{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_16581/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_16581","id":"gutenberg_16581","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/16581","summary":null,"tags":["Category: History - Ancient","Category: History - Religious","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Christian biography -- Palestine","Jesus Christ -- Biography"],"text":"Produced by Juliet Sutherland, Linda Cantoni, and the\nOnline Distributed Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nTHE\n\nLIFE\n\nOF\n\nJESUS\n\n\nBY\n\nERNEST RENAN\n\n\nINTRODUCTION BY\n\nJOHN HAYNES HOLMES\n\n[Transcriber's note: Introduction by John Haynes Holmes not included\nin this etext due to copyright restrictions.]\n\n\nMODERN LIBRARY\nNEW YORK\n\n\nINTRODUCTION COPYRIGHT, 1927, BY THE MODERN LIBRARY, INC.\n\n\n_Random House_ IS THE PUBLISHER OF\n\nTHE MODERN LIBRARY\n\nBENNETT A. CERF * DONALD S. KLOPPER * ROBERT K. HAAS\n\nManufactured in the United States of America\n\nPrinted by Parkway Printing Company * Bound by H. Wolff\n\n\n\n\nTO THE PURE SOUL OF\n\nMY SISTER HENRIETTE\n\n_Who Died at Byblus on the 24th of September, 1861_\n\n\nDost thou recall, from the bosom of God where thou reposest, those\nlong days at Ghazir, in which, alone with thee, I wrote these pages,\ninspired by the places we had visited together? Silent at my side,\nthou didst read and copy each sheet as soon as I had written it,\nwhilst the sea, the villages, the ravines, and the mountains, were\nspread at our feet. When the overwhelming light had given place to the\ninnumerable army of stars, thy shrewd and subtle questions, thy\ndiscreet doubts, led me back to the sublime object of our common\nthoughts. One day thou didst tell me that thou wouldst love this\nbook--first, because it had been composed with thee, and also because\nit pleased thee. Though at times thou didst fear for it the narrow\njudgments of the frivolous, yet wert thou ever persuaded that all\ntruly religious souls would ultimately take pleasure in it. In the\nmidst of these sweet meditations, the Angel of Death struck us both\nwith his wing: the sleep of fever seized us at the same time--I awoke\nalone!... Thou sleepest now in the land of Adonis, near the holy\nByblus and the sacred stream where the women of the ancient mysteries\ncame to mingle their tears. Reveal to me, O good genius, to me whom\nthou lovedst, those truths which conquer death, deprive it of terror,\nand make it almost beloved.\n\n\n\n\nPREFACE\n\n\nIn presenting an English version of the celebrated work of M. Renan,\nthe translator is aware of the difficulty of adequately rendering a\nwork so admirable for its style and beauty of composition. It is not\nan easy task to reproduce the terseness and eloquence which\ncharacterize the original. Whatever its success in these respects may\nbe, no pains have been spared to give the author's meaning. The\ntranslation has been revised by highly competent persons; but although\ngreat care has been taken in this respect, it is possible that a few\nerrors may still have escaped notice.\n\nThe great problem of the present age is to preserve the religious\nspirit, whilst getting rid of the superstitions and absurdities that\ndeform it, and which are alike opposed to science and common sense.\nThe works of Mr. F.W. Newman and of Bishop Colenso, and the \"Essays\nand Reviews,\" are rendering great service in this direction. The work\nof M. Renan will contribute to this object; and, if its utility may be\nmeasured by the storm which it has created amongst the _obscurantists_\nin France, and the heartiness with which they have condemned it, its\nmerits in this respect must be very great. It needs only to be added,\nthat whilst warmly sympathizing with the earnest spirit which pervades\nthe book, the translator by no means wishes to be identified with all\nthe opinions therein expressed.\n\n_December 8, 1863._\n\n\n\n\nCONTENTS\n\n\n                                                                  PAGE\n\nIntroduction, by John Haynes Holmes                                 15\n\nIntroduction, in Which the Sources of This History Are Principally\nTreated                                                             25\n\nCHAPTER I\n\nPlace of Jesus in the History of the World                          67\n\nCHAPTER II\n\nInfancy and Youth of Jesus--His First Impressions                   81\n\nCHAPTER III\n\nEducation of Jesus                                                  89\n\nCHAPTER IV\n\nThe Order of Thought Which Surrounded the Development\nof Jesus                                                            99\n\nCHAPTER V\n\nThe First Saying of Jesus--His Ideas of a Divine Father\nand of a Pure Religion--First Disciples                            119\n\nCHAPTER VI\n\nJohn the Baptist--Visit of Jesus to John, and His Abode in\nthe Desert of Judea--Adoption of the Baptism of John               135\n\nCHAPTER VII\n\nDevelopment of the Ideas of Jesus Respecting the Kingdom\nof God                                                             148\n\nCHAPTER VIII\n\nJesus at Capernaum                                                 160\n\nCHAPTER IX\n\nThe Disciples of Jesus                                             173\n\nCHAPTER X\n\nThe Preachings on the Lake                                         184\n\nCHAPTER XI\n\nThe Kingdom of God Conceived as the Inheritance of the\nPoor                                                               194\n\nCHAPTER XII\n\nEmbassy from John in Prison to Jesus--Death of John--Relations\nof His School with That of Jesus                                   206\n\nCHAPTER XIII\n\nFirst Attempts on Jerusalem                                        213\n\nCHAPTER XIV\n\nIntercourse of Jesus with the Pagans and the Samaritans            227\n\nCHAPTER XV\n\nCommencement of the Legends Concerning Jesus--His Own\nIdea of His Supernatural Character                                 235\n\nCHAPTER XVI\n\nMiracles                                                           248\n\nCHAPTER XVII\n\nDefinitive Form of the Ideas of Jesus Respecting the Kingdom\nof God                                                             259\n\nCHAPTER XVIII\n\nInstitutions of Jesus                                              273\n\nCHAPTER XIX\n\nIncreasing Progression of Enthusiasm and of Exaltation             285\n\nCHAPTER XX\n\nOpposition to Jesus                                                295\n\nCHAPTER XXI\n\nLast Journey of Jesus to Jerusalem                                 305\n\nCHAPTER XXII\n\nMachinations of the Enemies of Jesus                               319\n\nCHAPTER XXIII\n\nLast Week of Jesus                                                 329\n\nCHAPTER XXIV\n\nArrest and Trial of Jesus                                          344\n\nCHAPTER XXV\n\nDeath of Jesus                                                     360\n\nCHAPTER XXVI\n\nJesus in the Tomb                                                  370\n\nCHAPTER XXVII\n\nFate of the Enemies of Jesus                                       376\n\nCHAPTER XXVIII\n\nEssential Character of the Work of Jesus                           381\n\n\n\n\nAUTHOR'S INTRODUCTION,\n\nIn Which the Sources of This History Are Principally Treated\n\n\nA history of the \"Origin of Christianity\" ought to embrace all the\nobscure, and, if one might so speak, subterranean periods which extend\nfrom the first beginnings of this religion up to the moment when its\nexistence became a public fact, notorious and evident to the eyes of\nall. Such a history would consist of four books. The first, which I\nnow present to the public, treats of the particular fact which has\nserved as the starting-point of the new religion, and is entirely\nfilled by the sublime person of the Founder. The second would treat of\nthe apostles and their immediate disciples, or rather, of the\nrevolutions which religious thought underwent in the first two\ngenerations of Christianity. I would close this about the year 100, at\nthe time when the last friends of Jesus were dead, and when all the\nbooks of the New Testament were fixed almost in the forms in which we\nnow read them. The third would exhibit the state of Christianity under\nthe Antonines. We should see it develop itself slowly, and sustain an\nalmost permanent war against the empire, which had just reached the\nhighest degree of administrative perfection, and, governed by\nphilosophers, combated in the new-born sect a secret and theocratic\nsociety which obstinately denied and incessantly undermined it. This\nbook would cover the entire period of the second century. Lastly, the\nfourth book would show the decisive progress which Christianity made\nfrom the time of the Syrian emperors. We should see the learned\nsystem of the Antonines crumble, the decadence of the ancient\ncivilization become irrevocable, Christianity profit from its ruin,\nSyria conquer the whole West, and Jesus, in company with the gods and\nthe deified sages of Asia, take possession of a society for which\nphilosophy and a purely civil government no longer sufficed. It was\nthen that the religious ideas of the races grouped around the\nMediterranean became profoundly modified; that the Eastern religions\neverywhere took precedence; that the Christian Church, having become\nvery numerous, totally forgot its dreams of a millennium, broke its\nlast ties with Judaism, and entered completely into the Greek and\nRoman world. The contests and the literary labors of the third\ncentury, which were carried on without concealment, would be described\nonly in their general features. I would relate still more briefly the\npersecutions at the commencement of the fourth century, the last\neffort of the empire to return to its former principles, which denied\nto religious association any place in the State. Lastly, I would only\nforeshadow the change of policy which, under Constantine, reversed the\nposition, and made of the most free and spontaneous religious movement\nan official worship, subject to the State, and persecutor in its turn.\n\nI know not whether I shall have sufficient life and strength to\ncomplete a plan so vast. I shall be satisfied if, after having written\nthe _Life of Jesus_, I am permitted to relate, as I understand it, the\nhistory of the apostles, the state of the Christian conscience during\nthe weeks which followed the death of Jesus, the formation of the\ncycle of legends concerning the resurrection, the first acts of the\nChurch of Jerusalem, the life of Saint Paul, the crisis of the time of\nNero, the appearance of the Apocalypse, the fall of Jerusalem, the\nfoundation of the Hebrew-Christian sects of Batanea, the compilation\nof the Gospels, and the rise of the great schools of Asia Minor\noriginated by John. Everything pales by the side of that marvellous\nfirst century. By a peculiarity rare in history, we see much better\nwhat passed in the Christian world from the year 50 to the year 75,\nthan from the year 100 to the year 150.\n\nThe plan followed in this history has prevented the introduction into\nthe text of long critical dissertations upon controverted points. A\ncontinuous system of notes enables the reader to verify from the\nauthorities all the statements of the text. These notes are strictly\nlimited to quotations from the primary sources; that is to say, the\noriginal passages upon which each assertion or conjecture rests. I\nknow that for persons little accustomed to studies of this kind many\nother explanations would have been necessary. But it is not my\npractice to do over again what has been already done well. To cite\nonly books written in French, those who will consult the following\nexcellent writings[1] will there find explained a number of points\nupon which I have been obliged to be very brief:\n\n     _Etudes Critiques sur l'Evangile de saint Matthieu_, par M.\n     Albert Reville, pasteur de l'eglise Wallonne de\n     Rotterdam.[2]\n\n     _Histoire de la Theologie Chretienne au Siecle Apostolique_,\n     par M. Reuss, professeur a la Faculte de Theologie et au\n     Seminaire Protestant de Strasbourg.[3]\n\n     _Des Doctrines Religieuses des Juifs pendant les Deux\n     Siecles Anterieurs a l'Ere Chretienne_, par M. Michel\n     Nicolas, professeur a la Faculte de Theologie Protestante de\n     Montauban.[4]\n\n     _Vie de Jesus_, par le Dr. Strauss; traduite par M. Littre,\n     Membre de l'Institut.[5]\n\n     _Revue de Theologie et de Philosophie Chretienne_, publiee\n     sous la direction de M. Colani, de 1850 a 1857.--_Nouvelle\n     Revue de Theologie_, faisant suite a la precedente depuis\n     1858.[6]\n\n[Footnote 1: While this work was in the press, a book has appeared\nwhich I do not hesitate to add to this list, although I have not read\nit with the attention it deserves--_Les Evangiles_, par M. Gustave\nd'Eichthal. Premiere Partie: _Examen Critique et Comparatif des Trois\nPremiers Evangiles_. Paris, Hachette, 1863.]\n\n[Footnote 2: Leyde, Noothoven van Goor, 1862. Paris, Cherbuliez. A\nwork crowned by the Society of The Hague for the defence of the\nChristian religion.]\n\n[Footnote 3: Strasbourg, Treuttel and Wurtz. 2nd edition. 1860. Paris,\nCherbuliez.]\n\n[Footnote 4: Paris, Michel Levy freres, 1860.]\n\n[Footnote 5: Paris, Ladrange. 2nd edition, 1856.]\n\n[Footnote 6: Strasbourg, Treuttel and Wurtz. Paris, Cherbuliez.]\n\nThe criticism of the details of the Gospel texts especially, has been\ndone by Strauss in a manner which leaves little to be desired.\nAlthough Strauss may be mistaken in his theory of the compilation of\nthe Gospels;[1] and although his book has, in my opinion, the fault of\ntaking up the theological ground too much, and the historical ground\ntoo little,[2] it will be necessary, in order to understand the\nmotives which have guided me amidst a crowd of minutiae, to study the\nalways judicious, though sometimes rather subtle argument, of the\nbook, so well translated by my learned friend, M. Littre.\n\n[Footnote 1: The great results obtained on this point have only been\nacquired since the first edition of Strauss's work. The learned critic\nhas, besides, done justice to them with much candor in his after\neditions.]\n\n[Footnote 2: It is scarcely necessary to repeat that not a word in\nStrauss's work justifies the strange and absurd calumny by which it\nhas been attempted to bring into disrepute with superficial persons, a\nwork so agreeable, accurate, thoughtful, and conscientious, though\nspoiled in its general parts by an exclusive system. Not only has\nStrauss never denied the existence of Jesus, but each page of his book\nimplies this existence. The truth is, Strauss supposes the individual\ncharacter of Jesus less distinct for us than it perhaps is in\nreality.]\n\nI do not believe I have neglected any source of information as to\nancient evidences. Without speaking of a crowd of other scattered\ndata, there remain, respecting Jesus, and the time in which he lived,\nfive great collections of writings--1st, The Gospels, and the\nwritings of the New Testament in general; 2d, The compositions called\nthe \"Apocrypha of the Old Testament;\" 3d, The works of Philo; 4th,\nThose of Josephus; 5th, The Talmud. The writings of Philo have the\npriceless advantage of showing us the thoughts which, in the time of\nJesus, fermented in minds occupied with great religious questions.\nPhilo lived, it is true, in quite a different province of Judaism to\nJesus, but, like him, he was very free from the littlenesses which\nreigned at Jerusalem; Philo is truly the elder brother of Jesus. He\nwas sixty-two years old when the Prophet of Nazareth was at the height\nof his activity, and he survived him at least ten years. What a pity\nthat the chances of life did not conduct him into Galilee! What would\nhe not have taught us!\n\nJosephus, writing specially for pagans, is not so candid. His short\nnotices of Jesus, of John the Baptist, of Judas the Gaulonite, are dry\nand colorless. We feel that he seeks to present these movements, so\nprofoundly Jewish in character and spirit, under a form which would be\nintelligible to Greeks and Romans. I believe the passage respecting\nJesus[1] to be authentic. It is perfectly in the style of Josephus,\nand if this historian has made mention of Jesus, it is thus that he\nmust have spoken of him. We feel only that a Christian hand has\nretouched the passage, has added a few words--without which it would\nalmost have been blasphemous[2]--has perhaps retrenched or modified\nsome expressions.[3] It must be recollected that the literary fortune\nof Josephus was made by the Christians, who adopted his writings as\nessential documents of their sacred history. They made, probably in\nthe second century, an edition corrected according to Christian\nideas.[4] At all events, that which constitutes the immense interest\nof Josephus on the subject which occupies us, is the clear light which\nhe throws upon the period. Thanks to him, Herod, Herodias, Antipas,\nPhilip, Annas, Caiaphas, and Pilate are personages whom we can touch\nwith the finger, and whom we see living before us with a striking\nreality.\n\n[Footnote 1: _Ant._, XVIII. iii. 3.]\n\n[Footnote 2: \"If it be lawful to call him a man.\"]\n\n[Footnote 3: In place of [Greek: christos outos en], he certainly had\nthese [Greek: christos outos elegeto].--Cf. _Ant._, XX. ix. 1.]\n\n[Footnote 4: Eusebius (_Hist. Eccl._, i. 11, and _Demonstr. Evang._,\niii. 5) cites the passage respecting Jesus as we now read it in\nJosephus. Origen (_Contra Celsus_, i. 47; ii. 13) and Eusebius (_Hist.\nEccl._, ii. 23) cite another Christian interpolation, which is not\nfound in any of the manuscripts of Josephus which have come down to\nus.]\n\nThe Apocryphal books of the Old Testament, especially the Jewish part\nof the Sibylline verses, and the Book of Enoch, together with the Book\nof Daniel, which is also really an Apocrypha, have a primary\nimportance in the history of the development of the Messianic\ntheories, and for the understanding of the conceptions of Jesus\nrespecting the kingdom of God. The Book of Enoch especially, which was\nmuch read at the time of Jesus,[1] gives us the key to the expression\n\"Son of Man,\" and to the ideas attached to it. The ages of these\ndifferent books, thanks to the labors of Alexander, Ewald, Dillmann,\nand Reuss, is now beyond doubt. Every one is agreed in placing the\ncompilation of the most important of them in the second and first\ncenturies before Jesus Christ. The date of the Book of Daniel is still\nmore certain. The character of the two languages in which it is\nwritten, the use of Greek words, the clear, precise, dated\nannouncement of events, which reach even to the time of Antiochus\nEpiphanes, the incorrect descriptions of Ancient Babylonia, there\ngiven, the general tone of the book, which in no respect recalls the\nwritings of the captivity, but, on the contrary, responds, by a crowd\nof analogies, to the beliefs, the manners, the turn of imagination of\nthe time of the Seleucidae; the Apocalyptic form of the visions, the\nplace of the book in the Hebrew canon, out of the series of the\nprophets, the omission of Daniel in the panegyrics of Chapter xlix. of\nEcclesiasticus, in which his position is all but indicated, and many\nother proofs which have been deduced a hundred times, do not permit of\na doubt that the Book of Daniel was but the fruit of the great\nexcitement produced among the Jews by the persecution of Antiochus. It\nis not in the old prophetical literature that we must class this book,\nbut rather at the head of Apocalyptic literature, as the first model\nof a kind of composition, after which come the various Sibylline\npoems, the Book of Enoch, the Apocalypse of John, the Ascension of\nIsaiah, and the Fourth Book of Esdras.\n\n[Footnote 1: Jude Epist. 14.]\n\nIn the history of the origin of Christianity, the Talmud has hitherto\nbeen too much neglected. I think with M. Geiger, that the true notion\nof the circumstances which surrounded the development of Jesus must be\nsought in this strange compilation, in which so much precious\ninformation is mixed with the most insignificant scholasticism. The\nChristian and the Jewish theology having in the main followed two\nparallel ways, the history of the one cannot well be understood\nwithout the history of the other. Innumerable important details in the\nGospels find, moreover, their commentary in the Talmud. The vast Latin\ncollections of Lightfoot, Schoettgen, Buxtorf, and Otho contained\nalready a mass of information on this point. I have imposed on myself\nthe task of verifying in the original all the citations which I have\nadmitted, without a single exception. The assistance which has been\ngiven me for this part of my task by a learned Israelite, M. Neubauer,\nwell versed in Talmudic literature, has enabled me to go further, and\nto clear up the most intricate parts of my subject by new researches.\nThe distinction of epochs is here most important, the compilation of\nthe Talmud extending from the year 200 to about the year 500. We have\nbrought to it as much discernment as is possible in the actual state\nof these studies. Dates so recent will excite some fears among persons\nhabituated to accord value to a document only for the period in which\nit was written. But such scruples would here be out of place. The\nteaching of the Jews from the Asmonean epoch down to the second\ncentury was principally oral. We must not judge of this state of\nintelligence by the habits of an age of much writing. The Vedas, and\nthe ancient Arabian poems, have been preserved for ages from memory,\nand yet these compositions present a very distinct and delicate form.\nIn the Talmud, on the contrary, the form has no value. Let us add that\nbefore the _Mishnah_ of Judas the Saint, which has caused all others\nto be forgotten, there were attempts at compilation, the commencement\nof which is probably much earlier than is commonly supposed. The style\nof the Talmud is that of loose notes; the collectors did no more\nprobably than classify under certain titles the enormous mass of\nwritings which had been accumulating in the different schools for\ngenerations.\n\nIt remains for us to speak of the documents which, presenting\nthemselves as biographies of the Founder of Christianity, must\nnaturally hold the first place in a _Life of Jesus_. A complete\ntreatise upon the compilation of the Gospels would be a work of\nitself. Thanks to the excellent researches of which this question has\nbeen the object during thirty years, a problem which was formerly\njudged insurmountable has obtained a solution which, though it leaves\nroom for many uncertainties, fully suffices for the necessities of\nhistory. We shall have occasion to return to this in our Second Book,\nthe composition of the Gospels having been one of the most important\nfacts for the future of Christianity in the second half of the first\ncentury. We will touch here only a single aspect of the subject, that\nwhich is indispensable to the completeness of our narrative. Leaving\naside all which belongs to the portraiture of the apostolic times, we\nwill inquire only in what degree the data furnished by the Gospels may\nbe employed in a history formed according to rational principles.[1]\n\n[Footnote 1: Persons who wish to read more ample explanations, may\nconsult, in addition to the work of M. Reville, previously cited, the\nwritings of Reuss and Scherer in the _Revue de Theologie_, vol. x.,\nxi., xv.; new series, ii., iii., iv.; and that of Nicolas in the\n_Revue Germanique_, Sept. and Dec., 1862; April and June, 1863.]\n\nThat the Gospels are in part legendary, is evident, since they are\nfull of miracles and of the supernatural; but legends have not all the\nsame value. No one doubts the principal features of the life of\nFrancis d'Assisi, although we meet the supernatural at every step. No\none, on the other hand, accords credit to the _Life of Apollonius of\nTyana_, because it was written long after the time of the hero, and\npurely as a romance. At what time, by what hands, under what\ncircumstances, have the Gospels been compiled? This is the primary\nquestion upon which depends the opinion to be formed of their\ncredibility.\n\nEach of the four Gospels bears at its head the name of a personage,\nknown either in the apostolic history, or in the Gospel history\nitself. These four personages are not strictly given us as the\nauthors. The formulae \"according to Matthew,\" \"according to Mark,\"\n\"according to Luke,\" \"according to John,\" do not imply that, in the\nmost ancient opinion, these recitals were written from beginning to\nend by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John,[1] they merely signify that\nthese were the traditions proceeding from each of these apostles, and\nclaiming their authority. It is clear that, if these titles are exact,\nthe Gospels, without ceasing to be in part legendary, are of great\nvalue, since they enable us to go back to the half century which\nfollowed the death of Jesus, and in two instances, even to the\neye-witnesses of his actions.\n\n[Footnote 1: In the same manner we say, \"The Gospel according to the\nHebrews,\" \"The Gospel according to the Egyptians.\"]\n\nFirstly, as to Luke, doubt is scarcely possible. The Gospel of Luke is\na regular composition, founded on anterior documents.[1] It is the\nwork of a man who selects, prunes, and combines. The author of this\nGospel is certainly the same as that of the Acts of the Apostles.[2]\nNow, the author of the Acts is a companion of St. Paul,[3] a title\nwhich applies to Luke exactly.[4] I know that more than one objection\nmay be raised against this reasoning; but one thing, at least, is\nbeyond doubt, namely, that the author of the third Gospel and of the\nActs was a man of the second apostolic generation, and that is\nsufficient for our object. The date of this Gospel can moreover be\ndetermined with much precision by considerations drawn from the book\nitself. The twenty-first chapter of Luke, inseparable from the rest of\nthe work, was certainly written after the siege of Jerusalem, and but\na short time after.[5] We are here, then, upon solid ground; for we\nare concerned with a work written entirely by the same hand, and of\nthe most perfect unity.\n\n[Footnote 1: Luke i. 1-4.]\n\n[Footnote 2: _Acts_ i. 1. Compare Luke i. 1-4.]\n\n[Footnote 3: From xvi. 10, the author represents himself as\neye-witness.]\n\n[Footnote 4: 2 Tim. iv. 11; Philemon 24; Col. iv. 14. The name of\n_Lucas_ (contraction of _Lucanus_) being very rare, we need not fear\none of those homonyms which cause so many perplexities in questions of\ncriticism relative to the New Testament.]\n\n[Footnote 5: Verses 9, 20, 24, 28, 32. Comp. xxii. 36.]\n\nThe Gospels of Matthew and Mark have not nearly the same stamp of\nindividuality. They are impersonal compositions, in which the author\ntotally disappears. A proper name written at the head of works of this\nkind does not amount to much. But if the Gospel of Luke is dated,\nthose of Matthew and Mark are dated also; for it is certain that the\nthird Gospel is posterior to the first two and exhibits the character\nof a much more advanced compilation. We have, besides, on this point,\nan excellent testimony from a writer of the first half of the second\ncentury--namely, Papias, bishop of Hierapolis, a grave man, a man of\ntraditions, who was all his life seeking to collect whatever could be\nknown of the person of Jesus.[1] After having declared that on such\nmatters he preferred oral tradition to books, Papias mentions two\nwritings on the acts and words of Christ: First, a writing of Mark,\nthe interpreter of the apostle Peter, written briefly, incomplete, and\nnot arranged in chronological order, including narratives and\ndiscourses, ([Greek: lechthenta e prachthenta],) composed from the\ninformation and recollections of the apostle Peter; second, a\ncollection of sentences ([Greek: logia]) written in Hebrew[2] by\nMatthew, \"and which each one has translated as he could.\" It is\ncertain that these two descriptions answer pretty well to the general\nphysiognomy of the two books now called \"Gospel according to Matthew,\"\n\"Gospel according to Mark\"--the first characterized by its long\ndiscourses; the second, above all, by anecdote--much more exact than\nthe first upon small facts, brief even to dryness, containing few\ndiscourses, and indifferently composed. That these two works, such as\nwe now read them, are absolutely similar to those read by Papias,\ncannot be sustained: Firstly, because the writings of Matthew were to\nPapias solely discourses in Hebrew, of which there were in circulation\nvery varying translations; and, secondly, because the writings of Mark\nand Matthew were to him profoundly distinct, written without any\nknowledge of each other, and, as it seems, in different languages.\nNow, in the present state of the texts, the \"Gospel according to\nMatthew\" and the \"Gospel according to Mark\" present parallel parts so\nlong and so perfectly identical, that it must be supposed, either that\nthe final compiler of the first had the second under his eyes, or\n_vice versa_, or that both copied from the same prototype. That which\nappears the most likely, is, that we have not the entirely original\ncompilations of either Matthew or Mark; but that our first two Gospels\nare versions in which the attempt is made to fill up the gaps of the\none text by the other. Every one wished, in fact, to possess a\ncomplete copy. He who had in his copy only discourses, wished to have\nnarratives, and _vice versa_. It is thus that \"the Gospel according to\nMatthew\" is found to have included almost all the anecdotes of Mark,\nand that \"the Gospel according to Mark\" now contains numerous\nfeatures which come from the _Logia_ of Matthew. Every one, besides,\ndrew largely on the Gospel tradition then current. This tradition was\nso far from having been exhausted by the Gospels, that the Acts of the\nApostles and the most ancient Fathers quote many words of Jesus which\nappear authentic, and are not found in the Gospels we possess.\n\n[Footnote 1: In Eusebius, _Hist. Eccl._, iii. 39. No doubt whatever\ncan be raised as to the authenticity of this passage. Eusebius, in\nfact, far from exaggerating the authority of Papias, is embarrassed at\nhis simple ingenuousness, at his gross millenarianism, and solves the\ndifficulty by treating him as a man of little mind. Comp. Irenaeus,\n_Adv. Haer._, iii. 1.]\n\n[Footnote 2: That is to say, in the Semitic dialect.]\n\nIt matters little for our present object to push this delicate\nanalysis further, and to endeavor to reconstruct in some manner, on\nthe one hand, the original _Logia_ of Matthew, and, on the other, the\nprimitive narrative such as it left the pen of Mark. The _Logia_ are\ndoubtless represented by the great discourses of Jesus which fill a\nconsiderable part of the first Gospel. These discourses form, in fact,\nwhen detached from the rest, a sufficiently complete whole. As to the\nnarratives of the first and second Gospels, they seem to have for\nbasis a common document, of which the text reappears sometimes in the\none and sometimes in the other, and of which the second Gospel, such\nas we read it to-day, is but a slightly modified reproduction. In\nother words, the scheme of the _Life of Jesus_, in the synoptics,\nrests upon two original documents--first, the discourses of Jesus\ncollected by Matthew; second, the collection of anecdotes and personal\nreminiscences which Mark wrote from the recollections of Peter. We may\nsay that we have these two documents still, mixed with accounts from\nanother source, in the two first Gospels, which bear, not without\nreason, the name of the \"Gospel _according_ to Matthew\" and of the\n\"Gospel _according_ to Mark.\"\n\nWhat is indubitable, in any case, is, that very early the discourses\nof Jesus were written in the Aramean language, and very early also his\nremarkable actions were recorded. These were not texts defined and\nfixed dogmatically. Besides the Gospels which have come to us, there\nwere a number of others professing to represent the tradition of\neye-witnesses.[1] Little importance was attached to these writings,\nand the preservers, such as Papias, greatly preferred oral\ntradition.[2] As men still believed that the world was nearly at an\nend, they cared little to compose books for the future; it was\nsufficient merely to preserve in their hearts a lively image of him\nwhom they hoped soon to see again in the clouds. Hence the little\nauthority which the Gospel texts enjoyed during one hundred and fifty\nyears. There was no scruple in inserting additions, in variously\ncombining them, and in completing some by others. The poor man who has\nbut one book wishes that it may contain all that is clear to his\nheart. These little books were lent, each one transcribed in the\nmargin of his copy the words, and the parables he found elsewhere,\nwhich touched him.[3] The most beautiful thing in the world has thus\nproceeded from an obscure and purely popular elaboration. No\ncompilation was of absolute value. Justin, who often appeals to that\nwhich he calls \"The Memoirs of the Apostles,\"[4] had under his notice\nGospel documents in a state very different from that in which we\npossess them. At all events, he never cares to quote them textually.\nThe Gospel quotations in the pseudo-Clementinian writings, of\nEbionite origin, present the same character. The spirit was\neverything; the letter was nothing. It was when tradition became\nweakened, in the second half of the second century, that the texts\nbearing the names of the apostles took a decisive authority and\nobtained the force of law.\n\n[Footnote 1: Luke i. 1, 2; Origen, _Hom. in Luc._ 1 init.; St. Jerome,\n_Comment. in Matt._, prol.]\n\n[Footnote 2: Papias, in Eusebius, _H.E._, iii. 39. Comp. Irenaeus,\n_Adv. Haer._, III. ii. and iii.]\n\n[Footnote 3: It is thus that the beautiful narrative in John viii.\n1-11 has always floated, without finding a fixed place in the\nframework of the received Gospels.]\n\n[Footnote 4: [Greek: Ta apomnemoneumata ton apostolon, a kaleitai\neuangelia]. Justin, _Apol._ i. 33, 66, 67; _Dial. cum Tryph._, 10,\n100-107.]\n\nWho does not see the value of documents thus composed of the tender\nremembrances, and simple narratives, of the first two Christian\ngenerations, still full of the strong impression which the illustrious\nFounder had produced, and which seemed long to survive him? Let us\nadd, that the Gospels in question seem to proceed from that branch of\nthe Christian family which stood nearest to Jesus. The last work of\ncompilation, at least of the text which bears the name of Matthew,\nappears to have been done in one of the countries situated at the\nnortheast of Palestine, such as Gaulonitis, Auranitis, Batanea, where\nmany Christians took refuge at the time of the Roman war, where were\nfound relatives of Jesus[1] even in the second century, and where the\nfirst Galilean tendency was longer preserved than in other parts.\n\n[Footnote 1: Julius Africanus, in Eusebius, _Hist. Eccl._, i. 7.]\n\nSo far we have only spoken of the three Gospels named the synoptics.\nThere remains a fourth, that which bears the name of John. Concerning\nthis one, doubts have a much better foundation, and the question is\nfurther from solution. Papias--who was connected with the school of\nJohn, and who, if not one of his auditors, as Irenaeus thinks,\nassociated with his immediate disciples, among others, Aristion, and\nthe one called _Presbyteros Joannes_--says not a word of a _Life of\nJesus_, written by John, although he had zealously collected the oral\nnarratives of both Aristion and _Presbyteros Joannes_. If any such\nmention had been found in his work, Eusebius, who points out\neverything therein that can contribute to the literary history of the\napostolic age, would doubtless have mentioned it.\n\nThe intrinsic difficulties drawn from the perusal of the fourth Gospel\nitself are not less strong. How is it that, side by side with\nnarration so precise, and so evidently that of an eye-witness, we find\ndiscourses so totally different from those of Matthew? How is it that,\nconnected with a general plan of the life of Jesus, which appears much\nmore satisfactory and exact than that of the synoptics, these singular\npassages occur in which we are sensible of a dogmatic interest\npeculiar to the compiler, of ideas foreign to Jesus, and sometimes of\nindications which place us on our guard against the good faith of the\nnarrator? Lastly, how is it that, united with views the most pure, the\nmost just, the most truly evangelical, we find these blemishes which\nwe would fain regard as the interpolations of an ardent sectarian? Is\nit indeed John, son of Zebedee, brother of James (of whom there is not\na single mention made in the fourth Gospel), who is able to write in\nGreek these lessons of abstract metaphysics to which neither the\nsynoptics nor the Talmud offer any analogy? All this is of great\nimportance; and for myself, I dare not be sure that the fourth Gospel\nhas been entirely written by the pen of a Galilean fisherman. But\nthat, as a whole, this Gospel may have originated toward the end of\nthe first century, from the great school of Asia Minor, which was\nconnected with John, that it represents to us a version of the life of\nthe Master, worthy of high esteem, and often to be preferred, is\ndemonstrated, in a manner which leaves us nothing to be desired, both\nby exterior evidences and by examination of the document itself.\n\nAnd, firstly, no one doubts that, toward the year 150, the fourth\nGospel did exist, and was attributed to John. Explicit texts from St.\nJustin,[1] from Athenagorus,[2] from Tatian,[3] from Theophilus of\nAntioch,[4] from Irenaeus,[5] show that thenceforth this Gospel mixed\nin every controversy, and served as corner-stone for the development\nof the faith. Irenaeus is explicit; now, Irenaeus came from the school\nof John, and between him and the apostle there was only Polycarp. The\npart played by this Gospel in Gnosticism, and especially in the system\nof Valentinus,[6] in Montanism,[7] and in the quarrel of the\nQuartodecimans,[8] is not less decisive. The school of John was the\nmost influential one during the second century; and it is only by\nregarding the origin of the Gospel as coincident with the rise of the\nschool, that the existence of the latter can be understood at all. Let\nus add that the first epistle attributed to St. John is certainly by\nthe same author as the fourth Gospel,[9] now, this epistle is\nrecognized as from John by Polycarp,[10] Papias,[11] and Irenaeus.[12]\n\n[Footnote 1: _Apol._, 32, 61; _Dial. cum Tryph._, 88.]\n\n[Footnote 2: _Legatio pro Christ_, 10.]\n\n[Footnote 3: _Adv. Graec._, 5, 7; Cf. Eusebius, _H.E._, iv. 29;\nTheodoret, _Haeretic. Fabul._, i. 20.]\n\n[Footnote 4: _Ad Autolycum_, ii. 22.]\n\n[Footnote 5: _Adv. Haer._, II. xxii. 5, III. 1. Cf. Eus., _H.E._, v.\n8.]\n\n[Footnote 6: Irenaeus, _Adv. Haer._, I. iii. 6; III. xi. 7; St.\nHippolytus, _Philosophumena_ VI. ii. 29, and following.]\n\n[Footnote 7: Irenaeus, _Adv. Haer._, III. xi. 9.]\n\n[Footnote 8: Eusebius, _Hist. Eccl._, v. 24.]\n\n[Footnote 9: John, i. 3, 5. The two writings present the most complete\nidentity of style, the same peculiarities, the same favorite\nexpressions.]\n\n[Footnote 10: _Epist. ad Philipp._, 7.]\n\n[Footnote 11: In Eusebius, _Hist. Eccl._, III. 39.]\n\n[Footnote 12: _Adv. Haer._, III. xvi. 5, 8; Cf. Eusebius, _Hist.\nEccl._, v. 8.]\n\nBut it is, above all, the perusal of the work itself which is\ncalculated to give this impression. The author always speaks as an\neye-witness; he wishes to pass for the apostle John. If, then, this\nwork is not really by the apostle, we must admit a fraud of which the\nauthor convicts himself. Now, although the ideas of the time\nrespecting literary honesty differed essentially from ours, there is\nno example in the apostolic world of a falsehood of this kind.\nBesides, not only does the author wish to pass for the apostle John,\nbut we see clearly that he writes in the interest of this apostle. On\neach page he betrays the desire to fortify his authority, to show that\nhe has been the favorite of Jesus;[1] that in all the solemn\ncircumstances (at the Lord's supper, at Calvary, at the tomb) he held\nthe first place. His relations on the whole fraternal, although not\nexcluding a certain rivalry with Peter;[2] his hatred, on the\ncontrary, of Judas,[3] a hatred probably anterior to the betrayal,\nseems to pierce through here and there. We are tempted to believe that\nJohn, in his old age, having read the Gospel narratives, on the one\nhand, remarked their various inaccuracies,[4] on the other, was hurt\nat seeing that there was not accorded to him a sufficiently high place\nin the history of Christ; that then he commenced to dictate a number\nof things which he knew better than the rest, with the intention of\nshowing that in many instances, in which only Peter was spoken of, he\nhad figured with him and even before him.[5] Already during the life\nof Jesus, these trifling sentiments of jealousy had been manifested\nbetween the sons of Zebedee and the other disciples. After the death\nof James, his brother, John remained sole inheritor of the intimate\nremembrances of which these two apostles, by the common consent, were\nthe depositaries. Hence his perpetual desire to recall that he is the\nlast surviving eye-witness,[6] and the pleasure which he takes in\nrelating circumstances which he alone could know. Hence, too, so many\nminute details which seem like the commentaries of an annotator--\"it\nwas the sixth hour;\" \"it was night;\" \"the servant's name was Malchus;\"\n\"they had made a fire of coals, for it was cold;\" \"the coat was\nwithout seam.\" Hence, lastly, the disorder of the compilation, the\nirregularity of the narration, the disjointedness of the first\nchapters, all so many inexplicable features on the supposition that\nthis Gospel was but a theological thesis, without historic value, and\nwhich, on the contrary, are perfectly intelligible, if, in conformity\nwith tradition, we see in them the remembrances of an old man,\nsometimes of remarkable freshness, sometimes having undergone strange\nmodifications.\n\n[Footnote 1: John xiii. 23, xix. 26, xx. 2, xxi. 7, 20.]\n\n[Footnote 2: John xviii. 15-16, xx. 2-6, xxi. 15-16. Comp. i. 35, 40,\n41.]\n\n[Footnote 3: John vi. 65, xii. 6, xiii. 21, and following.]\n\n[Footnote 4: The manner in which Aristion and _Presbyteros Joannes_\nexpressed themselves on the Gospel of Mark before Papias (Eusebius,\n_H.E._, III. 39) implies, in effect, a friendly criticism, or, more\nproperly, a sort of excuse, indicating that John's disciples had\nbetter information on the same subject.]\n\n[Footnote 5: Compare John xviii. 15, and following, with Matthew xxvi.\n58; John xx. 2 to 6, with Mark xvi. 7. See also John xiii. 24, 25.]\n\n[Footnote 6: Chap. i. 14, xix. 35, xxi. 24, and following. Compare the\nFirst Epistle of St. John, chap. i. 3, 5.]\n\nA primary distinction, indeed, ought to be made in the Gospel of John.\nOn the one side, this Gospel presents us with a rough draft of the\nlife of Jesus, which differs considerably from that of the synoptics.\nOn the other, it puts into the mouth of Jesus discourses of which the\ntone, the style, the treatment, and the doctrines have nothing in\ncommon with the _Logia_ given us by the synoptics. In this second\nrespect, the difference is such that we must make choice in a decisive\nmanner. If Jesus spoke as Matthew represents, he could not have\nspoken as John relates. Between these two authorities no critic has\never hesitated, or can ever hesitate. Far removed from the simple,\ndisinterested, impersonal tone of the synoptics, the Gospel of John\nshows incessantly the preoccupation of the apologist--the mental\nreservation of the sectarian, the desire to prove a thesis, and to\nconvince adversaries.[1] It was not by pretentious tirades, heavy,\nbadly written, and appealing little to the moral sense, that Jesus\nfounded his divine work. If even Papias had not taught us that Matthew\nwrote the sayings of Jesus in their original tongue, the natural,\nineffable truth, the charm beyond comparison of the discourses in the\nsynoptics, their profoundly Hebraistic idiom, the analogies which they\npresent with the sayings of the Jewish doctors of the period, their\nperfect harmony with the natural phenomena of Galilee--all these\ncharacteristics, compared with the obscure Gnosticism, with the\ndistorted metaphysics, which fill the discourses of John, would speak\nloudly enough. This by no means implies that there are not in the\ndiscourses of John some admirable gleams, some traits which truly come\nfrom Jesus.[2] But the mystic tone of these discourses does not\ncorrespond at all to the character of the eloquence of Jesus, such as\nwe picture it according to the synoptics. A new spirit has breathed;\nGnosticism has already commenced; the Galilean era of the kingdom of\nGod is finished; the hope of the near advent of Christ is more\ndistant; we enter on the barrenness of metaphysics, into the darkness\nof abstract dogma. The spirit of Jesus is not there, and, if the son\nof Zebedee has truly traced these pages, he had certainly, in writing\nthem, quite forgotten the Lake of Gennesareth, and the charming\ndiscourses which he had heard upon its shores.\n\n[Footnote 1: See, for example, chaps. ix. and xi. Notice especially,\nthe effect which such passages as John xix. 35, xx. 31, xxi. 20-23,\n24, 25, produce, when we recall the absence of all comments which\ndistinguishes the synoptics.]\n\n[Footnote 2: For example, chap. iv. 1, and following, xv. 12, and\nfollowing. Many words remembered by John are found in the synoptics\n(chap. xii. 16, xv. 20).]\n\nOne circumstance, moreover, which strongly proves that the discourses\ngiven us by the fourth Gospel are not historical, but compositions\nintended to cover with the authority of Jesus certain doctrines dear\nto the compiler, is their perfect harmony with the intellectual state\nof Asia Minor at the time when they were written. Asia Minor was then\nthe theatre of a strange movement of syncretical philosophy; all the\ngerms of Gnosticism existed there already. John appears to have drunk\ndeeply from these strange springs. It may be that, after the crisis of\nthe year 68 (the date of the Apocalypse) and of the year 70 (the\ndestruction of Jerusalem), the old apostle, with an ardent and plastic\nspirit, disabused of the belief in a near appearance of the Son of Man\nin the clouds, may have inclined toward the ideas that he found around\nhim, of which several agreed sufficiently well with certain Christian\ndoctrines. In attributing these new ideas to Jesus, he only followed a\nvery natural tendency. Our remembrances are transformed with our\ncircumstances; the ideal of a person that we have known changes as we\nchange.[1] Considering Jesus as the incarnation of truth, John could\nnot fail to attribute to him that which he had come to consider as the\ntruth.\n\n[Footnote 1: It was thus that Napoleon became a liberal in the\nremembrances of his companions in exile, when these, after their\nreturn, found themselves thrown in the midst of the political society\nof the time.]\n\nIf we must speak candidly, we will add that probably John himself had\nlittle share in this; that the change was made around him rather than\nby him. One is sometimes tempted to believe that precious notes,\ncoming from the apostle, have been employed by his disciples in a very\ndifferent sense from the primitive Gospel spirit. In fact, certain\nportions of the fourth Gospel have been added later; such is the\nentire twenty-first chapter,[1] in which the author seems to wish to\nrender homage to the apostle Peter after his death, and to reply to\nthe objections which would be drawn, or already had been drawn, from\nthe death of John himself, (ver. 21-23.) Many other places bear the\ntrace of erasures and corrections.[2] It is impossible at this\ndistance to understand these singular problems, and without doubt many\nsurprises would be in store for us, if we were permitted to penetrate\nthe secrets of that mysterious school of Ephesus, which, more than\nonce, appears to have delighted in obscure paths. But there is a\ndecisive test. Every one who sets himself to write the Life of Jesus\nwithout any predetermined theory as to the relative value of the\nGospels, letting himself be guided solely by the sentiment of the\nsubject, will be led in numerous instances to prefer the narration of\nJohn to that of the synoptics. The last months of the life of Jesus\nespecially are explained by John alone; a number of the features of\nthe passion, unintelligible in the synoptics,[3] resume both\nprobability and possibility in the narrative of the fourth Gospel. On\nthe contrary, I dare defy any one to compose a Life of Jesus with any\nmeaning, from the discourses which John attributes to him. This manner\nof incessantly preaching and demonstrating himself, this perpetual\nargumentation, this stage-effect devoid of simplicity, these long\narguments after each miracle, these stiff and awkward discourses, the\ntone of which is so often false and unequal,[4] would not be tolerated\nby a man of taste compared with the delightful sentences of the\nsynoptics. There are here evidently artificial portions,[5] which\nrepresent to us the sermons of Jesus, as the dialogues of Plato render\nus the conversations of Socrates. They are, so to speak, the\nvariations of a musician improvising on a given theme. The theme is\nnot without some authenticity; but in the execution, the imagination\nof the artist has given itself full scope. We are sensible of the\nfactitious mode of procedure, of rhetoric, of gloss.[6] Let us add\nthat the vocabulary of Jesus cannot be recognized in the portions of\nwhich we speak. The expression, \"kingdom of God,\" which was so\nfamiliar to the Master,[7] occurs there but once.[8] On the other\nhand, the style of the discourses attributed to Jesus by the fourth\nGospel, presents the most complete analogy with that of the Epistles\nof St. John; we see that in writing the discourses, the author\nfollowed not his recollections, but rather the somewhat monotonous\nmovement of his own thought. Quite a new mystical language is\nintroduced, a language of which the synoptics had not the least idea\n(\"world,\" \"truth,\" \"life,\" \"light,\" \"darkness,\" etc.). If Jesus had\never spoken in this style, which has nothing of Hebrew, nothing\nJewish, nothing Talmudic in it, how, if I may thus express myself, is\nit that but a single one of his hearers should have so well kept the\nsecret?\n\n[Footnote 1: The verses, chap. xx. 30, 31, evidently form the original\nconclusion.]\n\n[Footnote 2: Chap. vi. 2, 22, vii. 22.]\n\n[Footnote 3: For example, that which concerns the announcement of the\nbetrayal by Judas.]\n\n[Footnote 4: See, for example, chaps. ii. 25, iii. 32, 33, and the\nlong disputes of chapters vii., viii., and ix.]\n\n[Footnote 5: We feel often that the author seeks pretexts for\nintroducing certain discourses (chaps. iii., v., viii., xiii., and\nfollowing).]\n\n[Footnote 6: For example, chap. xvii.]\n\n[Footnote 7: Besides the synoptics, the Acts, the Epistles of St.\nPaul, and the Apocalypse, confirm it.]\n\n[Footnote 8: John iii. 3, 5.]\n\nLiterary history offers, besides, another example, which presents the\ngreatest analogy with the historic phenomenon we have just described,\nand serves to explain it. Socrates, who, like Jesus, never wrote, is\nknown to us by two of his disciples, Xenophon and Plato, the first\ncorresponding to the synoptics in his clear, transparent, impersonal\ncompilation; the second recalling the author of the fourth Gospel, by\nhis vigorous individuality. In order to describe the Socratic\nteaching, should we follow the \"dialogues\" of Plato, or the\n\"discourses\" of Xenophon? Doubt, in this respect, is not possible;\nevery one chooses the \"discourses,\" and not the \"dialogues.\" Does\nPlato, however, teach us nothing about Socrates? Would it be good\ncriticism, in writing the biography of the latter, to neglect the\n\"dialogues\"? Who would venture to maintain this? The analogy,\nmoreover, is not complete, and the difference is in favor of the\nfourth Gospel. The author of this Gospel is, in fact, the better\nbiographer; as if Plato, who, whilst attributing to his master\nfictitious discourses, had known important matters about his life,\nwhich Xenophon ignored entirely.\n\nWithout pronouncing upon the material question as to what hand has\nwritten the fourth Gospel, and whilst inclined to believe that the\ndiscourses, at least, are not from the son of Zebedee, we admit still,\nthat it is indeed \"the Gospel according to John,\" in the same sense\nthat the first and second Gospels are the Gospels \"according to\nMatthew,\" and \"according to Mark.\" The historical sketch of the fourth\nGospel is the Life of Jesus, such as it was known in the school of\nJohn; it is the recital which Aristion and _Presbyteros Joannes_ made\nto Papias, without telling him that it was written, or rather\nattaching no importance to this point. I must add, that, in my\nopinion, this school was better acquainted with the exterior\ncircumstances of the life of the Founder than the group whose\nremembrances constituted the synoptics. It had, especially upon the\nsojourns of Jesus at Jerusalem, data which the others did not possess.\nThe disciples of this school treated Mark as an indifferent\nbiographer, and devised a system to explain his omissions.[1] Certain\npassages of Luke, where there is, as it were, an echo of the\ntraditions of John,[2] prove also that these traditions were not\nentirely unknown to the rest of the Christian family.\n\n[Footnote 1: Papias, _loc. cit._]\n\n[Footnote 2: For example, the pardon of the adulteress; the knowledge\nwhich Luke has of the family of Bethany; his type of the character of\nMartha responding to the [Greek: diechouei] of John (chap. xii. 2);\nthe incident of the woman who wiped the feet of Jesus with her hair;\nan obscure notion of the travels of Jesus to Jerusalem; the idea that\nin his passion he was seen by three witnesses; the opinion of the\nauthor that some disciples were present at the crucifixion; the\nknowledge which he has of the part played by Annas in aiding Caiaphas;\nthe appearance of the angel in the agony (comp. John xii. 28, 29).]\n\nThese explanations will suffice, I think, to show, in the course of my\nnarrative, the motives which have determined me to give the preference\nto this or that of the four guides whom we have for the _Life of\nJesus_. On the whole, I admit as authentic the four canonical Gospels.\nAll, in my opinion, date from the first century, and the authors are,\ngenerally speaking, those to whom they are attributed; but their\nhistoric value is very diverse. Matthew evidently merits an unlimited\nconfidence as to the discourses; they are the _Logia_, the identical\nnotes taken from a clear and lively remembrance of the teachings of\nJesus. A kind of splendor at once mild and terrible--a divine\nstrength, if we may so speak, emphasizes these words, detaches them\nfrom the context, and renders them easily distinguishable. The person\nwho imposes upon himself the task of making a continuous narrative\nfrom the gospel history, possesses, in this respect, an excellent\ntouchstone. The real words of Jesus disclose themselves; as soon as we\ntouch them in this chaos of traditions of varied authenticity, we feel\nthem vibrate; they betray themselves spontaneously, and shine out of\nthe narrative with unequaled brilliancy.\n\nThe narrative portions grouped in the first Gospel around this\nprimitive nucleus have not the same authority. There are many not well\ndefined legends which have proceeded from the zeal of the second\nChristian generation.[1] The Gospel of Mark is much firmer, more\nprecise, containing fewer subsequent additions. He is the one of the\nthree synoptics who has remained the most primitive, the most\noriginal, the one to whom the fewest after-elements have been added.\nIn Mark, the facts are related with a clearness for which we seek in\nvain amongst the other evangelists. He likes to report certain words\nof Jesus in Syro-Chaldean.[2] He is full of minute observations,\ncoming doubtless from an eye-witness. There is nothing to prevent our\nagreeing with Papias in regarding this eye-witness, who evidently had\nfollowed Jesus, who had loved him and observed him very closely, and\nwho had preserved a lively image of him, as the apostle Peter himself.\n\n[Footnote 1: Chaps. i., ii., especially. See also chap. xxvii. 3, 19,\n51, 53, 60, xxviii. 2, and following, in comparing Mark.]\n\n[Footnote 2: Chap. v. 41, vii. 34, xv. 24. Matthew only presents this\npeculiarity once (chap. xxvii. 46).]\n\nAs to the work of Luke, its historical value is sensibly weaker. It is\na document which comes to us second-hand. The narrative is more\nmature. The words of Jesus are there, more deliberate, more\nsententious. Some sentences are distorted and exaggerated.[1] Writing\noutside of Palestine, and certainly after the siege of Jerusalem,[2]\nthe author indicates the places with less exactitude than the other\ntwo synoptics; he has an erroneous idea of the temple, which he\nrepresents as an oratory where people went to pay their devotions.[3]\nHe subdues some details in order to make the different narratives\nagree;[4] he softens the passages which had become embarrassing on\naccount of a more exalted idea of the divinity of Christ;[5] he\nexaggerates the marvellous;[6] commits errors in chronology;[7] omits\nHebraistic comments;[8] quotes no word of Jesus in this language, and\ngives to all the localities their Greek names. We feel we have to do\nwith a compiler--with a man who has not himself seen the witnesses,\nbut who labors at the texts and wrests their sense to make them agree.\nLuke had probably under his eyes the biographical collection of Mark,\nand the _Logia_ of Matthew. But he treats them with much freedom;\nsometimes he fuses two anecdotes or two parables in one;[9] sometimes\nhe divides one in order to make two.[10] He interprets the documents\naccording to his own idea; he has not the absolute impassibility of\nMatthew and Mark. We might affirm certain things of his individual\ntastes and tendencies; he is a very exact devotee;[11] he insists that\nJesus had performed all the Jewish rites,[12] he is a warm Ebionite\nand democrat, that is to say, much opposed to property, and persuaded\nthat the triumph of the poor is approaching;[13] he likes especially\nall the anecdotes showing prominently the conversion of sinners--the\nexaltation of the humble;[14] he often modifies the ancient traditions\nin order to give them this meaning;[15] he admits into his first pages\nthe legends about the infancy of Jesus, related with the long\namplifications, the spiritual songs, and the conventional proceedings\nwhich form the essential features of the Apocryphal Gospels. Finally,\nhe has in the narrative of the last hours of Jesus some circumstances\nfull of tender feeling, and certain words of Jesus of delightful\nbeauty,[16] which are not found in more authentic accounts, and in\nwhich we detect the presence of legend. Luke probably borrowed them\nfrom a more recent collection, in which the principal aim was to\nexcite sentiments of piety.\n\n[Footnote 1: Chap. xiv. 26. The rules of the apostolate (chap. x.)\nhave there a peculiar character of exaltation.]\n\n[Footnote 2: Chap. xix. 41, 43, 44, xxi. 9, 20, xxiii. 29.]\n\n[Footnote 3: Chap. ii. 37, xviii. 10, and following, xxiv. 53.]\n\n[Footnote 4: For example, chap. iv. 16.]\n\n[Footnote 5: Chap. iii. 23. He omits Matt. xxiv. 36.]\n\n[Footnote 6: Chap. iv. 14, xxii. 43, 44.]\n\n[Footnote 7: For example, in that which concerns Quirinius, Lysanias,\nTheudas.]\n\n[Footnote 8: Compare Luke i. 31 with Matt. i. 21.]\n\n[Footnote 9: For example, chap. xix. 12-27.]\n\n[Footnote 10: Thus, of the repast at Bethany he gives two narratives,\nchap. vii. 36-48, and x. 38-42.]\n\n[Footnote 11: Chap. xxiii. 56.]\n\n[Footnote 12: Chap. ii. 21, 22, 39, 41, 42. This is an Ebionitish\nfeature. Cf. _Philosophumena_ VII. vi. 34.]\n\n[Footnote 13: The parable of the rich man and Lazarus. Compare chap.\nvi. 20, and following, 24, and following, xii. 13, and following, xvi.\nentirely, xxii. 35. _Acts_ ii. 44, 45, v. 1, and following.]\n\n[Footnote 14: The woman who anoints his feet, Zaccheus, the penitent\nthief, the parable of the Pharisee and the publican, and the prodigal\nson.]\n\n[Footnote 15: For example, Mary of Bethany is represented by him as a\nsinner who becomes converted.]\n\n[Footnote 16: Jesus weeping over Jerusalem, the bloody sweat, the\nmeeting of the holy women, the penitent thief, &c. The speech to the\nwomen of Jerusalem (xxiii. 28, 29) could scarcely have been conceived\nexcept after the siege of the year 70.]\n\nA great reserve was naturally enforced in presence of a document of\nthis nature. It would have been as uncritical to neglect it as to\nemploy it without discernment. Luke has had under his eyes originals\nwhich we no longer possess. He is less an evangelist than a biographer\nof Jesus, a \"harmonizer,\" a corrector after the manner of Marcion and\nTatian. But he is a biographer of the first century, a divine artist,\nwho, independently of the information which he has drawn from more\nancient sources, shows us the character of the Founder with a\nhappiness of treatment, with a uniform inspiration, and a distinctness\nwhich the other two synoptics do not possess. In the perusal of his\nGospel there is the greatest charm; for to the incomparable beauty of\nthe foundation, common to them all, he adds a degree of skill in\ncomposition which singularly augments the effect of the portrait,\nwithout seriously injuring its truthfulness.\n\nOn the whole, we may say that the synoptical compilation has passed\nthrough three stages: First, the original documentary state ([Greek:\nlogia] of Matthew, [Greek: lechthenta e prachthenta] of Mark), primary\ncompilations which no longer exist; second, the state of simple\nmixture, in which the original documents are amalgamated without any\neffort at composition, without there appearing any personal bias of\nthe authors (the existing Gospels of Matthew and Mark); third, the\nstate of combination or of intentional and deliberate compiling, in\nwhich we are sensible of an attempt to reconcile the different\nversions (Gospel of Luke). The Gospel of John, as we have said, forms\na composition of another orders and is entirely distinct.\n\nIt will be remarked that I have made no use of the Apocryphal Gospels.\nThese compositions ought not in any manner to be put upon the same\nfooting as the canonical Gospels. They are insipid and puerile\namplifications, having the canonical Gospels for their basis, and\nadding nothing thereto of any value. On the other hand, I have been\nvery attentive to collect the shreds preserved by the Fathers of the\nChurch, of the ancient Gospels which formerly existed parallel with\nthe canonical Gospels, and which are now lost--such as the Gospel\naccording to the Hebrews, the Gospel according to the Egyptians, the\nGospels styled those of Justin, Marcion, and Tatian. The first two are\nprincipally important because they were written in Aramean, like the\n_Logia_ of Matthew, and appear to constitute one version of the Gospel\nof this apostle, and because they were the Gospel of the\n_Ebionim_--that is, of those small Christian sects of Batanea who\npreserved the use of Syro-Chaldean, and who appear in some respects to\nhave followed the course marked out by Jesus. But it must be confessed\nthat in the state in which they have come to us, these Gospels are\ninferior, as critical authorities, to the compilation of Matthew's\nGospel which we now possess.\n\nIt will now be seen, I think, what kind of historical value I\nattribute to the Gospels. They are neither biographies after the\nmanner of Suetonius, nor fictitious legends in the style of\nPhilostratus; they are legendary biographies. I should willingly\ncompare them with the Legends of the Saints, the Lives of Plotinus,\nProclus, Isidore, and other writings of the same kind, in which\nhistorical truth and the desire to present models of virtue are\ncombined in various degrees. Inexactitude, which is one of the\nfeatures of all popular compositions, is there particularly felt. Let\nus suppose that ten or twelve years ago three or four old soldiers of\nthe Empire had each undertaken to write the life of Napoleon from\nmemory. It is clear that their narratives would contain numerous\nerrors, and great discordances. One of them would place Wagram before\nMarengo: another would write without hesitation that Napoleon drove\nthe government of Robespierre from the Tuileries; a third would omit\nexpeditions of the highest importance. But one thing would certainly\nresult with a great degree of truthfulness from these simple recitals,\nand that is the character of the hero, the impression which he made\naround him. In this sense such popular narratives would be worth more\nthan a formal and official history. We may say as much of the Gospels.\nSolely attentive to bring out strongly the excellency of the Master,\nhis miracles, his teaching, the evangelists display entire\nindifference to everything that is not of the very spirit of Jesus.\nThe contradictions respecting time, place, and persons were regarded\nas insignificant; for the higher the degree of inspiration attributed\nto the words of Jesus, the less was granted to the compilers\nthemselves. The latter regarded themselves as simple scribes, and\ncared but for one thing--to omit nothing they knew.[1]\n\n[Footnote 1: See the passage from Papias, before cited.]\n\nUnquestionably certain preconceived ideas associated themselves with\nsuch recollections. Several narratives, especially in Luke, are\ninvented in order to bring out more vividly certain traits of the\ncharacter of Jesus. This character itself constantly underwent\nalteration. Jesus would be a phenomenon unparalleled in history if,\nwith the part which he played, he had not early become idealized. The\nlegends respecting Alexander were invented before the generation of\nhis companions in arms became extinct; those respecting St. Francis\nd'Assisi began in his lifetime. A rapid metamorphosis operated in the\nsame manner in the twenty or thirty years which followed the death of\nJesus, and imposed upon his biography the peculiarities of an ideal\nlegend. Death adds perfection to the most perfect man; it frees him\nfrom all defect in the eyes of those who have loved him. With the wish\nto paint the Master, there was also the desire to explain him. Many\nanecdotes were conceived to prove that in him the prophecies regarded\nas Messianic had had their accomplishment. But this procedure, of\nwhich we must not deny the importance, would not suffice to explain\neverything. No Jewish work of the time gives a series of prophecies\nexactly declaring what the Messiah should accomplish. Many Messianic\nallusions quoted by the evangelists are so subtle, so indirect, that\none cannot believe they all responded to a generally admitted\ndoctrine. Sometimes they reasoned thus: \"The Messiah ought to do such\na thing; now Jesus is the Messiah; therefore Jesus has done such a\nthing.\" At other times, by an inverse process, it was said: \"Such a\nthing has happened to Jesus; now Jesus is the Messiah; therefore such\na thing was to happen to the Messiah.\"[1] Too simple explanations are\nalways false when analyzing those profound creations of popular\nsentiment which baffle all systems by their fullness and infinite\nvariety. It is scarcely necessary to say that, with such documents, in\norder to present only what is indisputable, we must limit ourselves to\ngeneral features. In almost all ancient histories, even in those which\nare much less legendary than these, details open up innumerable\ndoubts. When we have two accounts of the same fact, it is extremely\nrare that the two accounts agree. Is not this a reason for\nanticipating many difficulties when we have but one? We may say that\namongst the anecdotes, the discourses, the celebrated sayings which\nhave been given us by the historians, there is not one strictly\nauthentic. Were there stenographers to fix these fleeting words? Was\nthere an analyst always present to note the gestures, the manners, the\nsentiments of the actors? Let any one endeavor to get at the truth as\nto the way in which such or such contemporary fact has happened; he\nwill not succeed. Two accounts of the same event given by different\neye-witnesses differ essentially. Must we, therefore, reject all the\ncoloring of the narratives, and limit ourselves to the bare facts\nonly? That would be to suppress history. Certainly, I think that if we\nexcept certain short and almost mnemonic axioms, none of the\ndiscourses reported by Matthew are textual; even our stenographic\nreports are scarcely so. I freely admit that the admirable account of\nthe Passion contains many trifling inaccuracies. Would it, however, be\nwriting the history of Jesus to omit those sermons which give to us in\nsuch a vivid manner the character of his discourses, and to limit\nourselves to saying, with Josephus and Tacitus, \"that he was put to\ndeath by the order of Pilate at the instigation of the priests\"? That\nwould be, in my opinion, a kind of inexactitude worse than that to\nwhich we are exposed in admitting the details supplied by the texts.\nThese details are not true to the letter, but they are true with a\nsuperior truth, they are more true than the naked truth, in the sense\nthat they are truth rendered expressive and articulate--truth\nidealized.\n\n[Footnote 1: See, for example, John xix. 23-24.]\n\nI beg those who think that I have placed an exaggerated confidence in\nnarratives in great part legendary, to take note of the observation I\nhave just made. To what would the life of Alexander be reduced if it\nwere confined to that which is materially certain? Even partly\nerroneous traditions contain a portion of truth which history cannot\nneglect. No one has blamed M. Sprenger for having, in writing the life\nof Mahomet, made much of the _hadith_ or oral traditions concerning\nthe prophet, and for often having attributed to his hero words which\nare only known through this source. Yet the traditions respecting\nMahomet are not superior in historical value to the discourses and\nnarratives which compose the Gospels. They were written between the\nyear 50 and the year 140 of the Hegira. When the history of the Jewish\nschools in the ages which immediately preceded and followed the birth\nof Christianity shall be written, no one will make any scruple of\nattributing to Hillel, Shammai, Gamaliel the maxims ascribed to them\nby the _Mishnah_ and the _Gemara_, although these great compilations\nwere written many hundreds of years after the time of the doctors in\nquestion.\n\nAs to those who believe, on the contrary, that history should consist\nof a simple reproduction of the documents which have come down to us,\nI beg to observe that such a course is not allowable. The four\nprincipal documents are in flagrant contradiction one with another.\nJosephus rectifies them sometimes. It is necessary to make a\nselection. To assert that an event cannot take place in two ways at\nonce, or in an impossible manner, is not to impose an _a priori_\nphilosophy upon history. The historian ought not to conclude that a\nfact is false because he possesses several versions of it, or because\ncredulity has mixed with them much that is fabulous. He ought in such\na case to be very cautious--to examine the texts, and to proceed\ncarefully by induction. There is one class of narratives especially,\nto which this principle must necessarily be applied. Such are\nnarratives of supernatural events. To seek to explain these, or to\nreduce them to legends, is not to mutilate facts in the name of\ntheory; it is to make the observation of facts our groundwork. None of\nthe miracles with which the old histories are filled took place under\nscientific conditions. Observation, which has never once been\nfalsified, teaches us that miracles never happen but in times and\ncountries in which they are believed, and before persons disposed to\nbelieve them. No miracle ever occurred in the presence of men capable\nof testing its miraculous character. Neither common people nor men of\nthe world are able to do this. It requires great precautions and long\nhabits of scientific research. In our days have we not seen almost all\nrespectable people dupes of the grossest frauds or of puerile\nillusions? Marvellous facts, attested by the whole population of small\ntowns, have, thanks to a severer scrutiny, been exploded.[1] If it is\nproved that no contemporary miracle will bear inquiry, is it not\nprobable that the miracles of the past, which have all been performed\nin popular gatherings, would equally present their share of illusion,\nif it were possible to criticise them in detail?\n\n[Footnote 1: See the _Gazette des Tribunaux_, 10th Sept. and 11th\nNov., 1851, 28th May, 1857.]\n\nIt is not, then, in the name of this or that philosophy, but in the\nname of universal experience, that we banish miracle from history. We\ndo not say, \"Miracles are impossible.\" We say, \"Up to this time a\nmiracle has never been proved.\" If to-morrow a thaumaturgus present\nhimself with credentials sufficiently important to be discussed, and\nannounce himself as able, say, to raise the dead, what would be done?\nA commission, composed of physiologists, physicists, chemists, persons\naccustomed to historical criticism, would be named. This commission\nwould choose a corpse, would assure itself that the death was real,\nwould select the room in which the experiment should be made, would\narrange the whole system of precautions, so as to leave no chance of\ndoubt. If, under such conditions, the resurrection were effected, a\nprobability almost equal to certainty would be established. As,\nhowever, it ought to be possible always to repeat an experiment--to do\nover again what has been done once; and as, in the order of miracle,\nthere can be no question of ease or difficulty, the thaumaturgus would\nbe invited to reproduce his marvellous act under other circumstances,\nupon other corpses, in another place. If the miracle succeeded each\ntime, two things would be proved: First, that supernatural events\nhappen in the world; second, that the power of producing them belongs,\nor is delegated to, certain persons. But who does not see that no\nmiracle ever took place under these conditions? but that always\nhitherto the thaumaturgus has chosen the subject of the experiment,\nchosen the spot, chosen the public; that, besides, the people\nthemselves--most commonly in consequence of the invincible want to see\nsomething divine in great events and great men--create the marvellous\nlegends afterward? Until a new order of things prevails, we shall\nmaintain then this principle of historical criticism--that a\nsupernatural account cannot be admitted as such, that it always\nimplies credulity or imposture, that the duty of the historian is to\nexplain it, and seek to ascertain what share of truth or of error it\nmay conceal.\n\nSuch are the rules which have been followed in the composition of\nthis work. To the perusal of documentary evidences I have been able to\nadd an important source of information--the sight of the places where\nthe events occurred. The scientific mission, having for its object the\nexploration of ancient Phoenicia, which I directed in 1860 and\n1861,[1] led me to reside on the frontiers of Galilee and to travel\nthere frequently. I have traversed, in all directions, the country of\nthe Gospels; I have visited Jerusalem, Hebron, and Samaria; scarcely\nany important locality of the history of Jesus has escaped me. All\nthis history, which at a distance seems to float in the clouds of an\nunreal world, thus took a form, a solidity, which astonished me. The\nstriking agreement of the texts with the places, the marvellous\nharmony of the Gospel ideal with the country which served it as a\nframework, were like a revelation to me. I had before my eyes a fifth\nGospel, torn, but still legible, and henceforward, through the\nrecitals of Matthew and Mark, in place of an abstract being, whose\nexistence might have been doubted, I saw living and moving an\nadmirable human figure. During the summer, having to go up to Ghazir,\nin Lebanon, to take a little repose, I fixed, in rapid sketches, the\nimage which had appeared to me, and from them resulted this history.