 John xx. 17.
? John iii. 16. 3 Acts ii. 22.
5 Matt. xxvii. 46.
266 THE SYNAGOGUE AND THE CHURCH
that act and all its consequences—all the factors in
the plot having no apparent connexion with each
other.
The history of comparative religion shows that the
life and sayings of Jesus are but the echoes of other
religious and ethical teachers before him, and the legends
surrounding him the reflex of mythologies current long
before his appearance. The idea of a god who was
born of a virgin and suffered death to save mankind, if
utterly alien to the Hebrew idea of the Almighty, was
yet very familiar to the heathen of old.1 The stories
about Osiris, Adonis, Dionysius, Mithras and other
saviours of men are strikingly similar in this respect to
those of Jesus.
While the Churches proclaim Jesus as the incarnation
of God Himself, there are individual Christians who
base their allegiance to him as Lord and Saviour on
the ground of his unapproachable moral grandeur.
There is indeed a Church, the most enlightened, if
numerically one of the smallest, in Christendom, which
places Jesus above all the great teachers of humanity,
not because he was God Himself, which would make
his example of no effective avail to mortals, but because
he was a man who in a unique way lived a divine life,
and in whom the noblest aspirations of our kind have
found their highest and most adequate expression. This
1 Dean Milman says : “ The Incarnation of the Deity, or the
union of some part of the Divine Essence with a material or
human body, is by no means an uncommon religious notion,
more particularly in the East” (Hist. of Christianity, i, 92). He
also cites a tradition known in the West at an early period,
and quoted by Jerome, that Buddha was born of a virgin
(Ibid., i. 94, note 2).
JESÚS ÓF NAZARETH
267
:
Unitarian view of Jesus of Nazareth, though it denies his
divinity and the faith of the Church in him, has much
to commend itself to Christians, to whom he is part
of their spiritual being. They cannot escape his influ-
ence, even if they would, and those who seek salvation
out of its reach have to turn into rebels against his
authority. Hence the determined efforts to protect
his undisputed sway, and the earnest desire to range
oneself under his name, though nothing specifically
Christian can be retained in the inevitable dissolution
to which criticism has reduced the recorded sayings
and doings of Jesus.
It is, however, too frequently overlooked by all schools
of Christian thought that in the moral sphere Jesus
stands on Jewish ground. The attempts that are made
to disprove this invariably begin and end in an attack
on Jewish morals. But the early Christians, according
to the evidence of the Acts and Epistles, were by no
means so immaculate that we can regard Christianity
as a revolt by them against the morality of Judaism,
and at least the Jewish Essenes lived a life which was
more Christian than that of most of the professed followers
of Christ. The mistake arises largely from comparing
Christian theory with perverse Jewish practice from
the time of Moses, as if Christian theory ever expected
to be judged according to Christian practice. Though
it is almost an axiom among Christian theologians
that the morality taught by Jesus must be superior
(if not absolutely incomparable) to that of the Jewish
prophets and sages, there are not wanting admissions
from most competent Christian quarters that the prevail-
ing view cannot be maintained any longer. But Chris-
tian theologians are still too apt in this regard to adopt
1
268 THE SYNAGOGUE AND THE CHURCH
an unnecessarily hostile attitude where they think that
Jesus has in one particular point risen above the pre-
vailing Jewish view on the subject, as if that were
sufficient to disprove the general dependence of Jesus
on the religious and ethical conceptions of Judaism.
Sometimes this fact, when it cannot be overlooked, is
turned against the Jews in a strange manner. Dean
Farrar, for instance, takes occasion to refer to the Jews
in the following manner : “ They, nursed in the strictest
Monotheism, and accustomed only to think of God as
infinitely far from man, might have learnt even from
the Law and from the Prophets that God is near-is
in the very mouth and in the very heart of those who
love Him, and even bestows upon them some indwelling
brightness of His own eternal glory."1 This character-
istically misleading and condescending attitude towards
Judaism is remarkable, particularly if it is remem-
bered that it emanates from one who holds as a cardinal
article of faith that God cannot be approached without
a mediator, and that “even the Law" (not to speak
of the prophets, or the psalmist who declared that "God
is nigh to all, to all who call upon Him in truth”2)
has given us the ennobling conception of man as created
in the image of God, and the injunction to love God
with all our heart and soul, and to be holy as God is
holy.
Another feature of the attack on Judaism is the
assertion that it is narrow and tribal, limiting the
favours of God to the Jewish people, while the outside
world is excluded from the care and mercies of God.
Such a view is common among Christians of all the
orthodox schools, who themselves consider that only
1 Life of Christ, ii. p. 148. ? Ps. cxlv. 18.
1
JESUS OF NAZARETH
269
YA
those who subscribe to a particular creed are sure of sal-
vation, but it does not represent the best Jewish thought
on the subject. That the literature of the Jews contains
uncharitable ideas respecting their Gentile neighbours,
with whom they have often been in deadly conflict, is
not surprising, but it may safely be said that the Rabbis
have never erred so far in this direction as the Church
Fathers. To quote the Roman satirists and historians
as proofs of Jewish bigotry is the more indefensible,
as it is known that the Christians were considered in
a still worse light by their pagan fellow-men, 1 so much
so that Marcus Aurelius, the noblest of Roman Emperors,
was among the notable persecutors of the Christians.
Nor is it justifiable to draw a parallel between the Law
and the Gospel by quoting the accusation in the Sermon
on the Mount that the Jewish moral code bade to love
one's friends but hate the enemy. There is nothing
in all the Jewish writings to substantiate this charge,
which must be regarded somewhat in the nature of a
hyperbolical contrast between the old and the new. On
the contrary, the Hebrew Scriptures contain numerous
injunctions to succour our enemies in distress.?
To represent Jesus as having been free from all pre-
judices against Gentiles is not in accordance with what
is related of him by the evangelists. He confined his
labours entirely to the Jews, bidding his apostles, who
were all Jews : “Go not in the way of the Gentiles, and
into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not : but rather
go to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." On one
of the very few occasions on which he met any one
outside his people, he adopted a very harsh attitude.
1 According to Tacitus, the Christians were imbued with
“hatred of the human race.” 2 Cf. Jew. Ency., v. p. 159.
270 THE SYNAGOGUE AND THE CHURCH
To a Gentile woman who had come to implore his
help: “Have mercy on me, O Lord !” he did
not answer a word, but said to his disciples : “I
am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of
Israel,” and in response to her further supplication,
he replied to the woman : "It is not meet to take
the children's bread and cast it to the dogs."i But
even this unexemplary and unsympathetic attitude
(a feature which has been too predominant in the rela-
tions between Christians and unbelievers and between
opposing Christian sects during the greatest part of the
history of the Church) is turned against the Jews, and
Farrar says of Jesus that “he may have desired to
test the feelings of His disciples, who, in the narrow
spirit of Judaic exclusiveness, might be unprepared to
see him grant his blessings, not only to a Gentile, but
a Canaanite and descendant of the accursed race.” 2
Are we not rather to see in this the natural limitation
of even great minds, who often cannot escape from the
lowest prejudices of their surroundings ? Does this
not prove the futility of the method which seeks to
establish the inferiority of Judaism by collecting the
most unworthy utterances of the Rabbis, which, after
all, were generally only the subjective expressions of
men swayed by the events and passions of the moment ?
It is only by its highest aspirations that the faith of a
man should be shaped, and by which alone it should
surely be judged.
Nor is it fair to compare the New Testament with
the Talmud in favour of the former. The Talmud is
a record of the religious and legal traditions and opinions
current among the Jews for about a thousand years.
1 Matt. xv. 21–28; Mark vii. 24-30. 2 Life, i. p. 474.
JESUS OF NAZARETH
271
It contains discussions of rival schools, and, even at
the final redactions, no attempts seem to have been
made to purge it from objectionable and irresponsible
views. The Talmud can, therefore, not be charged
with any perversities and trivialities which may be
extracted from its pages. The Talmud is a religious
compilation inasmuch as it is based on the Sacred Scrip-
tures, but it also contains the civil and criminal codes
of the Jews. The moral character of the Talmud is
due to the innate ethical nature of all Jewish legislation.
The Talmud stands in the same relation to the Syna-
gogue as the canon law and the writings of the Church
Fathers to the Catholic Church, only that the
Jewish literature has been made the common property
of the people, whereas the extensive works of the
Catholic Fathers and casuists have always been the privi-
leged possession of the theologian. It is, however,
not maintained that the Jewish writings do not come
up to the moral level of the equivalent Christian litera-
ture. On the contrary, so noble is the ethical standard
of the Hebrew Sacred Scriptures, so uniformly rich
in high ideas are the mental monuments which they
have produced, that competent Christian theologians
have acknowledged the equality of Jewish ethics with
the loftiest thoughts enunciated by Jesus. It can
safely be asserted, without any attempt to depreciate
his greatness, that there is no utterance, however
striking or characteristic, emanating from Jesus (with
the sole exception of the idea of non-resistance) which
1 Dean Farrar has justly remarked : “ If we remember that
the Talmud is a corpus juris, we can explain its character better.
The wonder is that there are any moral truths at all there."
-Life, ii. p. 488.
272 THE SYNAGOGUE AND THE CHURCH
cannot be traced, often in identical words, to the teach-
ings of the Jewish schools. Harnack, whose special
effort in What is Christianity ? it was to demonstrate
the unique individuality of Jesus, concedes that, so
far as the question of ethics is concerned, there was
nothing in which the Jews of his time were lacking.
“The ethical system which Jesus found prevailing in
his nation was both ample and profound.” 1
There is an interesting reference to this point in
Count Tolstoy's My Religion, which brings out into
bold relief the relation which the sayings of the Rabbis
and of Jesus bear to each other. “Some time ago,"
writes Tolstoy, “I was reading in Hebrew the fifth
chapter of Matthew with a Jewish Rabbi. At nearly
every verse the Rabbi said: “This is in the Bible,'
or “This is in the Talmud, and he showed me in the
Bible and in the Talmud sentences very like the declara-
tions in the Sermon on the Mount. When we reached
the words, ‘Resist not evil,' the Rabbi did not say,
'This is in the Talmud, but he asked me, with a smile,
'Do the Christians obey this command ? Do they
turn the other cheek ?' I had nothing to say in reply,
especially as at that particular time Christians, far
from turning the other cheek, were smiting the Jews
1 What is Christianity ? p. 70. He adds: “To judge
the moral ideas of the Pharisees solely by their childish and
nomistical aspects is not fair." As to the objection that the
Rabbis did not content themselves with pure ethics, it should be
remembered that the teachings of Jesus by themselves have
never formed the sole basis of any historic communion, and
the fact that immediately after the death of Jesus there began
the development of the immense fabric of creeds and ritual of
the Catholic and Apostolic Church, is sufficient evidence of the
inadequacy of the utterances of Jesus on the truths and problems
of life as the sole spiritual possession of the Christian religion.
JESUS OF NAZARETH
273
upon both cheeks. I asked him if there was anything
similar in the Bible or in the Talmud. 'No,' he replied,
there is nothing like it, but, tell me, do the Christians
obey this law ?' It was only another way of saying
that the presence in the Christian doctrine of a com-
mandment which no one observed, and which Christians
themselves regarded as impracticable, is simply an avowal
of the foolishness and nullity of that law. I could say
nothing in reply to the Rabbi.” 1
It must also be remembered that, after all, the real
value of all ethical teachings does not lie in their sonorous
sound and bold conception. It is in their mode of
application only that the morals professed by any one
are to be judged. From this standpoint, the teachings of
Jesus do not retain that supreme position which Chris-
tian theologians are apt to assign to them. It would
be rather uncharitable to refer to the failure of his
followers to maintain the standard set by their master,
though the claim that every Christian has been
sanctified at his baptism by the Holy Ghost does not
make that point unnecessary, but it must be remarked,
nevertheless, that though, on the whole, Christians
cannot be said to exceed in piety, virtue and self-sacrifice
the adherents to other religions, it is just the one dis-
tinctively Christian idea which can lay claim to origi-
nality, namely, that of non-resistance to evil, which
Christians are prepared to abandon. It is not that
1 My Religion, pp. 17, 18. A number of works have been pub-
lished giving a large collection of apposite quotations from the
Jewish writings tending to show that the constituents of the
teachings of Jesus and of the “Lord's Prayer" were current among
the Jews before his appearance. I would refer to: Deutsch,
The Talmud ; Charles Taylor, Sayings of the Jewish Fathers : J.
Cohen, The Deicides; Jew. Encycl., on Jesus, New Testamini, etc.
274 THE SYNAGOGUE AND THE CHURCH
the words of Jesus can be explained away; the
monks and nuns of the Catholic Churches prove by
much exertion how seriously the literal meaning of
Christ's commandments is to be regarded. The vows
of chastity, poverty and obedience are taken by those
who feel the necessity and ability to live the true Chris-
tian life, though it is also these very monastic orders
which have shown how impossible it is to carry out the
rule of life laid down by Jesus.
In certain directions, Jesus was not satisfied with
the workaday morals of the ordinary man, but de-
manded something heroic: "I say unto you that
except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness
of the Scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no wise enter
into the kingdom of heaven."1 But it is just where he
oversteps“ the righteousness of the Scribes and Phari-
sees” that the view of life which he enjoins is turned
into a set of fantastic rules followed by a very few, while
it is consciously disregarded as utterly impracticable
by the overwhelming mass of even the most earnest
believers. There cannot, for instance, be the slightest
doubt whatsoever that Jesus made poverty a distinctly
pronounced, if not decisive, test of discipleship. To
the rich young man who appealed to him, Jesus said :
“If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast
and give it to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure
in heaven; and come and follow me.” (Mark has it :
“Then Jesus beholding him, loved him, and said unto
him : One thing thou lackest, etc."). He followed
this up by telling his disciples : “Verily, I say unto you,
that a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom
TI
1 Matt, v, 20,
JESUS OF NAZARETH
275
of heaven. And again I say unto you, it is easier
for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for
a rich man to enter into the kingdom of heaven.” The
question of his followers on this pronouncement and
his reply to them, is instructive. “When his disciples
heard it, they were exceedingly amazed, saying, who
can then be saved ? And Jesus beheld them and said
unto them, With men this is impossible, but with God
all things are possible." I
The question : “Who then can be saved ? " might
be justifiably applied to such an ethical system, were
it not that the Church has placed salvation, not on
what men do, but on what they believe to have once
happened. It is only when touching a question of
dogma, even if it be as obscure as the Incarnation, or
the eating of the flesh and the drinking of the blood of
Jesus, that the Church considers it so all-important
as to stake its very existence on it. It was in unmis-
takable language that Jesus said: “Blessed be ye
poor, for yours is the kingdom of heaven," and, as a
corollary, “But woe unto you that are rich, for ye have
received your consolation." 2 There can be nothing
more plain in meaning than the following injunction :
“But whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek,
turn to him the other also. And if any man will sue
thee at the law and take away thy coat, let him have
thy cloak also.”' 3 But the professed disciples of
Christ, as well as the exponents of his words, pay not the
slightest heed to them, just as his followers take their
oath on the book which contains his command: “I
say unto you, swear not at all.”' 4 It is not that Jesus
1 Matt. xix. 16–26; Mark x. 17-27.
2 Luke vi. 20, 24. 3 Matt. v. 39, 40. 4 Ibid., v. 34.
276 THE SYNAGOGUE AND THE CHURCH
meant his words to be taken lightly, for his discourses
end with the significant reproach: “Why do you call
me Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?"
or with the warning : “ Not every one that saith unto me
Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven,"
and he likens those that hear his sayings and do them
not to a foolish man who built his house upon the sand. 1
The lofty boldness of some of the utterances of Jesus
has only been acted upon by a very few chosen spirits,
whose innate spiritual energy would have found vent in
any other sphere, but with these infinitesimal exceptions
and outside the cloister, there is in the ordinary Christian
world scarcely one, priest or layman, who makes a
serious attempt to live the Christian life as preached
by Jesus. The standard set by him is for a small circle
of people striving for individual perfection, whose
wants are satisfied by the exertion of others, to whom
is left the struggle for subsistence, the maintenance of
peace and order, and the furtherance of social progress.
Even the monk, be it remembered, can only exist
because of the generosity of those who perforce lead
an un-Christian life, and his security is guaranteed by
anti-Christian means. "Take no thought for the
morrow," "Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon
earth," " Give every man that asketh of thee, and of
him that taketh away thy goods ask them not again,”
“Resist not evil," and other similar utterances, may
be considered by the Christian counsels of perfection
which he may well dispense with, while even Catholic
Rome, the patrimony of St. Peter, may, by its vast
accumulation of funded wealth, by its standing armies
and guards, be cited as a proof of the futility of such
1 Matt. vii. 21 ffg. ; Luke vi. 46 ffg.
JESUS OF NAZARETH
277
commandments : they certainly cannot be claimed by
those who deliberately disregard them to have intro-
duced a new moral order, to whose sway we should
submit on account of its sublime impracticability.
It is the distinction of the Mosaic rule of life that it
requires no impossible, superhuman effort, no seclusion
or morbid saintliness, to carry out our duty to God
and man, while it leaves at the same time a wide field
for our spiritual development, so that, like the Jewish
prophets, we may rise to the noblest conceptions of our
purpose in life. The command of Jesus that we should
love our enemies has not made the faintest impression,
but the Mosaic precept that we should love our neigh-
bour as ourselves, appeals to us by its natural humanity.
Surely, the greatness of moral codes is not to be deter-
mined merely by a comparison as to which of them bids
highest. The love which ostentatiously pervades the
theory of Christian life cannot measure itself with that
characteristic demand for justice in Jewish legislation
(otherwise so full of consideration for the weak and the
needy) that the judge shall not show favour to the poor.
It is thus only that there can exist a healthy social organ-
ism, where all human forces can be utilized in conformity
with our religious convictions, and where our efforts
at well-being are not to be carried on against a divine
behest, but are to be consecrated by it.
The Jewish view of Jesus does not, therefore, recog-
nize in him a teacher who effected a revolution in the
ethical domain of Israel. Nor is it admitted that he
gave a unique significance to the Fatherhood of God.
It is true, Jesus did realize this idea in a manner that is
given to few of our kind to attain. But he raised him-
self to the sonship of God by such a tremendous effort
278 THE SYNAGOGUE AND THE CHURCH
of spiritual exaltation that he left all his followers
wonderingly watching his ascension; till in their eyes
he eclipsed the glory of the Eternal, whose majesty
was henceforth hidden from sight. It was only by the
reflected lustre of the Son that the Divine Father was
to be revealed to His human children.
It is strange that the idea of a mediator between
God and man, a rôle ascribed to Jesus, should be con-
sidered a conception of the Divinity higher than that
which assumes that God can be approached in prayer
and praise direct by every human soul, without the
aid of any intermediary, whether human or divine.
It was part of the unique greatness of the ethical Mono-
theism of the Jews that they felt so near to God that
they dispensed with every such go-between, who was
intended to propitiate the Deity and render him trac-
table. It was the heathen who utilized the assistance
of inferior deities to obtain the favour of the mighty
gods, just as the Catholics make use of the saints for a
similar purpose. Moreover, the mediation of Jesus has
not by any means satisfied the cravings of the Church
for roundabout means of supplicating or appeasing
God the Father. Hence the existence of a Mother of
God, of innumerable saints, all of whom are utilized
to intercede not only with God, but with Jesus Christ,
the Son of God. It is thus to be observed that by the
majority of Christendom even Christ, the mediator, is
considered to be difficult of direct access, so that the
Virgin Mary, or some favourite male or female saint,
is invariably invoked in time of joy or distress. 1 While
1 As an illustration, I may be permitted to quote without
offence the following from Andrew Lang, in The Making of
Religion (p. 225): “ Beyond all doubt, savages who find them-
JESUS OF NAZARETH
279
7
Opvau 12X, "our Father in heaven,” expresses in
Judaism, (in accordance with the Biblical conception of
the idea of God) the divine Father of mankind, the term
“Father” applied to God in the Christian creed has
degenerated into a theological appellation, defined by
the predominant position of the Son in the Trinitarian
Deity.
To the Jew, the question of the divinity of Jesus pre-
sents no difficulty whatever. His Jewish contem-
poraries were quite accustomed to the idea, then current
among their neighbours, that men had, by their valour
and virtue, been raised to the dignity of gods, and the
apotheosis of the Roman Emperors became an ordinary
event, for which the Jews, alone of all the inhabitants
of the Empire, had no sympathy or understanding.
Nor has the modern Jew any necessity to undergo the
painful experience of the critical Christian, who has to
abandon cherished beliefs about the character and nature
of Jesus by an elaborate process of elimination. For,
if we consider the blind dogma about the virgin-birth
of Jesus inculcated in every Christian, what rational
grounds can be offered to substantiate such an astonish-
ing claim ? The idea has then no more right to our
attention than the similar stories of virgin-births told
of many heroes in ancient mythologies; there can be
no question of evidence in a matter of this kind, and it
selves under the watchful eye of a moral deity whom they
cannot "square" will desert him as soon as they have evolved
a practical ghost-god, useful for family purposes, whom they
can square. No less manifestly, savages, who already possess
a throng of serviceable ghost-gods, will not enthusiastically
evolve a moral Creator who despises gifts and only cares for
obedience.” Mr. Lang then adds, in reference to a certain
theory of his : "There is a good deal of human nature in man."
280 THE SYNAGOGUE AND THE CHURCH
is entirely a matter of faith to which every one who
desires to share in is welcome. But it should be pointed
out, as of very important bearing on the supposed
divine nature of Jesus, that Roman Catholic Chris-
tianity not only believes in the supernatural origin of
Jesus, but maintains also the immaculate conception
of his mother, thus ascribing a peculiar miraculous
virtue even to the grandmother of Christ. Hundreds
of millions of Christians fervently accept the dogma
of the immaculate conception of Mary as an essential
part of their religion, and to them, of course, the belief
in the divinity of Jesus is a natural and congenial feature
of their spiritual life.1
It was just through this super-addition of the current
mythological views of the time to the moral elements
of Judaism, that the religion of Jesus Christ found such
ready acceptance among a population prepared to welcome
something nobler than the worn-out and degrading
religious conceptions of the heathen. If, therefore,
the spread of Christianity is asserted to be one of the
evidences of the truth of that faith, it is in reality a
proof of the easy assimilation of the Christ legends by
those for whose benefit they came into being. The
supernatural birth of the human god or divine man,
the slaying of a god and his conquest of death, the
incarnated Logos, or Word, devised by Plato and Philo
Judæus, the rite in which men partake of the flesh
and blood of their god, all these and other aspects of
Jesus Christ undoubtedly brought down his religion
1 In Catholic polemics against Protestantism it is argued that
if the divinity of Jesus be admitted, there can be no objection
to subscribe to the Catholic doctrines about the Mother of God,
etc.
JESUS OF NAZARETH
281
to the level of the heathen cults. It is idle to suggest that
the companions of Jesus, who are considered more or less
responsible for the stories relating to him, must have
been impostors in describing events which never hap-
pened. It is not necessary to adjudicate on this point,
or on the personal standing of Jesus in this respect, as
the New Testament biographies possessed by us are
none of them the work of immediate disciples of Jesus,
while the reliable value of the Gospels can be estimated
from the fact that the authors relate to us incidents
or conversations at which neither they, nor any follower
of their master, could have been present, or have over-
heard. Nor, as has been said, are we to be impressed
because the belief in the divinity and moral supremacy
of Jesus has spread over a vast part of the world. The
Christian faith was adopted by all the European nations at
an early stage in their history, when they were in a very
primitive state of culture, just as Christianity assumed
its dominant position in the Roman Empire when it
had sunk to its lowest condition, and just as no one
of any intellectual eminence has ever adopted Chris-
tianity on account of its specific doctrines alone. For
the hold it still retains on its most civilized votaries,
Christianity is indebted to its moral elements, not to
what is characteristically Christian, such as its teachings
on poverty and non-resistance, but to the healthy and
vigorous ethical principles derived from Judaism. Our
whole civilization and moral order, glibly described as
Christian, is in direct antagonism to the standard of
life demanded by Christ. No healthy state of society
has ever been built on purely Christian principles. The
most pronouncedly Christian bodies, like the crusaders,
lived by the sword, and at the present day Christian
282 THE SYNAGOGUE AND THE CHURCH
kings and emperors demand of their Christian soldiers
that they shall take a Christian oath (directly forbidden
by Christ) to act as faithful instruments of slaughter
and destruction.1 Our courts of law and the measures
of protection to which even the Churches appeal are
a negation of the Christian principle of non-resistance.
The wealth and prosperity of Christian States are built
up on anti-Christian practices, and the Christian denomi-
nations carry on their work supported by the proceeds
from such sources.
It is not so much that our conceptions of morality
are radically wrong, but that the teachings of the Gospels
are so hopelessly impossible of accomplishment. If,
as Jesus recommended, and his disciples understood
him, “it is not expedient to marry," or that, at least,
“he that is able to receive it, let him receive it," 2 then
marriage is undesirable ; nay, more, in view of the
fundamental dogma of original sin, the propagation of
the species is an essentially sinful act. But how then
can any Christian conscientiously fulfil the duties to
his race ? What must become of any community where
the bonds of family are to be of no avail, and are even
strongly discouraged in such terms as : "If any man
cometh unto me, and hateth not his own father, and
mother, and wife, and children, and brethren and sisters,
yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple” ? 3
As a revenge for this high-strung demand, we have
Christian society, proud of its Christian professions,
but tacitly ignoring them. in practice. Our prominent
1 The traditional and close alliance between European mili
tarism and the Church is the most telling refutation of the claim of
Christianity to represent the Messianic religion.
2 Matt. xix. 10-12.
3 Luke xiv. 26.
JESUS OF NAZARETH
283
writers and thinkers may admire certain humanitarian
ideas of Jesus, but they either deny, or pass entirely
over, his supernatural birth, miracles, resurrection and
ascension, while those teachings of Christ which
distinguish them from our current conceptions of the
highest morality are not even touched upon, except
for the purpose of condemnation.
As a clinching proof against the Jewish argument
that Jesus was not the promised Messiah, Christians
have always brought up the sufferings of the Jews, which
are supposed to have come upon them for the rejection
and crucifixion of their Saviour. That the Jews killed
Jesus has at all times been a standing theme of denun-
ciation against them. Dean Farrar puts it clearly in
the following language : "Like the mark of Cain upon
the forehead of their race, the guilt of that blood has
seemed to cling to them as it ever must until that
same blood effaceth it." i This sentiment of an en-
lightened Christian ecclesiastic has been acted upon
by less generous Christians with a correspondingly
greater barbarity. For this, the Gospel stories of the
crucifixion are partly, and the uncharitableness of the
Christian teachers mostly, responsible. It should be
remembered that the Gospels were composed at a
time after the Jews had suffered the overwhelming
calamity of the destruction of their State, and this
event was interpreted by their enemies as a just punish-
ment for the death of Jesus, the guilt of the Jews thus
being raised to the highest pitch. It is characteristic
of the bias shown in the evangelical accounts that while
we are told that Pilate, with an unusual superfluity of
conscientious scruple, washed his hands of the proposed
1 Life of Christ, ii, p. 391.
284 THE SYNAGOGUE AND THE CHURCH
crime, saying: “I am innocent of the blood of this
righteous man : see ye to it," the Jews shouted that
the blood of Jesus be upon them and their children.
