The Family
Matt. v. 27-30,31,32.
vii. 7- 1 1.
viii. 21, 22.
ix. 14-26.
x. 21, 34-37.
xii. 46-50.
xiii. 53-58.
xv. 4-6, 19.
xix. 3-22.
xxii. 1-14,23-33.
xxiii. 14.
xxiv. 19-38.
xxv. 1-13.
Mark i. 29-31.
ii. 19, 20.
iii. 21, 25, 31-
v. 19, 21-43.
vi. 3, 4-
vii. 10-12, 21,
24-30.
x. 2-12. 13-16,
xii. 1S-27, 41-
xiii. 12, 17.
Luke iv. 38, 39.
vii. 11-16.
viii. 19-21, 39,
41-56.
ix. 4.
x. 5.
xi. 7, 17, 27, 37.
xii. 13, 52, 53.
xiv. 1-35.
xv. 1-32.
xvi. 18, 27, 28.
xvii. 3, 4.
xviii. 1-8, 20,29.
xix. 44.
xx. 27-38, 47.
xxi. 1-4, 16, 23.
xxiii. 28-31.
SIX-AND-THIRTY years after the appearance of Ecce Homo there was published another exposition of the ethical teaching of Christ in the English language not unworthy to be named in the same breath with that famous book. It was from the pen of Professor Peabody, of Harvard, and it bears the title, Jesus Christ and the Social Question. In one respect it exhibits a close re¬ semblance to its predecessor; because the method of exposition is by constant comparison with a rival system, with all the ramifications of which the author is intimately acquainted. Only the literature made use of by Professor Peabody, for this illustration of contrast, is extremely different from that on which the author of Ecce Homo fixed attention; for, while the latter used for his purpose the remains of classical antiquity, the other makes an exhaustive comparison of the Christian ethical system with that of modern Socialism. Perhaps in both cases a carping critic might complain that the author betrays a more comprehensive knowledge
THE ETHIC OF JESUS
of the system with which he compares the scheme of Christianity than with the latter itself; * but there can be no doubt in this newer case, any more than in the earlier, of the utility of the method; and the interest at present felt in Socialism makes the whole discussion eminently fresh and timely.!
The point at which Professor Peabody seems to feel, and his readers also will generally feel, the most painful collision between the Socialistic and the Christian doctrines is the family. The author begins by showing how the sacredness of this institution has been shaken in his own country by the excessive prevalence of divorce, which has been
* It is in the companion volume, Jesus Christ and the Christian Character, that the limitations of this able and delightful author’s theological position are most apparent. The Christian Ethic is an ethic of motive — this is its peculiar quality — and there are motives springing from belief in the transcendental history of the Son of God which have given rise to the heroisms of Christianity, such as those of its martyrs and missionaries. It is historically certain that those who have by such acts of faith made the modern Christian world what it is put the full testimony of the Church into the confession, “He loved me, and gave Himself for me”; and it has still to be seen whether those who have taken out of this testimony the major part of its contents are capable of similar performances. But it is not gracious to be grumbling that an author who has given so much in such an admirable manner has not given more.
t In Newman Smyth’s deliverances on the Social Question, Christian Ethics, pt. ii., c. 4, there is also a maturity rarely met with in utterances on the subject on this side; suggesting that, on that side of the Ocean, they have had to reflect on this subject for a much longer time than we. growing from decade to decade, reasons more and more frivolous being allowed by the courts to disrupt the bonds of marriage, until, as I see from the very latest statistics just published, there is now one divorce to every twelve marriages. Even in the face of such facts Professor Peabody endeavours not to despair of his native country, pointing out that it is only a minority of the population which has been thus vitiated; the majority, on the contrary, being sound, and knowing of such practices only as dwellers far inland may hear from a distance the tumult which is disturbing the ocean; and it is reassuring to learn that an observer so sane and well-informed is able to take so sanguine a view of the situation. He proceeds to specify, as another disposing cause, the recent course of scientific investigation into the origins of marriage. The natural history of the changes through which this relation has passed in the obscure early history of the race is apt to breed the belief that it is a mere convention, which, having altered its form many times already, may alter it again to an indefinite extent.* In this spirit the speculations on primitive conditions of Westermarck, McLennan and others have been
* Balch, Introduction to the Study of Christian Ethics, p. 203, says, perhaps rather sanguinely, “Whatever be the prehistoric origin of morality, its authority is independent of its method of genesis.”