\nWhen a cruel bereavement hastened my departure, I had but a few pages\nto write. In this manner the book has been composed almost entirely\nnear the very places where Jesus was born, and where his character was\ndeveloped. Since my return, I have labored unceasingly to verify and\ncheck in detail the rough sketch which I had written in haste in a\nMaronite cabin, with five or six volumes around me.\n\n[Footnote 1: The work which will contain the results of this mission\nis in the press.]\n\nMany will regret, perhaps, the biographical form which my work has\nthus taken. When I first conceived the idea of a history of the origin\nof Christianity, what I wished to write was, in fact, a history of\ndoctrines, in which men and their actions would have hardly had a\nplace. Jesus would scarcely have been named; I should have endeavored\nto show how the ideas which have grown under his name took root and\ncovered the world. But I have learned since that history is not a\nsimple game of abstractions; that men are more than doctrines. It was\nnot a certain theory on justification and redemption which brought\nabout the Reformation; it was Luther and Calvin. Parseeism, Hellenism,\nJudaism might have been able to have combined under every form; the\ndoctrines of the Resurrection and of the Word might have developed\nthemselves during ages without producing this grand, unique, and\nfruitful fact, called Christianity. This fact is the work of Jesus, of\nSt. Paul, of St. John. To write the history of Jesus, of St. Paul, of\nSt. John is to write the history of the origin of Christianity. The\nanterior movements belong to our subject only in so far as they serve\nto throw light upon these extraordinary men, who naturally could not\nhave existed without connection with that which preceded them.\n\nIn such an effort to make the great souls of the past live again, some\nshare of divination and conjecture must be permitted. A great life is\nan organic whole which cannot be rendered by the simple agglomeration\nof small facts. It requires a profound sentiment to embrace them all,\nmoulding them into perfect unity. The method of art in a similar\nsubject is a good guide; the exquisite tact of a Goethe would know how\nto apply it. The essential condition of the creations of art is, that\nthey shall form a living system of which all the parts are mutually\ndependent and related.\n\nIn histories such as this, the great test that we have got the truth\nis, to have succeeded in combining the texts in such a manner that\nthey shall constitute a logical, probable narrative, harmonious\nthroughout. The secret laws of life, of the progression of organic\nproducts, of the melting of minute distinctions, ought to be consulted\nat each moment; for what is required to be reproduced is not the\nmaterial circumstance, which it is impossible to verify, but the very\nsoul of history; what must be sought is not the petty certainty about\ntrifles, it is the correctness of the general sentiment, the\ntruthfulness of the coloring. Each trait which departs from the rules\nof classic narration ought to warn us to be careful; for the fact\nwhich has to be related has been living, natural, and harmonious. If\nwe do not succeed in rendering it such by the recital, it is surely\nbecause we have not succeeded in seeing it aright. Suppose that, in\nrestoring the Minerva of Phidias according to the texts, we produced a\ndry, jarring, artificial whole; what must we conclude? Simply that the\ntexts want an appreciative interpretation; that we must study them\nquietly until they dovetail and furnish a whole in which all the parts\nare happily blended. Should we then be sure of having a perfect\nreproduction of the Greek statue? No; but at least we should not have\nthe caricature of it; we should have the general spirit of the\nwork--one of the forms in which it could have existed.\n\nThis idea of a living organism we have not hesitated to take as our\nguide in the general arrangement of the narrative. The perusal of the\nGospels would suffice to prove that the compilers, although having a\nvery true plan of the _Life of Jesus_ in their minds, have not been\nguided by very exact chronological data; Papias, besides, expressly\nteaches this.[1] The expressions: \"At this time ... after that ...\nthen ... and it came to pass ...,\" etc., are the simple transitions\nintended to connect different narratives with each other. To leave all\nthe information furnished by the Gospels in the disorder in which\ntradition supplies it, would only be to write the history of Jesus as\nthe history of a celebrated man would be written, by giving pell-mell\nthe letters and anecdotes of his youth, his old age, and of his\nmaturity. The Koran, which presents to us, in the loosest manner,\nfragments of the different epochs in the life of Mahomet, has yielded\nits secret to an ingenious criticism; the chronological order in which\nthe fragments were composed has been discovered so as to leave little\nroom for doubt. Such a rearrangement is much more difficult in the\ncase of the Gospels, the public life of Jesus having been shorter and\nless eventful than the life of the founder of Islamism. Meanwhile, the\nattempt to find a guiding thread through this labyrinth ought not to\nbe taxed with gratuitous subtlety. There is no great abuse of\nhypothesis in supposing that a founder of a new religion commences by\nattaching himself to the moral aphorisms already in circulation in his\ntime, and to the practices which are in vogue; that, when riper, and\nin full possession of his idea, he delights in a kind of calm and\npoetical eloquence, remote from all controversy, sweet and free as\npure feeling; that he warms by degrees, becomes animated by\nopposition, and finishes by polemics and strong invectives. Such are\nthe periods which may plainly be distinguished in the Koran. The order\nadopted with an extremely fine tact by the synoptics, supposes an\nanalogous progress. If Matthew be attentively read, we shall find in\nthe distribution of the discourses, a gradation perfectly analogous to\nthat which we have just indicated. The reserved turns of expression of\nwhich we make use in unfolding the progress of the ideas of Jesus will\nalso be observed. The reader may, if he likes, see in the divisions\nadopted in doing this, only the indispensable breaks for the\nmethodical exposition of a profound, complicated thought.\n\n[Footnote 1: _Loc. cit._]\n\nIf the love of a subject can help one to understand it, it will also,\nI hope, be recognized that I have not been wanting in this condition.\nTo write the history of a religion, it is necessary, firstly, to have\nbelieved it (otherwise we should not be able to understand how it has\ncharmed and satisfied the human conscience); in the second place, to\nbelieve it no longer in an absolute manner, for absolute faith is\nincompatible with sincere history. But love is possible without faith.\nTo abstain from attaching one's self to any of the forms which\ncaptivate the adoration of men, is not to deprive ourselves of the\nenjoyment of that which is good and beautiful in them. No transitory\nappearance exhausts the Divinity; God was revealed before Jesus--God\nwill reveal Himself after him. Profoundly unequal, and so much the\nmore Divine, as they are grander and more spontaneous, the\nmanifestations of God hidden in the depths of the human conscience are\nall of the same order. Jesus cannot belong solely to those who call\nthemselves his disciples. He is the common honor of all who share a\ncommon humanity. His glory does not consist in being relegated out of\nhistory; we render him a truer worship in showing that all history is\nincomprehensible without him.\n\n\n\n\nLIFE OF JESUS\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER I.\n\nPLACE OF JESUS IN THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD.\n\n\nThe great event of the History of the world is the revolution by which\nthe noblest portions of humanity have passed from the ancient\nreligions, comprised under the vague name of Paganism, to a religion\nfounded on the Divine Unity, the Trinity, and the Incarnation of the\nSon of God. It has taken nearly a thousand years to accomplish this\nconversion. The new religion had itself taken at least three hundred\nyears in its formation. But the origin of the revolution in question\nwith which we have to do is a fact which took place under the reigns\nof Augustus and Tiberius. At that time there lived a superior\npersonage, who, by his bold originality, and by the love which he was\nable to inspire, became the object and fixed the starting-point of the\nfuture faith of humanity.\n\nAs soon as man became distinguished from the animal, he became\nreligious; that is to say, he saw in Nature something beyond the\nphenomena, and for himself something beyond death. This sentiment,\nduring some thousands of years, became corrupted in the strangest\nmanner. In many races it did not pass beyond the belief in sorcerers,\nunder the gross form in which we still find it in certain parts of\nOceania. Among some, the religious sentiment degenerated into the\nshameful scenes of butchery which form the character of the ancient\nreligion of Mexico. Amongst others, especially in Africa, it became\npure Fetichism, that is, the adoration of a material object, to which\nwere attributed supernatural powers. Like the instinct of love, which\nat times elevates the most vulgar man above himself, yet sometimes\nbecomes perverted and ferocious, so this divine faculty of religion\nduring a long period seems only to be a cancer which must be\nextirpated from the human race, a cause of errors and crimes which the\nwise ought to endeavor to suppress.\n\nThe brilliant civilizations which were developed from a very remote\nantiquity in China, in Babylonia, and in Egypt, caused a certain\nprogress to be made in religion. China arrived very early at a sort of\nmediocre good sense, which prevented great extravagances. She neither\nknew the advantages nor the abuses of the religious spirit. At all\nevents, she had not in this way any influence in directing the great\ncurrent of humanity. The religions of Babylonia and Syria were never\nfreed from a substratum of strange sensuality; these religions\nremained, until their extinction in the fourth and fifth centuries of\nour era, schools of immorality, in which at intervals glimpses of the\ndivine world were obtained by a sort of poetic intuition. Egypt,\nnotwithstanding an apparent kind of Fetichism, had very early\nmetaphysical dogmas and a lofty symbolism. But doubtless these\ninterpretations of a refined theology were not primitive. Man has\nnever, in the possession of a clear idea, amused himself by clothing\nit in symbols: it is oftener after long reflections, and from the\nimpossibility felt by the human mind of resigning itself to the\nabsurd, that we seek ideas under the ancient mystic images whose\nmeaning is lost. Moreover, it is not from Egypt that the faith of\nhumanity has come. The elements which, in the religion of a Christian,\npassing through a thousand transformations, came from Egypt and Syria,\nare exterior forms of little consequence, or dross of which the most\npurified worships always retain some portion. The grand defect of the\nreligions of which we speak was their essentially superstitious\ncharacter. They only threw into the world millions of amulets and\ncharms. No great moral thought could proceed from races oppressed by a\nsecular despotism, and accustomed to institutions which precluded the\nexercise of individual liberty.\n\nThe poetry of the soul--faith, liberty, virtue, devotion--made their\nappearance in the world with the two great races which, in one sense,\nhave made humanity, viz., the Indo-European and the Semitic races. The\nfirst religious intuitions of the Indo-European race were essentially\nnaturalistic. But it was a profound and moral naturalism, a loving\nembrace of Nature by man, a delicious poetry, full of the sentiment of\nthe Infinite--the principle, in fine, of all that which the Germanic\nand Celtic genius, of that which a Shakespeare and a Goethe should\nexpress in later times. It was neither theology nor moral\nphilosophy--it was a state of melancholy, it was tenderness, it was\nimagination; it was, more than all, earnestness, the essential\ncondition of morals and religion. The faith of humanity, however,\ncould not come from thence, because these ancient forms of worships\nhad great difficulty in detaching themselves from Polytheism, and\ncould not attain to a very clear symbol. Brahminism has only survived\nto the present day by virtue of the astonishing faculty of\nconservation which India seems to possess. Buddhism failed in all its\napproaches toward the West. Druidism remained a form exclusively\nnational, and without universal capacity. The Greek attempts at\nreform, Orpheism, the Mysteries, did not suffice to give a solid\naliment to the soul. Persia alone succeeded in making a dogmatic\nreligion, almost Monotheistic, and skilfully organized; but it is very\npossible that this organization itself was but an imitation, or\nborrowed. At all events, Persia has not converted the world; she\nherself, on the contrary, was converted when she saw the flag of the\nDivine unity as proclaimed by Mohammedanism appear on her frontiers.\n\nIt is the Semitic race[1] which has the glory of having made the\nreligion of humanity. Far beyond the confines of history, resting\nunder his tent, free from the taint of a corrupted world, the Bedouin\npatriarch prepared the faith of mankind. A strong antipathy against\nthe voluptuous worships of Syria, a grand simplicity of ritual, the\ncomplete absence of temples, and the idol reduced to insignificant\n_theraphim_, constituted his superiority. Among all the tribes of the\nnomadic Semites, that of the Beni-Israel was already chosen for\nimmense destinies. Ancient relations with Egypt, whence perhaps\nresulted some purely material ingredients, did but augment their\nrepulsion to idolatry. A \"Law\" or _Thora_, very anciently written on\ntables of stone, and which they attributed to their great liberator\nMoses, had become the code of Monotheism, and contained, as compared\nwith the institutions of Egypt and Chaldea, powerful germs of social\nequality and morality. A chest or portable ark, having staples on each\nside to admit of bearing poles, constituted all their religious\n_materiel_; there were collected the sacred objects of the nation, its\nrelics, its souvenirs, and, lastly, the \"book,\"[2] the journal of the\ntribe, always open, but which was written in with great discretion.\nThe family charged with bearing the ark and watching over the portable\narchives, being near the book and having the control of it, very soon\nbecame important. From hence, however, the institution which was to\ncontrol the future did not come. The Hebrew priest did not differ much\nfrom the other priests of antiquity. The character which essentially\ndistinguishes Israel among theocratic peoples is, that its priesthood\nhas always been subordinated to individual inspiration. Besides its\npriests, each wandering tribe had its _nabi_ or prophet, a sort of\nliving oracle who was consulted for the solution of obscure questions\nsupposed to require a high degree of clairvoyance. The _nabis_ of\nIsrael, organized in groups or schools, had great influence. Defenders\nof the ancient democratic spirit, enemies of the rich, opposed to all\npolitical organization, and to whatsoever might draw Israel into the\npaths of other nations, they were the true authors of the religious\npreeminence of the Jewish people. Very early they announced unlimited\nhopes, and when the people, in part the victims of their impolitic\ncounsels, had been crushed by the Assyrian power, they proclaimed that\na kingdom without bounds was reserved for them, that one day Jerusalem\nwould be the capital of the whole world, and the human race become\nJews. Jerusalem and its temples appeared to them as a city placed on\nthe summit of a mountain, toward which all people should turn, as an\noracle whence the universal law should proceed, as the centre of an\nideal kingdom, in which the human race, set at rest by Israel, should\nfind again the joys of Eden.[3]\n\n[Footnote 1: I remind the reader that this word means here simply the\npeople who speak or have spoken one of the languages called Semitic.\nSuch a designation is entirely defective; but it is one of those\nwords, like \"Gothic architecture,\" \"Arabian numerals,\" which we must\npreserve to be understood, even after we have demonstrated the error\nthat they imply.]\n\n[Footnote 2: I Sam. x. 25.]\n\n[Footnote 3: Isa. ii. 1-4, and especially chaps. xl., and following,\nlx., and following; Micah iv. 1, and following. It must be recollected\nthat the second part of the book of Isaiah, beginning at chap. xl., is\nnot by Isaiah.]\n\nMystical utterances already made themselves heard, tending to exalt\nthe martyrdom and celebrate the power of the \"Man of Sorrows.\"\nRespecting one of those sublime sufferers, who, like Jeremiah, stained\nthe streets of Jerusalem with their blood, one of the inspired wrote a\nsong upon the sufferings and triumph of the \"servant of God,\" in which\nall the prophetic force of the genius of Israel seemed\nconcentrated.[1] \"For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant,\nand as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness. He\nis despised and rejected of men; and we hid, as it were, our faces\nfrom him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not. Surely he hath\nborne our griefs, and carried our sorrows; yet we did esteem him\nstricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. But he was wounded for our\ntransgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of\nour peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. All we\nlike sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way;\nand the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all. He was\noppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is\nbrought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers\nis dumb, so he openeth not his mouth. And he made his grave with the\nwicked. When thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall\nsee his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the Lord\nshall prosper in his hand.\"\n\n[Footnote 1: Isa. lii. 13, and following, and liii. entirely.]\n\nImportant modifications were made at the same time in the _Thora_. New\ntexts, pretending to represent the true law of Moses, such as\nDeuteronomy, were produced, and inaugurated in reality a very\ndifferent spirit from that of the old nomads. A marked fanaticism was\nthe dominant feature of this spirit. Furious believers unceasingly\ninstigated violence against all who wandered from the worship of\nJehovah--they succeeded in establishing a code of blood, making death\nthe penalty for religious faults. Piety brings, almost always,\nsingular contradictions of vehemence and mildness. This zeal, unknown\nto the coarser simplicity of the time of the Judges, inspired tones of\nmoving prophecy and tender unction, which the world had never heard\ntill then. A strong tendency toward social questions already made\nitself felt; Utopias, dreams of a perfect society, took a place in the\ncode. The Pentateuch, a mixture of patriarchal morality and ardent\ndevotion, primitive intuitions and pious subtleties, like those which\nfilled the souls of Hezekiah, of Josiah, and of Jeremiah, was thus\nfixed in the form in which we now see it, and became for ages the\nabsolute rule of the national mind.\n\nThis great book once created, the history of the Jewish people\nunfolded itself with an irresistible force. The great empires which\nfollowed each other in Western Asia, in destroying its hope of a\nterrestrial kingdom, threw it into religious dreams, which it\ncherished with a kind of sombre passion. Caring little for the\nnational dynasty or political independence, it accepted all\ngovernments which permitted it to practise freely its worship and\nfollow its usages. Israel will henceforward have no other guidance\nthan that of its religious enthusiasts, no other enemies than those of\nthe Divine unity, no other country than its Law.\n\nAnd this Law, it must be remarked, was entirely social and moral. It\nwas the work of men penetrated with a high ideal of the present life,\nand believing that they had found the best means of realizing it. The\nconviction of all was, that the _Thora_, well observed, could not fail\nto give perfect felicity. This _Thora_ has nothing in common with the\nGreek or Roman \"Laws,\" which, occupying themselves with scarcely\nanything but abstract right, entered little into questions of private\nhappiness and morality. We feel beforehand that the results which will\nproceed from it will be of a social, and not a political order, that\nthe work at which this people labors is a kingdom of God, not a civil\nrepublic; a universal institution, not a nationality or a country.\n\nNotwithstanding numerous failures, Israel admirably sustained this\nvocation. A series of pious men, Ezra, Nehemiah, Onias, the Maccabees,\nconsumed with zeal for the Law, succeeded each other in the defense of\nthe ancient institutions. The idea that Israel was a holy people, a\ntribe chosen by God and bound to Him by covenant, took deeper and\nfirmer root. An immense expectation filled their souls. All\nIndo-European antiquity had placed paradise in the beginning; all its\npoets had wept a vanished golden age. Israel placed the age of gold in\nthe future. The perennial poesy of religious souls, the Psalms,\nblossomed from this exalted piety, with their divine and melancholy\nharmony. Israel became truly and specially the people of God, while\naround it the pagan religions were more and more reduced, in Persia\nand Babylonia, to an official charlatanism, in Egypt and Syria to a\ngross idolatry, and in the Greek and Roman world to mere parade. That\nwhich the Christian martyrs did in the first centuries of our era,\nthat which the victims of persecuting orthodoxy have done, even in the\nbosom of Christianity, up to our time, the Jews did during the two\ncenturies which preceded the Christian era. They were a living protest\nagainst superstition and religious materialism. An extraordinary\nmovement of ideas, ending in the most opposite results, made of them,\nat this epoch, the most striking and original people in the world.\nTheir dispersion along all the coast of the Mediterranean, and the use\nof the Greek language, which they adopted when out of Palestine,\nprepared the way for a propagandism, of which ancient societies,\ndivided into small nationalities, had never offered a single example.\n\nUp to the time of the Maccabees, Judaism, in spite of its persistence\nin announcing that it would one day be the religion of the human race,\nhad had the characteristic of all the other worships of antiquity, it\nwas a worship of the family and the tribe. The Israelite thought,\nindeed, that his worship was the best, and spoke with contempt of\nstrange gods; but he believed also that the religion of the true God\nwas made for himself alone. Only when a man entered into the Jewish\nfamily did he embrace the worship of Jehovah.[1] No Israelite cared to\nconvert the stranger to a worship which was the patrimony of the sons\nof Abraham. The development of the pietistic spirit, after Ezra and\nNehemiah, led to a much firmer and more logical conception. Judaism\nbecame the true religion in a more absolute manner; to all who wished,\nthe right of entering it was given;[2] soon it became a work of piety\nto bring into it the greatest number possible.[3] Doubtless the\nrefined sentiment which elevated John the Baptist, Jesus, and St. Paul\nabove the petty ideas of race, did not yet exist; for, by a strange\ncontradiction, these converts were little respected and were treated\nwith disdain.[4] But the idea of a sovereign religion, the idea that\nthere was something in the world superior to country, to blood, to\nlaws--the idea which makes apostles and martyrs--was founded. Profound\npity for the pagans, however brilliant might be their worldly fortune,\nwas henceforth the feeling of every Jew.[5] By a cycle of legends\ndestined to furnish models of immovable firmness, such as the\nhistories of Daniel and his companions, the mother of the Maccabees\nand her seven sons,[6] the romance of the race-course of\nAlexandria[7]--the guides of the people sought above all to inculcate\nthe idea, that virtue consists in a fanatical attachment to fixed\nreligious institutions.\n\n[Footnote 1: Ruth i. 16.]\n\n[Footnote 2: Esther ix. 27.]\n\n[Footnote 3: Matt. xxiii. 15; Josephus, _Vita_, 23; _B.J._, II. xvii.\n10, VII. iii. 3; _Ant._, XX. ii. 4; Horat., Sat. I., iv., 143; Juv.,\nxiv. 96, and following; Tacitus, _Ann._, II. 85; _Hist._, V. 5; Dion\nCassius, xxxvii. 17.]\n\n[Footnote 4: Mishnah, _Shebiit_, X. 9; Talmud of Babylon, _Niddah_,\nfol. 13 _b_; _Jebamoth_, 47 _b_, _Kiddushim_, 70 _b_; Midrash, _Jalkut\nRuth_, fol. 163 _d_.]\n\n[Footnote 5: Apocryphal letter of Baruch, in Fabricius, _Cod. pseud.,\nV.T._, ii., 147, and following.]\n\n[Footnote 6: II. Book of Maccabees, ch. vii. and the _De Maccabaeis_,\nattributed to Josephus. Cf. Epistle to the Hebrews xi. 33, and\nfollowing.]\n\n[Footnote 7: III. Book (Apocr.) of Maccabees; Rufin, Suppl. ad Jos.,\n_Contra Apionem_, ii. 5.]\n\nThe persecutions of Antiochus Epiphanes made this idea a passion,\nalmost a frenzy. It was something very analogous to that which\nhappened under Nero, two hundred and thirty years later. Rage and\ndespair threw the believers into the world of visions and dreams. The\nfirst apocalypse, \"The Book of Daniel,\" appeared. It was like a\nrevival of prophecy, but under a very different form from the ancient\none, and with a much larger idea of the destinies of the world. The\nBook of Daniel gave, in a manner, the last expression to the Messianic\nhopes. The Messiah was no longer a king, after the manner of David and\nSolomon, a theocratic and Mosaic Cyrus; he was a \"Son of man\"\nappearing in the clouds[1]--a supernatural being, invested with human\nform, charged to rule the world, and to preside over the golden age.\nPerhaps the _Sosiosh_ of Persia, the great prophet who was to come,\ncharged with preparing the reign of Ormuzd, gave some features to this\nnew ideal.[2] The unknown author of the Book of Daniel had, in any\ncase, a decisive influence on the religious event which was about to\ntransform the world. He supplied the _mise-en-scene_, and the\ntechnical terms of the new belief in the Messiah; and we might apply\nto him what Jesus said of John the Baptist: Before him, the prophets;\nafter him, the kingdom of God.\n\n[Footnote 1: Chap. vii. 13, and following.]\n\n[Footnote 2: _Vendidad_, chap. xix. 18, 19; _Minokhired_, a passage\npublished in the \"_Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenlaendischen\nGesellschaft_,\" chap. i. 263; _Boundehesch_, chap. xxxi. The want of\ncertain chronology for the Zend and Pehlvis texts leaves much doubt\nhovering over the relations between the Jewish and Persian beliefs.]\n\nIt must not, however, be supposed that this profoundly religious and\nsoul-stirring movement had particular dogmas for its primary impulse,\nas was the case in all the conflicts which have disturbed the bosom of\nChristianity. The Jew of this epoch was as little theological as\npossible. He did not speculate upon the essence of the Divinity; the\nbeliefs about angels, about the destinies of man, about the Divine\npersonality, of which the first germs might already be perceived, were\nquite optional--they were meditations, to which each one surrendered\nhimself according to the turn of his mind, but of which a great number\nof men had never heard. They were the most orthodox even, who did not\nshare in these particular imaginations, and who adhered to the\nsimplicity of the Mosaic law. No dogmatic power analogous to that\nwhich orthodox Christianity has given to the Church then existed. It\nwas only at the beginning of the third century, when Christianity had\nfallen into the hands of reasoning races, mad with dialectics and\nmetaphysics, that that fever for definitions commenced which made the\nhistory of the Church but the history of one immense controversy.\nThere were disputes also among the Jews--excited schools brought\nopposite solutions to almost all the questions which were agitated;\nbut in these contests, of which the Talmud has preserved the principal\ndetails, there is not a single word of speculative theology. To\nobserve and maintain the law, because the law was just, and because,\nwhen well observed, it gave happiness--such was Judaism. No _credo_,\nno theoretical symbol. One of the disciples of the boldest Arabian\nphilosophy, Moses Maimonides, was able to become the oracle of the\nsynagogue, because he was well versed in the canonical law.\n\nThe reigns of the last Asmoneans, and that of Herod, saw the\nexcitement grow still stronger. They were filled by an uninterrupted\nseries of religious movements. In the degree that power became\nsecularized, and passed into the hands of unbelievers, the Jewish\npeople lived less and less for the earth, and became more and more\nabsorbed by the strange fermentation which was operating in their\nmidst. The world, distracted by other spectacles, had little knowledge\nof that which passed in this forgotten corner of the East. The minds\nabreast of their age were, however, better informed. The tender and\nclear-sighted Virgil seems to answer, as by a secret echo, to the\nsecond Isaiah. The birth of a child throws him into dreams of a\nuniversal palingenesis.[1] These dreams were of every-day occurrence,\nand shaped into a kind of literature which was designated Sibylline.\nThe quite recent formation of the empire exalted the imagination; the\ngreat era of peace on which it entered, and that impression of\nmelancholy sensibility which the mind experiences after long periods\nof revolution, gave birth on all sides to unlimited hopes.\n\n[Footnote 1: Egl. iv. The _Cumaeum carmen_ (v. 4) was a sort of\nSibylline apocalypse, borrowed from the philosophy of history familiar\nto the East. See Servius on this verse, and _Carmina Sibyllina_, iii.\n97-817; cf. Tac., _Hist._, v. 13.]\n\nIn Judea expectation was at its height. Holy persons--among whom may\nbe named the aged Simeon, who, legend tells us, held Jesus in his\narms; Anna, daughter of Phanuel, regarded as a prophetess[1]--passed\ntheir life about the temple, fasting, and praying, that it might\nplease God not to take them from the world without having seen the\nfulfillment of the hopes of Israel. They felt a powerful presentiment;\nthey were sensible of the approach of something unknown.\n\n[Footnote 1: Luke ii. 25, and following.]\n\nThis confused mixture of clear views and dreams, this alternation of\ndeceptions and hopes, these ceaseless aspirations, driven back by an\nodious reality, found at last their interpretation in the incomparable\nman, to whom the universal conscience has decreed the title of Son of\nGod, and that with justice, since he has advanced religion as no other\nhas done, or probably ever will be able to do.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER II.\n\nINFANCY AND YOUTH OF JESUS--HIS FIRST IMPRESSIONS.\n\n\nJesus was born at Nazareth,[1] a small town of Galilee, which before\nhis time had no celebrity.[2] All his life he was designated by the\nname of \"the Nazarene,\"[3] and it is only by a rather embarrassed and\nround-about way,[4] that, in the legends respecting him, he is made\nto be born at Bethlehem. We shall see later[5] the motive for this\nsupposition, and how it was the necessary consequence of the Messianic\ncharacter attributed to Jesus.[6] The precise date of his birth is\nunknown. It took place under the reign of Augustus, about the Roman\nyear 750, probably some years before the year 1 of that era which all\ncivilized people date from the day on which he was born.[7]\n\n[Footnote 1: Matt. xiii. 54, and following; Mark vi. 1, and following;\nJohn i. 45-46.]\n\n[Footnote 2: It is neither named in the writings of the Old Testament,\nnor in Josephus, nor in the Talmud.]\n\n[Footnote 3: Mark i. 24; Luke xviii. 37; John xix. 19; _Acts_ ii. 22,\niii. 6. Hence the name of _Nazarenes_ for a long time applied to\nChristians, and which still designates them in all Mohammedan\ncountries.]\n\n[Footnote 4: The census effected by Quirinus, to which legend\nattributes the journey from Bethlehem, is at least ten years later\nthan the year in which, according to Luke and Matthew, Jesus was born.\nThe two evangelists in effect make Jesus to be born under the reign of\nHerod (Matt. ii. 1, 19, 22; Luke i. 5). Now, the census of Quirinus\ndid not take place until after the deposition of Archelaus, _i.e._,\nten years after the death of Herod, the 37th year from the era of\nActium (Josephus, _Ant._, XVII. xiii. 5, XVIII. i. 1, ii. 1). The\ninscription by which it was formerly pretended to establish that\nQuirinus had levied two censuses is recognized as false (see Orelli,\n_Inscr. Lat._, No. 623, and the supplement of Henzen in this number;\nBorghesi, _Fastes Consulaires_ [yet unpublished], in the year 742).\nThe census in any case would only be applied to the parts reduced to\nRoman provinces, and not to the tetrarchies. The texts by which it is\nsought to prove that some of the operations for statistics and tribute\ncommanded by Augustus ought to extend to the dominion of the Herods,\neither do not mean what they have been made to say, or are from\nChristian authors who have borrowed this statement from the Gospel of\nLuke. That which proves, besides, that the journey of the family of\nJesus to Bethlehem is not historical, is the motive attributed to it.\nJesus was not of the family of David (see Chap. XV.), and if he had\nbeen, we should still not imagine that his parents should have been\nforced, for an operation purely registrative and financial, to come to\nenrol themselves in the place whence their ancestors had proceeded a\nthousand years before. In imposing such an obligation, the Roman\nauthority would have sanctioned pretensions threatening her safety.]\n\n[Footnote 5: Chap. XIV.]\n\n[Footnote 6: Matt. ii. 1, and following; Luke ii. 1, and following.\nThe omission of this narrative in Mark, and the two parallel passages,\nMatt. xiii. 54, and Mark vi. 1, where Nazareth figures as the\n\"country\" of Jesus, prove that such a legend was absent from the\nprimitive text which has furnished the rough draft of the present\nGospels of Matthew and Mark. It was to meet oft-repeated objections\nthat there were added to the beginning of the Gospel of Matthew\nreservations, the contradiction of which with the rest of the text was\nnot so flagrant, that it was felt necessary to correct the passages\nwhich had at first been written from quite another point of view.\nLuke, on the contrary (chap. iv. 16), writing more carefully, has\nemployed, in order to be consistent, a more softened expression. As to\nJohn, he knows nothing of the journey to Bethlehem; for him, Jesus is\nmerely \"of Nazareth\" or \"Galilean,\" in two circumstances in which it\nwould have been of the highest importance to recall his birth at\nBethlehem (chap. i. 45, 46, vi. 41, 42).]\n\n[Footnote 7: It is known that the calculation which serves as basis of\nthe common era was made in the sixth century by _Dionysius the Less_.\nThis calculation implies certain purely hypothetical data.]\n\nThe name of _Jesus_, which was given him, is an alteration from\n_Joshua_. It was a very common name; but afterward mysteries, and an\nallusion to his character of Saviour, were naturally sought for in\nit.[1] Perhaps he, like all mystics, exalted himself in this respect.\nIt is thus that more than one great vocation in history has been\ncaused by a name given to a child without premeditation. Ardent\nnatures never bring themselves to see aught of chance in what concerns\nthem. God has regulated everything for them, and they see a sign of\nthe supreme will in the most insignificant circumstances.\n\n[Footnote 1: Matt. i. 21; Luke i. 31.]\n\nThe population of Galilee was very mixed, as the very name of the\ncountry[1] indicated. This province counted amongst its inhabitants,\nin the time of Jesus, many who were not Jews (Phoenicians, Syrians,\nArabs, and even Greeks).[2] The conversions to Judaism were not rare\nin these mixed countries. It is therefore impossible to raise here any\nquestion of race, and to seek to ascertain what blood flowed in the\nveins of him who has contributed most to efface the distinction of\nblood in humanity.\n\n[Footnote 1: _Gelil haggoyim_, \"Circle of the Gentiles.\"]\n\n[Footnote 2: Strabo, XVI. ii. 35; Jos., _Vita_, 12.]\n\nHe proceeded from the ranks of the people.[1] His father, Joseph, and\nhis mother, Mary, were people in humble circumstances, artisans living\nby their labor,[2] in the state so common in the East, which is\nneither ease nor poverty. The extreme simplicity of life in such\ncountries, by dispensing with the need of comfort, renders the\nprivileges of wealth almost useless, and makes every one voluntarily\npoor. On the other hand, the total want of taste for art, and for that\nwhich contributes to the elegance of material life, gives a naked\naspect to the house of him who otherwise wants for nothing. Apart from\nsomething sordid and repulsive which Islamism bears everywhere with\nit, the town of Nazareth, in the time of Jesus, did not perhaps much\ndiffer from what it is to-day.[3] We see the streets where he played\nwhen a child, in the stony paths or little crossways which separate\nthe dwellings. The house of Joseph doubtless much resembled those poor\nshops, lighted by the door, serving at once for shop, kitchen, and\nbedroom, having for furniture a mat, some cushions on the ground, one\nor two clay pots, and a painted chest.\n\n[Footnote 1: We shall explain later (Chap. XIV.) the origin of the\ngenealogies intended to connect him with the race of David. The\nEbionites suppressed them (Epiph., _Adv. Haer._, XXX. 14).]\n\n[Footnote 2: Matt. xiii. 55; Mark vi. 3; John vi. 42.]\n\n[Footnote 3: The rough aspect of the ruins which cover Palestine\nproves that the towns which were not constructed in the Roman manner\nwere very badly built. As to the form of the houses, it is, in Syria,\nso simple and so imperiously regulated by the climate, that it can\nscarcely ever have changed.]\n\nThe family, whether it proceeded from one or many marriages, was\nrather numerous. Jesus had brothers and sisters,[1] of whom he seems\nto have been the eldest.[2] All have remained obscure, for it appears\nthat the four personages who were named as his brothers, and among\nwhom one, at least--James--had acquired great importance in the\nearliest years of the development of Christianity, were his\ncousins-german. Mary, in fact, had a sister also named Mary,[3] who\nmarried a certain Alpheus or Cleophas (these two names appear to\ndesignate the same person[4]), and was the mother of several sons who\nplayed a considerable part among the first disciples of Jesus. These\ncousins-german who adhered to the young Master, while his own brothers\nopposed him,[5] took the title of \"brothers of the Lord.\"[6] The real\nbrothers of Jesus, like their mother, became important only after his\ndeath.[7] Even then they do not appear to have equaled in importance\ntheir cousins, whose conversion had been more spontaneous, and whose\ncharacter seems to have had more originality. Their names were so\nlittle known, that when the evangelist put in the mouth of the men of\nNazareth the enumeration of the brothers according to natural\nrelationship, the names of the sons of Cleophas first presented\nthemselves to him.\n\n[Footnote 1: Matt. xii. 46, and following, xiii. 55, and following;\nMark iii. 31, and following, vi. 3; Luke viii. 19, and following; John\nii. 12, vii. 3, 5, 10; _Acts_ i. 14.]\n\n[Footnote 2: Matt. i. 25.]\n\n[Footnote 3: That these two sisters should bear the same name is a\nsingular fact. There is probably some error arising from the habit of\ngiving the name of Mary indiscriminately to Galilean women.]\n\n[Footnote 4: They are not etymologically identical. [Greek: Alphaios]\nis the transcription of the Syro-Chaldean name Halphai; [Greek:\nKlopas] or [Greek: Kleopas] is a shortened form of [Greek:\nKleopatros]. But there might have been an artificial substitution of\none for the other, just as Joseph was called \"Hegissippus,\" the\nEliakim \"Alcimus,\" &c.]\n\n[Footnote 5: John vii. 3, and following.]\n\n[Footnote 6: In fact, the four personages who are named (Matt. xiii.\n55, Mark vi. 3) as sons of Mary, mother of Jesus, Jacob, Joseph or\nJoses, Simon, and Jude, are found again a little later as sons of Mary\nand Cleophas. (Matt. xxvii. 56; Mark xv. 40; _Gal._ i. 19; _Epist.\nJames_ i. 1; _Epist. Jude_ 1; Euseb., _Chron._ ad ann. R. DCCCX.;\n_Hist. Eccl._, iii. 11, 32; _Constit. Apost._, vii. 46.) The\nhypothesis we offer alone removes the immense difficulty which is\nfound in supposing two sisters having each three or four sons bearing\nthe same names, and in admitting that James and Simon, the first two\nbishops of Jerusalem, designated as brothers of the Lord, may have\nbeen real brothers of Jesus, who had begun by being hostile to him and\nthen were converted. The evangelist, hearing these four sons of\nCleophas called \"brothers of the Lord,\" has placed by mistake their\nnames in the passage _Matt._ xiii. 5 = _Mark_ vi. 3, instead of the\nnames of the real brothers, which have always remained obscure. In\nthis matter we may explain how the character of the personages called\n\"brothers of the Lord,\" of James, for instance, is so different from\nthat of the real brothers of Jesus as they are seen delineated in John\nvii. 2, and following. The expression \"brother of the Lord\" evidently\nconstituted, in the primitive Church, a kind of order similar to that\nof the apostles. See especially 1 _Cor._ ix. 5.]\n\n[Footnote 7: _Acts_ i. 14.]\n\nHis sisters were married at Nazareth,[1] and he spent the first years\nof his youth there. Nazareth was a small town in a hollow, opening\nbroadly at the summit of the group of mountains which close the plain\nof Esdraelon on the north. The population is now from three to four\nthousand, and it can never have varied much.[2] The cold there is\nsharp in winter, and the climate very healthy. The town, like all the\nsmall Jewish towns at this period, was a heap of huts built without\nstyle, and would exhibit that harsh and poor aspect which villages in\nSemitic countries now present. The houses, it seems, did not differ\nmuch from those cubes of stone, without exterior or interior elegance,\nwhich still cover the richest parts of the Lebanon, and which,\nsurrounded with vines and fig-trees, are still very agreeable. The\nenvirons, moreover, are charming; and no place in the world was so\nwell adapted for dreams of perfect happiness. Even in our times\nNazareth is still a delightful abode, the only place, perhaps, in\nPalestine in which the mind feels itself relieved from the burden\nwhich oppresses it in this unequaled desolation. The people are\namiable and cheerful; the gardens fresh and green. Anthony the Martyr,\nat the end of the sixth century, drew an enchanting picture of the\nfertility of the environs, which he compared to paradise.[3] Some\nvalleys on the western side fully justify his description. The\nfountain, where formerly the life and gaiety of the little town were\nconcentrated, is destroyed; its broken channels contain now only a\nmuddy stream. But the beauty of the women who meet there in the\nevening--that beauty which was remarked even in the sixth century, and\nwhich was looked upon as a gift of the Virgin Mary[4]--is still most\nstrikingly preserved. It is the Syrian type in all its languid grace.\nNo doubt Mary was there almost every day, and took her place with her\njar on her shoulder in the file of her companions who have remained\nunknown. Anthony the Martyr remarks that the Jewish women, generally\ndisdainful to Christians, were here full of affability. Even now\nreligious animosity is weaker at Nazareth than elsewhere.\n\n[Footnote 1: Mark vi. 3.]\n\n[Footnote 2: According to Josephus (_B.J._, III. iii. 2), the smallest\ntown of Galilee had more than five thousand inhabitants. This is\nprobably an exaggeration.]\n\n[Footnote 3: _Itiner._, Sec. 5.]\n\n[Footnote 4: Ant. Martyr, _Itiner._, Sec. 5.]\n\nThe horizon from the town is limited. But if we ascend a little the\nplateau, swept by a perpetual breeze, which overlooks the highest\nhouses, the prospect is splendid. On the west are seen the fine\noutlines of Carmel, terminated by an abrupt point which seems to\nplunge into the sea. Before us are spread out the double summit which\ntowers above Megiddo; the mountains of the country of Shechem, with\ntheir holy places of the patriarchal age; the hills of Gilboa, the\nsmall, picturesque group to which are attached the graceful or\nterrible recollections of Shunem and of Endor; and Tabor, with its\nbeautiful rounded form, which antiquity compared to a bosom. Through a\ndepression between the mountains of Shunem and Tabor are seen the\nvalley of the Jordan and the high plains of Peraea, which form a\ncontinuous line from the eastern side. On the north, the mountains of\nSafed, in inclining toward the sea conceal St. Jean d'Acre, but permit\nthe Gulf of Khaifa to be distinguished. Such was the horizon of Jesus.\nThis enchanted circle, cradle of the kingdom of God, was for years his\nworld. Even in his later life he departed but little beyond the\nfamilial limits of his childhood. For yonder, northward, a glimpse is\ncaught, almost on the flank of Hermon, of Caesarea-Philippi, his\nfurthest point of advance into the Gentile world; and here southward,\nthe more sombre aspect of these Samaritan hills foreshadows the\ndreariness of Judea beyond, parched as by a scorching wind of\ndesolation and death.\n\nIf the world, remaining Christian, but attaining to a better idea of\nthe esteem in which the origin of its religion should be held, should\never wish to replace by authentic holy places the mean and apocryphal\nsanctuaries to which the piety of dark ages attached itself, it is\nupon this height of Nazareth that it will rebuild its temple. There,\nat the birthplace of Christianity, and in the centre of the actions of\nits Founder, the great church ought to be raised in which all\nChristians may worship. There, also, on this spot where sleep Joseph,\nthe carpenter, and thousands of forgotten Nazarenes who never passed\nbeyond the horizon of their valley, would be a better station than any\nin the world beside for the philosopher to contemplate the course of\nhuman affairs, to console himself for their uncertainty, and to\nreassure himself as to the Divine end which the world pursues through\ncountless falterings, and in spite of the universal vanity.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER III.\n\nEDUCATION OF JESUS.\n\n\nThis aspect of Nature, at once smiling and grand, was the whole\neducation of Jesus. He learned to read and to write,[1] doubtless,\naccording to the Eastern method, which consisted in putting in the\nhands of the child a book, which he repeated in cadence with his\nlittle comrades, until he knew it by heart.[2] It is doubtful,\nhowever, if he understood the Hebrew writings in their original\ntongue. His biographers make him quote them according to the\ntranslations in the Aramean tongue;[3] his principles of exegesis, as\nfar as we can judge of them by those of his disciples, much resembled\nthose which were then in vogue, and which form the spirit of the\n_Targums_ and the _Midrashim_.[4]\n\n[Footnote 1: John viii. 6.]\n\n[Footnote 2: _Testam. of the Twelve Patriarchs_, Levi. 6.]\n\n[Footnote 3: Matt. xxvii. 46; Mark xv. 34.]\n\n[Footnote 4: Jewish translations and commentaries of the Talmudic\nepoch.]\n\nThe schoolmaster in the small Jewish towns was the _hazzan_, or reader\nin the synagogues.[1] Jesus frequented little the higher schools of\nthe scribes or _sopherim_ (Nazareth had perhaps none of them), and he\nhad none of those titles which confer, in the eyes of the vulgar, the\nprivileges of knowledge.[2] It would, nevertheless, be a great error\nto imagine that Jesus was what we call ignorant. Scholastic education\namong us draws a profound distinction, in respect of personal worth,\nbetween those who have received and those who have been deprived of\nit. It was not so in the East, nor, in general, in the good old\ntimes. The state of ignorance in which, among us, owing to our\nisolated and entirely individual life, those remain who have not\npassed through the schools, was unknown in those societies where moral\nculture, and especially the general spirit of the age, was transmitted\nby the perpetual intercourse of man with man. The Arab, who has never\nhad a teacher, is often, nevertheless, a very superior man; for the\ntent is a kind of school always open, where, from the contact of\nwell-educated men, there is produced a great intellectual and even\nliterary movement. The refinement of manners and the acuteness of the\nintellect have, in the East, nothing in common with what we call\neducation. It is the men from the schools, on the contrary, who are\nconsidered badly trained and pedantic. In this social state,\nignorance, which, among us, condemns a man to an inferior rank, is the\ncondition of great things and of great originality.\n\n[Footnote 1: Mishnah, _Shabbath_, i. 3.]\n\n[Footnote 2: Matt. xiii. 54, and following; John vii. 15.]\n\nIt is not probable that Jesus knew Greek. This language was very\nlittle spread in Judea beyond the classes who participated in the\ngovernment, and the towns inhabited by pagans, like Caesarea.[1] The\nreal mother tongue of Jesus was the Syrian dialect mixed with Hebrew,\nwhich was then spoken in Palestine.[2] Still less probably had he any\nknowledge of Greek culture. This culture was proscribed by the doctors\nof Palestine, who included in the same malediction \"he who rears\nswine, and he who teaches his son Greek science.\"[3] At all events it\nhad not penetrated into little towns like Nazareth. Notwithstanding\nthe anathema of the doctors, some Jews, it is true, had already\nembraced the Hellenic culture. Without speaking of the Jewish school\nof Egypt, in which the attempts to amalgamate Hellenism and Judaism\nhad been in operation nearly two hundred years, a Jew--Nicholas of\nDamascus--had become, even at this time, one of the most distinguished\nmen, one of the best informed, and one of the most respected of his\nage. Josephus was destined soon to furnish another example of a Jew\ncompletely Grecianized. But Nicholas was only a Jew in blood. Josephus\ndeclares that he himself was an exception among his contemporaries;[4]\nand the whole schismatic school of Egypt was detached to such a degree\nfrom Jerusalem that we do not find the least allusion to it either in\nthe Talmud or in Jewish tradition. Certain it is that Greek was very\nlittle studied at Jerusalem, that Greek studies were considered as\ndangerous, and even servile, that they were regarded, at the best, as\na mere womanly accomplishment.[5] The study of the Law was the only\none accounted liberal and worthy of a thoughtful man.[6] Questioned as\nto the time when it would be proper to teach children \"Greek wisdom,\"\na learned rabbi had answered, \"At the time when it is neither day nor\nnight; since it is written of the Law, Thou shalt study it day and\nnight.\"[7]\n\n[Footnote 1: Mishnah, _Shekalim_, iii. 2; Talmud of Jerusalem,\n_Megilla_, halaca xi.; _Sota_, vii. 1; Talmud of Babylon, _Baba Kama_,\n83 _a_; _Megilla_, 8 _b_, and following.]\n\n[Footnote 2: Matthew xxvii. 46; Mark iii. 17, v. 41, vii. 34, xiv. 36,\nxv. 34. The expression [Greek: e patrios phone] in the writers of the\ntime, always designates the Semitic dialect, which was spoken in\nPalestine (II. Macc. vii. 21, 27, xii. 37; _Acts_ xxi. 37, 40, xxii.\n2, xxvi. 14; Josephus, _Ant._, XVIII. vi. 10, xx. sub fin.; _B.J._,\nprooem I; V. vi. 3, V. ix. 2, VI. ii. 1: _Against Appian_, I. 9; _De\nMacc._, 12, 16). We shall show, later, that some of the documents\nwhich served as the basis for the synoptic Gospels were written in\nthis Semitic dialect. It was the same with many of the Apocrypha (IV.\nBook of Macc. xvi. ad calcem, &c.). In fine, the sects issuing\ndirectly from the first Galilean movement (Nazarenes, _Ebionim_, &c.),\nwhich continued a long time in Batanea and Hauran, spoke a Semitic\ndialect (Eusebius, _De Situ et Nomin. Loc. Hebr._, at the word [Greek:\nChoba]; Epiph., _Adv. Haer._, xxix. 7, 9, xxx. 3; St. Jerome, _In\nMatt._, xii. 13; _Dial. adv. Pelag._, iii. 2).]\n\n[Footnote 3: Mishnah, _Sanhedrim_, xi. 1; Talmud of Babylon, _Baba\nKama_, 82 _b_ and 83 _a_; _Sota_, 49 _a_ and _b_; _Menachoth_, 64 _b_;\ncomp. II. Macc. iv. 10, and following.]\n\n[Footnote 4: Jos., _Ant._ XX. xi. 2.]\n\n[Footnote 5: Talmud of Jerusalem, _Peah_, i. 1.]\n\n[Footnote 6: Jos., _Ant._, _loc. cit._; Orig., _Contra Celsum_, ii.\n34.]\n\n[Footnote 7: Talmud of Jerusalem, _Peah_, i. 1; Talmud of Babylon,\n_Menachoth_, 99 _b_.]\n\nNeither directly nor indirectly, then, did any element of Greek\nculture reach Jesus. He knew nothing beyond Judaism; his mind\npreserved that free innocence which an extended and varied culture\nalways weakens. In the very bosom of Judaism he remained a stranger to\nmany efforts often parallel to his own. On the one hand, the\nasceticism of the Essenes or the Therapeutae;[1] on the other, the fine\nefforts of religious philosophy put forth by the Jewish school of\nAlexandria, and of which Philo, his contemporary, was the ingenious\ninterpreter, were unknown to him. The frequent resemblances which we\nfind between him and Philo, those excellent maxims about the love of\nGod, charity, rest in God,[2] which are like an echo between the\nGospel and the writings of the illustrious Alexandrian thinker,\nproceed from the common tendencies which the wants of the time\ninspired in all elevated minds.\n\n[Footnote 1: The _Therapeutae_ of Philo are a branch of the Essenes.\nTheir name appears to be but a Greek translation of that of the\n_Essenes_ ([Greek: Essaioi], _asaya_, \"doctors\"). Cf. Philo, _De Vita\nContempl._, init.]\n\n[Footnote 2: See especially the treatises _Quis Rerum Divinarum Haeres\nSit_ and _De Philanthropia_ of Philo.]\n\nHappily for him, he was also ignorant of the strange scholasticism\nwhich was taught at Jerusalem, and which was soon to constitute the\nTalmud. If some Pharisees had already brought it into Galilee, he did\nnot associate with them, and when, later, he encountered this silly\ncasuistry, it only inspired him with disgust. We may suppose, however,\nthat the principles of Hillel were not unknown to him. Hillel, fifty\nyears before him, had given utterance to aphorisms very analogous to\nhis own. By his poverty, so meekly endured, by the sweetness of his\ncharacter, by his opposition to priests and hypocrites, Hillel was the\ntrue master of Jesus,[1] if indeed it may be permitted to speak of a\nmaster in connection with so high an originality as his.\n\n[Footnote 1: _Pirke Aboth_, chap. i. and ii.; Talm. of Jerus.,\n_Pesachim_, vi. 1; Talm. of Bab., _Pesachim_, 66 _a_; _Shabbath_, 30\n_b_ and 31 _a_; _Joma_, 35 _b_.]\n\nThe perusal of the books of the Old Testament made much impression\nupon him. The canon of the holy books was composed of two principal\nparts--the Law, that is to say, the Pentateuch, and the Prophets, such\nas we now possess them. An extensive allegorical exegesis was applied\nto all these books; and it was sought to draw from them something that\nwas not in them, but which responded to the aspirations of the age.\nThe Law, which represented not the ancient laws of the country, but\nUtopias, the factitious laws and pious frauds of the time of the\npietistic kings, had become, since the nation had ceased to govern\nitself, an inexhaustible theme of subtle interpretations. As to the\nProphets and the Psalms, the popular persuasion was that almost all\nthe somewhat mysterious traits that were in these books had reference\nto the Messiah, and it was sought to find there the type of him who\nshould realize the hopes of the nation. Jesus participated in the\ntaste which every one had for these allegorical interpretations. But\nthe true poetry of the Bible, which escaped the puerile exegetists of\nJerusalem, was fully revealed to his grand genius. The Law does not\nappear to have had much charm for him; he thought that he could do\nsomething better. But the religious lyrics of the Psalms were in\nmarvellous accordance with his poetic soul; they were, all his life,\nhis food and sustenance. The prophets--Isaiah in particular, and his\nsuccessor in the record of the time of the captivity,--with their\nbrilliant dreams of the future, their impetuous eloquence, and their\ninvectives mingled with enchanting pictures, were his true teachers.\nHe read also, no doubt, many apocryphal works--_i.e._, writings\nsomewhat modern, the authors of which, for the sake of an authority\nonly granted to very ancient writings, had clothed themselves with the\nnames of prophets and patriarchs. One of these books especially struck\nhim, namely, the Book of Daniel. This book, composed by an\nenthusiastic Jew of the time of Antiochus Epiphanes, under the name of\nan ancient sage,[1] was the _resume_ of the spirit of those later\ntimes. Its author, a true creator of the philosophy of history, had\nfor the first time dared to see in the march of the world and the\nsuccession of empires, only a purpose subordinate to the destinies of\nthe Jewish people. Jesus was early penetrated by these high hopes.\nPerhaps, also, he had read the books of Enoch, then revered equally\nwith the holy books,[2] and the other writings of the same class,\nwhich kept up so much excitement in the popular imagination. The\nadvent of the Messiah, with his glories and his terrors--the nations\nfalling down one after another, the cataclysm of heaven and\nearth--were the familiar food of his imagination; and, as these\nrevolutions were reputed near, and a great number of persons sought to\ncalculate the time when they should happen, the supernatural state of\nthings into which such visions transport us, appeared to him from the\nfirst perfectly natural and simple.\n\n[Footnote 1: The legend of Daniel existed as early as the seventh\ncentury B.C. (Ezekiel xiv. 14 and following, xxviii. 3). It was for\nthe necessities of the legend that he was made to live at the time of\nthe Babylonian captivity.]\n\n[Footnote 2: _Epist. Jude_, 14 and following; 2 Peter ii. 4, 11;\n_Testam. of the Twelve Patriarchs_, Simeon, 5; Levi, 14, 16; Judah,\n18; Zab., 3; Dan, 5; Naphtali, 4. The \"Book of Enoch\" still forms an\nintegral part of the Ethiopian Bible. Such as we know it from the\nEthiopian version, it is composed of pieces of different dates, of\nwhich the most ancient are from the year 130 to 150 B.C. Some of these\npieces have an analogy with the discourses of Jesus. Compare chaps.\nxcvi.-xcix. with Luke vi. 24, and following.]\n\nThat he had no knowledge of the general state of the world is apparent\nfrom each feature of his most authentic discourses. The earth appeared\nto him still divided into kingdoms warring with one another; he seemed\nto ignore the \"Roman peace,\" and the new state of society which its\nage inaugurated. He had no precise idea of the Roman power; the name\nof \"Caesar\" alone reached him. He saw building, in Galilee or its\nenvirons, Tiberias, Julias, Diocaesarea, Caesarea, gorgeous works of the\nHerods, who sought, by these magnificent structures, to prove their\nadmiration for Roman civilization, and their devotion toward the\nmembers of the family of Augustus, structures whose names, by a\ncaprice of fate, now serve, though strangely altered, to designate\nmiserable hamlets of Bedouins. He also probably saw Sebaste, a work of\nHerod the Great, a showy city, whose ruins would lead to the belief\nthat it had been carried there ready made, like a machine which had\nonly to be put up in its place. This ostentatious piece of\narchitecture arrived in Judea by cargoes; these hundreds of columns,\nall of the same diameter, the ornament of some insipid \"_Rue de\nRivoli_\" these were what he called \"the kingdoms of the world and all\ntheir glory.\" But this luxury of power, this administrative and\nofficial art, displeased him. What he loved were his Galilean\nvillages, confused mixtures of huts, of nests and holes cut in the\nrocks, of wells, of tombs, of fig-trees, and of olives. He always\nclung close to Nature. The courts of kings appeared to him as places\nwhere men wear fine clothes. The charming impossibilities with which\nhis parables abound, when he brings kings and the mighty ones on the\nstage,[1] prove that he never conceived of aristocratic society but as\na young villager who sees the world through the prism of his\nsimplicity.\n\n[Footnote 1: See, for example, Matt. xxii. 2, and following.]\n\nStill less was he acquainted with the new idea, created by Grecian\nscience, which was the basis of all philosophy, and which modern\nscience has greatly confirmed, to wit, the exclusion of capricious\ngods, to whom the simple belief of ancient ages attributed the\ngovernment of the universe. Almost a century before him, Lucretius had\nexpressed, in an admirable manner, the unchangeableness of the general\nsystem of Nature. The negation of miracle--the idea that everything in\nthe world happens by laws in which the personal intervention of\nsuperior beings has no share--was universally admitted in the great\nschools of all the countries which had accepted Grecian science.\nPerhaps even Babylon and Persia were not strangers to it. Jesus knew\nnothing of this progress. Although born at a time when the principle\nof positive science was already proclaimed, he lived entirely in the\nsupernatural. Never, perhaps, had the Jews been more possessed with\nthe thirst for the marvellous. Philo, who lived in a great\nintellectual centre, and who had received a very complete education,\npossessed only a chimerical and inferior knowledge of science.\n\nJesus, on this point, differed in no respect from his companions. He\nbelieved in the devil, whom he regarded as a kind of evil genius,[1]\nand he imagined, like all the world, that nervous maladies were\nproduced by demons who possessed the patient and agitated him. The\nmarvellous was not the exceptional for him; it was his normal state.\nThe notion of the supernatural, with its impossibilities, is\ncoincident with the birth of experimental science. The man who is\nstrange to all ideas of physical laws, who believes that by praying he\ncan change the path of the clouds, arrest disease, and even death,\nfinds nothing extraordinary in miracle, inasmuch as the entire course\nof things is to him the result of the free will of the Divinity. This\nintellectual state was constantly that of Jesus. But in his great soul\nsuch a belief produced effects quite opposed to those produced on the\nvulgar. Among the latter, the belief in the special action of God led\nto a foolish credulity, and the deceptions of charlatans. With him it\nled to a profound idea of the familiar relations of man with God, and\nan exaggerated belief in the power of man--beautiful errors, which\nwere the secret of his power; for if they were the means of one day\nshowing his deficiencies in the eyes of the physicist and the chemist,\nthey gave him a power over his own age of which no individual had been\npossessed before his time, or has been since.\n\n[Footnote 1: Matt. vi. 13.]\n\nHis distinctive character very early revealed itself. Legend delights\nto show him even from his infancy in revolt against paternal\nauthority, and departing from the common way to fulfill his\nvocation.[1] It is certain, at least, that he cared little for the\nrelations of kinship. His family do not seem to have loved him,[2]\nand at times he seems to have been hard toward them.[3] Jesus, like\nall men exclusively preoccupied by an idea, came to think little of\nthe ties of blood. The bond of thought is the only one that natures of\nthis kind recognize. \"Behold my mother and my brethren,\" said he, in\nextending his hand toward his disciples; \"he who does the will of my\nFather, he is my brother and my sister.\" The simple people did not\nunderstand the matter thus, and one day a woman passing near him cried\nout, \"Blessed is the womb that bare thee, and the paps which gave thee\nsuck!\" But he said, \"Yea, rather blessed are they that hear the word\nof God, and keep it.\"[4] Soon, in his bold revolt against nature, he\nwent still further, and we shall see him trampling under foot\neverything that is human, blood, love, and country, and only keeping\nsoul and heart for the idea which presented itself to him as the\nabsolute form of goodness and truth.\n\n[Footnote 1: Luke ii. 42 and following. The Apocryphal Gospels are\nfull of similar histories carried to the grotesque.]\n\n[Footnote 2: Matt. xiii. 57; Mark vi. 4; John vii. 3, and following.]\n\n[Footnote 3: Matt. xii. 48; Mark iii. 33; Luke viii. 21; John ii. 4;\nGospel according to the Hebrews, in St. Jerome, _Dial. adv. Pelag._,\niii. 2.]\n\n[Footnote 4: Luke xi. 27, and following.]\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IV.\n\nTHE ORDER OF THOUGHT WHICH SURROUNDED THE DEVELOPMENT OF JESUS.\n\n\nAs the cooled earth no longer permits us to understand the phenomena\nof primitive creation, because the fire which penetrated it is\nextinct, so deliberate explanations have always appeared somewhat\ninsufficient when applying our timid methods of induction to the\nrevolutions of the creative epochs which have decided the fate of\nhumanity. Jesus lived at one of those times when the game of public\nlife is freely played, and when the stake of human activity is\nincreased a hundredfold. Every great part, then, entails death; for\nsuch movements suppose liberty and an absence of preventive measures,\nwhich could not exist without a terrible alternative. In these days,\nman risks little and gains little. In heroic periods of human\nactivity, man risked all and gained all. The good and the wicked, or\nat least those who believe themselves and are believed to be such,\nform opposite armies. The apotheosis is reached by the scaffold;\ncharacters have distinctive features, which engrave them as eternal\ntypes in the memory of men. Except in the French Revolution, no\nhistorical centre was as suitable as that in which Jesus was formed,\nto develop those hidden forces which humanity holds as in reserve, and\nwhich are not seen except in days of excitement and peril.\n\nIf the government of the world were a speculative problem, and the\ngreatest philosopher were the man best fitted to tell his fellows\nwhat they ought to believe, it would be from calmness and reflection\nthat those great moral and dogmatic truths called religions would\nproceed. But it is not so. If we except Cakya-Mouni, the great\nreligious founders have not been metaphysicians. Buddhism itself,\nwhose origin is in pure thought, has conquered one-half of Asia, by\nmotives wholly political and moral. As to the Semitic religions, they\nare as little philosophical as possible. Moses and Mahomet were not\nmen of speculation; they were men of action. It was in proposing\naction to their fellow-countrymen, and to their contemporaries, that\nthey governed humanity. Jesus, in like manner, was not a theologian,\nor a philosopher, having a more or less well-composed system. In order\nto be a disciple of Jesus, it was not necessary to sign any formulary,\nor to pronounce any confession of faith; one thing only was\nnecessary--to be attached to him, to love him. He never disputed about\nGod, for he felt Him directly in himself. The rock of metaphysical\nsubtleties, against which Christianity broke from the third century,\nwas in nowise created by the Founder. Jesus had neither dogma nor\nsystem, but a fixed personal resolution, which, exceeding in intensity\nevery other created will, directs to this hour the destinies of\nhumanity.\n\nThe Jewish people had the advantage, from the captivity of Babylon up\nto the Middle Ages, of being in a state of the greatest tension. This\nis why the interpreters of the spirit of the nation during this long\nperiod seemed to write under the action of an intense fever, which\nplaced them constantly either above or below reason, rarely in its\nmiddle path. Never did man seize the problem of the future and of his\ndestiny with a more desperate courage, more determined to go to\nextremes. Not separating the lot of humanity from that of their\nlittle race, the Jewish thinkers were the first who sought for a\ngeneral theory of the progress of our species. Greece, always confined\nwithin itself, and solely attentive to petty quarrels, has had\nadmirable historians; but before the Roman epoch, it would be in vain\nto seek in her a general system of the philosophy of history,\nembracing all humanity. The Jew, on the contrary, thanks to a kind of\nprophetic sense which renders the Semite at times marvellously apt to\nsee the great lines of the future, has made history enter into\nreligion. Perhaps he owes a little of this spirit to Persia. Persia,\nfrom an ancient period, conceived the history of the world as a series\nof evolutions, over each of which a prophet presided. Each prophet had\nhis _hazar_, or reign of a thousand years (chiliasm), and from these\nsuccessive ages, analogous to the Avataer of India, is composed the\ncourse of events which prepared the reign of Ormuzd. At the end of the\ntime when the cycle of chiliasms shall be exhausted, the complete\nparadise will come. Men then will live happy; the earth will be as one\nplain; there will be only one language, one law, and one government\nfor all. But this advent will be preceded by terrible calamities.\nDahak (the Satan of Persia) will break his chains and fall upon the\nworld. Two prophets will come to console mankind, and to prepare the\ngreat advent.[1] These ideas ran through the world, and penetrated\neven to Rome, where they inspired a cycle of prophetic poems, of which\nthe fundamental ideas were the division of the history of humanity\ninto periods, the succession of the gods corresponding to these\nperiods--a complete renovation of the world, and the final advent of a\ngolden age.[2] The book of Daniel, the book of Enoch, and certain\nparts of the Sibylline books,[3] are the Jewish expression of the same\ntheory. These thoughts were certainly far from being shared by all;\nthey were only embraced at first by a few persons of lively\nimagination, who were inclined toward strange doctrines. The dry and\nnarrow author of the book of Esther never thought of the rest of the\nworld except to despise it, and to wish it evil.[4] The disabused\nepicurean who wrote Ecclesiastes, thought so little of the future,\nthat he considered it even useless to labor for his children; in the\neyes of this egotistical celibate, the highest stroke of wisdom was to\nuse his fortune for his own enjoyment.[5] But the great achievements\nof a people are generally wrought by the minority. Notwithstanding all\ntheir enormous defects, hard, egotistical, scoffing, cruel, narrow,\nsubtle, and sophistical, the Jewish people are the authors of the\nfinest movement of disinterested enthusiasm which history records.\nOpposition always makes the glory of a country. The greatest men of a\nnation are those whom it puts to death. Socrates was the glory of the\nAthenians, who would not suffer him to live amongst them. Spinoza was\nthe greatest Jew of modern times, and the synagogue expelled him with\nignominy. Jesus was the glory of the people of Israel, who crucified\nhim.\n\n[Footnote 1: _Yacna_, xiii. 24: Theopompus, in Plut., _De Iside et\nOsiride_, sec. 47; _Minokhired_, a passage published in the\n_Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenlaendischen Gesellschaft_, i., p.\n263.]\n\n[Footnote 2: Virg., Ecl. iv.; Servius, at v. 4 of this Eclogue;\nNigidius, quoted by Servius, at v. 10.]\n\n[Footnote 3: Book iii., 97-817.]\n\n[Footnote 4: Esther vi. 13, vii. 10, viii. 7, 11-17, ix. 1-22; and in\nthe apocryphal parts, ix. 10, 11, xiv. 13, and following, xvi. 20,\n24.]\n\n[Footnote 5: Eccl. i. 11, ii. 16, 18-24, iii. 19-22, iv. 8, 15, 16, v.\n17, 18, vi. 3, 6, viii. 15, ix. 9, 10.]\n\nA gigantic dream haunted for centuries the Jewish people, constantly\nrenewing its youth in its decrepitude. A stranger to the theory of\nindividual recompense, which Greece diffused under the name of the\nimmortality of the soul, Judea concentrated all its power of love and\ndesire upon the national future. She thought she possessed divine\npromises of a boundless future; and as the bitter reality, from the\nninth century before our era, gave more and more the dominion of the\nworld to physical force, and brutally crushed these aspirations, she\ntook refuge in the union of the most impossible ideas, and attempted\nthe strangest gyrations. Before the captivity, when all the earthly\nhopes of the nation had become weakened by the separation of the\nnorthern tribes, they dreamt of the restoration of the house of David,\nthe reconciliation of the two divisions of the people, and the triumph\nof theocracy and the worship of Jehovah over idolatry. At the epoch of\nthe captivity, a poet, full of harmony, saw the splendor of a future\nJerusalem, of which the peoples and the distant isles should be\ntributaries, under colors so charming, that one might say a glimpse of\nthe visions of Jesus had reached him at a distance of six\ncenturies.[1]\n\n[Footnote 1: Isaiah lx. &c.]\n\nThe victory of Cyrus seemed at one time to realize all that had been\nhoped. The grave disciples of the Avesta and the adorers of Jehovah\nbelieved themselves brothers. Persia had begun by banishing the\nmultiple _devas_, and by transforming them into demons (_divs_), to\ndraw from the old Arian imaginations (essentially naturalistic) a\nspecies of Monotheism. The prophetic tone of many of the teachings of\nIran had much analogy with certain compositions of Hosea and Isaiah.\nIsrael reposed under the Achemenidae,[1] and under Xerxes (Ahasuerus)\nmade itself feared by the Iranians themselves. But the triumphal and\noften cruel entry of Greek and Roman civilization into Asia, threw it\nback upon its dreams. More than ever it invoked the Messiah as judge\nand avenger of the people. A complete renovation, a revolution which\nshould shake the world to its very foundation, was necessary in order\nto satisfy the enormous thirst of vengeance excited in it by the sense\nof its superiority, and by the sight of its humiliation.[2]\n\n[Footnote 1: The whole book of Esther breathes a great attachment to\nthis dynasty.]\n\n[Footnote 2: Apocryphal letter of Baruch, in Fabricius, _Cod. pseud.,\nV.T._, ii. p. 147, and following.]\n\nIf Israel had possessed the spiritualistic doctrine, which divides man\nin two parts--the body and the soul--and finds it quite natural that\nwhile the body decays, the soul should survive, this paroxysm of rage\nand of energetic protestation would have had no existence. But such a\ndoctrine, proceeding from the Grecian philosophy, was not in the\ntraditions of the Jewish mind. The ancient Hebrew writings contain no\ntrace of future rewards or punishments. Whilst the idea of the\nsolidarity of the tribe existed, it was natural that a strict\nretribution according to individual merits should not be thought of.