Nevertheless, even if it were all true, it is impossible
to see how the Jews as a nation can be held responsible
for the crime, if the death of Jesus was not only to serve
the purpose for which he came into the world, but
without which the salvation of the human race could
not, according to the divine "scheme," have taken place.
Further, the believing Christian, to whom the words
of his Saviour are sacred, must recognize that the
exclamation of Jesus on the cross : “Father, forgive
them, for they know not what they do," is decisive
evidence that, in the first place, the Jews implicated
were not so much evil-minded as under a false concep-
tion of duty, and, secondly, that this unconscious sin was
to be forgiven to them. Christian theologians have not
been over-anxious to draw the only conclusion to be
derived from the prayer of Jesus on behalf of his per-
secutors, and it seems somewhat out of place for Farrar
to exclaim: “May that prayer be heard."i There
are but two alternatives as to the effect of this prayer.
If the Jews, from the Christian standpoint, are to be
held liable for the alleged crucifixion of Jesus by some of
their forefathers, then his prayer to God was not heard
a supposition which will hardly be admitted by his
followers; but if his prayer was granted by God-as
every Christian must unreservedly concede—then there
can be no question but that the Jews were absolved
both by Jesus, as well as by God Himself, from the
punishment of their admittedly unconscious guilt.
1 Life, ii. p. 391. Farrar prays that the invocation of Jesus be
heard by God!
JESUS OF NAZARETH
285
But Christians should least of all throw stones at
the Jews for the tragedy which was enacted at Jerusalem
about nineteen centuries ago. Christian history is
one long record of persecution and intolerance, both
towards one another, as well as towards strangers.
There is no other faith which has made of religious
hatred such a fine art. There is nothing to equal the
fury with which one Christian sect pursued another ;
the world cannot show another institution which has
inflicted so much sorrow and pain on the human race
as the Holy Inquisition of the Catholic Church, and
the treatment of the Jews is a standing evidence of the
absence of that fairness and charity we have a right to
expect in a faith which arrogates to itself a monopoly
of love.
To appreciate the responsibility we may attach to the
Jews for the death of Jesus, it is necessary to consider
the manner in which religious enthusiasts and reformers
within Christendom have been treated by their former
fellows-in-faith. It will be found that scarcely ever
have they been tolerated, and that many of them met
a violent death at the hands of their opponents. This
is such a notorious fact, that it should hardly be worth
while to labour the point. But two different incidents,
characteristic of many others in Christian history, may
be touched upon here with advantage.
During the English Commonwealth, a Quaker, named
James Naylor, considered that he was Christ and the
Saviour of the world. He carried out many of the
actions ascribed to Jesus in the Gospels. He even
raised a person from the dead, and, among his followers,
one Dorcas Earberry swore before a magistrate that she
had been dead two days and that Naylor had brought
i
286 THE P
SYNAGOGUE AND THE CHURCH
her back to life. The matter came before Parliament, and
they spent some ten days in inquiries and debates
about him. As the result, he was condemned by them
to be pilloried, whipped, burned in the face, and to
have his tongue bored through with a red-hot iron.
All this he bore with much patience. But in the end
he was sent to Bridewell, confined to hard labour, fed on
bread and water, and prevented from seeing any of his
disciples. His illusions dissipated, and he was liberated
some time afterwards. 1
While this may be taken as a comparatively enlight-
ened treatment of a visionary, the fate of the reformer
John Huss can be quoted as an example of the attitude
of the highest clerical and lay body in Christendom
towards such people. They were assembled in solemn
conclave at the Council of Constance, when Huss
appeared before it. Knowing the danger he ran, he
had secured beforehand a return safe-conduct from the
Emperor Sigismund himself, who attended the Council.
Nevertheless, Huss was arrested by order of the Pope
and the Cardinals there. He was put on his trial for
teaching contrary to the doctrines of the Church, and
no defenders were allowed to him, though every kind
of testimony against him was admitted by his ecclesias-
tical judges. His views were finally declared heretical,
and it was ordered that all his books be publicly burned.
He himself was publicly degraded from the priesthood,
and, by order of the civil authorities, he was burned
alive, and his ashes thrown into the river.2
1 Hume, History of England (ed. 1803), viii. pp. 398, 399.
2 By direction of the same Council, the bones of the English
reformer Wyclif were ordered to be disinterred and thrown
into a sewer, his followers to be hanged as rebels and burned as
heretics.
JESUS OF NAZARETH
287
If ever the guilt committed by the representatives of
a nation, or of a religion, can be charged to it for all time,
this does surely apply to the martyrdom inflicted by
Catholics on Huss. We have here the highest dignitaries
of Christendom condemning a man to be burned at the
stake though he had done nothing worse than follow
the dictates of his conscience by the light of the Gospel
-an elementary right which Protestantism afterwards
conferred on a large section of the disciples of Christ.
The pledged word of the Emperor was broken, with the
active approval of the Pope, on the ground that no
faith need be kept with heretics if it be to the detriment of
the Church, and, to crown the dramatic aspect, the people
themselves proved anxious to participate in the godly
work of burning an unbeliever, 1 an event which was in
those times observed as a popular holiday, when Catholics
flocked together, and high-born ladies and gentlemen
met in a becoming festive mood, to witness an “act of
faith,” by which significant term was designated the
burning of condemned heretics and infidels. Yet,
who can hold the present-day Catholics responsible
for the burning of Huss, or for the violent death of
innumerable Protestants who have been executed by
the authorities of Catholic Christianity ?
Moreover, it is not in accordance with historic fact
to maintain that the destruction of the Jewish State,
and the subsequent sufferings of the Jews, were a
retribution for their treatment of Jesus. The Jewish
1 There is the touching story of how the attention of Huss,
while bound to the stake, was attracted to an old woman who
was bowed down under the weight of a bundle of faggots she
was zealously carrying to his pyre, at the sight of which he
exclaimed : “O sancţa simplicitas !”
288 THE SYNAGOGUE AND THE CHURCH
people were groaning under the tyranny of Rome
before the time of Jesus, and their troubles could have
been very substantially relieved if they had been willing
to identify themselves with the pagan ideas and prac-
tices of their conquerors. The Jews, however, like
the early Christians, preferred to stand by what they
considered to be the truth, and to suffer for it. But what
is reckoned as a virtue to the Christian, cannot surely,
under similar circumstances, be regarded as a vice if
applied to the Jews. The destruction of Jerusalem
was a corollary to that irresistible expansion of the
Roman Empire which could brook no opposition.
Carthage had not been guilty of such a crime as is
imputed to the Jews, yet that great city, the rival of
Rome, was utterly annihilated, while its inhabitants
left no trace behind them. The adoption of Christianity
would not have availed the Jews, for, although they
formed no State or nation, the Christians them-
selves were afterwards equally exposed to persecution.
The profession of the Christian faith never saved the
independence of a people, unless it was backed by
a sufficiently strong military force. Rome itself was
sacked after it had become Christian, and the Christian
nations which first adopted that religion have either
been wiped out, or now lead but a phantom existence.
Not only was Christian Palestine, in spite of all efforts
of the Christian Occident, turned into a Mohammedan
country, but Armenia, which boasts of being the first
Christian kingdom, is to-day divided between a number
of infidel oppressors. The independence of the Chris-
tian States in the whole Orient has been destroyed,
and even Greece, that classically Christian country,
has only been restored to a mere skeleton of its former
:
289
:
JESUS OF NAZARETH
JE
self by the armed power of sympathetic Christian
nations. How could the Jews have escaped those
cataclysms which overwhelmed the Christian States,
and why should the calamities of the Jews be treated
as the necessary result of a crime, and those of the
Christians as examples of misfortune redeemed by the
heroism of faith ?
Let it not be said by Christians that their persecu-
tion of the Jews is an irrefragable proof of their wicked-
ness. This would be not only a bitter mockery, but,
at best, an assertion unworthy of any body of people
professing to live by the light of a great ideal of self-
sacrifice and love. The office of executioner is not one.
which we can call blessed. Even those who, like Dean
Farrar, seem to owe it to their Christian conscience to
stamp the Jews with the mark of Cain, will surely on
reflection agree with him that "there is a fire that
purifies, no less than a fire that scathes, and who shall
say that the very affliction of Israel-afflictions, alas !
so largely caused by the sin of Christendom-may not
have been meant for a refining of the pure gold ? God's
judgments—it may be the very sternest and the most
irremediable of them--come many a time in the guise,
not of affliction, but of immense earthly prosperity
and ease.” 1
The Church has always regarded those who died for its
sake as martyrs worthy of the highest veneration, so
much so that Christian tradition has conferred the
honour of martyrdom on the apostles themselves. No
Christian will suggest that the persecution of the early
Christians was due to their wickedness, or that their
pagan oppressors enjoyed peace and prosperity because
Life o Christ, ii. p. 391, note 1.
290 THE SYNAGOGUE AND THE CHURCH
of their virtues. Neither the Irish Catholics nor the
Albigenses and Waldenses can be accused of anything
worse than obstinacy, and their co-religionists still
recall it with justifiable pride. Why should the excep-
tion be made in the case of the Jews, whose steadfast-
ness of faith excels in an incomparable measure that
of any other religious body? It was apostasy to the
dominant religion, Mohammedan as well as Christian,
which could have turned the Jew from a slave into a
freeman, and who, on reflection, can conscientiously
say that the Jew would have acted more nobly if he
had consulted his material welfare and ignominiously
abandoned the memories of his past and the hopes of
the future ?
The enormous power of Christianity does not impress
the modern Jew, any more than the greatness of the
Roman Empire, or the magnificence of Greek culture,
turned the Jew of old from his allegiance to those great
truths enunciated by Judaism which afterwards became
the framework of European ethics and civilization.
Truth cannot be decided by votes, and the power of
numbers does not count when facts and principles are
at stake. The undoubted sway of the name of Jesus
over so many of the noblest of men and women is indeed a
significant indication of the greatness of his personality,
but it is the distinction of Judaism that it does not stand
or fallwith the character or existence of any human being.
The most rational attitude of the Jews towards Jesus
is a purely negative one. He is, of course, of exceeding
import to them as a Jewish figure, who has shed a
light over vas: masses of his fellow-men, and the
words ascribed to him are of much interest to Jewish
theologians, as showing how deeply he was rooted in the
JESUS OF NAZARETH
291
faith and ideas of his people, but there can be no place for
Jesus in the religion of Israel. He is indissolubly bound
up with the Christian dogma of the Trinity, and instead
of being one of our own flesh and blood, who has raised
our kind to divine heights, he has been turned into a
deity, who, like many of his pagan predecessors, walked
this earth, and by his virtues and death is supposed
to have saved mankind from perdition. The real.
point at issue between Judaism and Christianity on
the personality of Jesus is this : Was he God, or was
he a mere man ? The discussions and disputes about
the originality of certain views and dicta are beside
the point, and indeed are but trifling, when we consider
that we are placed before the decisive issue : Was Jesus
God or man? We have clear evidence that, so far from
being God Himself, he was not only a man with very
human failings, but that he was liable to gross errors.1
Numberless men have cheerfully undergone the death
of martyrdom for conscience' sake, but how can we
reconcile the idea that Jesus came to die for mankind
with his prayer: “O my Father, if it be possible, let this
cup pass away from me,” 2 or with the remarkably sig-
nificant exclamation on the cross : “My God, my God,
why hast Thou forsaken me ? "3 How could such
words have been uttered by one who claimed
to be God Himself and to have come down to earth to
die for the salvation of the human race? We need
. The fact that the Ebionites, who naturally maintained the
closest traditional relations with the real Jesus, strenuously denied
his Divinity (cf. Eusebius, Eccles. Hist., ch. xxvii.) is sufficient
proof against the truth of this dogma, and modern Christian
theologians of the critical school have amply confirmed the justi-
fication of the views of those primitive Jewish Christians.
2 Matt. xxvi. 39.
3 Ibid., xxvii. 46.
292 THE SYNAGOGUE AND THE CHURCH
not go into any detailed examination of the various
acts and utterances ascribed to Jesus, but what, for
instance, are we to say of his cursing the fig-treė because
it bore no fruit at a time when, as is expressly stated,
it ought not to have had any, of the drowning of the
Gadarene swine, of useless miracles, like the turning of
water into wine, etc. ?
There is one important fact in his life which shows
beyond argument the fallibility of Jesus. His most
efficacious miracles, those which brought him most
credit among his contemporaries, consisted in casting
out devils from possessed beings.1 Circumstantial
stories are told of how these demons recognized his
character as Messiah and Son of God, and all evidences
agree that Jesus shared the then common fallacy that
people are troubled with certain mental disorders because
they are possessed by evil spirits, which can be expelled
or transferred to some other abode. At the present
time, there is hardly any man of education who honestly
maintains that Jesus was right in his view. Even
Farrar says: “That they regarded as demoniacal
possession what we regard as epilepsy and mania is
certain." ? If it cannot be said that Jesus knowingly
deceived the ignorant populace and confirmed them
in their superstition, from which he drew much of
his authority among his followers, then it must be
admitted that he was liable to very serious error, both
in the physical and spiritual domains.3
i Peter, in speaking of Jesus, referred to him as one "who
went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of
the devil” (Acts x. 38).
2 Life, i. p. 236, note 1.
3 Döllinger says that, following the teaching of Origen
JESUS OF NAZARETH
293
0
Then there remains the sure and certain faith of the
believer in Christ as the Lord and Saviour of mankind.
But how can we test the reliability of the promises of
Jesus that all who believe in him shall have eternal
life? There is, on the contrary, one indisputable proof
that Jesus was himself deceived in this respect, and
that his disciples were completely led astray by him.
If there was one doctrine, one unshakable hope, which
upheld the faith of the Christian more than anything
else, it was the expected speedy return of Jesus from
heaven to rule over the human race. He had told his
disciples : “Verily, verily, I say unto you, there be
some of them that stand here which shall in no wise
taste of death, till they see the son of man coſing
in his kingdom.” i After the death of Jesus this
became the firm belief of the apostles who had been in
constant contact with him, and Paul spoke of it with
all the passionate conviction of which he was capable.
Prof. Otto Pfleiderer has put the case clearly, by saying :
“All the hopes and wishes of the community, since
the first visions of Christ, were directed towards this
his earthly return, or Second Coming; nay, these
visions, and the certainty of the Crucified One being
alive, which was produced by them, had so great funda-
mental importance for the first disciples only because
(which had, of course, the authority of Jesus), madness was con-
sidered only a form of demoniacal possession, and that this view
was held in Europe for over 1,000 years, although 400 years B.C.
Hippocrates, and later on Galen, already recognized that mental
disorders were identical with diseases of the brain. “This is a
dark page in the annals of Europe. This state of things involved
a retrogressive step for which a parallel can scarcely be found.”
(Studies in European History, p. 183.) The practice of exorcism
exists in the Roman Catholic Church to the present day.
* Matt. xvi. 28.
294 THE SYNAGOGUE AND THE CHURCH
they saw in them the guarantee of his immediately im-
pending return and visible dominion. That the Lord was
at hand and with him the great day of judgment and
of deliverance, the time of the renovation of the world,
of the founding of a new order of things, or of the
Kingdom of God in place of the Satanic kingdom of
the world—this was the constantly recurring watch-
word in which the whole confession of the first Chris-
tians was still comprised.” i With time this funda-
mental Christian hope lost all its force, and Millen-
arianism, as it was afterwards called, became a de-
spised doctrine condemned as a “Jewish dotage.”
We, who live nineteen centuries after the first dis-
ciples of Jesus, know that they were absolutely wrong
in their expectation that there would be fulfilled the
solemn promise of their Master : “Verily, I say unto
you, this generation shall not pass away till all these
things be accomplished.” 2 But if we have been able
to test by the perfect certainty of our irrefragable ex-
perience the fallacy of this declaration of Jesus, and
now know how vain was the hope of the believers in
him, what faith can we have in their views of his divine
nature, or in the fulfilment of the promises of Jesus in
regions beyond our touch and ken ?
1 Philosophy and Development of Religion, ii. p. 121. Dean
Milman says: “There can be no doubt both that many of the
early Christians almost hourly expected the final dissolution of the
world, and that this opinion awed many timid believers into
the profession of Christianity, and kept them trembling to its
authority.” History of Christianity, i. p. 419.
2 Matt. xxiv. 34; Mark xiii. 30; Luke xxi. 32.
CHAPTER X
THE CHURCHES OF CHRIST
"Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter
into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my
Father which is in heaven. Many will say unto 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 proſess unto them, I never knew you."
-Jesus, in Matthew vii. 21–23.
ALTHOUGH Jesus did not found the Church in the sense
in which he is popularly supposed to have done, yet
the nucleus of it was formed by the disciples he had
gathered around Him and those who believed in his
mission as the Messiah promised by the prophets. The
small community constituted an integral part of Juda-
ism. The apostles of Jesus were constant and devout
attendants at the services of the Temple, and even
when, after a considerable number of years, the body of
believers had grown to comprise “many thousands,"
they were still zealous adherents of the Mosaic institu-
tions.1 It is to be noted that whatever minor differ-
ences there existed in Judaism at that period, there
was no impassable division, like that which took place
i Luke xxiv. 53: Acts iji. I; xxi. 20. “The first fiſteen
Bishops of Jerusalem were all circumcised Jews; and the Con-
gregation over which they presided united the Law of Moses
with the doctrine of Christ." Gibbon, Roman Empire, ii. p. 10.
295
296 THE SYNAGOGUE AND THE CHURCH
in Christianity shortly after the death of Jesus ; the
Temple was always the House of God for all Israel.
The followers of Jesus were only distinguished from
the other Jews by maintaining his Messiahship. This
they proclaimed everywhere, even among the wor-
shippers in the Temple, especially to the pilgrims who
came to Jerusalem for the Festivals.The Hellenistic
Jews, full of fanciful ideas about the institutions and
beliefs of Judaism, proved a ready field for the Jesuist
propaganda. Hence there soon grew up, besides the
original Judaic disciples of Jesus, a group of Hellenist
devotees, who, owing to ever-increasing numbers, even
disputed the right of the Hebraists to a predominant
influence over the charitable distributions in the com-
munity. Unlike the Jewish apostles, however, the
Hellenists were not satisfied with spreading their faith
in Jesus, but attacked Judaism as a whole, and particu-
larly the Temple. It was on such an occasion that one
of these zealots, Stephen, was stoned to death by an
infuriated crowd. The persecution which thereupon
1 Those who criticize the Jewish priests in the Temple, because
they took umbrage at this action of the apostles and other fol-
lowers of Jesus, might consider what would be the conse-
quences to any one attempting to proclaim anti-Christian
doctrines in one of the great Cathedrals of Christendom. That
such a foolhardy adventure would have led to a result fatal
to the delinquent and his associates if it had happened amongst
ancient and medieval Christians goes without saying, but
even in the present twentieth century the propaganda of only
a diverging form of Christianity within the precincts of, say,
the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem, would mean
death to the culprit.
2 The story of Stephen's trial by the Sanhedrin is fictitious.
The charges against him and his trial are made to parallel the
case of Jesus. In view of the open declaration of Stephen, there
was no necessity for the false witnesses which are said to have
THE CHURCHES OF CHRIST 297
ensued seems to have been directed against the Hellenists
only, who all left Jerusalem, while the Hebraist apostles
remained behind.1 In these proceedings there distin-
guished himself by his zeal one named Saul of Tarsus.
The fervour of his hatred for the sectarians drove him
to pursue them as far as Damascus, but on the road he
is said to have seen a celestial vision and to have heard
a voice, which proved the turning point in his life. It
would be idle to vie with rationalistic Christian his-
torians in their attempts to find an explanation for
the alleged miracle, but this is perhaps best understood
if we keep in mind the fact that he was subject to
trances ; 2 his companions saw a light, but, as he ad-
mitted, no one, except himself heard the voice. His
sudden conversion was to change the whole outlook
of the Christian community. There can be no question
but that it was Paul who was the virtual creator of the
Church. It is due to Paul that Jesus occupies his
predominant position in the Christian system ; it was
Paul who constructed an original theory of Jesus and
his work, and so became the founder of Christian
theology. He knew nothing of the Jesus who lived
and died like every other mortal, and he cared even
less to inquire about him of those who had seen his
master in the flesh. Paul particularly claimed that
he did not even confer with the apostles, and that his
gospel was not received by him from any man, but
been set up, nor could the Sanhedrin sentence him to death
without the authority of the Roman Governor. Stephen is
made to die with the same expressions as those uttered by
Jesus. Cf. Acts vi. and vii.
1 Acts viii. 1.
; Acts xxii. 17.
3 Ibid., xxii. 6-10. Cf. also xxvi. 13-18.
298 THE SYNAGOGUE AND THE CHURCH
that it was a direct revelation to him from Jesus Christ.1
Although he gives no indication as to the means by
which this revelation was communicated to him, he
demanded for his teachings such an unswerving accep-
tance that he emphatically cursed those of his rival
propagandists who preached the Christian doctrine
differently from him.
This vaunted independence of Paul of the traditions
preserved by the original apostles of Jesus led to far-
reaching results within the new religion, and affected
fundamentally the attitude of Christianity towards
Judaism.
If the Christian attitude towards the Jewish Torah,
or Law, may be considered as settled beyond discus-
sion, this is far from being the case when the necessity
for that position and its cause are investigated. Paul
laid it down that the Jewish Law was opposed to true
religion, and must, therefore, be abolished. The views
of Paul were completely adopted in the development
of Christianity, and it has consequently always been
considered the duty of a Christian theologian to justify
Paulinism by painting the effects of the Law on the
Jews in the blackest colours. The shade varies with the
temperament of the writer, and also a great deal with
his sense of responsibility. So ingrained, however,
is the popular view of the Law even among generous-
minded Christians, who would otherwise be quite
incapable of committing themselves to any conscious
misrepresentation in support of their faith, that
Judaism is calumniated by them even where there is
no apparent justification.3
i Gal. i. 11-17.
2 Gal. i. 6-9.
3 Thus it was that a distinguished and gifted Christian divine
THE CHURCHES OF CHRIST
299
Taking the Law at its lowest conception, and Paul
as an unimpeachable authority, Christian theologians
have endeavoured to prove from Rabbinic writings
the validity of his dicta on the subject. Jewish apolo-
gists, on the other hand, have attempted to reſute these
views by quoting the same sources to the effect that
the teachings enunciated there show the highest con-
ception of morality, and that not only was every evil
deed and unworthy thought unreservedly reprobated
by the exponents of Judaism, but that ethics, and not
ceremonialism, formed its fundamental basis. But
the complete disregard of the Jewish defence has been
a tradition of the Christian “Scribes and Pharisees,"
which has always been held in high honour by them.
It is not that the citation of Talmudic and Midrashic
passages is the most effective way of settling the ques-
tion one way or the other; for, after all, the Law of
Moses is still a living force; it is still studied and prac-
tised by millions of adherents. Why, then, should
Christians only judge it by the opinions of its great
like Charles Kingsley could pronounce himself in the following
terms: "The Rabbis became, in due time, some of the worst
and wickedest men who ever trod this earth," and, as for their
ethical conduct, we are told that it " is known to all the world,
in the spectacle of the most unrivalled religiosity and scrupulous
respectability, combined with a more utter absence of moral
sense, in their most cultivated and learned men, than the world
has ever beheld before or since." (Historical Lectures and
Essays, pp. 64-66.) These opinions were not uttered in a
homiletic discourse, where, without hurting anybody's feelings,
those terrible Rabbis could have been conveniently served up
as remarkable specimens of moral ſailure, but Kingsley spoke
thus at the Philosophical Institution in Edinburgh, in a series
of historical lectures on “ Alexandria and her Schools," of which,
by the way, one of the most illustrious representatives was
Philo the Jew, a zealous champion of the Law.
300 THE SYNAGOGUE AND THE CHURCH
opponent Paul ? Is it not true that the only really
conclusive test is not mere theory, but its practical
application ?
We may, for instance, be informed by a Christian
controversialist that while Jesus taught that if we are
smitten on one cheek we should offer the other, a Rabbi
said that an ignorant man ought to be killed. Now, it
is here that the experience of life would prove decisive.
It would then be generally agreed that Christians are
as little in the habit of turning the other cheek as it
is customary among the Jews to slay their ignorant
men. Therefore, instead of basing their theories upon
a Pauline conception of the Law, and then supporting
it with dead book-lore, Christian historians, and even
theologians, might do better to study the effects
of the Law on its adherents to-day. It will then
be found that it tends to the love of God and man, and
that its moral force is powerful and unimpeachable.
For the same practical test has to be applied
in the consideration of Christianity by Jews. We
may be told by a Jewish writer that while the New
Testament shows that Jesus compared the Gentiles
to mere dogs, the Jewish Scribes considered that to love
one's fellow-man like oneself was the greatest command-
ment in the Law. Nevertheless, it would be justly
pointed out from the Christian side that the quotations
may indeed be scrupulously correct, but that the un-
favourable construction put upon the words of Jesus in
this comparison was all the same unfair and unjustified.
As to the abrogation of the Law, Paul was in open
conflict not only with Judaism, but with Jesus and
his original apostles. The attitude of Jesus on the
question is unmistakably set forth in the following
THE CHURCHES OF CHRIST
301
pronouncement by him, the genuineness of which is
well attested by his having lived in accordance there-
with : “ Think not that I am come to destroy the Law
or the prophets ; I came not to destroy, but to fulfil.
For verily I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass
away, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass away
from the Law, till all things be fulfilled. Whosoever
therefore shall break one of these least commandments
and shall teach men so, he shall be called least in the
kingdom of heaven, but whosoever shall do and teach
them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of
heaven.”1 Any other evidence that might be brought
up to show that Jesus did not always so uncompromis-
ingly declare the validity of the Law, or demand its
practice, would merely prove the inconsistency of the
utterances ascribed to Jesus or the utter unreliability
of the New Testament records. But the life of Jesus,
1 Matt. v. 17-19. As an illustration that the Jewish view
of the Law and that enunciated by Jesus are identical, it is of
interest to quote the prayer 727 anx in the Jewish Morning
Service :-
"With abounding love' hast Thou loved us, O Lord our God,
with great and exceeding pity hast Thou pitied us. Our Father,
our King, for our fathers' sake, who trusted in Thee, and whom
Thou didst teach the statutes of life, be also gracious unto us
and teach us. O our Father, merciful Father, ever compassion-
ate, have mercy upon us; O put it into our hearts to understand
and to discern, to mark, learn and teach, to heed, to do and to
fulfil in love all the words of instruction in Thy Law. Enlighten
our eyes in Thy Law, and let our hearts cleave to Thy command-
ments, and unite our hearts to love and fear Thy Name, so that
we be never put to shame, ... Blessed art Thou, O Lord,
who hast chosen Thy people Israel in love." (Daily Prayer
Book, Singer, pp. 39, 40.)
