and can create a double of himself; but these iddhis belong to all Yoga experience.

Third. In the scientific Yoga, apart from similar magic, the mystic becomes illumined by freeing himself as spirit from matter. Here also there is no union; on the contrary, isolation is sought; and it is found by devotion or mainly by certain exercises, both giving intuition surpassing reason. In the fourth sort of mysticism, the mystic obtains intuition of the world-consciousness and of himself as a part of it.

Finally, the fifth or emotional mystic discards philosophy for an emotional thrill of union with the divine imaged as a specific form of divinity.

THE MYSTICISM OF JESUS

GEORGE AARON BARTON

To some it may seem irreverent to speak of the mysticism of Jesus at all. Such may naturally say: Jesus is one with the Father. Mysticism is a form of human religion. How can he have part or lot in it?" A little reflection should convince any in whose minds this thought arises that the objection that they feel is not valid. If there was in Jesus an incarnation of God, Jesus possessed nevertheless a real humanity. His was a human psychology; he shared our human experiences. If this were not so, the incarnation would be unreal. We may then without irreverence, even from the most orthodox point of view, proceed to investigate the life of Jesus with a view of discovering the mystical elements in it.

What, however, do we mean by mysticism? Previous speakers in this course have doubtless defined it, but, as I have not had the privilege of hearing their definitions, I cannot be guided by them. In the interest of clearness, therefore, I must tell you how I shall use the term. The word "mysticism" has been employed to denote all sorts of abnormal states and abnormal experiences. It accordingly suggests to many the irrational and grotesque in religion. If this were mysticism, then it would be necessary to say at the start that Jesus was no mystic, for, in spite of the efforts of such writers as De Loosten,1 Hirsch,2 and Binet

1 Jesus Christus vom Standpunkt des Psychiaters, Bamberg, 1905. 2 Religion und Zivilisation vom Standpunkt des Psychiaters, Munich, 1908.

бо

3

Sanglé to make out Jesus a paranoiac, no more sane personality than his appears in the annals of mankind.

"Mysticism," says Granger, "is that attitude of mind which divines and moves toward the spiritual in the common things of life, not a partial and occasional operation of the mind under the guidance of far-fetched analogies." Mysticism has also been defined as a "type of religion which is characterized by an immediate consciousness of personal relationship with the Divine." Again mystics are said to have a vivid consciousness of the "Beyond one of the vague impersonal terms by which philosophers like to avoid saying "God.". Once more mysticism is said to consist of a consciousness that "more than ourselves is impinging on the skirts of our being." If these definitions of mysticism are true, we should expect to find in Jesus the supreme mystic, for it would be difficult to find another whose mind moved as unswervingly as his "toward the spiritual in the common things of life," not partially and occasionally, but as continually and steadily as the needle points to the pole. Jesus called the "Beyond "- "the more than ourselves that impinges on the skirts of our being "-" Father," and it is a truth concerning him, though it has become a commonplace to say it, that his consciousness of immediate communion with the Father surpassed that of other men. It was the atmosphere of his life; the inspiration of all his efforts; his refreshment when weary. These, however, are statements proof of which will be submitted below.

Before taking up that proof, it is necessary to say a word concerning the sources of our knowledge of Jesus. In speaking to a group of well-trained theological students, it is unnecessary to take time to explain why one does not employ the Gospel of John as a source. It is a later interpretation of the nature of Jesus, not an authentic biography of him. As 3 La folie de Jesus, Paris, 1910, 1911. Per contra, see, A. Schweitzer, Expositor, Ser. 8, vol. vi, 328 ff., 439 ff., 554 f.

one of the first great theological interpretations of him, it is magnificent, but the Jesus depicted here moves across the pages, not as one who shares the pains and mystical inspirations of our humanity, but as a heavenly Being from another sphere. This is true, even if we recognize, as the writer does, that in some respects the Fourth Gospel reflects the mind and spirit of Jesus better than the Synoptics. Its author's exalted conception of the deity of Christ blinded his eyes to the mystical experiences which the Master shared with humanity. The sources of information for our subject are, accordingly, the Synoptic Gospels. The Synoptic Gospels, however, themselves rest upon sources, and concerning these sources there are contending theories. According to the most widely accepted theory two main sources underlie Matthew and Luke. They are Mark (or an Ur-Marcus) and Q. According to Professor Burton's theory, which appeals more to me, there are five sources, Mark, the Logia of Matthew, a Galilean document, and two Peraean documents. The question of analysis, however, will not seriously affect our discussion. Whichever of the two views of the sources one holds, most of the passages that come into consideration in estimating the mysticism of Jesus can be traced back to a very early date. This is especially true, if one admits, as I am compelled to do, that the arguments of Harnack and Torrey by which the date of the Book of Acts is pushed back to 63 A. D. are valid. In that case the Gospel of Luke cannot have been written later than 60-61 A. D., and the Gospel of Mark and the other sources would be still earlier.*

Bearing these remarks in mind, let us see what our sources have to say of the mysticism of Jesus. The earliest indication of a mystical tendency in Jesus comes to us from the infancy" narrative of Luke a source outside all the

"

This early date of the Synoptic Gospels has not yet been generally accepted by New Testament scholars.

main documents enumerated above. If the Gospel was written not later than the early part of 61 A. D., the document must have been composed not more than thirty years from the crucifixion. The event narrated is said, however, to have occurred when Jesus was twelve years old. The evidence for it cannot, therefore, be called contemporary. There is about the narrative, nevertheless, a verisimilitude, an appropriateness, a consonance with the later habits and character of Jesus, that lead one to accord it a high degree of credibility. I refer, of course, to the words of Jesus uttered when his parents, finding him in the Temple, reproved him for having stayed behind alone in Jerusalem, when they set out for home. "Did you not know," said Jesus, "that I must be in the things of my Father?" You do not need to be reminded that interpreters differ as to the meaning of his words. Some take "in the things of my Father" to refer to the Temple, and so understand the boy to say in substance: 'It is strange that you should be at a loss where to look for me! Did you not know that I would be in my Father's house?" According to this interpretation, the mystical feeling of the youthful Jesus is very manifest. Not many boys of twelve have been so conscious of the Fatherhood of God as to linger joyfully in temple or church after the family have gone home from sheer gladness to be in the Father's house! The more familiar interpretation of the phrase is, however, conveyed in the rendering of the Authorized Version: "Wist ye not that I must be about my Father's business?" If this be the meaning, the words are still witness to a unique mysticism on the part of the youthful Jesus, for his words betray an attitude of mind which divines and moves towards the spiritual." The joy of the spiritual fascinated him, and so absorbed his thought that he remained behind in the Temple with strangers.

66

If any doubt attaches to the historicity of the narrative