This organization or union of Christians, or church, has been, I say, a fruitful source of conflict, just as all schemes for the realization of a community have been. Every few years, and often many times in the same year, parties became dissatisfied and broke off, forming in each case an organization or church more to their liking, with a new theory and new policy of a church, or, in theological parlance, with a new creed and new polity. And the impulse, I may add, which the spirit of communism gave to the early Christians, has continued till now, even when the old causes for it no longer exist; for among modern Christians there are as many sects as among modern socialists; and most of the differences, as I have said, have arisen on the question of the Church—what it is, what is its form of organization, its terms of membership, its officers, its procedures, etc.; one church accusing, excluding and condemning the others, and fighting more against other branches than againt the common enemy, or non-Christian world. For churchmen have always fought more, and done more harm to, each other, than to the world; always fighting among themselves, and, until lately, persecuting and even destroying one another.
Seeing this disposition manifesting itself early
Socialism of Christ—10
in the Christian community, Jesus directed His conservative wisdom against it. He tried to make His followers live together in peace notwithstanding their differences; to harmonize their actions by not insisting unduly on their individual peculiarities; to cultivate brotherly love and forbearance, instead of uncompromising individualism.
This is one of the requisites of positive and constructive work, as against radical demolition. "Every kingdom," He says, "divided against itself is brought to destruction, and a house divided against itself falleth." Many, He predicts, will be offended; and, as if foreseeing the difficulties of His own system, He says, "Ye shall all be offended because of me." His experience was to be like that of M. Cabet, against whom his followers revolted immediately after establishing his community at Nauvoo; and like that of Robespierre, Danton, Enfantin and Baboeuf, who all received bad treatment from their followers on commencing their constructive work. " Republics," says an adage, "are ungrateful;" and certainly every communistic leader has met an inglorious defeat, if nothing worse, at the hands of his followers.
Paul, who followed Christ, and did the constructive work of Christianity, had to give constant advice on this subject, urging the early Christians to forbearance and charity, asking them to prefer one another and be reconciled, and especially to submit their differences to the whole. Now he reproved Peter, now Alexander the coppersmith, now some local church disturber, and now the community in general. The people, he thought, were too much broken up into parties, and followed too readily favorite leaders and systems. One, he complained, was for Paul, another for Apollos, and another for Cephas; one for a Jewish and another for a Gentile community; one set for holding onto their money, and another in dispute over general funds for widows; so that much of his work was aimed at getting the people to drop their individual preferences and follow obediently the church, or majority of the brethren.
Another object of conservative advice much needed by the communists, was in restraint of Violence, Jt has never been difficult fo mak§ the communists revolutionary enough, or to dispose them to do the work of destruction; but it has always been difficult to get them to stop when they have done enough, and to observe moderation in their course of ruin. The burning of cities, palaces and religious buildings, the destruction of people and of private property —iconoclasm, regicide and similar devastation— has been the work which has always marked their reign of terror. The consciousness of their former wrongs, their inexperience in practical management, their untutored and unrefined character as laboring men and poor miscreants, naturally led them to this.
Christ, accordingly, like every other leader of such bodies, was compelled to recall them frequently to proper bounds in their wrath. I have already cited several examples of their violence or contemplated violence ; examples not unlike those of the recent French Commune. We have no instance of Christ's approval of this, although recognizing and prophesying concerning it as an unavoidable accompaniment of His work. But we have many instances of His reproving and restraining it. When the apostles James and John, for example, asked that He destroy certain Samaritans who would not receive them favorably, He answered, "Ye know not what spirit ye are of. The Son of Man is come not to destroy men's lives, but to save them." So also He commanded Peter, when he wanted to fight, to put up his sword, saying, "They that take the sword shall perish with the sword." He told the soldiers to -'do violence to no man." He so restrained the wonted violence of the communists, in short, that His followers, thinking He was not in sympathy with their cause as a leader, asked whether He was the anointed or not.
And thus in various ways, not only in inciting the people to their duty as socialists, but also in putting on them the necessary restraints of practical wisdom, did Jesus show Himself the great popular leader, His cause the social cause, and His followers the ordinary socialistic elements.
CHAPTER VI,
MONARCHICAL REACTION
We come next to the monarchical element in the early Christian cause. For, in every great political movement, whether in the interest of the people or of the rulers, and whether in that of the poor or of the rich, there is a monarchical faction or tendency. A revolution, though in general a socialistic, democratic or republican one, is always somewhat affected by the very principles or prejudices which it antagonizes. This is due partly to the fact that men are hardly ever pure examples of either one or the other party into which the people are divided on such occasions; so that no matter which side of a question they espouse, they still have lingering relics of sympathy for the other side; partly tQ the fact that in a contest of opinions they are somewhat convinced or modified by the arguments and general force of their opponents; partly to the fact that some get by force of circumstances on the side on which, constitutionally or by education, they do not belong, and still again partly to the fact that they espouse a cause not fully, but only in general, going but part of the length of their partisans.
