JESUS
385
JESUS
25, 33, 38), and also for the verity of some particular
claims (Matt., ix, 6; Mark, ii, 10, 11; etc.). They show,
therefore, at least that .Jesus is a Divine legate and that
His teaching is infallibly true.
Did Jesus teach that He is God? He certainly claimed to be the Messias (John, iv, 26), to fulfil the Messianic descriptions of the Old Testament (Matt., xi, 3-5; Luke, vii, 22-23; iv, 18-21), to be denoted by the current Messianic names, " king of Israel " (Luke, xix, 38; etc.), "Son of David" (Matt., Lx, 27;etc.), "Son of man" {passim), "he that cometh in the name of the Lord" (Matt., xxi, 9; etc.). Moreover, Jesus claims to be greater than Abraham (John, viii, 53, 56), than Mo.ses (Maft., xix, 8-9), than Solomon and Jonas (Matt., xii, 41-12) ; He habitually claims to be sent by God (John, v, 36, 37, 43; etc.), calls God His father (Luke, ii, 49; etc.), and He willingly accepts the titles "Master" and "Lord" (John, xiii, 13, 14). He for- gives sin in answer to the observation that God alone can forgive sin (Mark, ii, 7, 10; Luke, v, 21, 24; etc.). He acts as the Lord of the Sabbath (Matt., xii, 8; etc.), and tells St. Peter that as "Son" He is free from the duty of paying temple-tribute (Matt., xvii, 24, 25). From the beginning of His ministry he allows Nathan- ael to call Him " Son of God " (John, i, 49) ; the Apos- tles (Matt., xiv, 33) and Martha (John, xi, 27) give Him the same title. Twice He approves of Peter who calls Him " the Christ, the Son of God" (John, vi, 70), "Christ, the Son of the living God" (Matt., xvi, 16). Four distinct times does He proclaim Himself the Son of God: to the man born bhnd (John, ix, 35-37) ; to the Jews in the Temple (John, x, 30, 36) ; before the two assemblies of the Jewish Sanhedrin on the night before His death (Matt., xxvi, 63-64; Mark, xiv, 61-62; Luke, xxii, 70). He does not manifest His Divine Sonship before Satan (Matt., iv, 3, 6) or before the Jews who are deriding Him (Matt., xxvii, 40). Jesus does not wish to teach the evil spirit the mystery of His Divinity; to the Jews He gives a greater sign than they are asking for. Jesus, therefore, applies to Him- self, and allows others to apply to Him, the title " Son of God " in its full meaning. If there had been a mis- understanding He would have corrected it, even as Paul and Barnabas corrected those who took them for gods (Acts, xiv, 12-14).
Nor can it be said that the title " Son of God " de- notes a merely adoptive sonship. The foregoing texts do not admit of such an interpretation. St. Peter, for instance, places his Master above John the Baptist, Elias, and the Prophets (Matt., xvi, 13-17). Again, the Angel Gabriel declares that the Child to be born will be "the Son of the most High" and "Son of God" (Luke, i, 32, 35), in such a way that He will be without an earthly father. Mere adoption presup- poses the existence of the child to be adopted ; but St. Joseph is warned that " That which is conceived in her [Mary], is of the Holy Ghost" (Matt., i, 20); now one's being conceived by the operation of another implies one's natural relation of sonship to him. Moreover, the Divine Sonship claimed by Jesus is such that He and the Father are one (John, x, 30, 36); a merely adopted sonship does not constitute a physical unity between the son and his adoptive father. Finally if Jesus had claimed only an adoptive sonship, He would have deceived His judges; they could not have con- demned Him for claiming a prerogative common to all pious Israelites. Harnack (Wesen des Christen- tums, 81) contends that the Divine Sonsliip claimed by Jesus is an intellectual relation to the Father, springing from special knowledge of God. This knowledge constitutes "the sphere of the Divine Son- ship", and is implied in the words of Matt., xi, 27: "No one knoweth the Son, but the Father: neither doth any one know the Father, but the Son, and he to whom it shall please the Son to reveal him." But if the Divine Sonship of Christ is a mere intellectual relation, and if Christ is God in a most figurative sense, the Paternity VIII.— 25
of the Father and the Divinity of the Son will be re-
duced to a figure of speech. (.See Theology, sub-title
Christology .)