\nSo much the worse for the pious man who happened to live in an epoch\nof impiety; he suffered, like the rest, the public misfortunes\nconsequent on the general irreligion. This doctrine, bequeathed by the\nsages of the patriarchal era, constantly produced unsustainable\ncontradictions. Already at the time of Job it was much shaken; the old\nmen of Teman who professed it were considered behind the age, and the\nyoung Elihu, who intervened in order to combat them, dared to utter as\nhis first word this essentially revolutionary sentiment, \"Great men\nare not always wise; neither do the aged understand judgment.\"[1]\nWith the complications which had taken place in the world since the\ntime of Alexander, the old Temanite and Mosaic principle became still\nmore intolerable.[2] Never had Israel been more faithful to the Law,\nand yet it was subjected to the atrocious persecution of Antiochus.\nOnly a declaimer, accustomed to repeat old phrases denuded of meaning,\nwould dare to assert that these evils proceeded from the\nunfaithfulness of the people.[3] What! these victims who died for\ntheir faith, these heroic Maccabees, this mother with her seven sons,\nwill Jehovah forget them eternally? Will he abandon them to the\ncorruption of the grave?[4] Worldly and incredulous Sadduceeism might\npossibly not recoil before such a consequence, and a consummate sage,\nlike Antigonus of Soco,[5] might indeed maintain that we must not\npractise virtue like a slave in expectation of a recompense, that we\nmust be virtuous without hope. But the mass of the people could not be\ncontented with that. Some, attaching themselves to the principle of\nphilosophical immortality, imagined the righteous living in the memory\nof God, glorious forever in the remembrance of men, and judging the\nwicked who had persecuted them.[6] \"They live in the sight of God; ...\nthey are known of God.\"[7] That was their reward. Others, especially\nthe Pharisees, had recourse to the doctrine of the resurrection.[8]\nThe righteous will live again in order to participate in the Messianic\nreign. They will live again in the flesh, and for a world of which\nthey will be the kings and the judges; they will be present at the\ntriumph of their ideas and at the humiliation of their enemies.\n\n[Footnote 1: Job xxxiii. 9.]\n\n[Footnote 2: It is nevertheless remarkable that Jesus, son of Sirach,\nadheres to it strictly (chap. xvii. 26-28, xxii. 10, 11, xxx. 4, and\nfollowing, xli. 1, 2, xliv. 9). The author of the book of _Wisdom_\nholds quite opposite opinions (iv. 1, Greek text).]\n\n[Footnote 3: Esth. xiv. 6, 7 (apocr.); the apocryphal Epistle of\nBaruch (Fabricius, _Cod. pseud., V.T._, ii. p. 147, and following).]\n\n[Footnote 4: 2 _Macc._ vii.]\n\n[Footnote 5: _Pirke Aboth._, i. 3.]\n\n[Footnote 6: _Wisdom_, ii.-vi.; _De Rationis Imperio_, attributed to\nJosephus, 8, 13, 16, 18. Still we must remark that the author of this\nlast treatise estimates the motive of personal recompense in a\nsecondary degree. The primary impulse of martyrs is the pure love of\nthe Law, the advantage which their death will procure to the people,\nand the glory which will attach to their name. Comp. _Wisdom_, iv. 1,\nand following; _Eccl._ xliv., and following; Jos., _B.J._, II. viii.\n10, III. viii. 5.]\n\n[Footnote 7: _Wisdom_, iv. 1; _De Rat. Imp._, 16, 18.]\n\n[Footnote 8: 2 _Macc._, vii. 9, 14, xii. 43, 44.]\n\nWe find among the ancient people of Israel only very indecisive traces\nof this fundamental dogma. The Sadducee, who did not believe it, was\nin reality faithful to the old Jewish doctrine; it was the Pharisee,\nthe believer in the resurrection, who was the innovator. But in\nreligion it is always the zealous sect which innovates, which\nprogresses, and which has influence. Besides this, the resurrection,\nan idea totally different from that of the immortality of the soul,\nproceeded very naturally from the anterior doctrines and from the\nposition of the people. Perhaps Persia also furnished some of its\nelements.[1] In any case, combining with the belief in the Messiah,\nand with the doctrine of a speedy renewal of all things, it formed\nthose apocalyptic theories which, without being articles of faith (the\northodox Sanhedrim of Jerusalem does not seem to have adopted them),\npervaded all imaginations, and produced an extreme fermentation from\none end of the Jewish world to the other. The total absence of\ndogmatic rigor caused very contradictory notions to be admitted at\none time, even upon so primary a point Sometimes the righteous were to\nawait the resurrection;[2] sometimes they were to be received at the\nmoment of death into Abraham's bosom;[3] sometimes the resurrection\nwas to be general;[4] sometimes it was to be reserved only for the\nfaithful;[5] sometimes it supposed a renewed earth and a new\nJerusalem; sometimes it implied a previous annihilation of the\nuniverse.\n\n[Footnote 1: Theopompus, in _Diog. Laert._, Proem, 9. _Boundehesch_,\nxxxi. The traces of the doctrine of the resurrection in the Avesta are\nvery doubtful.]\n\n[Footnote 2: John xi. 24.]\n\n[Footnote 3: Luke xvi. 22. Cf. _De Rationis Imp._, 13, 16, 18.]\n\n[Footnote 4: Dan. xii. 2.]\n\n[Footnote 5: 2 _Macc._ vii. 14.]\n\nJesus, as soon as he began to think, entered into the burning\natmosphere which was created in Palestine by the ideas we have just\nstated. These ideas were taught in no school; but they were in the\nvery air, and his soul was early penetrated by them. Our hesitations\nand our doubts never reached him. On this summit of the mountain of\nNazareth, where no man can sit to-day without an uneasy, though it may\nbe a frivolous, feeling about his destiny, Jesus sat often untroubled\nby a doubt. Free from selfishness--that source of our troubles, which\nmakes us seek with eagerness a reward for virtue beyond the tomb--he\nthought only of his work, of his race, and of humanity. Those\nmountains, that sea, that azure sky, those high plains in the horizon,\nwere for him not the melancholy vision of a soul which interrogates\nNature upon her fate, but the certain symbol, the transparent shadow,\nof an invisible world, and of a new heaven.\n\nHe never attached much importance to the political events of his time,\nand he probably knew little about them. The court of the Herods formed\na world so different to his, that he doubtless knew it only by name.\nHerod the Great died about the year in which Jesus was born, leaving\nimperishable remembrances--monuments which must compel the most\nmalevolent posterity to associate his name with that of Solomon;\nnevertheless, his work was incomplete, and could not be continued.\nProfanely ambitious, and lost in a maze of religious controversies,\nthis astute Idumean had the advantage which coolness and judgment,\nstripped of morality, give over passionate fanatics. But his idea of a\nsecular kingdom of Israel, even if it had not been an anachronism in\nthe state of the world in which it was conceived, would inevitably\nhave miscarried, like the similar project which Solomon formed, owing\nto the difficulties proceeding from the character of the nation. His\nthree sons were only lieutenants of the Romans, analogous to the\nrajahs of India under the English dominion. Antipater, or Antipas,\ntetrarch of Galilee and of Peraea, of whom Jesus was a subject all his\nlife, was an idle and useless prince,[1] a favorite and flatterer of\nTiberius,[2] and too often misled by the bad influence of his second\nwife, Herodias.[3] Philip, tetrarch of Gaulonitis and Batanea, into\nwhose dominions Jesus made frequent journeys, was a much better\nsovereign.[4] As to Archelaus, ethnarch of Jerusalem, Jesus could not\nknow him, for he was about ten years old when this man, who was weak\nand without character, though sometimes violent, was deposed by\nAugustus.[5] The last trace of self-government was thus lost to\nJerusalem. United to Samaria and Idumea, Judea formed a kind of\ndependency of the province of Syria, in which the senator Publius\nSulpicius Quirinus, well known as consul,[6] was the imperial legate.\nA series of Roman procurators, subordinate in important matters to\nthe imperial legate of Syria--Coponius, Marcus Ambivius, Annius Rufus,\nValerius Gratus, and lastly (in the twenty-sixth year of our era),\nPontius Pilate[7]--followed each other, and were constantly occupied\nin extinguishing the volcano which was seething beneath their feet.\n\n[Footnote 1: Jos., _Ant._, VIII. v. 1, vii. 1 and 2; Luke iii. 19.]\n\n[Footnote 2: Ibid., XVIII. ii. 3, iv. 5, v. 1.]\n\n[Footnote 3: Ibid., XVIII. vii. 2.]\n\n[Footnote 4: Ibid., XVIII. iv. 6.]\n\n[Footnote 5: Ibid., XVII. xii. 2; and _B.J._, II. vii. 3.]\n\n[Footnote 6: Orelli, _Inscr. Lat._, No. 3693; Henzen, _Suppl._, No.\n7041; _Fasti praenestini_, on the 6th of March, and on the 28th of\nApril (in the _Corpus Inscr. Lat._, i. 314, 317); Borghesi, _Fastes\nConsulaires_ (yet unedited), in the year 742; R. Bergmann, _De Inscr.\nLat. ad. P.S. Quirinium, ut videtur, referenda_ (Berlin, 1851). Cf.\nTac., _Ann._, ii. 30, iii. 48; Strabo, XII. vi. 5.]\n\n[Footnote 7: Jos., _Ant._, l. XVIII.]\n\nContinual seditions, excited by the zealots of Mosaism, did not cease,\nin fact, to agitate Jerusalem during all this time.[1] The death of\nthe seditious was certain; but death, when the integrity of the Law\nwas in question, was sought with avidity. To overturn the Roman eagle,\nto destroy the works of art raised by the Herods, in which the Mosaic\nregulations were not always respected[2]--to rise up against the\nvotive escutcheons put up by the procurators, the inscriptions of\nwhich appeared tainted with idolatry[3]--were perpetual temptations to\nfanatics, who had reached that degree of exaltation which removes all\ncare for life. Judas, son of Sariphea, Matthias, son of Margaloth, two\nvery celebrated doctors of the law, formed against the established\norder a boldly aggressive party, which continued after their\nexecution.[4] The Samaritans were agitated by movements of a similar\nnature.[5] The Law had never counted a greater number of impassioned\ndisciples than at this time, when he already lived who, by the full\nauthority of his genius and of his great soul, was about to abrogate\nit. The \"Zelotes\" (Kenaim), or \"Sicarii,\" pious assassins, who imposed\non themselves the task of killing whoever in their estimation broke\nthe Law, began to appear.[6] Representatives of a totally different\nspirit, the Thaumaturges, considered as in some sort divine, obtained\ncredence in consequence of the imperious want which the age\nexperienced for the supernatural and the divine.[7]\n\n[Footnote 1: Ibid., the books XVI. and XVIII. entirely, and _B.J._,\nbooks I. and II.]\n\n[Footnote 2: Jos., _Ant._, XV. x. 4. Compare Book of Enoch, xcvii. 13,\n14.]\n\n[Footnote 3: Philo, _Leg. ad Caium_, Sec. 38.]\n\n[Footnote 4: Jos., _Ant._, XVII. vi. 2, and following; _B.J._, I.\nxxxiii. 3, and following.]\n\n[Footnote 5: Jos., _Ant._, XVIII. iv. 1, and following.]\n\n[Footnote 6: Mishnah, _Sanhedrim_, ix. 6; John xvi. 2; Jos., _B.J._,\nbook IV., and following.]\n\n[Footnote 7: _Acts_ viii. 9. Verse 11 leads us to suppose that Simon\nthe magician was already famous in the time of Jesus.]\n\nA movement which had much more influence upon Jesus was that of Judas\nthe Gaulonite, or Galilean. Of all the exactions to which the country\nnewly conquered by Rome was subjected, the census was the most\nunpopular.[1] This measure, which always astonishes people\nunaccustomed to the requirements of great central administrations, was\nparticularly odious to the Jews. We see that already, under David, a\nnumbering of the people provoked violent recriminations, and the\nmenaces of the prophets.[2] The census, in fact, was the basis of\ntaxation; now taxation, to a pure theocracy, was almost an impiety.\nGod being the sole Master whom man ought to recognize, to pay tithe to\na secular sovereign was, in a manner, to put him in the place of God.\nCompletely ignorant of the idea of the State, the Jewish theocracy\nonly acted up to its logical induction--the negation of civil society\nand of all government. The money of the public treasury was accounted\nstolen money.[3] The census ordered by Quirinus (in the year 6 of the\nChristian era) powerfully reawakened these ideas, and caused a great\nfermentation. An insurrection broke out in the northern provinces. One\nJudas, of the town of Gamala, upon the eastern shore of the Lake of\nTiberias, and a Pharisee named Sadoc, by denying the lawfulness of the\ntax, created a numerous party, which soon broke out in open revolt.[4]\nThe fundamental maxims of this party were--that they ought to call no\nman \"master,\" this title belonging to God alone; and that liberty was\nbetter than life. Judas had, doubtless, many other principles, which\nJosephus, always careful not to compromise his co-religionists,\ndesignedly suppresses; for it is impossible to understand how, for so\nsimple an idea, the Jewish historian should give him a place among the\nphilosophers of his nation, and should regard him as the founder of a\nfourth school, equal to those of the Pharisees, the Sadducees, and the\nEssenes. Judas was evidently the chief of a Galilean sect, deeply\nimbued with the Messianic idea, and which became a political movement.\nThe procurator, Coponius, crushed the sedition of the Gaulonite; but\nthe school remained, and preserved its chiefs. Under the leadership of\nMenahem, son of the founder, and of a certain Eleazar, his relative,\nwe find them again very active in the last contests of the Jews\nagainst the Romans.[5] Perhaps Jesus saw this Judas, whose idea of the\nJewish revolution was so different from his own; at all events, he\nknew his school, and it was probably to avoid his error that he\npronounced the axiom upon the penny of Caesar. Jesus, more wise, and\nfar removed from all sedition, profited by the fault of his\npredecessor, and dreamed of another kingdom and another deliverance.\n\n[Footnote 1: Discourse of Claudius at Lyons, Tab. ii. sub fin. De\nBoisseau, _Inscr. Ant. de Lyon_, p. 136.]\n\n[Footnote 2: 2 Sam. xxiv.]\n\n[Footnote 3: Talmud of Babylon, _Baba Kama_, 113 _a_; _Shabbath_, 33\n_b_.]\n\n[Footnote 4: Jos., _Ant._, XVIII. i. 1 and 6; _B.J._, II. viii. 1;\n_Acts_ v. 37. Previous to Judas the Gaulonite, the _Acts_ place\nanother agitator, Theudas; but this is an anachronism, the movement of\nTheudas took place in the year 44 of the Christian era (Jos., _Ant._,\nXX. v. 1).]\n\n[Footnote 5: Jos., _B.J._, II. xvii. 8, and following.]\n\nGalilee was thus an immense furnace wherein the most diverse elements\nwere seething.[1] An extraordinary contempt of life, or, more properly\nspeaking, a kind of longing for death,[2] was the consequence of these\nagitations. Experience counts for nothing in these great fanatical\nmovements. Algeria, at the commencement of the French occupation, saw\narise, each spring, inspired men, who declared themselves\ninvulnerable, and sent by God to drive away the infidels; the\nfollowing year their death was forgotten, and their successors found\nno less credence. The Roman power, very stern on the one hand, yet\nlittle disposed to meddle, permitted a good deal of liberty. Those\ngreat, brutal despotisms, terrible in repression, were not so\nsuspicious as powers which have a faith to defend. They allowed\neverything up to the point when they thought it necessary to be\nsevere. It is not recorded that Jesus was even once interfered with by\nthe civil power, in his wandering career. Such freedom, and, above\nall, the happiness which Galilee enjoyed in being much less confined\nin the bonds of Pharisaic pedantry, gave to this district a real\nsuperiority over Jerusalem. The revolution, or, in other words, the\nbelief in the Messiah, caused here a general fermentation. Men deemed\nthemselves on the eve of the great renovation; the Scriptures,\ntortured into divers meanings, fostered the most colossal hopes. In\neach line of the simple writings of the Old Testament they saw the\nassurance, and, in a manner, the programme of the future reign, which\nwas to bring peace to the righteous, and to seal forever the work of\nGod.\n\n[Footnote 1: Luke xiii. 1. The Galilean movement of Judas, son of\nHezekiah, does not appear to have been of a religious character;\nperhaps, however, its character has been misrepresented by Josephus\n(_Ant._, XVII. x. 5).]\n\n[Footnote 2: Jos., _Ant._, XVI. vi. 2, 3; XVIII. i. 1.]\n\nFrom all time, this division into two parties, opposed in interest and\nspirit, had been for the Hebrew nation a principle which contributed\nto their moral growth. Every nation called to high destinies ought to\nbe a little world in itself, including opposite poles. Greece\npresented, at a few leagues' distance from each other, Sparta and\nAthens--to a superficial observer, the two antipodes; but, in reality,\nrival sisters, necessary to one another. It was the same with Judea.\nLess brilliant in one sense than the development of Jerusalem, that of\nthe North was on the whole much more fertile; the greatest\nachievements of the Jewish people have always proceeded thence. A\ncomplete absence of the love of Nature, bordering upon something dry,\nnarrow, and ferocious, has stamped all the works purely Hierosolymite\nwith a degree of grandeur, though sad, arid, and repulsive. With its\nsolemn doctors, its insipid canonists, its hypocritical and\natrabilious devotees, Jerusalem has not conquered humanity. The North\nhas given to the world the simple Shunammite, the humble Canaanite,\nthe impassioned Magdalene, the good foster-father Joseph, and the\nVirgin Mary. The North alone has made Christianity; Jerusalem, on the\ncontrary, is the true home of that obstinate Judaism which, founded by\nthe Pharisees, and fixed by the Talmud, has traversed the Middle Ages,\nand come down to us.\n\nA beautiful external nature tended to produce a much less austere\nspirit--a spirit less sharply monotheistic, if I may use the\nexpression, which imprinted a charming and idyllic character on all\nthe dreams of Galilee. The saddest country in the world is perhaps\nthe region round about Jerusalem. Galilee, on the contrary, was a very\ngreen, shady, smiling district, the true home of the Song of Songs,\nand the songs of the well-beloved.[1] During the two months of March\nand April, the country forms a carpet of flowers of an incomparable\nvariety of colors. The animals are small, and extremely\ngentle--delicate and lively turtle-doves, blue-birds so light that\nthey rest on a blade of grass without bending it, crested larks which\nventure almost under the feet of the traveller, little river tortoises\nwith mild and lively eyes, storks with grave and modest mien, which,\nlaying aside all timidity, allow man to come quite near them, and seem\nalmost to invite his approach. In no country in the world do the\nmountains spread themselves out with more harmony, or inspire higher\nthoughts. Jesus seems to have had a peculiar love for them. The most\nimportant acts of his divine career took place upon the mountains. It\nwas there that he was the most inspired;[2] it was there that he held\nsecret communion with the ancient prophets; and it was there that his\ndisciples witnessed his transfiguration.[3]\n\n[Footnote 1: Jos., _B.J._, III. iii. 1. The horrible state to which\nthe country is reduced, especially near Lake Tiberias, ought not to\ndeceive us. These countries, now scorched, were formerly terrestrial\nparadises. The baths of Tiberias, which are now a frightful abode,\nwere formerly the most beautiful places in Galilee (Jos., _Ant._,\nXVIII. ii. 3.) Josephus (_Bell. Jud._, III. x. 8) extols the beautiful\ntrees of the plain of Gennesareth, where there is no longer a single\none. Anthony the Martyr, about the year 600, consequently fifty years\nbefore the Mussulman invasion, still found Galilee covered with\ndelightful plantations, and compares its fertility to that of Egypt\n(_Itin._, Sec. 5).]\n\n[Footnote 2: Matt. v. 1, xiv. 23; Luke vi. 12.]\n\n[Footnote 3: Matt. xvii. 1, and following; Mark ix. 1, and following;\nLuke ix. 28, and following.]\n\nThis beautiful country has now become sad and gloomy through the\never-impoverishing influence of Islamism. But still everything which\nman cannot destroy breathes an air of freedom, mildness, and\ntenderness, and at the time of Jesus it overflowed with happiness and\nprosperity. The Galileans were considered energetic, brave, and\nlaborious.[1] If we except Tiberias, built by Antipas in honor of\nTiberius (about the year 15), in the Roman style,[2] Galilee had no\nlarge towns. The country was, nevertheless, well peopled, covered with\nsmall towns and large villages, and cultivated in all parts with\nskill.[3] From the ruins which remain of its ancient splendor, we can\ntrace an agricultural people, no way gifted in art, caring little for\nluxury, indifferent to the beauties of form and exclusively\nidealistic. The country abounded in fresh streams and in fruits; the\nlarge farms were shaded with vines and fig-trees; the gardens were\nfilled with trees bearing apples, walnuts, and pomegranates.[4] The\nwine was excellent, if we may judge by that which the Jews still\nobtain at Safed, and they drank much of it.[5] This contented and\neasily satisfied life was not like the gross materialism of our\npeasantry, the coarse pleasures of agricultural Normandy, or the heavy\nmirth of the Flemish. It spiritualized itself in ethereal dreams--in a\nkind of poetic mysticism, blending heaven and earth. Leave the\naustere Baptist in his desert of Judea to preach penitence, to inveigh\nwithout ceasing, and to live on locusts in the company of jackals. Why\nshould the companions of the bridegroom fast while the bridegroom is\nwith them? Joy will be a part of the kingdom of God. Is she not the\ndaughter of the humble in heart, of the men of good will?\n\n[Footnote 1: Jos., _B.J._, III. iii. 2.]\n\n[Footnote 2: Jos., _Ant._, XVIII. ii. 2; _B.J._, II. ix. 1; _Vita_,\n12, 13, 64.]\n\n[Footnote 3: Jos., _B.J._, III. iii. 2.]\n\n[Footnote 4: We may judge of this by some enclosures in the\nneighborhood of Nazareth. Cf. Song of Solomon ii. 3, 5, 13, iv. 13,\nvi. 6, 10, vii. 8, 12, viii. 2, 5; Anton. Martyr, _l.c._ The aspect of\nthe great farms is still well preserved in the south of the country of\nTyre (ancient tribe of Asher). Traces of the ancient Palestinian\nagriculture, with its troughs, threshing-floors, wine-presses, mills,\n&c., cut in the rock, are found at every step.]\n\n[Footnote 5: Matt. ix. 17, xi. 19; Mark ii. 22; Luke v. 37, vii. 34;\nJohn ii. 3, and following.]\n\nThe whole history of infant Christianity has become in this manner a\ndelightful pastoral. A Messiah at the marriage festival--the courtezan\nand the good Zaccheus called to his feasts--the founders of the\nkingdom of heaven like a bridal procession; that is what Galilee has\nboldly offered, and what the world has accepted. Greece has drawn\npictures of human life by sculpture and by charming poetry, but always\nwithout backgrounds or distant receding perspectives. In Galilee were\nwanting the marble, the practiced workmen, the exquisite and refined\nlanguage. But Galilee has created the most sublime ideal for the\npopular imagination; for behind its idyl moves the fate of humanity,\nand the light which illumines its picture is the sun of the kingdom of\nGod.\n\nJesus lived and grew amidst these enchanting scenes. From his infancy,\nhe went almost annually to the feast at Jerusalem.[1] The pilgrimage\nwas a sweet solemnity for the provincial Jews. Entire series of psalms\nwere consecrated to celebrate the happiness of thus journeying in\nfamily companionship[2] during several days in the spring across the\nhills and valleys, each one having in prospect the splendors of\nJerusalem, the solemnities of the sacred courts, and the joy of\nbrethren dwelling together in unity.[3] The route which Jesus\nordinarily took in these journeys was that which is followed to this\nday through Ginaea and Shechem.[4] From Shechem to Jerusalem the\njourney is very tiresome. But the neighborhood of the old sanctuaries\nof Shiloh and Bethel, near which the travellers pass, keeps their\ninterest alive. _Ain-el-Haramie_,[5] the last halting-place, is a\ncharming and melancholy spot, and few impressions equal that\nexperienced on encamping there for the night. The valley is narrow and\nsombre, and a dark stream issues from the rocks, full of tombs, which\nform its banks. It is, I think, the \"valley of tears,\" or of dropping\nwaters, which is described as one of the stations on the way in the\ndelightful Eighty-fourth Psalm,[6] and which became the emblem of life\nfor the sad and sweet mysticism of the Middle Ages. Early the next day\nthey would be at Jerusalem; such an expectation even now sustains the\ncaravan, rendering the night short and slumber light.\n\n[Footnote 1: Luke ii. 41.]\n\n[Footnote 2: Luke ii. 42-44.]\n\n[Footnote 3: See especially Ps. lxxxiv., cxxii., cxxxiii. (Vulg.,\nlxxxiii., cxxi., cxxxii).]\n\n[Footnote 4: Luke ix. 51-53, xvii. 11; John iv. 4; Jos., _Ant._, XX.\nvi. 1; _B.J._, II. xii. 3; _Vita_, 52. Often, however, the pilgrims\ncame by Peraea, in order to avoid Samaria, where they incurred dangers;\nMatt. xix. 1; Mark x. 1.]\n\n[Footnote 5: According to Josephus (_Vita_, 52) it was three days'\njourney. But the stage from Shechem to Jerusalem was generally divided\ninto two.]\n\n[Footnote 6: lxxxiii. according to the Vulgate, v. 7.]\n\nThese journeys, in which the assembled nation exchanged its ideas, and\nwhich were almost always centres of great agitation, placed Jesus in\ncontact with the mind of his countrymen, and no doubt inspired him\nwhilst still young with a lively antipathy for the defects of the\nofficial representatives of Judaism. It is supposed that very early\nthe desert had great influence on his development, and that he made\nlong stays there.[1] But the God he found in the desert was not his\nGod. It was rather the God of Job, severe and terrible, accountable\nto no one. Sometimes Satan came to tempt him. He returned, then, into\nhis beloved Galilee, and found again his heavenly Father in the midst\nof the green hills and the clear fountains--and among the crowds of\nwomen and children, who, with joyous soul and the song of angels in\ntheir hearts, awaited the salvation of Israel.\n\n[Footnote 1: Luke iv. 42, v. 16.]\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER V.\n\nTHE FIRST SAYINGS OF JESUS--HIS IDEAS OF A DIVINE FATHER AND OF A PURE\nRELIGION--FIRST DISCIPLES.\n\n\nJoseph died before his son had taken any public part. Mary remained,\nin a manner, the head of the family, and this explains why her son,\nwhen it was wished to distinguish him from others of the same name,\nwas most frequently called the \"son of Mary.\"[1] It seems that having,\nby the death of her husband, been left friendless at Nazareth, she\nwithdrew to Cana,[2] from which she may have come originally. Cana[3]\nwas a little town at from two to two and a half hours' journey from\nNazareth, at the foot of the mountains which bound the plain of\nAsochis on the north.[4] The prospect, less grand than at Nazareth,\nextends over all the plain, and is bounded in the most picturesque\nmanner by the mountains of Nazareth and the hills of Sepphoris. Jesus\nappears to have resided some time in this place. Here he probably\npassed a part of his youth, and here his greatness first revealed\nitself.[5]\n\n[Footnote 1: This is the expression of Mark vi. 3; cf. Matt. xiii. 55.\nMark did not know Joseph. John and Luke, on the contrary, prefer the\nexpression \"son of Joseph.\" Luke iii. 23, iv. 22; John i. 45, iv. 42.]\n\n[Footnote 2: John ii. 1, iv. 46. John alone is informed on this\npoint.]\n\n[Footnote 3: I admit, as probable, the idea which identifies Cana of\nGalilee with _Kana el Djelil_. We may, nevertheless, attach value to\nthe arguments for _Kefr Kenna_, a place an hour or an hour and a\nhalf's journey N.N.E. of Nazareth.]\n\n[Footnote 4: Now _El-Buttauf_.]\n\n[Footnote 5: John ii. 11, iv. 46. One or two disciples were of Cana,\nJohn xxi. 2; Matt. x. 4; Mark iii. 18.]\n\nHe followed the trade of his father, which was that of a\ncarpenter.[1] This was not in any degree humiliating or grievous. The\nJewish customs required that a man devoted to intellectual work should\nlearn a trade. The most celebrated doctors did so;[2] thus St. Paul,\nwhose education had been so carefully tended, was a tent-maker.[3]\nJesus never married. All his power of love centred upon that which he\nregarded as his celestial vocation. The extremely delicate feeling\ntoward women, which we remark in him, was not separated from the\nexclusive devotion which he had for his mission. Like Francis d'Assisi\nand Francis de Sales, he treated as sisters the women who were loved\nof the same work as himself; he had his St. Clare, his Frances de\nChantal. It is, however, probable that these loved him more than the\nwork; he was, no doubt, more beloved than loving. Thus, as often\nhappens in very elevated natures, tenderness of the heart was\ntransformed in him into an infinite sweetness, a vague poetry, and a\nuniversal charm. His relations, free and intimate, but of an entirely\nmoral kind, with women of doubtful character, are also explained by\nthe passion which attached him to the glory of his Father, and which\nmade him jealously anxious for all beautiful creatures who could\ncontribute to it.[4]\n\n[Footnote 1: Mark vi. 3; Justin, _Dial. cum Tryph._, 88.]\n\n[Footnote 2: For example, \"Rabbi Johanan, the shoemaker, Rabbi Isaac,\nthe blacksmith.\"]\n\n[Footnote 3: _Acts_ xviii. 3.]\n\n[Footnote 4: Luke vii. 37, and following; John iv. 7, and following;\nviii. 3, and following.]\n\nWhat was the progress of the ideas of Jesus during this obscure period\nof his life? Through what meditations did he enter upon the prophetic\ncareer? We have no information on these points, his history having\ncome to us in scattered narratives, without exact chronology. But the\ndevelopment of character is everywhere the same; and there is no\ndoubt that the growth of so powerful individuality as that of Jesus\nobeyed very rigorous laws. A high conception of the Divinity--which he\ndid not owe to Judaism, and which seems to have been in all its parts\nthe creation of his great mind--was in a manner the source of all his\npower. It is essential here that we put aside the ideas familiar to\nus, and the discussions in which little minds exhaust themselves. In\norder properly to understand the precise character of the piety of\nJesus, we must forget all that is placed between the gospel and\nourselves. Deism and Pantheism have become the two poles of theology.\nThe paltry discussions of scholasticism, the dryness of spirit of\nDescartes, the deep-rooted irreligion of the eighteenth century, by\nlessening God, and by limiting Him, in a manner, by the exclusion of\neverything which is not His very self, have stifled in the breast of\nmodern rationalism all fertile ideas of the Divinity. If God, in fact,\nis a personal being outside of us, he who believes himself to have\npeculiar relations with God is a \"visionary,\" and as the physical and\nphysiological sciences have shown us that all supernatural visions are\nillusions, the logical Deist finds it impossible to understand the\ngreat beliefs of the past. Pantheism, on the other hand, in\nsuppressing the Divine personality, is as far as it can be from the\nliving God of the ancient religions. Were the men who have best\ncomprehended God--Cakya-Mouni, Plato, St. Paul, St. Francis d'Assisi,\nand St. Augustine (at some periods of his fluctuating life)--Deists or\nPantheists? Such a question has no meaning. The physical and\nmetaphysical proofs of the existence of God were quite indifferent to\nthem. They felt the Divine within themselves. We must place Jesus in\nthe first rank of this great family of the true sons of God. Jesus\nhad no visions; God did not speak to him as to one outside of Himself;\nGod was in him; he felt himself with God, and he drew from his heart\nall he said of his Father. He lived in the bosom of God by constant\ncommunication with Him; he saw Him not, but he understood Him, without\nneed of the thunder and the burning bush of Moses, of the revealing\ntempest of Job, of the oracle of the old Greek sages, of the familiar\ngenius of Socrates, or of the angel Gabriel of Mahomet. The\nimagination and the hallucination of a St. Theresa, for example, are\nuseless here. The intoxication of the Soufi proclaiming himself\nidentical with God is also quite another thing. Jesus never once gave\nutterance to the sacrilegious idea that he was God. He believed\nhimself to be in direct communion with God; he believed himself to be\nthe Son of God. The highest consciousness of God which has existed in\nthe bosom of humanity was that of Jesus.\n\nWe understand, on the other hand, how Jesus, starting with such a\ndisposition of spirit, could never be a speculative philosopher like\nCakya-Mouni. Nothing is further from scholastic theology than the\nGospel.[1] The speculations of the Greek fathers on the Divine essence\nproceed from an entirely different spirit. God, conceived simply as\nFather, was all the theology of Jesus. And this was not with him a\ntheoretical principle, a doctrine more or less proved, which he sought\nto inculcate in others. He did not argue with his disciples;[2] he\ndemanded from them no effort of attention. He did not preach his\nopinions; he preached himself. Very great and very disinterested minds\noften present, associated with much elevation, that character of\nperpetual attention to themselves, and extreme personal\nsusceptibility, which, in general, is peculiar to women.[3] Their\nconviction that God is in them, and occupies Himself perpetually with\nthem, is so strong, that they have no fear of obtruding themselves\nupon others; our reserve, and our respect for the opinion of others,\nwhich is a part of our weakness, could not belong to them. This\nexaltation of self is not egotism; for such men, possessed by their\nidea, give their lives freely, in order to seal their work; it is the\nidentification of self with the object it has embraced, carried to its\nutmost limit. It is regarded as vain-glory by those who see in the new\nteaching only the personal phantasy of the founder; but it is the\nfinger of God to those who see the result. The fool stands side by\nside here with the inspired man, only the fool never succeeds. It has\nnot yet been given to insanity to influence seriously the progress of\nhumanity.\n\n[Footnote 1: The discourses which the fourth Gospel attributes to\nJesus contain some germs of theology. But these discourses being in\nabsolute contradiction with those of the synoptical Gospels, which\nrepresent, without any doubt, the primitive _Logia_, ought to count\nsimply as documents of apostolic history, and not as elements of the\nlife of Jesus.]\n\n[Footnote 2: See Matt. ix. 9, and other analogous accounts.]\n\n[Footnote 3: See, for example, John xxi. 15, and following.]\n\nDoubtless, Jesus did not attain at first this high affirmation of\nhimself. But it is probable that, from the first, he regarded his\nrelationship with God as that of a son with his father. This was his\ngreat act of originality; in this he had nothing in common with his\nrace.[1] Neither the Jew nor the Mussulman has understood this\ndelightful theology of love. The God of Jesus is not that tyrannical\nmaster who kills us, damns us, or saves us, according to His pleasure.\nThe God of Jesus is our Father. We hear Him in listening to the gentle\ninspiration which cries within us, \"Abba, Father.\"[2] The God of Jesus\nis not the partial despot who has chosen Israel for His people, and\nspecially protects them. He is the God of humanity. Jesus was not a\npatriot, like the Maccabees; or a theocrat, like Judas the Gaulonite.\nBoldly raising himself above the prejudices of his nation, he\nestablished the universal fatherhood of God. The Gaulonite maintained\nthat we should die rather than give to another than God the name of\n\"Master;\" Jesus left this name to any one who liked to take it, and\nreserved for God a dearer name. Whilst he accorded to the powerful of\nthe earth, who were to him representatives of force, a respect full of\nirony, he proclaimed the supreme consolation--the recourse to the\nFather which each one has in heaven--and the true kingdom of God,\nwhich each one bears in his heart.\n\n[Footnote 1: The great soul of Philo is in sympathy here, as on so\nmany other points, with that of Jesus. _De Confus. Ling._, Sec. 14; _De\nMigr. Abr._, Sec. 1; _De Somniis_, ii. Sec. 41; _De Agric. Noe_, Sec. 12; _De\nMutatione Nominum_, Sec. 4. But Philo is scarcely a Jew in spirit.]\n\n[Footnote 2: Galatians iv. 6.]\n\nThis name of \"kingdom of God,\" or \"kingdom of heaven,\"[1] was the\nfavorite term of Jesus to express the revolution which he brought into\nthe world.[2] Like almost all the Messianic terms, it came from the\nbook of Daniel. According to the author of this extraordinary book,\nthe four profane empires, destined to fall, were to be succeeded by a\nfifth empire, that of the saints, which should last forever.[3] This\nreign of God upon earth naturally led to the most diverse\ninterpretations. To Jewish theology, the \"kingdom of God\" is most\nfrequently only Judaism itself--the true religion, the monotheistic\nworship, piety.[4] In the later periods of his life, Jesus believed\nthat this reign would be realized in a material form by a sudden\nrenovation of the world. But doubtless this was not his first idea.[5]\nThe admirable moral which he draws from the idea of God as Father, is\nnot that of enthusiasts who believe the world is near its end, and who\nprepare themselves by asceticism for a chimerical catastrophe; it is\nthat of men who have lived, and still would live. \"The kingdom of God\nis within you,\" said he to those who sought with subtlety for external\nsigns.[6] The realistic conception of the Divine advent was but a\ncloud, a transient error, which his death has made us forget. The\nJesus who founded the true kingdom of God, the kingdom of the meek and\nthe humble, was the Jesus of early life[7]--of those chaste and pure\ndays when the voice of his Father re-echoed within him in clearer\ntones. It was then for some months, perhaps a year, that God truly\ndwelt upon the earth. The voice of the young carpenter suddenly\nacquired an extraordinary sweetness. An infinite charm was exhaled\nfrom his person, and those who had seen him up to that time no longer\nrecognized him.[8] He had not yet any disciples, and the group which\ngathered around him was neither a sect nor a school; but a common\nspirit, a sweet and penetrating influence was felt. His amiable\ncharacter, accompanied doubtless by one of those lovely faces[9] which\nsometimes appear in the Jewish race, threw around him a fascination\nfrom which no one in the midst of these kindly and simple populations\ncould escape.\n\n[Footnote 1: The word \"heaven\" in the rabbinical language of that time\nis synonymous with the name of \"God,\" which they avoided pronouncing.\nCompare Matt. xxi. 25; Luke xv. 18, xx. 4.]\n\n[Footnote 2: This expression occurs on each page of the synoptical\nGospels, the Acts of the Apostles, and St. Paul. If it only appears\nonce in John (iii. 3, 5), it is because the discourses related in the\nfourth Gospel are far from representing the true words of Jesus.]\n\n[Footnote 3: Dan. ii. 44, vii. 13, 14, 22, 27.]\n\n[Footnote 4: Mishnah, _Berakoth_, ii. 1, 3; Talmud of Jerusalem,\n_Berakoth_, ii. 2; _Kiddushin_, i. 2; Talm. of Bab., _Berakoth_, 15\n_a_; _Mekilta_, 42 _b_; _Siphra_, 170 _b_. The expression appears\noften in the _Medrashim_.]\n\n[Footnote 5: Matt. vi. 33, xii. 28, xix. 12; Mark xii. 34; Luke xii.\n31.]\n\n[Footnote 6: Luke xvii. 20, 21.]\n\n[Footnote 7: The grand theory of the revelation of the Son of Man is\nin fact reserved, in the synoptics, for the chapters which precede the\nnarrative of the Passion. The first discourses, especially in Matthew,\nare entirely moral.]\n\n[Footnote 8: Matt. xiii. 54 and following; Mark vi. 2 and following;\nJohn v. 43.]\n\n[Footnote 9: The tradition of the plainness of Jesus (Justin, _Dial.\ncum Tryph._, 85, 88, 100) springs from a desire to see realized in him\na pretended Messianic trait (Isa. liii. 2).]\n\nParadise would, in fact, have been brought to earth if the ideas of\nthe young Master had not far transcended the level of ordinary\ngoodness beyond which it has not been found possible to raise the\nhuman race. The brotherhood of men, as sons of God, and the moral\nconsequences which result therefrom, were deduced with exquisite\nfeeling. Like all the rabbis of the time, Jesus was little inclined\ntoward consecutive reasonings, and clothed his doctrine in concise\naphorisms, and in an expressive form, at times enigmatical and\nstrange.[1] Some of these maxims come from the books of the Old\nTestament. Others were the thoughts of more modern sages, especially\nthose of Antigonus of Soco, Jesus, son of Sirach, and Hillel, which\nhad reached him, not from learned study, but as oft-repeated proverbs.\nThe synagogue was rich in very happily expressed sentences, which\nformed a kind of current proverbial literature.[2] Jesus adopted\nalmost all this oral teaching, but imbued it with a superior\nspirit.[3] Exceeding the duties laid down by the Law and the elders,\nhe demanded perfection. All the virtues of humility--forgiveness,\ncharity, abnegation, and self-denial--virtues which with good reason\nhave been called Christian, if we mean by that that they have been\ntruly preached by Christ, were in this first teaching, though\nundeveloped. As to justice, he was content with repeating the\nwell-known axiom--\"Whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do\nye even so to them.\"[4] But this old, though somewhat selfish wisdom,\ndid not satisfy him. He went to excess, and said--\"Whosoever shall\nsmite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if any\nman will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy\ncloak also.\"[5] \"If thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast\nit from thee.\"[6] \"Love your enemies, do good to them that hate you,\npray for them that persecute you.\"[7] \"Judge not, that ye be not\njudged.\"[8] \"Forgive, and ye shall be forgiven.\"[9] \"Be ye therefore\nmerciful as your Father also is merciful.\"[10] \"It is more blessed to\ngive than to receive.\"[11] \"Whosoever shall exalt himself shall be\nabased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted.\"[12]\n\n[Footnote 1: The _Logia_ of St. Matthew joins several of these axioms\ntogether, to form lengthened discourses. But the fragmentary form\nmakes itself felt notwithstanding.]\n\n[Footnote 2: The sentences of the Jewish doctors of the time are\ncollected in the little book entitled, _Pirke Aboth_.]\n\n[Footnote 3: The comparisons will be made afterward as they present\nthemselves. It has been sometimes supposed that--the compilation of\nthe Talmud being later than that of the Gospels--parts may have been\nborrowed by the Jewish compilers from the Christian morality. But this\nis inadmissible--a wall of separation existed between the Church and\nthe Synagogue. The Christian and Jewish literature had scarcely any\ninfluence on one another before the thirteenth century.]\n\n[Footnote 4: Matt. vii. 12; Luke vi. 31. This axiom is in the book of\n_Tobit_, iv. 16. Hillel used it habitually (Talm. of Bab., _Shabbath_,\n31 _a_), and declared, like Jesus, that it was the sum of the Law.]\n\n[Footnote 5: Matt. v. 39, and following; Luke vi. 29. Compare\nJeremiah, _Lamentations_ iii. 30.]\n\n[Footnote 6: Matt. v. 29, 30, xviii. 9; Mark ix. 46.]\n\n[Footnote 7: Matt. v. 44; Luke vi. 27. Compare Talmud of Babylon,\n_Shabbath_, 88 _b_; _Joma_, 23 _a_.]\n\n[Footnote 8: Matt. vii. 1; Luke vi. 37. Compare Talmud of Babylon,\n_Kethuboth_, 105 _b_.]\n\n[Footnote 9: Luke vi. 37. Compare _Lev._ xix. 18; _Prov._ xx. 22;\n_Ecclesiasticus_ xxviii. 1, and following.]\n\n[Footnote 10: Luke vi. 36; Siphre, 51 _b_ (Sultzbach, 1802).]\n\n[Footnote 11: A saying related in _Acts_ xx. 35.]\n\n[Footnote 12: Matt. xxiii. 12; Luke xiv. 11, xviii. 14. The sentences\nquoted by St. Jerome from the \"Gospel according to the Hebrews\"\n(Comment. in _Epist. ad Ephes._, v. 4; in Ezek. xviii.; _Dial. adv.\nPelag._, iii. 2), are imbued with the same spirit.]\n\nUpon alms, pity, good works, kindness, peacefulness, and complete\ndisinterestedness of heart, he had little to add to the doctrine of\nthe synagogue.[1] But he placed upon them an emphasis full of unction,\nwhich made the old maxims appear new. Morality is not composed of more\nor less well-expressed principles. The poetry which makes the precept\nloved, is more than the precept itself, taken as an abstract truth.\nNow it cannot be denied that these maxims borrowed by Jesus from his\npredecessors, produce quite a different effect in the Gospel to that\nin the ancient Law, in the _Pirke Aboth_, or in the Talmud. It is\nneither the ancient Law nor the Talmud which has conquered and changed\nthe world. Little original in itself--if we mean by that that one\nmight recompose it almost entirely by the aid of older maxims--the\nmorality of the Gospels remains, nevertheless, the highest creation of\nhuman conscience--the most beautiful code of perfect life that any\nmoralist has traced.\n\n[Footnote 1: _Deut._ xxiv., xxv., xxvi., &c.; Isa. lviii. 7; _Prov._\nxix. 17; _Pirke Aboth_, i.; Talmud of Jerusalem, _Peah_, i. 1; Talmud\nof Babylon, _Shabbath_, 63 _a_.]\n\nJesus did not speak against the Mosaic law, but it is clear that he\nsaw its insufficiency, and allowed it to be seen that he did so. He\nrepeated unceasingly that more must be done than the ancient sages had\ncommanded.[1] He forbade the least harsh word;[2] he prohibited\ndivorce,[3] and all swearing;[4] he censured revenge;[5] he condemned\nusury;[6] he considered voluptuous desire as criminal as adultery;[7]\nhe insisted upon a universal forgiveness of injuries.[8] The motive on\nwhich he rested these maxims of exalted charity was always the\nsame.... \"That ye may be the children of your Father which is in\nheaven: for He maketh His sun to rise on the evil and the good. For if\nye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the\npublicans the same? And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye\nmore than others? do not even the publicans so? Be ye therefore\nperfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.\"[9]\n\n[Footnote 1: Matt. v. 20, and following.]\n\n[Footnote 2: Matt. v. 22.]\n\n[Footnote 3: Matt. v. 31, and following. Compare Talmud of Babylon,\n_Sanhedrim_, 22 _a_.]\n\n[Footnote 4: Matt. v. 33, and following.]\n\n[Footnote 5: Matt. v. 38, and following.]\n\n[Footnote 6: Matt. v. 42. The Law prohibited it also (_Deut._ xv. 7,\n8), but less formally, and custom authorized it (Luke vii. 41, and\nfollowing).]\n\n[Footnote 7: Matt. xxvii. 28. Compare Talmud, _Masseket Kalla_ (edit.\nFuerth, 1793), fol. 34 _b_.]\n\n[Footnote 8: Matt. v. 23, and following.]\n\n[Footnote 9: Matt. v. 45, and following. Compare _Lev._ xi. 44, xix.\n2.]\n\nA pure worship, a religion without priests and external observances,\nresting entirely on the feelings of the heart, on the imitation of\nGod,[1] on the direct relation of the conscience with the heavenly\nFather, was the result of these principles. Jesus never shrank from\nthis bold conclusion, which made him a thorough revolutionist in the\nvery centre of Judaism. Why should there be mediators between man and\nhis Father? As God only sees the heart, of what good are these\npurifications, these observances relating only to the body?[2] Even\ntradition, a thing so sacred to the Jews, is nothing compared to\nsincerity.[3] The hypocrisy of the Pharisees, who, in praying, turned\ntheir heads to see if they were observed, who gave their alms with\nostentation, and put marks upon their garments, that they might be\nrecognized as pious persons--all these grimaces of false devotion\ndisgusted him. \"They have their recompense,\" said he; \"but thou, when\nthou doest thine alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand\ndoeth, that thy alms may be in secret, and thy Father, which seeth in\nsecret, Himself shall reward thee openly.\"[4] \"And when thou prayest,\nthou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray\nstanding in the synagogues, and in the corners of the streets, that\nthey may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their\nreward. But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet; and when\nthou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and\nthy Father, which seeth in secret, shall reward thee openly. But when\nye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think\nthat they shall be heard for their much speaking. Your Father knoweth\nwhat things ye have need of before ye ask Him.\"[5]\n\n[Footnote 1: Compare Philo, _De Migr. Abr._, Sec. 23 and 24; _De Vita\nContemp._, the whole.]\n\n[Footnote 2: Matt. xv. 11, and following; Mark vii. 6, and following.]\n\n[Footnote 3: Mark vii. 6, and following.]\n\n[Footnote 4: Matt. vi. 1, and following. Compare _Ecclesiasticus_\nxvii. 18, xxix. 15; Talm. of Bab., _Chagigah_, 5 _a_; _Baba Bathra_, 9\n_b_.]\n\n[Footnote 5: Matt. vi. 5-8.]\n\nHe did not affect any external signs of asceticism, contenting himself\nwith praying, or rather meditating, upon the mountains, and in the\nsolitary places, where man has always sought God.[1] This high idea of\nthe relations of man with God, of which so few minds, even after him,\nhave been capable, is summed up in a prayer which he taught to his\ndisciples:[2]\n\n[Footnote 1: Matt. xiv. 23; Luke iv. 42, v. 16, vi. 12.]\n\n[Footnote 2: Matt. vi. 9, and following; Luke xi. 2, and following.]\n\n\"Our Father which art in heaven, hallowed be thy name; thy kingdom\ncome; thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven. Give us this day\nour daily bread. Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who\ntrespass against us. Lead us not into temptation; deliver us from the\nevil one.\"[1] He insisted particularly upon the idea, that the\nheavenly Father knows better than we what we need, and that we almost\nsin against Him in asking Him for this or that particular thing.[2]\n\n[Footnote 1: _i.e._, the devil.]\n\n[Footnote 2: Luke xi. 5, and following.]\n\nJesus in this only carried out the consequences of the great\nprinciples which Judaism had established, but which the official\nclasses of the nation tended more and more to despise. The Greek and\nRoman prayers were almost always mere egotistical verbiage. Never had\nPagan priest said to the faithful, \"If thou bring thy offering to the\naltar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath aught against thee;\nleave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be\nreconciled with thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift.\"[1]\nAlone in antiquity, the Jewish prophets, especially Isaiah, had, in\ntheir antipathy to the priesthood, caught a glimpse of the true nature\nof the worship man owes to God. \"To what purpose is the multitude of\nyour sacrifices unto me: I am full of the burnt offerings of rams, and\nthe fat of fed beasts; and I delight not in the blood of bullocks, or\nof lambs, or of he-goats.... Incense is an abomination unto me: for\nyour hands are full of blood; cease to do evil, learn to do well, seek\njudgment, and then come.\"[2] In later times, certain doctors, Simeon\nthe just,[3] Jesus, son of Sirach,[4] Hillel,[5] almost reached this\npoint, and declared that the sum of the Law was righteousness. Philo,\nin the Judaeo-Egyptian world, attained at the same time as Jesus ideas\nof a high moral sanctity, the consequence of which was the disregard\nof the observances of the Law.[6] Shemaia and Abtalion also more than\nonce proved themselves to be very liberal casuists.[7] Rabbi Johanan\nere long placed works of mercy above even the study of the Law![8]\nJesus alone, however, proclaimed these principles in an effective\nmanner. Never has any one been less a priest than Jesus, never a\ngreater enemy of forms, which stifle religion under the pretext of\nprotecting it. By this we are all his disciples and his successors; by\nthis he has laid the eternal foundation-stone of true religion; and if\nreligion is essential to humanity, he has by this deserved the Divine\nrank the world has accorded to him. An absolutely new idea, the idea\nof a worship founded on purity of heart, and on human brotherhood,\nthrough him entered into the world--an idea so elevated, that the\nChristian Church ought to make it its distinguishing feature, but an\nidea which, in our days, only few minds are capable of embodying.\n\n[Footnote 1: Matt. v. 23, 24.]\n\n[Footnote 2: Isaiah i. 11, and following. Compare ibid., lviii.\nentirely; Hosea vi. 6; Malachi i. 10, and following.]\n\n[Footnote 3: _Pirke Aboth_, i. 2.]\n\n[Footnote 4: _Ecclesiasticus_ xxxv. 1, and following.]\n\n[Footnote 5: Talm. of Jerus., _Pesachim_, vi. 1. Talm. of Bab., the\nsame treatise 66 _a_; _Shabbath_, 31 _a_.]\n\n[Footnote 6: _Quod Deus Immut._, Sec. 1 and 2; _De Abrahamo_, Sec. 22;\n_Quis Rerum Divin. Haeres_, Sec. 13, and following; 55, 58, and following;\n_De Profugis_, Sec. 7 and 8; _Quod Omnis Probus Liber_, entirely; _De\nVita Contemp._, entirely.]\n\n[Footnote 7: Talm. of Bab., _Pesachim_, 67 _b_.]\n\n[Footnote 8: Talmud of Jerus., _Peah_, i. 1.]\n\nAn exquisite sympathy with Nature furnished him each moment with\nexpressive images. Sometimes a remarkable ingenuity, which we call\nwit, adorned his aphorisms; at other times, their liveliness consisted\nin the happy use of popular proverbs. \"How wilt thou say to thy\nbrother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a\nbeam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out\nof thine own eye, and then thou shalt see clearly to cast out the mote\nout of thy brother's eye.\"[1]\n\n[Footnote 1: Matt. vii. 4, 5. Compare Talmud of Babylon, _Baba\nBathra_, 15 _b_, _Erachin_, 16 _b_.]\n\nThese lessons, long hidden in the heart of the young Master, soon\ngathered around him a few disciples. The spirit of the time favored\nsmall churches; it was the period of the Essenes or Therapeutae.\nRabbis, each having his distinctive teaching, Shemaia, Abtalion,\nHillel, Shammai, Judas the Gaulonite, Gamaliel, and many others, whose\nmaxims form the Talmud,[1] appeared on all sides. They wrote very\nlittle; the Jewish doctors of this time did not write books;\neverything was done by conversations, and in public lessons, to which\nit was sought to give a form easily remembered.[2] The proclamation by\nthe young carpenter of Nazareth of these maxims, for the most part\nalready generally known, but which, thanks to him, were to regenerate\nthe world, was therefore no striking event. It was only one rabbi more\n(it is true, the most charming of all), and around him some young men,\neager to hear him, and thirsting for knowledge. It requires time to\ncommand the attention of men. As yet there were no Christians; though\ntrue Christianity was founded, and, doubtless, it was never more\nperfect than at this first period. Jesus added to it nothing durable\nafterward. Indeed, in one sense, he compromised it; for every\nmovement, in order to triumph, must make sacrifices; we never come\nfrom the contest of life unscathed.\n\n[Footnote 1: See especially _Pirke Aboth_, ch. i.]\n\n[Footnote 2: The Talmud, a _resume_ of this vast movement of the\nschools, was scarcely commenced till the second century of our era.]\n\nTo conceive the good, in fact, is not sufficient; it must be made to\nsucceed amongst men. To accomplish this, less pure paths must be\nfollowed. Certainly, if the Gospel was confined to some chapters of\nMatthew and Luke, it would be more perfect, and would not now be open\nto so many objections; but would Jesus have converted the world\nwithout miracles? If he had died at the period of his career we have\nnow reached, there would not have been in his life a single page to\nwound us; but, greater in the eyes of God, he would have remained\nunknown to men; he would have been lost in the crowd of great unknown\nspirits, himself the greatest of all; the truth would not have been\npromulgated, and the world would not have profited from the great\nmoral superiority with which his Father had endowed him. Jesus, son of\nSirach, and Hillel, had uttered aphorisms almost as exalted as those\nof Jesus. Hillel, however, will never be accounted the true founder of\nChristianity. In morals, as in art, precept is nothing, practice is\neverything. The idea which is hidden in a picture of Raphael is of\nlittle moment; it is the picture itself which is prized. So, too, in\nmorals, truth is but little prized when it is a mere sentiment, and\nonly attains its full value when realized in the world as fact. Men of\nindifferent morality have written very good maxims. Very virtuous men,\non the other hand, have done nothing to perpetuate in the world the\ntradition of virtue. The palm is his who has been mighty both in words\nand in works, who has discerned the good, and at the price of his\nblood has caused its triumph. Jesus, from this double point of view,\nis without equal; his glory remains entire, and will ever be renewed.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VI.\n\nJOHN THE BAPTIST--VISIT OF JESUS TO JOHN, AND HIS ABODE IN THE DESERT\nOF JUDEA--ADOPTION OF THE BAPTISM OF JOHN.\n\n\nAn extraordinary man, whose position, from the absence of documentary\nevidence, remains to us in some degree enigmatical, appeared about\nthis time, and was unquestionably to some extent connected with Jesus.\nThis connection tended rather to make the young prophet of Nazareth\ndeviate from his path; but it suggested many important accessories to\nhis religious institution, and, at all events, furnished a very strong\nauthority to his disciples in recommending their Master in the eyes of\na certain class of Jews.\n\nAbout the year 28 of our era (the fifteenth year of the reign of\nTiberius) there spread throughout Palestine the reputation of a\ncertain Johanan, or John, a young ascetic full of zeal and enthusiasm.\nJohn was of the priestly race,[1] and born, it seems, at Juttah near\nHebron, or at Hebron itself.[2] Hebron, the patriarchal city _par\nexcellence_, situated at a short distance from the desert of Judea,\nand within a few hours' journey of the great desert of Arabia, was at\nthis period what it is to-day--one of the bulwarks of Semitic ideas,\nin their most austere form. From his infancy, John was _Nazir_--that\nis to say, subjected by vow to certain abstinences.[3] The desert by\nwhich he was, so to speak, surrounded, early attracted him.[4] He led\nthere the life of a Yogi of India, clothed with skins or stuffs of\ncamel's hair, having for food only locusts and wild honey.[5] A\ncertain number of disciples were grouped around him, sharing his life\nand studying his severe doctrine. We might imagine ourselves\ntransported to the banks of the Ganges, if particular traits had not\nrevealed in this recluse the last descendant of the great prophets of\nIsrael.\n\n[Footnote 1: Luke i. 5; passage from the Gospel of the Ebionites,\npreserved by Epiphanius, (_Adv. Haer._, xxx. 13.)]\n\n[Footnote 2: Luke i. 39. It has been suggested, not without\nprobability, that \"the city of Juda\" mentioned in this passage of\nLuke, is the town of _Jutta_ (Josh. xv. 55, xxi. 16). Robinson\n(_Biblical Researches_, i. 494, ii. 206) has discovered this _Jutta_,\nstill bearing the same name, at two hours' journey south of Hebron.]\n\n[Footnote 3: Luke i. 15.]\n\n[Footnote 4: Luke i. 80.]\n\n[Footnote 5: Matt. iii. 4; Mark i. 6; fragm. of the Gospel of the\nEbionites, in Epiph., _Adv. Haer._, xxx. 13.]\n\nFrom the time that the Jewish nation had begun to reflect upon its\ndestiny with a kind of despair, the imagination of the people had\nreverted with much complacency to the ancient prophets. Now, of all\nthe personages of the past, the remembrance of whom came like the\ndreams of a troubled night to awaken and agitate the people, the\ngreatest was Elias. This giant of the prophets, in his rough solitude\nof Carmel, sharing the life of savage beasts, dwelling in the hollows\nof the rocks, whence he came like a thunderbolt, to make and unmake\nkings, had become, by successive transformations, a sort of superhuman\nbeing, sometimes visible, sometimes invisible, and as one who had not\ntasted death. It was generally believed that Elias would return and\nrestore Israel.[1] The austere life which he had led, the terrible\nremembrances he had left behind him--the impression of which is still\npowerful in the East[2]--the sombre image which, even in our own time,\ncauses trembling and death--all this mythology, full of vengeance and\nterror, vividly struck the mind of the people, and stamped as with a\nbirth-mark all the creations of the popular mind. Whoever aspired to\nact powerfully upon the people, must imitate Elias; and, as solitary\nlife had been the essential characteristic of this prophet, they were\naccustomed to conceive \"the man of God\" as a hermit. They imagined\nthat all the holy personages had had their days of penitence, of\nsolitude, and of austerity.[3] The retreat to the desert thus became\nthe condition and the prelude of high destinies.\n\n[Footnote 1: Malachi iv. 5, 6; (iii. 23, 24, according to the Vulg.);\n_Ecclesiasticus_ xlviii. 10; Matt. xvi. 14, xvii. 10, and following;\nMark vi. 15, viii. 28, ix. 10, and following; Luke ix. 8, 19; John i.\n21, 25.]\n\n[Footnote 2: The ferocious Abdallah, pacha of St. Jean d'Acre, nearly\ndied from fright at seeing him in a dream, standing erect on his\nmountain. In the pictures of the Christian churches, he is surrounded\nwith decapitated heads. The Mussulmans dread him.]\n\n[Footnote 3: _Isaiah_ ii. 9-11.]\n\nNo doubt this thought of imitation had occupied John's mind.[1] The\nanchorite life, so opposed to the spirit of the ancient Jewish people,\nand with which the vows, such as those of the Nazirs and the\nRechabites, had no relation, pervaded all parts of Judea. The Essenes\nor Therapeutae were grouped near the birthplace of John, on the eastern\nshores of the Dead Sea.[2] It was imagined that the chiefs of sects\nought to be recluses, having rules and institutions of their own, like\nthe founders of religious orders. The teachers of the young were also\nat times species of anchorites,[3] somewhat resembling the\n_gourous_[4] of Brahminism. In fact, might there not in this be a\nremote influence of the _mounis_ of India? Perhaps some of those\nwandering Buddhist monks who overran the world, as the first\nFranciscans did in later times, preaching by their actions and\nconverting people who knew not their language, might have turned their\nsteps toward Judea, as they certainly did toward Syria and Babylon?[5]\nOn this point we have no certainty. Babylon had become for some time a\ntrue focus of Buddhism. Boudasp (Bodhisattva) was reputed a wise\nChaldean, and the founder of Sabeism. _Sabeism_ was, as its etymology\nindicates,[6] _baptism_--that is to say, the religion of many\nbaptisms--the origin of the sect still existing called \"Christians of\nSt. John,\" or Mendaites, which the Arabs call _el-Mogtasila_, \"the\nBaptists.\"[7] It is difficult to unravel these vague analogies. The\nsects floating between Judaism, Christianity, Baptism, and Sabeism,\nwhich we find in the region beyond the Jordan during the first\ncenturies of our era,[8] present to criticism the most singular\nproblem, in consequence of the confused accounts of them which have\ncome down to us. We may believe, at all events, that many of the\nexternal practices of John, of the Essenes,[9] and of the Jewish\nspiritual teachers of this time, were derived from influences then but\nrecently received from the far East. The fundamental practice which\ncharacterized the sect of John, and gave it its name, has always had\nits centre in lower Chaldea, and constitutes a religion which is\nperpetuated there to the present day.\n\n[Footnote 1: Luke i. 17.]\n\n[Footnote 2: Pliny, _Hist. Nat._, v. 17; Epiph., _Adv. Haer._, xix. 1\nand 2.]\n\n[Footnote 3: Josephus, _Vita_, 2.]\n\n[Footnote 4: Spiritual preceptors.]\n\n[Footnote 5: I have developed this point elsewhere. _Hist. Gener. des\nLangues Semitiques_, III. iv. 1; _Journ. Asiat._, February-March,\n1856.]\n\n[Footnote 6: The Aramean word _seba_, origin of the name of _Sabians_,\nis synonymous with [Greek: baptizo].]\n\n[Footnote 7: I have treated of this at greater length in the _Journal\nAsiatique_, Nov.-Dec., 1853, and August-Sept., 1855. It is remarkable\nthat the Elchasaites, a Sabian or Baptist sect, inhabited the same\ndistrict as the Essenes, (the eastern bank of the Dead Sea), and were\nconfounded with them (Epiph., _Adv. Haer._, xix. 1, 2, 4, xxx. 16, 17,\nliii. 1, 2; _Philosophumena_, IX. iii. 15, 16, X. xx. 29).]\n\n[Footnote 8: See the remarks of Epiphanius on the Essenes,\nHemero-Baptists, Nazarites, Ossenes, Nazarenes, Ebionites, Samsonites\n(_Adv. Haer._, books i. and ii.), and those of the author of the\n_Philosophumena_ on the Elchasaites (books ix. and x).]\n\n[Footnote 9: Epiph., _Adv. Haer._, xix., xxx., liii.]\n\nThis practice was baptism, or total immersion. Ablutions were already\nfamiliar to the Jews, as they were to all religions of the East.[1]\nThe Essenes had given them a peculiar extension.[2] Baptism had become\nan ordinary ceremony on the introduction of proselytes into the bosom\nof the Jewish religion, a sort of initiatory rite.[3] Never before\nJohn the Baptist, however, had either this importance or this form\nbeen given to immersion. John had fixed the scene of his activity in\nthat part of the desert of Judea which is in the neighborhood of the\nDead Sea.[4] At the periods when he administered baptism, he went to\nthe banks of the Jordan,[5] either to Bethany or Bethabara,[6] upon\nthe eastern shore, probably opposite to Jericho, or to a place called\n_AEnon_, or \"the Fountains,\"[7] near Salim, where there was much\nwater.[8] Considerable crowds, especially of the tribe of Judah,\nhastened to him to be baptized.[9] In a few months he thus became one\nof the most influential men in Judea, and acquired much importance in\nthe general estimation.\n\n[Footnote 1: Mark vii. 4; Jos., _Ant._, XVIII. v. 2; Justin, _Dial.\ncum Tryph._, 17, 29, 80; Epiph., _Adv. Haer._, xvii.]\n\n[Footnote 2: Jos., _B.J._, II. viii. 5, 7, 9, 13.]\n\n[Footnote 3: Mishnah, _Pesachim_, viii. 8; Talmud of Babylon,\n_Jebamoth_, 46 _b_; _Kerithuth_, 9 _a_; _Aboda Zara_, 57 _a_;\n_Masseket Gerim_ (edit. Kirchheim, 1851), pp. 38-40.]\n\n[Footnote 4: Matt. iii. 1; Mark i. 4.]\n\n[Footnote 5: Luke iii. 3.]\n\n[Footnote 6: John i. 28, iii. 26. All the manuscripts say _Bethany_;\nbut, as no one knows of Bethany in these places, Origen (_Comment. in\nJoann._, vi. 24) has proposed to substitute _Bethabara_, and his\ncorrection has been generally accepted. The two words have, moreover,\nanalogous meanings, and seem to indicate a place where there was a\nferry-boat to cross the river.]\n\n[Footnote 7: _AEnon_ is the Chaldean plural, _AEnawan_, \"fountains.\"]\n\n[Footnote 8: John iii. 23. The locality of this place is doubtful. The\ncircumstance mentioned by the evangelist would lead us to believe that\nit was not very near the Jordan. Nevertheless, the synoptics are\nagreed in placing the scene of the baptisms of John on the banks of\nthat river (Matt. iii. 6; Mark i. 5; Luke iii. 3). The comparison of\nverses 22 and 23 of chap. iii. of John, and of verses 3 and 4 of chap.\niv. of the same Gospel, would lead us to believe that Salim was in\nJudea, and consequently in the oasis of Jericho, near the mouth of the\nJordan; since it would be difficult to find in any other district of\nthe tribe of Judah a single natural basin in which any one might be\ntotally immersed. Saint Jerome wishes to place Salim much more north,\nnear Beth-Schean or Scythopolis. But Robinson (_Bibl. Res._, iii. 333)\nhas not been able to find anything at these places that justifies this\nassertion.]\n\n[Footnote 9: Mark i. 5; Josephus, _Ant._, XVIII. v. 2.]\n\nThe people took him for a prophet,[1] and many imagined that it was\nElias who had risen again.[2] The belief in these resurrections was\nwidely spread;[3] it was thought that God would raise from the tomb\ncertain of the ancient prophets to guide Israel toward its final\ndestiny. Others held John to be the Messiah himself, although he made\nno such pretensions.[4] The priests and the scribes, opposed to this\nrevival of prophetism, and the constant enemies of enthusiasts,\ndespised him. But the popularity of the Baptist awed them, and they\ndared not speak against him.[5] It was a victory which the ideas of\nthe multitude gained over the priestly aristocracy. When the chief\npriests were compelled to declare themselves explicitly on this point,\nthey were considerably embarrassed.[6]\n\n[Footnote 1: Matt. xiv. 5, xxi. 26.]\n\n[Footnote 2: Matt. vi. 14; Mark vi. 15; John i. 21.]\n\n[Footnote 3: Matt. xiv. 2; Luke ix. 8.]\n\n[Footnote 4: Luke iii. 15, and following; John i. 20.]\n\n[Footnote 5: Matt. xxi. 25, and following; Luke vii. 30.]\n\n[Footnote 6: Matt., _loc. cit._]\n\nBaptism with John was only a sign destined to make an impression, and\nto prepare the minds of the people for some great movement. No doubt\nhe was possessed in the highest degree with the Messianic hope, and\nthat his principal action was in accordance with it. \"Repent,\" said\nhe, \"for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.\"[1] He announced a \"great\nwrath,\" that is to say, terrible calamities which should come to\npass,[2] and declared that the axe was already laid at the root of the\ntree, and that the tree would soon be cast into the fire. He\nrepresented the Messiah with a fan in his hand, collecting the good\nwheat and burning the chaff. Repentance, of which baptism was the\ntype, the giving of alms, the reformation of habits,[3] were in John's\nview the great means of preparation for the coming events, though we\ndo not know exactly in what light he conceived them. It is, however,\ncertain that he preached with much power against the same adversaries\nas Jesus, against rich priests, the Pharisees, the doctors, in one\nword, against official Judaism; and that, like Jesus, he was specially\nwelcomed by the despised classes.[4] He made no account of the title\n\"son of Abraham,\" and said that God could raise up sons unto Abraham\nfrom the stones of the road.[5] It does not seem that he possessed\neven the germ of the great idea which led to the triumph of Jesus, the\nidea of a pure religion; but he powerfully served this idea in\nsubstituting a private rite for the legal ceremonies which required\npriests, as the Flagellants of the Middle Ages were the precursors of\nthe Reformation, by depriving the official clergy of the monopoly of\nthe sacraments and of absolution. The general tone of his sermons was\nstern and severe. The expressions which he used against his\nadversaries appear to have been most violent.[6] It was a harsh and\ncontinuous invective. It is probable that he did not remain quite a\nstranger to politics. Josephus, who, through his teacher Banou, was\nbrought into almost direct connection with John, suggests as much by\nhis ambiguous words,[7] and the catastrophe which put an end to John's\nlife seems to imply this. His disciples led a very austere life,[8]\nfasted often, and affected a sad and anxious demeanor. We have at\ntimes glimpses of communism--the rich man being ordered to share all\nthat he had with the poor.[9] The poor man appeared as the one who\nwould be specially benefited by the kingdom of God.\n\n[Footnote 1: Matt. iii. 2.]\n\n[Footnote 2: Matt. iii. 7.]\n\n[Footnote 3: Luke iii. 11-14; Josephus, _Ant._ XVIII. v. 2.]\n\n[Footnote 4: Matt. xxi. 32; Luke iii. 12-14.]\n\n[Footnote 5: Matt. iii. 9.]\n\n[Footnote 6: Matt. iii. 7; Luke iii. 7.]\n\n[Footnote 7: _Ant._ XVIII. v. 2. We must observe that, when Josephus\ndescribed the secret and more or less seditious doctrines of his\ncountrymen, he suppressed everything which had reference to the\nMessianic beliefs, and, in order not to give umbrage to the Romans,\nspread over these doctrines a vulgar and commonplace air, which made\nall the heads of Jewish sects appear as mere professors of morals or\nstoics.]\n\n[Footnote 8: Matt. ix. 14.]\n\n[Footnote 9: Luke iii. 11.]\n\nAlthough the centre of John's action was Judea, his fame quickly\npenetrated to Galilee and reached Jesus, who, by his first discourses,\nhad already gathered around himself a small circle of hearers.\nEnjoying as yet little authority, and doubtless impelled by the desire\nto see a teacher whose instruction had so much in common with his own,\nJesus quitted Galilee and repaired with his small group of disciples\nto John.[1] The newcomers were baptized like every one else. John\nwelcomed this group of Galilean disciples, and did not object to their\nremaining distinct from his own. The two teachers were young; they had\nmany ideas in common; they loved one another, and publicly vied with\neach other in exhibitions of kindly feeling. At the first glance, such\na fact surprises us in John the Baptist, and we are tempted to call it\nin question. Humility has never been a feature of strong Jewish minds.\nIt might have been expected that a character so stubborn, a sort of\nLamennais always irritated, would be very passionate, and suffer\nneither rivalry nor half adhesion. But this manner of viewing things\nrests upon a false conception of the person of John. We imagine him an\nold man; he was, on the contrary, of the same age as Jesus,[2] and\nvery young according to the ideas of the time. In mental development,\nhe was the brother rather than the father of Jesus. The two young\nenthusiasts, full of the same hopes and the same hatreds, were able to\nmake common cause, and mutually to support each other. Certainly an\naged teacher, seeing a man without celebrity approach him, and\nmaintain toward him an aspect of independence, would have rebelled; we\nhave scarcely an example of a leader of a school receiving with\neagerness his future successor. But youth is capable of any sacrifice,\nand we may admit that John, having recognized in Jesus a spirit akin\nto his own, accepted him without any personal reservation. These good\nrelations became afterward the starting-point of a whole system\ndeveloped by the evangelists, which consisted in giving the Divine\nmission of Jesus the primary basis of the attestation of John. Such\nwas the degree of authority acquired by the Baptist, that it was not\nthought possible to find in the world a better guarantee. But far from\nJohn abdicating in favor of Jesus, Jesus, during all the time that he\npassed with him, recognized him as his superior, and only developed\nhis own genius with timidity.\n\n[Footnote 1: Matt. iii. 13, and following; Mark i. 9, and following;\nLuke iii. 21, and following; John i. 29, and following; iii. 22, and\nfollowing. The synoptics make Jesus come to John, before he had played\nany public part. But if it is true, as they state, that John\nrecognized Jesus from the first and welcomed him, it must be supposed\nthat Jesus was already a somewhat renowned teacher. The fourth Gospel\nbrings Jesus to John twice, the first time while yet unknown, the\nsecond time with a band of disciples. Without touching here the\nquestion of the precise journeys of Jesus (an insoluble question,\nseeing the contradictions of the documents and the little care the\nevangelists had in being exact in such matters), and without denying\nthat Jesus might have made a journey to John when he had as yet no\nnotoriety, we adopt the information furnished by the fourth Gospel\n(iii. 22, and following), namely, that Jesus, before beginning to\nbaptize like John, had formed a school. We must remember, besides,\nthat the first pages of the fourth Gospel are notes tacked together\nwithout rigorous chronological arrangement.]\n\n[Footnote 2: Luke i., although indeed all the details of the\nnarrative, especially those which refer to the relationship of John\nwith Jesus, are legendary.]