This very ancient prayer may serve to dissipate the dogmatic
assumption that the Jews are groaning under the yoke of the
Law as if it were a heavy burden.
302 THE SYNAGOGUE AND THE CHURCH
which is considered by his followers to have been lived
as an example to mankind, amply suffices to answer
any doubts or controversies on this subject, for he him-
self carried out the commandments of the Law. Any
liberal interpretations of it which he may have some-
times expressed do not detract in any way from this
position, as they are also attributed to Rabbis who were
unquestioning upholders of the institutes of Judaism.
If there be any further doubt on the point, this is
completely settled by the conduct of the brothers,
apostles and other immediate disciples of Jesus. Not
only did they observe the Law, but they offered every
opposition to any attempt to dispense with it. Paul's
endeavours to free the Gentile converts from its com-
mands were acceded to after great difficulties only as
a compromise, but it was maintained by the Mother-
Church in Jerusalem, which was“ zealous for the Law,'' 1
that Jewish proselytes must still conform to it. In
this connexion, the questions whether Paul was justified
then or by subsequent events in discarding the Mosaic
Law, and whether its abrogation was desirable or neces-
sary for Christianity, are altogether beside the point at
issue. We must assume that those who were the con-
stant and faithful companions of Jesus, those to whom
he imparted his teachings fc: transmission to the
world, knew and understood the mind of their master.
If in strenuously upholding the validity of the Law,
they were so mistaken, and so diametrically opposed
to his views, as is assumed by Paul, who did not know
him in the flesh, then the whole of the evidence regard-
ing Jesus which has been left to us by his first disciples
possesses not the slightest claim to trustworthiness.
1 Acts xxi. 20.
THE CHURCHES OF CHRIST
303
It was not, however, only in regard to the observance
of the Law that Paul was at variance with the elder
apostles. His self-imposed task to preach the Gospel
to the Gentiles was likewise in direct disagreement
with their views and contrary to their received doctrine
and practice. The original disciples of Jesus not only
refused to co-operate with Paul in his work among the
Gentiles, as would have been their duty if Christ had
commanded them to that effect, but they actually
opposed it. Here again, according to the Pauline
theory, the attitude and actions of the Jewish Chris-
tians seem either indefensible or incomprehensible.
The importance of this fact has been well pointed out
by F. C. Baur: “The standpoint which the elder
apostles occupied over against Paul cannot be sufficiently
kept before us. It is as clear as possible that (at this
time at least, fourteen years after the conversion of the
apostle Paul) their circle of vision did not extend beyond
Judaism. They knew nothing at all of a direct Gentile
Christianity, it existed without any co-operation from
their side ; they had still to be brought to recognize it
by Paul, and their recognition appeared entirely as a
concession forced from them. They could not do
otherwise, for they were not in a condition to resist
the strength of circumstances and the overpowering
personal influence of Paul. But they only consented
not to oppose the Pauline Christianity, which with
regard to their principles they should in consistency
have done ; they stipulated also that they should be
allowed to hold themselves passive towards it, or, in
one word, to ignore it.” i The subsequent conduct
of the elder apostles was altogether inglorious. They
: 1 Paul, the Apostle of Jesus Christ, Engl. Tr., 2nd ed., i. p. 9.
304 THE SYNAGOGUE AND THE CHURCH
were undoubtedly opposed to Paul's policy in his work
for the conversion of the Gentiles, for which, indeed,
they had never any sympathy, yet they agreed, and
so did Paul himself, that there were to be two Gospels;
the Gospel of the circumcision was to be preached by
Peter, and the Gospel of the uncircumcision by Paul.
The heads of the Church in Jerusalem, which included
James (the brother of Jesus), Peter and John, retained
their former standpoint and scene of activity, 1 while
Paul and his colleagues were to confine themselves to
the heathen. For this concession the elder apostles
demanded that the Pauline churches should support
financially the Jerusalem community, and Paul gladly
agreed to pay their price.2
This bargain was struck because of the success of
Paul in gaining converts, and it was on this fact that
he based his claims for apostleship and equality with
Peter. But the differing views of the two sections of
the Church gave rise to conflicts, even between Peter
and Paul,4 and these gradually grew into enmity, so
that it has been concluded that the Jewish Christians
at Jerusalem, who regarded Paul as a dangerous adver-
sary, took part in the persecution there of the apostle
of the uncircumcision. How far the stories about
his compliance with the Law at Jerusalem for appear-
ance' sake are true, is a matter which need not be
discussed here, but the extraordinary behaviour and
shuffling defence which are attributed to him in his
1 Baur, ibid., i. p. 126. With the exception of the visit of Peter
to Antioch, there is no reliable record that the elder apostles
ever travelled beyond Palestine.
2 Gal. ii. 9, 10. 3 Gal. ii. 8. Gal. ii. II-14.
5 Baur, ibid., i. p. 179 ffg.
I
THE CHURCHES OF CHRIST 305
/
alleged trial before the Sanhedrin lead us to expect in
him an accommodating attitude if he thought it would
suit his purpose. 1
It must here again be pointed out that Paul's mission
to the Gentiles was by no means an unprecedented or
isolated undertaking within Judaism itself.2 The
reproach that the Pharisees compassed sea and land
to make one proselyte, was the jealous taunt of a Chris-
tian propagandist to his Jewish rival, and the pre-
Christian missionary activity of Apollos and others like
him may be regarded as a Jewish counterpart to that
of Paul and his associates. But the first disciples of
Jesus belonged to a class of Palestinian Jews, who,
under the existing political conditions, had little or
no sympathy for the conversion of their Gentile neigh-
bours, and hence there was a decided objection to win
them to a belief in the Messiahship of Jesus.
In spite of the attitude of the Jewish apostles, the
growth of the Pauline communities made itself felt
more and more in the development of the nascent
Church. True, the old views were still maintained by
the Jewish Christians, but their connexion with the
Gentile Christians and lack of patriotism in the wars
against the Romans brought about a complete estrange-
ment between the Jewish believers in Jesus and the
1 Acts xxiii. 1-10. Paul's statement to the Sanhedrin : “I
am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee: of the hope and resur-
rection of the dead I am called in question," was beside the
point and an unworthy attempt to confuse the issue, but, for-
tunately for Paul's character, this incident, during which the
Pharisees and Sadducees on the Council all at once began to
quarrel on a subject on which they must have long ago agreed
to differ, makes the whole story seem fictitious.
2 On this subject, cf. supra, p. 96 ffg.
X
306 THE SYNAGOGUE AND THE CHURCH
general mass of the Jews. The failure of the Jewish
revolts and the ensuing misery scattered also the Jewish-
Christian communities in all directions, and reduced
them to insignificance. Instead of representing the
Mother-Church of Christ, they came to be regarded as
a despised heresy, known under the names of Nazarenes
and Ebionites. As the claims of Paul's apostleship
rested on the increase of his followers, so the weight of
numbers decided the interpretation of the religion of
Christ, and became henceforth practically one of the
evidences of the truth of that faith.
The conflict between the elder apostles and Paul
was only the beginning of the sectarian strife that hence-
forth became a constant feature in Christianity. Nothing
speaks so much against the common assumption that
Jesus founded the ecclesiastical organization called
after his name as the fact that he left nothing abso-
lutely and incontestably definite either as to his person
or the form of his community. To this fatal omission
can directly be traced all the hatred that has been
generated within the Church, and the Christian blood
shed by Christian Hands for Christ's sake. The vague-
ness and uncertainty of his composite divine and human
natures led on the one hand to a free development of
contradictory speculations regarding him, while, on
that very account, there was presented no check to
the creation of dogmatic formulas on the point. Hence
there was a marvellous and ever-growing crop of heresy
within the primitive Church. Particularly fantastic,
and, therefore, the more dangerous, were the Gnostic
sects which endeavoured to amalgamate Christianity
with Oriental theosophies. The God of the Jews was
considered by them as an inferior deity superseded by
THE CHURCHES OF CHRIST 307
Christ, and altogether they exhibited a special repug-
nance to the Jews, whose religion was misconstrued
by the Gnostics in order to establish their doctrine of
the antagonism of the principles of good and evil.
Christianity was, however, saved from the Gnostic
peril by a juster appreciation of Judaism in the Græco-
Roman Churches, and by their steadfast adherence to
the belief in the divine character of the Jewish Scrip-
tures, so fully recognized by Jesus and his apostles.
Nevertheless, though the Gnostic sects have long since
been extinguished, their influence has left a permanent
impression on Christianity. The Gospel of John, the
peculiar views and tendency of which became predomin-
ant in Christian theology, while being an attack on the
Gnostic theories, yet makes an attempt to reconcile
them with those prevailing in the other sections of the
Church. With the introduction of the dualistic prin-
ciple of good and evil, Judaism and the Judaizing
Christian sects are henceforth treated with that hostility
towards them that formed so marked a feature of
Gnosticism.
Equally dangerous to the normal development of
Christianity was the formidable Manichean heresy.
Taking its rise in Persia, it spread all over the Roman
world, and, in the words of Eusebius, proved like a
deadly poison to Christianity. The principles of Manes,
who proclaimed himself the Paraclete, or Comforter,
promised by Jesus, also included the idea of the two
opposing forces of light and darkness. The Manicheans
vigorously propagated their views, which spread far
and wide, and also left a lasting impression on Chris-
tian dogma and the Christian conception of life.
Of particular interest are the Christian sects which
308 THE SYNAGOGUE AND THE CHURCH
maintained a Unitarian view of the Godhead. The
Nazarenes and Ebionites were in bad repute in Christen-
dom for their rejection of the divinity of Jesus, but it
is of the greatest importance to remember that they
possessed the beliefs and traditions of his first and
immediate disciples. In the third century there arose
the heresies of Sabellius and Paul of Samosata, the Bishop
of Antioch, who denounced Trinitarianism, or Tritheism,
and taught purely monotheistic doctrines concerning
God.
The most severe struggle Trinitarianism had to sustain
was with the Arians. It was Origen, the famous Father
of the Church, who, in his Platonising speculations
concerning the three persons of the Christian Divinity,
asserted that, though they were equal in regard to their
eternal co-existence, the Son was inferior to the Father,
and the Holy Ghost inferior to both. The views taught
by Origen were accepted, until discussion led to show
that this doctrine actually presented an idea of three
separate Gods. The fierce controversies on the subject,
endeavouring to steer clear of Unitarianism on the one
hand and of Polytheism on the other, had the not very
happy result of revealing to an extraordinary extent
what an intimate knowledge human beings may presume
to have of the essence of God and of its component
parts. The battles which were fought between the
Arians and Trinitarians present some of the most unedify-
ing incidents in the history of religion, and show the
effectiveness with which the authority of earthly rulers
shaped the cardinal doctrines of Christianity.1 Councils
1 " The prerogatives of the King of Heaven were settled, or
changed, or modified in the cabinet of an earthly monarch."
Gibbon, Roman Empire, i. p. 416.
THE CHURCHES OF CHRIST 309
proved unavailing to settle the schism, and the chances
of the two rival creeds seemed for a long time uncertain
until, by political fortune, Trinitarianism obtained the
upper hand and final victory.
Amidst all this clash of arms of theological warfare,
there developed the form of Christianity which has
assumed the title of Catholic. It is a mistake to assume
that Catholicism represents the broad stream of Chris-
tian faith, while the other sections, the so-called heresies,
were mere rivulets. Nestorianism, for instance, was
once a great Church, greater in numbers and extent
than the Greek and Roman Churches together, but it
was unfortunate, and proved that Christianity, no.
matter how powerful, might also be subject to extinction!
by other forces if placed under unfavourable circum-
stances. The expansion of Catholicism, and its victory
over the numerous sects which impeded the way and
struggled for mastery, are not by any means the result
of the truth and apostolic origin which Catholics arrogate
for their Church. Ecclesiastical history bears conclu-
sive evidence of the paramount importance which
politics played in the development of all sections of the
Church, and it is highly significant that the Papacy is
not merely a religious institution, but is vitally political,
with the most widely extended diplomatic ramifications.
The successes of the Catholics over the Arians were as
much due to secular causes as was the failure of Catho-
licism in its fight with Protestantism.
Nor was Catholicism the faith of all the great Fathers
and Councils of the Church. In the centuries preceding
the ossification of the faith into iron-bound creeds,
eminent theologians taught doctrines which were at
variance with those proclaimed later on as traditional,
310 THE SYNAGOGUE AND THE CHURCH
and Councils elaborated dogmas which were repudiated
by subsequent conclaves. The occasional good fortune
of Arius in his bitter combat with Athanasius for the
favour of the Emperors, and the successful propagation
of Arianism among the barbarians by zealous mis-
sionaries, placed that form of Christianity for some
time in the position of conqueror, a predominance which
it only lost by the adverse decision of all-powerful
princes, who, either through caprice or political exi-
gencies, espoused the cause of Catholicism.
In spite of its name of Catholic, i.e. Universal, that
Church is only a Græco-Roman institution. Before
the centre of gravity passed on to Rome, the Emperor
in Constantinople was its virtual head and protector.
The Bishop of Constantinople was too much under the
power of the Emperor to be able to attain to an inde-
pendent status, and his position was not very much
different in scope from that of his modern successors.
It was in Rome that the local Bishop developed a system
of hierarchical supremacy, which in extent and splendour
stands unrivalled. The glory of the former Mistress
of the World was appropriated by the alleged successors
of the humble Jewish fisherman Peter, and ambitious
servants of Jesus of Nazareth seated themselves on the
vacant throne of the Cæsars. The Kingdom of Heaven
preached by Jesus, a kingdom not of this world, now
received its highest embodiment in a priesthood whose
claims extended over the souls and bodies of the believers,
nay, of the whole race. Recognized by the faithful
as the highest authority over the human conscience,
as well as the heir of the prestige of Rome, the Popes
extended indefinitely the range of their sway over their
superstitious and barbarous followers. The success.
THE CHURCHES OF CHRIST 311
with which this policy was carried out still further
emboldened the Sovereign Pontiffs, who, from their
palace in Rome, assumed jurisdiction over the temporal,
as well as the spiritual, affairs of the nations. Its pre-
tended divine mandate was, however, not recognized
by the important Greek and Oriental sections of Chris-
tianity, and received a fatal blow through the complete
repudiation of papal authority by the most vigorous
nations formerly under its sceptre. But to Western
Catholicism the great ruling passion still remained the
absolute supremacy of Rome.
It is claimed by Roman Catholicism that it alone
represents the true exposition of Christ's words and
will, and that it is the only pure channel of spiritual
blessing vouchsafed to mankind by Christianity. It
is assumed that Christ bequeathed the rule of the Church
to Peter, by telling him that he was the rock on which
the Church was to be built, and that to him were given
the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven 1; this, it is asserted,
applies not only to Peter, but to all his successors for
ever. On the strength of a tradition which has no
other basis than the systematic attempt to make Peter
carry out the identical apostolic mission ascribed to
Paul, Peter is alleged to have also been in Rome and
to have undergone martyrdom there. It was the
Bishops of Rome who succeeded Peter in the office
he is said to have occupied while in the Imperial city.
On this slender thread hangs the whole mighty edifice
of the Papacy.
The pretended unity of the Church, for which Roman
Catholicism stands, has never existed. The work of
Paul was resented by the Jewish Christians, headed
1 Matt. xvi. 18, 19.
312 THE SYNAGOGUE AND THE CHURCH
by the brother of Jesus and the primitive apostles,
and Paul himself had to recognize that beside his gospel
of uncircumcision, there was another gospel, that of
the circumcision. Enough has already been said here
to show that from its beginning the Church was vitally
divided on matters of dogma and observance. But
as much as the existence of every heresy which seriously
troubled the peace of the Church may be traced in the
creeds elaborated by its Councils, so the absence of
the desired unity is testified by the frantic efforts which
have been made to enforce it. From early times, the
Catholic theologians in sympathy with Rome have spoken
in the severest terms of the terrible sin of separation
from the Holy See of St. Peter. St. Augustine's dictum
that the sacrilege of schism surpasses all wickedness,
expresses authoritatively the prevailing sentiment on
the subject, and it was held that no action, however
meritorious, not even martyrdom for Christ's sake, could
atone for the inexpiable sin of dissent or independent
thought. Of course, it required drastic measures to
maintain discipline within a Church where conformity
became the greatest saving virtue.
It is as the recognized faith of the Fathers that Catho-
licism claims to fully represent the Church of Christ.
It is asserted that the doctrines which they professed
have been preserved, and the same spirit which animated
the Church of the Fathers exists also, in the Catholicism
of to-day. In so far as the majority of the Fathers
are considered to have taught the faith of the apostles,
the Catholic body is the legitimate successor of the
early Church. The unchanging character of its
doctrines is the chief foundation of Roman Catholicism
as the only true Church of Christ. This prominent
THE CHURCHES OF CHRIST
313
trait does not, however, appear so marvellous when it
is remembered that it only consists in the fixed deter-
mination never to repudiate any dogma or rite once
officially adopted into the communion, and the absolute
refusal to admit, in the face of every evidence, the exis-
tence of error in its teachings. The law of evolution,
to which, in spite of anything that may be said to
the contrary, even Roman Catholicism is subject, may
be recognized in the dogmas that have been added
from time to time under the specious pretext of develop-
ment.1 No doubt, it was wise for the Papacy to confine
its pretence to infallibility within the domain of theoretic
doctrine, though the Church is much inclined to make
itself paramount also in other spheres. If Roman
Catholicism had set itself up as an equal authority in
the political field, the world would have no difficulty
in demonstrating that it was often the cause of its own
downfall.2 But in the realm of dogma it is not so easy
to show that the Church is mistaken, or leads into error.
Whether the invocation of official saints is effective in
obtaining the ear of the Almighty, whether there is a
place of suffering after death corresponding to purgatory,
1 The dogmas of the immaculate conception of Mary and the
infallibility of the Pope are cases in point.
2 Ranke says in regard to the events in the sixteenth century :
“We are warranted in declaring that the Popedom seemed
destined to suffer no injury to which it had not itself conduced
in one way or another by its tendency to interfere in political
affairs." (History of the Popes, i. p. 240.) The same weighty
authority also tells us that “ Protestantism, in the earlier
half of the sixteenth century, was indebted for its progress to no-
thing so much as to the political labours of the Popes. It was
to these, so far as human judgment can decide, that Protest-
antism now owed its deliverance and its confirmed strength."
Ibid., ii. p. 292.
314 THE SYNAGOGUE AND THE CHURCH
YAT
are matters which cannot, so to speak, be palpably
disproved, and those who care to adopt the views of
the Church on these points are free to do so. In 1854
Pope Pius IX declared as an article of faith the
immaculate conception of Mary, the mother of Jesus.
It is thereby asserted that Mary, like Jesus, was conceived
without the stain of original sin ascribed by Christianity
to every human being. The papal declaration that
this doctrine was revealed by God may affect only the
faithful, who are solemnly called upon to believe it on
pain of being considered schismatic, though there are
irrefragable testimonies to the fact that this doctrine is
neither apostolic, nor has it been maintained by all the
Fathers of the Church. But any such proof, the strength
of which would otherwise be considered more than
sufficient on which to build a dogma, must be ignored
as soon as the Pope has officially pronounced himself
on the subject “by the authority of our Lord Jesus
Christ, of the blessed apostles Peter and Paul, and our
authority."
But whether Pope, Council or any other body is the
highest authority without appeal in the domain of Chris-
tian life and faith, is, after all, a matter of little con-
sequence to those outside the pale. The doctrines of
Catholicism must be judged on their own merits, and
without regard to any stray, misunderstood or misin-
terpreted sentence attributed either to Jesus or his
apostles. It has been truly said : "Chacun a sa bible,"
and other Christian sects have not been slow to construct
their theories on biblical passages, supported by patristic
authorities, directly contradicting those used by Catho-
licism. But even apart from the probability that the
Catholic doctrines may largely be subverted by tracing
THE CHURCHES OF CHRIST 315
them to their alleged sources, these doctrines are often
not in conformity with reason or the highest form of
religion, two requirements to which Catholicism itself
claims to pay some respect. However well founded
Catholic doctrines or practices may, therefore, be from
the standpoint of the believing Christian, they must still
stand the test of extra-Scriptural and moral criticism.1
Among the features which appear most prominent
in the Catholic system is its priesthood. The Catholic
priestoccupies neither the position of teacher, as the Rabbi
does in Judaism, nor the office of mere church official,
like the Protestant minister, but he is an indispensable
intermediary between God and man. The adherents
to Catholicism are divided into the sacerdotal class which
dispenses the means of salvation, and the laymen who
receive them. Without the priest the believer cannot
enter into the Kingdom of God. It is the priest who
baptizes, and so admits the child into the community of
Christ; he confirms into the faith, by which the believer
receives the Holy Spirit; he hears the confession of
sins, which he has the power to forgive on behalf of
God. The priest, no matter what his spiritual or moral
condition may be, can, at any time he pleases, turn
bread and wine into the actual, real flesh and blood of
Jesus, with all the divine qualities attributed to it, by
1 R. H. Hutton has made the following appropriate remarks
on the pretended infallibility of the Roman Catholic Church :“I do
not believe that such a thing as merely intellectual infallibility as
to spiritual truths is conceivable at all. Suppose, for instance,
that the Church teaches that of faith, hope and charity'
the greatest is charity ; but the while she teaches this, her moral
and spiritual policy and practice are of a kind to give the world
which she teaches a most perverted and false view of the true
meaning of charity. Can then hers be 'infallible' teaching in
any sense at all ?” (Theological Essays, Preface, p. 12.)
316 THE SYNAGOGUE AND THE CHURCH
merely pronouncing the phrases : “This is my body,"
“This is my blood," and the partaking of this bread
and wine (the Eucharist) is considered indispensable
for eternal salvation. It is the priest who unites mani
and woman in holy wedlock, and who must be called
in at the last moment of life to administer the rites of
the Church. And the qualification which puts this
superhuman, almost divine, power into the hands of a
man is that he should be ordained as one of the sacer-
dotal order.
Invested with such extraordinary privileges by the
Deity, able to perform the miracle of the Eucharist at
will, and the dispenser of the heavenly blessings of
the sacraments, it is not surprising that the Catholic
priest obtained a hold over his flock of which no pastor
of any other creed or denomination can boast. Who-
ever believes that the priest can do what the Church
claims for him, cannot have much compunction in accept-
ing any other of its doctrines. Hence the extreme
importance which Catholicism attributes to submission
to priestly authority, from the Pope downwards.
The office of priesthood furnishes a remarkable instance
of the development of Christian doctrine. It is a
common assumption in Protestant circles that the
Catholic form of priesthood is merely an accidental
corruption of the Christian ministry. True, there
existed nothing like the Catholic priest in the apostolic
age, but then Christianity was not yet organized. Those
who believe that the Church of the first three or four
centuries still taught a pure Gospel, as it is understood
in Protestantism, must admit the existence of a priestly
class as part of the Christian system. So ingrained
and far-reaching is this phase of Christianity that the
THE CHURCHES OF CHRIST 317
absence of a properly ordained priesthood shuts out a
whole Church from the Kingdom of Christ. The Church
of England possesses the sacrament of Holy Orders,
though it does not bear allegiance to the Pope, but
Roman Catholicism, in its turn denies the validity of
Anglican Orders, and thereby refuses to recognize
Anglicanism as part of the Holy Catholic Church.
Whoever, therefore, believes that Anglicans are really
schismatics, to which Romanism has reduced them,
finds them in a serious plight, for then the Church
of England has not the effective means of grace, and
her baptisms and marriages are null and void. Hence
strenuous efforts have been made by champions of
Anglican Orders to obtain the recognition of other
Catholic bodies, like the Greeks, Russians, etc., who
in their turn, look on the Romanists, as well as on the
Anglicans, as being in a state of schism.
If the powers of the Catholic priest for good have
been admittedly great, so have been his opportunities
for evil. But it is difficult to see how the effects of
Catholic sacerdotalism can be condemned with all the
force they deserve without implicating Christianity as
a whole for having produced this priestly caste, which,
basing itself on the words of Jesus, completely dominated
Christianity for about fourteen centuries, and is still
the distinctive feature of the most important Christian
Churches. 1
1 Yet Dean Farrar, in commenting, as an Anglican, on the
words of Jesus: “Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will
build my church,” etc., has to say: "Were it not a matter of
history, it would have been deemed incredible that on so imagin-
ary a foundation should have been rested the fantastic claim
that abnormal power should be conceded to the Bishops of a
Church which almost certainly St. Peter did not found, and in
318 THE SYNAGOGUE AND THE CHURCH
The original sin of the priestly sacerdotal caste is its
lust for domination. It is for this purpose that the
priest has placed himself as an impenetrable barrier
between God and man, and has arrogated unto himself
the exclusive ability and right to dispense eternal salva-
tion and to shut out any human being from the presence
of his Maker. By issuing the ban of excommunication,
the priest condemns a man to every form of ostracism
in this world and to eternal perdition in the next. The
justice, or otherwise, of such an excommunication
appears irrelevant in so far as the effectiveness of it
is concerned, for, in the quarrels of ecclesiastical with
secular princes, whole countries were sometimes laid
under the ban and the people deprived of even the
sacraments necessary for eternal salvation. By insti-
tuting the confessional, the priests became the guardians
and guides of the minds and consciences of the faithful.
There have always been systematic encroachments of
priestly jurisdiction on the worldly affairs of men, and
the Popes not only demanded unquestioning obedience
in the spiritual domain, but also claimed an autocratic
sway over the secular actions of nations.
The whole ecclesiastical history of Christendom shows
one great struggle between the rights of the laity and
the assumptions of the priesthood. Hence it has been
a city in which there is no indisputable proof that he ever set
his foot. The immense arrogancies of sacerdotalism; the
disgraceful abuses of the confessional; the imaginary assump-
tion of a right to crush and control the civil power; the extrava-
gant usurpation of infallibility in wielding the dangerous weapons
of anathema and excommunication; the colossal tyrannies
of the Popedom and the detestable cruelties of the Inquisition
all those abominations are, we may hope, henceforth for ever
things of the past.”—Life of Christ, ii. pp. 14, 15. .