THE ETHIC OF JESUS
utilised by those who look upon the sacredness attaching to marriage in the popular mind as one of the principal obstacles standing in the way of the new era which they hope to introduce; and thus has been generated what is held by such to be the true and the modern doctrine on the subject: the family is, like the State and the Church, merely a venerable figment, the underlying conception of which cannot stand the light of scientific investigation; and all three — State, Church and family — are destined to be swept away together.
This is the voice of Continental Socialism, to the literature of which the author gives references which leave no doubt that beliefs of this kind are being diffused by propagandists among the labouring classes of such countries as France and Germany. In our own country, on the contrary, it is worthy of remark, not a few of the spokesmen of Socialism have repudiated this creed as regards the family. I have heard Stoecker, the late originator of the Christian Socialist party in Germany, declare his conviction that the atheism of the German working man was extremely superficial, being little more than a fashion of speech adopted from leaders; and it may be that the hostility to the family is no deeper. At all events, Englishmen are swayed far more than either Frenchmen or Germans by practical considerations; and it would not be wise to held those who profess socialistic opinions to all the consequences of their principles. On the other hand, principles have a way of working themselves out, if time be allowed; there is a logic in things which lies beyond the will of the conscious reasoner; and, therefore, it is not a matter of no moment to determine whether or not, in its essence, Socialism is irreconcilable with the family. I suppose, the argument of those who believe that it is would be, that the family is inconceivable without the existence of private property to an extent not allowed by a strict and consistent Socialism; and, also, that the very idea of the family involves an hereditary transmission both of property and other advantages inconsistent with the equality which is one of the principal planks of Socialism. Into such theoretical inquiries, however, this is hardly the place to enter; and I will not at present pursue the subject further.
Although Christianity has a great deal to do with the home in nearly every aspect in which it can be considered, nevertheless marriage is not an institution which owes its origin to Christianity. It existed long before the Advent. Neither is its authority to be sought among the enactments of the Mosaic legislation. On the contrary, it is a purely human institution, having its ground and reason in creation. This was acknowledged by our Lord Himself, when, in reply to the cavils of the Pharisees, He answered:
THE ETHIC OF JESUS
“Have ye not read, that He which made them at the beginning made them male and female, and said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother and shall cleave unto his wife, and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What, therefore, God hath joined let not man put asunder.” Marriage thus belongs to the primitive condition of human existence, and is inherent in the human constitution. In its essence, it is due to the choice of the twain by each other, and, while the sanction of State or Church may be grounded on the best of reasons, it is something added, not the constitutive element in the union. The State demands publicity, in order that the new home may be registered in proper form in the circle of civilisation over which it watches; and the Church claims the right to perform the ceremony, because the blessing of God is the protection of the home; but both of these are only confirmatory of what the parties themselves do by their own choice. State and Church can lend dignity and sacredness to the covenant of nature; but it is criminal when the State places unnecessary or arbitrary obstacles in the way of marriage, and the Church is still more culpable if it terrorises weak consciences by casting suspicion upon forms of marriage which are sufficient, in the eyes of God and man.*
* By the recent decisions of the Roman Curia on this subject, Roman Catholics who are married to Protestants before a civil In His quotation from Genesis our Lord makes reference to that mysterious attraction not only between the sexes, but between individuals in the opposite sexes, which draws them into marriage. It is stronger than the attraction that binds to the homes from which the pair are drawn away to found a new one — “A man shall leave father and mother and shall cleave unto his wife.” No wonder the Saviour alluded to this passion with such high appreciation; for, if the aim of Christianity is to ourcre the heart of selfishness, it can find in the world nothing so akin to itself as pure love between the sexes, which carries the person possessed with it completely out of himself and makes all sacrifices for the sake of the beloved object easy. In some, no doubt, this is transient, the mere blazing up of a flame which is soon extinguished But in multitudes of cases it is enduring. The choice is a permanent one, and the union only becomes more close and sacred the longer it lasts. If to first love, as it is called, there attaches a beauty which has
official or by a Protestant minister are told by the priest that their wedlock is invalid, and that they are living in a state of concubinage. This is the more reprehensible because, as is hinted not obscurely in the recent episcopal pastorals, the irregularity can be circumvented by a money payment at Rome. Of a piece with this is the notorious fact that in some Catholic countries the fees charged by the clergy for the celebration of marriage are so high as to be prohibitive to numbers of the poor, and so prove the occasion for the formation of irregular connections.
