that man is made of the body, the mind and the soul, and for the full realisation of his destiny he had to care equally for the three. He was regular in his physical exercise almost to the day when he became physically helpless to take it. He was singularly free from the fashionable vices of the day. While he lived he was a blessing to all. Now that he is dead he still leaves behind the blessing of
A good life lived, a true fight fought,
True heart and equal mind.
May his life prove to all a source of inspiration to do and dare, to be true and good, faithful and obedient to the call of duty, ever and anon striving to be approved of their God, even as he did.
COMMENT AND CRITICISM {This section is intended for the correction of inaccuracies, errors of fact, clearly erroneous views, rm«r(presentationst etc., in the original contributions, and editorials published in this Review or in ofwr papers criticizing it. As various opinions may reasonably be held on the same subject, this section is *-ot meant for the airing of stick differences of opinion. As, owing to the kindness of our numerous CO' .ributors, we arc always hard pressed for space, critics are requested to be good enough always to be bis1 and to see that whatever they writer is strictly to the point. Generally, no criticism of reviews ana notices o] looks is published. Writers are requested not to exceed the limit of five hundred words.—Editor. Tke Modern Review. ]
Historicity of the Resurrection of Christ _ have followed, with great amazement, the campaign of vilification of the character and teach ings of Chiist. conducted for the last two years, in the columns of the “Modern Review” by Mr. Mahesh Ci_ Ghosh. _t is difficult to understand the venomous anti pathy with which Doth he and the editor of the "Krview” regard Christ as they are both Bramhoes, I tt ink. It is enjoined by their religion to venerate the memory of Christ, Buddha. Mahomed and others as creat prophets. Time was, when the founders an 3 leaders of the Bramho Samaj took pains to p« at out the beauty and high spirituality of the li s and teachings of Christ. But now we see Mr. G4 esh expending much labour and ink to prove, to bis own satisfaction, that Christ Jesus was a hypo crite, a charlatan, a very proud and hot-tempered ui£» and, inter alia, a teacher of most dangerous ethics, etc. Mr. Ghosh has laboured to achieve his oh <?ct by dogmatic assertions, by dint of deliberate distortion of the meaning of the texts of the Gospels at 3 the copious and desultory citations from sceptic al, rationalistic. and ultramodernist writers of Europe. Secure in his belief that Indian Christians, urn ke Mahommadans. and others, are not bigoted or ft* atical. Mr.. Ghosh is complacently carrying on tlit edifying work of mud-throwing on the charac ter of Christ. He knows that nothing untoward wi result, if he continues to wound the religious sus eptibilities of Indian Christians who regard Jesus as their Lord and Saviour (and whom the Mt.iomedans venerate as a spotless Saint). Mr. G1 esh’fi latest display of erudition is the following ol rer dicta'.— T ( (a) The Christ of the Gospels did Iii June 1925 ) not exist. N:. of Review, j (b) The resurrection of Christ is C a myth pure and simple.
The assertion at (a) above is so absurd that I will not waste time in combating it, as I suspect Mr. Ghosh is only coquetting with his sub ject. It is with regard to the dogmatic assertion at (1:0 that I have written this letter. Mr. Ghosh tays that the Bishop of Ripon has built the super-struc ture of his Christianity on the resurrection of Christ. Why only the Bishop? All Christians have built their faith on this fact of history and hold with St. Paul that “if Christ be not risen from the dead, then their faith is vain”. The fact does not become fiction by a simple assertion like that made by Mr. Ghosh. I would advise Mr. Ghosh to read a book called “When It Was Dark” by Guy Thorne, which attempted to depict the sad state of the world, be cause somebody had almost proved (by fraud) the resurrection to be a myth. I would also invite the attention of all reasonable readers of the Review— to the conclusions which the present Solicitor General of England arrived at when he examined, dispassionately, as a lawyer, “the Evidences of the Resurrection of Jesus”. An excerpt on this subject recently appeared in the “Statesman”. However, I have no wish to enter into a controversy with Mr. Ghosh on this subject. I only desire to state some of the reasons which induce persons like me to accept the resurrection of Christ as a fact of history. These are briefly as follows (1) The superstructure of Christianity cannot be based on a gigantic fraud and lie, as otherwise it would have collapsed long ago and the faith would not have flourished among die highly-cultured and civilised peoples like Jews, Romans and Greeks. The superstructure still standeth sure in spite of the attacks of the sceptics, scientists, etc. (2) The Apostles and Disciples of Jesus were a very timid and despairing lot at the time of His crucifixion. But immediately after they had seen