THE CHURCHES OF CHRIST 319
the policy of the shepherd to keep his flock in subjection
as much as possible. The tremendous influence which,
in early and medieval Christianity, the ecclesiastics
obtained is due to the way in which they succeeded in
keeping all knowledge, and the power conferred by it,
completely to themselves. This egoistical element
must not be overlooked when the services of the Christian
priesthood to certain aspects of European civilization
are considered. Not that the servants of the Church
were distinguished by their thirst for knowledge. There
has always been a dread of the effects which such a
desire might have on the ecclesiastical polity, and the
ignorance that was permitted, if not fostered, even
among the highest of the clergy, is surprising.1 If the
ecclesiastical order, which held the monopoly of learn-
1 The following quotations from Hallam's Europe during the
Middle Ages will give a clear and authoritative idea of this sub-
ject: “The fourth Council of Carthage in 398 prohibited the
reading of secular books by Bishops. Jerome plainly condemns
the study of them, except for pious ends. All physical science
especially was held in avowed contempt, as inconsistent with
revealed truths. Nor do there appear to have been any canons
made in favour of learning, or any restriction on the ordination
of persons absolutely illiterate” (iii. p. 273). “Jortin asserts
that many of the Bishops in the general Councils of Ephesus
and Chalcedon could not write their names.” (ibid., p. 273, note).
“ In England, Alfred declares that he could not recollect a
single priest south of the Thames (the most civilized part of
England) at the time of his accession who understood the ordinary
prayers or could translate Latin into his mother tongue” (ibid.,
p. 288). "In almost every Council the ignorance of the clergy
forms a subject for reproach. It is asserted by one held in 992
that scarcely a single person was to be found in Rome itself
who knew the first elements of letters. Not one priest of a
thousand in Spain, about the age of Charlemagne, could address
a common letter of salutation to another” (ibid., p. 288). Such
remarkable proofs of the prevailing darkness can be multiplied
indefinitely,
320 THE SYNAGOGUE AND THE CHURCH
ing, was thus situated, the density of the darkness that
prevailed among the laity scarcely needs any proof.
Of this Hallam says : "For many centuries, to sum up
the account of ignorance in a word, it was rare for a lay-
man of whatever rank, to know how to sign his name.” 1
The opposition to the freedom of knowledge, so deter-
mined as to render it almost instinctive, is characterized
to the present day by the Roman Catholic institution of
the Index of prohibited books, which not only sets out
a list of authors and books which must not be read by
the faithful, but in practice gives the priest the widest
scope in supplementing this list whenever in his own
pastoral duties he considers a certain writer to offend
against Catholic faith and morals.
Nor is the tyranny confined to the relations between
the clergy and the laity. The same demand for unques-
tioning obedience is made by the higher to the subordi-
nate ranks of the hierarchy. The superior officers of
the Church are very jealous of their prerogatives, and
the struggle for coveted positions has always been exceed-
ingly keen. As Gibbon puts it : “ Ambition is a weed
of quick and early vegetation in the vineyard of Christ.” 2
Of course, whenever there came into question the posi-
tion of the Papacy in its relation to secular powers, not
the slightest invasion of the clerical privileges would be
1 Ibid., 286 (note). He quotes the cases of the famous Emperor
Frederick Barbarossa ; John, King of Bohemia, in the middle
of the fourteenth century, and Philip the Hardy, King of France,
and son of St. Louis none of whom could read.
• Roman Empire, vii. p. 374. “Under the first Christian
princes, the chair of St. Peter was disputed by the votes, the
venality, the violence of a popular election; the sanctuaries of
Rome were polluted with blood; and from the third to the
twelfth century the Church was distracted by the mischief of
frequent schisms."
THE CHURCHES OF CHRIST 1
321
permitted by the head of the Church. As Pope Julius
emphatically expressed himself in this regard: “It
shall never happen, we will never endure it, we will
rather let the whole world be ruined.” i We have,
therefore, the strange fact that there were frequent
wars between the Popes and the Catholic German
Emperors, between the head of the Church and the
most zealous Catholic nations, and in a sanguinary con-
flict between Pope Paul IV and the Spanish under Alva,
the Holy Father did not scruple to employ Protestant
troops against his Catholic children.2
A concomitant feature with the arrogance of the
hierarchy, which has attained to such an evil repute
under the name of priestcraft, is its marked intolerance.
It is difficult to say how much of this attitude to be
found in the New Testament is due to the état d'âme
of the chroniclers, but it is known that, whereas the
Christians first distinguished themselves by their soli-
darity and charity, the hatred of the various Christian
sects towards each other became so prominent that
they attracted the attention of the pagans. “There
are no wild beasts so ferocious as Christians who differ
concerning their faith," was the statement of a heathen
in the fourth century.3 Fierce intolerance seems to
have been known in Christianity from early times.
Eusebius relates of John, thē apostle, whose sweetness
1 Ranke, History of the Popes, i. p. 209 (note).
2 “Who were these by whom the Pope was defended against
such good Catholics ? The most effective among them were
Germans and Protestants to a man! They amused themselves
with the saintly images on the highways, they laughed at the
mass in the Churches, were utterly regardless of the fast days,
and did things innumerable for which, at any other time, the
Pope would have punished them with death” (ibid., i. p. 222).
3 Lecky, Rationalism, ii. p. 31.
322 THE SYNAGOGUE AND THE CHURCH
of disposition was considered a notable part in his
character, that he fled in great trepidation from a bath
on seeing it polluted by a heretic. With the growth
of the influence of the Church, this trait came more
and more to the fore. As soon as Christianity obtained
the support of the secular arm, it was used with the
fullest force against unbelievers and heretics. The
persecution of the Jews is a chapter of Christian history,
a chapter not yet concluded, which will ever stand out
as the most glaring contrast between the superior pro-
fessions of love and the real practice, and it must be
to many generous-minded Christians, the followers of
the ideal Prince of Peace, a burning shame and con-
fession of weakness that it was the Emperor Julian,
surnamed by the Church “ the apostate," and the leaders
of the anti-Christian French Revolution, who, until
the nineteenth century, alone proclaimed the complete
freedom of the Jewish people. The hatred that has
been lavished by Christian sects on each other is without
parallel in its intense ferocity. So far as it could
be carried out, no quarter was given, although both
sections professedly fought under the banner, and for
the greater glory, of Christ. Many heresies were literally
drowned in blood. Human life was held very cheap
in the repression of any attempt at a movement for
independent religious thought or practice, no matter
how minute and trivial. There has been nothing more
terrible than the extirpation of the Albigenses and
Waldenses, or the repression of the various other efforts
for the reformation of the Church. To those of
the present day who live under the ægis of liberty of
conscience, the extent and depth of the tyranny of
the Church, and the cruelty of spirit which it engen-
THE CHURCHES OF CHRIST 323
dered among its adherents, are inconceivable. The
Holy Inquisition, the institution of Roman Catholicism
for the purification of the faith by the rack and the stake,
was, by reason of the number of its victims and the
amount of suffering inflicted by it, the most dastardly
instrument of cold blooded crime ever invented by man.
In the pursuit of its task of exterminating the heretic
or crushing the infidel, the Church has not hesitated
to make use of armed force. The extent to which Chris-
tianity is responsible for war is perhaps not so easy to
determine, for patriotic, or rather dynastic and personal,
motives might have come into play, but the fact that
the Church was but too frequently the cause of blood-
shed is placed by history beyond a doubt.2 Apart
1 To obviate the necessity for any further description of this
harrowing subject, it is perhaps sufficient to give a few excerpts
from Bishop Burnet's account of the proceedings against the Lol-
lards in England : “If a man had spoken but a slight word
against any of the constitutions of the Church, he was seized
by the Bishop's officers; and if any taught their children the
Lord's Prayer, the Ten Commandments, and the Apostles' Creed,
in the vulgar tongue, that was crime enough to bring them to
the stake, as did six men and women at Coventry in the Passion
week of 1519, being the 4th of April ” (History of the Reformation
of the Church of England, p. 50). “So there were many brought
into the Bishop's courts, some for teaching their children the
Lord's Prayer in English, some for reading the forbidden books,
some for harbouring the preachers, some for speaking against
pilgrimages or the worshipping and adoring of images, some
for not observing the Church fasts, some for not coming to con-
fession and the sacraments, some for speaking against the vices
of the clergy” (ibid., p. 265). “At this time (1532) there was
an indulgence of forty days' pardon proclaimed to all that carried
a faggot to the burning of an heretic” (ibid., p. 271). What
a telling commentary on the vaunted freedom of the Christian
from the yoke of the Jewish Law !
2“ Almost all Europe for many centuries was inundated
with blood, which was shed at the direct instigation, or with
324 THE SYNAGOGUE AND THE CHURCH
from the relentless attacks on the heathen and the
infidel, the Saxon and the Moor, the politico-religious
wars of Catholic against Protestant, the Church used
the sword for purely selfish motives, when, for instance,
the Pope would embroil Catholic Europe in a war on
account of his quarrels with the German Emperor on
a question of some prerogative. The two most dis-
astrous struggles directly called forth by the Church
against the unbelieving Saracens and the latter against
erring fellow-Christians, but in both cases extreme
ferocity was a conspicuous feature. In the Thirty
Years' War, Germany was turned into a howling wilder-
ness, and the unspeakable horrors enacted in the sack
of Magdeburg are only equalled by those of which the
crusaders were guilty in their first conquest of Jerusalem.
The lessons that are furnished by these great struggles
show that the Church was entirely oblivious to the
dictates of humanity and mercy in the bloodshed it
provoked, and that while Christianity claimed to possess
every power in a shadowy heaven, the absolute failure
of the Crusades and the loss of the millions of
Christian souls they entailed, is a conclusive proof that,
tremendously important and far-reaching as would have
been the result of Christian success, the Church cannot
command destiny or the favour of God.
It is evident that, whatever may be contended as
to the doctrinal truths of Roman Catholicism, its moral
record is a direct denial of the mark of holiness to which
the full approval, of the ecclesiastical authorities, and under
the pressure of a public opinion that was directed by the Catholic
clergy, and was the measure of their influence." Lecky, Rational-
ism. ii. p. 32.
THE CHURCHÈS OF CHRIST
325
that Church lays special claim as one of its chief char-
acteristics. Apart from the private lives of Popes and
other high Church dignitaries, whoever has read any-
thing of the unutterable horrors of the Inquisition, of
the murder of untold millions of Red Indians by the
Spaniards, of the treacherous massacre of St. Bartholo-
mew, the success of which was officially celebrated and
commemorated by the Church with great pomp, or of
the atrocities of Alva in the Netherlands, carried out
with the full approval of the Papacy,1 cannot for a
moment admit the Catholic claim to holiness, particu-
larly as the victims were not tortured and murdered
on account of their moral depravity, but solely by
reason of their religious beliefs.
It must be ungrudgingly, nay, cheerfully, conceded
that during its long history, Roman Catholicism has
produced men and women who have been a glory to
the human race, and that many members of that com-
munion have been among the great benefactors of
mankind. To devout Catholics it must, therefore,
appear ungenerous, if not unjust, to see their Church
condemned on account of its moral aspects, and their
feelings deserve consideration. Yet, in view of the
not to speak of its own utter condemnation of the
morals of unbelievers and heretics, it is impossible to
avoid examining her credentials in this matter. The
saints of Catholicism do not count, for apart from the
fact that they are comparatively only few in number,
they were canonized, not merely on account of their
moral excellencies, but either because of an extremely
ascetic life, which frequently assumed grotesque and
1 Ranke, History of the Popes, i. p. 436.
326 THE SYNAGOGUE AND THE CHURCH
debased forms, 1 or for some great service in the spread
of Christianity. It is only by the latter title that a
monster like the Emperor Constantine was adopted
among the lights of the world, while many saints, if
not mythical as far as their very existence is concerned,
have received their canonization for suffering death
in some religious persecution. It is a most suspicious
feature about the creation of saints that this should
have mostly taken place in the misty periods of the early
and dark ages of Christianity. But it is sufficiently
significant that the first twenty-five Popes should all
claim the glory of martyrdom, and that not less than
the first fifty-six heads of the Church (up to the year 530)
have, without one exception, been enrolled among the
saints, while since St. Nicholas the Great, who ascended
the chair of Peter in 855, there were, during the very
long period of over a thousand years, only four Popes
who have obtained that dignity. Either the Roman
1 This subject, though very interesting, it is unnecessary to
deal with here, but, as a general statement, I would confine
myself to the following quotation from Mosheim on the lives
of the saints : “ By what means were these men sainted ? By
starving themselves with a frantic obstinacy and bearing the
useless hardships of hunger, thirst and inclement seasons, with
steadfastness and perseverance; by running about the country
like madmen in tattered garments and sometimes half-naked ;
or shutting themselves up in a narrow space, where they con-
tinued motionless ; by standing up for a long time in certain
postures, with their eyes closed, in the enthusiastic expectation
of divine light. All this was saint-like and glorious; and the
more that any ambitious fanatic departed from the dictates of
reason and common sense, and counterfeited the wild gestures
and the incoherent conduct of an idiot or a lunatic, the surer
was his prospect of obtaining an eminent rank among the heroes
and demigods of a corrupt and degenerate Church.” (Ecclesiastical
History', i. p. 278.)
THE CHURCHES OF CHRIST 327
Pontiffs have sadly degenerated, or the system of
canonization of saints in the earlier ages of Christianity
reduced the standard of qualification for the honour
to an exceedingly low degree.
But whether Catholicism produced a large or small
number of saints is immaterial, so long as this has had
no appreciable effect on the mass of the faithful. The
pictures that we have of Catholic society in the past, as
well as the present moral position of Catholic countries,
do not by any means bear out the idea that that com-
munion is endowed with an exceptionally high ethical
standard of life. We find, on the contrary, that Protes-
tants do not only compare favourably with Catholics
in the sphere of morals, but that the Catholic populations
of Southern Europe notoriously conform to a lower
standard of conduct than the non-Catholic peoples of the
North. Moreover it was during those times when
Roman Catholicism held sway over the whole of Western
Christendom that the great Reformation of the sixteenth
century, which was above all a moral revolt, took
place. It was while at Rome, the centre of Christianity,
that Luther was shocked by the gross materialism and
immorality of the ecclesiastical atmosphere there, and it
was this glaring violation of Christian ethics that led
him to deny the holiness and authority of the Roman
Church. For much more serious than the undeniable
subjection of the Catholic believer to the sins of unre-
generate man is the fact that the Popes, the heads of
the Church on earth, show numerous examples of vice
and crime of the most reprehensible kinds. Some of
the Vicars of Christ have obtained special notoriety
by their dissolute character, and it would be hard to
find a secular prince who exceeded, or even paralleled
328 THË SYNAGOGUE AND THE CHURCH
the dark deeds of a Rodrigo Borgia.1 If we add to
this the disputes and violence that often attended the
elections of Popes from as early as the third century
down to the end of the Middle Ages; if we include
the twenty-four papal wars of schism during that
period, and the appearance of the anti-Popes contesting
the See of St. Peter, it becomes evident that the sacred
nature ascribed to the Papacy by its adherents is flatly
contradicted by history. This dark side of Romanism
is rarely considered by Catholics in all its fatal bearings
upon the claims of the Church.3
Protestantism, which by its very name proclaimed
itself as a revolt against Rome, was born out of the
strong repugnance with which the Catholic priesthood
came to be regarded by its flocks. Manifestations of
this feeling were either sternly repressed or fanned
1 Dr. James Martineau, who sums up his indictment of the
Popes by saying that “licence has seldom been carried farther
than by some of the holy fathers' on the throne of Peter,"
describes concisely Rodrigo Borgia as “a Pope who quitted it
by the poison-cup which he had mingled for another; who dis-
solved his daughter's marriage that he might wed her to a
prince ; who made his son a Cardinal in boyhood, and, to do so,
fathered him on the husband he had wronged ; who allied that
son with the Orsini faction, and, when the end was gained,
screened him in the betrayal and murder of its chief; while
preaching a crusade against Bajazet, the Turk, bargained with
him to murder his rival brother Djem, then prisoner at Rome,
and won the prisoner's price." (Seat of Authority in Religion,
p. 154.)
Döllinger, Studies in European History, p. 66.
3 The Catholic writer W. S. Lilly, in Claims of Christianity
(p. 160), admits that “there is a vast amount of testimony
concerning the reality and gravity of the scandals which called
for Luther's protest," and quotes Symonds, who, in his Revival
of Learning, thinks it " almost impossible to over-estimate the
moral corruption of Rome at the beginning of the sixteenth
century."
THE CHURCHES OF CHRIST
329
into a flame by the secular rulers, and it was the attitude
of the latter which finally determined whether the
people remained Catholic or turned Protestant. In
England, Henry VIII, although he had received from
the Pope the title of Defender of the Faith, repudiated
the Pope's authority from unworthy motives, and,
assuming the headship of the Church of England,
demanded from his subjects an undisputed recognition
of his amateur theology. We find, on the other hand,
that the Poles, who are now perhaps the most devoted
of Catholic peoples in Europe, had become almost com-
pletely Protestant, but, principally owing to one of their
kings, the Catholic counter-reformation which set in
proved thoroughly successful.1
The deep-seated dissatisfaction with Romanism which
existed in the sixteenth century is abundantly proved
by the wonderfully rapid spread of Protestantism from
one end of Europe to another, and by the furious hatred
with which the old Church was assailed by its erstwhile
devotees. There is a great deal of truth in Cardinal
Newman's caustic remark that the Protestant sects
of Germany and Geneva" began with persecution and
have ended in scepticism,” 2 but the pent-up feeling
against the tyranny of the Roman Church, as well as
the inherited traditional intolerance of Catholicism
itself towards all other manifestations of religious belief,
are sufficient explanations of the hatred felt by the
reformers towards everything Catholic. That Catholics
have nothing to complain of is evident from the merciless
manner in which Protestant tendencies were suppressed
by Catholics, and the attitude towards Protestantism
1 Cf. Ranke, ibid., ii. p. 142.
2 The Development of Christian Doctrine, p. 91.
330 THE SYNAGOGUE AND THE CHURCH
of the papal authorities in the territories under their
jurisdiction. Nevertheless, it cannot be denied that
persecution of the old faith is a very prominent trait of
early Protestantism, and that among a certain section
of Protestants intolerance is still unpleasantly con-
spicuous. Of course, this policy brought about its
own punishment. The various sects which arose out of
the Reformation often treated each other with the same
bigotry which they all exhibited towards the Mother-
Church of Western Europe, and the arbitrary confes-
sions of faith which were set up by the authority of
princes were regarded as standards to which all had to
submit under pain of most severe punishment. Non-
conformity to these creeds was treated by all manner
of coercion, which was generally met by a correspond-
ingly. unflinching insistence on some particular doctrine
or form of Church government. The fierce quarrels
between the Lutheran and the Reformed Churches,
between Episcopalianism and Presbyterianism, the
Established and Free Churches in England, either show
an inexcusable want of charity, or, if the differences
dividing these communions be really of paramount
importance, a striking testimony to the errors which
they represent.
The despotism which was formerly wielded by the
Catholic priesthood was continued by their Protestant
successors, and liberty of conscience was as little known
or respected in the new as in the old order of things.
The burning of the deist Michael Servetus, of which
Calvin was guilty, is a well-known incident, which may
be taken as symptomatic of an ecclesiastical tyranny
which, discarding the authority of the Pope, set itself
up as of similar dignity and power. The worst excesses in
YT
THE CHURCHES OF CHRIST 331
1
this direction have been committed amongst the Scotch,
a people which has otherwise evinced so much intellectual
vigour and progressive independence. The declaration
by Buckle that “when the Scotch Kirk was at the
height of its power, we may search history in vain for
any institution which can compete with it, except the
Spanish Inquisition," is fully borne out by his indictment
of that Church.1 The most notable feature of the
Church of John Knox was its frantic hatred of Popery,
which was put outside every law, human and divine,
and is well characterized by the description which was
given by a Scotchman of General Drummond (under
James II) that he lived and died a bad Christian but
a good Protestant. It was in the same spirit that
the relentless persecution of Romanism in Ireland was
carried on by English Protestants, and the sufferings
and heroic resistance of the Irish Catholics form one of
the brightest pages in the history of their race.
While the revolt against Rome was originally due
to moral causes, the ultimate result of the Reformation
was a change of doctrine. In some cases these two
aspects were interwoven. Thus, for instance, the
sale of indulgences was carried on for the profit of the
Roman hierarchy with such unblushing disregard to
every religious susceptibility that the whole idea was
brought into disrepute, and this traffic in the delivery of
souls from purgatory was found to be utterly offensive
in every respect. It was the translation of the Bible
into the vernacular that worked the great radical changes
in Christian doctrine. The studied neglect of the Bible
1 Cf. Buckle, History of Civilization, iii. ch. iv. Cf. also
Hume, History of England, vi. p. 575.
2 Macaulay, History of England, ii. p. 117.
332 THẾ SYNAGÓGUÊ AND THE CHURCH
in Catholicism is a remarkable phenomenon, and con-
trasts rather strangely with the professed abhorrence
of Jewish tradition felt by all Christian sects. The
whole edifice of Romanism rests on “tradition," and
among the evidences of Christianity it would be difficult
to find anything more naïve than the manner in which
the Church and tradition support each other. It is
impossible to say on whom the burden of proof is sup-
posed to rest. Catholicism claims that Christian
tradition, as it was received from Christ and the apostles,
and was developed among their disciples, is the rule of
the Church, and then, when the historic contradictions,
and consequent unreliability, of these traditions are
pointed out, it is gravely asserted that it is the Church
which alone fixes and interprets the boundaries and
terms of valid tradition. While ostensibly basing
itself on the Scriptures and the traditional faith and
practice of orthodox Christendom, it is the Church
itself which in reality is its own authority and judge.
The supremacy of the Bible is indeed assumed in a
general way, but this is neutralized by the alleged
exemption of the Church from error, and made entirely
nugatory by the rigorous prohibition of the right of
private interpretation. Besides this, the Bible was
always the property of the very few, and the study of
it was generally discouraged. The original languages
of the Bible were hardly known for the longest period
of the existence of the Church, and already after Jerome
(who flourished in the fifth century) the Latin Church
laid aside the study of the New Testament in Greek.
For 800 years, until Roger Bacon, no one felt it neces-
sary to compare the Vulgate, the authorized Latin
version, with the original Greek, and not a single copy
Y
THE CHURCHES OF CHRIST 333
of the New Testament in that language could then be
seen in an ecclesiastical library.1 Hence there reigned
such an extreme ignorance concerning the Bible, that
even in the sixteenth century most of the Catholic
priests in Scotland considered the New Testament one
of Luther's compositions, and asserted that only the
Old Testament contained the Holy Scriptures. To
read the Bible came in Reformation times to be
regarded as a serious offence, being considered an evi-
dence of heretical disposition, and sometimes batches
of Testaments were publicly burned. With the waning
of the implicit faith in the infallibility of the Roman
Church, there arose a strong desire to find the lost
truth in the Word of God. It was then realized how
very slender was the support which the Scriptures
afforded to the Catholic assumptions. It was discovered
that even where the Church had apparently based
itself on the authority of the Bible, the sacred text had
been fearfully abused and perverted.
But it is not to be presumed that, although the
Reformers professed to adopt the Scriptures as their
sole rule of faith, Protestantism is in truth based on
the Scriptures. For the use of the Bible for doctrinal
purposes did not come as a behest from on high, but
was a mere concession by the prince,3 and was only
1 Döllinger, Studies in European History, p. 175.
2 Hume, History of England, v. p. 93.
3 On the Bible in the English Church under Henry VIII,
J. R. Green says : “ The new foundation of religious truth was
to be regarded throughout England as a gift, not from the Church,
but from the king. It is Henry on his throne who gives the
sacred volume to Cranmer, ere Cranmer and Cromwell can dis-
tribute it to the throng of priests and laymen below.” Short
History of the English People, p. 332. Cf. the extravagant dedica-
tion to King James in the Authorized Version of the Bible.
334 THE SYNAGOGUE AND THE CHURCH
to be treated in the manner in which he allowed the
national Church to be formulated.1 Catholicism
had practically banned the study of the Bible, and,
while the reading of the Bible was always an integral
part of the religious practice and worship of the Jews,
this was only accorded to the Protestants as a privilege.
Nor even when granted could this privilege be used
by the Protestants to its full extent. The idea of
private interpretation was indeed proclaimed boldly,
but evidently this only held good for the authors of
sects and their protectors. That the leaders of Protest-
antism were directly inspired by the Holy Ghost can
hardly be contended even by the most enthusiastic
champions of the creed, and the very numerous
conflicting divisions which arose out of the Reformation
testify to the arbitrary manner in which every masterful
theologian gave wide scope and fundamental importance
to his own particular idiosyncrasy. Once a certain
system obtained official recognition, or could maintain
itself by popular support, there was created a hierarchy
which pretended to be the only true exponent of God's
Will. Though the interpretation of the Scriptures
played, of course, a very important part in the new
Churches, their adherents had nevertheless to forego
their right of private judgment in order to participate
in the blessings of true Christianity. But since the
1 This fact should be noted, in view of the popular Protestant
boast that that creed is entirely founded on the Word of God,
and the deductions of superiority over Judaism with which this
assertion is accompanied. It ought also to be remembered that
Judaism in the Middle Ages produced some of the ablest com-
mentators on the Scriptures, who, by their critical and rational-
istic methods, laid the foundations for the biblical writings of the
Reformers and modern Christian scholars,
THE CHURCHES OF CHRIST 335
old Catholic idea of inspired authority could no longer
be maintained, every effort has been made to confine
the faithful within the area of fixed doctrines, by guiding
them in the desired path with creeds, catechisms, etc. 1
Every member of the sect is then firmly convinced that,
owing to his reading of the Scriptures and his perfect
faith, he has found the Truth, even though he be born
in it, and he is as strongly of opinion that whosoever
does not accept that particular Truth will surely perish
everlastingly. Protestantism has, therefore, not only
split Christianity into many sects, but, by the fictitious
grant of private judgment in the interpretation of the
Bible, has practically invested every one of its adherents
with the arrogance of an infallible Pope.
If the rank and file of Protestantism drew their
infallible inspiration from the teachings of the leaders
of the Reformation, these, in their turn, depended on
the early Catholic Church, and not directly on the
Bible. It is, of course, assumed that only those doc-
1 This policy of Protestant sects regarding the Bible has
been pointed out by Dr. Martineau, who says: “But do you
suppose this Book will be trusted to go by itself among the
people ? It would be a great mistake. Preachers will go before
it, and tell them what they are to find in it, and ask them if they
have found it. If not, intimations are given that they had
better look again ; and while the search is going on, a clamour,
as of a multitude, is kept up. On the one side, a chorus of
sweet promises announces all tempting things in earth and
heaven to him that finds the pearl ; on the other, a discord of
ill names and insults, and horrors, and holy condolences and
assurances of absolute perdition, to him that misses it. All
these oral notes are exceedingly effective; they are as powerful,
without being quite so barefaced, as the ingenious pretensions
to infallibility. ... With all their boasting, not a book exists
of which Protestants are so afraid as the Bible.” (The Rationale
of Religious Inquiry, p. 39.)