I say that there is, accordingly, in every popular movement a monarchical element. Some of the people believe like the Orleanists, that their revolutionary interests will best be promoted under a king and nobility; others have no politi cal sentiments whatever, and conceive of nothing but the old regime, others are only moderately radical, and look for reform without revolution, others are ambitious and treacherous and will espouse any cause that promises to save their selfish interests, and others again change in the very course of the contest itself, whether from ill success, or despair ol their ideal.
We thus find in the French Revolution—an event pregnant with all the phases of the popular revolutionary character—that there were monarchists not only among the opponents of the revolutionists, but among the revolutionists themselves, so that their forces were divided, and part of the conflict was waged against itself. Persons entrusted with power in the interest of the people used it for themselves; there grew up an aristocracy of the revolutionary elements; the leaders made themselves quasi princes. Robespierre became dictator, Napoleon I, the republican leader, turned against his cause and made himself emperor, as Cromwell did in the English Revolution, and as Kossuth proposed to do in that of Hungary. The same was done in the revolution of 1830, when Louis Philippe ascended the throne, and in that of 1848 when the republican president installed himself in imperial power as Napoleon III.
So it was in the early Christian movement. Although the cause of Christ was that of the people, in the interest of the people, and in favor of popular sovereignty, there was yet a conservative element observable from the beginning, and a retrograde movement developed with the progress of the cause. Some who espoused the Christian interest gave only moderate adherence to Christ's doctrines, others, though the movement was social and republican, were sincerely monarchical, and others still experienced a chan
ge of opinion and policy with the progress of the cause, as I have just explained.
Jesus Himself was at first strongly democratic and republican, and this seemed to be His sincere conviction throughout. But subsequently, with the adulation of His followers and His complete mastery over them, He appeared to conceive ambitious projects, or at least to listen to others who did so for Him. From having been the champion and leader of the people He came to be their master and ruler. To the astonishment of the people He gradually commenced to speak "as one having authority," and was at last led, it was supposed, to contemplate a coup d'etat, or the making of Himself a king.
The throne of David had long been vacant, the Jews with the memory of their ancient greatness, were discontented under their Roman subjection; He could with a little straining prove Himself to be in the line of the kings of Israel, in short, from the complete ascendancy He had gained over the people, the way seemed clear to make Himself a king, and not only a king, but a deliverer of the people; the one foretold in the legends of His race,' 'the Christ," ' 'the Anointed," "the son of David," "the offspring of Jehovah."
I say this idea seems to have been gradually developed in the mind of Christ as it was urged upon Him by His followers. For still more strongly than in Christ, do we see this idea growing in the minds of the people, until at last they conceive of Him as a king, or royal pretender. Finally, He came out Himself openly as a claimant for royal honors, pretending to be the King ot the Jews and the successor of David, and in this capacity, like Henri of Bourbon in France, He threw around Him His insignia of authority, spoke of His kingdom, His laws, His subjects and His future universal empire, of which there should be no end.
I say it came to this at last. We find, however, as already intimated, that the seeds of this were in His cause from the first; and that all through His career they may be traced; sometimes germinating and bearing promise, and sometimes only coming feebly forth to be repulsed by the general republican sympathy of the movement. Often the monarchical cause gained strength by a misinterpretation of the words of Jesus, and often by an incorrect report of His utterances. But whatever the cause, the monarchical element, or the thought that was fixed on Christ as a monarch, was a power in the early Christian movement, i shall, therefore, next trace the main features of this element.
I observe, then, in the first place, that the followers of Jesus were taught to expect a kingdom, in which He would be the king. He speaks of it as " my kingdom," 'fthe kingdom which my Father will give, " "thekingdom of God, " "the kingdom of Israel, " "the kingdom restored,'' and "the everlasting kingdom." All the prophecies of the old testament concerning a kingdom for the Jews He interprets, or His followers for Him, as applying to this new kingdom, and all the Jewish expectations of a kingdom were taken advantage of to persuade the people that the popular expectations were fulfilled in Him.
For it is well known that a kingdom was expected; whether actually anticipated before the coming of Christ, or only an afterthought antedated from the actual kingdom then advocated. A kingdom was expected at the time and everything that Christ did was interpreted in a sense compatible therewith. Impatiently the disciples asked: " Wilt thou again restore the kingdom," or bring about a monarchy? "Wilt thou now restore unto us the kingdom of Israel?" He taught His disciples, as part of their universal prayer, to ask for this kingdom. '' Thy kingdom come;" and for this kingdom they understood that they were to work. He taught them also to say; " For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory;" in other words, to acknowledge in Him all royal prerogative. And to this prayer He taught them to say, as already observed, Amen—so let it be—as an ejaculation in favor of royalty.
For these prayers and these expectations, whatever significance they may have had in the mind of Christ, or may have to Christians now, meant to the people, or at least to the monarchists among them, a prayer for, and expectation of, an ordinary kingdom; a kingdom like that of England or Russia, and not some ethereal or indefinite thing in another world, of which in their ignorance they could then have no conception.
«
There was a kingdom demanded, if not by Christ, at least by some of His followers; demanded, no doubt, partly in opposition to the provincial or ducal government of the country under Rome, and partly as a reaction against the republican and revolutionary sentiment which aimed to sweep away the old political order.