\n\nIt seems, in fact, that, notwithstanding his profound originality,\nJesus, during some weeks at least, was the imitator of John. His way\nas yet was not clear before him. At all times, moreover, Jesus yielded\nmuch to opinion, and adopted many things which were not in exact\naccordance with his own ideas, or for which he cared little, merely\nbecause they were popular; but these accessories never injured his\nprincipal idea, and were always subordinate to it. Baptism had been\nbrought by John into very great favor; Jesus thought himself obliged\nto do like John; therefore he baptized, and his disciples baptized\nalso.[1] No doubt he accompanied baptism with preaching, similar to\nthat of John. The Jordan was thus covered on all sides with Baptists,\nwhose discourses were more or less successful. The pupil soon equaled\nthe master, and his baptism was much sought after. There was on this\nsubject some jealousy among the disciples;[2] the disciples of John\ncame to complain to him of the growing success of the young Galilean,\nwhose baptism would, they thought, soon supplant his own. But the two\nteachers remained superior to this meanness. The superiority of John\nwas, besides, too indisputable for Jesus, still little known, to think\nof contesting it. Jesus only wished to increase under John's\nprotection; and thought himself obliged, in order to gain the\nmultitude, to employ the external means which had given John such\nastonishing success. When he recommenced to preach after John's\narrest, the first words put into his mouth are but the repetition of\none of the familiar phrases of the Baptist.[3] Many other of John's\nexpressions may be found repeated verbally in the discourses of\nJesus.[4] The two schools appear to have lived long on good terms with\neach other;[5] and after the death of John, Jesus, as his trusty\nfriend, was one of the first to be informed of the event.[6]\n\n[Footnote 1: John iii. 22-26, iv. 1, 2. The parenthesis of ver. 2\nappears to be an interpolation, or perhaps a tardy scruple of John\ncorrecting himself.]\n\n[Footnote 2: John iii. 26, iv. 1.]\n\n[Footnote 3: Matt. iii. 2, iv. 17.]\n\n[Footnote 4: Matt. iii. 7, xii. 34, xxiii. 33.]\n\n[Footnote 5: Matt. xi. 2-13.]\n\n[Footnote 6: Matt. xiv. 12.]\n\nJohn, in fact, was soon cut short in his prophetic career. Like the\nancient Jewish prophets, he was, in the highest degree, a censurer of\nthe established authorities.[1] The extreme vivacity with which he\nexpressed himself at their expense could not fail to bring him into\ntrouble. In Judea, John does not appear to have been disturbed by\nPilate; but in Perea, beyond the Jordan, he came into the territory of\nAntipas. This tyrant was uneasy at the political leaven which was so\nlittle concealed by John in his preaching. The great assemblages of\nmen gathered around the Baptist, by religious and patriotic\nenthusiasm, gave rise to suspicion.[2] An entirely personal grievance\nwas also added to these motives of state, and rendered the death of\nthe austere censor inevitable.\n\n[Footnote 1: Luke iii. 19.]\n\n[Footnote 2: Jos., _Ant._, XVIII. v. 2.]\n\nOne of the most strongly marked characters of this tragical family of\nthe Herods was Herodias, granddaughter of Herod the Great. Violent,\nambitious, and passionate, she detested Judaism, and despised its\nlaws.[1] She had been married, probably against her will, to her uncle\nHerod, son of Mariamne,[2] whom Herod the Great had disinherited,[3]\nand who never played any public part. The inferior position of her\nhusband, in respect to the other persons of the family, gave her no\npeace; she determined to be sovereign at whatever cost.[4] Antipas was\nthe instrument of whom she made use. This feeble man having become\ndesperately enamored of her, promised to marry her, and to repudiate\nhis first wife, daughter of Hareth, king of Petra, and emir of the\nneighboring tribes of Perea. The Arabian princess, receiving a hint of\nthis design, resolved to fly. Concealing her intention, she pretended\nthat she wished to make a journey to Machero, in her father's\nterritory, and caused herself to be conducted thither by the officers\nof Antipas.[5]\n\n[Footnote 1: Jos., _Ant._, XVIII. v. 4.]\n\n[Footnote 2: Matthew (chap. xiv. 3, in the Greek text) and Mark (chap.\nvi. 17) have it that this was Philip; but this is certainly an\ninadvertency (see Jos., _Ant._, XVIII. v. 1, 4). The wife of Philip\nwas Salome, daughter of Herodias.]\n\n[Footnote 3: Jos., _Ant._, XVIII. iv. 2.]\n\n[Footnote 4: Ibid., XVIII. vii. 1, 2, _B.J._, II. ix. 6.]\n\n[Footnote 5: Ibid., XVIII. v. 1.]\n\nMakaur,[1] or Machero, was a colossal fortress built by Alexander\nJannaeus, and rebuilt by Herod, in one of the most abrupt wadys to the\neast of the Dead Sea.[2] It was a wild and desolate country, filled\nwith strange legends, and believed to be haunted by demons.[3] The\nfortress was just on the boundary of the lands of Hareth and of\nAntipas. At that time it was in the possession of Hareth.[4] The\nlatter having been warned, had prepared everything for the flight of\nhis daughter, who was conducted from tribe to tribe to Petra.\n\n[Footnote 1: This form is found in the Talmud of Jerusalem (_Shebiit_,\nix. 2), and in the Targums of Jonathan and of Jerusalem (_Numb._ xxii.\n35).]\n\n[Footnote 2: Now Mkaur, in the wady Zerka Main. This place has not\nbeen visited since Seetzen was there.]\n\n[Footnote 3: Josephus, _De Bell. Jud._, VII. vi. 1, and following.]\n\n[Footnote 4: Jos., _Ant._, XVIII. v. 1.]\n\nThe almost incestuous[1] union of Antipas and Herodias then took\nplace. The Jewish laws on marriage were a constant rock of offence\nbetween the irreligious family of the Herods and the strict Jews.[2]\nThe members of this numerous and rather isolated dynasty being obliged\nto marry amongst themselves, frequent violations of the limits\nprescribed by the Law necessarily took place. John, in energetically\nblaming Antipas, was the echo of the general feeling.[3] This was more\nthan sufficient to decide the latter to follow up his suspicions. He\ncaused the Baptist to be arrested, and ordered him to be shut up in\nthe fortress of Machero, which he had probably seized after the\ndeparture of the daughter of Hareth.[4]\n\n[Footnote 1: _Lev._ xviii. 16.]\n\n[Footnote 2: Jos., _Ant._, XV. vii. 10.]\n\n[Footnote 3: Matt. xiv. 4; Mark vi. 18; Luke iii. 19.]\n\n[Footnote 4: Jos., _Ant._, XVIII. v. 2.]\n\nMore timid than cruel, Antipas did not desire to put him to death.\nAccording to certain rumors, he feared a popular sedition.[1]\nAccording to another version,[2] he had taken pleasure in listening to\nthe prisoner, and these conversations had thrown him into great\nperplexities. It is certain that the detention was prolonged, and that\nJohn, in his prison, preserved an extended influence. He corresponded\nwith his disciples, and we find him again in connection with Jesus.\nHis faith in the near approach of the Messiah only became firmer; he\nfollowed with attention the movements outside, and sought to discover\nin them the signs favorable to the accomplishment of the hopes which\nhe cherished.\n\n[Footnote 1: Matt. xiv. 5.]\n\n[Footnote 2: Mark vi. 20. I read [Greek: eporei], and not [Greek:\nepoiei].]\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VII.\n\nDEVELOPMENT OF THE IDEAS OF JESUS RESPECTING THE KINGDOM OF GOD.\n\n\nUp to the arrest of John, which took place about the summer of the\nyear 29, Jesus did not quit the neighborhood of the Dead Sea and of\nthe Jordan. An abode in the desert of Judea was generally considered\nas the preparation for great things, as a sort of \"retreat\" before\npublic acts. Jesus followed in this respect the example of others, and\npassed forty days with no other companions than savage beasts,\nmaintaining a rigorous fast. The disciples speculated much concerning\nthis sojourn. The desert was popularly regarded as the residence of\ndemons.[1] There exist in the world few regions more desolate, more\nabandoned by God, more shut out from life, than the rocky declivity\nwhich forms the western shore of the Dead Sea. It was believed that\nduring the time which Jesus passed in this frightful country, he had\ngone through terrible trials; that Satan had assailed him with his\nillusions, or tempted him with seductive promises; that afterward, in\norder to recompense him for his victory, the angels had come to\nminister to him.[2]\n\n[Footnote 1: _Tobit_ viii. 3; Luke xi. 24.]\n\n[Footnote 2: Matt. iv. 1, and following; Mark i. 12, 13; Luke iv. 1,\nand following. Certainly, the striking similarity that these\nnarratives present to the analogous legends of the _Vendidad_ (farg.\nxix.) and of the _Lalitavistara_ (chap. xvii., xviii., xxi.) would\nlead us to regard them only as myths. But the meagre and concise\nnarrative of Mark, which evidently represents on this point the\nprimitive compilation, leads us to suppose a real fact, which\nfurnished later the theme of legendary developments.]\n\nIt was probably in coming from the desert that Jesus learned of the\narrest of John the Baptist. He had no longer any reason to prolong his\nstay in a country which was partly strange to him. Perhaps he feared\nalso being involved in the severities exercised toward John, and did\nnot wish to expose himself, at a time in which, seeing the little\ncelebrity he had, his death could in no way serve the progress of his\nideas. He regained Galilee,[1] his true home, ripened by an important\nexperience, and having, through contact with a great man, very\ndifferent from himself, acquired a consciousness of his own\noriginality.\n\n[Footnote 1: Matt. iv. 12; Mark i. 14; Luke iv. 14; John iv. 3.]\n\nOn the whole, the influence of John had been more hurtful than useful\nto Jesus. It checked his development; for everything leads us to\nbelieve that he had, when he descended toward the Jordan, ideas\nsuperior to those of John, and that it was by a sort of concession\nthat he inclined for a time toward baptism. Perhaps if the Baptist,\nwhose authority it would have been difficult for him to escape, had\nremained free, Jesus would not have been able to throw off the yoke of\nexternal rites and ceremonies, and would then, no doubt, have remained\nan unknown Jewish sectary; for the world would not have abandoned its\nold ceremonies merely for others of a different kind. It has been by\nthe power of a religion, free from all external forms, that\nChristianity has attracted elevated minds. The Baptist once\nimprisoned, his school was soon diminished, and Jesus found himself\nleft to his own impulses. The only things he owed to John, were\nlessons in preaching and in popular action. From this moment, in fact,\nhe preached with greater power, and spoke to the multitude with\nauthority.[1]\n\n[Footnote 1: Matt. vii. 29; Mark i. 22; Luke iv. 32.]\n\nIt seems also that his sojourn with John had, not so much by the\ninfluence of the Baptist, as by the natural progress of his own\nthought, considerably ripened his ideas on \"the kingdom of heaven.\"\nHis watchword, henceforth, is the \"good tidings,\" the announcement\nthat the kingdom of God is at hand.[1] Jesus is no longer simply a\ndelightful moralist, aspiring to express sublime lessons in short and\nlively aphorisms; he is the transcendent revolutionary, who essays to\nrenovate the world from its very basis, and to establish upon earth\nthe ideal which he had conceived. \"To await the kingdom of God\" is\nhenceforth synonymous with being a disciple of Jesus.[2] This phrase,\n\"kingdom of God,\" or \"kingdom of heaven,\" was, as we have said,\nalready long familiar to the Jews. But Jesus gave it a moral sense, a\nsocial application, which even the author of the Book of Daniel, in\nhis apocalyptic enthusiasm, had scarcely dared to imagine.\n\n[Footnote 1: Mark i. 14, 15.]\n\n[Footnote 2: Mark xv. 43.]\n\nHe declared that in the present world evil is the reigning power.\nSatan is \"the prince of this world,\"[1] and everything obeys him. The\nkings kill the prophets. The priests and the doctors do not that which\nthey command others to do; the righteous are persecuted, and the only\nportion of the good is weeping. The \"world\" is in this manner the\nenemy of God and His saints:[2] but God will awaken and avenge His\nsaints. The day is at hand, for the abomination is at its height. The\nreign of goodness will have its turn.\n\n[Footnote 1: John xii. 31, xiv. 30, xvi. 11. (Comp. 2 _Cor._ iv. 4;\n_Ephes._ ii. 2.)]\n\n[Footnote 2: John i. 10, vii. 7, xiv. 17, 22, 27, xv. 18, and\nfollowing; xvi. 8, 20, 33, xvii. 9, 14, 16, 25. This meaning of the\nword \"world\" is especially applied in the writings of Paul and John.]\n\nThe advent of this reign of goodness will be a great and sudden\nrevolution. The world will seem to be turned upside down; the actual\nstate being bad, in order to represent the future, it suffices to\nconceive nearly the reverse of that which exists. The first shall be\nlast.[1] A new order shall govern humanity. Now the good and the bad\nare mixed, like the tares and the good grain in a field. The master\nlets them grow together; but the hour of violent separation will\narrive.[2] The kingdom of God will be as the casting of a great net,\nwhich gathers both good and bad fish; the good are preserved, and the\nrest are thrown away.[3] The germ of this great revolution will not be\nrecognizable in its beginning. It will be like a grain of\nmustard-seed, which is the smallest of seeds, but which, thrown into\nthe earth, becomes a tree under the foliage of which the birds\nrepose;[4] or it will be like the leaven which, deposited in the meal,\nmakes the whole to ferment.[5] A series of parables, often obscure,\nwas designed to express the suddenness of this event, its apparent\ninjustice, and its inevitable and final character.[6]\n\n[Footnote 1: Matt. xix. 30, xx. 16; Mark x. 31; Luke xiii. 30.]\n\n[Footnote 2: Matt. xiii. 24, and following.]\n\n[Footnote 3: Matt. xiii. 47, and following.]\n\n[Footnote 4: Matt. xiii. 31, and following; Mark iv. 31, and\nfollowing; Luke xiii. 19, and following.]\n\n[Footnote 5: Matt. xiii. 33; Luke xiii. 21.]\n\n[Footnote 6: Matt. xiii. entirely; xviii. 23, and following; xx. 1,\nand following; Luke xiii. 18, and following.]\n\nWho was to establish this kingdom of God? Let us remember that the\nfirst thought of Jesus, a thought so deeply rooted in him that it had\nprobably no beginning, and formed part of his very being, was that he\nwas the Son of God, the friend of his Father, the doer of his will.\nThe answer of Jesus to such a question could not therefore be\ndoubtful. The persuasion that he was to establish the kingdom of God\ntook absolute possession of his mind. He regarded himself as the\nuniversal reformer. The heavens, the earth, the whole of nature,\nmadness, disease, and death, were but his instruments. In his paroxysm\nof heroic will, he believed himself all powerful. If the earth would\nnot submit to this supreme transformation, it would be broken up,\npurified by fire, and by the breath of God. A new heaven would be\ncreated, and the entire world would be peopled with the angels of\nGod.[1]\n\n[Footnote 1: Matt. xxii. 30.]\n\nA radical revolution,[1] embracing even nature itself, was the\nfundamental idea of Jesus. Henceforward, without doubt, he renounced\npolitics; the example of Judas, the Gaulonite, had shown him the\ninutility of popular seditions. He never thought of revolting against\nthe Romans and tetrarchs. His was not the unbridled and anarchical\nprinciple of the Gaulonite. His submission to the established powers,\nthough really derisive, was in appearance complete. He paid tribute to\nCaesar, in order to avoid disturbance. Liberty and right were not of\nthis world, why should he trouble his life with vain anxieties?\nDespising the earth, and convinced that the present world was not\nworth caring for, he took refuge in his ideal kingdom; he established\nthe great doctrine of transcendent disdain,[2] the true doctrine of\nliberty of souls, which alone can give peace. But he had not yet said,\n\"My kingdom is not of this world.\" Much darkness mixed itself with\neven his most correct views. Sometimes strange temptations crossed his\nmind. In the desert of Judea, Satan had offered him the kingdoms of\nthe earth. Not knowing the power of the Roman empire, he might, with\nthe enthusiasm there was in the heart of Judea, and which ended soon\nafter in so terrible an outbreak, hope to establish a kingdom by the\nnumber and the daring of his partisans. Many times, perhaps, the\nsupreme question presented itself--will the kingdom of God be realized\nby force or by gentleness, by revolt or by patience? One day, it is\nsaid, the simple men of Galilee wished to carry him away and make him\nking,[3] but Jesus fled into the mountain and remained there some time\nalone. His noble nature preserved him from the error which would have\nmade him an agitator, or a chief of rebels, a Theudas or a Barkokeba.\n\n[Footnote 1: [Greek: Apochatastasis panton], _Acts_ iii. 21.]\n\n[Footnote 2: Matt. xvii. 23-26; xxii. 16-22.]\n\n[Footnote 3: John vi. 15.]\n\nThe revolution he wished to effect was always a moral revolution; but\nhe had not yet begun to trust to the angels and the last trumpet for\nits execution. It was upon men and by the aid of men themselves that\nhe wished to act. A visionary who had no other idea than the proximity\nof the last judgment, would not have had this care for the\namelioration of man, and would not have given utterance to the finest\nmoral teaching that humanity has received. Much vagueness no doubt\ntinged his ideas, and it was rather a noble feeling than a fixed\ndesign, that urged him to the sublime work which was realized by him,\nthough in a very different manner to what he imagined.\n\nIt was indeed the kingdom of God, or in other words, the kingdom of\nthe Spirit, which he founded; and if Jesus, from the bosom of his\nFather, sees his work bear fruit in the world, he may indeed say with\ntruth, \"This is what I have desired.\" That which Jesus founded, that\nwhich will remain eternally his, allowing for the imperfections which\nmix themselves with everything realized by humanity, is the doctrine\nof the liberty of the soul. Greece had already had beautiful ideas on\nthis subject.[1] Various stoics had learned how to be free even under\na tyrant. But in general the ancient world had regarded liberty as\nattached to certain political forms; freedom was personified in\nHarmodius and Aristogiton, Brutus and Cassius. The true Christian\nenjoys more real freedom; here below he is an exile; what matters it\nto him who is the transitory governor of this earth, which is not his\nhome? Liberty for him is truth.[2] Jesus did not know history\nsufficiently to understand that such a doctrine came most opportunely\nat the moment when republican liberty ended, and when the small\nmunicipal constitutions of antiquity were absorbed in the unity of the\nRoman empire. But his admirable good sense, and the truly prophetic\ninstinct which he had of his mission, guided him with marvelous\ncertainty. By the sentence, \"Render unto Caesar the things which are\nCaesar's, and to God the things which are God's,\" he created something\napart from politics, a refuge for souls in the midst of the empire of\nbrute force. Assuredly, such a doctrine had its dangers. To establish\nas a principle that we must recognize the legitimacy of a power by the\ninscription on its coins, to proclaim that the perfect man pays\ntribute with scorn and without question, was to destroy republicanism\nin the ancient form, and to favor all tyranny. Christianity, in this\nsense, has contributed much to weaken the sense of duty of the\ncitizen, and to deliver the world into the absolute power of existing\ncircumstances. But in constituting an immense free association, which\nduring three hundred years was able to dispense with politics,\nChristianity amply compensated for the wrong it had done to civic\nvirtues. The power of the state was limited to the things of earth;\nthe mind was freed, or at least the terrible rod of Roman omnipotence\nwas broken forever.\n\n[Footnote 1: See Stobaeus, _Florilegium_, ch. lxii., lxxvii., lxxxvi.,\nand following.]\n\n[Footnote 2: John viii. 32, and following.]\n\nThe man who is especially preoccupied with the duties of public life,\ndoes not readily forgive those who attach little importance to his\nparty quarrels. He especially blames those who subordinate political\nto social questions, and profess a sort of indifference for the\nformer. In one sense he is right, for exclusive power is prejudicial\nto the good government of human affairs. But what progress have\n\"parties\" been able to effect in the general morality of our species?\nIf Jesus, instead of founding his heavenly kingdom, had gone to Rome,\nhad expended his energies in conspiring against Tiberius, or in\nregretting Germanicus, what would have become of the world? As an\naustere republican, or zealous patriot, he would not have arrested the\ngreat current of the affairs of his age, but in declaring that\npolitics are insignificant, he has revealed to the world this truth,\nthat one's country is not everything, and that the man is before, and\nhigher than, the citizen.\n\nOur principles of positive science are offended by the dreams\ncontained in the programme of Jesus. We know the history of the earth;\ncosmical revolutions of the kind which Jesus expected are only\nproduced by geological or astronomical causes, the connection of which\nwith spiritual things has never yet been demonstrated. But, in order\nto be just to great originators, they must not be judged by the\nprejudices in which they have shared. Columbus discovered America,\nthough starting from very erroneous ideas; Newton believed his foolish\nexplanation of the Apocalypse to be as true as his system of the\nworld. Shall we place an ordinary man of our time above a Francis\nd'Assisi, a St. Bernard, a Joan of Arc, or a Luther, because he is\nfree from errors which these last have professed? Should we measure\nmen by the correctness of their ideas of physics, and by the more or\nless exact knowledge which they possess of the true system of the\nworld? Let us understand better the position of Jesus and that which\nmade his power. The Deism of the eighteenth century, and a certain\nkind of Protestantism, have accustomed us to consider the founder of\nthe Christian faith only as a great moralist, a benefactor of mankind.\nWe see nothing more in the Gospel than good maxims; we throw a prudent\nveil over the strange intellectual state in which it was originated.\nThere are even persons who regret that the French Revolution departed\nmore than once from principles, and that it was not brought about by\nwise and moderate men. Let us not impose our petty and commonplace\nideas on these extraordinary movements so far above our every-day\nlife. Let us continue to admire the \"morality of the gospel\"--let us\nsuppress in our religious teachings the chimera which was its soul;\nbut do not let us believe that with the simple ideas of happiness, or\nof individual morality, we stir the world. The idea of Jesus was much\nmore profound; it was the most revolutionary idea ever formed in a\nhuman brain; it should be taken in its totality, and not with those\ntimid suppressions which deprive it of precisely that which has\nrendered it efficacious for the regeneration of humanity.\n\nThe ideal is ever a Utopia. When we wish nowadays to represent the\nChrist of the modern conscience, the consoler, and the judge of the\nnew times, what course do we take? That which Jesus himself did\neighteen hundred and thirty years ago. We suppose the conditions of\nthe real world quite other than what they are; we represent a moral\nliberator breaking without weapons the chains of the negro,\nameliorating the condition of the poor, and giving liberty to\noppressed nations. We forget that this implies the subversion of the\nworld, the climate of Virginia and that of Congo modified, the blood\nand the race of millions of men changed, our social complications\nrestored to a chimerical simplicity, and the political stratifications\nof Europe displaced from their natural order. The \"restitution of all\nthings\"[1] desired by Jesus was not more difficult. This new earth,\nthis new heaven, this new Jerusalem which comes from above, this cry:\n\"Behold I make all things new!\"[2] are the common characteristics of\nreformers. The contrast of the ideal with the sad reality, always\nproduces in mankind those revolts against unimpassioned reason which\ninferior minds regard as folly, till the day arrives in which they\ntriumph, and in which those who have opposed them are the first to\nrecognize their reasonableness.\n\n[Footnote 1: _Acts_ iii. 21.]\n\n[Footnote 2: _Rev._ xxi. 1, 2, 5.]\n\nThat there may have been a contradiction between the belief in the\napproaching end of the world and the general moral system of Jesus,\nconceived in prospect of a permanent state of humanity, nearly\nanalogous to that which now exists, no one will attempt to deny.[1] It\nwas exactly this contradiction that insured the success of his work.\nThe millenarian alone would have done nothing lasting; the moralist\nalone would have done nothing powerful. The millenarianism gave the\nimpulse, the moralist insured the future. Hence Christianity united\nthe two conditions of great success in this world, a revolutionary\nstarting-point, and the possibility of continuous life. Everything\nwhich is intended to succeed ought to respond to these two wants; for\nthe world seeks both to change and to last. Jesus, at the same time\nthat he announced an unparalleled subversion in human affairs,\nproclaimed the principles upon which society has reposed for eighteen\nhundred years.\n\n[Footnote 1: The millenarian sects of England present the same\ncontrast, I mean the belief in the near end of the world,\nnotwithstanding much good sense in the conduct of life, and an\nextraordinary understanding of commercial affairs and industry.]\n\nThat which in fact distinguishes Jesus from the agitators of his time,\nand from those of all ages, is his perfect idealism. Jesus, in some\nrespects, was an anarchist, for he had no idea of civil government.\nThat government seemed to him purely and simply an abuse. He spoke of\nit in vague terms, and as a man of the people who had no idea of\npolitics. Every magistrate appeared to him a natural enemy of the\npeople of God; he prepared his disciples for contests with the civil\npowers, without thinking for a moment that there was anything in this\nto be ashamed of.[1] But he never shows any desire to put himself in\nthe place of the rich and the powerful. He wishes to annihilate riches\nand power, but not to appropriate them. He predicts persecution and\nall kinds of punishment to his disciples;[2] but never once does the\nthought of armed resistance appear. The idea of being all-powerful by\nsuffering and resignation, and of triumphing over force by purity of\nheart, is indeed an idea peculiar to Jesus. Jesus is not a\nspiritualist, for to him everything tended to a palpable realization;\nhe had not the least notion of a soul separated from the body. But he\nis a perfect idealist, matter being only to him the sign of the idea,\nand the real, the living expression of that which does not appear.\n\n[Footnote 1: Matt. x. 17, 18; Luke xii. 11.]\n\n[Footnote 2: Matt. v. 10, and following; x. entirely; Luke vi. 22, and\nfollowing; John xv. 18, and following; xvi. 2, and following, 20, 33;\nxvii. 14.]\n\nTo whom should we turn, to whom should we trust to establish the\nkingdom of God? The mind of Jesus on this point never hesitated. That\nwhich is highly esteemed among men, is abomination in the sight of\nGod.[1] The founders of the kingdom of God are the simple. Not the\nrich, not the learned, not priests; but women, common people, the\nhumble, and the young.[2] The great characteristic of the Messiah is,\nthat \"the poor have the gospel preached to them.\"[3] The idyllic and\ngentle nature of Jesus here resumed the superiority. A great social\nrevolution, in which rank will be overturned, in which all authority\nin this world will be humiliated, was his dream. The world will not\nbelieve him; the world will kill him. But his disciples will not be of\nthe world.[4] They will be a little flock of the humble and the\nsimple, who will conquer by their very humility. The idea which has\nmade \"Christian\" the antithesis of \"worldly,\" has its full\njustification in the thoughts of the master.[5]\n\n[Footnote 1: Luke xvi. 15.]\n\n[Footnote 2: Matt. v. 3, 10, xviii. 3, xix. 14, 23, 24, xxi. 31, xxii.\n2, and following; Mark x. 14, 15, 23-25; Luke iv. 18, and following;\nvi. 20, xviii. 16, 17, 24, 25.]\n\n[Footnote 3: Matt. xi. 5.]\n\n[Footnote 4: John xv. 19, xvii. 14, 16.]\n\n[Footnote 5: See especially chapter xvii. of St. John, expressing, if\nnot a real discourse delivered by Jesus, at least a sentiment which\nwas very deeply rooted in his disciples, and which certainly came from\nhim.]\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VIII.\n\nJESUS AT CAPERNAUM.\n\n\nBeset by an idea, gradually becoming more and more imperious and\nexclusive, Jesus proceeds henceforth with a kind of fatal\nimpassibility in the path marked out by his astonishing genius and the\nextraordinary circumstances in which he lived. Hitherto he had only\ncommunicated his thoughts to a few persons secretly attracted to him;\nhenceforward his teaching was sought after by the public. He was about\nthirty years of age.[1] The little group of hearers who had\naccompanied him to John the Baptist had, doubtless, increased, and\nperhaps some disciples of John had attached themselves to him.[2] It\nwas with this first nucleus of a church that he boldly announced, on\nhis return into Galilee, the \"good tidings of the kingdom of God.\"\nThis kingdom was approaching, and it was he, Jesus, who was that \"Son\nof Man\" whom Daniel had beheld in his vision as the divine herald of\nthe last and supreme revelation.\n\n[Footnote 1: Luke iii. 23; Gospel of the Ebionites, in Epiph., _Adv.\nHaer._, xxx. 13.]\n\n[Footnote 2: John i. 37, and following.]\n\nWe must remember, that in the Jewish ideas, which were averse to art\nand mythology, the simple form of man had a superiority over that of\n_Cherubs_, and of the fantastic animals which the imagination of the\npeople, since it had been subjected to the influence of Assyria, had\nranged around the Divine Majesty. Already in Ezekiel,[1] the Being\nseated on the supreme throne, far above the monsters of the\nmysterious chariot, the great revealer of prophetic visions, had the\nfigure of a man. In the book of Daniel, in the midst of the vision of\nthe empires, represented by animals, at the moment when the great\njudgment commences, and when the books are opened, a Being \"like unto\na Son of Man,\" advances toward the Ancient of days, who confers on him\nthe power to judge the world, and to govern it for eternity.[2] _Son\nof Man_, in the Semitic languages, especially in the Aramean dialects,\nis a simple synonym of _man_. But this chief passage of Daniel struck\nthe mind; the words, _Son of Man_, became, at least in certain\nschools,[3] one of the titles of the Messiah, regarded as judge of the\nworld, and as king of the new era about to be inaugurated.[4] The\napplication which Jesus made of it to himself was therefore the\nproclamation of his Messiahship, and the affirmation of the coming\ncatastrophe in which he was to figure as judge, clothed with the full\npowers which had been delegated to him by the Ancient of days.[5]\n\n[Footnote 1: Chap. i. 5, 26, and following.]\n\n[Footnote 2: Daniel vii. 13, 14; comp. viii. 15, x. 16.]\n\n[Footnote 3: In John xii. 34, the Jews do not appear to be aware of\nthe meaning of this word.]\n\n[Footnote 4: Book of Enoch, xlvi. 1-3, xlviii. 2, 3, lxii. 9, 14, lxx.\n1 (division of Dilmann); Matt. x. 23, xiii. 41, xvi. 27, 28, xix. 28,\nxxiv. 27, 30, 37, 39, 44, xxv. 31, xxvi. 64; Mark xiii. 26, xiv. 62;\nLuke xii. 40, xvii. 24, 26, 30, xxi. 27, 36, xxii. 69; _Acts_ vii. 55.\nBut the most significant passage is John v. 27, compared with _Rev._\ni. 13, xiv. 14. The expression \"Son of woman,\" for the Messiah, occurs\nonce in the book of Enoch, lxii. 5.]\n\n[Footnote 5: John v. 22, 27.]\n\nThe success of the teaching of the new prophet was this time decisive.\nA group of men and women, all characterized by the same spirit of\njuvenile frankness and simple innocence, adhered to him, and said,\n\"Thou art the Messiah.\" As the Messiah was to be the son of David,\nthey naturally conceded him this title, which was synonymous with the\nformer. Jesus allowed it with pleasure to be given to him, although\nit might cause him some embarrassment, his birth being well known. The\nname which he preferred himself was that of \"Son of Man,\" an\napparently humble title, but one which connected itself directly with\nthe Messianic hopes. This was the title by which he designated\nhimself,[1] and he used \"The Son of Man\" as synonymous with the\npronoun \"I,\" which he avoided. But he was never thus addressed,\ndoubtless because the name in question would be fully applicable to\nhim only on the day of his future appearance.\n\n[Footnote 1: This title occurs eighty-three times in the Gospels, and\nalways in the discourses of Jesus.]\n\nHis centre of action, at this epoch of his life, was the little town\nof Capernaum, situated on the shore of the lake of Gennesareth. The\nname of Capernaum, containing the word _caphar_, \"village,\" seems to\ndesignate a small town of the ancient character, in opposition to the\ngreat towns built according to the Roman method, like Tiberias.[1]\nThat name was so little known that Josephus, in one passage of his\nwritings,[2] takes it for the name of a fountain, the fountain having\nmore celebrity than the village situated near it. Like Nazareth,\nCapernaum had no history, and had in no way participated in the\nprofane movement favored by the Herods. Jesus was much attached to\nthis town, and made it a second home.[3] Soon after his return, he\nattempted to commence his work at Nazareth, but without success.[4] He\ncould not perform any miracle there, according to the simple remark\nof one of his biographers.[5] The knowledge which existed there about\nhis family, not an important one, injured his authority too much.\nPeople could not regard as the son of David, one whose brother,\nsister, and brother-in-law they saw every day, and it is remarkable\nbesides, that his family were strongly opposed to him, and plainly\nrefused to believe in his mission.[6] The Nazarenes, much more\nviolent, wished, it is said, to kill him by throwing him from a steep\nrock.[7] Jesus aptly remarked that this treatment was the fate of all\ngreat men, and applied to himself the proverb, \"No one is a prophet in\nhis own country.\"\n\n[Footnote 1: It is true that Tell-Houm, which is generally identified\nwith Capernaum, contains the remains of somewhat fine monuments. But,\nbesides this identification being doubtful, these monuments may be of\nthe second or third century after Christ.]\n\n[Footnote 2: _B.J._, III. x. 8.]\n\n[Footnote 3: Matt. ix. 1; Mark ii. 1.]\n\n[Footnote 4: Matt. xiii. 54, and following; Mark vi. 1, and following;\nLuke iv. 16, and following, 23-24; John iv. 44.]\n\n[Footnote 5: Mark vi. 5; cf. Matt. xii. 58; Luke iv. 23.]\n\n[Footnote 6: Matt. xiii. 57; Mark vi. 4; John vii. 3, and following.]\n\n[Footnote 7: Luke iv. 29. Probably the rock referred to here is the\npeak which is very near Nazareth, above the present church of the\nMaronites, and not the pretended _Mount of Precipitation_, at an\nhour's journey from Nazareth. See Robinson, ii. 335, and following.]\n\nThis check far from discouraged him. He returned to Capernaum,[1]\nwhere he met with a much more favorable reception, and from thence he\norganized a series of missions among the small surrounding towns. The\npeople of this beautiful and fertile country were scarcely ever\nassembled except on Saturday. This was the day which he chose for his\nteaching. At that time each town had its synagogue, or place of\nmeeting. This was a rectangular room, rather small, with a portico,\ndecorated in the Greek style. The Jews not having any architecture of\ntheir own, never cared to give these edifices an original style. The\nremains of many ancient synagogues still exist in Galilee.[2] They are\nall constructed of large and good materials; but their style is\nsomewhat paltry, in consequence of the profusion of floral ornaments,\nfoliage, and twisted work, which characterize the Jewish buildings.[3]\nIn the interior there were seats, a chair for public reading, and a\ncloset to contain the sacred rolls.[4] These edifices, which had\nnothing of the character of a temple, were the centre of the whole\nJewish life. There the people assembled on the Sabbath for prayer, and\nreading of the law and the prophets. As Judaism, except in Jerusalem,\nhad, properly speaking, no clergy, the first comer stood up, gave the\nlessons of the day (_parasha_ and _haphtara_), and added thereto a\n_midrash_, or entirely personal commentary, in which he expressed his\nown ideas.[5] This was the origin of the \"homily,\" the finished model\nof which we find in the small treatises of Philo. The audience had the\nright of making objections and putting questions to the reader; so\nthat the meeting soon degenerated into a kind of free assembly. It had\na president,[6] \"elders,\"[7] a _hazzan_, _i.e._, a recognized reader,\nor apparitor,[8] deputies,[9] who were secretaries or messengers, and\nconducted the correspondence between one synagogue and another, a\n_shammash_, or sacristan.[10] The synagogues were thus really little\nindependent republics, having an extensive jurisdiction. Like all\nmunicipal corporations, up to an advanced period of the Roman empire,\nthey issued honorary decrees,[11] voted resolutions, which had the\nforce of law for the community, and ordained corporal punishments, of\nwhich the _hazzan_ was the ordinary executor.[12]\n\n[Footnote 1: Matt. iv. 13; Luke iv. 31.]\n\n[Footnote 2: At Tell-Houm, Irbid (Arbela), Meiron (Mero), Jisch\n(Giscala), Kasyoun, Nabartein, and two at Kefr-Bereim.]\n\n[Footnote 3: I dare not decide upon the age of those buildings, nor\nconsequently affirm that Jesus taught in any of them. How great would\nbe the interest attaching to the synagogue of Tell-Houm were we to\nadmit such an hypothesis! The great synagogue of Kefr-Bereim seems to\nme the most ancient of all. Its style is moderately pure. That of\nKasyoun bears a Greek inscription of the time of Septimus Severus. The\ngreat importance which Judaism acquired in Upper Galilee after the\nRoman war, leads us to believe that several of these edifices only\ndate back to the third century--a time in which Tiberias became a sort\nof capital of Judaism.]\n\n[Footnote 4: 2 _Esdras_ viii. 4; Matt. xxiii. 6; Epist. James ii. 3;\nMishnah, _Megilla_, iii. 1; _Rosh Hasshana_, iv. 7, etc. See\nespecially the curious description of the synagogue of Alexandria in\nthe Talmud of Babylon, _Sukka_, 51 _b_.]\n\n[Footnote 5: Philo, quoted in Eusebius, _Praep. Evang._, viii. 7, and\n_Quod Omnis Probus Liber_, Sec. 12; Luke iv. 16; _Acts_ xiii. 15, xv. 21;\nMishnah, _Megilla_, iii. 4, and following.]\n\n[Footnote 6: [Greek: Archisunagogos].]\n\n[Footnote 7: [Greek: Presbyteroi].]\n\n[Footnote 8: [Greek: Huperetes].]\n\n[Footnote 9: [Greek: Apostoloi], or [Greek: angeloi].]\n\n[Footnote 10: [Greek: Diakonos]. Mark v. 22, 35, and following; Luke\niv. 20, vii. 3, viii. 41, 49, xiii. 14; _Acts_ xiii. 15, xviii. 8, 17;\n_Rev._ ii. 1; Mishnah, _Joma_, vii. 1; _Rosh Hasshana_, iv. 9; Talm.\nof Jerus., _Sanhedrim_, i. 7; Epiph., _Adv. Haer._, xxx. 4, 11.]\n\n[Footnote 11: Inscription of Berenice, in the _Corpus Inscr. Graec._,\nNo. 5361; inscription of Kasyoun, in the _Mission de Phenicie_, book\niv. [in the press.]]\n\n[Footnote 12: Matt. v. 25, x. 17, xxiii. 34; Mark xiii. 9; Luke xx.\n11, xxi. 12; _Acts_ xxii. 19, xxvi. 11; 2 _Cor._ xi. 24; Mishnah,\n_Maccoth_, iii. 12; Talmud of Babylon, _Megilla_, 7 _b;_ Epiph., _Adv.\nHaer._, xxx. 11.]\n\nWith the extreme activity of mind which has always characterized the\nJews, such an institution, notwithstanding the arbitrary rigors it\ntolerated, could not fail to give rise to very animated discussions.\nThanks to the synagogues, Judaism has been able to sustain intact\neighteen centuries of persecution. They were like so many little\nseparate worlds, in which the national spirit was preserved, and which\noffered a ready field for intestine struggles. A large amount of\npassion was expended there. The quarrels for precedence were of\nconstant occurrence. To have a seat of honor in the first rank was the\nreward of great piety, or the most envied privilege of wealth.[1] On\nthe other hand, the liberty, accorded to every one, of instituting\nhimself reader and commentator of the sacred text, afforded marvelous\nfacilities for the propagation of new ideas. This was one of the\ngreat instruments of power wielded by Jesus, and the most habitual\nmeans he employed to propound his doctrinal instruction.[2] He entered\nthe synagogue, and stood up to read; the _hazzan_ offered him the\nbook, he unrolled it, and reading the _parasha_ or the _haphtara_ of\nthe day, he drew from this reading a lesson in conformity with his own\nideas.[3] As there were few Pharisees in Galilee, the discussion did\nnot assume that degree of vivacity, and that tone of acrimony against\nhim, which at Jerusalem would have arrested him at the outset. These\ngood Galileans had never heard discourses so adapted to their cheerful\nimaginations.[4] They admired him, they encouraged him, they found\nthat he spoke well, and that his reasons were convincing. He answered\nthe most difficult objections with confidence; the charm of his speech\nand his person captivated the people, whose simple minds had not yet\nbeen cramped by the pedantry of the doctors.\n\n[Footnote 1: Matt. xxiii. 6; Epist. James ii. 3; Talmud of Bab.,\n_Sukka_, 51 _b_.]\n\n[Footnote 2: Matt. iv. 23, ix. 35; Mark i. 21, 39, vi. 2; Luke iv. 15,\n16, 31, 44, xiii. 10; John xviii. 20.]\n\n[Footnote 3: Luke iv. 16, and following. Comp. Mishnah, _Joma_, vii.\n1.]\n\n[Footnote 4: Matt. vii. 28, xiii. 54; Mark i. 22, vi. 1; Luke iv. 22,\n32.]\n\nThe authority of the young master thus continued increasing every day,\nand, naturally, the more people believed in him, the more he believed\nin himself. His sphere of action was very limited. It was confined to\nthe valley in which the Lake of Tiberias is situated, and even in this\nvalley there was one region which he preferred. The lake is five or\nsix leagues long and three or four broad; although it presents the\nappearance of an almost perfect oval, it forms, commencing from\nTiberias up to the entrance of the Jordan, a sort of gulf, the curve\nof which measures about three leagues. Such is the field in which the\nseed sown by Jesus found at last a well-prepared soil. Let us run\nover it step by step, and endeavor to raise the mantle of aridity and\nmourning with which it has been covered by the demon of Islamism.\n\nOn leaving Tiberias, we find at first steep rocks, like a mountain\nwhich seems to roll into the sea. Then the mountains gradually recede;\na plain (_El Ghoueir_) opens almost at the level of the lake. It is a\ndelightful copse of rich verdure, furrowed by abundant streams which\nproceed partly from a great round basin of ancient construction\n(_Ain-Medawara_). At the entrance of this plain, which is, properly\nspeaking, the country of Gennesareth, there is the miserable village\nof _Medjdel_. At the other extremity of the plain (always following\nthe sea), we come to the site of a town (_Khan-Minyeh_), with very\nbeautiful streams (_Ain-et-Tin_), a pretty road, narrow and deep, cut\nout of the rock, which Jesus often traversed, and which serves as a\npassage between the plain of Gennesareth and the northern slopes of\nthe lake. A quarter of an hour's journey from this place, we cross a\nstream of salt water (_Ain-Tabiga_), issuing from the earth by several\nlarge springs at a little distance from the lake, and entering it in\nthe midst of a dense mass of verdure. At last, after a journey of\nforty minutes further, upon the arid declivity which extends from\nAin-Tabiga to the mouth of the Jordan, we find a few huts and a\ncollection of monumental ruins, called _Tell-Houm_.\n\nFive small towns, the names of which mankind will remember as long as\nthose of Rome and Athens, were, in the time of Jesus, scattered in the\nspace which extends from the village of Medjdel to Tell-Houm. Of these\nfive towns, Magdala, Dalmanutha, Capernaum, Bethsaida, and\nChorazin,[1] the first alone can be found at the present time with\nany certainty. The repulsive village of Medjdel has no doubt preserved\nthe name and the place of the little town which gave to Jesus his most\nfaithful female friend.[2] Dalmanutha[3] was probably near there. It\nis possible that Chorazin was a little more inland, on the northern\nside.[4] As to Bethsaida and Capernaum, it is in truth almost at\nhazard that they have been placed at Tell-Houm, Ain-et-Tin,\nKhan-Minyeh, and Ain-Medawara.[5] We might say that in topography, as\nwell as in history, a profound design has wished to conceal the traces\nof the great founder. It is doubtful whether we shall ever be able,\nupon this extensively devastated soil, to ascertain the places where\nmankind would gladly come to kiss the imprint of his feet.\n\n[Footnote 1: The ancient Kinnereth had disappeared or changed its\nname.]\n\n[Footnote 2: We know in fact that it was very near Tiberias.--Talmud\nof Jerusalem, _Maasaroth_, iii. 1; _Shebiit_, ix. 1; _Erubin_, v. 7.]\n\n[Footnote 3: Mark viii. 10. Comp. Matt. xv. 39.]\n\n[Footnote 4: In the place named _Khorazi_ or _Bir-kerazeh_, above\nTell-Houm.]\n\n[Footnote 5: The ancient hypothesis which identified Tell-Houm with\nCapernaum, though strongly disputed some years since, has still\nnumerous defenders. The best argument we can give in its favor is the\nname of _Tell-Houm_ itself, _Tell_ entering into the names of many\nvillages, and being a substitute for _Caphar_. It is impossible, on\nthe other hand, to find near Tell-Houm a fountain corresponding to\nthat mentioned by Josephus (_B.J._, III. x. 8.) This fountain of\nCapernaum seems to be Ain-Medawara, but Ain-Medawara is half an hour's\njourney from the lake, while Capernaum was a fishing town on the\nborders of the lake (Matt. iv. 13; John vi. 17.) The difficulties\nabout Bethsaida are still greater; for the hypothesis, somewhat\ngenerally admitted, of two Bethsaidas, the one on the eastern, the\nother on the western shore of the lake, and at two or three leagues\nfrom one another, is rather singular.]\n\nThe lake, the horizon, the shrubs, the flowers, are all that remain of\nthe little canton, three or four leagues in extent, where Jesus\nfounded his Divine work. The trees have totally disappeared. In this\ncountry, in which the vegetation was formerly so brilliant that\nJosephus saw in it a kind of miracle--Nature, according to him, being\npleased to bring hither side by side the plants of cold countries, the\nproductions of the torrid zone, and the trees of temperate climates,\nladen all the year with flowers and fruits[1]--in this country\ntravellers are obliged now to calculate a day beforehand the place\nwhere they will the next day find a shady resting-place. The lake has\nbecome deserted. A single boat in the most miserable condition now\nploughs the waves once so rich in life and joy. But the waters are\nalways clear and transparent.[2] The shore, composed of rocks and\npebbles, is that of a little sea, not that of a pond, like the shores\nof Lake Huleh. It is clean, neat, free from mud, and always beaten in\nthe same place by the light movement of the waves. Small promontories,\ncovered with rose laurels, tamarisks, and thorny caper bushes, are\nseen there; at two places, especially at the mouth of the Jordan, near\nTarichea, and at the boundary of the plain of Gennesareth, there are\nenchanting parterres, where the waves ebb and flow over masses of turf\nand flowers. The rivulet of Ain-Tabiga makes a little estuary, full of\npretty shells. Clouds of aquatic birds hover over the lake. The\nhorizon is dazzling with light. The waters, of an empyrean blue,\ndeeply imbedded amid burning rocks, seem, when viewed from the height\nof the mountains of Safed, to lie at the bottom of a cup of gold. On\nthe north, the snowy ravines of Hermon are traced in white lines upon\nthe sky; on the west, the high, undulating plateaux of Gaulonitis and\nPerea, absolutely arid, and clothed by the sun with a sort of velvety\natmosphere, form one compact mountain, or rather a long and very\nelevated terrace, which from Caesarea Philippi runs indefinitely toward\nthe south.\n\n[Footnote 1: _B.J._, III. x. 8.]\n\n[Footnote 2: _B.J._, III. x. 7; Jac. de Vitri, in the _Gesta Dei per\nFrancos_, i. 1075.]\n\nThe heat on the shore is now very oppressive. The lake lies in a\nhollow six hundred and fifty feet below the level of the\nMediterranean,[1] and thus participates in the torrid conditions of\nthe Dead Sea.[2] An abundant vegetation formerly tempered these\nexcessive heats; it would be difficult to understand that a furnace,\nsuch as the whole basin of the lake now is, commencing from the month\nof May, had ever been the scene of great activity. Josephus, moreover,\nconsidered the country very temperate.[3] No doubt there has been\nhere, as in the _campagna_ of Rome, a change of climate introduced by\nhistorical causes. It is Islamism, and especially the Mussulman\nreaction against the Crusades, which has withered as with a blast of\ndeath the district preferred by Jesus. The beautiful country of\nGennesareth never suspected that beneath the brow of this peaceful\nwayfarer its highest destinies lay hidden.\n\n[Footnote 1: This is the estimate of Captain Lynch (in Ritter,\n_Erdkunde_ xv., 1st part, p. 20.) It nearly agrees with that of M. de\nBertou (_Bulletin de la Soc. de Geogr._, 2d series, xii., p. 146.)]\n\n[Footnote 2: The depression of the Dead Sea is twice as much.]\n\n[Footnote 3: _B.J._, III. x. 7 and 8.]\n\nDangerous countryman! Jesus has been fatal to the country which had\nthe formidable honor of bearing him. Having become a universal object\nof love or of hate, coveted by two rival fanaticisms, Galilee, as the\nprice of its glory, has been changed to a desert. But who would say\nthat Jesus would have been happier, if he had lived obscure in his\nvillage to the full age of man? And who would think of these\nungrateful Nazarenes, if one of them had not, at the risk of\ncompromising the future of their town, recognized his Father, and\nproclaimed himself the Son of God?\n\nFour or five large villages, situated at half an hour's journey from\none another, formed the little world of Jesus at the time of which we\nspeak. He appears never to have visited Tiberias, a city inhabited for\nmost part by Pagans, and the habitual residence of Antipas.[1]\nSometimes, however, he wandered from his favorite region. He went by\nboat to the eastern shore, to Gergesa, for instance.[2] Toward the\nnorth we see him at Paneas or Caesarea Philippi,[3] at the foot of\nMount Hermon. Lastly, he journeyed once in the direction of Tyre and\nSidon,[4] a country which must have been marvellously flourishing at\nthat time. In all these countries he was in the midst of Paganism.[5]\nAt Caesarea, he saw the celebrated grotto of _Panium_, thought to be\nthe source of the Jordan, and with which the popular belief had\nassociated strange legends;[6] he could admire the marble temple which\nHerod had erected near there in honor of Augustus;[7] he probably\nstopped before the numerous votive statues to Pan, to the Nymphs, to\nthe Echo of the Grotto, which piety had already begun to accumulate in\nthis beautiful place.[8]\n\n[Footnote 1: Jos., _Ant._, XVIII. ii. 3; _Vita_, 12, 13, 64.]\n\n[Footnote 2: I adopt the opinion of Dr. Thomson (_The Land and the\nBook_, ii. 34, and following), according to which the Gergesa of\nMatthew viii. 28, identical with the Canaanite town of _Girgash_\n(_Gen._ x. 16, xv. 21; _Deut._ vii. 1; _Josh._ xxiv. 11), would be the\nsite now named _Kersa_ or _Gersa_, on the eastern shore, nearly\nopposite Magdala. Mark v. 1, and Luke viii. 26, name _Gadara_ or\n_Gerasa_ instead of Gergesa. _Gerasa_ is an impossible reading, the\nevangelists teaching us that the town in question was near the lake\nand opposite Galilee. As to Gadara, now _Om-Keis_, at a journey of an\nhour and a half from the lake and from the Jordan, the local\ncircumstances given by Mark and Luke scarcely suit it. It is possible,\nmoreover, that _Gergesa_ may have become _Gerasa_, a much more common\nname, and that the topographical impossibilities which this latter\nreading offered may have caused Gadara to be adopted.--Cf. Orig.,\n_Comment. in Joann._, vi. 24, x. 10; Eusebius and St. Jerome, _De situ\net nomin. loc. hebr._, at the words [Greek: Gergesa], [Greek:\nGergasei].]\n\n[Footnote 3: Matt. xvi. 13; Mark viii. 27.]\n\n[Footnote 4: Matt. xv. 21; Mark vii. 24, 31.]\n\n[Footnote 5: Jos., _Vita_, 13.]\n\n[Footnote 6: Jos., _Ant._, XV. x. 3; _B.J._, I. xxi. 3, III. x. 7;\nBenjamin of Tudela, p. 46, edit. Asher.]\n\n[Footnote 7: Jos., _Ant._, XV. x. 3.]\n\n[Footnote 8: _Corpus inscr. gr._, Nos. 4537, 4538, 4538 _b_, 4539.]\n\nA rationalistic Jew, accustomed to take strange gods for deified men\nor for demons, would consider all these figurative representations as\nidols. The seductions of the naturalistic worships, which intoxicated\nthe more sensitive nations, never affected him. He was doubtless\nignorant of what the ancient sanctuary of Melkarth, at Tyre, might\nstill contain of a primitive worship more or less analogous to that of\nthe Jews.[1] The Paganism which, in Phoenicia, had raised a temple and\na sacred grove on every hill, all this aspect of great industry and\nprofane riches,[2] interested him but little. Monotheism takes away\nall aptitude for comprehending the Pagan religion; the Mussulman,\nthrown into polytheistic countries, seems to have no eyes. Jesus\nassuredly learned nothing in these journeys. He returned always to his\nwell-beloved shore of Gennesareth. There was the centre of his\nthoughts; there he found faith and love.\n\n[Footnote 1: Lucianus (ut fertur), _De Dea Syria_, 3.]\n\n[Footnote 2: The traces of the rich Pagan civilization of that time\nstill cover all the Beled-Besharrah, and especially the mountains\nwhich form the group of Cape Blanc and Cape Nakoura.]\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IX.\n\nTHE DISCIPLES OF JESUS.\n\n\nIn this terrestrial paradise, which the great revolutions of history\nhad till then scarcely touched, there lived a population in perfect\nharmony with the country itself, active, honest, joyous, and\ntender-hearted. The Lake of Tiberias is one of the best supplied with\nfish of any in the world.[1] Very productive fisheries were\nestablished, especially at Bethsaida, and at Capernaum, and had\nproduced a certain degree of wealth. These families of fishermen\nformed a gentle and peaceable society, extending by numerous ties of\nrelationship through the whole district of the lake which we have\ndescribed. Their comparatively easy life left entire freedom to their\nimagination. The ideas about the kingdom of God found in these small\ncompanies of worthy people more credence than anywhere else. Nothing\nof that which we call civilization, in the Greek and worldly sense,\nhad reached them. Neither was there any of our Germanic and Celtic\nearnestness; but, although goodness amongst them was often superficial\nand without depth, their habits were quiet, and they were in some\ndegree intelligent and shrewd. We may imagine them as somewhat\nanalogous to the better populations of the Lebanon, but with the gift,\nnot possessed by the latter, of producing great men. Jesus met here\nhis true family. He installed himself as one of them; Capernaum\nbecame \"his own city;\"[2] in the centre of the little circle which\nadored him, he forgot his sceptical brothers, ungrateful Nazareth and\nits mocking incredulity.\n\n[Footnote 1: Matt. iv. 18; Luke v. 44, and following; John i. 44, xxi.\n1, and following; Jos., _B.J._, III. x. 7; Jac. de Vitri, in the\n_Gesta Dei per Francos_, i. p. 1075.]\n\n[Footnote 2: Matt. ix. 1; Mark ii. 1, 2.]\n\nOne house especially at Capernaum offered him an agreeable refuge and\ndevoted disciples. It was that of two brothers, both sons of a certain\nJonas, who probably was dead at the period when Jesus came to stay on\nthe borders of the lake. These two brothers were Simon, surnamed\n_Cephas_ or _Peter_, and Andrew. Born at Bethsaida,[1] they were\nestablished at Capernaum when Jesus commenced his public life. Peter\nwas married and had children; his mother-in-law lived with him.[2]\nJesus loved this house and dwelt there habitually.[3] Andrew appears\nto have been a disciple of John the Baptist, and Jesus had perhaps\nknown him on the banks of the Jordan.[4] The two brothers continued\nalways, even at the period in which it seems they must have been most\noccupied with their master, to follow their business as fishermen.[5]\nJesus, who loved to play upon words, said at times that he would make\nthem fishers of men.[6] In fact, among all his disciples he had none\nmore faithfully attached.\n\n[Footnote 1: John i. 44.]\n\n[Footnote 2: Matt. viii. 14; Mark i. 30; Luke iv. 38; 1 _Cor._ ix. 5;\n1 Peter v. 13; Clem. Alex., _Strom._, iii. 6, vii. 11; Pseudo-Clem.,\n_Recogn._, vii. 25; Eusebius, _H.E._, iii. 30.]\n\n[Footnote 3: Matt. viii. 14, xvii. 24; Mark i. 29-31; Luke iv. 38.]\n\n[Footnote 4: John i. 40, and following.]\n\n[Footnote 5: Matt. iv. 18; Mark i. 16; Luke v. 3; John xxi. 3.]\n\n[Footnote 6: Matt. iv. 19; Mark i. 17; Luke v. 10.]\n\nAnother family, that of Zabdia or Zebedee, a well-to-do fisherman and\nowner of several boats,[1] gave Jesus a welcome reception. Zebedee had\ntwo sons: James, who was the elder, and a younger son, John, who later\nwas called to play so prominent a part in the history of infant\nChristianity. Both were zealous disciples. Salome, wife of Zebedee,\nwas also much attached to Jesus, and accompanied him until his\ndeath.[2]\n\n[Footnote 1: Mark i. 20; Luke v. 10, viii. 3; John xix. 27.]\n\n[Footnote 2: Matt. xxvii. 56; Mark xv. 40, xvi. 1.]\n\nWomen, in fact, received him with eagerness. He manifested toward them\nthose reserved manners which render a very sweet union of ideas\npossible between the two sexes. The separation of men from women,\nwhich has prevented all refined development among the Semitic peoples,\nwas no doubt then, as in our days, much less rigorous in the rural\ndistricts and villages than in the large towns. Three or four devoted\nGalilean women always accompanied the young master, and disputed the\npleasure of listening to and of tending him in turn.[1] They infused\ninto the new sect an element of enthusiasm and of the marvellous, the\nimportance of which had already begun to be understood. One of them,\nMary of Magdala, who has rendered the name of this poor town so\ncelebrated in the world, appears to have been of a very enthusiastic\ntemperament. According to the language of the time, she had been\npossessed by seven demons.[2] That is, she had been affected with\nnervous and apparently inexplicable maladies. Jesus, by his pure and\nsweet beauty, calmed this troubled nature. The Magdalene was faithful\nto him, even unto Golgotha, and on the day but one after his death,\nplayed a prominent part; for, as we shall see later, she was the\nprincipal means by which faith in the resurrection was established.\nJoanna, wife of Chuza, one of the stewards of Antipas, Susanna, and\nothers who have remained unknown, followed him constantly and\nministered unto him.[3] Some were rich, and by their fortune enabled\nthe young prophet to live without following the trade which he had\nuntil then practiced.[4]\n\n[Footnote 1: Matt. xxvii. 55, 56; Mark xv. 40, 41; Luke viii. 2, 3,\nxxiii. 49.]\n\n[Footnote 2: Mark xvi. 9; Luke viii. 2; cf. _Tobit_ iii. 8, vi. 14.]\n\n[Footnote 3: Luke viii. 3, xxiv. 10.]\n\n[Footnote 4: Luke viii. 3.]\n\nMany others followed him habitually, and recognized him as their\nmaster--a certain Philip of Bethsaida; Nathanael, son of Tolmai or\nPtolemy, of Cana, perhaps a disciple of the first period;[1] and\nMatthew, probably the one who was the Xenophon of the infant\nChristianity. The latter had been a publican, and, as such, doubtless\nhandled the _Kalam_ more easily than the others. Perhaps it was this\nthat suggested to him the idea of writing the _Logia_,[2] which are\nthe basis of what we know of the teachings of Jesus. Among the\ndisciples are also mentioned Thomas, or Didymus,[3] who doubted\nsometimes, but who appears to have been a man of warm heart and of\ngenerous sympathies;[4] one Lebbaeus, or Thaddeus; Simon Zelotes,[5]\nperhaps a disciple of Judas the Gaulonite, belonging to the party of\nthe _Kenaim_, which was formed about that time, and which was soon to\nplay so great a part in the movements of the Jewish people. Lastly,\nJudas, son of Simon, of the town of Kerioth, who was an exception in\nthe faithful flock, and drew upon himself such a terrible notoriety.\nHe was the only one who was not a Galilean. Kerioth was a town at the\nextreme south of the tribe of Judah,[6] a day's journey beyond Hebron.\n\n[Footnote 1: John i. 44, and following; xxi. 2. I admit the\nidentification of Nathanael with the apostle who figures in the lists\nunder the name of Bartholomew.]\n\n[Footnote 2: Papias, in Eusebius, _Hist. Eccl._, iii. 39.]\n\n[Footnote 3: This second name is the Greek translation of the first.]\n\n[Footnote 4: John xi. 16, xx. 24, and following.]\n\n[Footnote 5: Matt. x. 4; Mark iii. 18; Luke vi. 15; _Acts_ i. 13;\nGospel of the Ebionites, in Epiphanes, _Adv. Haer._, xxx. 13.]\n\n[Footnote 6: Now _Kuryetein_, or _Kereitein_.]\n\nWe have seen that in general the family of Jesus were little inclined\ntoward him.[1] James and Jude, however, his cousins by Mary Cleophas,\nhenceforth became his disciples, and Mary Cleophas herself was one of\nthe women who followed him to Calvary.[2] At this period we do not see\nhis mother beside him. It was only after the death of Jesus that Mary\nacquired great importance,[3] and that the disciples sought to attach\nher to themselves.[4] It was then, also, that the members of the\nfamily of the founder, under the title of \"brothers of of the Lord,\"\nformed an influential group, which was a long time at the head of the\nchurch of Jerusalem, and which, after the sack of the city, took\nrefuge in Batanea.[5] The simple fact of having been familiar with him\nbecame a decisive advantage, in the same manner as, after the death of\nMahomet, the wives and daughters of the prophet, who had no importance\nin his life, became great authorities.\n\n[Footnote 1: The circumstance related in John xix. 25-27 seems to\nimply that at no period of the public life of Jesus did his own\nbrothers become attached to him.]\n\n[Footnote 2: Matt. xxvii. 56; Mark xv. 40; John xix. 25.]\n\n[Footnote 3: _Acts_ i. 14. Compare Luke i. 28, ii. 35, already\nimplying a great respect for Mary.]\n\n[Footnote 4: John xix. 25, and following.]\n\n[Footnote 5: Julius Africanus, in Eusebius, _H.E._, i. 7.]\n\nIn this friendly group Jesus had evidently his favorites, and, so to\nspeak, an inner circle. The two sons of Zebedee, James and John,\nappear to have been in the first rank. They were full of fire and\npassion. Jesus had aptly surnamed them \"sons of thunder,\" on account\nof their excessive zeal, which, if it could have controlled the\nthunder, would often have made use of it.[1] John, especially, appears\nto have been on very familiar terms with Jesus. Perhaps the warm\naffection which the master felt for this disciple has been\nexaggerated in his Gospel, in which the personal interests of the\nwriter are not sufficiently concealed.[2] The most significant fact\nis, that, in the synoptical Gospels, Simon Bar-jona, or Peter, James,\nson of Zebedee, and John, his brother, form a sort of intimate\ncouncil, which Jesus calls at certain times, when he suspects the\nfaith and intelligence of the others.[3] It seems, moreover, that they\nwere all three associated in their fishing.[4] The affection of Jesus\nfor Peter was strong. The character of the latter--upright, sincere,\nimpulsive--pleased Jesus, who at times permitted himself to smile at\nhis resolute manners. Peter, little of a mystic, communicated to the\nmaster his simple doubts, his repugnances, and his entirely human\nweaknesses,[5] with an honest frankness which recalls that of\nJoinville toward St. Louis. Jesus chided him, in a friendly manner,\nfull of confidence and esteem. As to John, his youth,[6] his exquisite\ntenderness of heart,[7] and his lively imagination,[8] must have had a\ngreat charm. The personality of this extraordinary man, who has\nexerted so peculiar an influence on infant Christianity, did not\ndevelop itself till afterward. When old, he wrote that strange\nGospel,[9] which contains such precious teaching, but in which, in our\nopinion, the character of Jesus is falsified upon many points. The\nnature of John was too powerful and too profound for him to bend\nhimself to the impersonal tone of the first evangelists. He was the\nbiographer of Jesus, as Plato was of Socrates. Accustomed to ponder\nover his recollections with the feverish restlessness of an excited\nmind, he transformed his master in wishing to describe him, and\nsometimes he leaves it to be suspected (unless other hands have\naltered his work) that perfect good faith was not invariably his rule\nand law in the composition of this singular writing.\n\n[Footnote 1: Mark iii. 17, ix. 37, and following; x. 35, and\nfollowing; Luke ix. 49, and following; 54, and following.]\n\n[Footnote 2: John xiii. 23, xviii. 15, and following, xix. 26, 27, xx.\n2, 4, xxi. 7, 20, and following.]\n\n[Footnote 3: Matt. xvii. 1, xxvi. 37; Mark v. 37, ix. 1, xiii. 3, xiv.\n33; Luke ix. 28. The idea that Jesus had communicated to these three\ndisciples a Gnosis, or secret doctrine, was very early spread. It is\nsingular that John, in his Gospel, does not once mention James, his\nbrother.]\n\n[Footnote 4: Matt. iv. 18-22; Luke v. 10; John xxi. 2, and following.]\n\n[Footnote 5: Matt. xiv. 28, xvi. 22; Mark viii. 32, and following.]\n\n[Footnote 6: He appears to have lived till near the year 100. See his\nGospel, xxi. 15-23, and the ancient authorities collected by Eusebius,\n_H.E._, iii. 20, 23.]\n\n[Footnote 7: See the epistles attributed to him, which are certainly\nby the same author as the fourth Gospel.]\n\n[Footnote 8: Nevertheless we do not mean to affirm that the Apocalypse\nis by him.]\n\n[Footnote 9: The common tradition seems sufficiently justified to me\non this point. It is evident, besides, that the school of John\nretouched his Gospel (see the whole of chap. xxi.)]\n\nNo hierarchy, properly speaking, existed in the new sect. They were to\ncall each other \"brothers;\" and Jesus absolutely proscribed titles of\nsuperiority, such as _rabbi_, \"master,\" father--he alone being master,\nand God alone being father. The greatest was to become the servant of\nthe others.[1] Simon Bar-jona, however, was distinguished amongst his\nfellows by a peculiar degree of importance. Jesus lived with him, and\ntaught in his boat;[2] his house was the centre of the Gospel\npreaching. In public he was regarded as the chief of the flock; and it\nis to him that the overseers of the tolls address themselves to\ncollect the taxes which were due from the community.[3] He was the\nfirst who had recognized Jesus as the Messiah.[4] In a moment of\nunpopularity, Jesus, asking of his disciples, \"Will ye also go away?\"\nSimon answered, \"Lord, to whom should we go? Thou hast the words of\neternal life.\"[5] Jesus, at various times, gave him a certain priority\nin his church;[6] and gave him the Syrian surname of _Kepha_ (stone),\nby which he wished to signify by that, that he made him the\ncorner-stone of the edifice.[7] At one time he seems even to promise\nhim \"the keys of the kingdom of heaven,\" and to grant him the right of\npronouncing upon earth decisions which should always be ratified in\neternity.[8]\n\n[Footnote 1: Matt. xviii. 4, xx. 25-26, xxiii. 8-12; Mark ix. 34, x.\n42-46.]\n\n[Footnote 2: Luke v. 3.]\n\n[Footnote 3: Matt. xvii. 23.]\n\n[Footnote 4: Matt. xvi. 16, 17.]\n\n[Footnote 5: John vi. 68-70.]\n\n[Footnote 6: Matt. x. 2; Luke xxii. 32; John xxi. 15, and following;\n_Acts_ i., ii., v., etc.; _Gal._ i. 18, ii. 7, 8.]\n\n[Footnote 7: Matt. xvi. 18; John i. 42.]\n\n[Footnote 8: Matt. xvi. 19. Elsewhere, it is true (Matt. xviii. 18),\nthe same power is granted to all the apostles.]\n\nNo doubt, this priority of Peter excited a little jealousy. Jealousy\nwas kindled especially in view of the future--and of this kingdom of\nGod, in which all the disciples would be seated upon thrones, on the\nright and on the left of the master, to judge the twelve tribes of\nIsrael.[1] They asked who would then be nearest to the Son of man, and\nact in a manner as his prime minister and assessor. The two sons of\nZebedee aspired to this rank. Preoccupied with such a thought, they\nprompted their mother Salome, who one day took Jesus aside, and asked\nhim for the two places of honor for her sons.[2] Jesus evaded the\nrequest by his habitual maxim that he who exalteth himself shall be\nhumbled, and that the kingdom of heaven will be possessed by the\nlowly. This created some disturbance in the community; there was great\ndiscontent against James and John.[3] The same rivalry appears to show\nitself in the Gospel of John, where the narrator unceasingly declares\nhimself to be \"the disciple whom Jesus loved,\" to whom the master in\ndying confided his mother, and seeks systematically to place himself\nnear Simon Peter, and at times to put himself before him, in important\ncircumstances where the older evangelists had omitted mentioning\nhim.[4]\n\n[Footnote 1: Matt. xviii. 1, and following; Mark ix. 33; Luke ix. 46,\nxxii. 30.]\n\n[Footnote 2: Matt. xx. 20, and following; Mark x. 35, and following.]\n\n[Footnote 3: Mark x. 41.]\n\n[Footnote 4: John xviii. 15, and following, xix. 26, 27, xx. 2, and\nfollowing, xxi. 7, 21. Comp. i. 35, and following, in which the\ndisciple referred to is probably John.]\n\nAmong the preceding personages, all those of whom we know anything had\nbegun by being fishermen. At all events, none of them belonged to a\nsocially elevated class. Only Matthew or Levi, son of Alpheus,[1] had\nbeen a publican. But those to whom they gave this name in Judea were\nnot the farmers-general of taxes, men of elevated rank (always Roman\npatricians), who were called at Rome _publicani_.[2] They were the\nagents of these contractors, employes of low rank, simply officers of\nthe customs. The great route from Acre to Damascus, one of the most\nancient routes of the world, which crossed Galilee, skirting the\nlake,[3] made this class of employe very numerous there. Capernaum,\nwhich was perhaps on the road, possessed a numerous staff of them.[4]\nThis profession is never popular, but with the Jews it was considered\nquite criminal. Taxation, new to them, was the sign of their\nsubjection; one school, that of Judas the Gaulonite, maintained that\nto pay it was an act of paganism. The customs-officers, also, were\nabhorred by the zealots of the law. They were only named in company\nwith assassins, highway robbers, and men of infamous life.[5] The Jews\nwho accepted such offices were excommunicated, and became incapable of\nmaking a will; their money was accursed, and the casuists forbade the\nchanging of money with them.[6] These poor men, placed under the ban\nof society, visited amongst themselves. Jesus accepted a dinner\noffered him by Levi, at which there were, according to the language of\nthe time, \"many publicans and sinners.\" This gave great offense.[7] In\nthese ill-reputed houses there was a risk of meeting bad society. We\nshall often see him thus, caring little to shock the prejudices of\nwell-disposed persons, seeking to elevate the classes humiliated by\nthe orthodox, and thus exposing himself to the liveliest reproaches of\nthe zealots.\n\n[Footnote 1: Matt. ix. 9, x. 3; Mark ii. 14, iii. 18; Luke v. 27, vi.\n15; _Acts_ i. 13. Gospel of the Ebionites, in Epiph., _Adv. Haer._,\nxxx. 13. We must suppose, however strange it may seem, that these two\nnames were borne by the same personage. The narrative, Matt. ix. 9,\nconceived in accordance with the ordinary model of legends, describing\nthe call to apostleship, is, it is true, somewhat vague, and has\ncertainly not been written by the apostle in question. But we must\nremember that, in the existing Gospel of Matthew, the only part which\nis by the apostle consists of the Discourses of Jesus. See Papias, in\nEusebius, _Hist. Eccl._, III. 39.]\n\n[Footnote 2: Cicero, _De Provinc. Consular._, 5; _Pro Plancio_, 9;\nTac., _Ann._, IV. 6; Pliny, _Hist. Nat._, XII. 32; Appian, _Bell.\nCiv._, II. 13.]\n\n[Footnote 3: It remained celebrated, up to the time of the Crusades,\nunder the name of _Via Maris_. Cf. Isaiah ix. 1; Matt. iv. 13-15;\nTobit, i. 1. I think that the road cut in the rock near Ain-et-Tin\nformed part of it, and that the route was directed from thence toward\nthe _Bridge of the Daughters of Jacob_, just as it is now. A part of\nthe road from Ain-et-Tin to this bridge is of ancient construction.]\n\n[Footnote 4: Matt. ix. 9, and following.]\n\n[Footnote 5: Matt. v. 46, 47, ix. 10, 11, xi. 19, xviii. 17, xxi. 31,\n32; Mark ii. 15, 16; Luke v. 30, vii. 34, xv. 1, xviii. 11, xix. 7;\nLucian, _Necyomant_, ii.; Dio Chrysost., orat. iv., p. 85, orat. xiv.,\np. 269 (edit. Emperius); Mishnah, _Nedarim_, iii. 4.]\n\n[Footnote 6: Mishnah, _Baba Kama_, x. 1; Talmud of Jerusalem, _Demai_,\nii. 3; Talmud of Bab., _Sanhedrim_, 25 _b_.]\n\n[Footnote 7: Luke v. 29, and following.]\n\nJesus owed these numerous conquests to the infinite charm of his\nperson and his speech. A penetrating word, a look falling upon a\nsimple conscience, which only wanted awakening, gave him an ardent\ndisciple. Sometimes Jesus employed an innocent artifice, which Joan of\nArc also used: he affected to know something intimate respecting him\nwhom he wished to gain, or he would perhaps recall to him some\ncircumstance dear to his heart. It was thus that he attracted\nNathanael,[1] Peter,[2] and the Samaritan woman.[3] Concealing the\ntrue source of his strength--his superiority over all that surrounded\nhim--he permitted people to believe (in order to satisfy the ideas of\nthe time--ideas which, moreover, fully coincided with his own) that a\nrevelation from on high revealed to him all secrets and laid bare all\nhearts. Every one thought that Jesus lived in a sphere superior to\nthat of humanity. They said that he conversed on the mountains with\nMoses and Elias;[4] they believed that in his moments of solitude the\nangels came to render him homage, and established a supernatural\nintercourse between him and heaven.[5]\n\n[Footnote 1: John i. 48, and following.]\n\n[Footnote 2: John i. 42.]\n\n[Footnote 3: John iv. 17, and following.]\n\n[Footnote 4: Matt. xvii. 3; Mark ix. 3; Luke ix. 30-31.]\n\n[Footnote 5: Matt. iv. 11; Mark i. 13.]\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER X.\n\nTHE PREACHINGS ON THE LAKE.\n\n\nSuch was the group which, on the borders of the lake of Tiberias,\ngathered around Jesus. The aristocracy was represented there by a\ncustoms-officer and by the wife of one of Herod's stewards. The rest\nwere fishermen and common people. Their ignorance was extreme; their\nintelligence was feeble; they believed in apparitions and spirits.[1]\nNot one element of Greek culture had penetrated this first assembly of\nthe saints. They had very little Jewish instruction; but heart and\ngood-will overflowed. The beautiful climate of Galilee made the life\nof these honest fishermen a perpetual delight. They truly preluded the\nkingdom of God--simple, good, and happy--rocked gently on their\ndelightful little sea, or at night sleeping on its shores. We do not\nrealize to ourselves the intoxication of a life which thus glides away\nin the face of heaven--the sweet yet strong love which this perpetual\ncontact with Nature gives, and the dreams of these nights passed in\nthe brightness of the stars, under an azure dome of infinite expanse.