336 THE SYNAGOGUE AND THE CHURCH
trines were retained which agreed with, or did not oppose,
the Scriptures, but it is just here that the light fails ;
for it was the Catholic Church which fixed the Canon
of the Scriptures, as far as possible in the interests of
that communion. The Protestant is thereby obliged
to recognize as the basis of his faith the supposed inspira-
tion and authority of a corrupt Church, the good faith
and right judgment of which he disputesma paradox
which is equalled by the fact that Christianity has to
accept the inspiration of the Canon of the Old Testa-
ment Scriptures as fixed by the much-abused Jewish
Rabbis and Scribes.
But the Reformers stopped short wherever in their
wisdom they thought fit, and adopted the views
of the Catholic Church on questions of doctrine of which
only a germ could be discovered in the Scriptures.
The sacraments of Baptism and of the Eucharist
were taken over and embellished with such further
speculative notions as were deemed to conform to the
beliefs of the primitive Church; the fall of man and his
redemption were adopted from the Church Fathers,
and incorporated with various alterations in the newly-
fashioned creeds. While the authority of the Church
Fathers was repudiated, many of their extra-biblical
doctrines were firmly embodied into the beliefs of the
Protestant sects, and placed in a position of supreme
importance, apparently as a set-off against the discarded
Catholic dogmas. The questions of the origin of evil,
predestination, grace, free-will, justification, the nature
of the Eucharist, the form of Church government, etc.,
were thrown up and debated by rival theologians with
the greatest ardour, and, in view of the proclamation
of the right of private judgment, every Protestant dis-
VO
THE CHURCHES OF CHRIST
337
cussed and defended the particular tenet distinguishing
his sect with as much zeal and self-assumed authority
as the original founder of that confession himself. The
Catholic, who ordinarily felt so sure of his faith and
salvation by implicitly relying on Holy Mother Church,
was now placed in the difficult position of being con-
fronted by the most abstruse of abstract ideas, which,
to the Protestant mind, were of the highest possible
importance to eternal happiness or misery.1 This
state of things gave rise to a large number of the most
diverse and conflicting doctrines, most of which became
crystallized into separate Churches, each at war with
its rivals. In addition to this, there have continually
taken place constant secessions from the main bodies,
so that at the present day the Protestant section of
Christianity is divided into innumerable divisions,
representing so many claims to infallible truth.
Romanism itself, on the other hand, has also never
been more than a section of Christianity, and this fact
is not altered by the self-centred claim of being the
only true and legitimate Church of Christ. The Roman
Church has adopted the practice of shutting out from
its communion all those who in any way differ from
it, but this is not necessarily decisive in so far as Chris-
tianity as a whole is concerned.
Thus the great Greek Church, in its turn, regards
Romanism itself as having departed from the right
i Referring to the ideas entertained by Protestants at the
time of Edward VI (1547) regarding grace and justification by
faith, Hume says: “The meanest Protestant imagined, at the
time, that he had a full comprehension of all those mysterious
doctrines, and he heartily despised the most learned and knowing
person of the ancient religion, who acknowledged his ignorance
with regard to them,” (History of England, v. p. 89.)
338 THE SYNAGOGUE AND THE CHURCH
faith. The Greek Church is the ecclesiastical body
which, more than any other part of Christendom, built
up the Catholic faith. The original language of the
Gospels and other documents of the early Church is
Greek, and at the General Councils, particularly at
Nice, the most important of them, the Greeks formed
the largest and most influential element. The Greeks
have been very conservative in their beliefs and prac-
tices, and it was the Roman branch, they claim, which,
by the unjustified introduction of the filioque (“' from
the Son '') turned schismatic. The Romish innova-
tions, of which the unwarrantable assumption of the
Bishop of Rome's pre-eminence and infallibility is the
most glaring, aggravate the offence, and, by these and
other wilful acts, Romanism placed itself outside the
boundaries of the One and Indivisible Church. This
opinion, which is a cardinal point in the creed of over
100 million souls, in the most ancient of existing
Churches, deserves at least recognition, and it must
be noted that Protestants, like the High Church Angli-
cans, who set much store on traditional Christianity,
agree largely with this claim of the Greek against the Latin
Church. Nor, like the Armenian, Coptic and other
Oriental Churches, is the Greek Church, allied as it is
with the Russian power, a negligible quantity in the
religious or political spheres. The most numerous
secession that has taken place from Roman Catholicism
since the Reformation is the return in the nineteenth
century of about two millions of Uniates to the Greek
Orthodox Church, to which they had formerly belonged.
It would be unprofitable to forecast the future of
the various Christian confessions, but, though it is evident
that their position towards each other as religious bodies
4
THE CHURCHES OF CHRIST
339
is still as uncompromising as ever, there are various
extraneous forces which are bound to influence their
developments. The Greek and Oriental Churches are
most immune from the ravages of time, but in Russia,
where the State religion has always been the faithful
adjunct of a barbarous autocracy, indifferentism and
Voltaireanism have become typical features of the
educated classes, while the masses are largely imbued
with dissenting views. A successful political revolution
in that country might also produce in time a religious
convulsion, when a crass anti-clerical atheism would
become the dominant tone of the intelligenzia, and
a wild variety of superstition would spread among
the peasantry and the industrial proletariat. Roman
Catholicism is particularly troubled by those who were
once its most reliable supports. Italy, the home
of the Papacy, is now hostile to it, and has forcibly
appropriated the "patrimony of St. Peter,” while Rome
has become the capital of an anti-Papal Power. France,
formerly the eldest daughter of the Church, has, of her
own accord, repudiated the honour and privileges of
that title, and has severed even its official tie with
Catholicism. Spain, the most Catholic of nations, is
deeply imbued with anti-Catholic feeling, and has sunk,
together with her national Church, into a state of degra-
dation. In the home of Roman Catholicism, in all the
Latin countries, whether in Europe or America, the
intellectual classes are mostly given over to rationalism
and contempt of the Church, while the pronounced
attitude of the intelligent working classes is a strong
leaning towards irreligion, crystallized by the growing
labour movements into a hatred of the Church, which
is regarded by them as the great symbol of reaction
C
340 THE SYNAGOGUE AND THE CHURCH
in all fields of human life and thought. In Germany,
Austria-Hungary and Russia, Catholicism has to fight
for the existence of its rights and privileges, but in
Anglo-Saxon countries, where liberty of conscience is
firmly established, the Roman Church has gained respect
for its moderation. The increase of its numbers there has
not come about so much by conversions as by the large
influx of Irish and other Catholics from the European
Continent. The converts to Romanism are more than
counterbalanced by the losses, which are rarely referred
to by the faithful, though the leakages in the larger
towns of England and America are very considerable.
Protestantism is the vanguard of Christian progress,
and embraces the most vigorous of European peoples.
Owing largely to a notable absence of a domineering
and grasping sacerdotal caste, and the gradual recog-
nition of the demands of the times, the Protestant
Churches have still to a very great extent retained
their hold upon their adherents. There is, however,
taking place an evolution within their midst. The
Reformers, in their examination of the Christian faith,
as it was transmitted to them by the Church of Rome,
omitted to investigate the historical value of the New
Testament records regarding Jesus, as well as the
attitude of the apostles and primitive Christians towards
his teachings. The great achievement of the Reforma-
tion was not its doctrinal changes, but its revolt against
the tyranny of Rome, and it was reserved for a later
age, better endowed with the means and freedom of
research and criticism, to complete what was left undone
in the sixteenth century. It is no exaggeration to
say that the labours of German theologians, whose
authority is being recognized in all scholarly Protestant
THE CHURCHES OF CHRIST
341
circles, have proved disastrous to the traditional teach-
ings of Protestantism regarding Christ and Christian
dogma. The victorious advance of the conclusions of
natural science has helped much to discredit the belief
in the mysteries and miracles which form the ground-
work of Christian faith. It is only necessary to read
the proceedings of Church Congresses to find, on the
authority of the highest Church dignitaries, that what
was the heterodoxy of yesterday is the orthodoxy of
to-day.
The growing weakness of Roman Catholicism as a
political power, and the prevailing indifference, have
lessened the former animosity between the two chief
sections of Western Christendom, but, as a proselytizing
agency among the Catholics, Protestantism has shown
itself a complete failure. To the believing Catholic,
Protestantism lacks the historic sense, while to those
who have thrown the dogma of the Catholic Church
overboard, Protestantism appears only a feeble imita-
tion of it, satisfying neither the heart nor the head.
The great struggle for the future is no longer between
Romanism and Protestantism, but between the unques-
tioning faith of Catholicism, the true bulwark of tradi-
tional Christianity, and the critical spirit of Rationalism. 1
1 On this point I may be permitted to quote the authoritative
opinion of Mr. Lecky, who, referring to the fact that in the
nineteenth century dissatisfied Roman Catholics have ceased to
of great thinkers and writers, in every department, who have
separated themselves from the teachings and practices of Catholi-
and unquestionable sincerity, who have attached themselves per-
manently to any of the more conservative forms of Protestantism.
Amid all those great semi-religious revolutions which have
unhinged the faith of thousands and have so profoundly altered
342 THE SYNAGOGUE AND THE CHURCH
In the historic evolution of Christianity there is pre-
sented the important fact, and one which must not be
overlooked, that what divided one Church from another
were not matters concerning the ethical advancement
or the happiness of mankind, but merely questions of
dogma or ecclesiastical discipline. The sacraments
and doctrines of Christianity, instead of uniting the
faithful, proved the causes of their division. The long
and fierce quarrel between the Arians and the Trinita-
rians, fittingly named Homoiousians and Homoousians
in ecclesiastical parlance, is unintelligible to the vast
mass of mankind; the great schism between Western
and Eastern Christendom was brought about by the
insertion in the creed of the one word filioque; the
fundamental cause of the irreconcilable dispute between
the Lutheran and Reformed Protestants was their
differing views on the nature of the Eucharist-a subject
of complete mystery. As the prophets of Judaism had
a passion for righteousness in conduct, so the leaders
of Christianity may be said to have had a passion for
orthodoxy in faith.
Of the greatest significance is the steady trend of
Christianity towards the ideals of Judaism. That this
the relations of Catholicism and society, Protestant Churches
have made no advance and have exercised no perceptible influ-
ence. . . . Scarcely ever before had so large a proportion of
temptuous indifference towards Catholicism. ... But while
basis, while the signs of its disintegration are crowding upon
us on every side ... the Protestant sects have gained nothing
by the decay of their ancient rival. . . . Whatever is lost by
Catholicism is gained by Rationalism, wherever the spirit of
Rationalism recedes, the spirit of Catholicism advances.” (History
of Rationalism, i. pp. 171, 172.)
THE CHURCHES OF CHRIST
343
is entirely unconscious, does not alter the fact. When
the Reformers rebelled against the Roman Church by re-
jecting the doctrine of apostolic succession, monasticism,
the celibacy of the clergy, the invocation of saints,
and other similar teachings and practices, Protestantism
departed from historic Christianity. But by thus
breaking the continuity of Christian tradition, Protes-
tantism involuntarily rendered an immeasurable service
to the conscience and intellect of modern times. It
is the good fortune of Judaism that it has never been
burdened with those features from which Protestantism
and Rationalism have had to free themselves at such
a tremendous cost of energy and blood. The struggles
of the liberal Christian and the revolt of the Rationalist
against all forms of Christianity are concentrated on
dogmas like the Trinity, the divinity of Christ, the
sacraments, the fall of man, original sin, justification
and redemption, and it is merely an historical fact that,
from the birth of Christianity till the present day,
Judaism has uncompromisingly protested against these
doctrines as perversions of truth, and as prejudicial
to our highest moral and social interests.
CHAPTER XI
THE SCHEME OF SALVATION
“He hath shewed thee, o man, what is good ; and what
doth the Lord require of thee, but to do justly, and to love
mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God ?”–Micah vi. 8.
ALL sections of Christianity, with very few and uniin-
portant exceptions, possess a strongly developed and
well-defined theological system. The ground work
of this is supplied by the recorded utterances of Jesus
and his apostles, particularly those of Paul, in regard
to the origin and destiny of the human race, and the
views held by the dominant party among the early
Christians have defined the interpretations subsequently
given to it by the body of believers.
The so-called scheme of salvation, which forms the
centre of Christian theology and represents the motive
power of Christian life and faith, consists of a drama
which began with Adam and ended with Jesus Christ.
The details have received varied explanations, and
though the latter are considered in themselves as of
the greatest importance, the plot may be set out sub-
stantially as follows :-
Adam, the first man, was created by God perfect,
free from evil, moral and physical, and also immortal.
He and his wife Eve sinned, however, by disobeying
God's Will in eating of the forbidden fruit of the Tree of
344
THE SCHEME OF SALVATION
345
Knowledge. This roused the wrath of God, who cursed
Adam and Eve, and not only them, but all their descen-
dants for ever. Henceforth man suffered this curse, but
it was ordained that the race would be redeemed by
a descendant of Adam, who should bring back the lost
innocence and immortality, and restore humanity to
the same paradisaical state in which it had found itself
before its fall. In order to carry out this scheine of
salvation, God revealed Himself to the world through
the medium of the Jewish people, and He then sent His
only-begotten Son, who expiated on the cross the sins
of all mankind. Every one who believes in Christ as
the Son of God and in the efficacy of his death as an
atonement for all sin, will be redeemed in this world
and the next, but those who do not believe this, still
live under the curse of Adam and will suffer eternal
punishment hereafter.
This Christian philosophy of history is not merely
a speculative system to be received or rejected at will,
but is an integral part of the Christian faith. Whatever
embellishments or accretions may have been added,
the story of man from his fall to his redemption in the
manner just set out is the framework of the Christian
religion.
The fall of man, which necessitated the scheme of
salvation, is a doctrine which has always been regarded
as one of the premises which go conclusively to prove
the truth of Christianity. That through the sin of
Adam all his descendants lost those spiritual and physical
blessings which were possessed by the first human pair,
is claimed by every Christian confession, but in what
manner and to what extent fallen man has suffered by
the disobedience of his first parents is a matter of differ-
346 THE SYNAGOGUE AND THE CHURCH
ence. It is generally assumed that man has lost the
original righteousness possessed by Adam before the
fall, and, as inclined to evil, deserves God's wrath and
damnation.1 Original sin is held by the Lutheran and
Reformed Churches to consist in evil concupiscence
(Romanism holding that this is not sin in itself, but only
that man is condemned in the sight of God even before
he actually commits sin ; the Greek and Roman Catho-
lics admit that man in his natural state is not altogether
bereft of the power to do good, while the Protestant
confessions generally claim that he is "utterly indisposed,
disabled and made opposite to all good and wholly
inclined to all evil.” 2 The Christian doctrine of the
fall of man is based on the third chapter of Genesis,
which relates how the serpent incited the woman to eat
of the forbidden fruit of the Tree of Knowledge and how
the man was led astray by her. The serpent was cursed
for his deception of the woman, and her seed that,
according to the promise, was to bruise his head, is
assumed by Christian interpreters to refer to Christ,
who would undo the work of the serpent; the latter
is taken as typifying the devil, though this is invalidated
by the words, “ thou shalt bruise his heel," addressed
to the pangs of child-birth, and man was to eat his bread
by the sweat of his brow, while both were to suffer the
penalty of death.
In utilizing the Biblical story of the expulsion of
Adam and Eve from the Garden of Eden for the purpose
of a scheme of salvation, Paul committed a gross per-
1 Thirty-Nine Articles, Art. 9.
2 Westminster Confession, vi. 23.
THE SCHEME OF SALVATION
347
version of the truth of every man's original state of
innocence and subsequent weakness and tendency to
sin. In order to emphasize the necessity for redemption
by Jesus, Paul laid particular stress on the inexpiable
sin of Adam, and of the unbroken effect this was to have
on all generations of mankind. This thought has been
formulated by Christian theologians, who maintain
that man is absolutely incapable of raising himself
towards a higher life unless aided by the saving power
of Jesus. Many hold it as a matter of faith that even
the best acts of man are in themselves only grievous
sins in the sight of God.
Since all men are considered entirely corrupt in their
nature by reason of the sin inherited by them from
Adam, they are all condemned to eternal damnation
in hell. Even new-born children, although admittedly
without knowledge of right and wrong, and, therefore,
incapable of committing any culpable transgression,
are, on account of the original sin transmitted to them,
condemned to everlasting punishment, so that, according
to the expressive assurance of an authority, there are
babes not a span long creeping along the floor of hell.
Hence the assured necessity for infant baptism, which
is altogether without a Scriptural basis, and really
opposed to the original idea of baptism, which was
only administered to adults and was part of the act of
repentance. It is stupefying to contemplate the horrible
and callous cruelty which consigns practically the whole
of the human race before Jesus, and the overwhelming
majority of it after him, to the most excruciating pains
and tortures the heated imagination of the religious
fanatic could devise for his opponents. Yet this belief
in the endless torments of hell may be said without
348 THE SYNAGOGUE AND THE CHURCH
exaggeration to constitute for many the motive power
of Christian faith. Intimately bound up with the fall
of man, the belief in hell has provided from early times
to the present day a congenial theme to gloat upon, as
well as a fruitful incentive and powerful whip for the
spread of the Christian religion. Some of the Church
Fathers have left graphic descriptions of the scenes
in the place of punishment in which their theological
enemies were doomed to spend eternity, and Tertullian
particularly distinguished himself by the remarkable
fury with which he revelled in the agonies which the
pagans would have to undergo in hell. These views
always held their prominent place, not merely in the
faith of the masses, but many spiritually-minded
Catholics even to-day consider it a duty to meditate on
the realities of hell. The Protestant Churches have
also been noted for their fervent belief in hell, and the
achievement of the Calvinists, especially in Scotland,
in this regard is something extraordinary. It was
often the most popular theme on which preachers could
expatiate, and this curious fact is still evident in the
discourses of the revivalist preachers of the present
day, by whom the idea of hell seems to be regarded as
the sole impelling force of all Christian faith and virtue.
Christianity thus loads man with an unbearable burden
of imaginary guilt and, after reducing him to an imagi-
nary impotence, threatens with the tortures of an imagi-
nary hell, unless he implicitly accepts the conditions laid
down by the Church. That this method has served
its purpose well is testified by the history of Christianity,
but these doctrines were created by the same
genius which made the power of the priest supreme
by confining to him exclusively all the means of approach
THE SCHEME OF SALVATION
349
to God. By weakening the authority of the sacerdotal
caste, Protestantism has deprived itself of unity, but
it maintains itself largely by the iron grip of the dogma
of the fall of man and all that it entails. The fall of
man, as interpreted in Christian theology, is as degrading
to man as it is dishonouring to God. By it the very
generation of the human body is poisoned, by being
regarded in itself as the greatest offence possible, one
which cannot be repaired or expiated. Independently
of his own will, every man is brought into the world,
and, without any consciousness on his part, he is bur-
dened with an unbearable load of sin, for which he will
have to suffer unspeakable agonies throughout all
eternity. Through endless ages the race is punished for
an act committed by its first parents, and it is solemnly
and unequivocally asserted that there are no means of
relief from this awful doom except by joining a certain
creed or sect, itself the creation of yesterday, and
unknown to, or repudiated by, the vast majority of man-
kind. That such a doctrine should be preached and
believed by men whose sincerity and goodness of heart are
incontestable, is one of the glaring anomalies of religious
life, but that God should be made party to it is a blas-
phemy. There is nothing said in the Christian faith
to mitigate in the slightest degree Adam's disobedience,
or the reputed guilt of his descendants, though God,
in creating the first man, could have made him proof
against the temptation of another of His creatures, and,
justice have forgiven what in subsequent generations
man was entirely innocent of. But in the Christian
story God is represented as having poured out his wrath
on all without distinction, and this burning anger could
350 THE SYNAGOGUE AND THE CHURCH
only be appeased by the sacrifice of His Son, who him-
self had been born in a supernatural manner, in order
to escape the taint of original sin. Instead of setting
out God's merciful dealings with the children of men,
the Christian scheme of salvation is an indictment
against Him.
Appalled by this view of the relations of God to man,
a considerable and ever-increasing number of Christian
theologians are repudiating what has hitherto been
considered as the basis of the Faith. The idea that
all those outside a certain sect, or even outside Chris-
tianity, shall be subjected to everlasting torments, has-
particularly shocked the sense of justice of many Chris-
tians. In spite of the reputed declaration of Jesus :
“He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, and
he that believeth not shall be damned,” strong efforts
are made in Protestant Churches to do away with this
objectionable teaching, though the official view in
almost all confessions is still the old formula that with-
out the Church there is no salvation. The dogma of
the fall of man is retained with still greater tenacity,
though it has also had to give way before a more generous
estimate of human nature and a higher conception of
God. Apart from the revolting moral aspect of the
doctrine, it is granted that the story of Adam does not
offer any ground for the assumptions of the fall, while
there is a growing mass of opinion that the account of
the creation given in Genesis ought not to be taken in a
literal sense. This view is strengthened by the fact
1 As a concession to some of those who are not fortunate
enough to belong to their sect, Christian theologians have, in
a generous mood, discovered the existence of “uncovenanted
mercies,” or admitted the plea of “invincible ignorance."
THE SCHEME OF SALVATION 351
that there is a counterpart of the biblical narrative of
the temptation by the serpent, the forbidden fruit and
expulsion from paradise, to be found in the ancient
Babylonian mythology, not to speak of the theory of
evolution, according to which, instead of the alleged
fall of man, it is claimed that there has been a constant
elevation of man to a higher moral and spiritual level,
and that death, far from being a special curse against
Adam and his descendants, is nothing more than a
universal law of nature.
. Of course, since the whole system of Christian theology
is comprised in the declaration of Paul : “As in Adam
all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive,” i the
abandonment of the idea of the fall of man shakes
Christianity to its foundations. For if there was no
Adam and no fall of man, there was no special need for
Jesus and his redemption of the human race.
The centre of gravity has, therefore, been transferred
to the work of Jesus, as the Saviour of mankind from
sin and error. It was he, it is claimed, who by his
death satisfied the justice of God by undergoing the
penalty which should have been inflicted on every one
born of woman. Like the doctrine of the fall of man,
the idea of his redemption is beset with insuperable
difficulties. Both dogmas presuppose the unspeakable
wrath of the All-Merciful, and the hopelessly corrupt
condition of His noblest work. An impassable gulf
and implacable enmity are assumed to exist between the
Creator and the creatures He has brought into being.
The relations that are considered to prevail between
humanity and God the Father are not only regulated
according to the most uncompromising legal standard,
1 Į Cor, xv. 22,
352 THE SYNAGOGUE AND THE CHURCH
are adjudged and enforced by Himself with the greatest
severity. But since man, owing to his innate sinfulness,
is unable to give full satisfaction, it was necessary that
one who was one of the human race, and yet more than
a man, should make the atonement in order to pay the
debt due to God. A victim was demanded, but neither
the ancient sacrifice of an animal, nor even that of a
human being, could satisfy the outraged honour of
God. Therefore, the Son of God became man, was
born of a virgin, lived without sin, and died as a perfect
sacrifice to the justice of God. Then only could the
Lord forgive the human race.
In this teaching, the idea of the absolute necessity
of sacrifices plays a very important part. In the
to show that in the crucifixion Christ was a sacrifice,
like one offered up at the Temple at Jerusalem, only
that the death of the Son of God was an immolation of
such transcendent superiority over every possible
sacrifice that he by his death atoned once for all for the
sins of the whole human race, and so rendered all
further sacrifices superfluous and useless. What led
to this reasoning is the fundamental assumption that
“ without blood there can be no remission of sin," and
that the means by which God could be reconciled was not
a godly life, self-sacrifice for the good of others, but by
shedding the blood of some animal for the expiation
of men's sins. The institution of sacrifices was
indeed the chief part of the Temple service, and the
regulations in connexion therewith occupy a large pro-
portion of ancient Jewish ritualism, but it is a woeful
misconception of the religion of the Hebrew Scriptures
1
THE SCHEME OF SALVATION
353
and a travesty of Judaism to assume, as was done by
Paul, that the sacrificial system is the only means to
obtain the forgiveness of sin and reconciliation with
God. Taking even the strictest possible Christian
point of view, where it is admitted that the Old Dis-
pensation, until the death of Jesus, provided for the
salvation of its adherents, there is the incontrovertible
fact that during the whole of the Babylonian Captivity,
when the sacrificial system could not be carried out, the
Israelites, with Jeremiah and other prophets at their head,
were deprived of the sole medium by which their sins
could presumably be atoned. Critical observers, and
all those who choose to use their own eyes, instead of the
spectacles provided by Paul, can easily convince them-
selves of the superficial part which the sacrificial system
played in Judaism. The sacrifice of an animal to please
the deity, or to turn away his supposed wrath, was a
very ancient and widely prevalent custom. It involved
a financial sacrifice which betokened the reality of the
feeling of gratitude or penance, while the slaughter of
animals for the benefit of the gods led their worshippers
to regard the act as a tangible expression of devotion,
meriting in its turn the favour of the higher powers.
Sometimes the immolation of a mere animal was not
considered sufficient, and, in order to heighten the effect,
there arose the custom of sacrificing human beings.
sacrifices a capital offence. The idea of the atoning
power of animal sacrifices prevailed also among the
ancient Israelites, but very strenuous efforts were made
to reduce the act to a minimum by confining it to one
place only, so that any transgression of this salutary
rule by their kings was always noted as a most deplorable
A A
354 THE SYNAGOGUE AND THE CHURCH
weakness. Whilst the priestly class had naturally a
high view of the importance of the Temple service,
the prophets and psalmists often pronounced themselves
emphatically against this ritualistic tendency. In
the opinion of the latter, God does not want sacrifices,
but that His voice should be obeyed.1 Isaiah exclaims
indignantly : “To what purpose is the multitude of
your sacrifices unto me? saith the Lord; I am full of
the burnt offerings of rams and the fat of fed beasts ;
and I delight not in the blood of bullocks or of lambs
or of goats." 2 The absurdity of attempting to reconcile
God by the mere offering of sacrifices, and the more
acceptable way of approaching Him, are thus pointed
out: "For every beast of the forest is Mine, and the
cattle upon a thousand hills. I know all the fowls of
the mountains : and the wild beasts of the field are
Mine. If I were hungry, I would not tell thee: for
the world is Mine and the fulness thereof. Will I eat
the flesh of bulls or drink the blood of goats? Offer
unto God the sacrifice of thanksgiving and pay thy
vows unto the Most High: And call upon Me in the
glorify Me." 3 But there was no deep-seated antagonism
between the spiritual and ceremonial elements of the
religion, for some of the noblest psalms are those which
owe their composition to the services in the Temple,
while it is only those who had clean hands and a pure
heart who were considered worthy to stand in the holy
place. The tragic end of Jewish independence, of
11 Sam. XV. 22: “And Samuel said, Hath the Lord as
great delight in burnt-offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the
voice of the Lord ? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and
to hearken than the fat of rams.” Cf. also Hosea vi. 6.
si, II,
3 Pş. 1, 10-15. ^ Ps, xxiv,
тур
355
THE SCHEME OF SALVATION
which the magnificent Temple on Mount Zion was the
proud embodiment, turned the destruction of the revered
central Sanctuary into the symbol of the greatest
calamity that has befallen the Jewish people. Hence
the repeated prayers in the Jewish liturgy for the
rebuilding of the Temple and the restoration of its
services. But in all this there is not by any means
the assumption that sacrifices are' indispensable for
the forgiveness of sin. The Jewish attitude towards
sacrifices is at the present day what it was at the time
of the royal psalmist, when he said: “Thou desirest
no sacrifice, else would I give it : Thou delightest not
in burnt offerings. The sacrifices of God are a broken
spirit; a broken and contrite heart, O God, Thou wilt
not despise.” i It is in connexion with the institution of
sacrifices that the complementary character of the spiri-
tual and ceremonial elements of Judaism, or the Jewish
spiritualization of the ceremonial, are most strikingly
exemplified. One of the purely ritualistic sections of
the Torah, 98 n07, dealing entirely with sacrificial
ordinances, has received from the Rabbis a prophetical
lesson, in which Jeremiah boldly declares : “I spake
not unto your fathers, nor commanded them in the day
that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning
burnt offerings or sacrifices. But this thing commanded
I them, saying, Obey My voice, and I will be your God,
and ye shall be My people.” 3
From the foregoing utterances, from the fact that
a great prophet like Jeremiah even set aside the divine
origin and the necessity of the sacrificial system, and
that this lesson was purposely ordained by the ancient
Rabbinical authorities to be publicly read in the syna.
i Ps, li. 16, 17. 2 Lev. vi,-viii. 3 vii. 22, 23.