THE ETHIC OF JESUS
evoked the enthusiasm of poets and romancers, the love of old age is not less beautiful, when it has survived all the changes and chances of life, only becoming mellower with the passage of the years.
There is a sensuous element in this passion, to which our Lord did not scruple to refer, when He quoted: “And they two shall be one flesh.” Indeed, in this part of human life, the ideal and unselfish remains for ever linked with the animal and egoistic; and the history of civilisation itself as well as of Christianity might be written in terms of the pre¬ valence of the one element or the other.* In¬ numerable influences are forever at work, in all lands, to evoke and impel the animal element in this passion, while others are, at the same time, working on behalf of the ideal element. This is a struggle incessantly going on, not only in society at large, but in every bosom; and the result determines from stage to stage the station and degree both of the nation and of the man. In custom, opinion and literature, not only is there a championship of the flesh which is hurtful, but there may be an exaltation of the ideal or spiritualised which is morbid also. It requires fine taste and discrimination to divine where the happy mean lies; and this is a knowledge which
* I have heard Dr. Laws, with his unsurpassed knowledge of savage peoples, remark that the place of any race on the upward or the downward scale can be accurately measured by their relation to two of the Ten Commandments — the fifth and the seventh. has to be acquired gradually by both the individual and the race. The contrast, for example, between the conception of love prevalent in the English literature of the eighteenth century and in that belong¬ ing to the middle of the nineteenth century may serve as an illustration of how radically the sentiments of a people on this subject may change; and there can be no doubt that, in this case, the change was due to the revival of earnest religion which had taken place between these dates. The services of those who, by their descriptions of this portion of human life in imaginative literature, are making the advances towards marriage more pure and refined may not always be consciously rendered to Christ; but there are few services which accord better with His aims and spirit.
It is true, however, that the attraction referred to between the parties to a marriage is not the only consideration which ought to weigh in coming to a decision. There are numerous other circumstances which require to be taken into account, such as health, the lawful claims of other relationships, the ability to support a household, and so on. A reck¬ less disregard of these may make marriage a source not of happiness, but the reverse; just as, on the contrary, an excessive regard for secondary considerations, such as money, may do equal harm in another way. Still it is pure affection that is the prime guarantee of success in this relationship, and
THE ETHIC OF JESUS
it is to the absence or extinction of it that the failure of marriage is oftenest due. Those in whom the ideal element has been absent, at the contraction of marriage, find themselves not in a paradise, as they had expected, but in a trap, when the ebullition of animal passion has subsided, as it easily does, or has been transferred to another object; and those who have married for money or position find them¬ selves confronted by a prospect scarcely less dreary. It is out of errors of this kind that the demand for divorce arises. Moses, for the hardness of the hearts of the people with whom he had to deal — that is, to prevent worse from happening — afforded facility for putting-away; and the same course has been followed by too complaisant governments in both ancient and modern times. But Jesus laid an arrest on this course; and, wherever His name is respected, His authority will sway opinion and legislation towards a purer standard.