\nIt was during such a night that Jacob, with his head resting upon a\nstone, saw in the stars the promise of an innumerable posterity, and\nthe mysterious ladder by which the angels of God came and went from\nheaven to earth. At the time of Jesus the heavens were not closed, nor\nthe earth grown cold. The cloud still opened above the Son of man;\nthe angels ascended and descended upon his head;[2] the visions of\nthe kingdom of God were everywhere, for man carried them in his heart.\nThe clear and mild eyes of these simple souls contemplated the\nuniverse in its ideal source. The world unveiled perhaps its secret to\nthe divinely enlightened conscience of these happy children, whose\npurity of heart deserved one day to behold God.\n\n[Footnote 1: Matt. xiv. 26; Mark vi. 49; Luke xxiv. 39; John vi. 19.]\n\n[Footnote 2: John i. 51.]\n\nJesus lived with his disciples almost always in the open air.\nSometimes he got into a boat, and instructed his hearers, who were\ncrowded upon the shore.[1] Sometimes he sat upon the mountains which\nbordered the lake, where the air is so pure and the horizon so\nluminous. The faithful band led thus a joyous and wandering life,\ngathering the inspirations of the master in their first bloom. An\ninnocent doubt was sometimes raised, a question slightly sceptical;\nbut Jesus, with a smile or a look, silenced the objection. At each\nstep--in the passing cloud, the germinating seed, the ripening\ncorn--they saw the sign of the Kingdom drawing nigh, they believed\nthemselves on the eve of seeing God, of being masters of the world;\ntears were turned into joy; it was the advent upon earth of universal\nconsolation.\n\n[Footnote 1: Matt. xiii. 1, 2; Mark iii. 9, iv. 1; Luke v. 3.]\n\n\"Blessed,\" said the master, \"are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the\nkingdom of heaven.\n\n\"Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted.\n\n\"Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.\n\n\"Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for\nthey shall be filled.\n\n\"Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy.\n\n\"Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God.\n\n\"Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of\nGod.\n\n\"Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake: for\ntheirs is the kingdom of heaven.\"[1]\n\n[Footnote 1: Matt. v. 3-10; Luke vi. 20-25.]\n\nHis preaching was gentle and pleasing, breathing Nature and the\nperfume of the fields. He loved the flowers, and took from them his\nmost charming lessons. The birds of heaven, the sea, the mountains,\nand the games of children, furnished in turn the subject of his\ninstructions. His style had nothing of the Grecian in it, but\napproached much more to that of the Hebrew parabolists, and especially\nof sentences from the Jewish doctors, his contemporaries, such as we\nread them in the \"_Pirke Aboth_.\" His teachings were not very\nextended, and formed a species of sorites in the style of the Koran,\nwhich, joined together, afterward composed those long discourses which\nwere written by Matthew.[1] No transition united these diverse pieces;\ngenerally, however, the same inspiration penetrated them and made them\none. It was, above all, in parable that the master excelled. Nothing\nin Judaism had given him the model of this delightful style.[2] He\ncreated it. It is true that we find in the Buddhist books parables of\nexactly the same tone and the same character as the Gospel\nparables;[3] but it is difficult to admit that a Buddhist influence\nhas been exercised in these. The spirit of gentleness and the depth of\nfeeling which equally animate infant Christianity and Buddhism,\nsuffice perhaps to explain these analogies.\n\n[Footnote 1: This is what the [Greek: Logia kuriaka] were called.\nPapias, in Eusebius, _H.E._, iii. 39.]\n\n[Footnote 2: The apologue, as we find it in _Judges_ ix. 8, and\nfollowing, 2 _Sam._ xii. 1, and following, only resembles the Gospel\nparable in form. The profound originality of the latter is in the\nthought with which it is filled.]\n\n[Footnote 3: See especially the _Lotus of the Good Law_, chap. iii.\nand iv.]\n\nA total indifference to exterior life and the vain appanage of the\n\"comfortable,\" which our drearier countries make necessary to us, was\nthe consequence of the sweet and simple life lived in Galilee. Cold\nclimates, by compelling man to a perpetual contest with external\nnature, cause too much value to be attached to researches after\ncomfort and luxury. On the other hand, the countries which awaken few\ndesires are the countries of idealism and of poesy. The accessories of\nlife are there insignificant compared with the pleasure of living. The\nembellishment of the house is superfluous, for it is frequented as\nlittle as possible. The strong and regular food of less generous\nclimates would be considered heavy and disagreeable. And as to the\nluxury of garments, what can rival that which God has given to the\nearth and the birds of heaven? Labor in climates of this kind appears\nuseless; what it gives is not equal to what it costs. The animals of\nthe field are better clothed than the most opulent man, and they do\nnothing. This contempt, which, when it is not caused by idleness,\ncontributes greatly to the elevation of the soul, inspired Jesus with\nsome charming apologues: \"Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon\nearth,\" said he, \"where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves\nbreak through and steal, but lay up for yourselves treasures in\nheaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do\nnot break through nor steal: for where your treasure is, there will\nyour heart be also.[1] No man can serve two masters: for either he\nwill hate the one and love the other; or else he will hold to one and\ndespise the other. Ye cannot serve God and Mammon.[2] Therefore I say\nunto you, take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye\nshall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on. Is not the\nlife more than meat, and the body than raiment? Behold the fowls of\nthe air: for they sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into\nbarns; yet your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are ye not much better\nthan they? Which of you by taking thought can add one cubit unto his\nstature? And why take ye thought for raiment? Consider the lilies of\nthe field, how they grow; they toil not, neither do they spin; and yet\nI say unto you, That even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed\nlike one of these. Wherefore, if God so clothe the grass of the field,\nwhich to-day is, and to-morrow is cast into the oven, shall he not\nmuch more clothe you, O ye of little faith? Therefore take no thought,\nsaying, What shall we eat? or, What shall we drink? or, Wherewithal\nshall we be clothed? For after all these things do the Gentiles seek;\nfor your heavenly Father knoweth that ye have need of all these\nthings. But seek ye first the kingdom of God,[3] and his\nrighteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you. Take\ntherefore no thought for the morrow: for the morrow shall take thought\nof the things of itself. Sufficient unto the day is the evil\nthereof.\"[4]\n\n[Footnote 1: Compare Talm. of Bab., _Baba Bathra_, 11 _a_.]\n\n[Footnote 2: The god of riches and hidden treasures, a kind of Plutus\nin the Phoenician and Syrian mythology.]\n\n[Footnote 3: I here adopt the reading of Lachmann and Tischendorf.]\n\n[Footnote 4: Matt. vi. 19-21, 24-34. Luke xii. 22-31, 33, 34, xvi. 13.\nCompare the precepts in Luke x. 7, 8, full of the same simple\nsentiment, and Talmud of Babylon, _Sota_, 48 _b_.]\n\nThis essentially Galilean sentiment had a decisive influence on the\ndestiny of the infant sect. The happy flock, relying on the heavenly\nFather for the satisfaction of its wants, had for its first principle\nthe regarding of the cares of life as an evil which choked the germ of\nall good in man.[1] Each day they asked of God the bread for the\nmorrow.[2] Why lay up treasure? The kingdom of God is at hand. \"Sell\nthat ye have and give alms,\" said the master. \"Provide yourselves bags\nwhich wax not old, a treasure in the heavens that faileth not.\"[3]\nWhat more foolish than to heap up treasures for heirs whom thou wilt\nnever behold?[4] As an example of human folly, Jesus loved to cite the\ncase of a man who, after having enlarged his barns and amassed wealth\nfor long years, died before having enjoyed it![5] The brigandage which\nwas deeply rooted in Galilee,[6] gave much force to these views. The\npoor, who did not suffer from it, would regard themselves as the\nfavored of God; whilst the rich, having a less sure possession, were\nthe truly disinherited. In our societies, established upon a very\nrigorous idea of property, the position of the poor is horrible; they\nhave literally no place under the sun. There are no flowers, no grass,\nno shade, except for him who possesses the earth. In the East, these\nare gifts of God which belong to no one. The proprietor has but a\nslender privilege; nature is the patrimony of all.\n\n[Footnote 1: Matt. xiii. 22; Mark iv. 19; Luke viii. 14.]\n\n[Footnote 2: Matt. vi. 11; Luke xi. 3. This is the meaning of the word\n[Greek: epiousios].]\n\n[Footnote 3: Luke xii. 33, 34.]\n\n[Footnote 4: Luke xii. 20.]\n\n[Footnote 5: Luke xii. 16, and following.]\n\n[Footnote 6: Jos., _Ant._, XVII. x. 4, and following: _Vita_, 11,\netc.]\n\nThe infant Christianity, moreover, in this only followed the footsteps\nof the Essenes, or Therapeutae, and of the Jewish sects founded on the\nmonastic life. A communistic element entered into all these sects,\nwhich were equally disliked by Pharisees and Sadducees. The Messianic\ndoctrine, which was entirely political among the orthodox Jews, was\nentirely social amongst them. By means of a gentle, regulated,\ncontemplative existence, leaving its share to the liberty of the\nindividual, these little churches thought to inaugurate the heavenly\nkingdom upon earth. Utopias of a blessed life, founded on the\nbrotherhood of men and the worship of the true God, occupied elevated\nsouls, and produced from all sides bold and sincere, but short-lived\nattempts to realize these doctrines.\n\nJesus, whose relations with the Essenes are difficult to determine\n(resemblances in history not always implying relations), was on this\npoint certainly their brother. The community of goods was for some\ntime the rule in the new society.[1] Covetousness was the cardinal\nsin.[2] Now it must be remarked that the sin of covetousness, against\nwhich Christian morality has been so severe, was then the simple\nattachment to property. The first condition of becoming a disciple of\nJesus was to sell one's property and to give the price of it to the\npoor. Those who recoiled from this extremity were not admitted into\nthe community.[3] Jesus often repeated that he who has found the\nkingdom of God ought to buy it at the price of all his goods, and that\nin so doing he makes an advantageous bargain. \"The kingdom of heaven\nis like unto treasure hid in a field; the which when a man hath found,\nhe hideth, and for joy thereof goeth and selleth all that he hath and\nbuyeth that field. Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto a\nmerchantman seeking goodly pearls; who, when he had found one pearl of\ngreat price, went and sold all that he had and bought it.\"[4] Alas!\nthe inconveniences of this plan were not long in making themselves\nfelt. A treasurer was wanted. They chose for that office Judas of\nKerioth. Rightly or wrongly, they accused him of stealing from the\ncommon purse;[5] it is certain that he came to a bad end.\n\n[Footnote 1: _Acts_ iv. 32, 34-37; v. 1, and following.]\n\n[Footnote 2: Matt. xiii. 22; Luke xii. 15, and following.]\n\n[Footnote 3: Matt. xix. 21; Mark x. 21, and following, 29, 30; Luke\nxviii. 22, 23, 28.]\n\n[Footnote 4: Matt. xiii. 44-46.]\n\n[Footnote 5: John xii. 6.]\n\nSometimes the master, more versed in things of heaven than those of\nearth, taught a still more singular political economy. In a strange\nparable, a steward is praised for having made himself friends among\nthe poor at the expense of his master, in order that the poor might in\ntheir turn introduce him into the kingdom of heaven. The poor, in\nfact, becoming the dispensers of this kingdom, will only receive those\nwho have given to them. A prudent man, thinking of the future, ought\ntherefore to seek to gain their favor. \"And the Pharisees also,\" says\nthe evangelist, \"who were covetous, heard all these things: and they\nderided him.\"[1] Did they also hear the formidable parable which\nfollows? \"There was a certain rich man, which was clothed in purple\nand fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day: and there was a\ncertain beggar named Lazarus, which was laid at his gate, full of\nsores, and desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich\nman's table: moreover the dogs came and licked his sores. And it came\nto pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into\nAbraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried;[2] and in\nhell he lifted up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar\noff, and Lazarus in his bosom. And he cried and said, Father Abraham,\nhave mercy on me, and send Lazarus that he may dip the tip of his\nfinger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.\nBut Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst\nthy good things; and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is\ncomforted and thou art tormented.\"[3] What more just? Afterward this\nparable was called that of the \"wicked rich man.\" But it is purely and\nsimply the parable of the \"rich man.\" He is in hell because he is\nrich, because he does not give his wealth to the poor, because he\ndines well, while others at his door dine badly. Lastly, in a less\nextravagant moment, Jesus does not make it obligatory to sell one's\ngoods and give them to the poor except as a suggestion toward greater\nperfection. But he still makes this terrible declaration: \"It is\neasier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich\nman to enter into the kingdom of God.\"[4]\n\n[Footnote 1: Luke xvi. 1-14.]\n\n[Footnote 2: See the Greek text.]\n\n[Footnote 3: Luke xvi. 19-25. Luke, I am aware, has a very decided\ncommunistic tendency (comp. vi. 20, 21, 25, 26), and I think he has\nexaggerated this shade of the teaching of Jesus. But the features of\nthe [Greek: Logia] of Matthew are sufficiently significant.]\n\n[Footnote 4: Matt. xix. 24; Mark x. 25; Luke xviii. 25. This\nproverbial phrase is found in the Talmud (Bab., _Berakoth_, 55 _b_,\n_Baba metsia_, 38 _b_) and in the Koran (Sur., vii. 38.) Origen and\nthe Greek interpreters, ignorant of the Semitic proverb, thought that\nit meant a cable ([Greek: kamilos]).]\n\nAn admirable idea governed Jesus in all this, as well as the band of\njoyous children who accompanied him and made him for eternity the true\ncreator of the peace of the soul, the great consoler of life. In\ndisengaging man from what he called \"the cares of the world,\" Jesus\nmight go to excess and injure the essential conditions of human\nsociety; but he founded that high spiritualism which for centuries\nhas filled souls with joy in the midst of this vale of tears. He saw\nwith perfect clearness that man's inattention, his want of philosophy\nand morality, come mostly from the distractions which he permits\nhimself, the cares which besiege him, and which civilization\nmultiplies beyond measure.[1] The Gospel, in this manner, has been the\nmost efficient remedy for the weariness of ordinary life, a perpetual\n_sursum corda_, a powerful diversion from the miserable cares of\nearth, a gentle appeal like that of Jesus in the ear of\nMartha--\"Martha, Martha, thou art careful and troubled about many\nthings; but one thing is needful.\" Thanks to Jesus, the dullest\nexistence, that most absorbed by sad or humiliating duties, has had\nits glimpse of heaven. In our busy civilizations the remembrance of\nthe free life of Galilee has been like perfume from another world,\nlike the \"dew of Hermon,\"[2] which has prevented drought and\nbarrenness from entirely invading the field of God.\n\n[Footnote 1: Matt. xiii. 22.]\n\n[Footnote 2: Psalm cxxxiii. 3.]\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XI.\n\nTHE KINGDOM OF GOD CONCEIVED AS THE INHERITANCE OF THE POOR.\n\n\nThese maxims, good for a country where life is nourished by the air\nand the light, and this delicate communism of a band of children of\nGod reposing in confidence on the bosom of their Father, might suit a\nsimple sect constantly persuaded that its Utopia was about to be\nrealized. But it is clear that they could not satisfy the whole of\nsociety. Jesus understood very soon, in fact, that the official world\nof his time would by no means adopt his kingdom. He took his\nresolution with extreme boldness. Leaving the world, with its hard\nheart and narrow prejudices on one side, he turned toward the simple.\nA vast substitution of classes would take place. The kingdom of God\nwas made--1st, for children, and those who resemble them; 2d, for the\noutcasts of this world, victims of that social arrogance which\nrepulses the good but humble man; 3d, for heretics and schismatics,\npublicans, Samaritans, and Pagans of Tyre and Sidon. An energetic\nparable explained this appeal to the people and justified it.[1] A\nking has prepared a wedding feast, and sends his servants to seek\nthose invited. Each one excuses himself; some ill-treat the\nmessengers. The king, therefore, takes a decided step. The great\npeople have not accepted his invitation. Be it so. His guests shall be\nthe first comers; the people collected from the highways and byways,\nthe poor, the beggars, and the lame; it matters not who, the room must\nbe filled. \"For I say unto you,\" said he, \"that none of those men\nwhich were bidden shall taste of my supper.\"\n\n[Footnote 1: Matt. xxii. 2, and following; Luke xiv. 16, and\nfollowing. Comp. Matt. viii. 11, 12, xxi. 33, and following.]\n\nPure _Ebionism_--that is, the doctrine that the poor (_ebionim_) alone\nshall be saved, that the reign of the poor is approaching--was,\ntherefore, the doctrine of Jesus. \"Woe unto you that are rich,\" said\nhe, \"for ye have received your consolation. Woe unto you that are\nfull, for ye shall hunger. Woe unto you that laugh now, for ye shall\nmourn and weep.\"[1] \"Then said he also to him that bade him, When thou\nmakest a dinner or a supper, call not thy friends, nor thy brethren,\nneither thy kinsmen, nor thy rich neighbors, lest they also bid thee\nagain, and a recompense be made thee. But when thou makest a feast,\ncall the poor, the maimed, the lame, the blind: and thou shalt be\nblessed; for they cannot recompense thee; for thou shalt be\nrecompensed at the resurrection of the just.\"[2] It is perhaps in an\nanalogous sense that he often repeated, \"Be good bankers\"[3]--that is\nto say, make good investments for the kingdom of God, in giving your\nwealth to the poor, conformably to the old proverb, \"He that hath pity\nupon the poor, lendeth unto the Lord.\"[4]\n\n[Footnote 1: Luke vi. 24, 25.]\n\n[Footnote 2: Luke xiv. 12, 14.]\n\n[Footnote 3: A saying preserved by very ancient tradition, and much\nused, Clement of Alexandria, _Strom._ i. 28. It is also found in\nOrigen, St. Jerome, and a great number of the Fathers of the Church.]\n\n[Footnote 4: Prov. xix. 17.]\n\nThis, however, was not a new fact. The most exalted democratic\nmovement of which humanity has preserved the remembrance (the only\none, also, which has succeeded, for it alone has maintained itself in\nthe domain of pure thought), had long disturbed the Jewish race. The\nthought that God is the avenger of the poor and the weak, against the\nrich and the powerful, is found in each page of the writings of the\nOld Testament. The history of Israel is of all histories that in which\nthe popular spirit has most constantly predominated. The prophets, the\ntrue, and, in one sense, the boldest tribunes, had thundered\nincessantly against the great, and established a close relation, on\nthe one hand, between the words \"rich, impious, violent, wicked,\" and,\non the other, between the words \"poor, gentle, humble, pious.\"[1]\nUnder the Seleucidae, the aristocrats having almost all apostatized and\ngone over to Hellenism, these associations of ideas only became\nstronger. The Book of Enoch contains still more violent maledictions\nthan those of the Gospel against the world, the rich, and the\npowerful.[2] Luxury is there depicted as a crime. The \"Son of man,\" in\nthis strange Apocalypse, dethrones kings, tears them from their\nvoluptuous life, and precipitates them into hell.[3] The initiation of\nJudea into secular life, the recent introduction of an entirely\nworldly element of luxury and comfort, provoked a furious reaction in\nfavor of patriarchal simplicity. \"Woe unto you who despise the humble\ndwelling and inheritance of your fathers! Woe unto you who build your\npalaces with the sweat of others! Each stone, each brick, of which it\nis built, is a sin.\"[4] The name of \"poor\" (_ebion_) had become a\nsynonym of \"saint,\" of \"friend of God.\" This was the name that the\nGalilean disciples of Jesus loved to give themselves; it was for a\nlong time the name of the Judaizing Christians of Batanea and of the\nHauran (Nazarenes, Hebrews) who remained faithful to the tongue, as\nwell as to the primitive instructions of Jesus, and who boasted that\nthey possessed amongst themselves the descendants of his family.[5] At\nthe end of the second century, these good sectaries, having remained\nbeyond the reach of the great current which had carried away all the\nother churches, were treated as heretics (_Ebionites_), and a\npretended heretical leader (_Ebion_) was invented to explain their\nname.[6]\n\n[Footnote 1: See, in particular, Amos ii. 6; Isa. lxiii. 9; Ps. xxv.\n9, xxxvii. 11, lxix. 33; and, in general, the Hebrew dictionaries, at\nthe words:\n\n     [Hebrew: evion, dal, ani, anav, chasid, ashir, holelim,\n     aritz].]\n\n[Footnote 2: Ch. lxii., lxiii., xcvii., c., civ.]\n\n[Footnote 3: _Enoch_, ch. xlvi. 4-8.]\n\n[Footnote 4: _Enoch_, xcix. 13, 14.]\n\n[Footnote 5: Julius Africanus in Eusebius, _H.E._, i. 7; Eus., _De\nsitu et nom. loc. hebr._, at the word [Greek: Choba]; Orig., _Contra\nCelsus_, ii. 1, v. 61; Epiph., _Adv. Haer._, xxix. 7, 9, xxx. 2, 18.]\n\n[Footnote 6: See especially Origen, _Contra Celsus_, ii. 1; _De\nPrincipiis_, iv. 22. Compare Epiph., _Adv. Haer._, xxx. 17. Irenaeus,\nOrigen, Eusebius, and the apostolic Constitutions, ignore the\nexistence of such a personage. The author of the _Philosophumena_\nseems to hesitate (vii. 34 and 35, x. 22 and 23.) It is by Tertullian,\nand especially by Epiphanes, that the fable of one _Ebion_ has been\nspread. Besides, all the Fathers are agreed on the etymology, [Greek:\nEbion] = [Greek: ptochos].]\n\nWe may see, in fact, without difficulty, that this exaggerated taste\nfor poverty could not be very lasting. It was one of those Utopian\nelements which always mingle in the origin of great movements, and\nwhich time rectifies. Thrown into the centre of human society,\nChristianity very easily consented to receive rich men into her bosom,\njust as Buddhism, exclusively monkish in its origin, soon began, as\nconversions multiplied, to admit the laity. But the mark of origin is\never preserved. Although it quickly passed away and became forgotten,\n_Ebionism_ left a leaven in the whole history of Christian\ninstitutions which has not been lost. The collection of the _Logia_,\nor discourses of Jesus, was formed in the Ebionitish centre of\nBatanea.[1] \"Poverty\" remained an ideal from which the true followers\nof Jesus were never after separated. To possess nothing was the truly\nevangelical state; mendicancy became a virtue, a holy condition. The\ngreat Umbrian movement of the thirteenth century, which, among all the\nattempts at religious construction, most resembles the Galilean\nmovement, took place entirely in the name of poverty. Francis\nd'Assisi, the man who, more than any other, by his exquisite goodness,\nby his delicate, pure, and tender intercourse with universal life,\nmost resembled Jesus, was a poor man. The mendicant orders, the\ninnumerable communistic sects of the middle ages (_Pauvres de Lyon_,\n_Begards_, _Bons-Hommes_, _Fratricelles_, _Humilies_, _Pauvres\nevangeliques_, &c.) grouped under the banner of the \"Everlasting\nGospel,\" pretended to be, and in fact were, the true disciples of\nJesus. But even in this case the most impracticable dreams of the new\nreligion were fruitful in results. Pious mendicity, so impatiently\nborne by our industrial and well-organized communities, was in its\nday, and in a suitable climate, full of charm. It offered to a\nmultitude of mild and contemplative souls the only condition suited to\nthem. To have made poverty an object of love and desire, to have\nraised the beggar to the altar, and to have sanctified the coat of the\npoor man, was a master-stroke which political economy may not\nappreciate, but in the presence of which the true moralist cannot\nremain indifferent. Humanity, in order to bear its burdens, needs to\nbelieve that it is not paid entirely by wages. The greatest service\nwhich can be rendered to it is to repeat often that it lives not by\nbread alone.\n\n[Footnote 1: Epiph., _Adv. Haer._, xix., xxix., and xxx., especially\nxxix. 9.]\n\nLike all great men, Jesus loved the people, and felt himself at home\nwith them. The Gospel, in his idea, is made for the poor; it is to\nthem he brings the glad tidings of salvation.[1] All the despised ones\nof orthodox Judaism were his favorites. Love of the people, and pity\nfor its weakness (the sentiment of the democratic chief, who feels the\nspirit of the multitude live in him, and recognize him as its natural\ninterpreter), shine forth at each moment in his acts and\ndiscourses.[2]\n\n[Footnote 1: Matt. xi. 5; Luke vi. 20, 21.]\n\n[Footnote 2: Matt. ix. 36; Mark vi. 34.]\n\nThe chosen flock presented, in fact, a very mixed character, and one\nlikely to astonish rigorous moralists. It counted in its fold men with\nwhom a Jew, respecting himself, would not have associated.[1] Perhaps\nJesus found in this society, unrestrained by ordinary rules, more mind\nand heart than in a pedantic and formal middle-class, proud of its\napparent morality. The Pharisees, exaggerating the Mosaic\nprescriptions, had come to believe themselves defiled by contact with\nmen less strict than themselves; in their meals they almost rivalled\nthe puerile distinctions of caste in India. Despising these miserable\naberrations of the religious sentiment, Jesus loved to eat with those\nwho suffered from them;[2] by his side at table were seen persons said\nto lead wicked lives, perhaps only so called because they did not\nshare the follies of the false devotees. The Pharisees and the doctors\nprotested against the scandal. \"See,\" said they, \"with what men he\neats!\" Jesus returned subtle answers, which exasperated the\nhypocrites: \"They that be whole need not a physician.\"[3] Or again:\n\"What man of you, having an hundred sheep, if he lose one of them,\ndoth not leave the ninety and nine in the wilderness, and go after\nthat which is lost until he find it? And when he hath found it, he\nlayeth it on his shoulders rejoicing.\"[4] Or again: \"The Son of Man is\ncome to save that which was lost.\"[5] Or again: \"I am not come to call\nthe righteous, but sinners.\"[6] Lastly, that delightful parable of the\nprodigal son, in which he who is fallen is represented as having a\nkind of privilege of love above him who has always been righteous.\nWeak or guilty women, surprised at so much that was charming, and\nrealizing, for the first time, the attractions of contact with virtue,\napproached him freely. People were astonished that he did not repulse\nthem. \"Now when the Pharisee which had bidden him saw it, he spake\nwithin himself, saying, This man, if he were a prophet, would have\nknown who and what manner of woman this is that toucheth him: for she\nis a sinner.\" Jesus replied by the parable of a creditor who forgives\nhis debtors' unequal debts, and he did not hesitate to prefer the lot\nof him to whom was remitted the greater debt.[7] He appreciated\nconditions of soul only in proportion to the love mingled therein.\nWomen, with tearful hearts, and disposed through their sins to\nfeelings of humility, were nearer to his kingdom than ordinary\nnatures, who often have little merit in not having fallen. We may\nconceive, on the other hand, that these tender souls, finding in their\nconversion to the sect an easy means of restoration, would\npassionately attach themselves to him.\n\n[Footnote 1: Matt. ix. 10, and following; Luke xv. entirely.]\n\n[Footnote 2: Matt. ix. 11; Mark ii. 16; Luke v. 30.]\n\n[Footnote 3: Matt. ix. 12.]\n\n[Footnote 4: Luke xv. 4, and following.]\n\n[Footnote 5: Matt. xviii. 11; Luke xix. 10.]\n\n[Footnote 6: Matt. ix. 13.]\n\n[Footnote 7: Luke vii. 36, and following. Luke, who likes to bring out\nin relief everything that relates to the forgiveness of sinners (comp.\nx. 30, and following, xv. entirely, xvii. 16, and following, xix. 2,\nand following, xxiii. 39-43), has included in this narrative passages\nfrom another history, that of the anointing of feet, which took place\nat Bethany some days before the death of Jesus. But the pardon of\nsinful women was undoubtedly one of the essential features of the\nanecdotes of the life of Jesus.--Cf. John viii. 3, and following;\nPapias, in Eusebius, _Hist. Eccl._, iii. 30.]\n\nFar from seeking to soothe the murmurs stirred up by his disdain for\nthe social susceptibilities of the time, he seemed to take pleasure in\nexciting them. Never did any one avow more loftily this contempt for\nthe \"world,\" which is the essential condition of great things and of\ngreat originality. He pardoned a rich man, but only when the rich man,\nin consequence of some prejudice, was disliked by society.[1] He\ngreatly preferred men of equivocal life and of small consideration in\nthe eyes of the orthodox leaders. \"The publicans and the harlots go\ninto the kingdom of God before you. For John came unto you and ye\nbelieved him not: but the publicans and the harlots believed him.\"[2]\nWe can understand how galling the reproach of not having followed the\ngood example set by prostitutes must have been to men making a\nprofession of seriousness and rigid morality.\n\n[Footnote 1: Luke xix. 2, and following.]\n\n[Footnote 2: Matt. xxi. 31, 32.]\n\nHe had no external affectation or show of austerity. He did not fly\nfrom pleasure; he went willingly to marriage feasts. One of his\nmiracles was performed to enliven a wedding at a small town. Weddings\nin the East take place in the evening. Each one carries a lamp; and\nthe lights coming and going produce a very agreeable effect. Jesus\nliked this gay and animated aspect, and drew parables from it.[1] Such\nconduct, compared with that of John the Baptist, gave offence.[2] One\nday, when the disciples of John and the Pharisees were observing the\nfast, it was asked, \"Why do the disciples of John and the Pharisees\nfast, but thy disciples fast not? And Jesus said unto them, Can the\nchildren of the bridechamber fast, while the bridegroom is with them?\nAs long as they have the bridegroom with them, they cannot fast. But\nthe days will come when the bridegroom shall be taken away from them,\nand then they shall fast in those days.\"[3] His gentle gaiety found\nexpression in lively ideas and amiable pleasantries. \"But whereunto,\"\nsaid he, \"shall I liken this generation? It is like unto children\nsitting in the markets, and calling unto their fellows, and saying, We\nhave piped unto you, and ye have not danced; we have mourned unto you,\nand ye have not lamented.[4] For John came neither eating nor\ndrinking, and they say, He hath a devil. The Son of man came eating\nand drinking, and they say, Behold a man gluttonous, and a winebibber,\na friend of publicans and sinners. But Wisdom is justified of her\nchildren.\"[5]\n\n[Footnote 1: Matt. xxv. 1, and following.]\n\n[Footnote 2: Mark ii. 18; Luke v. 33.]\n\n[Footnote 3: Matt. ix. 14, and following; Mark ii. 18, and following;\nLuke v. 33, and following.]\n\n[Footnote 4: An allusion to some children's game.]\n\n[Footnote 5: Matt. xi. 16, and following; Luke vii. 34, and following.\nA proverb which means \"The opinion of men is blind. The wisdom of the\nworks of God is only proclaimed by His works themselves.\" I read\n[Greek: ergon], with the manuscript B. of the Vatican, and not [Greek:\nteknon].]\n\nHe thus traversed Galilee in the midst of a continual feast. He rode\non a mule. In the East this is a good and safe mode of traveling; the\nlarge, black eyes of the animal, shaded by long eyelashes, give it an\nexpression of gentleness. His disciples sometimes surrounded him with\na kind of rustic pomp, at the expense of their garments, which they\nused as carpets. They placed them on the mule which carried him, or\nextended them on the earth in his path.[1] His entering a house was\nconsidered a joy and a blessing. He stopped in the villages and the\nlarge farms, where he received an eager hospitality. In the East, the\nhouse into which a stranger enters becomes at once a public place. All\nthe village assembles there, the children invade it, and though\ndispersed by the servants, always return. Jesus could not permit these\nsimple auditors to be treated harshly; he caused them to be brought to\nhim and embraced them.[2] The mothers, encouraged by such a reception,\nbrought him their children in order that he might touch them.[3] Women\ncame to pour oil upon his head, and perfume on his feet. His disciples\nsometimes repulsed them as troublesome; but Jesus, who loved the\nancient usages, and all that indicated simplicity of heart, repaired\nthe ill done by his too zealous friends. He protected those who wished\nto honor him.[4] Thus children and women adored him. The reproach of\nalienating from their families these gentle creatures, always easily\nmisled, was one of the most frequent charges of his enemies.[5]\n\n[Footnote 1: Matt. xxi. 7, 8.]\n\n[Footnote 2: Matt. xix. 13, and following; Mark ix. 35, x. 13, and\nfollowing; Luke xviii. 15, 16.]\n\n[Footnote 3: Ibid.]\n\n[Footnote 4: Matt. xxvi. 7, and following; Mark xiv. 3, and following;\nLuke vii. 37, and following.]\n\n[Footnote 5: Gospel of Marcion, addition to ver. 2 of chap. xxiii. of\nLuke (Epiph., _Adv. Haer._, xlii. 11). If the suppressions of Marcion\nare without critical value, such is not the case with his additions,\nwhen they proceed, not from a special view, but from the condition of\nthe manuscripts which he used.]\n\nThe new religion was thus in many respects a movement of women and\nchildren. The latter were like a young guard around Jesus for the\ninauguration of his innocent royalty, and gave him little ovations\nwhich much pleased him, calling him \"son of David,\" crying\n_Hosanna_,[1] and bearing palms around him. Jesus, like Savonarola,\nperhaps made them serve as instruments for pious missions; he was\nvery glad to see these young apostles, who did not compromise him,\nrush into the front and give him titles which he dared not take\nhimself. He let them speak, and when he was asked if he heard, he\nreplied in an evasive manner that the praise which comes from young\nlips is the most agreeable to God.[2]\n\n[Footnote 1: A cry which was raised at the feast of tabernacles,\namidst the waving of palms. Mishnah, _Sukka_, iii. 9. This custom\nstill exists among the Israelites.]\n\n[Footnote 2: Matt. xxi. 15, 16.]\n\nHe lost no opportunity of repeating that the little ones are sacred\nbeings,[1] that the kingdom of God belongs to children,[2] that we\nmust become children to enter there,[3] that we ought to receive it as\na child,[4] that the heavenly Father hides his secrets from the wise\nand reveals them to the little ones.[5] The idea of disciples is in\nhis mind almost synonymous with that of children.[6] On one occasion,\nwhen they had one of those quarrels for precedence, which were not\nuncommon, Jesus took a little child, placed him in their midst, and\nsaid to them, \"Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little\nchild, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven.\"[7]\n\n[Footnote 1: Matt. xviii. 5, 10, 14; Luke xvii. 2.]\n\n[Footnote 2: Matt. xix. 14; Mark x. 14; Luke xviii. 16.]\n\n[Footnote 3: Matt. xviii. 1, and following; Mark ix. 33, and\nfollowing; Luke ix. 46.]\n\n[Footnote 4: Mark x. 15.]\n\n[Footnote 5: Matt. xi. 25; Luke x. 21.]\n\n[Footnote 6: Matt. x. 42, xviii. 5, 14; Mark ix. 36; Luke xvii. 2.]\n\n[Footnote 7: Matt. xviii. 4; Mark ix. 33-36; Luke ix. 46-48.]\n\nIt was infancy, in fact, in its divine spontaneity, in its simple\nbewilderments of joy, which took possession of the earth. Every one\nbelieved at each moment that the kingdom so much desired was about to\nappear. Each one already saw himself seated on a throne[1] beside the\nmaster. They divided amongst themselves the positions of honor in the\nnew kingdom,[2] and strove to reckon the precise date of its advent.\nThis new doctrine was called the \"Good Tidings;\" it had no other name.\nAn old word, \"_paradise_,\" which the Hebrew, like all the languages of\nthe East, had borrowed from the Persian, and which at first designated\nthe parks of the Achaemenidae, summed up the general dream; a delightful\ngarden, where the charming life which was led here below would be\ncontinued forever.[3] How long this intoxication lasted we know not.\nNo one, during the course of this magical apparition, measured time\nany more than we measure a dream. Duration was suspended; a week was\nan age. But whether it filled years or months, the dream was so\nbeautiful that humanity has lived upon it ever since, and it is still\nour consolation to gather its weakened perfume. Never did so much joy\nfill the breast of man. For a moment humanity, in this the most\nvigorous effort she ever made to rise above the world, forgot the\nleaden weight which binds her to earth and the sorrows of the life\nbelow. Happy he who has been able to behold this divine unfolding, and\nto share, were it but for one day, this unexampled illusion! But still\nmore happy, Jesus would say to us, is he who, freed from all illusion,\nshall reproduce in himself the celestial vision, and, with no\nmillenarian dream, no chimerical paradise, no signs in the heavens,\nbut by the uprightness of his will and the poetry of his soul, shall\nbe able to create anew in his heart the true kingdom of God!\n\n[Footnote 1: Luke xxii. 30.]\n\n[Footnote 2: Mark x. 37, 40, 41.]\n\n[Footnote 3: Luke xxiii. 43; 2 _Cor._ xii. 4. Comp. _Carm. Sibyll.,\nprooem_, 36; Talm. of Bab., _Chagigah_, 14 _b_.]\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XII.\n\nEMBASSY FROM JOHN IN PRISON TO JESUS--DEATH OF JOHN--RELATIONS OF HIS\nSCHOOL WITH THAT OF JESUS.\n\n\nWhilst joyous Galilee was celebrating in feasts the coming of the\nwell-beloved, the sorrowful John, in his prison of Machero, was pining\naway with expectation and desire. The success of the young master,\nwhom he had seen some months before as his auditor, reached his ears.\nIt was said that the Messiah predicted by the prophets, he who was to\nre-establish the kingdom of Israel, was come, and was proving his\npresence in Galilee by marvelous works. John wished to inquire into\nthe truth of this rumor, and as he communicated freely with his\ndisciples, he chose two of them to go to Jesus in Galilee.[1]\n\n[Footnote 1: Matt. xi. 2, and following; Luke vii. 18, and following.]\n\nThe two disciples found Jesus at the height of his fame. The air of\ngladness which reigned around him surprised them. Accustomed to fasts,\nto persevering prayer, and to a life of aspiration, they were\nastonished to see themselves transported suddenly into the midst of\nthe joys attending the welcome of the Messiah.[1] They told Jesus\ntheir message: \"Art thou he that should come? Or do we look for\nanother?\" Jesus, who from that time hesitated no longer respecting his\npeculiar character as Messiah, enumerated the works which ought to\ncharacterize the coming of the kingdom of God--such as the healing of\nthe sick, and the good tidings of a speedy salvation preached to the\npoor. He did all these works. \"And blessed is he,\" said Jesus,\n\"whosoever shall not be offended in me.\" We know not whether this\nanswer found John the Baptist living, or in what temper it put the\naustere ascetic. Did he die consoled and certain that he whom he had\nannounced already lived, or did he remain doubtful as to the mission\nof Jesus? There is nothing to inform us. Seeing, however, that his\nschool continued to exist a considerable time parallel with the\nChristian churches, we are led to think that, notwithstanding his\nregard for Jesus, John did not look upon him as the one who was to\nrealize the divine promises. Death came, moreover, to end his\nperplexities. The untamable freedom of the ascetic was to crown his\nrestless and stormy career by the only end which was worthy of it.\n\n[Footnote 1: Matt. ix. 14, and following.]\n\nThe leniency which Antipas had at first shown toward John was not of\nlong duration. In the conversations which, according to the Christian\ntradition, John had had with the tetrarch, he did not cease to declare\nto him that his marriage was unlawful, and that he ought to send away\nHerodias.[1] We can easily imagine the hatred which the granddaughter\nof Herod the Great must have conceived toward this importunate\ncounsellor. She only waited an opportunity to ruin him.\n\n[Footnote 1: Matt. xiv. 4, and following; Mark vi. 18, and following;\nLuke iii. 19.]\n\nHer daughter, Salome, born of her first marriage, and like her\nambitious and dissolute, entered into her designs. That year (probably\nthe year 30) Antipas was at Machero on the anniversary of his\nbirthday. Herod the Great had constructed in the interior of the\nfortress a magnificent palace, where the tetrarch frequently\nresided.[1] He gave a great feast there, during which Salome executed\none of those dances in character which were not considered in Syria as\nunbecoming a distinguished person. Antipas being much pleased, asked\nthe dancer what she most desired, and she replied, at the instigation\nof her mother, \"Give me here John Baptist's head in a charger.\"[2]\nAntipas was sorry, but he did not like to refuse. A guard took the\ndish, went and cut off the head of the prisoner, and brought it.[3]\n\n[Footnote 1: Jos., _De Bello jud._, VII. vi. 2.]\n\n[Footnote 2: A portable dish on which liquors and viands are served in\nthe East.]\n\n[Footnote 3: Matt. xiv. 3, and following; Mark vi. 14-29; Jos.,\n_Ant._, XVIII. v. 2.]\n\nThe disciples of the Baptist obtained his body and placed it in a\ntomb, but the people were much displeased. Six years after, Hareth,\nhaving attacked Antipas, in order to recover Machero and avenge the\ndishonor of his daughter, Antipas was completely beaten; and his\ndefeat was generally regarded as a punishment for the murder of\nJohn.[1]\n\n[Footnote 1: Josephus, _Ant._, XVIII. v. 1, 2.]\n\nThe news of John's death was brought to Jesus by the disciples of the\nBaptist.[1] John's last act toward Jesus had effectually united the\ntwo schools in the most intimate bonds. Jesus, fearing an increase of\nill-will on the part of Antipas, took precautions and retired to the\ndesert,[2] where many people followed him. By exercising an extreme\nfrugality, the holy band was enabled to live there, and in this there\nwas naturally seen a miracle.[3] From this time Jesus always spoke of\nJohn with redoubled admiration. He declared unhesitatingly[4] that he\nwas more than a prophet, that the Law and the ancient prophets had\nforce only until he came,[5] that he had abrogated them, but that the\nkingdom of heaven would displace him in turn. In fine, he attributed\nto him a special place in the economy of the Christian mystery, which\nconstituted him the link of union between the Old Testament and the\nadvent of the new reign.\n\n[Footnote 1: Matt. xiv. 12.]\n\n[Footnote 2: Matt. xiv. 13.]\n\n[Footnote 3: Matt. xiv. 15, and following; Mark vi. 35, and following;\nLuke ix. 11, and following; John vi. 2, and following.]\n\n[Footnote 4: Matt. xi. 7, and following; Luke vii. 24, and following.]\n\n[Footnote 5: Matt. xi. 12, 13; Luke xvi. 16.]\n\nThe prophet Malachi, whose opinion in this matter was soon brought to\nbear,[1] had announced with much energy a precursor of the Messiah,\nwho was to prepare men for the final renovation, a messenger who\nshould come to make straight the paths before the elected one of God.\nThis messenger was no other than the prophet Elias, who, according to\na widely spread belief, was soon to descend from heaven, whither he\nhad been carried, in order to prepare men by repentance for the great\nadvent, and to reconcile God with his people.[2] Sometimes they\nassociated with Elias, either the patriarch Enoch, to whom for one or\ntwo centuries they had attributed high sanctity;[3] or Jeremiah,[4]\nwhom they considered as a sort of protecting genius of the people,\nconstantly occupied in praying for them before the throne of God.[5]\nThis idea, that two ancient prophets should rise again in order to\nserve as precursors to the Messiah, is discovered in so striking a\nform in the doctrine of the Parsees that we feel much inclined to\nbelieve that it comes from that source.[6] However this may be, it\nformed at the time of Jesus an integral portion of the Jewish theories\nabout the Messiah. It was admitted that the appearance of \"two\nfaithful witnesses,\" clothed in garments of repentance, would be the\npreamble of the great drama about to be unfolded, to the astonishment\nof the universe.[7]\n\n[Footnote 1: Malachi iii. and iv.; _Ecclesiasticus_ xlviii. 10. See\n_ante_, Chap. VI.]\n\n[Footnote 2: Matt. xi. 14, xvii. 10; Mark vi. 15, viii. 28, ix. 10,\nand following; Luke ix. 8, 19.]\n\n[Footnote 3: _Ecclesiasticus_ xliv. 16.]\n\n[Footnote 4: Matt. xvi. 14.]\n\n[Footnote 5: 2 _Macc._ v. 13, and following.]\n\n[Footnote 6: Texts cited by Anquetil-Duperron, _Zend-Avesta_, i. 2d\npart, p. 46, corrected by Spiegel, in the _Zeitschrift der deutschen\nmorgenlaendischen Gesellschaft_, i. 261, and following; extracts from\nthe _Jamasp-Nameh_, in the _Avesta_ of Spiegel, i., p. 34. None of the\nParsee texts, which truly imply the idea of resuscitated prophets and\nof precursors, are ancient; but the ideas contained in them appear to\nbe much anterior to the time of the compilation itself.]\n\n[Footnote 7: _Rev._ xi. 3, and following.]\n\nIt will be seen that, with these ideas, Jesus and his disciples could\nnot hesitate about the mission of John the Baptist. When the scribes\nraised the objection that the Messiah could not have come because\nElias had not yet appeared,[1] they replied that Elias was come, that\nJohn was Elias raised from the dead.[2] By his manner of life, by his\nopposition to the established political authorities, John in fact\nrecalled that strange figure in the ancient history of Israel.[3]\nJesus was not silent on the merits and excellencies of his forerunner.\nHe said that none greater was born among the children of men. He\nenergetically blamed the Pharisees and the doctors for not having\naccepted his baptism, and for not being converted at his voice.[4]\n\n[Footnote 1: Mark ix. 10.]\n\n[Footnote 2: Matt. xi. 14, xvii. 10-13; Mark vi. 15, ix. 10-12; Luke\nix. 8; John i. 21-25.]\n\n[Footnote 3: Luke i. 17.]\n\n[Footnote 4: Matt. xxi. 32; Luke vii. 29, 30.]\n\nThe disciples of Jesus were faithful to these principles of their\nmaster. This respect for John continued during the whole of the first\nChristian generation.[1] He was supposed to be a relative of Jesus.[2]\nIn order to establish the mission of the latter upon testimony\nadmitted by all, it was declared that John, at the first sight of\nJesus, proclaimed him the Messiah; that he recognized himself his\ninferior, unworthy to unloose the latchets of his shoes; that he\nrefused at first to baptize him, and maintained that it was he who\nought to be baptized by Jesus.[3] These were exaggerations, which are\nsufficiently refuted by the doubtful form of John's last message.[4]\nBut, in a more general sense, John remains in the Christian legend\nthat which he was in reality--the austere forerunner, the gloomy\npreacher of repentance before the joy on the arrival of the\nbridegroom, the prophet who announces the kingdom of God and dies\nbefore beholding it. This giant in the early history of Christianity,\nthis eater of locusts and wild honey, this rough redresser of wrongs,\nwas the bitter which prepared the lip for the sweetness of the kingdom\nof God. His beheading by Herodias inaugurated the era of Christian\nmartyrs; he was the first witness for the new faith. The worldly, who\nrecognized in him their true enemy, could not permit him to live; his\nmutilated corpse, extended on the threshold of Christianity, traced\nthe bloody path in which so many others were to follow.\n\n[Footnote 1: _Acts_ xix. 4.]\n\n[Footnote 2: Luke i.]\n\n[Footnote 3: Matt. iii. 14, and following; Luke iii. 16; John i. 15,\nand following, v. 32, 33.]\n\n[Footnote 4: Matt. xi. 2, and following; Luke vii. 18, and following.]\n\nThe school of John did not die with its founder. It lived some time\ndistinct from that of Jesus, and at first a good understanding existed\nbetween the two. Many years after the death of the two masters, people\nwere baptized with the baptism of John. Certain persons belonged to\nthe two schools at the same time--for example, the celebrated Apollos,\nthe rival of St. Paul (toward the year 50), and a large number of the\nChristians of Ephesus.[1] Josephus placed himself (year 53) in the\nschool of an ascetic named Banou,[2] who presents the greatest\nresemblance to John the Baptist, and who was perhaps of his school.\nThis Banou[3] lived in the desert, clothed with the leaves of trees;\nhe supported himself only on wild plants and fruits, and baptized\nhimself frequently, both day and night, in cold water, in order to\npurify himself. James, he who was called the \"brother of the Lord\"\n(there is here perhaps some confusion of homonyms), practised a\nsimilar asceticism.[4] Afterward, toward the year 80, Baptism was in\nstrife with Christianity, especially in Asia Minor. John the\nevangelist appears to combat it in an indirect manner.[5] One of the\nSibylline[6] poems seems to proceed from this school. As to the sects\nof Hemero-baptists, Baptists, and Elchasaites (_Sabiens Mogtasila_ of\nthe Arabian writers[7]), who, in the second century, filled Syria,\nPalestine and Babylonia, and whose representatives still exist in our\ndays among the Mendaites, called \"Christians of St. John;\" they have\nthe same origin as the movement of John the Baptist, rather than an\nauthentic descent from John. The true school of the latter, partly\nmixed with Christianity, became a small Christian heresy, and died out\nin obscurity. John had foreseen distinctly the destiny of the two\nschools. If he had yielded to a mean rivalry, he would to-day have\nbeen forgotten in the crowd of sectaries of his time. By his\nself-abnegation he has attained a glorious and unique position in the\nreligious pantheon of humanity.\n\n[Footnote 1: _Acts_ xviii. 25, xix. 1-5. Cf. Epiph., _Adv. Haer._, xxx.\n16.]\n\n[Footnote 2: _Vita_, 2.]\n\n[Footnote 3: Would this be the Bounai who is reckoned by the Talmud\n(Bab., _Sanhedrim_, 43 _a_) amongst the disciples of Jesus?]\n\n[Footnote 4: Hegesippus, in Eusebius, _H.E._, ii. 23.]\n\n[Footnote 5: Gospel, i. 26, 33, iv. 2; 1st Epistle, v. 6. Cf. _Acts_\nx. 47.]\n\n[Footnote 6: Book iv. See especially v. 157, and following.]\n\n[Footnote 7: _Sabiens_ is the Aramean equivalent of the word\n\"Baptists.\" _Mogtasila_ has the same meaning in Arabic.]\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XIII.\n\nFIRST ATTEMPTS ON JERUSALEM.\n\n\nJesus, almost every year, went to Jerusalem for the feast of the\npassover. The details of these journeys are little known, for the\nsynoptics do not speak of them,[1] and the notes of the fourth Gospel\nare very confused on this point.[2] It was, it appears, in the year\n31, and certainly after the death of John, that the most important of\nthe visits of Jesus to Jerusalem took place. Many of the disciples\nfollowed him. Although Jesus attached from that time little value to\nthe pilgrimage, he conformed himself to it in order not to wound\nJewish opinion, with which he had not yet broken. These journeys,\nmoreover, were essential to his design; for he felt already that in\norder to play a leading part, he must go from Galilee, and attack\nJudaism in its stronghold, which was Jerusalem.\n\n[Footnote 1: They, however, imply them obscurely (Matt. xxiii. 37;\nLuke xiii. 34). They knew as well as John the relation of Jesus with\nJoseph of Arimathea. Luke even (x. 38-42) knew the family of Bethany.\nLuke (ix. 51-54) has a vague idea of the system of the fourth Gospel\nrespecting the journeys of Jesus. Many discourses against the\nPharisees and the Sadducees, said by the synoptics to have been\ndelivered in Galilee, have scarcely any meaning, except as having been\ngiven at Jerusalem. And again, the lapse of eight days is much too\nshort to explain all that happened between the arrival of Jesus in\nthat city and his death.]\n\n[Footnote 2: Two pilgrimages are clearly indicated (John ii. 13, and\nv. 1), without speaking of his last journey (vii. 10), after which\nJesus returned no more to Galilee. The first took place while John was\nstill baptizing. It would belong consequently to the Easter of the\nyear 29. But the circumstances given as belonging to this journey are\nof a more advanced period. (Comp. especially John ii. 14, and\nfollowing, and Matt. xxi. 12, 13; Mark xi. 15-17; Luke xix. 45, 46.)\nThere are evidently transpositions of dates in these chapters of John,\nor rather he has mixed the circumstances of different journeys.]\n\nThe little Galilean community were here far from being at home.\nJerusalem was then nearly what it is to-day, a city of pedantry,\nacrimony, disputes, hatreds, and littleness of mind. Its fanaticism\nwas extreme, and religious seditions very frequent. The Pharisees were\ndominant; the study of the Law, pushed to the most insignificant\nminutiae, and reduced to questions of casuistry, was the only study.\nThis exclusively theological and canonical culture contributed in no\nrespect to refine the intellect. It was something analogous to the\nbarren doctrine of the Mussulman fakir, to that empty science\ndiscussed round about the mosques, and which is a great expenditure of\ntime and useless argumentation, by no means calculated to advance the\nright discipline of the mind. The theological education of the modern\nclergy, although very dry, gives us no idea of this, for the\nRenaissance has introduced into all our teachings, even the most\nirregular, a share of _belles lettres_ and of method, which has\ninfused more or less of the _humanities_ into scholasticism. The\nscience of the Jewish doctor, of the _sofer_ or scribe, was purely\nbarbarous, unmitigatedly absurd, and denuded of all moral element.[1]\nTo crown the evil, it filled with ridiculous pride those who had\nwearied themselves in acquiring it. The Jewish scribe, proud of the\npretended knowledge which had cost him so much trouble, had the same\ncontempt for Greek culture which the learned Mussulman of our time has\nfor European civilization, and which the old catholic theologian had\nfor the knowledge of men of the world. The tendency of this\nscholastic culture was to close the mind to all that was refined, to\ncreate esteem only for those difficult triflings on which they had\nwasted their lives, and which were regarded as the natural occupation\nof persons professing a degree of seriousness.[2]\n\n[Footnote 1: We may judge of it by the Talmud, the echo of the Jewish\nscholasticism of that time.]\n\n[Footnote 2: Jos., _Ant._, XX. xi. 2.]\n\nThis odious society could not fail to weigh heavily on the tender and\nsusceptible minds of the north. The contempt of the Hierosolymites for\nthe Galileans rendered the separation still more complete. In the\nbeautiful temple which was the object of all their desires, they often\nonly met with insult. A verse of the pilgrim's psalm,[1] \"I had rather\nbe a doorkeeper in the house of my God,\" seemed made expressly for\nthem. A contemptuous priesthood laughed at their simple devotion, as\nformerly in Italy the clergy, familiarized with the sanctuaries,\nwitnessed coldly and almost jestingly the fervor of the pilgrim come\nfrom afar. The Galileans spoke a rather corrupt dialect; their\npronunciation was vicious; they confounded the different aspirations\nof letters, which led to mistakes which were much laughed at.[2] In\nreligion, they were considered as ignorant and somewhat heterodox;[3]\nthe expression, \"foolish Galileans,\" had become proverbial.[4] It was\nbelieved (not without reason) that they were not of pure Jewish blood,\nand no one expected Galilee to produce a prophet.[5] Placed thus on\nthe confines of Judaism, and almost outside of it, the poor Galileans\nhad only one badly interpreted passage in Isaiah to build their hopes\nupon.[6] \"Land of Zebulon, and land of Naphtali, way of the sea,\nGalilee of the nations! The people that walked in darkness have seen a\ngreat light: they that dwell in the land of the shadow of death, upon\nthem hath the light shined.\" The reputation of the native city of\nJesus was particularly bad. It was a popular proverb, \"Can there any\ngood thing come out of Nazareth?\"[7]\n\n[Footnote 1: Ps. lxxxiv. (Vulg. lxxxiii.) 11.]\n\n[Footnote 2: Matt. xxvi. 73; Mark xiv. 70; _Acts_ ii. 7; Talm. of\nBab., _Erubin_, 53 _a_, and following; Bereschith Rabba, 26 _c_.]\n\n[Footnote 3: Passage from the treatise _Erubin_, _loc. cit._]\n\n[Footnote 4: _Erubin_, _loc. cit._, 53 _b_.]\n\n[Footnote 5: John vii. 52.]\n\n[Footnote 6: Isa. ix. 1, 2; Matt. iv. 13, and following.]\n\n[Footnote 7: John i. 46.]\n\nThe parched appearance of Nature in the neighborhood of Jerusalem must\nhave added to the dislike Jesus had for the place. The valleys are\nwithout water; the soil arid and stony. Looking into the valley of the\nDead Sea, the view is somewhat striking; elsewhere it is monotonous.\nThe hill of Mizpeh, around which cluster the most ancient historical\nremembrances of Israel, alone relieves the eye. The city presented, at\nthe time of Jesus, nearly the same form that it does now. It had\nscarcely any ancient monuments, for, until the time of the Asmoneans,\nthe Jews had remained strangers to all the arts. John Hyrcanus had\nbegun to embellish it, and Herod the Great had made it one of the most\nmagnificent cities of the East. The Herodian constructions, by their\ngrand character, perfection of execution, and beauty of material, may\ndispute superiority with the most finished works of antiquity.[1] A\ngreat number of superb tombs, of original taste, were raised at the\nsame time in the neighborhood of Jerusalem.[2] The style of these\nmonuments was Grecian, but appropriate to the customs of the Jews, and\nconsiderably modified in accordance with their principles. The\nornamental sculptures of the human figure which the Herods had\nsanctioned, to the great discontent of the purists, were banished, and\nreplaced by floral decorations. The taste of the ancient inhabitants\nof Phoenicia and Palestine for monoliths in solid stone seemed to be\nrevived in these singular tombs cut in the rock, and in which Grecian\norders are so strangely applied to an architecture of troglodytes.\nJesus, who regarded works of art as a pompous display of vanity,\nviewed these monuments with displeasure.[3] His absolute spiritualism,\nand his settled conviction that the form of the old world was about to\npass away, left him no taste except for things of the heart.\n\n[Footnote 1: Jos., _Ant._, XV. viii.-xi.; _B.J._, V. v. 6; Mark xiii.\n1, 2.]\n\n[Footnote 2: Tombs, namely, of the Judges, Kings, Absalom, Zechariah,\nJehoshaphat, and of St. James. Compare the description of the tomb of\nthe Maccabees at Modin (1 Macc. xiii. 27, and following).]\n\n[Footnote 3: Matt. xxiii. 27, 29, xxiv. 1, and following; Mark xiii.\n1, and following; Luke xix. 44, xxi. 5, and following. Compare _Book\nof Enoch_, xcvii. 13, 14; Talmud of Babylon, _Shabbath_, 33 _b_.]\n\nThe temple, at the time of Jesus, was quite new, and the exterior\nworks of it were not completed. Herod had begun its reconstruction in\nthe year 20 or 21 before the Christian era, in order to make it\nuniform with his other edifices. The body of the temple was finished\nin eighteen months; the porticos took eight years;[1] and the\naccessory portions were continued slowly, and were only finished a\nshort time before the taking of Jerusalem.[2] Jesus probably saw the\nwork progressing, not without a degree of secret vexation. These hopes\nof a long future were like an insult to his approaching advent.\nClearer-sighted than the unbelievers and the fanatics, he foresaw that\nthese superb edifices were destined to endure but for a short time.[3]\n\n[Footnote 1: Jos., _Ant._, XV. xi. 5, 6.]\n\n[Footnote 2: Jos., _Ant._, XX. ix. 7; John ii. 20.]\n\n[Footnote 3: Matt. xxiv. 2, xxvi. 61, xxvii. 40; Mark xiii. 2, xiv.\n58, xv. 29; Luke xxi. 6; John ii. 19, 20.]\n\nThe temple formed a marvelously imposing whole, of which the present\n_haram_,[1] notwithstanding its beauty, scarcely gives us any idea.\nThe courts and the surrounding porticos served as the daily rendezvous\nfor a considerable number of persons--so much so, that this great\nspace was at once temple, forum, tribunal, and university. All the\nreligious discussions of the Jewish schools, all the canonical\ninstruction, even the legal processes and civil causes--in a word, all\nthe activity of the nation was concentrated there.[2] It was an arena\nwhere arguments were perpetually clashing, a battlefield of disputes,\nresounding with sophisms and subtle questions. The temple had thus\nmuch analogy with a Mahometan mosque. The Romans at this period\ntreated all strange religions with respect, when kept within proper\nlimits,[3] and carefully refrained from entering the sanctuary; Greek\nand Latin inscriptions marked the point up to which those who were not\nJews were permitted to advance.[4] But the tower of Antonia, the\nheadquarters of the Roman forces, commanded the whole enclosure, and\nallowed all that passed therein to be seen.[5] The guarding of the\ntemple belonged to the Jews; the entire superintendence was committed\nto a captain, who caused the gates to be opened and shut, and\nprevented any one from crossing the enclosure with a stick in his\nhand, or with dusty shoes, or when carrying parcels, or to shorten his\npath.[6] They were especially scrupulous in watching that no one\nentered within the inner gates in a state of legal impurity. The\nwomen had an entirely separate court.\n\n[Footnote 1: The temple and its enclosure doubtless occupied the site\nof the mosque of Omar and the _haram_, or Sacred Court, which\nsurrounds the mosque. The foundation of the haram is, in some parts,\nespecially at the place where the Jews go to weep, the exact base of\nthe temple of Herod.]\n\n[Footnote 2: Luke ii. 46, and following; Mishnah, _Sanhedrim_, x. 2.]\n\n[Footnote 3: Suet., _Aug._ 93.]\n\n[Footnote 4: Philo, _Legatio ad Caium_, Sec. 31; Jos., _B.J._, V. v. 2,\nVI. ii. 4; _Acts_ xxi. 28.]\n\n[Footnote 5: Considerable traces of this tower are still seen in the\nnorthern part of the haram.]\n\n[Footnote 6: Mishnah, _Berakoth_, ix. 5; Talm. of Babyl., _Jebamoth_,\n6 _b_; Mark xi. 16.]\n\nIt was in the temple that Jesus passed his days, whilst he remained at\nJerusalem. The period of the feasts brought an extraordinary concourse\nof people into the city. Associated in parties of ten to twenty\npersons, the pilgrims invaded everywhere, and lived in that disordered\nstate in which Orientals delight.[1] Jesus was lost in the crowd, and\nhis poor Galileans grouped around him were of small account. He\nprobably felt that he was in a hostile world which would receive him\nonly with disdain. Everything he saw set him against it. The temple,\nlike much-frequented places of devotion in general, offered a not very\nedifying spectacle. The accessories of worship entailed a number of\nrepulsive details, especially of mercantile operations, in consequence\nof which real shops were established within the sacred enclosure.\nThere were sold beasts for the sacrifices; there were tables for the\nexchange of money; at times it seemed like a bazaar. The inferior\nofficers of the temple fulfilled their functions doubtless with the\nirreligious vulgarity of the sacristans of all ages. This profane and\nheedless air in the handling of holy things wounded the religious\nsentiment of Jesus, which was at times carried even to a scrupulous\nexcess.[2] He said that they had made the house of prayer into a den\nof thieves. One day, it is even said, that, carried away by his anger,\nhe scourged the vendors with a \"scourge of small cords,\" and\noverturned their tables.[3] In general, he had little love for the\ntemple. The worship which he had conceived for his Father had nothing\nin common with scenes of butchery. All these old Jewish institutions\ndispleased him, and he suffered in being obliged to conform to them.\nExcept among the Judaizing Christians, neither the temple nor its site\ninspired pious sentiments. The true disciples of the new faith held\nthis ancient sanctuary in aversion. Constantine and the first\nChristian emperors left the pagan construction of Adrian existing\nthere,[4] and only the enemies of Christianity, such as Julian,\nremembered the temple.[5] When Omar entered into Jerusalem, he found\nthe site designedly polluted in hatred of the Jews.[6] It was\nIslamism, that is to say, a sort of resurrection of Judaism in its\nexclusively Semitic form, which restored its glory. The place has\nalways been anti-Christian.\n\n[Footnote 1: Jos., _B.J._, II. xiv. 3, VI. ix. 3. Comp. Ps. cxxxiii.\n(Vulg. cxxxii.)]\n\n[Footnote 2: Mark xi. 16.]\n\n[Footnote 3: Matt. xxi. 12, and following; Mark xi. 15, and following;\nLuke xix. 45, and following; John ii. 14, and following.]\n\n[Footnote 4: _Itin. a Burdig. Hierus._, p. 152 (edit. Schott); S.\nJerome, in _Is._ i. 8, and in Matt. xxiv. 15.]\n\n[Footnote 5: Ammianus Marcellinus, xxiii. 1.]\n\n[Footnote 6: Eutychius, _Ann._, II. 286, and following (Oxford 1659).]\n\nThe pride of the Jews completed the discontent of Jesus, and rendered\nhis stay in Jerusalem painful. In the degree that the great ideas of\nIsrael ripened, the priesthood lost its power. The institution of\nsynagogues had given to the interpreter of the Law, to the doctor, a\ngreat superiority over the priest. There were no priests except at\nJerusalem, and even there, reduced to functions entirely ritual,\nalmost, like our parish priests, excluded from preaching, they were\nsurpassed by the orator of the synagogue, the casuist, and the _sofer_\nor scribe, although the latter was only a layman. The celebrated men\nof the Talmud were not priests; they were learned men according to the\nideas of the time. The high priesthood of Jerusalem held, it is true,\na very elevated rank in the nation; but it was by no means at the\nhead of the religious movement. The sovereign pontiff, whose dignity\nhad already been degraded by Herod,[1] became more and more a Roman\nfunctionary,[2] who was frequently removed in order to divide the\nprofits of the office. Opposed to the Pharisees, who were very warm\nlay zealots, the priests were almost all Sadducees, that is to say,\nmembers of that unbelieving aristocracy which had been formed around\nthe temple, and which lived by the altar, while they saw the vanity of\nit.[3] The sacerdotal caste was separated to such a degree from the\nnational sentiment and from the great religious movement which dragged\nthe people along, that the name of \"Sadducee\" (_sadoki_), which at\nfirst simply designated a member of the sacerdotal family of Sadok,\nhad become synonymous with \"Materialist\" and with \"Epicurean.\"\n\n[Footnote 1: Jos., _Ant._, XV. iii. 1, 3.]\n\n[Footnote 2: Ibid., XVIII. ii.]\n\n[Footnote 3: _Acts_ iv. 1, and following, v. 17; Jos., _Ant._, XX. ix.\n1; _Pirke Aboth_, i. 10.]\n\nA still worse element had begun, since the reign of Herod the Great,\nto corrupt the high-priesthood. Herod having fallen in love with\nMariamne, daughter of a certain Simon, son of Boethus of Alexandria,\nand having wished to marry her (about the year 28 B.C.), saw no other\nmeans of ennobling his father-in-law and raising him to his own rank\nthan by making him high-priest. This intriguing family remained\nmaster, almost without interruption, of the sovereign pontificate for\nthirty-five years.[1] Closely allied to the reigning family, it did\nnot lose the office until after the deposition of Archelaus, and\nrecovered it (the year 42 of our era) after Herod Agrippa had for some\ntime re-enacted the work of Herod the Great. Under the name of\n_Boethusim_,[2] a new sacerdotal nobility was formed, very worldly,\nand little devotional, and closely allied to the Sadokites. The\n_Boethusim_, in the Talmud and the rabbinical writings, are depicted\nas a kind of unbelievers, and always reproached as Sadducees.[3] From\nall this there resulted a miniature court of Rome around the temple,\nliving on politics, little inclined to excesses of zeal, even rather\nfearing them, not wishing to hear of holy personages or of innovators,\nfor it profited from the established routine. These epicurean priests\nhad not the violence of the Pharisees; they only wished for quietness;\nit was their moral indifference, their cold irreligion, which revolted\nJesus. Although very different, the priests and the Pharisees were\nthus confounded in his antipathies. But a stranger, and without\ninfluence, he was long compelled to restrain his discontent within\nhimself, and only to communicate his sentiments to the intimate\nfriends who accompanied him.\n\n[Footnote 1: Jos., _Ant._ XV. ix. 3, XVII. vi. 4, xiii. 1, XVIII. i.\n1, ii. 1, XIX. vi. 2, viii. 1.]\n\n[Footnote 2: This name is only found in the Jewish documents. I think\nthat the \"Herodians\" of the gospel are the _Boethusim_.]\n\n[Footnote 3: The treatise of _Aboth Nathan_, 5; _Soferim_, iii., hal.\n5; Mishnah, _Menachoth_, x. 3; Talmud of Babylon, _Shabbath_, 118 _a_.\nThe name of _Boethusim_ is often changed in the Talmudic books with\nthat of the Sadducees, or with the word _Minim_ (heretics). Compare\nThosiphta, _Joma_, i., with the Talm. of Jerus., the same treatise, i.\n5, and Talm. of Bab., same treatise, 19 _b_; Thos. _Sukka_, iii. with\nthe Talm. of Bab., same treatise, 43 _b_; Thos. ibid., further on,\nwith the Talm. of Bab., same treatise, 48 _b_; Thos. _Rosh hasshana_,\ni. with Mishnah, same treatise ii. 1; Talm. of Jerus., same treatise,\nii. 1; and Talm. of Bab., same treatise, 22 _b_; Thos. _Menachoth_, x.\nwith Mishnah, same treatise, x. 3; Talm. of Bab., same treatise, 65\n_a_; Mishnah, _Chagigah_, ii. 4; and Megillath Taanith, i.; Thos.\n_Iadaim_, ii. with Talm. of Jerus.; _Baba Bathra_, viii. 1; Talm. of\nBab., same treatise, 115 _b_; and Megillath Taanith, v.]\n\nBefore his last stay, which was by far the longest of all that he made\nat Jerusalem, and which was terminated by his death, Jesus endeavored,\nhowever, to obtain a hearing. He preached; people spoke of him; and\nthey conversed respecting certain deeds of his which were looked upon\nas miraculous. But from all that, there resulted neither an\nestablished church at Jerusalem nor a group of Hierosolymite\ndisciples. The charming teacher, who forgave every one provided they\nloved him, could not find much sympathy in this sanctuary of vain\ndisputes and obsolete sacrifices. The only result was that he formed\nsome valuable friendships, the advantage of which he reaped afterward.\nHe does not appear at that time to have made the acquaintance of the\nfamily of Bethany, which, amidst the trials of the latter months of\nhis life, brought him so much consolation. But very early he attracted\nthe attention of a certain Nicodemus, a rich Pharisee, a member of the\nSanhedrim, and a man occupying a high position in Jerusalem.[1] This\nman, who appears to have been upright and sincere, felt himself\nattracted toward the young Galilean. Not wishing to compromise\nhimself, he came to see Jesus by night, and had a long conversation\nwith him.[2] He doubtless preserved a favorable impression of him, for\nafterward he defended Jesus against the prejudices of his\ncolleagues,[3] and, at the death of Jesus, we shall find him tending\nwith pious care the corpse of the master.[4] Nicodemus did not become\na Christian; he had too much regard for his position to take part in a\nrevolutionary movement which as yet counted no men of note amongst its\nadherents. But he evidently felt great friendship for Jesus, and\nrendered him service, though unable to rescue him from a death which\neven at this period was all but decreed.\n\n[Footnote 1: It seems that he is referred to in the Talmud. Talm. of\nBab., _Taanith_, 20 _a_; _Gittin_, 56 _a_; _Ketuboth_, 66 _b_;\ntreatise _Aboth Nathan_, vii.; Midrash Rabba, _Eka_, 64 _a_. The\npassage _Taanith_ identifies him with Bounai, who, according to\n_Sanhedrim_ (see ante, p. 212, note 2), was a disciple of Jesus. But\nif Bounai is the Banou of Josephus, this identification will not hold\ngood.]\n\n[Footnote 2: John iii. 1, and following, vii. 50. We are certainly\nfree to believe that the exact text of the conversation is but a\ncreation of John's.]\n\n[Footnote 3: John vii. 50, and following.]\n\n[Footnote 4: John xix. 39.]\n\nAs to the celebrated doctors of the time, Jesus does not appear to\nhave had any connection with them. Hillel and Shammai were dead; the\ngreatest authority of the time was Gamaliel, grandson of Hillel. He\nwas of a liberal spirit, and a man of the world, not opposed to\nsecular studies, and inclined to tolerance by his intercourse with\ngood society.[1] Unlike the very strict Pharisees, who walked veiled\nor with closed eyes, he did not scruple to gaze even upon Pagan\nwomen.[2] This, as well as his knowledge of Greek, was tolerated\nbecause he had access to the court.[3] After the death of Jesus, he\nexpressed very moderate views respecting the new sect.[4] St. Paul sat\nat his feet,[5] but it is not probable that Jesus ever entered his\nschool.\n\n[Footnote 1: Mishnah, _Baba Metsia_, v. 8; Talm. of Bab., _Sota_, 49\n_b_.]\n\n[Footnote 2: Talm. of Jerus., _Berakoth_, ix. 2.]\n\n[Footnote 3: Passage _Sota_, before cited, and _Baba Kama_, 83 _a_.]\n\n[Footnote 4: _Acts_ v. 34, and following.]\n\n[Footnote 5: _Acts_ xxii. 3.]\n\nOne idea, at least, which Jesus brought from Jerusalem, and which\nhenceforth appears rooted in his mind, was that there was no union\npossible between him and the ancient Jewish religion. The abolition of\nthe sacrifices which had caused him so much disgust, the suppression\nof an impious and haughty priesthood, and, in a general sense, the\nabrogation of the law, appeared to him absolutely necessary. From this\ntime he appears no more as a Jewish reformer, but as a destroyer of\nJudaism. Certain advocates of the Messianic ideas had already admitted\nthat the Messiah would bring a new law, which should be common to all\nthe earth.[1] The Essenes, who were scarcely Jews, also appear to have\nbeen indifferent to the temple and to the Mosaic observances. But\nthese were only isolated or unavowed instances of boldness. Jesus was\nthe first who dared to say that from his time, or rather from that of\nJohn,[2] the Law was abolished. If sometimes he used more measured\nterms,[3] it was in order not to offend existing prejudices too\nviolently. When he was driven to extremities, he lifted the veil\nentirely, and declared that the Law had no longer any force. On this\nsubject he used striking comparisons. \"No man putteth a piece of new\ncloth into an old garment, neither do men put new wine into old\nbottles.