The reader will find a great many works referring to this sub* ject among the commentaries on the Gospels mentioned in the articles Matthew, Gospel of Saint; Mark, Gospel of Saint; Luke, Gospel of Saint; and John, Gospel of Saint. Here too belong the theological works on the Incarnation which will be found under Incarnation. We mention some of the principal works on the life of Jesus Christ: Lddolp of Saxony, Viia Christi, e sacris Evangeliis sanctorumque Patrum foniibus denvaia (Strasburg, 1474) ; de Ligny, Histoire de la vie de Jesus- Christ (Paris, 1830); Sepp, Das Leben Christi (Ratisbon, 1843); Veuili.ot. Vie de N.-S. Jisus-Christ (Paris, 1864); Coleridge, The Life of our Life (London. 1869); Ddpanloup, Histoire de N.-S. Jisus-Christ (Paris. 1870); Schegg, Secha Biicher des Lebens Jesu (Freiburg im Br., 1874); Grimm, Daa Leben Jesu nach den vier Evangelien (Ratisbon, 1876); Fouard, La rie de N.-S. Jcsus-Chrisl (Paris, 1880), tr. Griffith (New York and London, 1891) ; Le Camus, La vie de N.-S. Jesus-Christ (Paris, 1883), tr. Hickey (New York, 1908); DiDon, Jems-Christ (Paris. 1891), English translation, ed. O'Reilly (New York, 1 89 1 ) ; Maas, The Life of Christ according to Gospel History (4th ed., St. Louis, 1891); Les£tre, N.-S. Jesus-Christ dans son saint Evangile (Paris, 1892) ; Maas, Christ in Type and Prophecy (New York, 1893-96); PiiGUES, Jesus-Christ dans VEvangile (Paris, 1898); Fornari. Delia vita di Gesa Crista (Rome, 1901). — Among Protestant works m.ay be noticed: Lange, Life of Christ (Edinburgh, 1854); Plumptre, Christ and Christen- dom (London, 1867); Farrar, Life of Christ (London, 1864); Geikie, The Life and Words of Christ (London, 1877); Thom- son, Word, Works, and Will (London, 1878); Edersheim, The Life and Tinges of Jesus the Messiah (London, 1883). Many more recent Protestant works might be enumerated, but most of them are so infected by criticism or even by rationalism that they deny the historical existence of Jesus, or impeach the dig- nity of His Humanity, or minimize His historicity, while nearly all seem to be in doubt about His Divinity.
A. J. Maas.
Jesus Mary, Religious op. — The Congrega- tion of the Religious of Jesus Mary was founded at Lyons, France, in October, 1S18, by Claudine ■rhevenet, in religion. Mother St. Ignatius. The constitutions were approved by Pius IX, 31 Decem- ber, 1847. The object of this congregation is to give to young ladies a Christian education conform- able to their social position; for this purpose the re- ligious have boarding-schools and academies, and, in large cities, residences for ladies of the literary pro- fession. Their establishments of various kinds are numerous: in France, before the expulsion of 1901, they were at Lyons, the birthplace of the congrega- tion, at Le Puy, Rodes, and Remiremont. Owing to the religious persecution, the mother-house was transferred to Rome in September, 1901. Besides the mother-house on the Via Flaminia, the religious have opened a college, the Stella Viae, to give to young ladies the means of culture which a residence in Rome and the study of the fine arts, modern lan- guages, European literature, and history afford. The Stella Viae is situated on the Via Nomentana, near the Porta Pia. In 1842 Lyons sent a colony to India, where twelve houses now exist. The most important of these are at Bombay, Poonah, Lahore, Simla, and Agra. In 1850 the first house in Spain was founded at Tarragona; then followed other foundations, Valencia, Barcelona, Orihuela, S. Ger- vas, AUcante, and Murcia. In 1902 Spain sent a colony to found houses in the city of Mexico and at M^rida, Yucatan.
The first house of the congregation in America was founded at St. Joseph, Levis, Canada, in 1858. In 1876 Sillery (Quebec) became the provincial house of America. Canada has four other houses, at St-Gervais, St-Michel, Trois-Pistoles, and Beauce- ville. In 1876 several sisters left Sillery to open houses in the United States. The first foundation was that at Fall River, Mass., where the sisters now conduct a boarding-school and a parochial school at- tended by twelve hundred children. The house at Manchester, New Hampshire, was founded in 1881; then, at Woonsocket, R. I., a boarding-school and two parochial schools, attended by fourteen hundred children. At Providence, R. I., the religious have a convent and two parochial schools. In 1902 several