In two of the Gospels where this is referred to, Jesus is reported as forbidding divorce altogether; but in St. Matthew He makes an exception, “for the cause of fornication”; and this, some maintain, must have been understood, even if it had not been expressed, because this sin, in point of fact, dissolves the union. Others have interpreted Him in the opposite direction, holding this to be only a specimen reason, which implies others of the same kind, such as desertion, which St. Paul seems to allow to be sufficient. It is well that, in circles where Christian sentiment is earnest and pure, the necessity for knowing much about such fine discriminations seldom arises; and, while any considerable acquaintance with actual life will reveal many cases of hardship, where selfishness and cruelty take refuge behind the veil of the domestic reticences, yet the general observation cannot be ignored that, whatever the relief to the individual which laxity might give, it would be purchased too dearly by the blow inflicted on the structure of society itself.
This divine institution aims not only at the union of two for their mutual comfort and improvement, but likewise, as the English Marriage Service says, exists for “the procreation of children, to be brought up in the fear and nurture of the Lord and to the praise of His holy name.” This is an aspect of human life on which Jesus cast a most sympathetic and comprehending eye. When speaking of the destruction of the temple and of the calamities that would ensue, He glanced with pity at the women who might be with child or nursing their infants at such a period of distress; and, when the women followed Him on the way to the cross, He turned to them, saying, “Daughters of Jerusalem, weep not for Me, but weep for yourselves and for your children; for, if these things be done in a green tree, what shall be done in the dry?” Many of
THE ETHIC OF JESUS
His miracles were wrought on children, being, as in the cases of Jairus’ daughter and the daughter of the Syrophoenician Woman, accompanied by exquisite touches of humanity towards the parents. A favourite name of His for God was the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, in using which He had evidently in mind the promise enshrined in this ancient phrase, that piety may descend in the home from generation to generation. By the scene in which He blessed the little children He took possession forever of the heart not only of childhood but of motherhood; and it would be difficult to exaggerate the revolution in the condition of children and the estimation in which they are held which has been due to this incident alone. In all the centuries since, the words then uttered by Him have been working like a leaven, and their virtue is not yet by any means exhausted.
Jesus did not, however, merely view domestic life sympathetically from the outside: He was a member of a human family and bore Himself as a son of man in the several relations which this involved.
When He was twelve years of age, it is expressly said, He went down from Jerusalem with His parents to Nazareth, and “was subject unto them.” Not only, in His doctrine, did He rebuke those who excused themselves, by pious gifts to public religion, from doing aught for their fathers and mothers, but, in the article of death, He turned His attention away from His own sufferings, with all their mysterious import, in order to make provision for the future support and comfort of His mother, whom He placed in the hands of the most loving and comprehending of His disciples.
The relationship of brother and brother, or of brother and sister, is one in which there lie many possibilities; and Jesus showed His appreciation of these by associating, in more than one case, brother and brother in the list of His apostles. To Himself personally this relationship proved for long a source of tragic pain; because His own brethren did not believe in Him — a circumstance which lends peculiar pathos to the saying,” A prophet is not without honour but in his own country, and among his own kin, and in his own house.” If, in the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus, Jesus represented even Dives as concerned for his five brethren, lest they also should come into the place of torment, we cannot be wrong in persuading ourselves that He must Himself have prayed and striven for the conversion of His unbelieving brethren. To the day of His death they, nevertheless, remained in opposition; and it is not unlikely that others may have taken encouragement from them to persevere in rejecting His claims. As soon as He had risen from the dead, Jesus resumed the effort to save His brethren, His haste betraying the pressure with which this anxiety had always lain upon His heart. One of His first appearances was
THE ETHIC OF JESUS
to James; and so convincing did the evidence thus brought to bear on the mind of the doubter prove that not only did he himself at once abandon his unbelief and throw in his lot with the cause of his Brother, but the rest of the household yielded to conviction at the same time, presenting themselves among the other representatives of the cause the first time, after the Resurrection, these rallied in an upper room at Jerusalem; and two of the brothers lived to be authors of New Testament Scriptures.
