Part 16 (1/2)
[Footnote 1: Matt v 3-10; Luke vi 20-25]
His preaching was gentle and pleasing, breathing Nature and the perfume of the fields He loved the flowers, and took fro lessons The birds of heaven, the sea, the ames of children, furnished in turn the subject of his instructions His style had nothing of the Grecian in it, but approached much more to that of the Hebrew parabolists, and especially of sentences from the Jewish doctors, his contemporaries, such as we read thes were not very extended, and formed a species of sorites in the style of the Koran, which, joined together, afterward co discourses which ritten by Matthew[1] No transition united these diverse pieces; generally, however, the same inspiration penetrated them and made them one It was, above all, in parable that the iven hihtful style[2] He created it It is true that we find in the Buddhist books parables of exactly the same tone and the same character as the Gospel parables;[3] but it is difficult to admit that a Buddhist influence has been exercised in these The spirit of gentleness and the depth of feeling which equally animate infant Christianity and Buddhisies
[Footnote 1: This is what the [Greek: Logia kuriaka] were called
Papias, in Eusebius, _HE_, iii 39]
[Footnote 2: The apologue, as we find it in _Judges_ ix 8, and following, 2 _Sa, only reseinality of the latter is in the thought hich it is filled]
[Footnote 3: See especially the _Lotus of the Good Law_, chap iii
and iv]
A total indifference to exterior life and the vain appanage of the ”comfortable,” which our drearier countries make necessary to us, was the consequence of the sweet and si man to a perpetual contest with external nature, cause too much value to be attached to researches after comfort and luxury On the other hand, the countries which awaken few desires are the countries of idealisnificant co The embellishment of the house is superfluous, for it is frequented as little as possible The strong and regular food of less generous clireeable And as to the luxury of gariven to the earth and the birds of heaven? Labor in cliives is not equal to what it costs The animals of the field are better clothed than theThis contereatly to the elevation of the soul, inspired Jesus with soues: ”Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth,” said he, ”where h and steal, but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal: for where your treasure is, there will your heart be also[1] No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one and love the other; or else he will hold to one and despise the other Ye cannot serve God and Maht for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on Is not the life more than meat, and the body than raiment? Behold the fowls of the air: for they sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feedeth the thought can add one cubit unto his stature? And why take ye thought for rairow; they toil not, neither do they spin; and yet I say unto you, That even Sololory was not arrayed like one of these Wherefore, if God so clothe the grass of the field, which to-day is, and to-morrow is cast into the oven, shall he not much ht, saying, What shall we eat? or, What shall we drink? or, Wherewithal shall we be clothed? For after all these things do the Gentiles seek; for your heavenly Father knoweth that ye have need of all these things But seek ye first the kingdos shall be added unto you Take therefore no thought for the s of itself Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof”[4]
[Footnote 1: Compare Talm of Bab, _Baba Bathra_, 11 _a_]
[Footnote 2: The God of riches and hidden treasures, a kind of Plutus in the Phoenician and Syrianof Lachmann and Tischendorf]
[Footnote 4: Matt vi 19-21, 24-34 Luke xii 22-31, 33, 34, xvi 13
Compare the precepts in Luke x 7, 8, full of the same simple sentiment, and Talmud of Babylon, _Sota_, 48 _b_]
This essentially Galilean sentiment had a decisive influence on the destiny of the infant sect The happy flock, relying on the heavenly Father for the satisfaction of its wants, had for its first principle the regarding of the cares of life as an evil which choked the gerood in man[1] Each day they asked of God the bread for the doive als which wax not old, a treasure in the heavens that faileth not”[3]
What more foolish than to heap up treasures for heirs whom thou wilt never behold?[4] As an example of human folly, Jesus loved to cite the case of a ed his barns and a enjoyed it![5] The brigandage which was deeply rooted in Galilee,[6] gave much force to these views The poor, who did not suffer froard the a less sure possession, were the truly disinherited In our societies, established upon a very rigorous idea of property, the position of the poor is horrible; they have literally no place under the sun There are no flowers, no grass, no shade, except for hiifts of God which belong to no one The proprietor has but a slender privilege; nature is the patrimony of all
[Footnote 1: Matt xiii 22; Mark iv 19; Luke viii 14]
[Footnote 2: Matt vi 11; Luke xi 3 This is theof the word [Greek: epiousios]]
[Footnote 3: Luke xii 33, 34]
[Footnote 4: Luke xii 20]
[Footnote 5: Luke xii 16, and following]
[Footnote 6: Jos, _Ant_, XVII x 4, and following: _Vita_, 11, etc]
The infant Christianity, moreover, in this only followed the footsteps of the Essenes, or Therapeutae, and of the Jewish sects founded on the monastic life A communistic element entered into all these sects, which were equally disliked by Pharisees and Sadducees The Messianic doctrine, which was entirely political ast theulated, conte its share to the liberty of the individual, these little churches thought to inaugurate the heavenly kingdom upon earth Utopias of a blessed life, founded on the brotherhood of men and the worshi+p of the true God, occupied elevated souls, and produced from all sides bold and sincere, but short-lived attempts to realize these doctrines
Jesus, whose relations with the Essenes are difficult to deter relations), was on this point certainly their brother The cooods was for some time the rule in the new society[1] Covetousness was the cardinal sin[2] Now it ainst which Christian morality has been so severe, was then the si a disciple of Jesus was to sell one's property and to give the price of it to the poor Those who recoiled from this extremity were not admitted into the comdooods, and that in so doing he dom of heaven is like unto treasure hid in a field; the which when a oeth and selleth all that he hath and buyeth that field Again, the kingdooodly pearls; hen he had found one pearl of great price, went and sold all that he had and bought it”[4] Alas!
the inconveniences of this plan were not long inthemselves felt A treasurer anted They chose for that office Judas of Kerioth Rightly or wrongly, they accused hi from the common purse;[5] it is certain that he came to a bad end
[Footnote 1: _Acts_ iv 32, 34-37; v 1, and following]
[Footnote 2: Matt xiii 22; Luke xii 15, and following]