\"[4] This was really his chief characteristic as teacher and\ncreator. The temple excluded all except Jews from its enclosure by\nscornful announcements. Jesus had no sympathy with this. The narrow,\nhard, and uncharitable Law was only made for the children of Abraham.\nJesus maintained that every well-disposed man, every man who received\nand loved him, was a son of Abraham.[5] The pride of blood appeared to\nhim the great enemy which was to be combated. In other words, Jesus\nwas no longer a Jew. He was in the highest degree revolutionary; he\ncalled all men to a worship founded solely on the fact of their being\nchildren of God. He proclaimed the rights of man, not the rights of\nthe Jew; the religion of man, not the religion of the Jew; the\ndeliverance of man, not the deliverance of the Jew.[6] How far removed\nwas this from a Gaulonite Judas or a Matthias Margaloth, preaching\nrevolution in the name of the Law! The religion of humanity,\nestablished, not upon blood, but upon the heart, was founded. Moses\nwas superseded, the temple was rendered useless, and was irrevocably\ncondemned.\n\n[Footnote 1: _Orac. Sib._, book iii. 573, and following, 715, and\nfollowing, 756-58. Compare the Targum of Jonathan, Isa. xii. 3.]\n\n[Footnote 2: Luke xvi. 16. The passage in Matt. xi. 12, 13, is less\nclear, but can have no other meaning.]\n\n[Footnote 3: Matt. v. 17, 18 (Cf. Talm. of Bab., _Shabbath_, 116 _b_).\nThis passage is not in contradiction with those in which the abolition\nof the Law is implied. It only signifies that in Jesus all the types\nof the Old Testament are realized. Cf. Luke xvi. 17.]\n\n[Footnote 4: Matt. ix. 16, 17; Luke v. 36, and following.]\n\n[Footnote 5: Luke xix. 9.]\n\n[Footnote 6: Matt. xxiv. 14, xxviii. 19; Mark xiii. 10, xvi. 15; Luke\nxxiv. 47.]\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XIV.\n\nINTERCOURSE OF JESUS WITH THE PAGANS AND THE SAMARITANS.\n\n\nFollowing out these principles, Jesus despised all religion which was\nnot of the heart. The vain practices of the devotees,[1] the exterior\nstrictness, which trusted to formality for salvation, had in him a\nmortal enemy. He cared little for fasting.[2] He preferred forgiveness\nto sacrifice.[3] The love of God, charity and mutual forgiveness, were\nhis whole law.[4] Nothing could be less priestly. The priest, by his\noffice, ever advocates public sacrifice, of which he is the appointed\nminister; he discourages private prayer, which has a tendency to\ndispense with his office.\n\n[Footnote 1: Matt. xv. 9.]\n\n[Footnote 2: Matt. ix. 14, xi. 19.]\n\n[Footnote 3: Matt. v. 23, and following, ix. 13, xii. 7.]\n\n[Footnote 4: Matt. xxii. 37, and following; Mark xii. 28, and\nfollowing; Luke x. 25, and following.]\n\nWe should seek in vain in the Gospel for one religious rite\nrecommended by Jesus. Baptism to him was only of secondary\nimportance;[1] and with respect to prayer, he prescribes nothing,\nexcept that it should proceed from the heart. As is always the case,\nmany thought to substitute mere good-will for genuine love of\ngoodness, and imagined they could win the kingdom of heaven by saying\nto him, \"Rabbi, Rabbi.\" He rebuked them, and proclaimed that his\nreligion consisted in doing good.[2] He often quoted the passage in\nIsaiah, which says: \"This people honor me with their lips, but their\nheart is far from me.\"[3]\n\n[Footnote 1: Matt. iii. 15; 1 _Cor._ i. 17.]\n\n[Footnote 2: Matt. vii. 21; Luke vi. 46.]\n\n[Footnote 3: Matt. xv. 8; Mark vii. 6. Cf. Isaiah xxix. 13.]\n\nThe observance of the Sabbath was the principal point upon which was\nraised the whole edifice of Pharisaic scruples and subtleties. This\nancient and excellent institution had become a pretext for the\nmiserable disputes of casuists, and a source of superstitious\nbeliefs.[1] It was believed that Nature observed it; all intermittent\nsprings were accounted \"Sabbatical.\"[2] This was the point upon which\nJesus loved best to defy his adversaries.[3] He openly violated the\nSabbath, and only replied by subtle raillery to the reproaches that\nwere heaped upon him. He despised still more a multitude of modern\nobservances, which tradition had added to the Law, and which were\ndearer than any other to the devotees on that very account. Ablutions,\nand the too subtle distinctions between pure and impure things, found\nin him a pitiless opponent: \"There is nothing from without a man,\"\nsaid he, \"that entering into him can defile him: but the things which\ncome out of him, those are they that defile the man.\" The Pharisees,\nwho were the propagators of these mummeries, were unceasingly\ndenounced by him. He accused them of exceeding the Law, of inventing\nimpossible precepts, in order to create occasions of sin: \"Blind\nleaders of the blind,\" said he, \"take care lest ye also fall into the\nditch.\" \"O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good\nthings? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh.\"[4]\n\n[Footnote 1: See especially the treatise _Shabbath_ of the Mishnah and\nthe _Livre des Jubiles_ (translated from the Ethiopian in the\n_Jahrbuecher_ of Ewald, years 2 and 3), chap. I.]\n\n[Footnote 2: Jos., _B.J._, VII. v. 1; Pliny, _H.N._, xxxi. 18. Cf.\nThomson, _The Land and the Book_, i. 406, and following.]\n\n[Footnote 3: Matt. xii. 1-14; Mark ii. 23-28; Luke vi. 1-5, xiii. 14,\nand following, xiv. 1, and following.]\n\n[Footnote 4: Matt. xii. 34, xv. 1, and following, 12, and following,\nxxiii. entirely; Mark vii. 1, and following, 15, and following; Luke\nvi. 45, xi. 39, and following.]\n\nHe did not know the Gentiles sufficiently to think of founding\nanything lasting upon their conversion. Galilee contained a great\nnumber of pagans, but, as it appears, no public and organized worship\nof false gods.[1] Jesus could see this worship displayed in all its\nsplendor in the country of Tyre and Sidon, at Caesarea Philippi and in\nthe Decapolis, but he paid little attention to it. We never find in\nhim the wearisome pedantry of the Jews of his time, those declamations\nagainst idolatry, so familiar to his co-religionists from the time of\nAlexander, and which fill, for instance, the book of \"Wisdom.\"[2] That\nwhich struck him in the pagans was not their idolatry, but their\nservility.[3] The young Jewish democrat agreeing on this point with\nJudas the Gaulonite, and admitting no master but God, was hurt at the\nhonors with which they surrounded the persons of sovereigns, and the\nfrequently mendacious titles given to them. With this exception, in\nthe greater number of instances in which he comes in contact with\npagans, he shows great indulgence to them; sometimes he professes to\nconceive more hope of them than of the Jews.[4] The kingdom of God\nwould be transferred to them. \"When the lord, therefore, of the\nvineyard cometh, what will he do unto these husbandmen? He will\nmiserably destroy those wicked men, and will let out his vineyard\nunto other husbandmen, which shall render him the fruits in their\nseasons.\"[5] Jesus adhered so much the more to this idea, as the\nconversion of the Gentiles was, according to Jewish ideas, one of the\nsurest signs of the advent of the Messiah.[6] In his kingdom of God he\nrepresents, as seated at a feast, by the side of Abraham, Isaac, and\nJacob, men come from the four winds of heaven, whilst the lawful heirs\nof the kingdom are rejected.[7] Sometimes, it is true, there seems to\nbe an entirely contrary tendency in the commands he gives to his\ndisciples: he seems to recommend them only to preach salvation to the\northodox Jews,[8] he speaks of pagans in a manner conformable to the\nprejudices of the Jews.[9] But we must remember that the disciples,\nwhose narrow minds did not share in this supreme indifference for the\nprivileges of the sons of Abraham, may have given the instruction of\ntheir master the bent of their own ideas. Besides, it is very possible\nthat Jesus may have varied on this point, just as Mahomet speaks of\nthe Jews in the Koran, sometimes in the most honorable manner,\nsometimes with extreme harshness, as he had hope of winning their\nfavor or otherwise. Tradition, in fact, attributes to Jesus two\nentirely opposite rules of proselytism, which he may have practised in\nturn: \"He that is not against us is on our part.\" \"He that is not with\nme, is against me.\"[10] Impassioned conflict involves almost\nnecessarily this kind of contradictions.\n\n[Footnote 1: I believe the pagans of Galilee were found especially on\nthe frontiers--at Kedes, for example; but that the very heart of the\ncountry, the city of Tiberias excepted, was entirely Jewish. The line\nwhere the ruins of temples end, and those of synagogues begin, is\nto-day plainly marked as far north as Lake Huleh (Samachonites). The\ntraces of pagan sculpture, which were thought to have been found at\nTell-Houm, are doubtful. The coast--the town of Acre, in\nparticular--did not form part of Galilee.]\n\n[Footnote 2: Chap. XIII. and following.]\n\n[Footnote 3: Matt. xx. 25; Mark x. 42; Luke xxii. 25.]\n\n[Footnote 4: Matt. viii. 5, and following, xv. 22, and following; Mark\nvii. 25, and following; Luke iv. 25, and following.]\n\n[Footnote 5: Matt. xxi. 41; Mark xii. 9; Luke xx. 16.]\n\n[Footnote 6: Isa. ii. 2, and following, lx.; Amos ix. 11, and\nfollowing; Jer. iii. 17; Mal. i. 11; _Tobit_, xiii. 13, and following;\n_Orac. Sibyll._, iii. 715, and following. Comp. Matt. xxiv. 14; _Acts_\nxv. 15, and following.]\n\n[Footnote 7: Matt. viii. 11, 12, xxi. 33, and following, xxii. 1, and\nfollowing.]\n\n[Footnote 8: Matt. vii. 6, x. 5, 6, xv. 24, xxi. 43.]\n\n[Footnote 9: Matt. v. 46, and following, vi. 7, 32, xviii. 17; Luke\nvi. 32, and following, xii. 30.]\n\n[Footnote 10: Matt. xii. 30; Mark ix. 39; Luke ix. 50, xi. 23.]\n\nIt is certain that he counted among his disciples many men whom the\nJews called \"Hellenes.\"[1] This word had in Palestine divers meanings.\nSometimes it designated the pagans; sometimes the Jews, speaking\nGreek, and dwelling among the pagans;[2] sometimes men of pagan origin\nconverted to Judaism.[3] It was probably in the last-named category of\nHellenes that Jesus found sympathy.[4] The affiliation with Judaism\nhad many degrees; but the proselytes always remained in a state of\ninferiority in regard to the Jew by birth. Those in question were\ncalled \"proselytes of the gate,\" or \"men fearing God,\" and were\nsubject to the precepts of Noah, and not to those of Moses.[5] This\nvery inferiority was doubtless the cause which drew them to Jesus, and\ngained them his favor.\n\n[Footnote 1: Josephus confirms this (_Ant._, XVIII. iii. 3). Comp.\nJohn vii. 35, xii. 20, 21.]\n\n[Footnote 2: Talm. of Jerus., _Sota_, vii. 1.]\n\n[Footnote 3: See in particular, John vii. 35, xii. 20; _Acts_ xiv. 1,\nxvii. 4, xviii. 4, xxi. 28.]\n\n[Footnote 4: John xii. 20; _Acts_ viii. 27.]\n\n[Footnote 5: Mishnah, _Baba Metsia_, ix. 12; Talm. of Bab., _Sanh._,56\n_b_; _Acts_ viii. 27, x. 2, 22, 35, xiii. 16, 26, 43, 50, xvi. 14,\nxvii. 4, 17, xviii. 7; Gal. ii. 3; Jos., _Ant._, XIV. vii. 2.]\n\nHe treated the Samaritans in the same manner. Shut in, like a small\nisland, between the two great provinces of Judaism (Judea and\nGalilee), Samaria formed in Palestine a kind of enclosure in which was\npreserved the ancient worship of Gerizim, closely resembling and\nrivalling that of Jerusalem. This poor sect, which had neither the\ngenius nor the learned organization of Judaism, properly so called,\nwas treated by the Hierosolymites with extreme harshness.[1] They\nplaced them in the same rank as pagans, but hated them more.[2] Jesus,\nfrom a feeling of opposition, was well disposed toward Samaria, and\noften preferred the Samaritans to the orthodox Jews. If, at other\ntimes, he seems to forbid his disciples preaching to them, confining\nhis gospel to the Israelites proper,[3] this was no doubt a precept\narising from special circumstances, to which the apostles have given\ntoo absolute a meaning. Sometimes, in fact, the Samaritans received\nhim badly, because they thought him imbued with the prejudices of his\nco-religionists;[4]--in the same manner as in our days the European\nfree-thinker is regarded as an enemy by the Mussulman, who always\nbelieves him to be a fanatical Christian. Jesus raised himself above\nthese misunderstandings.[5] He had many disciples at Shechem, and he\npassed at least two days there.[6] On one occasion he meets with\ngratitude and true piety from a Samaritan only.[7] One of his most\nbeautiful parables is that of the man wounded on the way to Jericho. A\npriest passes by and sees him, but goes on his way; a Levite also\npasses, but does not stop; a Samaritan takes pity on him, approaches\nhim, and pours oil into his wounds, and bandages them.[8] Jesus argues\nfrom this that true brotherhood is established among men by charity,\nand not by creeds. The \"neighbor\" who in Judaism was specially the\nco-religionist, was in his estimation the man who has pity on his kind\nwithout distinction of sect. Human brotherhood in its widest sense\noverflows in all his teaching.\n\n[Footnote 1: _Ecclesiasticus_ l. 27, 28; John viii. 48; Jos., _Ant._,\nIX. xiv. 3, XI. viii. 6, XII. v. 5; Talm. of Jerus., _Aboda zara_, v.\n4; _Pesachim_, i. 1.]\n\n[Footnote 2: Matt. x. 5; Luke xvii. 18. Comp. Talm. of Bab., _Cholin_,\n6 _a_.]\n\n[Footnote 3: Matt. x. 5, 6.]\n\n[Footnote 4: Luke ix. 53.]\n\n[Footnote 5: Luke ix. 56.]\n\n[Footnote 6: John iv. 39-43.]\n\n[Footnote 7: Luke xvii. 16.]\n\n[Footnote 8: Luke x. 30, and following.]\n\nThese thoughts, which beset Jesus on his leaving Jerusalem, found\ntheir vivid expression in an anecdote which has been preserved\nrespecting his return. The road from Jerusalem into Galilee passes at\nthe distance of half an hour's journey from Shechem,[1] in front of\nthe opening of the valley commanded by mounts Ebal and Gerizim. This\nroute was in general avoided by the Jewish pilgrims, who preferred\nmaking in their journeys the long detour through Perea, rather than\nexpose themselves to the insults of the Samaritans, or ask anything of\nthem. It was forbidden to eat and drink with them.[2] It was an axiom\nof certain casuists, that \"a piece of Samaritan bread is the flesh of\nswine.\"[3] When they followed this route, provisions were always laid\nup beforehand; yet they rarely avoided conflict and ill-treatment.[4]\nJesus shared neither these scruples nor these fears. Having come to\nthe point where the valley of Shechem opens on the left, he felt\nfatigued, and stopped near a well. The Samaritans were then as now\naccustomed to give to all the localities of their valley names drawn\nfrom patriarchal reminiscences. They regarded this well as having been\ngiven by Jacob to Joseph; it was probably the same which is now called\n_Bir-Iakoub_. The disciples entered the valley and went to the city to\nbuy provisions. Jesus seated himself at the side of the well, having\nGerizim before him.\n\n[Footnote 1: Now Nablous.]\n\n[Footnote 2: Luke ix. 53; John iv. 9.]\n\n[Footnote 3: Mishnah, _Shebiit_, viii. 10.]\n\n[Footnote 4: Jos., _Ant._, XX. v. 1; _B.J._, II. xii. 3; _Vita_, 52.]\n\nIt was about noon. A woman of Shechem came to draw water. Jesus asked\nher to let him drink, which excited great astonishment in the woman,\nthe Jews generally forbidding all intercourse with the Samaritans. Won\nby the conversation of Jesus, the woman recognized in him a prophet,\nand expecting some reproaches about her worship, she anticipated him:\n\"Sir,\" said she, \"our fathers worshipped in this mountain, and ye say\nthat in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship. Jesus saith\nunto her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh when ye shall neither in\nthis mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father. But the hour\ncometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father\nin spirit and in truth.\"[1]\n\n[Footnote 1: John iv. 21-23. Verse 22, at least the latter clause of\nit, which expresses an idea opposed to that of verses 21 and 23,\nappears to have been interpolated. We must not insist too much on the\nhistorical reality of such a conversation, since Jesus, or his\ninterlocutor, alone would have been able to relate it. But the\nanecdote in chapter iv. of John, certainly represents one of the most\nintimate thoughts of Jesus, and the greater part of the circumstances\nhave a striking appearance of truth.]\n\nThe day on which he uttered this saying, he was truly Son of God. He\npronounced for the first time the sentence upon which will repose the\nedifice of eternal religion. He founded the pure worship, of all ages,\nof all lands, that which all elevated souls will practice until the\nend of time. Not only was his religion on this day the best religion\nof humanity, it was the absolute religion; and if other planets have\ninhabitants gifted with reason and morality, their religion cannot be\ndifferent from that which Jesus proclaimed near the well of Jacob. Man\nhas not been able to maintain this position: for the ideal is realized\nbut transitorily. This sentence of Jesus has been a brilliant light\namidst gross darkness; it has required eighteen hundred years for the\neyes of mankind (what do I say! for an infinitely small portion of\nmankind) to become accustomed to it. But the light will become the\nfull day, and, after having run through all the cycles of error,\nmankind will return to this sentence, as the immortal expression of\nits faith and its hope.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XV.\n\nCOMMENCEMENT OF THE LEGENDS CONCERNING JESUS--HIS OWN IDEA OF HIS\nSUPERNATURAL CHARACTER.\n\n\nJesus returned to Galilee, having completely lost his Jewish faith,\nand filled with revolutionary ardor. His ideas are now expressed with\nperfect clearness. The innocent aphorisms of the first part of his\nprophetic career, in part borrowed from the Jewish rabbis anterior to\nhim, and the beautiful moral precepts of his second period, are\nexchanged for a decided policy. The Law would be abolished; and it was\nto be abolished by him.[1] The Messiah had come, and he was the\nMessiah. The kingdom of God was about to be revealed; and it was he\nwho would reveal it. He knew well that he would be the victim of his\nboldness; but the kingdom of God could not be conquered without\nviolence; it was by crises and commotions that it was to be\nestablished.[2] The Son of man would reappear in glory, accompanied by\nlegions of angels, and those who had rejected him would be confounded.\n\n[Footnote 1: The hesitancy of the immediate disciples of Jesus, of\nwhom a considerable portion remained attached to Judaism, might cause\nobjections to be raised to this. But the trial of Jesus leaves no room\nfor doubt. We shall see that he was there treated as a \"corrupter.\"\nThe Talmud gives the procedure adopted against him as an example of\nthat which ought to be followed against \"corrupters,\" who seek to\noverturn the Law of Moses. (Talm. of Jerus., _Sanhedrim_, xiv. 16;\nTalm. of Bab., _Sanhedrim_, 43 _a_, 67 _a_.)]\n\n[Footnote 2: Matt. xi. 12; Luke xvi. 16.]\n\nThe boldness of such a conception ought not to surprise us. Long\nbefore this, Jesus had regarded his relation to God as that of a son\nto his father. That which in others would be an insupportable pride,\nought not in him to be regarded as presumption.\n\nThe title of \"Son of David\" was the first which he accepted, probably\nwithout being concerned in the innocent frauds by which it was sought\nto secure it to him. The family of David had, as it seems, been long\nextinct;[1] the Asmoneans being of priestly origin, could not pretend\nto claim such a descent for themselves; neither Herod nor the Romans\ndreamt for a moment that any representative whatever of the ancient\ndynasty existed in their midst. But from the close of the Asmonean\ndynasty the dream of an unknown descendant of the ancient kings, who\nshould avenge the nation of its enemies, filled every mind. The\nuniversal belief was, that the Messiah would be son of David, and like\nhim would be born at Bethlehem.[2] The first idea of Jesus was not\nprecisely this. The remembrance of David, which was uppermost in the\nminds of the Jews, had nothing in common with his heavenly reign. He\nbelieved himself the Son of God, and not the son of David. His\nkingdom, and the deliverance which he meditated, were of quite another\norder. But public opinion on this point made him do violence to\nhimself. The immediate consequence of the proposition, \"Jesus is the\nMessiah,\" was this other proposition, \"Jesus is the son of David.\" He\nallowed a title to be given him, without which he could not hope for\nsuccess. He ended, it seems, by taking pleasure therein, for he\nperformed most willingly the miracles which were asked of him by\nthose who used this title in addressing him.[3] In this, as in many\nother circumstances of his life, Jesus yielded to the ideas which were\ncurrent in his time, although they were not precisely his own. He\nassociated with his doctrine of the \"kingdom of God\" all that could\nwarm the heart and the imagination. It was thus that we have seen him\nadopt the baptism of John, although it could not have been of much\nimportance to him.\n\n[Footnote 1: It is true that certain doctors--such as Hillel,\nGamaliel--are mentioned as being of the race of David. But these are\nvery doubtful allegations. If the family of David still formed a\ndistinct and prominent group, how is it that we never see it figure,\nby the side of the Sadokites, Boethusians, the Asmoneans, and Herods,\nin the great struggles of the time?]\n\n[Footnote 2: Matt. ii. 5, 6, xxii. 42; Luke i. 32; John vii. 41, 42;\n_Acts_ ii. 30.]\n\n[Footnote 3: Matt. ix. 27, xii. 23, xv. 22, xx. 30, 31; Mark x. 47,\n52; Luke xviii. 38.]\n\nOne great difficulty presented itself--his birth at Nazareth, which\nwas of public notoriety. We do not know whether Jesus strove against\nthis objection. Perhaps it did not present itself in Galilee, where\nthe idea that the son of David should be a Bethlehemite was less\nspread. To the Galilean idealist, moreover, the title of \"son of\nDavid\" was sufficiently justified, if he to whom it was given revived\nthe glory of his race, and brought back the great days of Israel. Did\nJesus authorize by his silence the fictitious genealogies which his\npartisans invented in order to prove his royal descent?[1] Did he know\nanything of the legends invented to prove that he was born at\nBethlehem; and particularly of the attempt to connect his Bethlehemite\norigin with the census which had taken place by order of the imperial\nlegate, Quirinus?[2] We know not. The inexactitude and the\ncontradictions of the genealogies[3] lead to the belief that they\nwere the result of popular ideas operating at various points, and that\nnone of them were sanctioned by Jesus.[4] Never does he designate\nhimself as son of David. His disciples, much less enlightened than he,\nfrequently magnified that which he said of himself; but, as a rule, he\nhad no knowledge of these exaggerations. Let us add, that during the\nfirst three centuries, considerable portions of Christendom[5]\nobstinately denied the royal descent of Jesus and the authenticity of\nthe genealogies.\n\n[Footnote 1: Matt. i. 1, and following; Luke iii. 23, and following.]\n\n[Footnote 2: Matt. ii. 1, and following; Luke ii. 1, and following.]\n\n[Footnote 3: The two genealogies are quite contradictory, and do not\nagree with the lists of the Old Testament. The narrative of Luke on\nthe census of Quirinus implies an anachronism. See ante, p. 81, note\n4. It is natural to suppose, besides, that the legend may have laid\nhold of this circumstance. The census made a great impression on the\nJews, overturned their narrow ideas, and was remembered by them for a\nlong period. Cf. _Acts_ v. 37.]\n\n[Footnote 4: Julius Africanus (in Eusebius, _H.E._, i. 7) supposes\nthat it was the relations of Jesus, who, having taken refuge in\nBatanea, attempted to recompose the genealogies.]\n\n[Footnote 5: The _Ebionites_, the \"Hebrews,\" the \"Nazarenes,\" Tatian,\nMarcion. Cf. Epiph., _Adv. Haer._, xxix. 9, xxx. 3, 14, xlvi. 1;\nTheodoret, _Haeret. fab._, i. 20; Isidore of Pelusium, Epist. i. 371,\nad Pansophium.]\n\nThe legends about him were thus the fruit of a great and entirely\nspontaneous conspiracy, and were developed around him during his\nlifetime. No great event in history has happened without having given\nrise to a cycle of fables; and Jesus could not have put a stop to\nthese popular creations, even if he had wished to do so. Perhaps a\nsagacious observer would have recognized from this point the germ of\nthe narratives which were to attribute to him a supernatural birth,\nand which arose, it may be, from the idea, very prevalent in\nantiquity, that the incomparable man could not be born of the ordinary\nrelations of the two sexes; or, it may be, in order to respond to an\nimperfectly understood chapter of Isaiah,[1] which was thought to\nforetell that the Messiah should be born of a virgin; or, lastly, it\nmay be in consequence of the idea that the \"breath of God,\" already\nregarded as a divine hypostasis, was a principle of fecundity.[2]\nAlready, perhaps, there was current more than one anecdote about his\ninfancy, conceived with the intention of showing in his biography the\naccomplishment of the Messianic ideal;[3] or, rather, of the\nprophecies which the allegorical exegesis of the time referred to the\nMessiah. At other times they connected him from his birth with\ncelebrated men, such as John the Baptist, Herod the Great, Chaldean\nastrologers, who, it was said, visited Jerusalem about this time,[4]\nand two aged persons, Simeon and Anna, who had left memories of great\nsanctity.[5] A rather loose chronology characterized these\ncombinations, which for the most part were founded upon real facts\ntravestied.[6] But a singular spirit of gentleness and goodness, a\nprofoundly popular sentiment, permeated all these fables, and made\nthem a supplement to his preaching.[7] It was especially after the\ndeath of Jesus that such narratives became greatly developed; we may,\nhowever, believe that they circulated even during his life, exciting\nonly a pious credulity and simple admiration.\n\n[Footnote 1: Matt. i. 22, 23.]\n\n[Footnote 2: Gen. i. 2. For the analogous idea among the Egyptians,\nsee Herodotus, iii. 28; Pomp. Mela, i. 9: Plutarch, _Quaest. symp._,\nVIII. i. 3; _De Isid. et Osir._, 43.]\n\n[Footnote 3: Matt. i. 15, 23; Isa. vii. 14, and following.]\n\n[Footnote 4: Matt. ii. 1, and following.]\n\n[Footnote 5: Luke ii. 25, and following.]\n\n[Footnote 6: Thus the legend of the massacre of the Innocents probably\nrefers to some cruelty exercised by Herod near Bethlehem. Comp. Jos.,\n_Ant._, XIV. ix. 4.]\n\n[Footnote 7: Matt. i., ii.; Luke i., ii.; S. Justin, _Dial. cum\nTryph._, 78, 106; _Protoevang. of James_ (Apoca.), 18 and following.]\n\nThat Jesus never dreamt of making himself pass for an incarnation of\nGod, is a matter about which there can be no doubt. Such an idea was\nentirely foreign to the Jewish mind; and there is no trace of it in\nthe synoptical gospels,[1] we only find it indicated in portions of\nthe Gospel of John, which cannot be accepted as expressing the\nthoughts of Jesus. Sometimes Jesus even seems to take precautions to\nput down such a doctrine.[2] The accusation that he made himself God,\nor the equal of God, is presented, even in the Gospel of John, as a\ncalumny of the Jews.[3] In this last Gospel he declares himself less\nthan his Father.[4] Elsewhere he avows that the Father has not\nrevealed everything to him.[5] He believes himself to be more than an\nordinary man, but separated from God by an infinite distance. He is\nSon of God, but all men are, or may become so, in divers degrees.[6]\nEvery one ought daily to call God his father; all who are raised again\nwill be sons of God.[7] The divine son-ship was attributed in the Old\nTestament to beings whom it was by no means pretended were equal with\nGod.[8] The word \"son\" has the widest meanings in the Semitic\nlanguage, and in that of the New Testament.[9] Besides, the idea Jesus\nhad of man was not that low idea which a cold Deism has introduced. In\nhis poetic conception of Nature, one breath alone penetrates the\nuniverse; the breath of man is that of God; God dwells in man, and\nlives by man, the same as man dwells in God, and lives by God.[10]\nThe transcendent idealism of Jesus never permitted him to have a very\nclear notion of his own personality. He is his Father, his Father is\nhe. He lives in his disciples; he is everywhere with them;[11] his\ndisciples are one, as he and his Father are one.[12] The idea to him\nis everything; the body, which makes the distinction of persons, is\nnothing.\n\n[Footnote 1: Certain passages, such as _Acts_ ii. 22, expressly\nexclude this idea.]\n\n[Footnote 2: Matt. xix. 17; Mark x. 18; Luke xviii. 19.]\n\n[Footnote 3: John v. 18, and following, x. 33, and following.]\n\n[Footnote 4: John xiv. 28.]\n\n[Footnote 5: Mark xiii. 35.]\n\n[Footnote 6: Matt. v. 9, 45; Luke iii. 38, vi. 35, xx. 36; John i. 12,\n13, x. 34, 35. Comp. _Acts_ xvii. 28, 29; Rom. viii. 14, 19, 21, ix.\n26; 2 Cor. vi. 18; Gal. iii. 26; and in the Old Testament, _Deut._\nxiv. 1; and especially _Wisdom_, ii. 13, 18.]\n\n[Footnote 7: Luke xx. 36.]\n\n[Footnote 8: Gen. vi. 2; Job i. 6, ii. 1, xxviii. 7; Ps. ii. 7,\nlxxxii. 6; 2 Sam. vii. 14.]\n\n[Footnote 9: The child of the devil (Matt. xiii. 38; _Acts_ xiii. 10);\nthe children of this world (Mark iii. 17; Luke xvi. 8, xx. 34); the\nchildren of light (Luke xvi. 8; John xii. 36); the children of the\nresurrection (Luke xx. 36); the children of the kingdom (Matt. viii.\n12, xiii. 38); the children of the bride-chamber (Matt. ix. 15; Mark\nii. 19; Luke v. 34); the children of hell (Matt. xxiii. 15); the\nchildren of peace (Luke x. 6), &c. Let us remember that the Jupiter of\npaganism is [Greek: pater andron te theon te].]\n\n[Footnote 10: Comp. _Acts_ xvii. 28.]\n\n[Footnote 11: Matt. xviii. 20, xxviii. 20.]\n\n[Footnote 12: John x. 30, xvii. 21. See in general the later\ndiscourses of John, especially chap. xvii., which express one side of\nthe psychological state of Jesus, though we cannot regard them as true\nhistorical documents.]\n\nThe title \"Son of God,\" or simply \"Son,\"[1] thus became for Jesus a\ntitle analogous to \"Son of man,\" and, like that, synonymous with the\n\"Messiah,\" with the sole difference that he called himself \"Son of\nman,\" and does not seem to have made the same use of the phrase, \"Son\nof God.\"[2] The title, Son of man, expressed his character as judge;\nthat of Son of God his power and his participation in the supreme\ndesigns. This power had no limits. His Father had given him all power.\nHe had the power to alter even the Sabbath.[3] No one could know the\nFather except through him.[4] The Father had delegated to him\nexclusively the right of judging.[5] Nature obeyed him; but she obeys\nalso all who believe and pray, for faith can do everything.[6] We must\nremember that no idea of the laws of Nature marked the limit of the\nimpossible, either in his own mind, or in that of his hearers. The\nwitnesses of his miracles thanked God \"for having given such power\nunto men.\"[7] He pardoned sins;[8] he was superior to David, to\nAbraham, to Solomon, and to the prophets.[9] We do not know in what\nform, nor to what extent, these affirmations of himself were made.\nJesus ought not to be judged by the law of our petty\nconventionalities. The admiration of his disciples overwhelmed him and\ncarried him away. It is evident that the title of _Rabbi_, with which\nhe was at first contented, no longer sufficed him; even the title of\nprophet or messenger of God responded no longer to his ideas. The\nposition which he attributed to himself was that of a superhuman\nbeing, and he wished to be regarded as sustaining a higher\nrelationship to God than other men. But it must be remarked that these\nwords, \"superhuman\" and \"supernatural,\" borrowed from our petty\ntheology, had no meaning in the exalted religious consciousness of\nJesus. To him Nature and the development of humanity were not limited\nkingdoms apart from God--paltry realities subjected to the laws of a\nhopeless empiricism. There was no supernatural for him, because there\nwas no Nature. Intoxicated with infinite love, he forgot the heavy\nchain which holds the spirit captive; he cleared at one bound the\nabyss, impossible to most, which the weakness of the human faculties\nhas created between God and man.\n\n[Footnote 1: The passages in support of this are too numerous to be\nreferred to here.]\n\n[Footnote 2: It is only in the Gospel of John that Jesus uses the\nexpression \"Son of God,\" or \"Son,\" in speaking of himself.]\n\n[Footnote 3: Matt. xii. 8; Luke vi. 5.]\n\n[Footnote 4: Matt. xi. 27.]\n\n[Footnote 5: John v. 22.]\n\n[Footnote 6: Matt. xvii. 18, 19; Luke xvii. 6.]\n\n[Footnote 7: Matt. ix. 8.]\n\n[Footnote 8: Matt. ix. 2, and following; Mark ii. 5, and following;\nLuke v. 20, vii. 47, 48.]\n\n[Footnote 9: Matt. xii. 41, 42; xxii. 43, and following; John viii.\n52, and following.]\n\nWe cannot mistake in these affirmations of Jesus the germ of the\ndoctrine which was afterward to make of him a divine hypostasis,[1] in\nidentifying him with the Word, or \"second God,\"[2] or eldest Son of\nGod,[3] or _Angel Metathronos_,[4] which Jewish theology created apart\nfrom him.[5] A kind of necessity caused this theology, in order to\ncorrect the extreme rigor of the old Monotheism, to place near God an\nassessor, to whom the eternal Father is supposed to delegate the\ngovernment of the universe. The belief that certain men are\nincarnations of divine faculties or \"powers,\" was widespread; the\nSamaritans possessed about the same time a thaumaturgus named Simon,\nwhom they identified with the \"great power of God.\"[6] For nearly two\ncenturies, the speculative minds of Judaism had yielded to the\ntendency to personify the divine attributes, and certain expressions\nwhich were connected with the Divinity. Thus, the \"breath of God,\"\nwhich is often referred to in the Old Testament, is considered as a\nseparate being, the \"Holy Spirit.\" In the same manner the \"Wisdom of\nGod\" and the \"Word of God\" became distinct personages. This was the\ngerm of the process which has engendered the _Sephiroth_ of the\nCabbala, the _AEons_ of Gnosticism, the hypostasis of Christianity, and\nall that dry mythology, consisting of personified abstractions, to\nwhich Monotheism is obliged to resort when it wishes to pluralize the\nDeity.\n\n[Footnote 1: See especially John xiv., and following. But it is\ndoubtful whether we have here the authentic teaching of Jesus.]\n\n[Footnote 2: Philo, cited in Eusebius, _Praep. Evang._, vii. 13.]\n\n[Footnote 3: Philo, _De migr. Abraham_, Sec. 1; _Quod Deus immut._, Sec. 6;\n_De confus. ling._, Sec. 9, 14 and 28; De profugis, Sec. 20; _De Somniis_,\ni. Sec. 37; _De Agric. Noe_, Sec. 12; _Quis rerum divin. haeres_, Sec. 25, and\nfollowing, 48, and following, &c.]\n\n[Footnote 4: [Greek: Metathronos], that is, sharing the throne of God;\na kind of divine secretary, keeping the register of merits and\ndemerits; _Bereshith Rabba_, v. 6 _c_; Talm. of Bab., _Sanhedr._, 38\n_b_; _Chagigah_, 15 _a_; Targum of Jonathan, _Gen._, v. 24.]\n\n[Footnote 5: This theory of the [Greek: Logos] contains no Greek\nelements. The comparisons which have been made between it and the\n_Honover_ of the Parsees are also without foundation. The _Minokhired_\nor \"Divine Intelligence,\" has much analogy with the Jewish [Greek:\nLogos]. (See the fragments of the book entitled _Minokhired_ in\nSpiegel, _Parsi-Grammatik_, pp. 161, 162.) But the development which\nthe doctrine of the _Minokhired_ has taken among the Parsees is\nmodern, and may imply a foreign influence. The \"Divine Intelligence\"\n(_Maiyu-Khratu_) appears in the Zend books; but it does not there\nserve as basis to a theory; it only enters into some invocations. The\ncomparisons which have been attempted between the Alexandrian theory\nof the Word and certain points of Egyptian theology may not be\nentirely without value. But nothing indicates that, in the centuries\nwhich preceded the Christian era, Palestinian Judaism had borrowed\nanything from Egypt.]\n\n[Footnote 6: _Acts_ viii. 10.]\n\nJesus appears to have remained a stranger to these refinements of\ntheology, which were soon to fill the world with barren disputes. The\nmetaphysical theory of the Word, such as we find it in the writings of\nhis contemporary Philo, in the Chaldean Targums, and even in the book\nof \"Wisdom,\"[1] is neither seen in the _Logia_ of Matthew, nor in\ngeneral in the synoptics, the most authentic interpreters of the words\nof Jesus. The doctrine of the Word, in fact, had nothing in common\nwith Messianism. The \"Word\" of Philo, and of the Targums, is in no\nsense the Messiah. It was John the Evangelist, or his school, who\nafterward endeavored to prove that Jesus was the Word, and who\ncreated, in this sense, quite a new theology, very different from that\nof the \"kingdom of God.\"[2] The essential character of the Word was\nthat of Creator and of Providence. Now, Jesus never pretended to have\ncreated the world, nor to govern it. His office was to judge it, to\nrenovate it. The position of president at the final judgment of\nhumanity was the essential attribute which Jesus attached to himself,\nand the character which all the first Christians attributed to\nhim.[3] Until the great day, he will sit at the right hand of God, as\nhis Metathronos, his first minister, and his future avenger.[4] The\nsuperhuman Christ of the Byzantine apsides, seated as judge of the\nworld, in the midst of the apostles in the same rank with him, and\nsuperior to the angels who only assist and serve, is the exact\nrepresentation of that conception of the \"Son of man,\" of which we\nfind the first features so strongly indicated in the book of Daniel.\n\n[Footnote 1: ix. 1, 2, xvi. 12. Comp. vii. 12, viii. 5, and following,\nix., and in general ix.-xi. These prosopopoeia of Wisdom personified\nare found in much older books. Prov. viii., ix.; Job xxviii.; _Rev._\nxix. 13.]\n\n[Footnote 2: John, Gospel, i. 1-14; 1 Epistle v. 7; moreover, it will\nbe remarked, that, in the Gospel of John, the expression of \"the Word\"\ndoes not occur except in the prologue, and that the narrator never\nputs it into the mouth of Jesus.]\n\n[Footnote 3: _Acts_ x. 42.]\n\n[Footnote 4: Matt. xxvi. 64; Mark xvi. 19; Luke xxii. 69; _Acts_ vii.\n55; Rom. viii. 34; Ephes. i. 20; Coloss. iii. 1; Heb. i. 3, 13, viii.\n1, x. 12, xii. 2; 1 Peter iii. 22. See the passages previously cited\non the character of the Jewish Metathronos.]\n\nAt all events, the strictness of a studied theology by no means\nexisted in such a state of society. All the ideas we have just stated\nformed in the mind of the disciples a theological system so little\nsettled, that the Son of God, this species of divine duplicate, is\nmade to act purely as man. He is tempted--he is ignorant of many\nthings--he corrects himself[1]--he is cast down, discouraged--he asks\nhis Father to spare him trials--he is submissive to God as a son.[2]\nHe who is to judge the world does not know the day of judgment.[3] He\ntakes precautions for his safety.[4] Soon after his birth, he is\nobliged to be concealed to avoid powerful men who wish to kill him.[5]\nIn exorcisms, the devil cheats him, and does not come out at the first\ncommand.[6] In his miracles we are sensible of painful effort--an\nexhaustion, as if something went out of him.[7] All these are simply\nthe acts of a messenger of God, of a man protected and favored by\nGod.[8] We must not look here for either logic or sequence. The need\nJesus had of obtaining credence, and the enthusiasm of his disciples,\nheaped up contradictory notions. To the Messianic believers of the\nmillenarian school, and to the enthusiastic readers of the books of\nDaniel and of Enoch, he was the Son of man--to the Jews holding the\nordinary faith, and to the readers of Isaiah and Micah, he was the Son\nof David--to the disciples he was the Son of God, or simply the Son.\nOthers, without being blamed by the disciples, took him for John the\nBaptist risen from the dead, for Elias, for Jeremiah, conformable to\nthe popular belief that the ancient prophets were about to reappear,\nin order to prepare the time of the Messiah.[9]\n\n[Footnote 1: Matt. x. 5, compared with xxviii. 19.]\n\n[Footnote 2: Matt. xxvi. 39; John xii. 27.]\n\n[Footnote 3: Mark xiii. 32.]\n\n[Footnote 4: Matt. xii. 14-16, xiv. 13; Mark iii. 6, 7, ix. 29, 30;\nJohn vii. 1, and following.]\n\n[Footnote 5: Matt. ii. 20.]\n\n[Footnote 6: Matt. xvii. 20; Mark ix. 25.]\n\n[Footnote 7: Luke viii. 45, 46; John xi. 33, 38.]\n\n[Footnote 8: _Acts_ ii. 22.]\n\n[Footnote 9: Matt. xiv. 2, xvi. 14, xvii. 3, and following; Mark vi.\n14, 15, viii. 28; Luke ix. 8, and following, 19.]\n\nAn absolute conviction, or rather the enthusiasm, which freed him from\neven the possibility of doubt, shrouded all these boldnesses. We\nlittle understand, with our cold and scrupulous natures, how any one\ncan be so entirely possessed by the idea of which he has made himself\nthe apostle. To the deeply earnest races of the West, conviction means\nsincerity to one's self. But sincerity to one's self has not much\nmeaning to Oriental peoples, little accustomed to the subtleties of a\ncritical spirit. Honesty and imposture are words which, in our rigid\nconsciences, are opposed as two irreconcilable terms. In the East,\nthey are connected by numberless subtle links and windings. The\nauthors of the Apocryphal books (of \"Daniel\" and of \"Enoch,\" for\ninstance), men highly exalted, in order to aid their cause,\ncommitted, without a shadow of scruple, an act which we should term a\nfraud. The literal truth has little value to the Oriental; he sees\neverything through the medium of his ideas, his interests, and his\npassions.\n\nHistory is impossible, if we do not fully admit that there are many\nstandards of sincerity. All great things are done through the people;\nnow we can only lead the people by adapting ourselves to its ideas.\nThe philosopher who, knowing this, isolates and fortifies himself in\nhis integrity, is highly praiseworthy. But he who takes humanity with\nits illusions, and seeks to act with it and upon it, cannot be blamed.\nCaesar knew well that he was not the son of Venus; France would not be\nwhat it is, if it had not for a thousand years believed in the Holy\nAmpulla of Rheims. It is easy for us, who are so powerless, to call\nthis falsehood, and, proud of our timid honesty, to treat with\ncontempt the heroes who have accepted the battle of life under other\nconditions. When we have effected by our scruples what they\naccomplished by their falsehoods, we shall have the right to be severe\nupon them. At least, we must make a marked distinction between\nsocieties like our own, where everything takes place in the full light\nof reflection, and simple and credulous communities, in which the\nbeliefs that have governed ages have been born. Nothing great has been\nestablished which does not rest on a legend. The only culprit in such\ncases is the humanity which is willing to be deceived.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XVI.\n\nMIRACLES.\n\n\nTwo means of proof--miracles and the accomplishment of\nprophecies--could alone, in the opinion of the contemporaries of\nJesus, establish a supernatural mission. Jesus, and especially his\ndisciples, employed these two processes of demonstration in perfect\ngood faith. For a long time, Jesus had been convinced that the\nprophets had written only in reference to him. He recognized himself\nin their sacred oracles; he regarded himself as the mirror in which\nall the prophetic spirit of Israel had read the future. The Christian\nschool, perhaps even in the lifetime of its founder, endeavored to\nprove that Jesus responded perfectly to all that the prophets had\npredicted of the Messiah.[1] In many cases, these comparisons were\nquite superficial, and are scarcely appreciable by us. They were most\nfrequently fortuitous or insignificant circumstances in the life of\nthe master which recalled to the disciples certain passages of the\nPsalms and the Prophets, in which, in consequence of their constant\npreoccupation, they saw images of him.[2] The exegesis of the time\nconsisted thus almost entirely in a play upon words, and in quotations\nmade in an artificial and arbitrary manner. The synagogue had no\nofficially settled list of the passages which related to the future\nreign. The Messianic references were very liberally created, and\nconstituted artifices of style rather than serious reasoning.\n\n[Footnote 1: For example, Matt. i. 22, ii. 5, 6, 15, 18, iv. 15.]\n\n[Footnote 2: Matt. i. 23, iv. 6, 14, xxvi. 31, 54, 56, xxvii. 9, 35;\nMark xiv. 27, xv. 28; John xii. 14. 15, xviii. 9, xix. 19, 24, 28,\n36.]\n\nAs to miracles, they were regarded at this period as the indispensable\nmark of the divine, and as the sign of the prophetic vocation. The\nlegends of Elijah and Elisha were full of them. It was commonly\nbelieved that the Messiah would perform many.[1] In Samaria, a few\nleagues from where Jesus was, a magician, named Simon, acquired an\nalmost divine character by his illusions.[2] Afterward, when it was\nsought to establish the reputation of Apollonius of Tyana, and to\nprove that his life had been the sojourn of a god upon the earth, it\nwas not thought possible to succeed therein except by inventing a vast\ncycle of miracles.[3] The Alexandrian philosophers themselves,\nPlotinus and others, are reported to have performed several.[4] Jesus\nwas, therefore, obliged to choose between these two\nalternatives--either to renounce his mission, or to become a\nthaumaturgus. It must be remembered that all antiquity, with the\nexception of the great scientific schools of Greece and their Roman\ndisciples, accepted miracles; and that Jesus not only believed\ntherein, but had not the least idea of an order of Nature regulated by\nfixed laws. His knowledge on this point was in no way superior to that\nof his contemporaries. Nay, more, one of his most deeply rooted\nopinions was, that by faith and prayer man has entire power over\nNature.[5] The faculty of performing miracles was regarded as a\nprivilege frequently conferred by God upon men,[6] and it had nothing\nsurprising in it.\n\n[Footnote 1: John vii. 34; _IV. Esdras_, xiii. 50.]\n\n[Footnote 2: _Acts_ viii. 9, and following.]\n\n[Footnote 3: See his biography by Philostratus.]\n\n[Footnote 4: See the Lives of the Sophists, by Eunapius; the Life of\nPlotinus, by Porphyry; that of Proclus, by Marinus; and that of\nIsidorus, attributed to Damascius.]\n\n[Footnote 5: Matt. xvii. 19, xxi. 21, 22; Mark xi. 23, 24.]\n\n[Footnote 6: Matt. ix. 8.]\n\nThe lapse of time has changed that which constituted the power of the\ngreat founder of Christianity into something offensive to our ideas,\nand if ever the worship of Jesus loses its hold upon mankind, it will\nbe precisely on account of those acts which originally inspired belief\nin him. Criticism experiences no embarrassment in presence of this\nkind of historical phenomenon. A thaumaturgus of our days, unless of\nan extreme simplicity, like that manifested by certain stigmatists of\nGermany, is odious; for he performs miracles without believing in\nthem; and is a mere charlatan. But, if we take a Francis d'Assisi, the\nquestion becomes altogether different; the series of miracles\nattending the origin of the order of St. Francis, far from offending\nus, affords us real pleasure. The founder of Christianity lived in as\ncomplete a state of poetic ignorance as did St. Clair and the _tres\nsocii_. The disciples deemed it quite natural that their master should\nhave interviews with Moses and Elias, that he should command the\nelements, and that he should heal the sick. We must remember, besides,\nthat every idea loses something of its purity, as soon as it aspires\nto realize itself. Success is never attained without some injury being\ndone to the sensibility of the soul. Such is the feebleness of the\nhuman mind that the best causes are ofttimes gained only by bad\narguments. The demonstrations of the primitive apologists of\nChristianity are supported by very poor reasonings. Moses, Christopher\nColumbus, Mahomet, have only triumphed over obstacles by constantly\nmaking allowance for the weakness of men, and by not always giving the\ntrue reasons for the truth. It is probable that the hearers of Jesus\nwere more struck by his miracles than by his eminently divine\ndiscourses. Let us add, that doubtless popular rumor, both before and\nafter the death of Jesus, exaggerated enormously the number of\noccurrences of this kind. The types of the gospel miracles, in fact,\ndo not present much variety; they are repetitions of each other and\nseem fashioned from a very small number of models, accommodated to the\ntaste of the country.\n\nIt is impossible, amongst the miraculous narratives so tediously\nenumerated in the Gospels, to distinguish the miracles attributed to\nJesus by public opinion from those in which he consented to play an\nactive part. It is especially impossible to ascertain whether the\noffensive circumstances attending them, the groanings, the\nstrugglings, and other features savoring of jugglery,[1] are really\nhistorical, or whether they are the fruit of the belief of the\ncompilers, strongly imbued with theurgy, and living, in this respect,\nin a world analogous to that of the \"spiritualists\" of our times.[2]\nAlmost all the miracles which Jesus thought he performed, appear to\nhave been miracles of healing. Medicine was at this period in Judea,\nwhat it still is in the East, that is to say, in no respect\nscientific, but absolutely surrendered to individual inspiration.\nScientific medicine, founded by Greece five centuries before, was at\nthe time of Jesus unknown to the Jews of Palestine. In such a state of\nknowledge, the presence of a superior man, treating the diseased with\ngentleness, and giving him by some sensible signs the assurance of his\nrecovery, is often a decisive remedy. Who would dare to say that in\nmany cases, always excepting certain peculiar injuries, the touch of\na superior being is not equal to all the resources of pharmacy? The\nmere pleasure of seeing him cures. He gives only a smile, or a hope,\nbut these are not in vain.\n\n[Footnote 1: Luke viii. 45, 46; John xi. 33 and 38.]\n\n[Footnote 2: _Acts_ ii. 2, and following, iv. 31, viii. 15, and\nfollowing, x. 44 and following. For nearly a century, the apostles and\ntheir disciples dreamed only of miracles. See the _Acts_, the writings\nof St. Paul, the extracts from Papias, in Eusebius, _Hist. Eccl._,\niii. 39, &c. Comp. Mark iii. 15, xvi. 17, 18, 20.]\n\nJesus had no more idea than his countrymen of a rational medical\nscience; he believed, like every one else, that healing was to be\neffected by religious practices, and such a belief was perfectly\nconsistent. From the moment that disease was regarded as the\npunishment of sin,[1] or as the act of a demon,[2] and by no means as\nthe result of physical causes, the best physician was the holy man who\nhad power in the supernatural world. Healing was considered a moral\nact; Jesus, who felt his moral power, would believe himself specially\ngifted to heal. Convinced that the touching of his robe,[3] the\nimposition of his hands,[4] did good to the sick, he would have been\nunfeeling, if he had refused to those who suffered, a solace which it\nwas in his power to bestow. The healing of the sick was considered as\none of the signs of the kingdom of God, and was always associated with\nthe emancipation of the poor.[5] Both were the signs of the great\nrevolution which was to end in the redress of all infirmities.\n\n[Footnote 1: John v. 14, ix. 1, and following, 34.]\n\n[Footnote 2: Matt. ix. 32, 33, xii. 22; Luke xiii. 11, 16.]\n\n[Footnote 3: Luke viii. 45, 46.]\n\n[Footnote 4: Luke iv. 40.]\n\n[Footnote 5: Matt. xi. 5, xv. 30, 31; Luke ix. 1, 2, 6.]\n\nOne of the species of cure which Jesus most frequently performed, was\nexorcism, or the expulsion of demons. A strange disposition to believe\nin demons pervaded all minds. It was a universal opinion, not only in\nJudea, but in the whole world, that demons seized hold of the bodies\nof certain persons and made them act contrary to their will. A Persian\n_div_, often named in the Avesta,[1] _Aeschma-daeva_, the \"div of\nconcupiscence,\" adopted by the Jews under the name of Asmodeus,[2]\nbecame the cause of all the hysterical afflictions of women.[3]\nEpilepsy, mental and nervous maladies,[4] in which the patient seems\nno longer to belong to himself, and infirmities, the cause of which is\nnot apparent, as deafness, dumbness,[5] were explained in the same\nmanner. The admirable treatise, \"On Sacred Disease,\" by Hippocrates,\nwhich set forth the true principles of medicine on this subject, four\ncenturies and a half before Jesus, had not banished from the world so\ngreat an error. It was supposed that there were processes more or less\nefficacious for driving away the demons; and the occupation of\nexorcist was a regular profession like that of physician.[6] There is\nno doubt that Jesus had in his lifetime the reputation of possessing\nthe greatest secrets of this art.[7] There were at that time many\nlunatics in Judea, doubtless in consequence of the great mental\nexcitement. These mad persons, who were permitted to go at large, as\nthey still are in the same districts, inhabited the abandoned\nsepulchral caves, which were the ordinary retreat of vagrants. Jesus\nhad great influence over these unfortunates.[8] A thousand singular\nincidents were related in connection with his cures, in which the\ncredulity of the time gave itself full scope. But still these\ndifficulties must not be exaggerated. The disorders which were\nexplained by \"possessions\" were often very slight. In our times, in\nSyria, they regard as mad or possessed by a demon (these two ideas\nwere expressed by the same word, _medjnoun_[9]) people who are only\nsomewhat eccentric. A gentle word often suffices in such cases to\ndrive away the demon. Such were doubtless the means employed by Jesus.\nWho knows if his celebrity as exorcist was not spread almost without\nhis own knowledge? Persons who reside in the East are occasionally\nsurprised to find themselves, after some time, in possession of a\ngreat reputation, as doctors, sorcerers, or discoverers of treasures,\nwithout being able to account to themselves for the facts which have\ngiven rise to these strange fancies.\n\n[Footnote 1: _Vendidad_, xi. 26; _Yacna_, x. 18.]\n\n[Footnote 2: _Tobit_, iii. 8, vi. 14; Talm. of Bab., _Gittin_, 68\n_a_.]\n\n[Footnote 3: Comp. Mark xvi. 9; Luke viii. 2; _Gospel of the Infancy_,\n16, 33; Syrian Code, published in the _Anecdota Syriaca_ of M. Land,\ni., p. 152.]\n\n[Footnote 4: Jos., _Bell. Jud._, VII. vi. 3; Lucian, _Philopseud._,\n16; Philostratus, _Life of Apoll._, iii. 38, iv. 20; Aretus, _De\ncausis morb. chron._, i. 4.]\n\n[Footnote 5: Matt. ix. 33, xii. 22; Mark ix. 16, 24; Luke xi. 14.]\n\n[Footnote 6: _Tobit_, viii. 2, 3; Matt. xii. 27; Mark ix. 38; _Acts_\nxix. 13; Josephus, _Ant._, VIII. ii. 5; Justin, _Dial. cum Tryph._,\n85; Lucian, Epigr., xxiii. (xvii. Dindorf).]\n\n[Footnote 7: Matt. xvii. 20; Mark ix. 24, and following.]\n\n[Footnote 8: Matt. viii. 28, ix. 34, xii. 43, and following, xvii. 14,\nand following, 20; Mark v. 1, and following; Luke viii. 27, and\nfollowing.]\n\n[Footnote 9: The phrase, _Daemonium habes_ (Matt. xi. 18: Luke vii. 33;\nJohn vii. 20, viii. 48, and following, x. 20, and following) should be\ntranslated by: \"Thou art mad,\" as we should say in Arabic: _Medjnoun\nente_. The verb [Greek: daimonan] has also, in all classical\nantiquity, the meaning of \"to be mad.\"]\n\nMany circumstances, moreover, seem to indicate that Jesus only became\na thaumaturgus late in life and against his inclination. He often\nperforms his miracles only after he has been besought to do so, and\nwith a degree of reluctance, reproaching those who asked them for the\ngrossness of their minds.[1] One singularity, apparently inexplicable,\nis the care he takes to perform his miracles in secret, and the\nrequest he addresses to those whom he heals to tell no one.[2] When\nthe demons wish to proclaim him the Son of God, he forbids them to\nopen their mouths; but they recognize him in spite of himself.[3]\nThese traits are especially characteristic in Mark, who is\npre-eminently the evangelist of miracles and exorcisms. It seems that\nthe disciple, who has furnished the fundamental teachings of this\nGospel, importuned Jesus with his admiration of the wonderful, and\nthat the master, wearied of a reputation which weighed upon him, had\noften said to him, \"See thou say nothing to any man.\" Once this\ndiscordance evoked a singular outburst,[4] a fit of impatience, in\nwhich the annoyance these perpetual demands of weak minds caused\nJesus, breaks forth. One would say, at times, that the character of\nthaumaturgus was disagreeable to him, and that he sought to give as\nlittle publicity as possible to the marvels which, in a manner, grew\nunder his feet. When his enemies asked a miracle of him, especially a\ncelestial miracle, a \"sign from heaven,\" he obstinately refused.[5] We\nmay therefore conclude that his reputation of thaumaturgus was imposed\nupon him, that he did not resist it much, but also that he did nothing\nto aid it, and that, at all events, he felt the vanity of popular\nopinion on this point.\n\n[Footnote 1: Matt. xii. 39, xvi. 4, xvii. 16; Mark viii. 17, and\nfollowing, ix. 18; Luke ix. 41.]\n\n[Footnote 2: Matt. viii. 4, ix. 30, 31, xii. 16, and following; Mark\ni. 44, vii. 24, and following, viii. 26.]\n\n[Footnote 3: Mark i. 24, 25, 34, iii. 12; Luke iv. 41.]\n\n[Footnote 4: Matt. xvii. 16; Mark ix. 18; Luke ix. 41.]\n\n[Footnote 5: Matt. xii. 38, and following, xvi. 1, and following; Mark\nviii. 11.]\n\nWe should neglect to recognize the first principles of history if we\nattached too much importance to our repugnances on this matter, and\nif, in order to avoid the objections which might be raised against the\ncharacter of Jesus, we attempted to suppress facts which, in the eyes\nof his contemporaries, were considered of the greatest importance.[1]\nIt would be convenient to say that these are the additions of\ndisciples much inferior to their Master who, not being able to\nconceive his true grandeur, have sought to magnify him by illusions\nunworthy of him. But the four narrators of the life of Jesus are\nunanimous in extolling his miracles; one of them, Mark, interpreter of\nthe apostle Peter,[2] insists so much on this point, that, if we trace\nthe character of Christ only according to this Gospel, we should\nrepresent him as an exorcist in possession of charms of rare efficacy,\nas a very potent sorcerer, who inspired fear, and whom the people\nwished to get rid of.[3] We will admit, then, without hesitation, that\nacts which would now be considered as acts of illusion or folly, held\na large place in the life of Jesus. Must we sacrifice to these\nuninviting features the sublimer aspect of such a life? God forbid. A\nmere sorcerer, after the manner of Simon the magician, would not have\nbrought about a moral revolution like that effected by Jesus. If the\nthaumaturgus had effaced in Jesus the moralist and the religious\nreformer, there would have proceeded from him a school of theurgy, and\nnot Christianity.\n\n[Footnote 1: Josephus, _Ant._, XVIII. iii. 3.]\n\n[Footnote 2: Papias, in Eusebius, _Hist. Eccl._, iii. 39.]\n\n[Footnote 3: Mark iv. 40, v. 15, 17, 33, 36, vi. 50, x. 32; cf. Matt.\nviii. 27, 34, ix. 8, xiv. 27, xvii. 6, 7, xxviii. 5, 10; Luke iv. 36,\nv. 17, viii. 25, 35, 37, ix. 34. The Apocryphal Gospel, said to be by\nThomas the Israelite, carries this feature to the most offensive\nabsurdity. Compare the _Miracles of the Infancy_, in Philo, _Cod.\nApocr. N.T._, p. cx., note.]\n\nThe problem, moreover, presents itself in the same manner with respect\nto all saints and religious founders. Things now considered morbid,\nsuch as epilepsy and seeing of visions, were formerly principles of\npower and greatness. Physicians can designate the disease which made\nthe fortune of Mahomet.[1] Almost in our own day, the men who have\ndone the most for their kind (the excellent Vincent de Paul himself!)\nwere, whether they wished it or not, thaumaturgi. If we set out with\nthe principle that every historical personage to whom acts have been\nattributed, which we in the nineteenth century hold to be irrational\nor savoring of quackery, was either a madman or a charlatan, all\ncriticism is nullified. The school of Alexandria was a noble school,\nbut, nevertheless, it gave itself up to the practices of an\nextravagant theurgy. Socrates and Pascal were not exempt from\nhallucinations. Facts ought to explain themselves by proportionate\ncauses. The weaknesses of the human mind only engender weakness; great\nthings have always great causes in the nature of man, although they\nare often developed amidst a crowd of littlenesses which, to\nsuperficial minds, eclipse their grandeur.\n\n[Footnote 1: _Hysteria Muscularis_ of Shoenlein.]\n\nIn a general sense, it is therefore true to say that Jesus was only\nthaumaturgus and exorcist in spite of himself. Miracles are ordinarily\nthe work of the public much more than of him to whom they are\nattributed. Jesus persistently shunned the performance of the wonders\nwhich the multitude would have created for him; the greatest miracle\nwould have been his refusal to perform any; never would the laws of\nhistory and popular psychology have suffered so great a derogation.\nThe miracles of Jesus were a violence done to him by his age, a\nconcession forced from him by a passing necessity. The exorcist and\nthe thaumaturgus have alike passed away; but the religious reformer\nwill live eternally.\n\nEven those who did not believe in him were struck with these acts, and\nsought to be witnesses of them.[1] The pagans, and persons\nunacquainted with him, experienced a sentiment of fear, and sought to\nremove him from their district.[2] Many thought perhaps to abuse his\nname by connecting it with seditious movements.[3] But the purely\nmoral and in no respect political tendency of the character of Jesus\nsaved him from these entanglements. His kingdom was in the circle of\ndisciples, whom a like freshness of imagination and the same foretaste\nof heaven had grouped and retained around him.\n\n[Footnote 1: Matt. xiv. 1, and following; Mark vi. 14; Luke ix. 7,\nxxiii. 8.]\n\n[Footnote 2: Matt. viii. 34; Mark v. 17, viii. 37.]\n\n[Footnote 3: John vi. 14, 15.]\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XVII.\n\nDEFINITIVE FORM OF THE IDEAS OF JESUS RESPECTING THE KINGDOM OF GOD.\n\n\nWe suppose that this last phase of the activity of Jesus continued\nabout eighteen months from the time of his return from the Passover of\nthe year 31, until his journey to the feast of tabernacles of the year\n32.[1] During this time, the mind of Jesus does not appear to have\nbeen enriched by the addition of any new element; but all his old\nideas grew and developed with an ever-increasing degree of power and\nboldness.\n\n[Footnote 1: John v. 1, vii. 2. We follow the system of John,\naccording to whom the public life of Jesus lasted three years. The\nsynoptics, on the contrary, group all the facts within the space of\none year.]\n\nThe fundamental idea of Jesus from the beginning, was the\nestablishment of the kingdom of God. But this kingdom of God, as we\nhave already said, appears to have been understood by Jesus in very\ndifferent senses. At times, we should take him for a democratic leader\ndesiring only the triumph of the poor and the disinherited. At other\ntimes, the kingdom of God is the literal accomplishment of the\napocalyptic visions of Daniel and Enoch. Lastly, the kingdom of God is\noften a spiritual kingdom, and the approaching deliverance is a\ndeliverance of the spirit. In this last sense the revolution desired\nby Jesus was the one which has really taken place; the establishment\nof a new worship, purer than that of Moses. All these thoughts appear\nto have existed at the same time in the mind of Jesus. The first one,\nhowever--that of a temporal revolution--does not appear to have\nimpressed him much; he never regarded the earth or the riches of the\nearth, or material power, as worth caring for. He had no worldly\nambition. Sometimes by a natural consequence, his great religious\nimportance was in danger of being converted into mere social\nimportance. Men came requesting him to judge and arbitrate on\nquestions affecting their material interests. Jesus rejected these\nproposals with haughtiness, treating them as insults.[1] Full of his\nheavenly ideal, he never abandoned his disdainful poverty. As to the\nother two conceptions of the kingdom of God, Jesus appears always to\nhave held them simultaneously. If he had been only an enthusiast, led\naway by the apocalypses on which the popular imagination fed, he would\nhave remained an obscure sectary, inferior to those whose ideas he\nfollowed. If he had been only a puritan, a sort of Channing or\n\"Savoyard vicar,\" he would undoubtedly have been unsuccessful. The two\nparts of his system, or, rather, his two conceptions of the kingdom of\nGod, rest one on the other, and this mutual support has been the cause\nof his incomparable success. The first Christians were dreamers,\nliving in a circle of ideas which we should term visionary; but, at\nthe same time, they were the heroes of that social war which has\nresulted in the enfranchisement of the conscience, and in the\nestablishment of a religion from which the pure worship, proclaimed by\nthe founder, will eventually proceed.\n\n[Footnote 1: Luke xii. 13, 14.]\n\nThe apocalyptic ideas of Jesus, in their most complete form, may thus\nbe summed up. The existing condition of humanity is approaching its\ntermination. This termination will be an immense revolution, \"an\nanguish\" similar to the pains of child-birth; a _palingenesis_, or,\nin the words of Jesus himself, a \"new birth,\"[1] preceded by dark\ncalamities and heralded by strange phenomena.[2] In the great day,\nthere will appear in the heavens the sign of the Son of man; it will\nbe a startling and luminous vision like that of Sinai, a great storm\nrending the clouds, a fiery meteor flashing rapidly from east to west.\nThe Messiah will appear in the clouds, clothed in glory and majesty,\nto the sound of trumpets and surrounded by angels. His disciples will\nsit by his side upon thrones. The dead will then arise, and the\nMessiah will proceed to judgment.[3]\n\n[Footnote 1: Matt. xix. 28.]\n\n[Footnote 2: Matt. xxiv. 3, and following; Mark xiii. 4, and\nfollowing; Luke xvii. 22, and following, xxi. 7, and following. It\nmust be remarked that the picture of the end of time attributed to\nJesus by the synoptics, contains many features which relate to the\nsiege of Jerusalem. Luke wrote some time after the siege (xxi. 9, 20,\n24). The compilation of Matthew, on the contrary (xxvi. 15, 16, 22,\n29), carries us back exactly to this precise period, or very shortly\nafterward. There is no doubt, however, that Jesus predicted that great\nterrors would precede his reappearance. These terrors were an integral\npart of all the Jewish apocalypses. _Enoch_, xcix., c., cii., ciii.\n(division of Dillman); _Carm. sibyll._, iii. 334, and following, 633,\nand following, iv. 168, and following, v. 511, and following.\nAccording to Daniel also, the reign of the saints will only come after\nthe desolation shall have reached its height. Chap. vii. 25, and\nfollowing, viii. 23, and following, ix. 26, 27, xii. 1.]\n\n[Footnote 3: Matt. xvi. 27, xix. 28, xx. 21, xxiv. 30, and following,\nxxv. 31, and following, xxvi. 64; Mark xiv. 62; Luke xxii. 30; 1\n_Cor._ xv. 52; 1 Thess. iv. 15, and following.]\n\nAt this judgment men will be divided into two classes according to\ntheir deeds.[1] The angels will be the executors of the sentences.[2]\nThe elect will enter into delightful mansions, which have been\nprepared for them from the foundation of the world;[3] there they will\nbe seated, clothed with light, at a feast presided over by Abraham,[4]\nthe patriarchs and the prophets. They will be the smaller number.[5]\nThe rest will depart into _Gehenna_. Gehenna was the western valley of\nJerusalem. There the worship of fire had been practised at various\ntimes, and the place had become a kind of sewer. Gehenna was,\ntherefore, in the mind of Jesus, a gloomy, filthy valley, full of\nfire. Those excluded from the kingdom will there be burnt and eaten by\nthe never-dying worm, in company with Satan and his rebel angels.[6]\nThere, there will be wailing and gnashing of teeth.[7] The kingdom of\nheaven will be as a closed room, lighted from within, in the midst of\na world of darkness and torments.[8]\n\n[Footnote 1: Matt. xiii. 38, and following, xxv. 33.]\n\n[Footnote 2: Matt. xiii. 39, 41, 49.]\n\n[Footnote 3: Matt. xxv. 34. Comp. John xiv. 2.]\n\n[Footnote 4: Matt. viii. 11, xiii. 43, xxvi. 29; Luke xiii. 28, xvi.\n22, xxii. 30.]\n\n[Footnote 5: Luke xiii. 23, and following.]\n\n[Footnote 6: Matt. xxv. 41. The idea of the fall of the angels,\ndetailed in the Book of Enoch, was universally admitted in the circle\nof Jesus. Epistle of Jude 6, and following; 2d Epistle attributed to\nSaint Peter, ii. 4. 11; _Revelation_ xii. 9; Gospel of John viii. 44.]\n\n[Footnote 7: Matt. v. 22, viii. 12, x. 28, xiii. 40, 42, 50, xviii. 8,\nxxiv. 51, xxv. 30; Mark ix. 43, &c.]\n\n[Footnote 8: Matt. viii. 12, xxii. 13, xxv. 30. Comp. Jos., _B.J._,\nIII. viii. 5.]\n\nThis new order of things will be eternal. Paradise and Gehenna will\nhave no end. An impassable abyss separates the one from the other.[1]\nThe Son of man, seated on the right hand of God, will preside over\nthis final condition of the world and of humanity.[2]\n\n[Footnote 1: Luke xvi. 28.]\n\n[Footnote 2: Mark iii. 29; Luke xxii. 69; _Acts_ vii. 55.]\n\nThat all this was taken literally by the disciples and by the master\nhimself at certain moments, appears clearly evident from the writings\nof the time. If the first Christian generation had one profound and\nconstant belief, it was that the world was near its end,[1] and that\nthe great \"revelation\"[2] of Christ was about to take place. The\nstartling proclamation, \"The time is at hand,\"[3] which commences and\ncloses the Apocalypse; the incessantly reiterated appeal, \"He that\nhath ears to hear let him hear!\"[4] were the cries of hope and\nencouragement for the whole apostolic age. A Syrian expression, _Maran\natha_, \"Our Lord cometh!\"[5] became a sort of password, which the\nbelievers used amongst themselves to strengthen their faith and their\nhope. The Apocalypse, written in the year 68 of our era,[6] declares\nthat the end will come in three years and a half.[7] The \"Ascension of\nIsaiah\"[8] adopts a calculation very similar to this.\n\n[Footnote 1: _Acts_ ii. 17, iii. 19, and following; 1 _Cor._ xv. 23,\n24, 52; 1 Thess. iii. 13, iv. 14, and following, v. 23; 2 Thess. ii.\n8; 1 Tim. vi. 14; 2 Tim. iv. 1; Tit. ii. 13; Epistle of James v. 3, 8;\nEpistle of Jude 18; 2d Epistle of Peter, iii. entirely; _Revelations_\nentirely, and in particular, i. 1, ii. 5, 16, iii. 11, xi. 14, xxii.\n6, 7, 12, 20. Comp. 4th Book of Esdras, iv. 26.]\n\n[Footnote 2: Luke xvii. 30; 1 _Cor._ i. 7, 8; 2 Thess. i. 7; 1 Peter\ni. 7, 13; _Revelations_ i. 1.]\n\n[Footnote 3: _Revelations_ i. 3, xxii. 10.]\n\n[Footnote 4: Matt. xi. 15, xiii. 9, 43; Mark iv. 9, 23, vii. 16; Luke\nviii. 8, xiv. 35; _Revelations_ ii. 7, 11, 27, 29, iii. 6, 13, 22,\nxiii. 9.]\n\n[Footnote 5: 1 _Cor._ xvi. 22.]\n\n[Footnote 6: _Revelations_ xvii. 9, and following. The sixth emperor,\nwhom the author represents as reigning, is Galba. The dead emperor,\nwho was to return, is Nero, whose name is given in figures (xiii.\n18).]\n\n[Footnote 7: _Revelations_ xi. 2, 3, xii. 14. Comp. Daniel vii. 25,\nxii. 7.]\n\n[Footnote 8: Chap. iv., v. 12 and 14. Comp. Cedrenus, p. 68 (Paris,\n1647).]\n\nJesus never indulged in such precise details. When he was interrogated\nas to the time of his advent, he always refused to reply; once even he\ndeclared that the date of this great day was known only by the Father,\nwho had revealed it neither to the angels nor to the Son.[1] He said\nthat the time when the kingdom of God was most anxiously expected, was\njust that in which it would not appear.[2] He constantly repeated that\nit would be a surprise, as in the times of Noah and of Lot; that we\nmust be on our guard, always ready to depart; that each one must watch\nand keep his lamp trimmed as for a wedding procession, which arrives\nunforeseen;[3] that the Son of man would come like a thief, at an\nhour when he would not be expected;[4] that he would appear as a flash\nof lightning, running from one end of the heavens to the other.[5] But\nhis declarations on the nearness of the catastrophe leave no room for\nany equivocations.[6] \"This generation,\" said he, \"shall not pass till\nall these things be fulfilled. There be some standing here, which\nshall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his\nkingdom.\"[7] He reproaches those who do not believe in him, for not\nbeing able to read the signs of the future kingdom. \"When it is\nevening, ye say, It will be fair weather; for the sky is red. And in\nthe morning, It will be foul weather to-day; for the sky is red and\nlowering. O ye hypocrites, ye can discern the face of the sky; but can\nye not discern the signs of the times?\"[8] By an illusion common to\nall great reformers, Jesus imagined the end to be much nearer than it\nreally was; he did not take into account the slowness of the movements\nof humanity; he thought to realize in one day that which, eighteen\ncenturies later, has still to be accomplished.\n\n[Footnote 1: Matt. xxiv. 36; Mark xiii. 32.]\n\n[Footnote 2: Luke xvii. 20. Comp. Talmud of Babyl., _Sanhedrim_, 97\n_a_.]\n\n[Footnote 3: Matt. xxiv. 36, and following; Mark xiii. 32, and\nfollowing; Luke xii. 35, and following, xvii. 20, and following.]\n\n[Footnote 4: Luke xii. 40; 2 Peter iii. 10.]\n\n[Footnote 5: Luke xvii. 24.]\n\n[Footnote 6: Matt. x. 23, xxiv., xxv. entirely, and especially xxiv.\n29, 34; Mark xiii. 30; Luke xiii. 35, xxi. 28, and following.]\n\n[Footnote 7: Matt. xvi. 28, xxiii. 36, 39, xxiv. 34; Mark viii. 39;\nLuke ix. 27, xxi. 32.]\n\n[Footnote 8: Matt. xvi. 2-4; Luke xii. 54-56.]\n\nThese formal declarations preoccupied the Christian family for nearly\nseventy years. It was believed that some of the disciples would see\nthe day of the final revelation before dying. John, in particular, was\nconsidered as being of this number;[1] many believed that he would\nnever die. Perhaps this was a later opinion suggested toward the end\nof the first century, by the advanced age which John seems to have\nreached; this age having given rise to the belief that God wished to\nprolong his life indefinitely until the great day, in order to realize\nthe words of Jesus. However this may be, at his death the faith of\nmany was shaken, and his disciples attached to the prediction of\nChrist a more subdued meaning.[2]\n\n[Footnote 1: John xxi. 22, 23.]\n\n[Footnote 2: John xxi. 22, 23. Chapter xxi. of the fourth Gospel is an\naddition, as is proved by the final clause of the primitive\ncompilation, which concludes at verse 31 of chapter xx. But the\naddition is almost contemporaneous with the publication of the Gospel\nitself.]\n\nAt the same time that Jesus fully admitted the Apocalyptic beliefs,\nsuch as we find them in the apocryphal Jewish books, he admitted the\ndoctrine, which is the complement, or rather the condition of them\nall, namely, the resurrection of the dead. This doctrine, as we have\nalready said, was still somewhat new in Israel; a number of people\neither did not know it, or did not believe it.[1] It was the faith of\nthe Pharisees, and of the fervent adherents of the Messianic\nbeliefs.