But this long-continued opposition on the part of the brethren of Jesus was only the most outstanding instance of collision between Jesus and His earthly relations, which manifested itself also in other ways. There is a slight indication as early as the incident in the temple, when He was twelve years of age, of a dissonance between Him and His parents: it is evident that He then became aware of a call, which they were unable to hear but He felt He could not disregard. In all homes there comes a date, differing, indeed, in different cases and seldom clearly marked in the calendar, at which the authority of parents has to relax its hold and the children take their destiny into their own hands; but parents sometimes do not submit with grace to this inevitable change, attempting to exercise their right too long, while children, on the other hand, to their own peril, may grasp at emancipation too soon. In the case of a character as original as Jesus, it was inevitable that the yoke should be slipped and that He should brook no interference with the plan of His life, after it had been clearly formulated in His own mind. But this was not understood by those to whom according to the flesh He appertained. At one stage, when His absorption in His work was such as to excite the alarm of His people, these * “went out to lay hold on Him, for they said, He is beside Himself.” If His mother took any part in this unseemly attempt, it is no wonder that, when next she approached Him as if she had a right to interrupt His work and call Him away to attend to her at pleasure, she experienced a sharp rebuke. In St. Mark it is immediately after the incident just referred to, that Mary and His brethren come, in the midst of His teaching, and, standing without, desire speech with Him. This being signified to Him by those standing near, He exclaimed, “Who is My mother or My brethren?” And He looked round about on them that sat about Him and said, “Behold My mother and My brethren! for whosoever shall do the will of God, the same is My brother and My sister and mother.” The effect of this may have been modified by its being pronounced with a smile; and it shows how close and tender He felt the natural relation to be that He compared the new spiritual one to it; yet this was a distinct preference of the relationship formed by discipleship to that due to nature.
* ol nap’ avruv.
THE ETHIC OF JESUS
As soon as He began to call men to come and follow Him, He was similarly brought into collision with family claims. No doubt there were other obstacles of a less creditable description, such as entanglement with the pleasures and engagements of the world, which prevented those called from attaching themselves to Him; but the very respectability of excuses derived from domestic obligations may have made these, to some at least, more fetter¬ ing than grosser restraints. At all events the cases were numerous, and Jesus had to administer rebuke in tones of extreme sharpness. One, when called, would say, “I have married a wife, and therefore I cannot come”; another, “Let me go and say farewell to those who are at home”; another, “Let me first go and bury my father.” “No man,” said Jesus, “having laid his hand to the plough and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of heaven.” “He that loveth father or mother more than Me,” He would say in His doctrine. “is not worthy of Me; and he that loveth son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me.” One of the Evangelists even reports Him as saying, “If any man come to Me and hate not his father and mother, and wife and children, and brethren and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be My disciple.” And not only was there this collision of duties for the time then present; but He foretold that it would be an accompaniment of the subsequent progress of the Gospel: “For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two and two against three. The father shall be divided against the son and the son against the father, the mother against the daughter and the daughter against the mother, the mother-in-law against her daughter-in-law and the daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law” — an anticipation which is fulfilling itself down to the present hour, in missions to the Orient, for example, where the ties of home are so enveloping that it is easier to break through any other obstacle for the purpose of making a Christian profession. He drew a still more ghastly picture of the effects of the collision of the demands of His Gospel and the claims of the family, when He said, “The brother shall betray the brother to death, and the father the son; and children shall rise up against their parents, and shall cause them to be put to death”; but the fulfilment of this prophecy also could be amply confirmed from the records of times of persecution.
The drift of all this is unmistakeable. When the call of the Gospel comes into conflict with the claims of the family, Jesus requires that the former should prevail. He is Lord of the conscience. Much may be said, and ought to be said, about the need that, in such cases, the conscience should be an adult conscience, and an instructed one;
THE ETHIC OF JESUS
also, much may be said of the unfounded claims of pretended lords of the conscience to speak in His name; yet, when all is said, the course which conscience must take is clear — it must acknowledge and obey its Lord.
To work out all that is implied in this claim, from a dogmatic point of view, does not belong to our present purpose; it lies pretty evidently on the surface. But here I shall only add, that Jesus honoured the relation of parenthood by using it as the earthly image for His own relation, as well as His people’s, to the Father in heaven; and that He honoured the relation of husband and wife by calling Himself, as we have already seen He did, the Bridegroom, the bride being the Church, and by shadowing forth the same truth in the parable of the King who made a Marriage for his Son.