356 THE SYNAGOGUE AND THE CHURCH
gogues, it must be patent that sacrifices are of quite
inferior importance in Judaism, and were so regarded
also in pre-Christian times. The doctrine that only
blood can cleanse mankind from its sins is, therefore,
purely Christian, and the magic power imputed to the
blood of Jesus in that respect shows how profoundly
this idea has entered into the Christian consciousness,
The condition essential to participation in the merits
of the sacrifice of Jesus is to recognize the total depravity
of man, his absolute inability to do anything himself
to deserve God's pardon, and the unreserved acknow-
ledgment that redemption must be entirely due to
the blood of Christ. The Christian confessions are,
however, strongly divided on the various questions as
to the extent of the atonement produced by Christ's
death and as to the mode in which this is effected. It
is certainly a noteworthy fact that in these matters
the teachings of the Catholic Church are more liberal
than those in vogue among the Protestant sects.
While Catholicism naturally lays much stress on the
Christian doctrine of original sin, it is admitted that
there is a divine spark in natural man, which can be
fanned by the Holy Ghost into spiritual regeneration.
But the Lutheran and Calvinist Churches maintain
that man has in himself not the slightest power what-
ever to seek regeneration, and that this must be com-
pletely carried out by the Holy Ghost, whereby man
becomes merely the passive object, not the active sub-
ject, of his own salvation. In addition to this, one of
the most prominent doctrines of the Reformed creed
is the belief that God has already decreed beforehand
who are to be saved, and that not only are all others
absolutely excluded, but the elect can never, even if
THE SCHEME OF SALVATION
357
they had committed the greatest sin, fall again into a
state of perdition. As man is thus deprived of his
freedom to deserve or forfeit salvation, he is placed
beyond the possibility or necessity of assisting in his
own ultimate fate, which has already been unalterably
fixed for him at the beginning of time. The same
reasoning which is used in the case of the redemption
of man is also adopted in the doctrine of predestination ;
those who are saved owe this to the merits of Christ,
while those who are condemned have received their
just punishment. Here again God is either credited
with arbitrary love or blind hatred, but of pure justice
there is none. It is not considered that one man ought
not to be eternally punished for what he is not responsible
or even, with the best will, cannot change, since his
fate has already been decreed for him beforehand by
a superior power, while his fellow will receive eternal
life without any merit or effort on his part. The
determination with which Calvin and his followers
maintained the theory of predestination was, however,
strongly opposed by the theologians of rival sects.
They would touch as little as possible the traditional
views on redemption, but they could not admit Calvin's
pitiless logic in his own conclusions from the words
of Scripture, the ultimate Protestant test to which he
appealed. Certainly, it cannot be gainsaid that the
doctrine of predestination can well be based on the
utterances of Jesus and Paul. The words of Jesus :
1 It is related of Cromwell that, feeling his end nearing, he
asked one of his preachers if the doctrine were true that the
elect could never fall or suffer a final reprobation. “Nothing
more certain," was the reply. “Then I am safe,” said Crom-
well," for I am sure that once I was in a state of grace.” Hume,
History of England, viii. p. 238.
358 THE SYNAGOGUE AND THE CHURCH
“All that the Father hath given to me shall come to
me”; “No man can come to me, except the Father
which sent me draw him ” ; “Ye believe not because ye
are not of my sheep,' are of the same import as his
prayer : “I have manifested Thy name unto the men
which Thou gavest me out of the world ; Thine they
were and Thou gavest them to me. I pray for them, I
pray not for the world, but for them which Thou hast
given me, for they are Thine."i Many views of Paul,
especially in the ninth chapter to the Romans, are of
the same tendency, culminating in the argument :
“What if God, willing to show His wrath and to make
His power known, endured with much long-suffering
the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction : and that He
might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels
of mercy which He had aforetime prepared unto glory,
even us whom He also called ?" 2
Nor is it agreed as to how man can attain eternal
salvation. True, all Christian Churches have uncom-
promisingly maintained that faith (of course, the true
form of faith) is the preliminary step to salvation, but
it is considered a most important question whether this
is sufficient, or whether it must also be accompanied
by good works. The teachings of Paul on the point
are clear, for he stands out as the champion of the
Gospel against the Law, of faith against works, and
his philosophy is summed up in the declaration : "Now,
to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of
grace, but of debt. But to him that worketh not, but
believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith
is counted for righteousness.” 3. But while the ideas of
1 John xvii. 6-10.
2 Rom. ix. 22-24.
3 Rom. iv. 4, 5...
THE SCHEME OF SALVATION 359
Paul became dominant in the Church in so far as regards
his opposition to the Jewish Law, his theory of the
uselessness of works proved quite untenable in practice.
Not only did the vaunted freedom from sin fail utterly,
but there was no heed paid to the denunciation of the
evil effects of works, for the Church soon commenced
to add sacrament to sacrament and ceremony to cere-
mony, while the mere profession of faith, without an
accompanying evidence of ritual and works, came to be
regarded by Catholicism as dead. It wa, asserted
that faith, far from being the end, was only a means
to it, and that mere faith was not by which man
was justified, but that it gave him the power to act
righteously. When the tenets of Christianity, how-
ever, underwent a revision at the time of the Reforma-
tion, and people came to the Scriptures with fresh minds,
it was found that the Catholic conception of justification
was by no means according to the idea of Paul. As
in his day, so now, it was asserted that only faith in
the merits of Christ was the beginning and end of a life
pleasing to God. The Reformers were so sincere in
maintaining this doctrine that, like some of the early
Christians, sin had in a sense become non-existent for
them, the faith of the Christian being considered superior
in its power to any failings to which he may be subject.
Luther's view is thus stated by him : “Now, you see
how rich the Christian is : even if he wishes he cannot
lose his salvation however great his sins may be, unless
he does not desire to believe. No sin can damn him,
except want of faith.” 1 Sometimes, this clamour for
the efficacy of mere belief produced a paradoxical
passion which condemned all efforts at doing good. In
1 Quoted by Möhler, Symbolik, p. 163.
360 THE SYNAGOGUE AND THE CHURCH
a letter to the Reformer Melanchthon, Luther writes
to him in these extraordinary terms: “Sin more
strongly, but be stronger in faith and rejoice in Christ,
who is the victor of sin, death, and the world. We
must sin, as long as we are here. ... It is enough
if through the riches of God's glory we recognize the
Lamb of God which taketh away the sins of the world ;
from him sin will not tear us away even if thousands
upon thousands of times daily we commit fornication
or murder." i The effect of such teachings occasionally
produced disastrous results, and, like Paul, Luther
had to recall that the freedom he had in mind was not
an abandonment of all moral restraints. . There can
surely be no legitimate doubt as to the high motives
of the great Reformer, or of those of his fellow-labourers
in the purification of the Church, but their doctrine of
justification by faith only remained a mere theological
shibboleth, while, in practice, common sense and the
exigencies of life urged that, independently of the belief
in certain dogmatic formulas, there should be an earnest
striving for those good works which were in theory
condemned as dead.
Still, in spite of the recognized necessity for good
works, it is an active belief in all the teachings of the
Church that is really considered the sole medium by
which men can be reconciled to God. In a manner,
man has to do little more than to give his assent to
certain theories, but, to confirm these, there have been
introduced a number of ceremonies, called sacraments,
which are likewise considered as absolutely essential
to his regeneration in this world and salvation in the
next. The fact that the two principal sacraments,
I Cf. Möhler, Symbolik, p. 163, note 2.
THE SCHEME OF SALVATION 361
Baptism and the Lord's Supper, are universal throughout
Christendom, is a sufficient indication that the Church
cannot dispense with external signs.
It is known with what untiring vigour Paul attacked
the institution of the Abrahamic covenant in Judaism,
and the repudiation by Christians of this rite is con-
sidered by them as a triumph of spirituality. Christian
theologians regard it as a proof of the inferiority of
Judaism that those who wish to enter its fold have to
submit to circumcision. It should be noted, however,
that since Judaism does not consider adherence to its
faith and customs as necessary to the salvation of
Gentiles, there is no call for them to submit to the Jewish
rite of initiation, so much so that even the "proselytes
of the gate," who stood in close relations to Judaism,
did not require to undergo circumcision. It is, there-
fore, difficult to see how Judaism can be reproached
with narrowness, because it demands the test of cir-
cumcision of those who want to enter within its pale,
nor is it evident what advance upon it there is in the
Christian act of Baptism, which alone grants entrance
to the Kingdom of God, while all those who have not
been regularly baptized are absolutely excluded from
it. Baptism is not merely a visible sign of membership
of the Church, but it is supposed to be in itself the mark
of regeneration and of the remission of sin, as well as
a means of salvation. Even new-born babes must have
baptism administered to them, as, on account of their
original sin, they are in danger of eternal damnation if
death should overtake them. The baptism of infants
has been retained in full force among Protestants,
though the practice has neither apostolic authority,
nor can it be made to fit in with the Protestant idea
362 THE SYNAGOGUE AND THE CHURCH
1
that conscious faith can alone secure justification.
The exorcism and the renunciation of the devil that
form part of the ceremony of Baptism in the Roman
Catholic Church turn the act into a deliverance of the
human soul from demoniacal powers.
Of equal importance with Baptism is the Lord's Supper,
both of which are supposed to have been ordained by
Jesus. Of all the forms of belief with which the Chris-
tian creed has burdened itself, nothing surpasses in
boldness the idea associated with the Lord's Supper.
It is one of the most cherished doctrines of the Christian
faith that every believer must, as a sign of his member-
ship of the Church, and as an indispensable means of
salvation, eat the flesh and drink the blood of his Re-
deemer. The Roman Catholic Church teaches further
that it is in the power of every one belonging to the
sacerdotal order to transform bread and wine into the
actual flesh and blood of Jesus, and it is one of the most
distinctive dogmas of that Communion that in every
celebration of the Mass the priest offers to God the body
of Christ as a veritable expiatory sacrifice for the living
and the dead, the act of redemption, as it was carried
out by Christ on the cross, being thus repeated on
innumerable occasions at the will of the officiating priest.
The nature of the miracle performed in the Lord's
Supper is so stupendous, and the power with which the
priest is credited so unparalleled, that there can be no
question of any examination or criticism of either the
Catholic or the Protestant conception of the rite, and
the faith in the reality of the personal presence of Christ
in the Eucharist must be entirely left to the individual
conscience.
The sacraments of Baptism and the Lord's Supper
THE SCHEME OF SALVATION
363
show in a striking manner the radical difference between
Jewish and Christian ceremonialism. Christian baptism
is based on the rabbinical rite of 7 20, which is still
administered to proselytes to Judaism on their admis-
sion. In Judaism this act of immersion in water is
merely a symbol of purification and holiness of life,
but in Christianity Baptism was turned into a magical
ordinance and an initial step to ensure salvation. The
Lord's Supper furnishes an instance of the fundamental
importance attached in Christianity to an external
sign and to the remarkable materialization of the
spiritual. The idea of the substance of a god-man
being actually present in bread and wine, and the
declaration that eternal life can only be obtained by
eating and drinking his flesh and blood, is surely quite
inconsistent with that higher religious conception
claimed by Christianity, and is absolutely inconceivable
in connexion with Judaism.1
1 The original form of the Lord's Supper was known before
Lehrschriften, iii. p. 449. In regard to the idea embodied in the
Lord's Supper, I venture to quote the following description by
Herbert Spencer of funeral rites practised by certain uncivilized
races : “In some cases parts of the dead are swallowed by the
living, who seek thus to inspire themselves with the good qualities of
the dead, and ... the dead are supposed to be thereby honoured.
The implied notion was shown to be associated with the notion
that the nature of another being, inhering in all fragments of
his, body, inheres, too, in the unconsumed part of anything
incorporated with his body; and with the further notion that
some community of nature is established. Hence such beliefs
as that ascribed by Bastian to certain negroes who think that
on eating and drinking consecrated food they eat and drink the
god himself. ... Mendieta, describing a ceremony used by the
Aztecs, says : they had also a sort of communion. ... They
364 THE SYNAGOGUE AND THE CHURCH
Not only is the Scriptural authority on which the
Lord's Supper is based very vague and dubious,1 but,
instead of being a bond of love between the members
of the Church, as was originally intended, this sacra-
ment has proved a fruitful source of strife between
them. Nothing can exceed the abhorrence with which
the Mass, so sacred to Catholics, is regarded by zealous
Protestants, and no terms have been considered by
the latter too severe to express their condemnation
of this Catholic rite as a blasphemous superstition.
The dispute whether the Eucharist in the Lord's Supper
was the veritable body of Christ, or was only meant
to signify his body, was conducted among Protestant
sects with the same vehemence as the ancient contro-
versy between those who considered the Son of the same
substance as the Father and those who asserted that
the Son was only like the Father. In both instances
an implacable feud was carried on about the most
sacred objects of Christian faith, and on points, too,
which are beyond the ken of man. As to the disciples
of Athanasius and Arius, so to the followers of Luther
and Calvin, the person of Christ was the cause of division
and hatred.
The whole Christian theory of salvation has in itself
all the truly artificial aspects of a planned scheme.
The atonement is supposed to have been made by Christ,
and then the necessity for it is sought in biblical inci-
made a sort of small idols of seed ... and ate them as the
body or memory of their gods.” (The Principles of Sociology,
i. pp. 275, 276.)
1 The varying references to it in the New Testament show
that we have not had transmitted to us the exact words of Jesus,
which must surely have been understood by his Jewish hearers
in a figurative sense.
THE SCHEME OF SALVATION
365
dents and expressions. It really seems as if man were
neither the better nor the worse for all that he is thereby
debited or credited with. The most fervent Christian
can assert in unqualified terms his own inexpressible
wickedness, but he hastens to add that his belief in
the merits of Christ has made him infinitely better than
the rest of mankind, who are not blessed with the same
faith in their own unworthiness and in Christ's power
of redemption. The non-Christian, again, appears to
be able to show in a satisfactory manner that the total
depravity with which he is charged does not necessarily
manifest itself in a greater degree than original sin in
the Christian, which, according to his creed, he boasts
to have been taken away from him by the death of
Jesus. What is, therefore, required of a man is to give
his adherence to certain inscrutable mysteries or events
of the past. From a moral standpoint, there is no
more justification for imputing to the human race the
merits of the vicarious death of Christ than to charge
them with the disobedience of Adam. That we should
be made responsible for something which is admittedly
beyond our control, and then be forgiven by the mere
acceptance of certain opinions, is subversive of our whole
moral order. This neither satisfies our sense of justice
nor does it respond to our conception of God's merciful
dealings with man. It is a kind of legal arrangement
between two gods dissimilar in their natures, one demand-
ing justice to the full, the other overflowing with com-
passion for erring man, who is either unfairly deprived
of one or undeservedly loaded with the other. More-
over, the traditional view of the Father in heaven
ascribed to Jesus has been entirely changed by Christian
theology, for therein the relations between God the
366 THE SYNAGOGUE AND THE CHURCH
.
Father and man is that of a stern judge and a condemned
criminal. There is no question of pardon, for the terrible
penalty has been exacted and paid to the full ; man
owes nothing to God the Father, for all He does is entirely
for the sake of His Son.
Nor is the effect of Christ's sacrifice for the human
race equal to its claims. The new Adam has not brought
back to fallen man the blessings of which Adam of old
was deprived for his disobedience. In spite of the
coming of Jesus, man still obtains his sustenance by
the sweat of his brow, the pangs of child-birth are still
imposed on woman, and death overtakes every human
being. The baptized believer is too often as sinful as
the unregenerate man, and so far from the world having
been saved by Christ, he is, according to the Christian
creed, the indirect cause of condemnation of the majority
of the human race. If the past can serve here as a
measure of the future, then the unfulfilled promises
of Christ's rule on earth offer no prospect of their
realization in heaven.
Judaism knows nothing of the total depravity of the
human race, or of the necessity for some great sacrifice
to appease the wrath of God. On the contrary, it is
assumed that every man is born in the image of God,
and possesses the natural ability to rise to a higher life.
*It is this view which imposes on every man a respon-
sibility for his own actions, according to the light
given to him, and, in conformity with the stern warning
of the prophet: “The soul that sinneth it shall die,”
there could be neither the original sin of Adam nor the
vicarious atonement of Christ. If any authority for
these doctrines be sought in the Hebrew Scriptures by the
quotation of stray phrases or incidents, the eighteenth
THE SCHEME LI
367
OF SALVATION
chapter of Ezekiel is a direct and unequivocal denuncia-
tion of any such tendency. Dogmatically, there is no
responsibility of the just father for his wicked son, nor
of the just son for the wicked father, and, in the name
of God, the prophet proclaims: “Behold, all souls
are mine, as the soul of the father, so also the soul of
the son is mine : the soul that sinneth, it shall die. But
if a man be just and do that which is lawful and right,
he shall surely live, saith the Lord God.” Here there
is no room for the far-fetched Christian theory of atone-
ment, either by blood or by faith, but“when the wicked
man turneth away from his wickedness that he hath
committed, and doeth that which is lawful and right,
he shall save his soul alive." 1 The consequence of evil
deeds and the tendencies of heredity are indeed fully
realized in all their import, but while wickedness is
visited upon the third and fourth generation, the Eternal
proclaims Himself as “gracious and long-suffering,
abundant in goodness and truth, showing mercy unto
thousands (of generations) of them that love Him and
keep His commandments." 2
The presumption that mankind is burdened with a
crushing load of sin has created among Christians a
strong delusion that those who have not had this weight
removed by the help of Jesus are in a most wretched
and unhappy condition. On the other hand, the Chris-
tian, knowing that he has been delivered from the power
of the devil, is supposed to be serene in the peace given
by faith in Christ. This specious argument might have
1 It may be pointed out that the demands of this post-exilic
Jewish prophet as the condition of salvation are of a purely
moral character.
2 Exod. xx. 5, 6; xxxiv. 6, 7; Deut. vii. 9.
368 THE SYNAGOGUE AND THE CHURCH
sounded feasible, were it not that Christian ecclesiastical
history, the only reliable test in this instance, proves
the contrary of this assertion. There is no religion,
whose component parts have split up in so many mutu-
ally hostile divisions, as in the case of Christianity, every
section of which is a living proof of religious unrest.
There is no agreement in Christendom as to what ensures
salvation, and the ultimate test seems not a good life,
but adherence to a particular Church. Nor does it
seem that even the most fervent adherence to a sect is
proof against mental trouble and uncertainty. The
Protestants, rent into many factions, apparently en-
deavoured to make up for the lost authority of the old
Church by magnifying the influence of the devil and
the terrors of death and hell. The exaggerated fear of
sin and of its consequences by which Luther was pur-
sued is well known, and this was due to the Christian
conception of the world by which he was profoundly
imbued.1 The morbid dread of God's anger haunted
some Protestants to such an extent that it frequently
developed into a frenzy, and a check to the Reformation
necessarily ensued when, as David Hume puts it, the
generation which followed Calvin found that they had
to choose between believing that God was a wafer or
that God was a cruel tyrant. Although Catholicism is
well fashioned to afford complete peace to its votaries
ID
i On the different points of view from which death is regarded
by the Christian and by the natural man, Luther thus delivered
himself in his Table Talk: “It were a light and easy matter
for a Christian to suffer and overcome death if he knew not that
it was God's wrath; the same quality maketh death bitter to
us. But a heathen dieth securely away; he neither seeth
nor feeleth that it is God's wrath, but meaneth it is the end of
nature and is natural,"
THE SCHEME OF SALVATION
369
by rigorously excluding religious doubt as a deadly sin,
yet, perhaps on that very account, it is not able to fulfil
the object intended. The continuous heresy-hunt in
which early Christianity was engaged, led every one
of its sections to adopt an uncompromising attitude
towards its rivals. Nothing speaks more forcibly against
the assertion that traditional Christianity gives peace
and an eternal hope to mankind than that great Chris-
tian institution-monachism. With an undoubting
belief in the atonement of Christ, men ran into the
deserts and waste places of the earth, and, like Jerome,
condemned themselves to a life in dungeons," the com-
panions only of scorpions and wild beasts," while they
lacerated their bodies with every conceivable torture
which a diseased ingenuity could devise ; and, as this
great Father of the Church, the enthusiastic and most
important advocate of monachism, said, it was all " for
the fear of hell." 1. The struggles of soul among Chris-
tians within and without the orthodox and dominant
Churches testify that there is nothing in Christianity
which can effectively allay the terrors born of the idea
of the corruption of humanity, a state of mind which
is quite gratuitously or erroneously ascribed to those
who do not know and, therefore, do not feel, the conse-
quences of that purely Christian dogma.
The ignoble argument of hell-fire has always had very
little effectin convincing Jews of the truth of Christianity,
and whenever the threat of danger, and the expedient to
evade it by choosing the safe side, is suggested, the Jew
might well answer the Christian with the retort of Selden
in regard to the similar Catholic process of reasoning
1 Cf. Milman, History of Christianity, iii. p. 204.
BB
370 THE SYNAGOGUE AND THE CHURCH
ours
because it has less charity ?"
A nobler view of Christianity and of human nature
is the attempt to identify Christianity with the highest
form of civilization by claiming European culture as
interwoven with the growth of the modern nations of
Europe, and has so influenced their mental development,
that the history of Christianity and the growth of our
civilization are often inseparable. It was the Christian
missionaries who were frequently also the first heralds
of a higher intellectual life among the barbarians ; it
was through Christian ecclesiastics that scholarship
found entrance among them, and for many centuries
the Church alone protected learning and the fine arts.
Since the rulers of the Church thereby acquired that
exceptional prestige which a monopoly of knowledge
always confers, there was a natural endeavour to retain
this great power within the caste, with the result that
all higher forms of life assumed a Christian colouring.
This influence retained undisputed sway until well
into the eighteenth century, and is even now still a
mighty factor in the fabric and policy of Christian
peoples. It is owing to this that there has been formed
the idea that European civilization has been created
by Christianity, and that the intellectual vigour and
material power of the nations professing Christianity
are, therefore, due to their creed.
Such a one-sided interpretation of history has, how-
ever, met with a reaction which denies the presumed
beneficent influence of Christianity, and even maintains
that this faith exercised a decidedly pernicious tendency
i Quoted by Lecky, Rationalism, i. p. 401,
THE SCHEME OF SALVATION
371
on the intellectual life of its adherents. It should be
pointed out that primitive Christianity was an enemy
of Græco-Roman art, philosophy and learning, and that
it was just owing to the decay of this civilization that
the spread of Christianity is to be attributed, a decay
which the new religion was as unwilling, as it was power-
less, to stop.1 The Dark Ages which followed the
break-up of the Roman Empire was the period during
which the Church consolidated its forces, and became
a power which reached its acme at the time of the
Crusades. The work of Christianity during this epoch
shows both its strength and its weakness. The Christian
propagandist or priest was in many instances a curbing
and ennobling force amongst the warlike races which
he converted, but the respect paid to the emissaries
and servants of Christ was largely due to the prestige
of the Roman name. The greatness of the pagan
Empire, which had once been regarded with undisguised
contempt and hatred by the Church, now served as its
chief instrument of domination. In the same manner,
the “false science,” which roused the ire of the apostle,
was used for the building up of Christian theology to
such an extent that the speculations and language of
the philosophical schools of the heathen gave birth to
Christian theological terms and dogmas of which Jesus
and his Jewish apostles did not have the faintest con-
ception. To the morals taken over by Christianity
on the pagan philosophy of the Greeks, and a system
1“ It flourished by reason of decadence and it could not
arrest it," is the terse verdict of a Rationalist critic on the
relations of early Christianity to civilization. (John M. Robert-
son, History of Christianity, p. 186.)
372 THE SYNAGOGUE AND THE CHURCH
of government of which Rome, once the type of anti-
Christ, was the creator. Christianity, however, improved
neither on Jewish ethics, nor on Greek wisdom or Roman
legislation, but these were often turned into a weak
copy or caricature. In the domain of morals there
can be no comparison between the ringing passion for
righteousness and the lofty ideal of social life which
o
of the Church, squabbling about admittedly incom-
prehensible mysteries and scrambling for the favour
of tyrannical princes. The Greek and Latin writers
of the Church were puny, degenerate specimens by
the side of their pagan predecessors, and ecclesiastical
Greek and Latin reduced these languages to a jargon.
Like the classic literature of the ancients, their art was
treated with undisguised disdain by the Christian
authorities as well as by the spiritual leaders of the
people. It was in the realms of architecture and paint-
ing that Latin Catholicism distinguished itself. The
wonderful cathedrals and sacred pictures of Western
Christendom are objects of admiration for all time, and
models for the emulation of posterity. That the fine
arts were all pressed into the service of religion need
occasion no condemnation, and certainly no surprise,
if the conditions of medieval Europe are taken into
might have accrued from this fact were of a very vague
character, and touched only an exceedingly limited
sphere. It was in the art of government, which, after
all, makes up three-quarters of human well-being,
that Christianity has lamentably failed. Although
the Papacy inherited the genius of Rome, its marvellous
capacity for the government of the most diverse races,
THE SCHEME OF SALVATION
373
which distinguished Roman rule in its best days, was
either lost or turned into a means of creating a theocracy
religion which claimed Christ as its founder any ambi-
tion to work for the social regeneration of the masses.
The great aim of the Church has always been salvation,
and not morals or happiness. The cry for repentance
by John the Baptist was transformed within a generation
into a clamour for the right faith. The Christianity
of the New Testament Scriptures knows nothing of
the ideal earthly polity which formed the dream of
the Jewish heralds of a new era, but instead of this
there was the Judæo-Christian Apocalypse with its
fantastic New Jerusalem somewhere in the skies, or
the thorough pessimism and despair as to the ultimate
destiny of the human race which filled the dominant
Pauline views. There was no future for man on earth;
all his thoughts were to be centred on the effort to save
himself from the impending doom.