[2] Jesus accepted it unreservedly, but always in the most\nidealistic sense. Many imagined that in the resuscitated world they\nwould eat, drink, and marry. Jesus, indeed, admits into his kingdom a\nnew passover, a table, and a new wine;[3] but he expressly excludes\nmarriage from it. The Sadducees had on this subject an apparently\ncoarse argument, but one which was really in conformity with the old\ntheology. It will be remembered that according to the ancient sages,\nman survived only in his children. The Mosaic code had consecrated\nthis patriarchal theory by a strange institution, the levirate law.\nThe Sadducees drew from thence subtle deductions against the\nresurrection. Jesus escaped them by formally declaring that in the\nlife eternal there would no longer exist differences of sex, and that\nmen would be like the angels.[4] Sometimes he seems to promise\nresurrection only to the righteous,[5] the punishment of the wicked\nconsisting in complete annihilation.[6] Oftener, however, Jesus\ndeclares that the resurrection shall bring eternal confusion to the\nwicked.[7]\n\n[Footnote 1: Mark ix. 9; Luke xx. 27, and following.]\n\n[Footnote 2: Dan. xii. 2, and following; 2 Macc. vii. entirely, xii.\n45, 46, xiv. 46; _Acts_ xxiii. 6, 8; Jos., _Ant._, XVIII. i. 3;\n_B.J._, II. viii. 14, III. viii. 5.]\n\n[Footnote 3: Matt. xxvi. 29; Luke xxii. 30.]\n\n[Footnote 4: Matt. xxii. 24, and following; Luke xx. 34-38; Ebionite\nGospel, entitled, \"Of the Egyptians,\" in Clem. of Alex., _Strom._ ii.\n9, 13; Clem. Rom., Epist. ii. 12.]\n\n[Footnote 5: Luke xiv. 14, xx. 35, 36. This is also the opinion of St.\nPaul: 1 _Cor._ xv. 23, and following; 1 Thess. iv. 12, and following.]\n\n[Footnote 6: Comp. 4th book of Esdras, ix. 22.]\n\n[Footnote 7: Matt. xxv. 32, and following.]\n\nIt will be seen that nothing in all these theories was absolutely new.\nThe Gospels and the writings of the apostles scarcely contain anything\nas regards apocalyptic doctrines but what might be found already in\n\"Daniel,\"[1] \"Enoch,\"[2] and the \"Sibylline Oracles,\"[3] of Jewish\norigin. Jesus accepted the ideas, which were generally received among\nhis contemporaries. He made them his basis of action, or rather one of\nhis bases; for he had too profound an idea of his true work to\nestablish it solely upon such fragile principles--principles so liable\nto be decisively refuted by facts.\n\n[Footnote 1: See especially chaps. ii., vi.-viii., x.-xiii.]\n\n[Footnote 2: Chaps. i., xiv., lii., lxii., xciii. 9, and following.]\n\n[Footnote 3: Book iii. 573, and following; 652, and following; 766,\nand following; 795, and following.]\n\nIt is evident, indeed, that such a doctrine, taken by itself in a\nliteral manner, had no future. The world, in continuing to exist,\ncaused it to crumble. One generation of man at the most was the limit\nof its endurance. The faith of the first Christian generation is\nintelligible, but the faith of the second generation is no longer so.\nAfter the death of John, or of the last survivor, whoever he might be,\nof the group which had seen the master, the word of Jesus was\nconvicted of falsehood.[1] If the doctrine of Jesus had been simply\nbelief in an approaching end of the world, it would certainly now be\nsleeping in oblivion. What is it, then, which has saved it? The great\nbreadth of the Gospel conceptions, which has permitted doctrines\nsuited to very different intellectual conditions to be found under the\nsame creed. The world has not ended, as Jesus announced, and as his\ndisciples believed. But it has been renewed, and in one sense renewed\nas Jesus desired. It is because his thought was two-sided that it has\nbeen fruitful. His chimera has not had the fate of so many others\nwhich have crossed the human mind, because it concealed a germ of life\nwhich having been introduced, thanks to a covering of fable, into the\nbosom of humanity, has thus brought forth eternal fruits.\n\n[Footnote 1: These pangs of Christian conscience are rendered with\nsimplicity in the second epistle attributed to St. Peter, iii. 8, and\nfollowing.]\n\nAnd let us not say that this is a benevolent interpretation, imagined\nin order to clear the honor of our great master from the cruel\ncontradiction inflicted on his dreams by reality. No, no: this true\nkingdom of God, this kingdom of the spirit, which makes each one king\nand priest; this kingdom which, like the grain of mustard-seed, has\nbecome a tree which overshadows the world, and amidst whose branches\nthe birds have their nests, was understood, wished for, and founded by\nJesus. By the side of the false, cold, and impossible idea of an\nostentatious advent, he conceived the real city of God, the true\n\"palingenesis,\" the Sermon on the Mount, the apotheosis of the weak,\nthe love of the people, regard for the poor, and the re-establishment\nof all that is humble, true, and simple. This re-establishment he has\ndepicted as an incomparable artist, by features which will last\neternally. Each of us owes that which is best in himself to him. Let\nus pardon him his hope of a vain apocalypse, and of a second coming in\ngreat triumph upon the clouds of heaven. Perhaps these were the errors\nof others rather than his own; and if it be true that he himself\nshared the general illusion, what matters it, since his dream rendered\nhim strong against death, and sustained him in a struggle, to which he\nmight otherwise have been unequal?\n\nWe must, then, attach several meanings to the divine city conceived by\nJesus. If his only thought had been that the end of time was near, and\nthat we must prepare for it, he would not have surpassed John the\nBaptist. To renounce a world ready to crumble, to detach one's self\nlittle by little from the present life, and to aspire to the kingdom\nabout to come, would have formed the gist of his preaching. The\nteaching of Jesus had always a much larger scope. He proposed to\nhimself to create a new state of humanity, and not merely to prepare\nthe end of that which was in existence. Elias or Jeremiah, reappearing\nin order to prepare men for the supreme crisis, would not have\npreached as he did. This is so true that this morality, attributed to\nthe latter days, is found to be the eternal morality, that which has\nsaved humanity. Jesus himself in many cases makes use of modes of\nspeech which do not accord with the apocalyptic theory. He often\ndeclares that the kingdom of God has already commenced; that every\nman bears it within himself; and can, if he be worthy, partake of it;\nthat each one silently creates this kingdom by the true conversion of\nthe heart.[1] The kingdom of God at such times is only the highest\nform of good.[2] A better order of things than that which exists, the\nreign of justice, which the faithful, according to their ability,\nought to help in establishing; or, again, the liberty of the soul,\nsomething analogous to the Buddhist \"deliverance,\" the fruit of the\nsoul's separation from matter and absorption in the divine essence.\nThese truths, which are purely abstract to us, were living realities\nto Jesus. Everything in his mind was concrete and substantial. Jesus,\nof all men, believed most thoroughly in the reality of the ideal.\n\n[Footnote 1: Matt. vi. 10, 33; Mark xii. 34; Luke xi. 2, xii. 31,\nxvii. 20, 21, and following.]\n\n[Footnote 2: See especially Mark xii. 34.]\n\nIn accepting the Utopias of his time and his race, Jesus thus was able\nto make high truths of them, thanks to the fruitful misconceptions of\ntheir import. His kingdom of God was no doubt the approaching\napocalypse, which was about to be unfolded in the heavens. But it was\nstill, and probably above all the kingdom of the soul, founded on\nliberty and on the filial sentiment which the virtuous man feels when\nresting on the bosom of his Father. It was a pure religion, without\nforms, without temple, and without priest; it was the moral judgment\nof the world, delegated to the conscience of the just man, and to the\narm of the people. This is what was destined to live; this is what has\nlived. When, at the end of a century of vain expectation, the\nmaterialistic hope of a near end of the world was exhausted, the true\nkingdom of God became apparent. Accommodating explanations threw a\nveil over the material kingdom, which was then seen to be incapable of\nrealization. The Apocalypse of John, the chief canonical book of the\nNew Testament,[1] being too formally tied to the idea of an immediate\ncatastrophe, became of secondary importance, was held to be\nunintelligible, tortured in a thousand ways and almost rejected. At\nleast, its accomplishment was adjourned to an indefinite future. Some\npoor benighted ones who, in a fully enlightened age, still preserved\nthe hopes of the first disciples, became heretics (Ebionites,\nMillenarians), lost in the shallows of Christianity. Mankind had\npassed to another kingdom of God. The degree of truth contained in the\nthought of Jesus had prevailed over the chimera which obscured it.\n\n[Footnote 1: Justin, _Dial. cum Tryph._, 81.]\n\nLet us not, however, despise this chimera, which has been the thick\nrind of the sacred fruit on which we live. This fantastic kingdom of\nheaven, this endless pursuit after a city of God, which has constantly\npreoccupied Christianity during its long career, has been the\nprinciple of that great instinct of futurity which has animated all\nreformers, persistent believers in the Apocalypse, from Joachim of\nFlora down to the Protestant sectary of our days. This impotent effort\nto establish a perfect society has been the source of the\nextraordinary tension which has always made the true Christian an\nathlete struggling against the existing order of things. The idea of\nthe \"kingdom of God,\" and the Apocalypse, which is the complete image\nof it, are thus, in a sense, the highest and most poetic expressions\nof human progress. But they have necessarily given rise to great\nerrors. The end of the world, suspended as a perpetual menace over\nmankind, was, by the periodical panics which it caused during\ncenturies, a great hindrance to all secular development. Society\nbeing no longer certain of its existence, contracted therefrom a\ndegree of trepidation, and those habits of servile humility, which\nrendered the Middle Ages so inferior to ancient and modern times.[1] A\nprofound change had also taken place in the mode of regarding the\ncoming of Christ. When it was first announced to mankind that the end\nof the world was about to come, like the infant which receives death\nwith a smile, it experienced the greatest access of joy that it has\never felt. But in growing old, the world became attached to life. The\nday of grace, so long expected by the simple souls of Galilee, became\nto these iron ages a day of wrath: _Dies irae, dies illa!_ But, even in\nthe midst of barbarism, the idea of the kingdom of God continued\nfruitful. In spite of the feudal church, of sects, and of religious\norders, holy persons continued to protest, in the name of the Gospel,\nagainst the iniquity of the world. Even in our days, troubled days, in\nwhich Jesus has no more authentic followers than those who seem to\ndeny him, the dreams of an ideal organization of society, which have\nso much analogy with the aspirations of the primitive Christian sects,\nare only in one sense the blossoming of the same idea. They are one of\nthe branches of that immense tree in which germinates all thought of a\nfuture, and of which the \"kingdom of God\" will be eternally the root\nand stem. All the social revolutions of humanity will be grafted on\nthis phrase. But, tainted by a coarse materialism, and aspiring to the\nimpossible, that is to say, to found universal happiness upon\npolitical and economical measures, the \"socialist\" attempts of our\ntime will remain unfruitful until they take as their rule the true\nspirit of Jesus, I mean absolute idealism--the principle that, in\norder to possess the world, we must renounce it.\n\n[Footnote 1: See, for example, the prologue of Gregory of Tours to his\n_Histoire Ecclesiastique des Francs_, and the numerous documents of\nthe first half of the Middle Ages, beginning by the formula, \"On the\napproach of the night of the world....\"]\n\nThe phrase, \"kingdom of God,\" expresses also, very happily, the want\nwhich the soul experiences of a supplementary destiny, of a\ncompensation for the present life. Those who do not accept the\ndefinition of man as a compound of two substances, and who regard the\nDeistical dogma of the immortality of the soul as in contradiction\nwith physiology, love to fall back upon the hope of a final\nreparation, which under an unknown form shall satisfy the wants of the\nheart of man. Who knows if the highest term of progress after millions\nof ages may not evoke the absolute conscience of the universe, and in\nthis conscience the awakening of all that has lived? A sleep of a\nmillion of years is not longer than the sleep of an hour. St. Paul, on\nthis hypothesis, was right in saying, _In ictu oculi!_[1] It is\ncertain that moral and virtuous humanity will have its reward, that\none day the ideas of the poor but honest man will judge the world, and\nthat on that day the ideal figure of Jesus will be the confusion of\nthe frivolous who have not believed in virtue, and of the selfish who\nhave not been able to attain to it. The favorite phrase of Jesus\ncontinues, therefore, full of an eternal beauty. A kind of exalted\ndivination seems to have maintained it in a vague sublimity, embracing\nat the same time various orders of truths.\n\n[Footnote 1: 1 _Cor._ xv. 52.]\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XVIII.\n\nINSTITUTIONS OF JESUS.\n\n\nThat Jesus was never entirely absorbed in his apocalyptic ideas is\nproved, moreover, by the fact that at the very time he was most\npreoccupied with them, he laid with rare forethought the foundation of\na church destined to endure. It is scarcely possible to doubt that he\nhimself chose from among his disciples those who were pre-eminently\ncalled the \"apostles,\" or the \"twelve,\" since on the day after his\ndeath we find them forming a distinct body, and filling up by election\nthe vacancies that had arisen in their midst.[1] They were the two\nsons of Jonas; the two sons of Zebedee; James, son of Cleophas;\nPhilip; Nathaniel bar-Tolmai; Thomas; Levi, or Matthew, the son of\nAlphaeus; Simon Zelotes; Thaddeus or Lebbaeus; and Judas of Kerioth.[2]\nIt is probable that the idea of the twelve tribes of Israel had had\nsome share in the choice of this number.[3]\n\n[Footnote 1: _Acts_ i. 15, and following; 1 _Cor._ xv. 5; Gal. i. 10.]\n\n[Footnote 2: Matt. x. 2 and following; Mark iii. 16, and following;\nLuke vi. 14, and following; _Acts_ i. 13; Papias, in Eusebius, _Hist.\nEccl._, iii. 39.]\n\n[Footnote 3: Matt. xix. 28; Luke xxii. 30.]\n\nThe \"twelve,\" at all events, formed a group of privileged disciples,\namong whom Peter maintained a fraternal priority,[1] and to them Jesus\nconfided the propagation of his work. There was nothing, however,\nwhich presented the appearance of a regularly organized sacerdotal\nschool. The lists of the \"twelve,\" which have been preserved, contain\nmany uncertainties and contradictions; two or three of those who\nfigure in them have remained completely obscure. Two, at least, Peter\nand Philip,[2] were married and had children.\n\n[Footnote 1: _Acts_ i. 15, ii. 14, v. 2, 3, 29, viii. 19, xv. 7; Gal.\ni. 18.]\n\n[Footnote 2: For Peter, see ante, p. 174; for Philip, see Papias,\nPolycrates, and Clement of Alexandria, quoted by Eusebius, _Hist.\nEccl._, iii. 30, 31, 39, v. 24.]\n\nJesus evidently confided secrets to the twelve, which he forbade them\nto communicate to the world.[1] It seems as if his plan at times was\nto surround himself with a degree of mystery, to postpone the most\nimportant testimony respecting himself till after his death, and to\nreveal himself completely only to his disciples, confiding to them the\ncare of demonstrating him afterward to the world.[2] \"What I tell you\nin darkness, that speak ye in light; and what ye hear in the ear, that\npreach ye upon the housetops.\" This spared him the necessity of too\nprecise declarations, and created a kind of medium between the public\nand himself. It is clear that there were certain teachings confined to\nthe apostles, and that he explained many parables to them, the meaning\nof which was ambiguous to the multitude.[3] An enigmatical form and a\ndegree of oddness in connecting ideas were customary in the teachings\nof the doctors, as may be seen in the sentences of the _Pirke Aboth_.\nJesus explained to his intimate friends whatever was peculiar in his\napothegms or in his apologues, and showed them his meaning stripped of\nthe wealth of illustration which sometimes obscured it.[4] Many of\nthese explanations appear to have been carefully preserved.[5]\n\n[Footnote 1: Matt. xvi. 20, xvii. 9; Mark viii. 30, ix. 8.]\n\n[Footnote 2: Matt. x. 26, 27; Mark iv. 21, and following; Luke viii.\n17, xii. 2, and following; John xiv. 22.]\n\n[Footnote 3: Matt. xiii. 10, and following, 34 and following; Mark iv.\n10, and following, 33, and following; Luke viii. 9, and following;\nxii. 41.]\n\n[Footnote 4: Matt. xvi. 6, and following; Mark vii. 17-23.]\n\n[Footnote 5: Matt. xiii. 18, and following; Mark vii. 18, and\nfollowing.]\n\nDuring the lifetime of Jesus, the apostles preached,[1] but without\never departing far from him. Their preaching, moreover, was limited to\nthe announcement of the speedy coming of the kingdom of God.[2] They\nwent from town to town, receiving hospitality, or rather taking it\nthemselves, according to the custom of the country. The guest in the\nEast has much authority; he is superior to the master of the house,\nwho has the greatest confidence in him. This fireside preaching is\nadmirably adapted to the propagation of new doctrines. The hidden\ntreasure is communicated, and payment is thus made for what is\nreceived; politeness and good feeling lend their aid; the household is\ntouched and converted. Remove Oriental hospitality, and it would be\nimpossible to explain the propagation of Christianity. Jesus, who\nadhered greatly to good old customs, encouraged his disciples to make\nno scruple of profiting by this ancient public right, probably already\nabolished in the great towns where there were hostelries.[3] \"The\nlaborer,\" said he, \"is worthy of his hire!\" Once installed in any\nhouse, they were to remain there, eating and drinking what was offered\nthem, as long as their mission lasted.\n\n[Footnote 1: Luke ix. 6.]\n\n[Footnote 2: Luke x. 11.]\n\n[Footnote 3: The Greek word [Greek: pandokeion], in all the languages\nof the Semitic East, designates an hostelry.]\n\nJesus desired that, in imitation of his example, the messengers of the\nglad tidings should render their preaching agreeable by kindly and\npolished manners. He directed that, on entering into a house, they\nshould give the salaam or greeting. Some hesitated; the salaam being\nthen, as now, in the East, a sign of religious communion, which is not\nrisked with persons of a doubtful faith. \"Fear nothing,\" said Jesus;\n\"if no one in the house is worthy of your salute, it will return unto\nyou.\"[1] Sometimes, in fact, the apostles of the kingdom of God were\nbadly received, and came to complain to Jesus, who generally sought to\nsoothe them. Some of them, persuaded of the omnipotence of their\nmaster, were hurt at this forbearance. The sons of Zebedee wanted him\nto call down fire from heaven upon the inhospitable towns.[2] Jesus\nreceived these outbursts with a subtle irony, and stopped them by\nsaying: \"The Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to\nsave them.\"\n\n[Footnote 1: Matt. x. 11, and following; Mark vi. 10, and following;\nLuke x. 5, and following. Comp. 2 Epistle of John, 10, 11.]\n\n[Footnote 2: Luke ix. 52, and following.]\n\nHe sought in every way to establish as a principle that his apostles\nwere as himself.[1] It was believed that he had communicated his\nmarvellous virtues to them. They cast out demons, prophesied, and\nformed a school of renowned exorcists,[2] although certain cases were\nbeyond their power.[3] They also wrought cures, either by the\nimposition of hands, or by the anointing with oil,[4] one of the\nfundamental processes of Oriental medicine. Lastly, like the Psylli,\nthey could handle serpents and could drink deadly potions with\nimpunity.[5] The further we get from Jesus--the more offensive does\nthis theurgy become. But there is no doubt that it was generally\nreceived by the primitive Church, and that it held an important place\nin the estimation of the world around.[6] Charlatans, as generally\nhappens, took advantage of this movement of popular credulity. Even\nin the lifetime of Jesus, many, without being his disciples, cast out\ndemons in his name. The true disciples were much displeased at this,\nand sought to prevent them. Jesus, who saw that this was really an\nhomage paid to his renown, was not very severe toward them.[7] It must\nbe observed, moreover, that the exercise of these gifts had to some\ndegree become a trade. Carrying the logic of absurdity to the extreme,\ncertain men cast out demons by Beelzebub,[8] the prince of demons.\nThey imagined that this sovereign of the infernal regions must have\nentire authority over his subordinates, and that in acting through him\nthey were certain to make the intruding spirit depart.[9] Some even\nsought to buy from the disciples of Jesus the secret of the miraculous\npowers which had been conferred upon them.[10] The germ of a church\nfrom this time began to appear. This fertile idea of the power of men\nin association (_ecclesia_) was doubtless derived from Jesus. Full of\nthe purely idealistic doctrine that it is the union of love which\nbrings souls together, he declared that whenever men assembled in his\nname, he would be in their midst. He confided to the Church the right\nto bind and to unbind (that is to say, to render certain things lawful\nor unlawful), to remit sins, to reprimand, to warn with authority, and\nto pray with the certainty of being heard favorably.[11] It is\npossible that many of these words may have been attributed to the\nmaster, in order to give a warrant to the collective authority which\nwas afterward sought to be substituted for that of Jesus. At all\nevents, it was only after his death that particular churches were\nestablished, and even this first constitution was made purely and\nsimply on the model of the synagogue. Many personages who had loved\nJesus much, and had founded great hopes upon him, as Joseph of\nArimathea, Lazarus, Mary Magdalen, and Nicodemus, did not, it seems,\njoin these churches, but clung to the tender or respectful memory\nwhich they had preserved of him.\n\n[Footnote 1: Matt. x. 40, 42, xxv. 35, and following; Mark ix. 40;\nLuke x. 16; John xiii. 20.]\n\n[Footnote 2: Matt. vii. 22, x. 1; Mark iii. 15, vi. 13; Luke x. 17.]\n\n[Footnote 3: Matt. xvii. 18, 19.]\n\n[Footnote 4: Mark vi. 13, xvi. 18; Epist. Jas. v. 14.]\n\n[Footnote 5: Mark xvi. 18; Luke x. 19.]\n\n[Footnote 6: Mark xvi. 20.]\n\n[Footnote 7: Mark ix. 37, 38; Luke ix. 49, 50.]\n\n[Footnote 8: An ancient god of the Philistines, transformed by the\nJews into a demon.]\n\n[Footnote 9: Matt. xii. 24, and following.]\n\n[Footnote 10: _Acts_ viii. 18, and following.]\n\n[Footnote 11: Matt. xviii. 17, and following; John xx. 23.]\n\nMoreover, there is no trace, in the teaching of Jesus, of an applied\nmorality or of a canonical law, ever so slightly defined. Once only,\nrespecting marriage, he spoke decidedly, and forbade divorce.[1]\nNeither was there any theology or creed. There were indefinite views\nrespecting the Father, the Son, and the Spirit,[2] from which,\nafterward, were drawn the Trinity and the Incarnation, but they were\nthen only in a state of indeterminate imagery. The later books of the\nJewish canon recognized the Holy Spirit, a sort of divine hypostasis,\nsometimes identified with Wisdom or the Word.[3] Jesus insisted upon\nthis point,[4] and announced to his disciples a baptism by fire and by\nthe spirit,[5] as much preferable to that of John, a baptism which\nthey believed they had received, after the death of Jesus, in the form\nof a great wind and tongues of fire.[6] The Holy Spirit thus sent by\nthe Father was to teach them all truth, and testify to that which\nJesus himself had promulgated.[7] In order to designate this Spirit,\nJesus made use of the word _Peraklit_, which the Syro-Chaldaic had\nborrowed from the Greek ([Greek: parakletos]), and which appears to\nhave had in his mind the meaning of \"advocate,\"[8] \"counsellor,\"[9]\nand sometimes that of \"interpreter of celestial truths,\" and of\n\"teacher charged to reveal to men the hitherto hidden mysteries.\"[10]\nHe regarded himself as a _Peraklit_ to his disciples,[11] and the\nSpirit which was to come after his death would only take his place.\nThis was an application of the process which the Jewish and Christian\ntheologies would follow during centuries, and which was to produce a\nwhole series of divine assessors, the _Metathronos_, the _Synadelphe_\nor _Sandalphon_, and all the personifications of the Cabbala. But in\nJudaism, these creations were to remain free and individual\nspeculations, whilst in Christianity, commencing with the fourth\ncentury, they were to form the very essence of orthodoxy and of the\nuniversal doctrine.\n\n[Footnote 1: Matt. xix. 3, and following.]\n\n[Footnote 2: Matt. xxviii. 19. Comp. Matt. iii. 16, 17; John xv. 26.]\n\n[Footnote 3: _Sap._ i. 7, vii. 7, ix. 17, xii. 1; _Eccles._ i. 9, xv.\n5, xxiv. 27; xxxix. 8; _Judith_ xvi. 17.]\n\n[Footnote 4: Matt. x. 20; Luke xii. 12, xxiv. 49; John xiv. 26, xv.\n26.]\n\n[Footnote 5: Matt. iii. 11; Mark i. 8; Luke iii. 16; John i. 26, iii.\n5; _Acts_ i. 5, 8, x. 47.]\n\n[Footnote 6: _Acts_ ii. 1-4, xi. 15, xix. 6. Cf. John vii. 39.]\n\n[Footnote 7: John xv. 26, xvi. 13.]\n\n[Footnote 8: To _Peraklit_ was opposed _Katigor_, ([Greek:\nkategoros]), the \"accuser.\"]\n\n[Footnote 9: John xiv. 16; 1st Epistle of John ii. 1.]\n\n[Footnote 10: John xiv. 26, xv. 26, xvi. 7, and following. Comp.\nPhilo, _De Mundi opificio_, Sec. 6.]\n\n[Footnote 11: John xiv. 16. Comp. the epistle before cited, _l.c._]\n\nIt is unnecessary to remark how remote from the thought of Jesus was\nthe idea of a religious book, containing a code and articles of faith.\nNot only did he not write, but it was contrary to the spirit of the\ninfant sect to produce sacred books. They believed themselves on the\neve of the great final catastrophe. The Messiah came to put the seal\nupon the Law and the Prophets, not to promulgate new Scriptures. With\nthe exception of the Apocalypse, which was in one sense the only\nrevealed book of the infant Christianity, all the other writings of\nthe apostolic age were works evoked by existing circumstances, making\nno pretensions to furnish a completely dogmatic whole. The Gospels\nhad at first an entirely personal character, and much less authority\nthan tradition.[1]\n\n[Footnote 1: Papias, in Eusebius, _Hist. Eccl._, iii. 39.]\n\nHad the sect, however, no sacrament, no rite, no sign of union? It had\none which all tradition ascribes to Jesus. One of the favorite ideas\nof the master was that he was the new bread, bread very superior to\nmanna, and on which mankind was to live. This idea, the germ of the\nEucharist, was at times expressed by him in singularly concrete forms.\nOn one occasion especially, in the synagogue of Capernaum, he took a\ndecided step, which cost him several of his disciples. \"Verily,\nverily, I say unto you, Moses gave you not that bread from heaven; but\nmy Father giveth you the true bread from heaven.\"[1] And he added, \"I\nam the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger, and he\nthat believeth on me shall never thirst.\"[2] These words excited much\nmurmuring. \"The Jews then murmured at him because he said, I am the\nbread which came down from heaven. And they said, Is not this Jesus\nthe son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? how is it then\nthat he saith, I came down from heaven?\" But Jesus insisting with\nstill more force, said, \"I am that bread of life; your fathers did eat\nmanna in the wilderness and are dead. This is the bread which cometh\ndown from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die. I am the\nliving bread which came down from heaven; if any man eat of this\nbread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my\nflesh, which I will give for the life of the world.\"[3] The offence\nwas now at its height: \"How can this man give us his flesh to eat?\"\nJesus going still further, said: \"Verily, verily, I say unto you,\nexcept ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye\nhave no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, hath\neternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is\nmeat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh and\ndrinketh my blood dwelleth in me, and I in him. As the living Father\nhas sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he\nshall live by me. This is that bread which came down from heaven: not\nas your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this\nbread shall live for ever.\" Several of his disciples were offended at\nsuch obstinacy in paradox, and ceased to follow him. Jesus did not\nretract; he only added: \"It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh\nprofiteth nothing. The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit,\nand they are life.\" The twelve remained faithful, notwithstanding this\nstrange preaching. It gave to Cephas, in particular, an opportunity of\nshowing his absolute devotion, and of proclaiming once more, \"Thou art\nthat Christ, the Son of the living God.\"\n\n[Footnote 1: John vi. 32, and following.]\n\n[Footnote 2: We find an analogous form of expression provoking a\nsimilar misunderstanding, in John iv. 10, and following.]\n\n[Footnote 3: A11 these discourses bear too strongly the imprint of the\nstyle peculiar to John, for them to be regarded as exact. The anecdote\nrelated in chapter vi. of the fourth Gospel cannot, however, be\nentirely stripped of historical reality.]\n\nIt is probable that from that time, in the common repasts of the sect,\nthere was established some custom which was derived from the discourse\nso badly received by the men of Capernaum. But the apostolic\ntraditions on this subject are very diverse and probably intentionally\nincomplete. The synoptical gospels suppose that a unique sacramental\nact served as basis to the mysterious rite, and declare this to have\nbeen \"the last supper.\" John, who has preserved the incident at the\nsynagogue of Capernaum, does not speak of such an act, although he\ndescribes the last supper at great length. Elsewhere we see Jesus\nrecognized in the breaking of bread,[1] as if this act had been to\nthose who associated with him the most characteristic of his person.\nWhen he was dead, the form under which he appeared to the pious memory\nof his disciples, was that of president of a mysterious banquet,\ntaking the bread, blessing it, breaking and presenting it to those\npresent.[2] It is probable that this was one of his habits, and that\nat such times he was particularly loving and tender. One material\ncircumstance, the presence of fish upon the table (a striking\nindication, which proves that the rite had its birth on the shore of\nLake Tiberias[3]), was itself almost sacramental, and became a\nnecessary part of the conceptions of the sacred feast.[4]\n\n[Footnote 1: Luke xxiv. 30, 35.]\n\n[Footnote 2: Luke _l.c._; John xxi. 13.]\n\n[Footnote 3: Comp. Matt. vii. 10, xiv. 17, and following, xv. 34, and\nfollowing; Mark vi. 38, and following; Luke ix. 13, and following, xi.\n11, xxiv. 42; John vi. 9, and following, xxi. 9, and following. The\ndistrict round Lake Tiberias is the only place in Palestine where fish\nforms a considerable portion of the diet.]\n\n[Footnote 4: John xxi. 13; Luke xxiv. 42, 43. Compare the oldest\nrepresentations of the Lord's Supper, related or corrected by M. de\nRossi, in his dissertation on the [Greek: ICHTHYS] (_Spicilegium\nSolesmense_ de dom Pitra, v. iii., p. 568, and following). The meaning\nof the anagram which the word [Greek: ICHTHYS] contains, was probably\ncombined with a more ancient tradition on the place of fish in the\nGospel repasts.]\n\nTheir repasts were among the sweetest moments of the infant community.\nAt these times they all assembled; the master spoke to each one, and\nkept up a charming and lively conversation. Jesus loved these seasons,\nand was pleased to see his spiritual family thus grouped around\nhim.[1] The participation of the same bread was considered as a kind\nof communion, a reciprocal bond. The master used, in this respect,\nextremely strong terms, which were afterward taken in a very literal\nsense. Jesus was, at the same time, very idealistic in his\nconceptions, and very materialistic in his expression of them. Wishing\nto express the thought that the believer only lives by him, that\naltogether (body, blood, and soul) he was the life of the truly\nfaithful, he said to his disciples, \"I am your nourishment\"--a phrase\nwhich, turned in figurative style, became, \"My flesh is your bread, my\nblood your drink.\" Added to this, the modes of speech employed by\nJesus, always strongly subjective, carried him still further. At\ntable, pointing to the food, he said, \"I am here\"--holding the\nbread--\"this is my body;\" and of the wine, \"This is my blood\"--all\nmodes of speech which were equivalent to, \"I am your nourishment.\"\n\n[Footnote 1: Luke xxii. 15.]\n\nThis mysterious rite obtained great importance in the lifetime of\nJesus. It was probably established some time before the last journey\nto Jerusalem, and it was the result of a general doctrine much more\nthan a determinate act. After the death of Jesus, it became the great\nsymbol of Christian communion,[1] and it is to the most solemn moment\nof the life of the Saviour that its establishment is referred. It was\nwished to see, in the consecration of bread and wine, a farewell\nmemorial which Jesus, at the moment of quitting life, had left to his\ndisciples.[2] They recognized Jesus himself in this sacrament. The\nwholly spiritual idea of the presence of souls, which was one of the\nmost familiar to the Master, which made him say, for instance, that he\nwas personally with his disciples[3] when they were assembled in his\nname, rendered this easily admissible. Jesus, we have already said,\nnever had a very defined notion of that which constitutes\nindividuality. In the degree of exaltation to which he had attained,\nthe ideal surpassed everything to such an extent that the body counted\nfor nothing. We are one when we love one another, when we live in\ndependence on each other; it was thus that he and his disciples were\none.[4] His disciples adopted the same language. Those who for years\nhad lived with him, had seen him constantly take the bread and the cup\n\"between his holy and venerable hands,\"[5] and thus offer himself to\nthem. It was he whom they ate and drank; he became the true passover,\nthe former one having been abrogated by his blood. It is impossible to\ntranslate into our essentially determined idiom, in which a rigorous\ndistinction between the material and the metaphorical must always be\nobserved, habits of style the essential character of which is to\nattribute to metaphor, or rather to the idea it represents, a complete\nreality.\n\n[Footnote 1: _Acts_ ii. 42, 46.]\n\n[Footnote 2: 1 _Cor._ xi. 20, and following.]\n\n[Footnote 3: Matt. xviii. 20.]\n\n[Footnote 4: John xii. entirely.]\n\n[Footnote 5: Canon of the Greek Masses and the Latin Mass (very\nancient).]\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XIX.\n\nINCREASING PROGRESSION OF ENTHUSIASM AND OF EXALTATION.\n\n\nIt is clear that such a religious society, founded solely on the\nexpectation of the kingdom of God, must be in itself very incomplete.\nThe first Christian generation lived almost entirely upon expectations\nand dreams. On the eve of seeing the world come to an end, they\nregarded as useless everything which only served to prolong it.\nPossession of property was interdicted.[1] Everything which attaches\nman to earth, everything which draws him aside from heaven, was to be\navoided. Although several of the disciples were married, there was to\nbe no more marriage on becoming a member of the sect.[2] The celibate\nwas greatly preferred; even in marriage continence was recommended.[3]\nAt one time the master seems to approve of those who should mutilate\nthemselves in prospect of the kingdom of God.[4] In this he was\nconsistent with his principle--\"If thy hand or thy foot offend thee,\ncut them off, and cast them from thee; it is better for thee to enter\ninto life halt or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet to\nbe cast into everlasting fire. And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it\nout, and cast it from thee; it is better for thee to enter into life\nwith one eye, rather than having two eyes to be cast into\nhell-fire.\"[5] The cessation of generation was often considered as\nthe sign and condition of the kingdom of God.[6]\n\n[Footnote 1: Luke xiv. 33; _Acts_ iv. 32, and following, v. 1-11.]\n\n[Footnote 2: Matt. xix. 10, and following; Luke xviii. 29, and\nfollowing.]\n\n[Footnote 3: This is the constant doctrine of Paul. Comp. _Rev._ xiv.\n4.]\n\n[Footnote 4: Matt. xix. 12.]\n\n[Footnote 5: Matt. xviii. 8, 9. Cf. Talmud of Babylon, _Niddah_, 13\n_b_.]\n\n[Footnote 6: Matt. xxii. 30; Mark xii. 25; Luke xx. 35; Ebionite\nGospel, entitled \"Of the Egyptians,\" in Clem. of Alex., _Strom._ iii.\n9, 13, and Clem. Rom., Epist. ii. 12.]\n\nNever, we perceive, would this primitive Church have formed a lasting\nsociety but for the great variety of germs deposited by Jesus in his\nteaching. It required more than a century for the true Christian\nChurch--that which has converted the world--to disengage itself from\nthis little sect of \"latter-day saints,\" and to become a framework\napplicable to the whole of human society. The same thing, indeed, took\nplace in Buddhism, which at first was founded only for monks. The same\nthing would have happened in the order of St. Francis, if that order\nhad succeeded in its pretension of becoming the rule of the whole of\nhuman society. Essentially Utopian in their origin, and succeeding by\ntheir very exaggeration, the great systems of which we have just\nspoken have only laid hold of the world by being profoundly modified,\nand by abandoning their excesses. Jesus did not advance beyond this\nfirst and entirely monachal period, in which it was believed that the\nimpossible could be attempted with impunity. He made no concession to\nnecessity. He boldly preached war against nature, and total severance\nfrom ties of blood. \"Verily I say unto you,\" said he, \"there is no man\nthat hath left house, or parents, or brethren, or wife, or children,\nfor the kingdom of God's sake, who shall not receive manifold more in\nthis present time, and in the world to come life everlasting.\"[1]\n\n[Footnote 1: Luke xviii. 20, 30.]\n\nThe teachings which Jesus is reputed to have given to his disciples\nbreathe the same exaltation.[1] He who was so tolerant to the world\noutside, he who contented himself sometimes with half adhesions,[2]\nexercised toward his own an extreme rigor. He would have no \"all\nbuts.\" We should call it an \"order,\" constituted by the most austere\nrules. Faithful to his idea that the cares of life trouble man, and\ndraw him downward, Jesus required from his associates a complete\ndetachment from the earth, an absolute devotion to his work. They were\nnot to carry with them either money or provisions for the way, not\neven a scrip, or change of raiment. They must practise absolute\npoverty, live on alms and hospitality. \"Freely ye have received,\nfreely give,\"[3] said he, in his beautiful language. Arrested and\narraigned before the judges, they were not to prepare their defence;\nthe _Peraklit_, the heavenly advocate, would inspire them with what\nthey ought to say. The Father would send them his Spirit from on high,\nwhich would become the principle of all their acts, the director of\ntheir thoughts, and their guide through the world.[4] If driven from\nany town, they were to shake the dust from their shoes, declaring\nalways the proximity of the kingdom of God, that none might plead\nignorance. \"Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel,\" added\nhe, \"till the Son of man be come.\"\n\n[Footnote 1: Matt. x., entirely, xxiv. 9; Mark vi. 8, and following,\nix. 40, xiii. 9-13; Luke x. 3, and following, x. 1, and following,\nxii. 4, and following, xxi. 17; John xv. 18, and following, xvii. 14.]\n\n[Footnote 2: Mark ix. 38, and following.]\n\n[Footnote 3: Matt. x. 8. Comp. Midrash Ialkout, _Deut._, sect. 824.]\n\n[Footnote 4: Matt. x. 20; John xiv. 16, and following, 26, xv. 26,\nxvi. 7, 13.]\n\nA strange ardor animates all these discourses, which may in part be\nthe creation of the enthusiasm of his disciples,[1] but which even in\nthat case came indirectly from Jesus, for it was he who had inspired\nthe enthusiasm. He predicted for his followers severe persecutions and\nthe hatred of mankind. He sent them forth as lambs in the midst of\nwolves. They would be scourged in the synagogues, and dragged to\nprison. Brother should deliver up brother to death, and the father his\nson. When they were persecuted in one country they were to flee to\nanother. \"The disciple,\" said he, \"is not above his master, nor the\nservant above his lord. Fear not them which kill the body, but are not\nable to kill the soul. Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing? and\none of them shall not fall to the ground without your Father. But the\nvery hairs of your head are all numbered. Fear ye not, therefore, ye\nare of more value than many sparrows.\"[2] \"Whosoever, therefore,\"\ncontinued he, \"shall confess me before men, him will I confess also\nbefore my Father which is in heaven. But whosoever shall deny me\nbefore men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in\nheaven.\"[3]\n\n[Footnote 1: The expressions in Matt. x. 38, xvi. 24; Mark viii. 34;\nLuke xiv. 27, can only have been conceived after the death of Jesus.]\n\n[Footnote 2: Matt. x. 24-31; Luke xii. 4-7.]\n\n[Footnote 3: Matt. x. 32, 33; Mark viii. 38; Luke ix. 26, xii. 8, 9.]\n\nIn these fits of severity he went so far as to abolish all natural\nties. His requirements had no longer any bounds. Despising the healthy\nlimits of man's nature, he demanded that he should exist only for him,\nthat he should love him alone. \"If any man come to me,\" said he, \"and\nhate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren,\nand sisters, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.\"[1] \"So\nlikewise, whosoever he be of you that forsaketh not all that he hath,\nhe cannot be my disciple.\"[2] There was, at such times, something\nstrange and more than human in his words; they were like a fire\nutterly consuming life, and reducing everything to a frightful\nwilderness. The harsh and gloomy feeling of distaste for the world,\nand of excessive self-abnegation which characterizes Christian\nperfection, was originated, not by the refined and cheerful moralist\nof earlier days, but by the sombre giant whom a kind of grand\npresentiment was withdrawing, more and more, out of the pale of\nhumanity. We should almost say that, in these moments of conflict with\nthe most legitimate cravings of the heart, Jesus had forgotten the\npleasure of living, of loving, of seeing, and of feeling. Employing\nstill more unmeasured language, he even said, \"If any man will come\nafter me, let him deny himself and follow me. He that loveth father or\nmother more than me, is not worthy of me; and he that loveth son or\ndaughter more than me, is not worthy of me. He that findeth his life\nshall lose it, and he that loseth his life for my sake and the\ngospel's, shall find it. What is a man profited if he shall gain the\nwhole world, and lose his own soul?\"[3] Two anecdotes of the kind we\ncannot accept as historical, but which, although they were\nexaggerations, were intended to represent a characteristic feature,\nclearly illustrate this defiance of nature. He said to one man,\n\"Follow me!\"--But he said, \"Lord, suffer me first to go and bury my\nfather.\" Jesus answered, \"Let the dead bury their dead: but go thou\nand preach the kingdom of God.\" Another said to him, \"Lord, I will\nfollow thee; but let me first go bid them farewell, which are at home\nat my house.\" Jesus replied, \"No man, having put his hand to the\nplough, and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God.\"[4] An\nextraordinary confidence, and at times accents of singular sweetness,\nreversing all our ideas of him, caused these exaggerations to be\neasily received. \"Come unto me,\" cried he, \"all ye that labor and are\nheavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and\nlearn of me: for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest\nunto your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.\"[5]\n\n[Footnote 1: Luke xiv. 26. We must here take into account the\nexaggeration of Luke's style.]\n\n[Footnote 2: Luke xiv. 33.]\n\n[Footnote 3: Matt. x. 37-39, xvi. 24, 25; Luke ix. 23-25, xiv. 26, 27,\nxvii. 33; John xii. 25.]\n\n[Footnote 4: Matt. viii. 21, 22; Luke ix. 59-62.]\n\n[Footnote 5: Matt. xi. 28-30.]\n\nA great danger threatened the future of this exalted morality, thus\nexpressed in hyperbolical language and with a terrible energy. By\ndetaching man from earth the ties of life were severed. The Christian\nwould be praised for being a bad son, or a bad patriot, if it was for\nChrist that he resisted his father and fought against his country. The\nancient city, the parent republic, the state, or the law common to\nall, were thus placed in hostility with the kingdom of God. A fatal\ngerm of theocracy was introduced into the world.\n\nFrom this point, another consequence may be perceived. This morality,\ncreated for a temporary crisis, when introduced into a peaceful\ncountry, and in the midst of a society assured of its own duration,\nmust seem impossible. The Gospel was thus destined to become a Utopia\nfor Christians, which few would care to realize. These terrible maxims\nwould, for the greater number, remain in profound oblivion, an\noblivion encouraged by the clergy itself; the Gospel man would prove a\ndangerous man. The most selfish, proud, hard and worldly of all human\nbeings, a Louis XIV. for instance, would find priests to persuade him,\nin spite of the Gospel, that he was a Christian. But, on the other\nhand, there would always be found holy men who would take the sublime\nparadoxes of Jesus literally. Perfection being placed beyond the\nordinary conditions of society, and a complete Gospel life being only\npossible away from the world, the principle of asceticism and of\nmonasticism was established. Christian societies would have two moral\nrules; the one moderately heroic for common men, the other exalted in\nthe extreme for the perfect man; and the perfect man would be the\nmonk, subjected to rules which professed to realize the gospel ideal.\nIt is certain that this ideal, if only on account of the celibacy and\npoverty it imposed, could not become the common law. The monk would be\nthus, in one sense, the only true Christian. Common sense revolts at\nthese excesses; and if we are guided by it, to demand the impossible,\nis a mark of weakness and error. But common sense is a bad judge where\ngreat matters are in question. To obtain little from humanity we must\nask much. The immense moral progress which we owe to the Gospel is the\nresult of its exaggerations. It is thus that it has been, like\nstoicism, but with infinitely greater fulness, a living argument for\nthe divine powers in man, an exalted monument of the potency of the\nwill.\n\nWe may easily imagine that to Jesus, at this period of his life,\neverything which was not the kingdom of God had absolutely\ndisappeared. He was, if we may say so, totally outside nature: family,\nfriendship, country, had no longer any meaning for him. No doubt from\nthis moment he had already sacrificed his life. Sometimes we are\ntempted to believe that, seeing in his own death a means of founding\nhis kingdom, he deliberately determined to allow himself to be\nkilled.[1] At other times, although such a thought only afterward\nbecame a doctrine, death presented itself to him as a sacrifice,\ndestined to appease his Father and to save mankind.[2] A singular\ntaste for persecution and torments[3] possessed him. His blood\nappeared to him as the water of a second baptism with which he ought\nto be baptized, and he seemed possessed by a strange haste to\nanticipate this baptism, which alone could quench his thirst.[4]\n\n[Footnote 1: Matt. xvi. 21-23, xvii. 12, 21, 22.]\n\n[Footnote 2: Mark x. 45.]\n\n[Footnote 3: Luke vi. 22, and following.]\n\n[Footnote 4: Luke xii. 50.]\n\nThe grandeur of his views upon the future was at times surprising. He\ndid not conceal from himself the terrible storm he was about to cause\nin the world. \"Think not,\" said he, with much boldness and beauty,\n\"that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but\na sword. There shall be five in one house divided, three against two,\nand two against three. I am come to set a man at variance against his\nfather, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter-in-law\nagainst her mother-in-law. And a man's foes shall be they of his own\nhousehold.\"[1] \"I am come to send fire on the earth; and what will I,\nif it be already kindled?\"[2] \"They shall put you out of the\nsynagogues,\" he continued; \"yea, the time cometh, that whosoever\nkilleth you, will think that he doeth God service.\"[3] \"If the world\nhate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you. Remember the\nword that I said unto you: The servant is not greater than his lord.\nIf they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you.\"[4]\n\n[Footnote 1: Matt. x. 34-36; Luke xii. 51-53. Compare Micah vii. 5,\n6.]\n\n[Footnote 2: Luke xii. 49. See the Greek text.]\n\n[Footnote 3: John xvi. 2.]\n\n[Footnote 4: John xv. 18-20.]\n\nCarried away by this fearful progression of enthusiasm, and governed\nby the necessities of a preaching becoming daily more exalted, Jesus\nwas no longer free; he belonged to his mission, and, in one sense, to\nmankind. Sometimes one would have said that his reason was disturbed.\nHe suffered great mental anguish and agitation.[1] The great vision of\nthe kingdom of God, glistening before his eyes, bewildered him. His\ndisciples at times thought him mad.[2] His enemies declared him to be\npossessed.[3] His excessively impassioned temperament carried him\nincessantly beyond the bounds of human nature. He laughed at all human\nsystems, and his work not being a work of the reason, that which he\nmost imperiously required was \"faith.\"[4] This was the word most\nfrequently repeated in the little guest-chamber. It is the watchword\nof all popular movements. It is clear that none of these movements\nwould take place if it were necessary that their author should gain\nhis disciples one by one by force of logic. Reflection leads only to\ndoubt. If the authors of the French Revolution, for instance, had had\nto be previously convinced by lengthened meditations, they would all\nhave become old without accomplishing anything; Jesus, in like manner,\naimed less at convincing his hearers than at exciting their\nenthusiasm. Urgent and imperative, he suffered no opposition: men must\nbe converted, nothing less would satisfy him. His natural gentleness\nseemed to have abandoned him; he was sometimes harsh and\ncapricious.[5] His disciples at times did not understand him, and\nexperienced in his presence a feeling akin to fear.[6] Sometimes his\ndispleasure at the slightest opposition led him to commit\ninexplicable and apparently absurd acts.[7]\n\n[Footnote 1: John xii. 27.]\n\n[Footnote 2: Mark iii. 21, and following.]\n\n[Footnote 3: Mark iii. 22; John vii. 20, viii. 48, and following, x.\n20, and following.]\n\n[Footnote 4: Matt. viii. 10, ix. 2, 22, 28, 29, xvii. 19; John vi. 29,\netc.]\n\n[Footnote 5: Matt. xvii. 16; Mark iii. 5, ix. 18; Luke viii. 45, ix.\n41.]\n\n[Footnote 6: It is in Mark especially that this feature is visible;\niv. 40, v. 15, ix. 31, x. 32.]\n\n[Footnote 7: Mark xi. 12-14, 20, and following.]\n\nIt was not that his virtue deteriorated; but his struggle for the\nideal against the reality became insupportable. Contact with the world\npained and revolted him. Obstacles irritated him. His idea of the Son\nof God became disturbed and exaggerated. The fatal law which condemns\nan idea to decay as soon as it seeks to convert men applied to him.\nContact with men degraded him to their level. The tone he had adopted\ncould not be sustained more than a few months; it was time that death\ncame to liberate him from an endurance strained to the utmost, to\nremove him from the impossibilities of an interminable path, and by\ndelivering him from a trial in danger of being too prolonged,\nintroduce him henceforth sinless into celestial peace.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XX.\n\nOPPOSITION TO JESUS.\n\n\nDuring the first period of his career, it does not appear that Jesus\nmet with any serious opposition. His preaching, thanks to the extreme\nliberty which was enjoyed in Galilee, and to the number of teachers\nwho arose on all hands, made no noise beyond a restricted circle. But\nwhen Jesus entered upon a path brilliant with wonders and public\nsuccesses, the storm began to gather. More than once he was obliged to\nconceal himself and fly.[1] Antipas, however, did not interfere with\nhim, although Jesus expressed himself sometimes very severely\nrespecting him.[2] At Tiberias, his usual residence, the Tetrarch was\nonly one or two leagues distant from the district chosen by Jesus for\nthe centre of his activity; he heard speak of his miracles, which he\ndoubtless took to be clever tricks, and desired to see them.[3] The\nincredulous were at that time very curious about this class of\nillusions.[4] With his ordinary tact, Jesus refused to gratify him. He\ntook care not to prejudice his position by mingling with an\nirreligious world, which wished to draw from him an idle amusement; he\naspired only to gain the people; he reserved for the simple, means\nsuitable to them alone.\n\n[Footnote 1: Matt. xii. 14-16; Mark iii. 7, ix. 29, 30.]\n\n[Footnote 2: Mark viii. 15; Luke xiii. 32.]\n\n[Footnote 3: Luke ix. 9, xxiii. 8.]\n\n[Footnote 4: _Lucius_; attributed to Lucian, 4.]\n\nOn one occasion the report was spread that Jesus was no other than\nJohn the Baptist risen from the dead. Antipas became anxious and\nuneasy;[1] and employed artifice to rid his dominions of the new\nprophet. Certain Pharisees, under the pretence of regard for Jesus,\ncame to tell him that Antipas was seeking to kill him. Jesus,\nnotwithstanding his great simplicity, saw the snare, and did not\ndepart.[2] His peaceful manners, and his remoteness from popular\nagitation, ultimately reassured the Tetrarch and dissipated the\ndanger.\n\n[Footnote 1: Matt. xiv. 1, and following; Mark vi. 14, and following;\nLuke ix. 7, and following.]\n\n[Footnote 2: Luke xiii. 31, and following.]\n\nThe new doctrine was by no means received with equal favor in all the\ntowns of Galilee. Not only did incredulous Nazareth continue to reject\nhim who was to become her glory; not only did his brothers persist in\nnot believing in him,[1] but the cities of the lake themselves, in\ngeneral well-disposed, were not all converted. Jesus often complained\nof the incredulity and hardness of heart which he encountered, and\nalthough it is natural that in such reproaches we make allowance for\nthe exaggeration of the preacher, although we are sensible of that\nkind of _convicium seculi_ which Jesus affected in imitation of John\nthe Baptist,[2] it is clear that the country was far from yielding\nitself entirely a second time to the kingdom of God. \"Woe unto thee,\nChorazin! woe unto thee, Bethsaida!\" cried he; \"for if the mighty\nworks which were done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they\nwould have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. But I say unto\nyou, it shall be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon at the day of\njudgment than for you. And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted unto\nheaven, shalt be brought down to hell; for if the mighty works which\nhave been done in thee had been done in Sodom, it would have remained\nuntil this day. But I say unto you, That it shall be more tolerable\nfor the land of Sodom in the day of judgment than for thee.\"[3] \"The\nqueen of the south,\" added he, \"shall rise up in the judgment of this\ngeneration, and shall condemn it: for she came from the uttermost\nparts of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon; and behold, a\ngreater than Solomon is here. The men of Nineveh shall rise in\njudgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: because they\nrepented at the preaching of Jonas; and behold, a greater than Jonas\nis here.\"[4] His wandering life, at first so full of charm, now began\nto weigh upon him. \"The foxes,\" said he, \"have holes, and the birds of\nthe air have nests; but the Son of man hath not where to lay his\nhead.\"[5] Bitterness and reproach took more and more hold upon him. He\naccused unbelievers of not yielding to evidence, and said that, even\nat the moment in which the Son of man should appear in his celestial\nglory, there would still be men who would not believe in him.[6]\n\n[Footnote 1: John vii. 5.]\n\n[Footnote 2: Matt. xii. 39, 45, xiii. 15, xvi. 4; Luke xi. 29.]\n\n[Footnote 3: Matt. xi. 21-24; Luke x. 12-15.]\n\n[Footnote 4: Matt. xii. 41, 42; Luke xi. 31, 32.]\n\n[Footnote 5: Matt. viii. 20; Luke ix. 58.]\n\n[Footnote 6: Luke xviii. 8.]\n\nJesus, in fact, was not able to receive opposition with the coolness\nof the philosopher, who, understanding the reason of the various\nopinions which divide the world, finds it quite natural that all\nshould not agree with him. One of the principal defects of the Jewish\nrace is its harshness in controversy, and the abusive tone which it\nalmost always infuses into it. There never were in the world such\nbitter quarrels as those of the Jews among themselves. It is the\nfaculty of nice discernment which makes the polished and moderate man.\nNow, the lack of this faculty is one of the most constant features of\nthe Semitic mind. Subtle and refined works, the dialogues of Plato,\nfor example, are altogether unknown to these nations. Jesus, who was\nexempt from almost all the defects of his race, and whose leading\nquality was precisely an infinite delicacy, was led in spite of\nhimself to make use of the general style in polemics.[1] Like John the\nBaptist,[2] he employed very harsh terms against his adversaries. Of\nan exquisite gentleness with the simple, he was irritated at\nincredulity, however little aggressive.[3] He was no longer the mild\nteacher who delivered the \"Sermon on the Mount,\" who had met with\nneither resistance nor difficulty. The passion that underlay his\ncharacter led him to make use of the keenest invectives. This singular\nmixture ought not to surprise us. M. de Lamennais, a man of our own\ntimes, has strikingly presented the same contrast. In his beautiful\nbook, the \"Words of a Believer,\" the most immoderate anger and the\nsweetest relentings alternate, as in a mirage. This man, who was\nextremely kind in the intercourse of life, became madly intractable\ntoward those who did not agree with him. Jesus, in like manner,\napplied to himself, not without reason, the passage from Isaiah:[4]\n\"He shall not strive, nor cry; neither shall any man hear his voice in\nthe streets. A bruised reed shall he not break, and smoking flax shall\nhe not quench.\"[5] And yet many of the recommendations which he\naddressed to his disciples contain the germs of a true fanaticism,[6]\ngerms which the Middle Ages were to develop in a cruel manner. Must we\nreproach him for this? No revolution is effected without some\nharshness. If Luther, or the actors in the French Revolution, had been\ncompelled to observe the rules of politeness, neither the Reformation\nnor the Revolution would have taken place. Let us congratulate\nourselves in like manner that Jesus encountered no law which punished\nthe invectives he uttered against one class of citizens. Had such a\nlaw existed, the Pharisees would have been inviolate. All the great\nthings of humanity have been accomplished in the name of absolute\nprinciples. A critical philosopher would have said to his disciples:\nRespect the opinion of others; and believe that no one is so\ncompletely right that his adversary is completely wrong. But the\naction of Jesus has nothing in common with the disinterested\nspeculation of the philosopher. To know that we have touched the ideal\nfor a moment, and have been deterred by the wickedness of a few, is a\nthought insupportable to an ardent soul. What must it have been for\nthe founder of a new world?\n\n[Footnote 1: Matt. xii. 34, xv. 14, xxiii. 33.]\n\n[Footnote 2: Matt. iii. 7.]\n\n[Footnote 3: Matt. xii. 30; Luke xxi. 23.]\n\n[Footnote 4: Isa. xlii. 2, 3.]\n\n[Footnote 5: Matt. xii. 19-20.]\n\n[Footnote 6: Matt. x. 14, 15, 21, and following, 34, and following;\nLuke xix. 27.]\n\nThe invincible obstacle to the ideas of Jesus came especially from\northodox Judaism, represented by the Pharisees. Jesus became more and\nmore alienated from the ancient Law. Now, the Pharisees were the true\nJews; the nerve and sinew of Judaism. Although this party had its\ncentre at Jerusalem, it had adherents either established in Galilee,\nor who often came there.[1] They were, in general, men of a narrow\nmind, caring much for externals; their devoutness was haughty, formal,\nand self-satisfied.[2] Their manners were ridiculous, and excited the\nsmiles of even those who respected them. The epithets which the people\ngave them, and which savor of caricature, prove this. There was the\n\"bandy-legged Pharisee\" (_Nikfi_), who walked in the streets dragging\nhis feet and knocking them against the stones; the \"bloody-browed\nPharisee\" (_Kizai_), who went with his eyes shut in order not to see\nthe women, and dashed his head so much against the walls that it was\nalways bloody; the \"pestle Pharisee\" (_Medinkia_), who kept himself\nbent double like the handle of a pestle; the \"Pharisee of strong\nshoulders\" (_Shikmi_), who walked with his back bent as if he carried\non his shoulders the whole burden of the Law; the\n\"_What-is-there-to-do?-I-do-it Pharisee_,\" always on the search for a\nprecept to fulfil; and, lastly, the \"dyed Pharisee,\" whose externals\nof devotion were but a varnish of hypocrisy.[3] This strictness was,\nin fact, often only apparent, and concealed in reality great moral\nlaxity.[4] The people, nevertheless, were duped by it. The people,\nwhose instinct is always right, even when it is most astray respecting\nindividuals, is very easily deceived by false devotees. That which it\nloves in them is good and worthy of being loved; but it has not\nsufficient penetration to distinguish the appearance from the reality.\n\n[Footnote 1: Mark vii. 1; Luke v. 17, and following, vii. 36.]\n\n[Footnote 2: Matt. vi. 2, 5, 16, ix. 11, 14, xii. 2, xxiii. 5, 15, 23;\nLuke v. 30, vi. 2, 7, xi. 39, and following, xviii. 12; John ix. 16;\n_Pirke Aboth_, i. 16; Jos., _Ant._, XVII. ii. 4, XVIII. i. 3; _Vita_,\n38; Talm. of Bab., _Sota_, 22 _b_.]\n\n[Footnote 3: Talmud of Jerusalem, _Berakoth_, ix., sub fin.; _Sota_,\nv. 7; Talmud of Babylon, _Sota_, 22 _b_. The two compilations of this\ncurious passage present considerable differences. We have, in general,\nfollowed the Babylonian compilation, which seems most natural. Cf.\nEpiph., _Adv. Haer._, xvi. 1. The passages in Epiphanes, and several of\nthose of the Talmud, may, besides, relate to an epoch posterior to\nJesus, an epoch in which \"Pharisee\" had become synonymous with\n\"devotee.\"]\n\n[Footnote 4: Matt. v. 20, xv. 4, xxiii. 3, 16, and following; John\nviii. 7; Jos., _Ant._, XII. ix. 1; XIII. x. 5.]\n\nIt is easy to understand the antipathy which, in such an impassioned\nstate of society, must necessarily break out between Jesus and persons\nof this character. Jesus recognized only the religion of the heart,\nwhilst that of the Pharisees consisted almost exclusively in\nobservances. Jesus sought the humble and outcasts of all kinds, and\nthe Pharisees saw in this an insult to their religion of\nrespectability. The Pharisee was an infallible and faultless man, a\npedant always right in his own conceit, taking the first place in the\nsynagogue, praying in the street, giving alms to the sound of a\ntrumpet, and caring greatly for salutations. Jesus maintained that\neach one ought to await the kingdom of God with fear and trembling.\nThe bad religious tendency represented by Pharisaism did not reign\nwithout opposition. Many men before or during the time of Jesus, such\nas Jesus, son of Sirach (one of the true ancestors of Jesus of\nNazareth), Gamaliel, Antigonus of Soco, and especially the gentle and\nnoble Hillel, had taught much more elevated, and almost Gospel\ndoctrines. But these good seeds had been choked. The beautiful maxims\nof Hillel, summing up the whole law as equity,[1] those of Jesus, son\nof Sirach, making worship consist in doing good,[2] were forgotten or\nanathematized.[3] Shammai, with his narrow and exclusive spirit, had\nprevailed. An enormous mass of \"traditions\" had stifled the Law,[4]\nunder pretext of protecting and interpreting it. Doubtless these\nconservative measures had their share of usefulness; it is well that\nthe Jewish people loved its Law even to excess, since it is this\nfrantic love which, in saving Mosaism under Antiochus Epiphanes and\nunder Herod, has preserved the leaven from which Christianity was to\nemanate. But taken in themselves, all these old precautions were only\npuerile. The synagogue, which was the depository of them, was no more\nthan a parent of error. Its reign was ended; and yet to require its\nabdication was to require the impossible, that which an established\npower has never done or been able to do.\n\n[Footnote 1: Talm. of Bab., _Shabbath_, 31 _a_; _Joma_, 35 _b_.]\n\n[Footnote 2: _Eccles._ xvii. 21, and following, xxxv. 1, and\nfollowing.]\n\n[Footnote 3: Talm. of Jerus., _Sanhedrim_, xi. 1; Talm. of Bab.,\n_Sanhedrim_, 100 _b_.]\n\n[Footnote 4: Matt. xv. 2.]\n\nThe conflicts of Jesus with official hypocrisy were continual. The\nordinary tactics of the reformers who appeared in the religious state\nwhich we have just described, and which might be called \"traditional\nformalism,\" were to oppose the \"text\" of the sacred books to\n\"traditions.\" Religious zeal is always an innovator, even when it\npretends to be in the highest degree conservative. Just as the\nneo-Catholics of our days become more and more remote from the Gospel,\nso the Pharisees left the Bible at each step more and more. This is\nwhy the Puritan reformer is generally essentially \"Biblical,\" taking\nthe unchangeable text for his basis in criticising the current\ntheology, which has changed with each generation. Thus acted later the\nKaraites and the Protestants. Jesus applied the axe to the root of the\ntree much more energetically. We see him sometimes, it is true, invoke\nthe text against the false _Masores_ or traditions of the\nPharisees.[1] But in general he dwelt little on exegesis--it was the\nconscience to which he appealed. With one stroke he cut through both\ntext and commentaries. He showed, indeed, to the Pharisees that they\nseriously perverted Mosaism by their traditions, but he by no means\npretended himself to return to Mosaism. His mission was concerned with\nthe future, not with the past. Jesus was more than the reformer of an\nobsolete religion; he was the creator of the eternal religion of\nhumanity.\n\n[Footnote 1: Matt. xv. 2, and following; Mark vii. 2, and following.]\n\nDisputes broke out especially respecting a number of external\npractices introduced by tradition, which neither Jesus nor his\ndisciples observed.[1] The Pharisees reproached him sharply for this.\nWhen he dined with them, he scandalized them much by not observing the\ncustomary ablutions. \"Give alms,\" said he, \"of such things as ye have;\nand behold, all things are clean unto you.\"[2] That which in the\nhighest degree hurt his refined feeling was the air of assurance which\nthe Pharisees carried into religious matters; their paltry worship,\nwhich ended in a vain seeking after precedents and titles, to the\nutter neglect of the improvement of their hearts. An admirable parable\nrendered this thought with infinite charm and justice. \"Two men,\" said\nhe, \"went up into the temple to pray; the one a Pharisee and the other\na publican. The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I\nthank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust,\nadulterers, or even as this publican. I fast twice in the week, I give\ntithes of all that I possess. And the publican, standing afar off,\nwould not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his\nbreast, saying, God, be merciful to me a sinner. I tell you, this man\nwent down to his house justified rather than the other.\"[3]\n\n[Footnote 1: Matt. xv. 2, and following; Mark vii. 4, 8; Luke v. sub\nfin. and vi. init., xi. 38, and following.]\n\n[Footnote 2: Luke xi. 41.]\n\n[Footnote 3: Luke xviii. 9-14; comp. _ibid._, xiv. 7-11.]\n\nA hate, which death alone could satisfy, was the consequence of these\nstruggles. John the Baptist had already provoked enmities of the same\nkind.[1] But the aristocrats of Jerusalem, who despised him, had\nallowed simple men to take him for a prophet.[2] In the case of Jesus,\nhowever, the war was to the death. A new spirit had appeared in the\nworld, causing all that preceded to pale before it. John the Baptist\nwas completely a Jew; Jesus was scarcely one at all. Jesus always\nappealed to the delicacy of the moral sentiment. He was only a\ndisputant when he argued against the Pharisees, his opponents forcing\nhim, as generally happens, to adopt their tone.[3] His exquisite\nirony, his arch and provoking remarks, always struck home. They were\neverlasting stigmas, and have remained festering in the wound. This\nNessus-shirt of ridicule which the Jew, son of the Pharisees, has\ndragged in tatters after him during eighteen centuries, was woven by\nJesus with a divine skill. Masterpieces of fine raillery, their\nfeatures are written in lines of fire upon the flesh of the hypocrite\nand the false devotee. Incomparable traits, worthy of a son of God! A\ngod alone knows how to kill after this fashion. Socrates and Moliere\nonly touched the skin. He carried fire and rage to the very marrow.\n\n[Footnote 1: Matt. iii. 7, and following, xvii. 12, 13.]\n\n[Footnote 2: Matt. xiv. 5, xxi. 26; Mark xi. 32; Luke xx. 6.]\n\n[Footnote 3: Matt. xii. 3-8, xxiii. 16, and following.]\n\nBut it was also just that this great master of irony should pay for\nhis triumph with his life. Even in Galilee, the Pharisees sought to\nruin him, and employed against him the manoeuvre which ultimately\nsucceeded at Jerusalem. They endeavored to interest in their quarrel\nthe partisans of the new political faction which was established.[1]\nThe facilities Jesus found for escape in Galilee, and the weakness of\nthe government of Antipas, baffled these attempts. He ran into danger\nof his own free will. He saw clearly that his action, if he remained\nconfined to Galilee, was necessarily limited. Judea drew him as by a\ncharm; he wished to try a last effort to gain the rebellious city; and\nseemed anxious to fulfill the proverb--that a prophet must not die\noutside Jerusalem.[2]\n\n[Footnote 1: Mark iii. 6.]\n\n[Footnote 2: Luke xiii. 33.]\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXI.\n\nLAST JOURNEY OF JESUS TO JERUSALEM.\n\n\nJesus had for a long time been sensible of the dangers that surrounded\nhim.[1] During a period of time which we may estimate at eighteen\nmonths, he avoided going on a pilgrimage to Jerusalem.[2] At the feast\nof Tabernacles of the year 32 (according to the hypothesis we have\nadopted), his relations, always malevolent and incredulous,[3] pressed\nhim to go there. The evangelist John seems to insinuate that there was\nsome hidden project to ruin him in this invitation. \"Depart hence, and\ngo into Judea, that thy disciples also may see the works that thou\ndoest. For there is no man that doeth anything in secret, and he\nhimself seeketh to be known openly. If thou do these things, show\nthyself to the world.\" Jesus, suspecting some treachery, at first\nrefused; but when the caravan of pilgrims had set out, he started on\nthe journey, unknown to every one, and almost alone.[4] It was the\nlast farewell which he bade to Galilee. The feast of Tabernacles fell\nat the autumnal equinox. Six months still had to elapse before the\nfatal denouement. But during this interval, Jesus saw no more his\nbeloved provinces of the north. The pleasant days had passed away; he\nmust now traverse, step by step, the painful path that will terminate\nonly in the anguish of death.\n\n[Footnote 1: Matt. xvi. 20, 21; Mark viii. 30, 31.]\n\n[Footnote 2: John vii. 1.]\n\n[Footnote 3: John vii. 5.]\n\n[Footnote 4: John vii. 10.]\n\nHis disciples, and the pious women who tended him, met him again in\nJudea.[1] But how much everything was changed for him there! Jesus\nwas a stranger at Jerusalem. He felt that there was a wall of\nresistance he could not penetrate. Surrounded by snares and\ndifficulties, he was unceasingly pursued by the ill-will of the\nPharisees.[2] Instead of that illimitable faculty of belief, happy\ngift of youthful natures, which he found in Galilee--instead of those\ngood and gentle people, amongst whom objections (always the fruit of\nsome degree of ill-will and indocility) had no existence, he met there\nat each step an obstinate incredulity, upon which the means of action\nthat had so well succeeded in the north had little effect. His\ndisciples were despised as being Galileans. Nicodemus, who, on one of\nhis former journeys, had had a conversation with him by night, almost\ncompromised himself with the Sanhedrim, by having wished to defend\nhim. \"Art thou also of Galilee?\" they said to him. \"Search and look:\nfor out of Galilee ariseth no prophet.\"[3]\n\n[Footnote 1: Matt. xxvii. 55; Mark xv. 41; Luke xxiii. 49, 55.]\n\n[Footnote 2: John vii. 20, 25, 30, 32.]\n\n[Footnote 3: John vii. 50, and following.]\n\nThe city, as we have already said, displeased Jesus. Until then he had\nalways avoided great centres, preferring for his action the country\nand the towns of small importance. Many of the precepts which he gave\nto his apostles were absolutely inapplicable, except in a simple\nsociety of humble men.[1] Having no idea of the world, and accustomed\nto the kindly communism of Galilee, remarks continually escaped him,\nwhose simplicity would at Jerusalem appear very singular.[2] His\nimagination and his love of Nature found themselves constrained within\nthese walls. True religion does not proceed from the tumult of towns,\nbut from the tranquil serenity of the fields.\n\n[Footnote 1: Matt. x. 11-13; Mark vi. 10; Luke x. 5-8.]\n\n[Footnote 2: Matt. xxi. 3, xxvi. 18; Mark xi. 3, xiv. 13, 14; Luke\nxix. 31, xxii. 10-12.]\n\nThe arrogance of the priests rendered the courts of the temple\ndisagreeable to him. One day some of his disciples, who knew Jerusalem\nbetter than he, wished him to notice the beauty of the buildings of\nthe temple, the admirable choice of materials, and the richness of the\nvotive offerings that covered the walls. \"Seest thou these buildings?\"\nsaid he; \"there shall not be left one stone upon another.\"[1] He\nrefused to admire anything, except it was a poor widow who passed at\nthat moment, and threw a small coin into the box. \"She has cast in\nmore than they all,\" said he; \"for all these have of their abundance\ncast in unto the offerings of God; but she of her penury hath cast in\nall the living that she had.