Accordingly, we find Christ, like all pretenders, claiming the necessary attendants and insignia of royalty. First of all He claimed for Himself a royal birth, or rather, His disciples claimed it for Him. For no sooner is it determined to achieve for Him a crown, than He is set forth as the legitimate heir of David, the head of the house of Israel and of Judah, entitled by descent to rule that country and people. In other words He claimed by regular succession and divine right, like the Count de Chamborde of France, and like every thorough legitimist of modern Europe.
As, therefore, the soldier Caesar, who, when he once reached the throne, or felt he was destined to rule, traced back his lineage to Aeneas the King of Troy; and as the Corsican peasant Napoleon, when he came to be emperor, did, for his better security, look beyond his humble parentage, and trace his line to an anc ient Gallic king, so Jesus, a carpenter's and peasant's boy, when He was seen to be destined for the throne, had hunted up for Him a royal parentage.
We, accordingly, find the evangelists tracing back His line to David and the kings of the Old Testament. And, to make assurances doubly sure, one evangelist traces back His maternal and the other His legal descent, so that He shall be seen to have both the blood and the inheritance of David. Matthew, therefore, for the Jews, gives .His paternal line and title, and Luke for the Gentiles His natural one. For, having somewhat overshot their mark in claiming for Him a divine birth, His followers, (being estopped from claiming a hereditary title on the father's side, and compelled to content themselves with one on the mother's side only), took advantage of Joseph's marriage with His mother to allege a title by adoption.
Paul in a speech to a body of Jews at Antioch, traced, with special reference to Christ's title, the history of the Jewish people, from the beginning to that time, showing that Jesus was in the regular line of their kings, and the promised Savior, who should be the deliverer and aggrandizer of Israel. After reminding them that their fathers had given the republic a long and fair trial, that for four hundred and fifty years they had had judges; and that they afterwards desired a king, He says, "God gave unto them Saul * * a man of the tribe of Benjamin; * * and when He had removed him, He raised up unto them David to be their king, to whom also He gave testimony and said, I have found David, the Son of Jesse, a man after my own heart, which shall fulfill all my will. Of this man's seed hath God, according to His promise, raised unto Israel a Savior, Jesus."
Christ was, accordingly, called the " Son of David,." a "prince of the House of David," "the lion of the tribe of Judah;" and, like the Count de Chamborde and Don Carlos of to-day, He even assumed before His coronation the title of "King of the Jews," and "King of Israel."
We are told that in order that nothing might be wanting in His birth to insure His legitimacy and entitle Him to the throne, His parents took the precaution to have Him born in the place and manner which were necessary to entitle Him to the throne, whether it be that this precaution was actually taken, or, like the prophecies of His career, was an after story invented as a reflex of the fact, to attest and explain the place of His birth and the validity of His citizenship.
For, it is related that Joseph and Mary went, at taxing time, out of the city of Nazareth, (where He was in danger of being born), into Judea into the city of David, which is called Bethlehem, because He was of the house and lineage of David; that is, that they went thither in order that He might be born in His own country, and so be entitled to the throne, which He could not be as an alien; all of which precaution we might add was necessary, or at least some account thereof was deemed necessary in order to explain the place of His birth; because it wa
s generally known that His parents lived at Nazareth, instead of in Judea, so that He might, prima facif, be presumed to be a Nazarene.
Again, the monarchical element claimed for Christ a divine birth, as well as a royal one; and Christ Himself, when He came to see the feasibility of the monarchical projects, appeared to accept the pretension.
This claim of a divine birth was formerly made for all kings and royal pretenders, and if it is not made to-day it is only because it is exchanged for that of a divine right to rule.
As, therefore, Romulus was the son of Mars, and Memnon, the son of Aurora, so Christ was the Son of God. Like Castor and Pollux, who were born of Jupiter and Leda, and like Teucer who was born of Scamander and the nymph Idaea, so Jesus was born of Jehovah and Mary. The Holy Ghost was His father. Jehovah came under that name to His mother in the shape of a dove or angelic annunciation, as Jupiter came in the shape of a swan, a cloud or a golden rain to his several amantes. Christ was born of a virgin without the destruction of her virginity; and, like the Count de Chamborde, was proclaimed an enfant du miracle. It is announced at His birth that " He shall be called the Son of the Highest," and He is named to this day "the Son of
God." God is represented as appearing repeat- Socialism of Christ—it
edly to testify to His parentage, and to authorize His resulting claim to authority. At His baptism, when His public name and character are supposed to have been first proclaimed to the world, God is represented as saying, "This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased." Not only "my Son "like many sons of earthly kings, illegitimate and unacknowledged, but "my Son in whom I am well pleased," and whom, as He afterwards says, "I delight to honor." At the transfiguration, which was a sort of crowning scene, when a halo of golden light as a royal diadem, encircled His brow, and a supernatural coronation was enacted, God appeared again, testifying both to His divine birth, and the validity of His royal claim: "This is my beloved Son; hear ye Him," or "This is your legitimate King, be satisfied with His title, and obey Him as your Leader."
Socialism of Christ Page 9