This produced a natural tendency to monachism,
the embodiment of life as it is demanded by the Gospel,
a life impossible under normal conditions. The New
Testament has nothing to say about the joy of existence,
the happy father and mother, whose pride are their
numerous offspring, the passion and ideal of the love
between man and woman, nothing about the over-
flowing cup of human happiness. The Gospel view of
these earthly things and objects is dismal, if it at all
concerns itself with them. Instead of the Passover,
with its proclamation of freedom, there was instituted
the remembrance of the death and resurrection 0. Christ;
for the Jewish feasts, in which rejoicing is made a duty
pleasing to God, the new faith brought dim promises
374 THE SYNAGOGUE AND THE CHURCH
of heavenly blessings. Even the stern duties of family
and country, of patriotism and social justice, are for-
gotten by men to whom this world with all its glories
was but a fleeting shadow and an accursed thing. The
married state was, therefore, considered an evil necessity,
a concession to the weakness of the flesh, 1 and the
economic problem and the welfare of the body were of
no consideration to people who had a strong tendency
to communism and regarded prayer as all-sufficient in
case of sickness. The growth of Christianity gradually
did away with this primitive outlook, but there was
no guidance or aid forthcoming from the New Testament,
for it had none to offer.
To endeavour to follow the teachings of Jesus and
the apostles would put an end to civilization. For
not only is Christianity deficient in some of its best
qualities, but (by the strangest irony !) its worst and
most powerful, militarism and wealth, are those against
which Jesus expressed himself most emphatically,
though with the least possible effect. In defiance of
the uncompromising denunciation by Jesus of the sword,
it is by that weapon that, from the time of Constantine,
who became a Christian because he conquered in battle,
Christendom chiefly won its victories and dominion
over non-Christian peoples. In the conflicts between
such opposing forces, it was not the faith and morals
of the Christian warriors which won the day, but the
superiority of their strategical skill and engines of
destruction. It is a curious fact that specially among
1 Paul was firmly convinced of the superiority of the single
to the married state, but, if it came to the worst, he thought
“it is better to marry than to burn." Hence the glorification
of celibacy in historic Christianity.
THE SCHEME OF SALVATION 375
the higher ranks of the soldiery, whose life-task consists
in the extermination of their fellow-men, there is to be
found a phalanx of stout defenders of the Christian
faith, and so accustomed have Christian eyes become
to the glaring anomaly between theory and practice
in this regard, that even the Pope, the Vicar of Christ,
has an army of his own, which in former times did its
business with the requisite vigour and cruelty. The
other leading energy behind European might is money,
created by enterprise and greed, which, however legiti-
mate from one standpoint, has received the utter
condemnation of Jesus. There is nothing in the New
Testament in praise of work (which, according to a
Jewish view, is both a divine command and the necessary
preliminary to the Sabbath rest),1 but there is a strong
discouragement to all those efforts which beget wealth,
and the disposal of it to the poor was generally regarded
as a test of the discipleship of Jesus. Nevertheless,
not very many centuries after its birth, the Church
became the richest corporation in the world, and though
the Pope forbade Christians to lend money on interest,
and the monastic orders pretended to carry out the
vow of poverty taken by its individual members, the
incomes of the Papal court and of those orders are now
largely made up of dividends on their invested capital.
Whatever, therefore, may be said of the advantages,
or otherwise, of the civilization of Christian nations,
there can be no doubt that it stands in direct contra-
diction to the behests of Christ, and that no attempt
whatever is made to adjust it on the lines laid down
by him.
1" Six days thou shalt do thy work and on the seventh day
thou shalt rest.”
376 THE SYNAGOGUE AND THE CHURCH
Intellectually also the highest form of civilization
has been non-Christian. When the pagan Empire of
Rome was submerged by the flood of barbarians, it
was also covered by a mental darkness which lasted
until the great scientific revival among the Moors and
Jews of Spain. It was from this non-Christian agency
that there proceeded for centuries the rational know-
ledge of Europe, and its intellectual and moral re-birth
commenced when the pagan culture of Greece and Rome,
and the Jewish spirit of the Bible, were discovered and
put into use. The epoch of the Renaissance was marked
by a great outburst of intellectual activity, and followed
by a religious upheaval. Both movements were hostile :
to the traditional Church. When these two forces had
spent themselves, the progress of thought and social life
was led by men who had broken away from the current
conception of Christianity, or were its outspoken enemies.
As the modern age was ushered in by the tremendous
revolt against the dominant system of the religion of
Christ, so the great French Revolution betokened
the renunciation of Christianity by the intellectual
classes of the Latin races. The Fathers of the Revolu-
tion, like the leaders of progressive thought during the
eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, were imbued with
an antagonism towards Christian ideas, and it would
be difficult, if not impossible, to name many thinkers
of the front rank, whether in philosophy, science or
letters, who, during the last 150 years, have been con-
vinced orthodox Christians. It is remarkable that it
is now considered sufficient on their part if they are
theistic, but the supreme test of how far the highest
thought in Europe is truly Christian is to examine
whether the Trinity, the Incarnation, the fall and
THE SCHEME OF SALVATION 377
redemption of man, etc., really enter into their conscious-
ness; we know that few men of eminence in the intel-
lectual world take these fundamental principles of
Christian faith seriously into account.
The study of the natural sciences has so persistently
been opposed by the Church at every step, that a tacit
enmity has sprung up between the two forces. Yet it
is only to the application of the natural sciences that
inferior races. Technical discoveries, the use of steam
and electricity in locomotion and communication, the
perfection of the methods of production and distribution,
have made the European the master of the world; all
these advantages are entirely outside the scope of Chris-
tianity, and, since they all tend to the acquisition and
accumulation of riches, they are against the letter and
spirit of the teachings of the New Testament.
The world has to be grateful for many benefits con-
ferred on it by Christianity, and the most profound re-
spect is due to those noble-minded Christians, who, from
the abolition of the gladiatorial games to the emanci-
pation of the slaves, have endeavoured to instil into the
weak and oppressed, especially the fallen and the out-
· cast. With an unsurpassed self-sacrifice, these believers
in Christ devoted themselves to the relief of the sufferings
of humanity, and their successes must command our
unstinted admiration. Yet, while it must be recognized
that in many of these instances the propelling force
was the example and love of Christ, it cannot be admitted
that the humanitarian aspects of our civilization are
the outcome of that power. Just as a rich intellectual
culture had spread in the most diverse parts of the
378 THE SYNAGOGUE AND THE CHURCH
earth thousands of years before Christianity came into
existence, so the human race had evolved its generous
emotions without the aid of Christianity. Naturally,
different conditions begot different forms in which those
sentiments were clothed, but it is gross ignorance or
misconstruction of the past and the present to appro-
priate for Christianity the idea of love of our neighbour
and the resultant deeds of mercy. It requires little
sympathetic insight into the great world-religions to
appreciate the sublimity of the elemental moral power
by which they sway the hearts of men. It is to this
that there must be attributed the all-engrossing tender-
NTTI
poor which is not only a cardinal precept in Mohammed-
anism, but is also faithfully carried out with exemplary
zeal by its devotees. Among the Jews, the care of
the weak and the helpless has always been a question
of the utmost concern, and the genuine charity of
Judaism, where every good action is considered a 17189,
a fulfilment of the Divine Will, has raised benevolence
to the dignity of 7778, righteousness.
Similarly, the conception of universal brotherhood
is not a monopoly of Christianity. Mohammedanism,
as a missionary religion, is as much imbued as Chris-
tianity with the desire to bring the human race under
its influence. Long before the birth of Jesus, Judaism
proclaimed the common origin and hope of all the chil-
dren of men; and even in the distribution of the land
a full share also to the stranger. It was in Judaism
that all the peoples were first placed on an equality
before God, while the traditional idea that the Decalogue
1 Cf. ch. xlvii. 21-23; also Deut. X. 19.
2. “Blessed be Egypt my people," etc., Isa. xix, 24, 25.
THE SCHEME OF SALVATION 379
was proclaimed in all the languages of man, and the
offerings in the Temple on behalf of the seventy nations,
of whom the world was supposed to be constituted,
testify eloquently to the theory and practice of Jewish
universality. This standpoint Christianity has not
surpassed, whether in its teachings or in its application
to life. The announcement in the New Testament of
the spiritual equality of all, limits this only to believers
in Christ, and it is well known that the principle of
equality of all Christians, either in a religious or social
sense, has never been carried out in practice. Roman
Catholicism is opposed to the toleration of any other
section of Christianity, while all so-called heretics, that
is the rest of Christendom, are under the ban of the
Greek Catholic Church. Indeed, until recent times the un-
believer has always been, directly or indirectly, excluded
from the benefits of Christian society. The early Chris-
tians were hated by their heathen relatives and neigh-
bours on account of their supposed exclusiveness in
abstaining from the customs and feasts of paganism,
but when Christianity became the State religion the
charge of narrowness was for the same reason levelled
by Christians against the Jews. It is overlooked that
Christianity, excepting the Protestant sections, has
also its dietary laws (such as, for instance, the pro-
hibition to eat flesh-meat on particular days) and many
a parent has scruples on certain occasions to eat at the
table of his child. The restrictions which Christianity
placed on the movements of the Jews, the Ghetto
and the yellow badge, were born of the spirit of exclu-
siveness. It was the Church which made intermarriage
1 The cry“ The Christians to the lions !” was a most popular
one.
380 THE SYNAGOGUE AND THE CHURCH
with Jews a capital offence, and forbade Christians to
associate with them, or to participate in any of their
social functions. The principle which underlies the
Jewish objections to mixed marțiages is so sound that
it is surprising it should be regarded in an unfavourable
light by strangers. For Christian denominations, even
at the present day, also fully recognize that the union
of men and women of different faiths is an almost
insuperable bar to the necessary spiritual affinity and
sympathy between them, and is fatal to the existence
of any religious body. Therefore, Catholicism and
other Christian sects forbid, or at least do not favour,
mixed marriages, and endeavour to exert an influence
on the upbringing of the children in the true faith.
Of course, intermarriages take place in spite of the
Church, but these also happen in the case of the Jews,
and that sometimes to an extent which inflicts serious
injury on the numerical growth of Judaism.2
The so-called anti-Semitic movement, that creation
of national Chauvinism and clerical fanaticism, is a sig-
nificant symptom of Christian exclusiveness, which has
submitted the Jews to a social boycott and so thrown
them back upon themselves. The special religious,
1 It is interesting to note that the earliest historical mention
of the Jews in England is a decree in the year 740 by Egbert,
Archbishop of York, forbidding Christians to appear at Jewish
feasts.
2 In Berlin, for instance, mixed marriages among Jews occur,
on an average, in more than a third of the total number of
marriages among them, a percentage which, I believe, is not
reached in the case of the Roman Catholic intermarriages in
Germany. Jewish mixed marriages in Western Europe are of
very frequent occurrence, those in Denmark rising sometimes to
nearly 50 per cent. The practical lapse of so many people is, of
course, very prejudicial to Judaism.
THE SCHEME OF SALVATION
381
educational and charitable requirements of the Jews
necessitate the institutions established and maintained
by themselves, but there is no undenominational humani-
tarian work which does not find in the Jews ready and
generous supporters.
It has already been pointed out here that the profes-
sion of Christianity by the most advanced nations is
not due to its inherent moral or intellectual superiority
over every other existing form of faith, since the Euro-
pean peoples adopted their religion when they were yet
in a state of barbarism. That the Church should have
obtained and retained their allegiance is as much a
consequence of accidental circumstances as was the loss of
the Orient to the dominion of Christ. It was not Chris-
tianity which shaped Europe, but European civilization
which has shaped Christianity. This is conclusive
from the significant difference between the vigour of
Roman Catholicism, the progressive development of
the Reformed confessions of the Occident, and the
complete stagnation of the Oriental Churches. In
spite of every endeavour to stem the tide of modern
thought, Roman Catholicism is assimilating new ideas,
which will one day destroy the barriers erected against
them, but Eastern Christianity has neither the power
nor the will to raise itself from its death-like lethargy.
The profession of Christianity is, therefore, by no means
a guarantee of intellectual and spiritual, or even political,
life. The Christian Byzantine Empire, which crumbled
1 Speaking of Western Judaism as proclaiming the principle
of love of one's fellow-creatures, Prof. G. H. Dalman, one of
the most competent Christian authorities on Judaism, says:
“In this universal principle Judaism and Christianity are in
thorough accord.” (Christianity and Judaism, Eng. tr., p. 43.)
382 THE SYNAGOGUE AND THE CHURCH
away before the onslaught of Asiatic hordes, was one
of the most degraded States in history. Abyssinia,
which still lingers on, has sunk to the level of the sur-
rounding countries. The Christian Armenians, the
oldest Christian nation, have not been spared any of
the sufferings of a conquered race. And with the rise
of certain Christian peoples, there has also taken place
the decay of others. Spain and Portugal, those ram-
parts of Roman Christianity, once so great and pros-
perous, have lost every living vestige of their former
splendour, and they have been succeeded by nations
with less unquestioning faith and fanatical intolerance,
but with greater moral force and broader outlook.
It is not by any magical effects that the blessings of
civilization may be obtained. If the first principle of
enduring intellectual and material welfare and prosperity
be sought, it will be found in the freedom of the person
and of the conscience, and, if that be obtained and
rightly used, all other things are sure to follow.
It is thus that we must explain the progress of Protest-
ant, in comparison with Catholic, nations. The English
were not necessarily imbued with greater faith in Chris-
tianity than their former powerful rivals, the Spaniards,
but it was the unbridled fanaticism of the latter which
brought about their ruin in the Old World as well as
in the New, while the generous and wise tolerance of
the Anglo-Saxons in both hemispheres has built up the
two most powerful and stable commonwealths of the
world. It is the critical spirit of the Protestant Churches
which has given the nations professing it any superiority
they may have over Catholic States, but where, as in
Belgium, complete freedom of thought and conscience
exists also among a Catholic population, there is no bar
THE SCHEME OF SALVATION
383
to its progress. The greatness of modern France is for
the same reason independent of the faith of the majority
of its inhabitants. So that we see that neither the
profession of Christianity, nor of any form of it, is
decisive in the race of civilization. The non-Christian
Japanese, in appropriating all the latest achievements
of European science, have by its use risen to the
front rank of nations, while the modern Greeks, with
a Christian ancestry almost coeval with the apostles
and with an unsurpassed legacy of culture bequeathed
to them by their pagan past, have since their conversion
to Christianity not made any permanent advance in
the progress of mankind.
In view of all this, it is unjustifiable to regard Judaism
as incompatible with the highest form of civilization.
This frequent assumption owes its strength to the fact
that outside attention to Judaism is confined to its ancient
past, while all its further developments are not thought
worthy of further consideration. In judging the rela-
tions between Judaism and Christianity, the erroneous
suggestion that, in conformity with the dictum "pos-
terius, ergo superius," the later religion must also be
the better, has been allowed too much sway. With
all our belief in the advance of the world, this view has,
in religious matters, no decisive value. It is not, for
instance, conceded by Christians that Mohammedanism
is a higher form of faith than Christianity. Certainly,
Catholics deny that Protestantism has reformed or im-
proved their common religion, while orthodox Evangeli-
cals are not inclined to accede any advantage to their
rationalist fellow-Christians. The rapid success of Chris-
tian Science does surely not betoken its superiority over
the other sects among which it took its rise. Yet
K
384 THE SYNAGOGUE AND THE CHURCH
Judaism is treated not merely by Christian theologians,
but also in less prejudiced quarters, as a religion without
a justification, whose existence is an objectionable
anachronism, or, at best, an interesting, if useless,
survival, largely because Christianity is a later and,
therefore, a presumably higher production. Is it not,
on the contrary, the most telling evidence of the inex-
haustible vitality of Judaism that, though reaching back
to the age of the pyramids, its teachings and ideals rise
to a height aspired to by the best thought of modern
times ? It is the Church, so long the foster-mother
and guide of European culture, which finds itself over-
taken by hostile forces to which it can offer no effective
resistance. The most advanced Christian theologians,
who wish to reconcile their religion with the pressing
demands of science and philosophy, have had to throw
overboard all that has hitherto been distinctive of Chris-
tianity. In Judaism, however, there is no fundamental
principle which has been vitally affected by the dis-
coveries of the physical sciences, the results of biblical
criticism, or the necessities of logic and morals. The
ethical Monotheism of Judaism is still the most rational
form of a belief in God to which mankind can give
adherence, and in European civilization, with its Chris-
tian traditions, it is only the Jewish conception of Theism
which commands respect among thinking men.
There is no decisive stress laid by Judaism on any
theological or ecclesiastical views which may have
obtained an authoritative position by reason of their
venerable antiquity, as is the case with the idea of the
inspiration of the Sacred Scriptures, or on account of
having been formulated by an eminent Rabbi, like
the creed of Maimonides. The supernatural, in so far
THE TS
385
SCHEME OF SALVATION
as it affects the question of miracles, plays a very sub-
ordinate part in Judaism. In Christianity there is at
the foundation some particular dogma, like the total
depravity of man, or a belief in certain unauthenticated
occurrences, like the virgin-birth or the resurrection of
Jesus, or the acceptance of certain metaphysical notions
about God, like the Trinity. Fortunately for Judaism,
it is saved from such burdens. The difficulties that are
engendered by the progress of the natural sciences and
the waning of the belief in the supernatural, are of very
different proportions in their relative bearings upon
Judaism and Christianity. If the story of the first
chapters of Genesis, for instance, be rejected as a true
account of the creation of the world, there falls to the
ground the basis of Christian faith, which rests on the
fall of Adam, and any allegorizing of the biblical narrative
must inevitably react on the figure of Christ as conceived
by Pauline theology. In Judaism, however, there is
nothing bound up with that story the abandonment
of which need cause any alarm. In spite of all the
geological and biological discoveries and researches,
the Jewish account of the creation of the world still
retains its unique position among the many similar
attempts to relate the beginnings of all things, and it
still teaches the same old Jewish lesson of God as the
Creator of the Universe and of the whole human race
without distinction. Nor, as another example, does
it matter whether the ascension of Elijah to heaven is
relegated to the legends which have grown up around
this remarkable prophet, but a similar treatment of
the resurrection and ascension of Jesus would be fatal
to the divine nature and mission claimed for him.
Judaism does not stand or fall with the existence or
C C
386 THE SYNAGOGUE AND THE CHURCH
personal character of any of its great men. Nor is it,
say, of decisive consequence whether or not the Ten
Commandments were actually given by God on Mount
Sinai; their intrinsic value, as well as the transcendent
effect they have exercised on the moral life of untold
millions, is beyond question It is a mistake to con-
sider the ritual of Judaism as an equal counterpart to
the dogmas of Christianity. There are certain observ-
ances, like the initiatory rite of circumcision or the
Day of Atonement, which acquired such universal and
undisputed force throughout Judaism that their practice
has come to be regarded as a sign of active membership
essentially the cementing and poetical part of the theistic
and ethical structure of the religion. While the ritual
of Judaism has hitherto proved itself a strong cohesive
agency, it need not necessarily be now a repelling force
to those who cannot join in its appreciation.
In the social and political fields, no less than in the
religious, Judaism feels itself in thorough sympathy
with the struggles and aspirations of the progressive
factors of our civilization. Both in thought and action,
Jews are effective leaders and allies of every liberal
institution or movement, and, since the days of the
awakening of the modern spirit of justice and freedom,
Judaism is no longer an isolated force, out of touch
with its surroundings, but presents a solid phalanx
fatal error of those Jews who, not being in accord with
certain aspects of Judaism, either forsake it for some
other form of religion, or sink into indifferentism. Surely,
if not they themselves, at least their descendants, will,
sooner or later, go to swell those engulfing majorities
THE SCHEME OF SALVATION
387
of superstition and obscurantism which it was the
professed object of those Jews to escape.1 The Jews
are not only the bodyguard of Monotheism, as Heine
termed them, but they are also the champions of intel-
lectual and social liberty. Judaism has, therefore,
the potentiality of being, even under adverse circum-
stances, a powerful lever of progress, and it is the duty
of every Jew of advanced views to save and utilize
this instrument for the good of his kith and kin, as well
as that of the human kind. James Darmesteter has well
pointed out the intimate sympathy between the aims and
hopes of Israel and those of modern humanism. Referring
to the connexion between Jewish thought and the French
Revolution, he says : “For the first time this thought
finds itself in accord, and no longer in conflict, with the
general tendency of humanity. Judaism, which from
its first hour has always been at war with the dominant
religion, whether that of Baal, of Jupiter, or of Christ,
at length encounters a state of thought which it need
not combat, because it finds there the reflex of its own
instincts and traditions. The Revolution is, in fact,
only the echo in the political world of a much vaster
and deeper movement which wholly transforms thought,
and which, in the realm of speculation, ends with the
substitution of the scientific conception of the world
for the mythical, and, on the practical side, brings to
the fore the notion of justice and progress. In this
great downfall of mythical religion, the crash of which
fills our age, Judaism, such as the centuries have made
it, has had the least to suffer and the least to fear, because
its miracles and its rites constitute no essential and
1 This point has been urged with masterly force by Mr.
Claude G. Montefiore in his Essay on Liberal Judaism.
388 THE SYNAGOGUE AND THE CHURCH
integral part of it. As a consequence, it does not fall
with the rest. Judaism has not made the miraculous
the basis of its dogma, nor installed the supernatural as a
permanent factor in the progress of events. Its miracles
... never greatly disturbed the imagination of the
Rabbis, nor weighed very heavily upon the thought
of the Jewish philosophers. Its rites were never 'an
instrument of faith,' an expedient to 'lull’rebellious
thoughts into faith ; they are merely cherished customs,
a symbol of the family, of transitory value and destined
to disappear when there shall be but one family in a
world converted to one truth. Set aside all these
miracles, all these rites, and behind them will be found
the two great dogmas which, ever since the prophets,
constitute the whole of Judaism : the divine unity and
Messianism ; unity of law throughout the world, and
the terrestrial triumph of justice in humanity.”1
The election of Israel as a special agency in the
religious evolution of man, is neither a dogma nor an
assumption of superiority on the part of the Jews.
It is a plain fact attested by the existence of Christianity
and Mohammedanism. There is no parallel to the
influence which Judaism has, directly or indirectly,
exercised on a majority of the human race. In spite
of all the great philosophical systems which have seen
the light in Europe, the religion dominating it still
draws its inspiration and strength from the history
and literature of the Jews. No one has yet arisen
among the European peoples to give another permanent
basis to their faith in a spiritual power or a higher life.
The utterances and writings of Moses and the other
1 "An Essay on the History of the Jews "in Selected Essays,
Pp. 272-274.
THE SCHEME OF SALVATION 389
Jewish prophets, of Jesus and his Jewish apostles,
still form the centre round which revolves the religious
thought of Europe. St. Augustine, St. Francis of
Assisi, or Leo Tolstoy have, after all, been merely
endeavouring to expound the teachings of these Jewish
masters. The various attempts to place religion above,
or outside, the Jewish influences, have, as in the case
of Auguste Comte, met with significant failure.
Religion, unlike the natural sciences, does not expect
the discoveries of new laws. Those expressions on
unfathomable subjects which we owe to the great world-
religions, are an all-sufficient inheritance which it is our
right and duty to examine and to cultivate. Judaism,
the creation of a people in which there has been infused
the genius of Religion, does not necessarily represent
the absolutely highest form of Truth, but it possesses
the highest truths, those eternal verities which will
shape the religions of the future. It is of slight moment
under what designation these truths shall be embodied,
for, after all, the human mind is limited in its capacity
to understand, and to give an articulate definition of,
the infinite. If materialism, however, whether in the
realm of thought, or in the sphere of action, rises at
times to the surface, and threatens to obscure the
heavens, there need be no fear that passing philosophies
and moods will shut us out from the sight of God.
Judaism regards indeed the votaries of materialism as
those “ ch'hanno perduto il ben dello inteletto,” i but
the Jewish vision is nevertheless full of hope for their
future. There will always exist the craving to satisfy
1 Cf. the reference in Dante's Inferno, canto iii, to the genti
dolorose who have lost the highest good of the human mind,
i.e., the knowledge of God.
390 THE SYNAGOGUE AND THE CHURCH
by an active love of one's fellow-creatures, and by
some solemn symbols, those aspirations of the heart
and soul of man which idealize the realities of
life and turn its ideals into realities. It would
be idle to forecast the forms into which this striving
for the highest in us will crystallize the growing
intellectual and humanitarian forces with which our
generation is so rich, but the signs of the modern age
point the way to the supremacy of that spirit by which
the Torah of Moses proclaims its simple sublimity :-
“This commandment which I command thee this
day, it is not hidden from thee, neither is it far off.
But the word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth,
and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it.” 1
1 Deut. XXX. II, 14.
THE END
INDEX
Akiba, Rabbi, 7 note, 8
Albigenses, 290
Aliens, the Torah on the treat-
ment of, 85, 86
Antiochus Epiphanes, 39
Anti-Semitism, 79, 380
Apocrypha, 33
Apollos, 97, 305
Arianism, 57, 164, 308, 309
Aristotle, 81
Armenians, 29 ffg., 382
Athanasian Creed, 167–9
Atonement, 351 ffg.
Augustine, St., 127, 139, 159
note, 181, 253 note, 389
Calvin, 330, 357
Cassel, Paulus, 79 note
Catholicism, Greek, 337-9
- Roman, 18, 19, 136-9, 309
ffg., 339, 340
Celibacy, 374
Ceremonialism, Christian, 63
ffg., 170 ffg., 181, 182
- Jewish, 67 ffg.
Charlemagne, 115
Chazars, 104
Chrysostom, 113
Cicero, 14
Civilization, Christianity and,
370 ffg.'
Clovis, 115, 116
Comte, Auguste, 389
Cornill, C. H., 17
Covenanters, the Scotch, 171
Crusades, the, 324
Cust, R. N., 133, 134
Cyprian, St., 139
Cyrus, 21, 22
Bacon, Roger, 332
Baptism, 361-3
Bar Cochba, 78
Baur, F. C., 303, 304
Ben Azai, 8
Beni-Israel, 104 note
Bernard of Clairvaux, 46
Bible, the, 32, 33, 331-5
Bodo, Bishop, 102
Boileau, 108
Brahma Somaj, 122
Buckle, H. T., 73 note, 331
Buddhism, 63, 64
Burnet, Bishop, 323 note
Dalman, G. H., 381 note
Dante, 389
Darmesteter, James, 24, 387,
388.
Davidson, Samuel, 246
Dion Cassius, 14, 92
391
392
INDEX
Döllinger, 42 et passim, 118 Hallam, H., 44 note, 319 note,
note, 178 note, 292 note, 333 320
Draper, J. W., 178
Harnack, 65, 272
Dualism, the principle of, 24, 25 Hase, Karl, 363 note
Heine, 34, 70, 387
Ebionites, the, 207, 291 note, Helena of Adiabene, 96
306, 308
Hell, 347-50
Election, the doctrine of, 160 Hellas, compared to Israel,
Eliot, George, 40 note
107, 108
Erasmus, 182
Hellenistic Jews, 97
Essenes, the, 242, 267
Herzl, Theodor, 80
Esthonians, 114, 115
Hillel, 7, 73 note, 76, 237, 238
European civilization, 370, 381 Hume, 286, 331, 333, 337 note,
Eusebius, 291 note, 307
357 note
Huss, 286, 287
Fairbairn, 182
Hutton, R. H., 238, 252, 315
Falashas, the, 103 note
note
Fall of man, the, 344-51
Huxley, Thomas H., 21
— the Jewish view of the,
366, 367
Farrar, F. W., 148, 232 et
Indulgences, 331
passim, 317 note
Inquisition, the, 46, 54, 285
Flavius Clemens, 92
Irish Catholics, 290, 331
Francis, St., of Assisi, 389
Izates, 95, 96
3
Gibbon, E., 114, 116, 151, 176
note, 178, 295 note, 308 note,
320 note
Gnostics, the, 25, 306, 307
God, the Jewish conception of,
6, 62, 63
Goethe, 21, 35
Gospels, the, 243-9
Graetz, 39, 103, 104 note
Green, J. R., 333 note
Gregory of Nyssa, 181
Gregory of Tours, 116
Tesus of Nazareth : his birth
and childhood, 196-207, 249-
251 ; his genealogy, 196–
200; and the Jews, 230 ffg.,
277, 279, 283 ffg.; and the
Law, 300-3; his cruci-
fixion, 283 ffg. ; his resurrec-
tion, 251-60; his ascension,
261; his miracles, 262–3 ;
his divinity, 263-5, 279,
280; as a teacher of morals,
266–8, 270–7; and the Gen-
tiles, 268–70; as the med.
iator, 278, 279 ; the belief
Halevi, Judalı, 104, 142
I
INDEX
393
Jesus of Nazareth (cont.):
in, 280-3, 293, 294; his falli-
bility, 292; his expected re-
turn, 293, 294
Jochanan, Rabbi, 78, 142
John the Baptist, 242
Josephus, 71, 81, 91, 206
Jowett, Benjamin, 73, 264
Julian, 322
Juvenal, 92
Kingsley, Charles, 298 note
Knox, John, 331
Marx, Karl, 35
Mendelssohn, Moses, 105
Messianic times, 228
Milman, Dean, 126 note, 170,
177 note, 184 note, 266
note, 294 note, 369
Miracles, 262, 263, 385, 387,
388
Missions, Christian, and Jews,
130-3
Mixed Marriages, 380
Mohammedanism, 13, 16, 47,
48, 57, 121
Möhler, J. A., 359, 360
Monachism, 369
Moneylending, 43, 44
Montefiore, Claude G., 387
note
Moses, II, 12
--- the Torah of, 12, 13, 277,
390
Mosheim, 154 note, 156, 159,
173, 182, 326 note
Müller, Max, 15 note
Lang, Andrew, 278 note
Lassalle, Ferdinand, 35
Lazarus, Moritz, 83 note, 105,
106
Lecky, 73, 182, 243 note, 253
note, 321, 323 note, 341 note
Lilly, W. S., 121, 328 note
Locke, 123 note
Logos, the, 125
Lollards, the, 323 note
Lord's Supper, the, 362-4
Luther, 19, 359, 360, 368 note
McCabe, Joseph, 174
Macaulay, 331
Maccabeans, the, 39, 40
Maimonides, Moses, 93, 94,
105, 142
“Man of Sorrows,” Israel as
the, 48-52 ; 213-16
Manicheans, the, 307
Marcus Aurelius, 269
Martineau, J., 112, 328 note,
335 note
Napoleon I, 23
Natural Science, 377, 385
Naylor, James, 285, 286
Nazarenes, 306, 308
Neander, 34
Nestorianism, 309
Newman, F. W., 67
- J. H., Cardinal, 150, 190,
191, 225, 329
New Testament, the, 33, 186,
239, 373-5
Nicon's Reformation of the
Russian Church, 171, 172
Niehbuhr, 2
394
INDEX
Nietzsche, 17
Ockley, 161 note
Origen, 308
Paul, 64, 65, 96-8, 153, 163,
297, 298, 302–6, 374 note
Pfleiderer, Otto, 293, 294
Pharisees, 239-41, 272 note
Phenicians, the, 29-31
Philo, 81, 82, 93, 96
Popes, the, 137, 327, 328
Sabbath, the Jewish, 70
Sacraments, 361-3
Sacrifices, 352-6
Sadducees, 241, 242
Saints, Catholic, 325-7
Saxons, 114, 115
Seneca, 15 :
Servetus, Michael, 330
“Servant of the Lord," Israel
as the, 48-52, 213-16
Schleiden, M. L., 42
Shema, the, 9 ffg.
Simlai, Rabbi, 8
Simon the Just, 9 note
Socrates, the Church historian,
165 note
Spencer, Herbert, 363 note
Spinoza, 34
Stanley, Dean, 40, 62, 158
note, 172, 176, 188, 190
Steinthal, H., 3
Stobbe, 42, 45 note, 53
Strauss, D. F., 243
Predestination, 356–8
Prophets, the Jewish, 37, 60,
342, 372
Proselytism, Jewish, 86 ffg.
Protestantism, 328–37, 340,
341
Rabbis, the, 61
Rambaud, A., 118
Ranke, Leopold, 128 note,
313 note, 321 note, 325, 329
Rationalism, 341, and note
Reddinge, Robert de, 103
Reformation, the, 18, 182
Relics, 176-80
Remy, Nahida, 88 note
Renaissance, the, 376
Renan, 101, 106 note, 207,
243
Revolution, the French, 376,
Talmud, the, 33, 82, 173, 270-3
Tertullian, 348
Thirty-nine Articles, the, 346
Tolstoy, 272, 273, 389
Torah, the, 12, 13, 390
Trinity, the, 165-70, 263
Unitarianism, 266, 267
Vatican, the, 137
Vladimir of Kiev, 104 note,
387
Robertson, John M., 371 note
Rome, the foundation of, I, 2
Rothschilds, the, 35
117, 118
Voltaire, 215
INDEX
395
Waldenses, the, 290
Wecelinus, 103
Westminster Confession; the,
346
Zend Avesta, the, 24
Zionism, 79, 80, and note
Zoroastrianism, 24
Zunz, 40

1. RUTIER
E TANNER
wwn
Sciwood Ddollag
Works - Frome *

UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
II
3 9015 00933 9691
| TP,
"
s
et
=helf
量
​-
:主畫​」,
:
1. 費計了事書章普鲁鲁兽​-
P
*
“
看​”“自體中學學生
​.ity串串​:崖​" "
動
​畫​"
* p , : : if a
P a 本產物​。

"
Try
, "ti-
重​,
|
A
L
..
..
.
..
.
it
-r 戰事中​,
事 ​;
再在f
.. 4
国市
​年
​,
中
​是了​,单 ​“
全
​-ltrald', d电事业 ​| 高
​三
​. .. . : ji "
""_I nitut.
'-
上 ​,….
,
了
​4
| 會​.
是​.
,
4
.'
-
.
"
:"
"a,
0 年 ​,
事學生​, 共
​上
​“
.
.真是​.
"..
"
,'事
​..…事
​,事事4" T
ITE
非
​+
1
r
"
,
,
,
「
.
.
.
.
..
:
"
p.
ri4
- H
oria's ,
, strl +
1
,
'
t.
frift
:
4:
24.14
- 中​“F'April' tity
I
T'.
.'”一曲串串耳
​:
11
"
"
"
"
"
"
sn
!",
.
,才不是单一的
​律
​,
事
​」
Thu
1.為傳
​“军中事​!
一上書程​”
事
​件
​,
事件​,
Hi,
本組​,
其中​,
「
一
​tri-First | 14
AT ATTA
Ep ::
::產車​,
中止期和ph PAPyth"車​,
建
​:
* ,
華民​「世事 ​- "鼻畫 ​-
真​: 高清
​单 ​”或者all API": "IT主分量​。
中學​导者​,中部 ​中共事
​Filt;单是​: "",
hr:
n.
重生 ​,
,
事
​在其身
​事上中
​上
​有​:
中
​事 ​,事​” “
:
至1 4 :
其中有
​l曲线​,
“...
.. 中中中中
​中
​-“
TT”,着手
​中国​””
”,鲁鲁鲁事​,
华島​- 台中雷
​量
​.
.
.
1.
.
11
.
4
:
-"
"
=
|
|
34
",
",
"
"
"
,
"
""
, :
·J.
·
鲁
​.
1
4.
一
​,
中
​生
​1.
學
​t#
+
.
.
.
.
..
.
""
"
""
:"
"
l
r
u
I.Tr
:
'
I
,
,,,
主子
​提
​art 手
​,
rit
:
A
事业作者
​*
「.
..
.
.
…
:h
i
,我是有
​上車
​.5''-
-*..在中部​,
中
​部
​,
,,年​,,
,是掌
​,
「神​,争中 ​,
-中​,
·中​,曹青
​' f者​,“
生本
​小时
​工作4h
,
,
r
,,
,
4
it #
,山东​:宝​,导t
1,
,
14事​,
;有​,是學會了​,
它要
​1
1
」
事
​「um,
. ,,
,
:
,
,
,
."
,
,
:
,
,
,
. ;
,争中​,中号
​鲁
​""}體
​:
I
4
TIER
'
「華 ​1
a
,
:
/FT;基本情
​A L
E
.
**
fy
NT :
1,隶​。
”':'
1'
十
​月
​-
身
​;
4
.
,
,
具
​,
,
于是一事​;,
是​,事
​:「
皇
​上
​:
", 山
​,
,
,
,,,:
置身l P4
,
4'
,5,"bio
非​“
写
​上
​,
T.
,
.,
L
,
#
tal.,
: ttful
,
作 ​基本
​, FP
1
是
​丰​:
,由串
​//r
u
A
s
,
=.
,
,
, 1
4
:
;产业
​”
,
4
号 ​ptr
A
. . . Eli...
.hlt = 14
:
:
::
: 'd ……. 11
高 ​:4
:
1
,,
件
​内
​·
体重
​,
T',
"事
​事 ​中看到
​|
'人非​,
单
​:
中置是
​非
​::山​, + r" 1
" 4+单击量​:7; i:1 , 中山平r Allia 1. u
.售
​:
Apr 4 中出 ​- f,
"-"音量 ​,处​: 让
​中 ​一中学
​車
​事​”,有件事律下 ​,
“本事者
​,
由香
​里
​」 事业 ​學車​*|香學車​,學會​。月 ​山​。高​一串串​,
串​, 串一 ​, 产平​”和​”
是小事小事​,可是
​' s
,
::::: :,事事造​“中国胜出户​,售中​!' , The sh… -- 14:
中量產群​”
1”;" , "" ,
"事​-中華書種​,
車主在
​工 ​事事
​4',5', ''' ' ' s ..+ ++ 9, 1. 自由rt , 1.41.t .. '中事曲
​」 ,
曾 ​一
​样
​!
”
. | ii 畢書​:"車是​「
量
​出 ​。4 月島市​, ,, ",
門 ​","
4","s:鲁鲁
​,
鲁
​鲁 ​的js', 也是可以上
​;
1.“
ett些事​」帖 ​,声​,也ty" +,
: : :
:::: 單車
​主事
​中 ​事
​,其中​:
* 學制作人
​,
鲁鲁鲁
​14
,事件​”是​“r" ·1111号 ​HET
T Y -. " ," P_Ps"
. 中華書​:是
​:
1 '":"he" , ,,
,,生产
​主 ​,
要
​是
​:
+ ++
中
​时 ​'{'f*|
中
​神 ​:":
山业单​:', '* '''' 're, y, FANT,
"appy .. 1
1
-
14
二进​“中有一个​“了​- Ah,市华​;rid,' ';举产 ​”中​, 447
,曲中​,
七
​,,.
rariutt业化
​,推出了
​,- aap
"rry
",
.
,並非事事部​共青
​",";--
產品
​的事​,
,
我的手
​+
-
,,
Hi
: 出售​!
於事​,,
H
TTY,
产生​」華 ​rule jall+Y ::
4
新​」. 由
​多生为本
​1
4 . 3. 1」 「
.til:事由1事件
​JP#,
博
​士 ​, "
"
,
"
,,,,
"""
""
""
""
"
;
11
:
1
的
​車主
​,
車​,
對車
​*11
L
",
",
"「影​」
,
.
..
4,
i =:
:
.
.
1.
1,
1
|高主​.
11,...
主 ​播 ​」。 : 得 ​五毒 ​重車​青​;;重者​,
轟中​''* ' , 事事​,事事​,
”单身日一
​l
于是​, ,: * 举世
​,1,患者 ​,
由
​主 ​, 基 ​T
-L L t
d i ; 42.由此 ​, ,. .
'是华导单位中​,http:/*,#,青是​,事​,物​,争​:44连​,
进​:单件中中中中中中中
​中​”
事件​,
在本
​y
中
​414
.
**.1
'
:
:
".
東
​北
​1
It'*' |
--
平
​,
"
,
"
李
​: 1
增
​,
基
​本
​了
​。
日本br 目业主​期​:
44 4
||
.
4
|- ,曲​「重建了单曲青山 ​; ; . " x
學車重
​.so":"A中 ​:中 ​中 ​,文登
​F..由此​,自 ​: ''' t . . it ey' 6”,
单
​,
,,
,
.
)
中
​|- |
,,
;;4,
, ..
:45年​。本
​|
第14
14:
,
14
-
年​”了
​1,4V光
​4
*
1.車
​,再
​步
​! 「今年再
​「
比​”中
​":
"
"
,
11,
I titu中事​:「是
​!」
幹事业
​财​”
,
,青
​4
年
​学
​中国重​,
4
HIT ,
1. 車主最后
​件為主
​4
、再自​“一书里能看 ​-*
注是
​!
国
​ML
:
,也
​有
​*
rad-1
:
单产​中
​鲁特举中 ​,有些事了
​国学生​,14,
” 当事4 ,4
1,"art
中的​: *
味
​,,,,, +-
1
料
​;“本事
​1-1; …… . 14.*;'' - * 4.时得​, Suit ,其中中中中 ​, “世曾
​:"", Lift +串 ​” , “
中
​。
”年情制​"實事中事​:
專
​一​,中d “出​”上
​谱 ​- Fr,” IT FF.F事情斗争者​,事已非​,中共中​,
雪r
1.
,
上乐手
​望
​1
”
,
一首尾 ​14444ff\n";
*#44:44
,4
:
54
,.*… · ..
. 上一書 ​,typig .vps /Ar :
{ "上動物學是E代华州中学y , ,
+% : “一种一事 ​,事 ​」
LI.
声 ​, 导
​T
:节A.
T
,
*
其再到事主事 ​,中肯建​”、”到​“真​··· -
T
ai Har乱斗争y P中​,了量​: 繼​,他
​- ultu
rn章军制中779号 ​中非 ​rap; **** - ni *.*1.重 ​.: ;非主管FP ,
是由車爭r** * 出事了​: 国产 ​,中​事​”。 单​” ,
有同事 ​在 ​中部 ​,, , ,
,,, F于是上 ​山​,5,
車​",看stail :14 : 如事​” “主​” : "+"
c ":"4A , Alerty ill',
'1M 有​'
,'平 ​中​*.青一下 ​.. .佛 ​事 ​,, , ,,,
出
​「是是是
​。
”", ,
第4字​” 明书PPT #li..
. |
中音直書了電動車 ​TAIL :
1
1 ] 。电影中
​,士
​”鲁I fer .4:
非會等重量 ​,
" ",
" " ,
1.「事​····· ·· · 4 :44女生​"b":FA權事​-中华电主管​; }車​,其中一中
​心
​TEL:
:
只是 ​,
事
​情 ​的方法
​, ,,,
,,
,, ,
,,,这种事 ​,看到李一平​: 对​'
l ', "If d'三事​,平时f "" 是 ​","「fr「
重建​」 了​「
生上 ​! T_
Tr
i
TENT"
,
有事​,
事事单三甲成中
​學
​| 出自華​」
-
Tu ,… ·Wall,
十
​一
​,在于​:一是rd业维​”:
": "","
i":"鲁华
​”_《
13座海島 ​,皇​-'P+高中 ​--1 + aar…,並曾rly iiwi - 車上學 ​。 作​,
争当主持
​· · 事 ​,“平 ​:
中管理 ​,非本 ​|
Mult. = “ /
关
​, 十年了​, 只 ​是靜 ​- Terry Four” , I l ,#鲁下 ​,
, ,
,
- 體非是賽車​, 車主世正​! 「一 ​事考勤​,非​*, T鲁一鲁鲁里​,得到幸善​,单​PT
身上​,再用
​" .
」 事​:「
. | 香港
​!」,
:9,
.t"""
", " t
,"p
ar
; 直​,单击​“单举产量舉看書
​"
{"
产品 ​彰an
F "
:
i
E . +-
计
​划
​,, 中争中 ​,fs =
1
一些本 ​地II”, 以 ​“ 是
​”--
业
​-4 --11”事T WELY:
LIVE_LIC"{{CEL - -
,
或
​..
"
.
是
​- all
“It'
at
"
之类的
​内
​Wi-
.rt-节全年
​古曲平行軸
​行
​华西产业​.“理​:物
​,主要對学​;其中非子​》中​"",,一身外​,得​-
* 44 Mur.…一个人 ​车 ​,
中ext ': '
i" ,TIT'{{"W ", "
p
e r
的
​k事
​, 在
​E S
其
​| 射精 ​-
一 ​;;
i-1 ; } 基本上都得的​,:4
}
書​:: -
- -:-
; .191,"rt4
: ;
:
*4 11人单​。其中​“举地​”,在
​中 ​共M .PTW
Tell
Tony
的中和 ​:
将
​--
*125/
举
​學​,于是
​, 在 ​;
产
​中
​Fri 4.4
-- : A wry法身中小学​,其中​:
144 % 在其中​.…”鲁​,"fer 事上​,
:
"fit , 重車 ​: :
: i '事​' a# # 11.11p本​: hs.t;l t
, TI
Alon ":"or*,***
*
#t
一 ​种
​,不​,是
​“不​,不
​有一击​。
“中国
​|
.
1
:
由事​,
:鲁ffi是​,
在
​等等​,
青州
​一 ​中学
​-
,
里
​A
人車事事了善r」: =
''}中者​”
是一种​“事​,二三事
​|
中国
​·
中​.1
:1 中西群目 ​事由
​,特鲁​·争
​41 11th
,手
​:
#
" 4+ 登出
​二​:
:
1
.
得
​,
,
,
,
,
,
,,
,
,
小学
​re
就是我
​事业带
​十
​,事单​。
」
承
​1
.
市
​一​:
化在​“
事业​。
上
​也是出​:+
正
​好 ​事​,广
​學界 ​::
世ut
| 举r ,” ”
, 为事 ​,
,, ,, , , , , ,
地方​,
主要r:
pfer , "有事Far* , M
ii ad,舞得​,車子
​是
​产量​:14,
1,
1
4 ***ist * ,1.
:
曲​:
:ht
:
'..
11
.4f
," '''
,4
-,-,sy Bity:
'
幹​,學生事未
​,
:
,,
,
产​: 中争​,
“……, y;韩
​鲁​·肯
​特性是共事​, ::
台中​,
有 ​1
%; ;, F..
. 1 单1事是
​'_' :
中華
​r ld.
ELF
+ + +
" A"
:
賽事​|' :
1. . ,
r, 一 ​些 ​,
小事 ​-
_ . : 基書 ​, 車 ​事 ​!
,
, ,
,
-4 14
, , ,
144A
","infride in
a
delir
: *
"
Is L.}
"
了​:看看車事名
​};
t
12:14
":"",
i ly
.ttf
中
​.*
s**
學中​'"','v'和​''''',华山​,擊​:
,事事争​;朱
​2, ,,,
,此举事等学中​,
,,,F"會
​作业​;f... 4 ,4;「山​」為 ​, “T.T中 ​, P ray , im',, ,
鲁王者中 ​,. .. 4 , , , ,有着 ​“串串 ​” - 中 ​由 ​,
于
​国
​。
,事​s";鲁鲁​,鲁L-1 中華
​量
​-
人事厅
​****
- iky!, 4… ,,- **书
​鮮事​「量​」學
​;4
;
本
​产 ​率​:一中学学生​:全军事平​…先是writy ,
中华 ​·中共中
​,当
​;
非事事考​!“ 重​,一一
​.
事
​,mu,非
​*1"h;
fe
上
​車
​..等量的事 ​. 非
​大中
​小 ​学 ​-- Alistry #1 | '
',
.,
T
A
T
L:
. F
,
=
14
""-
:
: 1,41
「
行了行星​! -
t
v
.n":
",
; /
*进行中争的上
​面
​,由于革t ..“不會​” · 青年 ​- -
一把手​'/htwitte','tty b.'s=出学生中出
​中国有建​”APHIL:be
***
*.*北部​,
,
中国中
​車​,而是在普鲁t…
学 ​生​, 教学​....
· 内
​……
”
.
半个多
​小 ​时的
​“
'' P; 4.4 LIFY", *r":
… ·中​,
”,“
争中博科技
​{"it' 中学 ​| MP 1
. L .
E FT
术
​中
​#
ts.
。
用
​.
-
-
-
-
-
.-
--
.f.
1
'A
,
4,,
'
,
,
'
,
'y
,1
,
)
, ,:
r
+
11, ": " , " h+
,
L
,
,:一体 ​+
I
,
ACT
*,,
,,
,,,
,
,,
PACE
SYM車到中国​,
由工大
​到
​学 ​汽
​水
​**
* *it
's Cor和IT等​,
“T ” 等 ​,
第六u.
vi
a
"";+ 14
uty
E-M.
:
MM,一W
华中
​中性​”*
.…11
小
​学一事​,
:
说​:是​”,4
目的
​,
4 3
并不是
​特 ​地
​為 ​中中中中1 - 1-中年人 ​, 而是A *** * .*
*.
*,带
​:14ppm的产生
​!··
rrive
·中​“
"time
:
,非爭​,教
​"
一等
​学
​来建​“
:"p4 时
​长出其身者
​:中共巴中 ​4414 : t
r
““单
​y,
,its
y, 事​:
: { in
人​,
1
4
#e
:
1 -
,
使其
​1、为社 ​TEL
4TH …, TIMyMusine
2.4MPart中华光佛南
​,“
一
​下​,在中和的
​10:
一
​中国
​中
​,中​,
小​,小
​米和4S .....
…
.…得​“
中国 ​”,“
不
​是 ​”ANA
基
​本
​法
​- 本书中​,
个一 ​”,
”””! 此一中IPT :
"
:#4g
4 44”“
”,... 中中中​,rt中try,
龙
​Elvin th:'/'中 ​'事事​,事事​, wer 4, 4打性​。中国中车身上
​, , , ,, ,
- , 本
​人
​不了我
​,
,,,, HER IN 情是一个中国的​“
一中 ​- At My
FM14
****.*
;学创作中​,E
F己也是受了
​在vivi 1个事​.单曲​“自由 ​+ ' ' ;lk 書中​, 土耳
​一生為主
​,
其中一
​Airi戏也​,非爭​”曲​”其中十
​章 ​,, ,
學 ​會 ​:: : :
,
《
L. At Alex中strify
-1.
asp
:
14 ti
, " h
t
"
y Int
er ,
:
, 4
,,
,
tip-H,行​:}"世​'
,,
:'
r a'A事​,一生​! - 自由行
​| 情
​人
​·
·
·
·
TUCA
1
,4}, 事 ​實 ​! ·
中 ​, , , ,, ,, 也 ​:
·“T ”
- 1 4 .11 “ 一​' + ":" ", "p"
""
,"
TEM
1
, 4
5
,
4
,
T'
1' ,青年時代 ​,毒性​,可是​.y' ,'
一​' t.…
是非 ​l
ish, rack」
,
「 主
​” ,
七十
​考量體重是學畢不了青
​生t
.
.
.
重量是基
​的
​重建
​建事件​,事業上
​44
,
事情​”。
“
对了​,
我的一
​F4
一是4.
*
4
t*集
​“
一村
​一名大学
​成
​*
新​;“中中
​“教学中的4个技研
​片名​:
で
​き
​,
是
​... ##
ないかしくなかっ​.. これでOKYY0
A型身作 ​。 曾子 ​, : "
”。
or:
,
'' 'W
u -4 -
11”事化小​, 小事​””iPhu..44 世​”
w ;
中中中中
​中
​,在​“我​”
,
“
党​” 中
​KATM,
MiMirr
L
,“
在
​,
" "
“
没
​事 ​,
小事
​…
. …
林先生​,中华文化中一个​,一生一世
​有​。
「
“
!
事
​看看
​中華
​賽事​,
“
是​,由
​中中中中式​,
M4A,AAC-长和
​业务主管单​中
​工
​中学学得到一本​"
下​,
hai,
本書是一本非
​E身​黑
​普京
​。
事鲁鲁者得
​是
​賽事
​HT
真
​:
。
w中出
​一青
​不
​理学
​。
,
用于cpu?在上​,这个​“NEAL
“
花​”,“
以人为本
​,
求一者
​4
**
LTE
L告中​,F4;是中书中自有​「 中 ​,
“、":
","
titv
.…
华
​中 ​学
​老舊
​和学生
​* ,#
年以特种养
​多
​当事
​AirAL
Y
T ”「
TAI
“
,
,車
​(文字
​-
考试
​年进军中
​其次​,
事
​高​- 1年
​tp:
教ERS
t
H
,而是一对一在线往外
​,
的产业化
​多
​,过
​pe. “
-r ty
;
,学
​),各种育中
​,事事中
​,有事
​-
,
,
,
“好​..
事​,在一个
​ti
重量
​于是​,
好了
​GT行业​,
eture
r
n '
-
.
,
。
学的​……
中
​的学生 ​,
:"
A
NT
,
1
,
…等​,
对
​,
中 ​中
​”,,,,… 中中
​”
”,
待​“
:
我
​Airitis
“
1:'idae Healt
和
​, 行
​业
​:P上 ​"-" ' +'
h
"list-
Ext
一
​,
在中
​"
"
,
#中PTTM对
​”“
's V1-
rint
! 其中
​:
#書法4上
​中華
​,中共中市法​,
一下​,
*
*
att
女性
​*
行動學者​,本行得学生学学会
​”
STANET
F4
ATHAN
空海法
​善​”
對
​,
1.
TT
电
​クドカンのいずれかにいいいいいいいいい
​Hi
…
主普​,
Air
第一​,