\"[2] This manner of criticising all he\nobserved at Jerusalem, of praising the poor who gave little, of\nslighting the rich who gave much,[3] and of blaming the opulent\npriesthood who did nothing for the good of the people, naturally\nexasperated the sacerdotal caste. As the seat of a conservative\naristocracy, the temple, like the Mussulman _haram_ which succeeded\nit, was the last place in the world where revolution could prosper.\nImagine an innovator going in our days to preach the overturning of\nIslamism round the mosque of Omar! There, however, was the centre of\nthe Jewish life, the point where it was necessary to conquer or die.\nOn this Calvary, where certainly Jesus suffered more than at Golgotha,\nhis days passed away in disputation and bitterness, in the midst of\ntedious controversies respecting canonical law and exegesis, for which\nhis great moral elevation, instead of giving him the advantage,\npositively unfitted him.\n\n[Footnote 1: Matt. xxiv. 1, 2; Mark xiii. 1, 2; Luke xix. 44, xxi. 5,\n6. Cf. Mark xi. 11.]\n\n[Footnote 2: Mark xii. 41, and following; Luke xxi. 1, and following.]\n\n[Footnote 3: Mark xii. 41.]\n\nIn the midst of this troubled life, the sensitive and kindly heart of\nJesus found a refuge, where he enjoyed moments of sweetness. After\nhaving passed the day disputing in the temple, toward evening Jesus\ndescended into the valley of Kedron, and rested a while in the orchard\nof a farming establishment (probably for the making of oil) named\nGethsemane,[1] which served as a pleasure garden to the inhabitants.\nThence he proceeded to pass the night upon the Mount of Olives, which\nlimits the horizon of the city on the east.[2] This side is the only\none, in the environs of Jerusalem, which offers an aspect in any\ndegree pleasing and verdant. The plantations of olives, figs, and\npalms were numerous there, and gave their names to the villages,\nfarms, or enclosures of Bethphage, Gethsemane, and Bethany.[3] There\nwere upon the Mount of Olives two great cedars, the memory of which\nwas long preserved amongst the dispersed Jews; their branches served\nas an asylum to clouds of doves, and under their shade were\nestablished small bazaars.[4] All this precinct was in a manner the\nabode of Jesus and his disciples; they knew it field by field and\nhouse by house.\n\n[Footnote 1: Mark xi. 19; Luke xxii. 39; John xviii. 1, 2. This\norchard could not be very far from the place where the piety of the\nCatholics has surrounded some old olive-trees by a wall. The word\n_Gethsemane_ seems to signify \"oil-press.\"]\n\n[Footnote 2: Luke xxi. 37, xxii. 39; John viii. 1, 2.]\n\n[Footnote 3: Talm. of Bab., _Pesachim_, 53 _a_.]\n\n[Footnote 4: Talm. of Jerus., _Taanith_, iv. 8.]\n\nThe village of Bethany, in particular,[1] situated at the summit of\nthe hill, upon the incline which commands the Dead Sea and the Jordan,\nat a journey of an hour and a half from Jerusalem, was the place\nespecially beloved by Jesus.[2] He there made the acquaintance of a\nfamily composed of three persons, two sisters and a brother, whose\nfriendship had a great charm for him.[3] Of the two sisters, the one,\nnamed Martha, was an obliging, kind, and assiduous person;[4] the\nother, named Mary, on the contrary, pleased Jesus by a sort of\nlanguor,[5] and by her strongly developed speculative instincts.\nSeated at the feet of Jesus, she often forgot, in listening to him,\nthe duties of real life. Her sister, upon whom fell all the duty at\nsuch times, gently complained. \"Martha, Martha,\" said Jesus to her,\n\"thou art troubled, and carest about many things; now, one thing only\nis needful. Mary has chosen the better part, which will not be taken\naway.\"[6] Her brother, Eleazar, or Lazarus, was also much beloved by\nJesus.[7] Lastly, a certain Simon, the leper, who was the owner of the\nhouse, formed, it appears, part of the family.[8] It was there, in the\nenjoyment of a pious friendship, that Jesus forgot the vexations of\npublic life. In this tranquil home he consoled himself for the\nbickerings with which the scribes and the Pharisees unceasingly\nsurrounded him. He often sat on the Mount of Olives, facing Mount\nMoriah,[9] having beneath his view the splendid perspective of the\nterraces of the temple, and its roofs covered with glittering plates\nof metal. This view struck strangers with admiration; at the rising of\nthe sun, especially, the sacred mountain dazzled the eyes, and\nappeared like a mass of snow and of gold.[10] But a profound feeling\nof sadness poisoned for Jesus the spectacle that filled all other\nIsraelites with joy and pride. He cried out, in his moments of\nbitterness, \"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets,\nand stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have\ngathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens\nunder her wings, and ye would not.\"[11]\n\n[Footnote 1: Now _El-Azerie_ (from _El-Azir_, the Arabic name of\nLazarus); in the Christian texts of the Middle Ages, _Lazarium_.]\n\n[Footnote 2: Matt. xxi. 17, 18; Mark xi. 11, 12.]\n\n[Footnote 3: John xi. 5.]\n\n[Footnote 4: Luke x. 38-42; John xii. 2.]\n\n[Footnote 5: John xi. 20.]\n\n[Footnote 6: Luke x. 38, and following.]\n\n[Footnote 7: John xi. 35, 36.]\n\n[Footnote 8: Matt. xxvi. 6; Mark xiv. 3; Luke vii. 40-43; John xii. 1,\nand following.]\n\n[Footnote 9: Mark xiii. 3.]\n\n[Footnote 10: Josephus, _B.J._, V. v. 6.]\n\n[Footnote 11: Matt. xxiii. 37; Luke xiii. 34.]\n\nIt was not that many good people here, as in Galilee, were not\ntouched; but such was the power of the dominant orthodoxy, that very\nfew dared to confess it. They feared to discredit themselves in the\neyes of the Hierosolymites by placing themselves in the school of a\nGalilean. They would have risked being driven from the synagogue,\nwhich, in a mean and bigoted society, was the greatest degradation.[1]\nExcommunication, besides, carried with it the confiscation of all\npossessions.[2] By ceasing to be a Jew, a man did not become a Roman;\nbut remained without protection, in the power of a theocratic\nlegislation of the most atrocious severity. One day, the inferior\nofficers of the temple, who had been present at one of the discourses\nof Jesus, and had been enchanted with it, came to confide their doubts\nto the priests: \"Have any of the rulers or of the Pharisees believed\non him?\" was the reply to them; \"but this people who knoweth not the\nLaw are cursed.\"[3] Jesus remained thus at Jerusalem, a provincial\nadmired by provincials like himself, but rejected by all the\naristocracy of the nation. The chiefs of schools and of sects were too\nnumerous for any one to be stirred by seeing one more appear. His\nvoice made little noise in Jerusalem. The prejudices of race and of\nsect, the direct enemies of the spirit of the Gospel, were too deeply\nrooted there.\n\n[Footnote 1: John vii. 13, xii. 42, 43, xix. 38.]\n\n[Footnote 2: 1 Esdr. x. 8; Epistle to Hebrews x. 34; Talmud of Jerus.,\n_Moedkaton_, iii. 1.]\n\n[Footnote 3: John vii. 45, and following.]\n\nHis teaching in this new world necessarily became much modified. His\nbeautiful discourses, the effect of which was always observable upon\nyouthful imaginations and consciences morally pure, here fell upon\nstone. He who was so much at his ease on the shores of his charming\nlittle lake, felt constrained and not at home in the company of\npedants. His perpetual self-assertion appeared somewhat fastidious.[1]\nHe was obliged to become controversialist, jurist, exegetist, and\ntheologian. His conversations, generally so full of charm, became a\nrolling fire of disputes,[2] an interminable train of scholastic\nbattles. His harmonious genius was wasted in insipid argumentations\nupon the Law and the prophets,[3] in which we should have preferred\nnot seeing him sometimes play the part of aggressor.[4] He lent\nhimself with a condescension we cannot but regret to the captious\ncriticisms to which the merciless cavillers subjected him.[5] In\ngeneral, he extricated himself from difficulties with much skill. His\nreasonings, it is true, were often subtle (simplicity of mind and\nsubtlety touch each other; when simplicity reasons, it is often a\nlittle sophistical); we find that sometimes he courted misconceptions,\nand prolonged them intentionally;[6] his reasoning, judged according\nto the rules of Aristotelian logic, was very weak. But when the\nunequaled charm of his mind could be displayed, he was triumphant. One\nday it was intended to embarrass him by presenting to him an\nadulteress and asking him what was to be done to her. We know the\nadmirable answer of Jesus.[7] The fine raillery of a man of the\nworld, tempered by a divine goodness, could not be expressed in a more\nexquisite manner. But the wit which is allied to moral grandeur is\nthat which fools forgive the least. In pronouncing this sentence of so\njust and pure a taste: \"He that is without sin among you, let him\nfirst cast a stone at her,\" Jesus pierced hypocrisy to the heart, and\nwith the same stroke sealed his own death-warrant.\n\n[Footnote 1: John viii. 13, and following.]\n\n[Footnote 2: Matt. xxi. 23-37.]\n\n[Footnote 3: Matt. xxii. 23, and following.]\n\n[Footnote 4: Matt. xxii. 42, and following.]\n\n[Footnote 5: Matt. xxii. 36, and following, 46.]\n\n[Footnote 6: See especially the discussions reported by John, chapter\nviii., for example; it is true that the authenticity of such passages\nis only relative.]\n\n[Footnote 7: John viii. 3, and following. This passage did not at\nfirst form part of the Gospel of St. John; it is wanting in the more\nancient manuscripts, and the text is rather unsettled. Nevertheless,\nit is from the primitive Gospel traditions, as is proved by the\nsingular peculiarities of verses 6 and 8, which are not in the style\nof Luke, and compilers at second hand, who admitted nothing that does\nnot explain itself. This history is found, as it seems, in the Gospel\naccording to the Hebrews. (Papias, quoted by Eusebius, _Hist. Eccl._,\niii. 39.)]\n\nIt is probable, in fact, that but for the exasperation caused by so\nmany bitter shafts, Jesus might long have remained unnoticed, and have\nbeen lost in the dreadful storm which was soon about to overwhelm the\nwhole Jewish nation. The high priesthood and the Sadducees had rather\ndisdained than hated him. The great sacerdotal families, the\n_Boethusim_, the family of Hanan, were only fanatical in their\nconservatism. The Sadducees, like Jesus, rejected the \"traditions\" of\nthe Pharisees.[1] By a very strange singularity, it was these\nunbelievers who, denying the resurrection, the oral Law, and the\nexistence of angels, were the true Jews. Or rather, as the old Law in\nits simplicity no longer satisfied the religious wants of the time,\nthose who strictly adhered to it, and rejected modern inventions, were\nregarded by the devotees as impious, just as an evangelical Protestant\nof the present day is regarded as an unbeliever in Catholic countries.\nAt all events, from such a party no very strong reaction against Jesus\ncould proceed. The official priesthood, with its attention turned\ntoward political power, and intimately connected with it, did not\ncomprehend these enthusiastic movements. It was the middle-class\nPharisees, the innumerable _soferim_, or scribes, living on the\nscience of \"traditions,\" who took the alarm, and whose prejudices and\ninterests were in reality threatened by the doctrine of the new\nteacher.\n\n[Footnote 1: Jos., _Ant._, XIII. x. 6, XVIII. i. 4.]\n\nOne of the most constant efforts of the Pharisees was to involve Jesus\nin the discussion of political questions, and to compromise him as\nconnected with the party of Judas the Gaulonite. These tactics were\nclever; for it required all the deep wisdom of Jesus to avoid\ncollision with the Roman authority, whilst proclaiming the kingdom of\nGod. They wanted to break through this ambiguity, and compel him to\nexplain himself. One day, a group of Pharisees, and of those\npoliticians named \"Herodians\" (probably some of the _Boethusim_),\napproached him, and, under pretense of pious zeal, said unto him,\n\"Master, we know that thou art true, and teachest the way of God in\ntruth, neither carest thou for any man. Tell us, therefore, what\nthinkest thou? Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar, or not?\" They\nhoped for an answer which would give them a pretext for delivering him\nup to Pilate. The reply of Jesus was admirable. He made them show him\nthe image on the coin: \"Render,\" said he, \"unto Caesar the things which\nare Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's.\"[1] Profound\nwords, which have decided the future of Christianity! Words of a\nperfected spiritualism, and of marvellous justness, which have\nestablished the separation between the spiritual and the temporal, and\nlaid the basis of true liberalism and civilization!\n\n[Footnote 1: Matt. xxii. 15, and following; Mark xii. 13, and\nfollowing; Luke xx. 20, and following. Comp. Talm. of Jerus.,\n_Sanhedrim_, ii. 3.]\n\nHis gentle and penetrating genius inspired him when alone with his\ndisciples, with accents full of tenderness. \"Verily, verily, I say\nunto you, he that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but\nclimbeth up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber. But he\nthat entereth in by the door is the shepherd of the sheep. The sheep\nhear his voice: and he calleth his own sheep by name, and leadeth them\nout. He goeth before them, and the sheep follow him; for they know his\nvoice. The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to\ndestroy. But he that is an hireling, and not the shepherd, whose own\nthe sheep are not, seeth the wolf coming, and leaveth the sheep, and\nfleeth. I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of\nmine; and I lay down my life for the sheep.\"[1] The idea that the\ncrisis of humanity was close at hand frequently recurred to him.\n\"Now,\" said he, \"learn a parable of the fig-tree: When his branch is\nyet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is nigh.\nLift up your eyes, and look on the fields; for they are white already\nto harvest.\"[2]\n\n[Footnote 1: John x. 1-16.]\n\n[Footnote 2: Matt. xxiv. 32; Mark xiii. 28; Luke xxi. 30; John iv.\n35.]\n\nHis powerful eloquence always burst forth when contending with\nhypocrisy. \"The scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses' seat. All,\ntherefore, whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but\ndo not ye after their works: for they say and do not. For they bind\nheavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's\nshoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their\nfingers.\n\n\"But all their works they do to be seen of men; they make broad their\nphylacteries,[1] enlarge the borders of their garments,[2] and love\nthe uppermost rooms at feasts, and the chief seats in the synagogues,\nand greetings in the markets, and to be called of men, Rabbi, Rabbi.\nWoe unto them!...\n\n[Footnote 1: _Totafoth_ or _tefillin_, plates of metal or strips of\nparchment, containing passages of the Law; which the devout Jews wore\nattached to the forehead and left arm, in literal fulfilment of the\npassages (_Ex._ xiii. 9; _Deut._ vi. 8, xi. 18.)]\n\n[Footnote 2: _Zizith_, red borders or fringes which the Jews wore at\nthe corner of their cloaks to distinguish them from the pagans (_Num._\nxv. 38, 39; _Deut._ xxii. 12.)]\n\n\"Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye have taken\naway the key of knowledge, shut up the kingdom of heaven against\nmen![1] for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that\nare entering to go in. Woe unto you, for ye devour widows' houses,\nand, for a pretense, make long prayers: therefore ye shall receive the\ngreater damnation. Woe unto you, for ye compass sea and land to make\none proselyte; and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child\nof hell than yourselves! Woe unto you, for ye are as graves which\nappear not; and the men that walk over them are not aware of them.[2]\n\n[Footnote 1: The Pharisees excluded men from the kingdom of God by\ntheir fastidious casuistry, which rendered entrance into it too\ndifficult, and discouraged the unlearned.]\n\n[Footnote 2: Contact with the tombs rendered any one impure. Great\ncare was, therefore, taken to mark their extent on the ground. Talm.\nof Bab., _Baba Bathra_, 58 _a_; _Baba Metsia_, 45 _b_. Jesus here\nreproached the Pharisees for having invented a number of small\nprecepts which might be violated unwittingly, and which only served to\nmultiply infringements of the law.]\n\n\"Ye fools, and blind! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin,\nand have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy,\nand faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other\nundone. Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.\nWoe unto you!\n\n\"Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye make clean\nthe outside of the cup and of the platter;[1] but within they are\nfull of extortion and excess. Thou blind Pharisee,[2] cleanse first\nthat which is within the cup and platter, that the outside of them may\nbe clean also.[3]\n\n[Footnote 1: The purification of vessels was subjected, amongst the\nPharisees, to the most complicated laws (Mark vii. 4.)]\n\n[Footnote 2: This epithet, often repeated (Matt. xxiii. 16, 17, 19,\n24, 26), perhaps contains an allusion to the custom which certain\nPharisees had of walking with closed eyes in affectation of sanctity.]\n\n[Footnote 3: Luke (xi. 37, and following) supposes, not without\nreason, that this verse was uttered during a repast, in answer to the\nvain scruples of the Pharisees.]\n\n\"Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites; for ye are like unto\nwhited sepulchres,[1] which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are\nwithin full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness. Even so ye\nalso outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of\nhypocrisy and iniquity.\n\n[Footnote 1: The tombs being impure, it was customary to whiten them\nwith lime, to warn persons not to approach them. See p. 315, note 3,\nand Mishnah, _Maasar hensi_, v. 1; Talm. of Jerus., _Shekalim_, i. 1;\n_Maasar sheni_, v. 1; _Moed katon_, i. 2; _Sota_, ix. 1; Talm. of\nBab., _Moed katon_, 5 _a_. Perhaps there is an allusion to the \"dyed\nPharisees\" in this comparison which Jesus uses.]\n\n\"Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye build the\ntombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchres of the righteous,\nand say, 'If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have\nbeen partakers with them in the blood of the prophets.' Wherefore, ye\nbe witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which\nkilled the prophets. Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers.\n'Therefore, also,' said the Wisdom of God,[1] 'I will send unto you\nprophets, and wise men, and scribes; and some of them ye shall kill\nand crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and\npersecute them from city to city. That upon you may come all the\nrighteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel\nunto the blood of Zacharias, son of Barachias,[2] whom ye slew between\nthe temple and the altar.' Verily, I say unto you, all these things\nshall come upon this generation.\"[3]\n\n[Footnote 1: We are ignorant from what book this quotation is taken.]\n\n[Footnote 2: There is a slight confusion here, which is also found in\nthe Targum of Jonathan (_Lament._ ii. 20), between Zacharias, son of\nJehoiadas, and Zacharias, son of Barachias, the prophet. It is the\nformer that is spoken of (2 _Paral._ xxiv. 21.) The book of the\nParalipomenes, in which the assassination of Zacharias, son of\nJehoiadas, is related, closes the Hebrew canon. This murder is the\nlast in the list of murders of righteous men, drawn up according to\nthe order in which they are presented in the Bible. That of Abel is,\non the contrary, the first.]\n\n[Footnote 3: Matt. xxiii. 2-36; Mark xii. 38-40; Luke xi. 39-52, xx.\n46, 47.]\n\nHis terrible doctrine of the substitution of the Gentiles--the idea\nthat the kingdom of God was about to be transferred to others, because\nthose for whom it was destined would not receive it,[1] is used as a\nfearful menace against the aristocracy. The title \"Son of God,\" which\nhe openly assumed in striking parables,[2] wherein his enemies\nappeared as murderers of the heavenly messengers, was an open defiance\nto the Judaism of the Law. The bold appeal he addressed to the poor\nwas still more seditious. He declared that he had \"come that they\nwhich see not might see, and that they which see might be made\nblind.\"[3] One day, his dislike of the temple forced from him an\nimprudent speech: \"I will destroy this temple that is made with hands,\nand within three days I will build another made without hands.\"[4] His\ndisciples found strained allegories in this sentence; but we do not\nknow what meaning Jesus attached to it. But as only a pretext was\nwanted, this sentence was quickly laid hold of. It reappeared in the\npreamble of his death-warrant, and rang in his ears amidst the last\nagonies of Golgotha. These irritating discussions always ended in\ntumult. The Pharisees threw stones at him;[5] in doing which they only\nfulfilled an article of the Law, which commanded every prophet, even a\nthaumaturgus, who should turn the people from the ancient worship, to\nbe stoned without a hearing.[6] At other times they called him mad,\npossessed, Samaritan,[7] and even sought to kill him.[8] These words\nwere taken note of in order to invoke against him the laws of an\nintolerant theocracy, which the Roman government had not yet\nabrogated.[9]\n\n[Footnote 1: Matt. viii. 11, 12, xx. 1, and following, xxi. 28, and\nfollowing, 33, and following, 43, xxii. 1, and following; Mark xii. 1,\nand following; Luke xx. 9, and following.]\n\n[Footnote 2: Matt. xxi. 37, and following; John x. 36, and following.]\n\n[Footnote 3: John ix. 39.]\n\n[Footnote 4: The most authentic form of this sentence appears to be in\nMark xiv. 58, xv. 29. Cf. John ii. 19; Matt. xxvi. 61, xxvii. 40.]\n\n[Footnote 5: John viii. 39, x. 31, xi. 8.]\n\n[Footnote 6: _Deuter._ xiii. 1, and following. Comp. Luke xx. 6; John\nx. 33; 2 _Cor._ xi. 25.]\n\n[Footnote 7: John x. 20.]\n\n[Footnote 8: John v. 18, vii. 1, 20, 25, 30, viii. 37, 40.]\n\n[Footnote 9: Luke xi. 53, 54.]\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXII.\n\nMACHINATIONS OF THE ENEMIES OF JESUS.\n\n\nJesus passed the autumn and a part of the winter at Jerusalem. This\nseason is there rather cold. The portico of Solomon, with its covered\naisles, was the place where he habitually walked.[1] This portico\nconsisted of two galleries, formed by three rows of columns, and\ncovered by a ceiling of carved wood.[2] It commanded the valley of\nKedron, which was doubtless less covered with debris than it is at the\npresent time. The depth of the ravine could not be measured, from the\nheight of the portico; and it seemed, in consequence of the angle of\nthe slopes, as if an abyss opened immediately beneath the wall.[3] The\nother side of the valley even at that time was adorned with sumptuous\ntombs. Some of the monuments, which may be seen at the present day,\nwere perhaps those cenotaphs in honor of ancient prophets[4] which\nJesus pointed out, when, seated under the portico, he denounced the\nofficial classes, who covered their hypocrisy or their vanity by these\ncolossal piles.[5]\n\n[Footnote 1: John x. 23.]\n\n[Footnote 2: Jos., _B.J._, V. v. 2. Comp. _Ant._, XV. xi. 5, XX. ix.\n7.]\n\n[Footnote 3: Jos., places cited.]\n\n[Footnote 4: See ante, p. 316. I am led to suppose that the tombs\ncalled those of Zachariah and of Absalom were monuments of this kind.\nCf. _Itin. a Burdig. Hierus._, p. 153 (edit. Schott.)]\n\n[Footnote 5: Matt. xxiii. 29; Luke xi. 47.]\n\nAt the end of the month of December, he celebrated at Jerusalem the\nfeast established by Judas Maccabeus in memory of the purification of\nthe temple after the sacrileges of Antiochus Epiphanes.[1] It was\nalso called the \"Feast of Lights,\" because, during the eight days of\nthe feast, lamps were kept lighted in the houses.[2] Jesus undertook\nsoon after a journey into Perea and to the banks of the Jordan--that\nis to say, into the very country he had visited some years previously,\nwhen he followed the school of John,[3] and in which he had himself\nadministered baptism. He seems to have reaped consolation from this\njourney, especially at Jericho. This city, as the terminus of several\nimportant routes, or, it may be, on account of its gardens of spices\nand its rich cultivation,[4] was a customs station of importance. The\nchief receiver, Zaccheus, a rich man, desired to see Jesus.[5] As he\nwas of small stature, he climbed a sycamore tree near the road which\nthe procession had to pass. Jesus was touched with this simplicity in\na person of consideration, and at the risk of giving offense, he\ndetermined to stay with Zaccheus. There was much dissatisfaction at\nhis honoring the house of a sinner by this visit. In parting, Jesus\ndeclared his host to be a good son of Abraham; and, as if to add to\nthe vexation of the orthodox, Zaccheus became a Christian; he gave, it\nis said, the half of his goods to the poor, and restored fourfold to\nthose whom he might have wronged. But this was not the only pleasure\nwhich Jesus experienced there. On leaving the town, the beggar\nBartimeus[6] pleased him much by persisting in calling him \"son of\nDavid,\" although he was told to be silent. The cycle of Galilean\nmiracles appeared for a time to recommence in this country, which was\nin many respects similar to the provinces of the north. The delightful\noasis of Jericho, at that time well watered, must have been one of the\nmost beautiful places in Syria. Josephus speaks of it with the same\nadmiration as of Galilee, and calls it, like the latter province, a\n\"divine country.\"[7]\n\n[Footnote 1: John x. 22. Comp. 1 Macc. iv. 52, and following; 2 Macc.\nx. 6, and following.]\n\n[Footnote 2: Jos., _Ant._, XII. vii. 7.]\n\n[Footnote 3: John x. 40. Cf. Matt. xix. 1; Mark x. 1. This journey is\nknown to the synoptics. But they seem to think that Jesus made it by\ncoming from Galilee to Jerusalem through Perea.]\n\n[Footnote 4: _Eccles._ xxiv. 18; Strabo, XVI. ii. 41; Justin., xxxvi.\n3; Jos., _Ant._, IV. vi. 1, XIV. iv. 1, XV. iv. 2.]\n\n[Footnote 5: Luke xix. 1, and following.]\n\n[Footnote 6: Matt. xx. 29; Mark x. 46, and following; Luke xviii. 35.]\n\n[Footnote 7: _B.J._, IV. viii. 3. Comp. _ibid._, I. vi. 6, I. xviii.\n5, and _Antiq._, XV. iv. 2.]\n\nAfter Jesus had completed this kind of pilgrimage to the scenes of his\nearliest prophetic activity, he returned to his beloved abode in\nBethany, where a singular event occurred, which seems to have had a\npowerful influence on the remaining days of his life.[1] Tired of the\ncold reception which the kingdom of God found in the capital, the\nfriends of Jesus wished for a great miracle which should strike\npowerfully the incredulity of the Hierosolymites. The resurrection of\na man known at Jerusalem appeared to them most likely to carry\nconviction. We must bear in mind that the essential condition of true\ncriticism is to understand the diversity of times, and to rid\nourselves of the instinctive repugnances which are the fruit of a\npurely rational education. We must also remember that in this dull and\nimpure city of Jerusalem, Jesus was no longer himself. Not by any\nfault of his own, but by that of others, his conscience had lost\nsomething of its original purity. Desperate, and driven to extremity,\nhe was no longer his own master. His mission overwhelmed him, and he\nyielded to the torrent. As always happens in the lives of great and\ninspired men, he suffered the miracles opinion demanded of him rather\nthan performed them. At this distance of time, and with only a single\ntext, bearing evident traces of artifices of composition, it is\nimpossible to decide whether in this instance the whole is fiction, or\nwhether a real fact which happened at Bethany has served as a basis to\nthe rumors which were spread about it. It must be acknowledged,\nhowever, that the way John narrates the incident differs widely from\nthose descriptions of miracles, the offspring of the popular\nimagination, which fill the synoptics. Let us add, that John is the\nonly evangelist who has a precise knowledge of the relations of Jesus\nwith the family of Bethany, and that it is impossible to believe that\na mere creation of the popular mind could exist in a collection of\nremembrances so entirely personal. It is, then, probable that the\nmiracle in question was not one of those purely legendary ones for\nwhich no one is responsible. In other words, we think that something\nreally happened at Bethany which was looked upon as a resurrection.\n\n[Footnote 1: John xi. 1, and following.]\n\nFame already attributed to Jesus two or three works of this kind.[1]\nThe family of Bethany might be led, almost without suspecting it, into\ntaking part in the important act which was desired. Jesus was adored\nby them. It seems that Lazarus was sick, and that in consequence of\nreceiving a message from the anxious sisters Jesus left Perea.[2] They\nthought that the joy Lazarus would feel at his arrival might restore\nhim to life. Perhaps, also, the ardent desire of silencing those who\nviolently denied the divine mission of Jesus, carried his enthusiastic\nfriends beyond all bounds. It may be that Lazarus, still pallid with\ndisease, caused himself to be wrapped in bandages as if dead, and shut\nup in the tomb of his family. These tombs were large vaults cut in\nthe rock, and were entered by a square opening, closed by an enormous\nstone. Martha and Mary went to meet Jesus, and without allowing him to\nenter Bethany, conducted him to the cave. The emotion which Jesus\nexperienced at the tomb of his friend, whom he believed to be dead,[3]\nmight be taken by those present for the agitation and trembling[4]\nwhich accompanied miracles. Popular opinion required that the divine\nvirtue should manifest itself in man as an epileptic and convulsive\nprinciple. Jesus (if we follow the above hypothesis) desired to see\nonce more him whom he had loved; and, the stone being removed, Lazarus\ncame forth in his bandages, his head covered with a winding-sheet.\nThis reappearance would naturally be regarded by every one as a\nresurrection. Faith knows no other law than the interest of that which\nit believes to be true. Regarding the object which it pursues as\nabsolutely holy, it makes no scruple of invoking bad arguments in\nsupport of its thesis when good ones do not succeed. If such and such\na proof be not sound many others are! If such and such a wonder be not\nreal, many others have been! Being intimately persuaded that Jesus was\na thaumaturgus, Lazarus and his two sisters may have aided in the\nexecution of one of his miracles, just as many pious men who,\nconvinced of the truth of their religion, have sought to triumph over\nthe obstinacy of their opponents by means of whose weakness they were\nwell aware. The state of their conscience was that of the stigmatists,\nof the convulsionists, of the possessed ones in convents, drawn, by\nthe influence of the world in which they live, and by their own\nbelief, into feigned acts. As to Jesus, he was no more able than St.\nBernard or St. Francis d'Assisi to moderate the avidity for the\nmarvellous, displayed by the multitude, and even by his own disciples.\nDeath, moreover, in a few days would restore him his divine liberty,\nand release him from the fatal necessities of a position which each\nday became more exacting, and more difficult to sustain.\n\n[Footnote 1: Matt. ix. 18, and following; Mark v. 22, and following;\nLuke vii. 11, and following, viii. 41, and following.]\n\n[Footnote 2: John xi. 3, and following.]\n\n[Footnote 3: John xi. 35, and following.]\n\n[Footnote 4: John xi. 33, 38.]\n\nEverything, in fact, seems to lead us to believe that the miracle of\nBethany contributed sensibly to hasten the death of Jesus.[1] The\npersons who had been witnesses of it, were dispersed throughout the\ncity, and spoke much about it. The disciples related the fact, with\ndetails as to its performance, prepared in expectation of controversy.\nThe other miracles of Jesus were transitory acts, spontaneously\naccepted by faith, exaggerated by popular fame, and were not again\nreferred to after they had once taken place. This was a real event,\nheld to be publicly notorious, and one by which it was hoped to\nsilence the Pharisees.[2] The enemies of Jesus were much irritated at\nall this fame. They endeavored, it is said, to kill Lazarus.[3] It is\ncertain, that from that time a Council of the chief priests[4] was\nassembled, and that in this council the question was clearly put: \"Can\nJesus and Judaism exist together?\" To raise the question was to\nresolve it; and without being a prophet, as thought by the evangelist,\nthe high priest could easily pronounce his cruel axiom: \"It is\nexpedient that one man should die for the people.\"\n\n[Footnote 1: John xi. 40, and following, xii. 2, 9, and following, 17,\nand following.]\n\n[Footnote 2: John xii. 9, 10, 17, 18.]\n\n[Footnote 3: John xii. 10.]\n\n[Footnote 4: John xi. 47, and following.]\n\n\"The high priest of that same year,\" to use an expression of the\nfourth Gospel, which well expresses the state of abasement to which\nthe sovereign pontificate was reduced, was Joseph Kaiapha, appointed\nby Valerius Gratus, and entirely devoted to the Romans. From the time\nthat Jerusalem had been under the government of procurators, the\noffice of high priest had been a temporary one; changes in it took\nplace nearly every year.[1] Kaiapha, however, held it longer than any\none else. He had assumed his office in the year 25, and he did not\nlose it till the year 36. His character is unknown to us, and many\ncircumstances lead to the belief that his power was only nominal. In\nfact, another personage is always seen in conjunction with, and even\nsuperior to him, who, at the decisive moment we have now reached,\nseems to have exercised a preponderating power.\n\n[Footnote 1: Jos., _Ant._, XV. iii. 1, XVIII. ii. 2, v. 3, XX. ix. 1,\n4.]\n\nThis personage was Hanan or Annas,[1] son of Seth, and father-in-law\nof Kaiapha. He was formerly the high priest, and had in reality\npreserved amidst the numerous changes of the pontificate all the\nauthority of the office. He had received the high priesthood from the\nlegate Quirinius, in the year 7 of our era. He lost his office in the\nyear 14, on the accession of Tiberius; but he remained much respected.\nHe was still called \"high priest,\" although he was out of office,[2]\nand he was consulted upon all important matters. During fifty years\nthe pontificate continued in his family almost uninterruptedly; five\nof his sons successively sustained this dignity,[3] besides Kaiapha,\nwho was his son-in-law. His was called the \"priestly family,\" as if\nthe priesthood had become hereditary in it.[4] The chief offices of\nthe temple were almost all filled by them.[5] Another family, that of\nBoethus, alternated, it is true, with that of Hanan's in the\npontificate.[6] But the _Boethusim_, whose fortunes were of not very\nhonorable origin, were much less esteemed by the pious middle class.\nHanan was then in reality the chief of the priestly party. Kaiapha did\nnothing without him; it was customary to associate their names, and\nthat of Hanan was always put first.[7] It will be understood, in fact,\nthat under this _regime_ of an annual pontificate, changed according\nto the caprice of the procurators, an old high priest, who had\npreserved the secret of the traditions, who had seen many younger than\nhimself succeed each other, and who had retained sufficient influence\nto get the office delegated to persons who were subordinate to him in\nfamily rank, must have been a very important personage. Like all the\naristocracy of the temple,[8] he was a Sadducee, \"a sect,\" says\nJosephus, \"particularly severe in its judgments.\" All his sons also\nwere violent persecutors.[9] One of them, named like his father,\nHanan, caused James, the brother of the Lord, to be stoned, under\ncircumstances not unlike those which surrounded the death of Jesus.\nThe spirit of the family was haughty, bold, and cruel;[10] it had that\nparticular kind of proud and sullen wickedness which characterizes\nJewish politicians. Therefore, upon this Hanan and his family must\nrest the responsibility of all the acts which followed. It was Hanan\n(or the party he represented) who killed Jesus. Hanan was the\nprincipal actor in the terrible drama, and far more than Kaiapha, far\nmore than Pilate, ought to bear the weight of the maledictions of\nmankind.\n\n[Footnote 1: The _Ananus_ of Josephus. It is thus that the Hebrew name\n_Johanan_ became in Greek _Joannes_ or _Joannas_.]\n\n[Footnote 2: John xviii. 15-23; _Acts_ iv. 6.]\n\n[Footnote 3: Jos., _Ant._, XX. ix. 1.]\n\n[Footnote 4: Jos., _Ant._, XV. iii. 1; _B.J._, IV. v. 6 and 7; _Acts_\niv. 6.]\n\n[Footnote 5: Jos., _Ant._, XX. ix. 3.]\n\n[Footnote 6: Jos., _Ant._, XV. ix. 3, XIX. vi. 2, viii. 1.]\n\n[Footnote 7: Luke iii. 2.]\n\n[Footnote 8: _Acts_ v. 17.]\n\n[Footnote 9: Jos., _Ant._, XX. ix. 1.]\n\n[Footnote 10: Jos., _Ant._, XX. ix. 1.]\n\nIt is in the mouth of Kaiapha that the evangelist places the decisive\nwords which led to the death of Jesus.[1] It was supposed that the\nhigh priest possessed a certain gift of prophecy; his declaration thus\nbecame an oracle full of profound meaning to the Christian community.\nBut such an expression, whoever he might be that pronounced it, was\nthe feeling of the whole sacerdotal party. This party was much opposed\nto popular seditions. It sought to put down religious enthusiasts,\nrightly foreseeing that by their excited preachings they would lead to\nthe total ruin of the nation. Although the excitement created by Jesus\nwas in nowise temporal, the priests saw, as an ultimate consequence of\nthis agitation, an aggravation of the Roman yoke and the overturning\nof the temple, the source of their riches and honors.[2] Certainly the\ncauses which, thirty-seven years after, were to effect the ruin of\nJerusalem, did not arise from infant Christianity. They arose in\nJerusalem itself, and not in Galilee. We cannot, however, say that the\nmotive alleged in this circumstance by the priests was so improbable\nthat we must necessarily regard it as insincere. In a general, sense,\nJesus, if he had succeeded, would have really effected the ruin of the\nJewish nation. According to the principles universally admitted by all\nancient polity, Hanan and Kaiapha were right in saying: \"Better the\ndeath of one man than the ruin of a people!\" In our opinion this\nreasoning is detestable. But it has been that of conservative parties\nfrom the commencement of all human society. The \"party of order\" (I\nuse this expression in its mean and narrow sense) has ever been the\nsame. Deeming the highest duty of government to be the prevention of\npopular disturbances, it believes it performs an act of patriotism in\npreventing, by judicial murder, the tumultuous effusion of blood.\nLittle thoughtful of the future, it does not dream that in declaring\nwar against all innovations, it incurs the risk of crushing ideas\ndestined one day to triumph. The death of Jesus was one of the\nthousand illustrations of this policy. The movement he directed was\nentirely spiritual, but it was still a movement; hence the men of\norder, persuaded that it was essential for humanity not to be\ndisturbed, felt themselves bound to prevent the new spirit from\nextending itself. Never was seen a more striking example of how much\nsuch a course of procedure defeats its own object. Left free, Jesus\nwould have exhausted himself in a desperate struggle with the\nimpossible. The unintelligent hate of his enemies decided the success\nof his work, and sealed his divinity.\n\n[Footnote 1: John xi. 49, 50. Cf. _ibid._, xviii. 14.]\n\n[Footnote 2: John xi. 48.]\n\nThe death of Jesus was thus resolved upon from the month of February\nor the beginning of March.[1] But he still escaped for a short time.\nHe withdrew to an obscure town called Ephraim or Ephron, in the\ndirection of Bethel, a short day's journey from Jerusalem.[2] He spent\na few days there with his disciples, letting the storm pass over. But\nthe order to arrest him the moment he appeared at Jerusalem was given.\nThe feast of the Passover was drawing nigh, and it was thought that\nJesus, according to his custom, would come to celebrate it at\nJerusalem.[3]\n\n[Footnote 1: John xi. 53.]\n\n[Footnote 2: John xi. 54. Cf. 2 _Chron._ xiii. 19; Jos., _B.J._, IV.\nix. 9; Eusebius and St. Jerome, _De situ et nom. loc. hebr._, at the\nwords [Greek: Ephron] and [Greek: Ephraim].]\n\n[Footnote 3: John xi. 55, 56. For the order of the events, in all this\npart we follow the system of John. The synoptics appear to have little\ninformation as to the period of the life of Jesus which precedes the\nPassion.]\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXIII.\n\nLAST WEEK OF JESUS.\n\n\nJesus did in fact set out with his disciples to see once more, and for\nthe last time, the unbelieving city. The hopes of his companions were\nmore and more exalted. All believed, in going up to Jerusalem, that\nthe kingdom of God was about to be realized there.[1] The impiety of\nmen being at its height, was regarded as a great sign that the\nconsummation was at hand. The persuasion in this respect was such,\nthat they already disputed for precedence in the kingdom.[2] This was,\nit is said, the moment chosen by Salome to ask, on behalf of her sons,\nthe two seats on the right and left of the Son of man.[3] The Master,\non the other hand, was beset by grave thoughts. Sometimes he allowed a\ngloomy resentment against his enemies to appear; he related the\nparable of a nobleman, who went to take possession of a kingdom in a\nfar country; but no sooner had he gone than his fellow-citizens wished\nto get rid of him. The king returned, and commanded those who had\nconspired against him to be brought before him, and had them all put\nto death.[4] At other times he summarily destroyed the illusions of\nthe disciples. As they marched along the stony roads to the north of\nJerusalem, Jesus pensively preceded the group of his companions. All\nregarded him in silence, experiencing a feeling of fear, and not\ndaring to interrogate him. Already, on various occasions, he had\nspoken to them of his future sufferings, and they had listened to him\nreluctantly.[5] Jesus at last spoke to them, and no longer concealing\nhis presentiments, discoursed to them of his approaching end.[6] There\nwas great sadness in the whole company. The disciples were expecting\nsoon to see the sign appear in the clouds. The inaugural cry of the\nkingdom of God: \"Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the\nLord,\"[7] resounded already in joyous accents in their ears. The\nfearful prospect he foreshadowed, troubled them. At each step of the\nfatal road, the kingdom of God became nearer or more remote in the\nmirage of their dreams. As to Jesus, he became confirmed in the idea\nthat he was about to die, but that his death would save the world.[8]\nThe misunderstanding between him and his disciples became greater each\nmoment.\n\n[Footnote 1: Luke xix. 11.]\n\n[Footnote 2: Luke xxii. 24, and following.]\n\n[Footnote 3: Matt. xx. 20, and following; Mark x. 35, and following.]\n\n[Footnote 4: Luke xix. 12-27.]\n\n[Footnote 5: Matt. xvi. 21, and following; Mark viii. 31, and\nfollowing.]\n\n[Footnote 6: Matt. xx. 17, and following; Mark x. 31, and following;\nLuke xviii. 31, and following.]\n\n[Footnote 7: Matt. xxiii. 39; Luke xiii. 35.]\n\n[Footnote 8: Matt. xx. 28.]\n\nThe custom was to come to Jerusalem several days before the Passover,\nin order to prepare for it. Jesus arrived late, and at one time his\nenemies thought they were frustrated in their hope of seizing him.[1]\nThe sixth day before the feast (Saturday, 8th of Nisan, equal to the\n28th March[2]) he at last reached Bethany. He entered, according to\nhis custom, the house of Lazarus, Martha and Mary, or of Simon the\nleper. They gave him a great reception. There was a dinner at Simon\nthe leper's,[3] where many persons were assembled, drawn thither by\nthe desire of seeing him, and also of seeing Lazarus, of whom for\nsome time so many things had been related. Lazarus was seated at the\ntable, and attracted much attention. Martha served, according to her\ncustom.[4] It seems that they sought, by an increased show of respect,\nto overcome the coolness of the public, and to assert the high dignity\nof their guest. Mary, in order to give to the event a more festive\nappearance, entered during dinner, bearing a vase of perfume which she\npoured upon the feet of Jesus. She afterward broke the vase, according\nto an ancient custom by which the vessel that had been employed in the\nentertainment of a stranger of distinction was broken.[5] Then, to\ntestify her worship in an extraordinary manner, she prostrated herself\nat the feet of her Master and wiped them with her long hair.[6] All\nthe house was filled with the odor of the perfume, to the great\ndelight of every one except the avaricious Judas of Kerioth.\nConsidering the economical habits of the community, this was certainly\nprodigality. The greedy treasurer calculated immediately how much the\nperfume might have been sold for, and what it would have realized for\nthe poor. This not very affectionate feeling, which seemed to place\nsomething above Jesus, dissatisfied him. He liked to be honored, for\nhonors served his aim and established his title of Son of David.\nTherefore, when they spoke to him of the poor, he replied rather\nsharply: \"Ye have the poor always with you; but me ye have not\nalways.\" And, exalting himself, he promised immortality to the woman\nwho in this critical moment gave him a token of love.[7]\n\n[Footnote 1: John xi. 56.]\n\n[Footnote 2: The Passover was celebrated on the 14th of Nisan. Now in\nthe year 33, the 1st of Nisan corresponded with Saturday, 21st of\nMarch.]\n\n[Footnote 3: Matt. xxvi. 6; Mark xiv. 3. Cf. Luke vii. 40, 43, 44.]\n\n[Footnote 4: It is customary, in the East, for a person who is\nattached to any one by a tie of affection or of domesticity, to attend\nupon him when he goes to eat at the house of another.]\n\n[Footnote 5: I have seen this custom still practised at Sour (Zoar.)]\n\n[Footnote 6: We must remember that the feet of the guests were not, as\namongst us, concealed under the table, but extended on a level with\nthe body on the divan, or _triclinium_.]\n\n[Footnote 7: Matt. xxvi. 6, and following; Mark xiv. 3, and following;\nJohn xi. 2, xii. 2, and following. Compare Luke vii. 36, and\nfollowing.]\n\nThe next day (Sunday, 9th of Nisan), Jesus descended from Bethany to\nJerusalem.[1] When, at a bend of the road, upon the summit of the\nMount of Olives, he saw the city spread before him, it is said he wept\nover it, and addressed to it a last appeal.[2] At the base of the\nmountain, at some steps from the gate, on entering the neighboring\nportion of the eastern wall of the city, which was called _Bethphage_,\nno doubt on account of the fig-trees with which it was planted,[3] he\nhad experienced a momentary pleasure.[4] His arrival was noised\nabroad. The Galileans who had come to the feast were highly elated,\nand prepared a little triumph for him. An ass was brought to him,\nfollowed, according to custom, by its colt. The Galileans spread their\nfinest garments upon the back of this humble animal as saddle-cloths,\nand seated him thereon. Others, however, spread their garments upon\nthe road, and strewed it with green branches. The multitude which\npreceded and followed him, carrying palms, cried: \"Hosanna to the son\nof David! Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord!\" Some\npersons even gave him the title of king of Israel.[5] \"Master, rebuke\nthy disciples,\" said the Pharisees to him. \"If these should hold\ntheir peace, the stones would immediately cry out,\" replied Jesus, and\nhe entered into the city. The Hierosolymites, who scarcely knew him,\nasked who he was. \"It is Jesus, the prophet of Nazareth, in Galilee,\"\nwas the reply. Jerusalem was a city of about 50,000 souls.[6] A\ntrifling event, such as the entrance of a stranger, however little\ncelebrated, or the arrival of a band of provincials, or a movement of\npeople to the avenues of the city, could not fail, under ordinary\ncircumstances, to be quickly noised about. But at the time of the\nfeast, the confusion was extreme.[7] Jerusalem at these times was\ntaken possession of by strangers. It was amongst the latter that the\nexcitement appears to have been most lively. Some proselytes, speaking\nGreek, who had come to the feast, had their curiosity piqued, and\nwished to see Jesus. They addressed themselves to his disciples;[8]\nbut we do not know the result of the interview. Jesus, according to\nhis custom, went to pass the night at his beloved village of\nBethany.[9] The three following days (Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday)\nhe descended regularly to Jerusalem; and, after the setting of the\nsun, he returned either to Bethany, or to the farms on the western\nside of the Mount of Olives, where he had many friends.[10]\n\n[Footnote 1: John xii. 12.]\n\n[Footnote 2: Luke xix. 41, and following.]\n\n[Footnote 3: Mishnah, _Menachoth_, xi. 2; Talm. of Bab., _Sanhedrim_,\n14 _b_; _Pesachim_, 63 _b_, 91 _a_; _Sota_, 45 _a_; _Baba metsia_, 85\n_a_. It follows from these passages that Bethphage was a kind of\n_pomaerium_, which extended to the foot of the eastern basement of the\ntemple, and which had itself its wall of inclosure. The passages Matt.\nxxi. 1, Mark xi. 1, Luke xix. 29, do not plainly imply that Bethphage\nwas a village, as Eusebius and St. Jerome have supposed.]\n\n[Footnote 4: Matt. xxi. 1, and following; Mark xi. 1, and following;\nLuke xix. 29, and following; John xii. 12, and following.]\n\n[Footnote 5: Luke xix. 38; John xii. 13.]\n\n[Footnote 6: The number of 120,000, given by Hecataeus (in Josephus,\n_Contra Apion_, I. xxii.), appears exaggerated. Cicero speaks of\nJerusalem as of a paltry little town (_Ad Atticum_, II. ix.) The\nancient boundaries, whichever calculation we adopt, do not allow of a\npopulation quadruple of that of the present time, which does not reach\n15,000. See Robinson, _Bibl. Res._, i. 421, 422 (2d edition);\nFergusson, _Topogr. of Jerus._, p. 51; Forster, _Syria and Palestine_,\np. 82.]\n\n[Footnote 7: Jos., _B.J._, II. xiv. 3, VI. ix. 3.]\n\n[Footnote 8: John xii. 20, and following.]\n\n[Footnote 9: Matt. xxi. 17; Mark xi. 11.]\n\n[Footnote 10: Matt. xxi. 17, 18; Mark xi. 11, 12, 19; Luke xxi. 37,\n38.]\n\nA deep melancholy appears, during these last days, to have filled the\nsoul of Jesus, who was generally so joyous and serene. All the\nnarratives agree in relating that, before his arrest, he underwent a\nshort experience of doubt and trouble; a kind of anticipated agony.\nAccording to some, he suddenly exclaimed, \"Now is my soul troubled. O\nFather, save me from this hour.\"[1] It was believed that a voice from\nheaven was heard at this moment: others said that an angel came to\nconsole him.[2] According to one widely spread version, the incident\ntook place in the garden of Gethsemane. Jesus, it was said, went about\na stone's throw from his sleeping disciples, taking with him only\nPeter and the two sons of Zebedee, and fell on his face and prayed.\nHis soul was sad even unto death; a terrible anguish weighed upon him;\nbut resignation to the divine will sustained him.[3] This scene, owing\nto the instinctive art which regulated the compilation of the\nsynoptics, and often led them in the arrangement of the narrative to\nstudy adaptability and effect, has been given as occurring on the last\nnight of the life of Jesus, and at the precise moment of his arrest.\nIf this version were the true one, we should scarcely understand why\nJohn, who had been the intimate witness of so touching an episode,\nshould not mention it in the very circumstantial narrative which he\nhas furnished of the evening of the Thursday.[4] All that we can\nsafely say is, that, during his last days, the enormous weight of the\nmission he had accepted pressed cruelly upon Jesus. Human nature\nasserted itself for a time. Perhaps he began to hesitate about his\nwork. Terror and doubt took possession of him, and threw him into a\nstate of exhaustion worse than death. He who has sacrificed his\nrepose, and the legitimate rewards of life, to a great idea, always\nexperiences a feeling of revulsion when the image of death presents\nitself to him for the first time, and seeks to persuade him that all\nhas been in vain. Perhaps some of those touching reminiscences which\nthe strongest souls preserve, and which at times pierce like a sword,\ncame upon him at this moment. Did he remember the clear fountains of\nGalilee where he was wont to refresh himself; the vine and the\nfig-tree under which he had reposed, and the young maidens who,\nperhaps, would have consented to love him? Did he curse the hard\ndestiny which had denied him the joys conceded to all others? Did he\nregret his too lofty nature, and, victim of his greatness, did he\nmourn that he had not remained a simple artisan of Nazareth? We know\nnot. For all these internal troubles evidently were a sealed letter to\nhis disciples. They understood nothing of them, and supplied by simple\nconjectures that which in the great soul of their Master was obscure\nto them. It is certain, at least, that his divine nature soon regained\nthe supremacy. He might still have avoided death; but he would not.\nLove for his work sustained him. He was willing to drink the cup to\nthe dregs. Henceforth we behold Jesus entirely himself; his character\nunclouded. The subtleties of the polemic, the credulity of the\nthaumaturgus and of the exorcist, are forgotten. There remains only\nthe incomparable hero of the Passion, the founder of the rights of\nfree conscience, and the complete model which all suffering souls will\ncontemplate in order to fortify and console themselves.\n\n[Footnote 1: John xii. 27, and following. We can easily imagine that\nthe exalted tone of John, and his exclusive preoccupation with the\ndivine character of Jesus, may have effaced from the narrative the\ncircumstances of natural weakness related by the synoptics.]\n\n[Footnote 2: Luke xxii. 43; John xii. 28, 29.]\n\n[Footnote 3: Matt. xxvi. 36, and following; Mark xiv. 32, and\nfollowing; Luke xxii. 39, and following.]\n\n[Footnote 4: This is the less to be understood, as John is affectedly\nparticular in noticing the circumstances which were personal to him,\nor of which he had been the only witness (xiii. 23, and following,\nxviii. 15, and following, xix. 26, and following, 35, xx. 2, and\nfollowing, xxi. 20, and following.)]\n\nThe triumph of Bethphage--that bold act of the provincials in\ncelebrating at the very gates of Jerusalem the advent of their\nMessiah-King--completed the exasperation of the Pharisees and the\naristocracy of the temple. A new council was held on the Wednesday\n(12th of Nisan) in the house of Joseph Kaiapha.[1] The immediate\narrest of Jesus was resolved upon. A great idea of order and of\nconservative policy governed all their plans. The desire was to avoid\na scene. As the feast of the Passover, which commenced that year on\nthe Friday evening, was a time of bustle and excitement, it was\nresolved to anticipate it. Jesus being popular,[2] they feared an\noutbreak; the arrest was therefore fixed for the next day, Thursday.\nIt was resolved, also, not to seize him in the temple, where he came\nevery day,[3] but to observe his habits, in order to seize him in some\nretired place. The agents of the priests sounded his disciples, hoping\nto obtain useful information from their weakness or their simplicity.\nThey found what they sought in Judas of Kerioth. This wretch, actuated\nby motives impossible to explain, betrayed his Master, gave all the\nnecessary information, and even undertook himself (although such an\nexcess of vileness is scarcely credible) to guide the troop which was\nto effect his arrest. The remembrance of horror which the folly or the\nwickedness of this man has left in the Christian tradition has\ndoubtless given rise to some exaggeration on this point. Judas, until\nthen, had been a disciple like the others; he had even the title of\napostle; and he had performed miracles and driven out demons. Legend,\nwhich always uses strong and decisive language, describes the\noccupants of the little supper-room as eleven saints and one\nreprobate. Reality does not proceed by such absolute categories.\nAvarice, which the synoptics give as the motive of the crime in\nquestion, does not suffice to explain it. It would be very singular if\na man who kept the purse, and who knew what he would lose by the death\nof his chief, were to abandon the profits of his occupation[4] in\nexchange for a very small sum of money.[5] Had the self-love of Judas\nbeen wounded by the rebuff which he had received at the dinner at\nBethany? Even that would not explain his conduct. John would have us\nregard him as a thief, an unbeliever from the beginning,[6] for which,\nhowever, there is no probability. We would rather ascribe it to some\nfeeling of jealousy or to some dissension amongst the disciples. The\npeculiar hatred John manifests toward Judas[7] confirms this\nhypothesis. Less pure in heart than the others, Judas had, from the\nvery nature of his office, become unconsciously narrow-minded. By a\ncaprice very common to men engaged in active duties, he had come to\nregard the interests of the treasury as superior even to those of the\nwork for which it was intended. The treasurer had overcome the\napostle. The murmurings which escaped him at Bethany seem to indicate\nthat sometimes he thought the Master cost his spiritual family too\ndear. No doubt this mean economy had caused many other collisions in\nthe little society.\n\n[Footnote 1: Matt. xxvi. 1, 5; Mark xiv. 1, 2; Luke xxii. 1, 2.]\n\n[Footnote 2: Matt. xxi. 46.]\n\n[Footnote 3: Matt. xxvi. 55.]\n\n[Footnote 4: John xii. 6.]\n\n[Footnote 5: John does not even speak of a payment in money.]\n\n[Footnote 6: John vi. 65, xii. 6.]\n\n[Footnote 7: John vi. 65, 71, 72, xii. 6; xiii. 2, 27, and following.]\n\nWithout denying that Judas of Kerioth may have contributed to the\narrest of his Master, we still believe that the curses with which he\nis loaded are somewhat unjust. There was, perhaps, in his deed more\nawkwardness than perversity. The moral conscience of the man of the\npeople is quick and correct, but unstable and inconsistent. It is at\nthe mercy of the impulse of the moment. The secret societies of the\nrepublican party were characterized by much earnestness and sincerity,\nand yet their denouncers were very numerous. A trifling spite sufficed\nto convert a partisan into a traitor. But if the foolish desire for a\nfew pieces of silver turned the head of poor Judas, he does not seem\nto have lost the moral sentiment completely, since when he had seen\nthe consequences of his fault he repented,[1] and, it is said, killed\nhimself.\n\n[Footnote 1: Matt. xxvii. 3, and following.]\n\nEach moment of this eventful period is solemn, and counts more than\nwhole ages in the history of humanity. We have arrived at the\nThursday, 13th of Nisan (2d April). The evening of the next day\ncommenced the festival of the Passover, begun by the feast in which\nthe Paschal lamb was eaten. The festival continued for seven days,\nduring which unleavened bread was eaten. The first and the last of\nthese seven days were peculiarly solemn. The disciples were already\noccupied with preparations for the feast.[1] As to Jesus, we are led\nto believe that he knew of the treachery of Judas, and that he\nsuspected the fate that awaited him. In the evening he took his last\nrepast with his disciples. It was not the ritual feast of the\npassover, as was afterward supposed, owing to an error of a day in\nreckoning,[2] but for the primitive church this supper of the\nThursday was the true passover, the seal of the new covenant. Each\ndisciple connected with it his most cherished remembrances, and\nnumerous touching traits of the Master which each one preserved were\nassociated with this repast, which became the corner-stone of\nChristian piety, and the starting-point of the most fruitful\ninstitutions.\n\n[Footnote 1: Matt. xxvi. 1, and following; Mark xiv. 12; Luke xxii. 7;\nJohn xiii. 29.]\n\n[Footnote 2: This is the system of the synoptics (Matt. xxvi. 17, and\nfollowing; Mark xiv. 12, and following; Luke xxii. 7, and following,\n15.) But John, whose narrative of this portion has a greater\nauthority, expressly states that Jesus died the same day on which the\nPaschal lamb was eaten (xiii. 1, 2, 29, xviii. 28, xix. 14, 31.) The\nTalmud also makes Jesus to die \"on the eve of the Passover\" (Talm. of\nBab., _Sanhedrim_, 43 _a_, 67 _a_.)]\n\nDoubtless the tender love which filled the heart of Jesus for the\nlittle church which surrounded him overflowed at this moment,[1] and\nhis strong and serene soul became buoyant, even under the weight of\nthe gloomy preoccupations that beset him. He had a word for each of\nhis friends; two among them especially, John and Peter, were the\nobjects of tender marks of attachment. John (at least according to his\nown account) was reclining on the divan, by the side of Jesus, his\nhead resting upon the breast of the Master. Toward the end of the\nrepast, the secret which weighed upon the heart of Jesus almost\nescaped him: he said, \"Verily I say unto you, that one of you shall\nbetray me.\"[2] To these simple men this was a moment of anguish; they\nlooked at each other, and each questioned himself. Judas was present;\nperhaps Jesus, who had for some time had reasons to suspect him,\nsought by this expression to draw from his looks or from his\nembarrassed manner the confession of his fault. But the unfaithful\ndisciple did not lose countenance; he even dared, it is said, to ask\nwith the others: \"Master, is it I?\"\n\n[Footnote 1: John xiii. 1, and following.]\n\n[Footnote 2: Matt. xxvi. 21, and following; Mark xiv. 18, and\nfollowing; Luke xx. 21, and following; John xiii. 21, and following,\nxxi. 20.]\n\nMeanwhile, the good and upright soul of Peter was in torture. He made\na sign to John to endeavor to ascertain of whom the Master spoke.\nJohn, who could converse with Jesus without being heard, asked him the\nmeaning of this enigma. Jesus having only suspicions, did not wish to\npronounce any name; he only told John to observe to whom he was going\nto offer a sop. At the same time he soaked the bread and offered it to\nJudas. John and Peter alone had cognizance of the fact. Jesus\naddressed to Judas words which contained a bitter reproach, but which\nwere not understood by those present; and he left the company. They\nthought that Jesus was simply giving him orders for the morrow's\nfeast.[1]\n\n[Footnote 1: John xiii. 21, and following, which shows the\nimprobabilities of the narrative of the synoptics.]\n\nAt the time, this repast struck no one; and apart from the\napprehensions which the Master confided to his disciples, who only\nhalf understood them, nothing extraordinary took place. But after the\ndeath of Jesus, they attached to this evening a singularly solemn\nmeaning, and the imagination of believers spread a coloring of sweet\nmysticism over it. The last hours of a cherished friend are those we\nbest remember. By an inevitable illusion, we attribute to the\nconversations we have then had with him a meaning which death alone\ngives to them; we concentrate into a few hours the memories of many\nyears. The greater part of the disciples saw their Master no more\nafter the supper of which we have just spoken. It was the farewell\nbanquet. In this repast, as in many others, Jesus practised his\nmysterious rite of the breaking of bread. As it was early believed\nthat the repast in question took place on the day of the Passover, and\nwas the Paschal feast, the idea naturally arose that the Eucharistic\ninstitution was established at this supreme moment. Starting from the\nhypothesis that Jesus knew beforehand the precise moment of his death,\nthe disciples were led to suppose that he reserved a number of\nimportant acts for his last hours. As, moreover, one of the\nfundamental ideas of the first Christians was that the death of Jesus\nhad been a sacrifice, replacing all those of the ancient Law, the\n\"Last Supper,\" which was supposed to have taken place, once for all,\non the eve of the Passion, became the supreme sacrifice--the act which\nconstituted the new alliance--the sign of the blood shed for the\nsalvation of all.[1] The bread and wine, placed in connection with\ndeath itself, were thus the image of the new testament that Jesus had\nsealed with his sufferings--the commemoration of the sacrifice of\nChrist until his advent.[2]\n\n[Footnote 1: Luke xxii. 20.]\n\n[Footnote 2: 1 _Cor._ xi. 26.]\n\nVery early this mystery was embodied in a small sacramental narrative,\nwhich we possess under four forms,[1] very similar to one another.\nJohn, preoccupied with the Eucharistic ideas,[2] and who relates the\nLast Supper with so much prolixity, connecting with it so many\ncircumstances and discourses[3]--and who was the only one of the\nevangelists whose testimony on this point has the value of an\neye-witness--does not mention this narrative. This is a proof that he\ndid not regard the Eucharist as a peculiarity of the Lord's Supper.\nFor him the special rite of the Last Supper was the washing of feet.\nIt is probable that in certain primitive Christian families this\nlatter rite obtained an importance which it has since lost.[4] No\ndoubt, Jesus, on some occasions, had practised it to give his\ndisciples an example of brotherly humility. It was connected with the\neve of his death, in consequence of the tendency to group around the\nLast Supper all the great moral and ritual recommendations of Jesus.\n\n[Footnote 1: Matt. xxvi. 26-28; Mark xiv. 22-24; Luke xxii. 19-21; 1\n_Cor._ xi. 23-25.]\n\n[Footnote 2: Chap. vi.]\n\n[Footnote 3: Chaps. xiii.-xvii.]\n\n[Footnote 4: John xiii. 14, 15. Cf. Matt. xx. 26, and following; Luke\nxxii. 26, and following.]\n\nA high sentiment of love, of concord, of charity, and of mutual\ndeference, animated, moreover, the remembrances which were cherished\nof the last hours of Jesus.[1] It is always the unity of his Church,\nconstituted by him or by his Spirit, which is the soul of the symbols\nand of the discourses which Christian tradition referred to this\nsacred moment: \"A new commandment I give unto you,\" said he, \"that ye\nlove one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.\nBy this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love\none to another. Henceforth I call you not servants; for the servant\nknoweth not what his lord doeth: but I have called you friends; for\nall things that I have heard of my Father I have made known unto you.\nThese things I command you, that ye love one another.\"[2] At this last\nmoment there were again evoked rivalries and struggles for\nprecedence.[3] Jesus remarked, that if he, the Master, had been in the\nmidst of his disciples as their servant, how much more ought they to\nsubmit themselves to one another. According to some, in drinking the\nwine, he said, \"I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine\nuntil that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's\nkingdom.\"[4] According to others, he promised them soon a celestial\nfeast, where they would be seated on thrones at his side.[5]\n\n[Footnote 1: John xiii. 1, and following. The discourses placed by\nJohn after the narrative of the Last Supper cannot be taken as\nhistorical. They are full of peculiarities and of expressions which\nare not in the style of the discourses of Jesus; and which, on the\ncontrary, are very similar to the habitual language of John. Thus the\nexpression \"little children\" in the vocative (John xiii. 33) is very\nfrequent in the First Epistle of John. It does not appear to have been\nfamiliar to Jesus.]\n\n[Footnote 2: John xiii. 33-35, xv. 12-17.]\n\n[Footnote 3: Luke xxii. 24-27. Cf. John xiii. 4, and following.]\n\n[Footnote 4: Matt. xxvi. 29; Mark xiv. 25; Luke xxii. 18.]\n\n[Footnote 5: Luke xxii. 29, 30.]\n\nIt seems that, toward the end of the evening, the presentiments of\nJesus took hold of the disciples. All felt that a very serious danger\nthreatened the Master, and that they were approaching a crisis. At one\ntime Jesus thought of precautions, and spoke of swords. There were two\nin the company. \"It is enough,\" said he.[1] He did not, however,\nfollow out this idea; he saw clearly that timid provincials would not\nstand before the armed force of the great powers of Jerusalem. Peter,\nfull of zeal, and feeling sure of himself, swore that he would go with\nhim to prison and to death. Jesus, with his usual acuteness, expressed\ndoubts about him. According to a tradition, which probably came from\nPeter himself, Jesus declared that Peter would deny him before the\ncrowing of the cock. All, like Peter, swore that they would remain\nfaithful to him.[2]\n\n[Footnote 1: Luke xxii. 36-38.]\n\n[Footnote 2: Matt. xxvi. 31, and following; Mark xiv. 29, and\nfollowing; Luke xxii. 33, and following; John xiii. 36, and\nfollowing.]\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXIV.\n\nARREST AND TRIAL OF JESUS.\n\n\nIt was nightfall[1] when they left the room.[2] Jesus, according to\nhis custom, passed through the valley of Kedron; and, accompanied by\nhis disciples, went to the garden of Gethsemane, at the foot of the\nMount of Olives,[3] and sat down there. Overawing his friends by his\ninherent greatness, he watched and prayed. They were sleeping near\nhim, when all at once an armed troop appeared bearing lighted torches.\nIt was the guards of the temple, armed with staves, a kind of police\nunder the control of the priests. They were supported by a detachment\nof Roman soldiers with their swords. The order for the arrest emanated\nfrom the high priest and the Sanhedrim.[4] Judas, knowing the habits\nof Jesus, had indicated this place as the one where he might most\neasily be surprised. Judas, according to the unanimous tradition of\nthe earliest times, accompanied the detachment himself;[5] and\naccording to some,[6] he carried his hateful conduct even to betraying\nhim by a kiss. However this may be, it is certain that there was some\nshow of resistance on the part of the disciples.[7] One of them\n(Peter, according to eye-witnesses[8]) drew his sword, and wounded the\near of one of the servants of the high priest, named Malchus. Jesus\nrestrained this opposition, and gave himself up to the soldiers. Weak\nand incapable of effectual resistance, especially against authorities\nwho had so much prestige, the disciples took flight, and became\ndispersed; Peter and John alone did not lose sight of their Master.\nAnother unknown young man followed him, covered with a light garment.\nThey sought to arrest him, but the young man fled, leaving his tunic\nin the hands of the guards.[9]\n\n[Footnote 1: John xiii. 30.]\n\n[Footnote 2: The singing of a religious hymn, related by Matt. xxvi.\n30, and Mark xiv. 26, proceeds from the opinion entertained by these\ntwo evangelists that the last repast of Jesus was the Paschal feast.\nBefore and after the Paschal feast, psalms were sung. Talm. of Bab.,\n_Pesachim_, cap. ix. hal. 3, and fol. 118 _a_, etc.]\n\n[Footnote 3: Matt. xxvi. 36; Mark xiv. 32; Luke xxii. 39; John xviii.\n1, 2.]\n\n[Footnote 4: Matt. xxvi. 47; Mark xiv. 43; John xviii. 3, 12.]\n\n[Footnote 5: Matt. xxvi. 47; Mark xiv. 43; Luke xxii. 47; John xviii.\n3; _Acts_ i. 16.]\n\n[Footnote 6: This is the tradition of the synoptics. In the narrative\nof John, Jesus declares himself.]\n\n[Footnote 7: The two traditions are agreed on this point.]\n\n[Footnote 8: John xviii. 10.]\n\n[Footnote 9: Mark xiv. 51, 52.]\n\nThe course which the priests had resolved to take against Jesus was\nquite in conformity with the established law. The procedure against\nthe \"corrupter\" (_mesith_), who sought to injure the purity of\nreligion, is explained in the Talmud, with details, the naive\nimpudence of which provokes a smile. A judicial ambush is there made\nan essential part of the examination of criminals. When a man was\naccused of being a \"corrupter,\" two witnesses were suborned who were\nconcealed behind a partition. It was arranged to bring the accused\ninto a contiguous room, where he could be heard by these two without\nhis perceiving them. Two candles were lighted near him, in order that\nit might be satisfactorily proved that the witnesses \"saw him.\"[1] He\nwas then made to repeat his blasphemy, and urged to retract it. If he\npersisted, the witnesses who had heard him conducted him to the\ntribunal, and he was stoned to death. The Talmud adds, that this was\nthe manner in which they treated Jesus; that he was condemned on the\nfaith of two witnesses who had been suborned, and that the crime of\n\"corruption\" is, moreover, the only one for which the witnesses are\nthus prepared.[2]\n\n[Footnote 1: In criminal matters, eye-witnesses alone were admitted.\nMishnah, _Sanhedrim_, iv. 5.]\n\n[Footnote 2: Talm. of Jerus., _Sanhedrim_, xiv. 16; Talm. of Bab.,\nsame treatise, 43 _a_, 67 _a_. Cf. _Shabbath_, 104 _b_.]\n\nWe learn from the disciples of Jesus themselves that the crime with\nwhich their Master was charged was that of \"corruption;\"[1] and apart\nfrom some minutiae, the fruit of the rabbinical imagination, the\nnarrative of the Gospels corresponds exactly with the procedure\ndescribed by the Talmud. The plan of the enemies of Jesus was to\nconvict him, by the testimony of witnesses and by his own avowals, of\nblasphemy, and of outrage against the Mosaic religion, to condemn him\nto death according to law, and then to get the condemnation sanctioned\nby Pilate. The priestly authority, as we have already seen, was in\nreality entirely in the hands of Hanan. The order for the arrest\nprobably came from him. It was before this powerful personage that\nJesus was first brought.[2] Hanan questioned him as to his doctrine\nand his disciples. Jesus, with proper pride, refused to enter into\nlong explanations. He referred Hanan to his teachings, which had been\npublic; he declared he had never held any secret doctrine; and desired\nthe ex-high priest to interrogate those who had listened to him. This\nanswer was perfectly natural; but the exaggerated respect with which\nthe old priest was surrounded made it appear audacious; and one of\nthose present replied to it, it is said, by a blow.\n\n[Footnote 1: Matt. xxvii. 63; John vii. 12, 47.]\n\n[Footnote 2: John xviii. 13, and following. This circumstance, which\nwe only find in John, is the strongest proof of the historic value of\nthe fourth Gospel.]\n\nPeter and John had followed their Master to the dwelling of Hanan.\nJohn, who was known in the house, was admitted without difficulty; but\nPeter was stopped at the entrance, and John was obliged to beg the\nporter to let him pass. The night was cold. Peter stopped in the\nantechamber, and approached a brasier, around which the servants were\nwarming themselves. He was soon recognized as a disciple of the\naccused. The unfortunate man, betrayed by his Galilean accent, and\npestered by questions from the servants, one of whom, a kinsman of\nMalchus, had seen him at Gethsemane, denied thrice that he had ever\nhad the least connection with Jesus. He thought that Jesus could not\nhear him, and never imagined that this cowardice, which he sought to\nhide by his dissimulation, was exceedingly dishonorable. But his\nbetter nature soon revealed to him the fault he had committed. A\nfortuitous circumstance, the crowing of the cock, recalled to him a\nremark that Jesus had made. Touched to the heart, he went out and wept\nbitterly.[1]\n\n[Footnote 1: Matt. xxvi. 69, and following; Mark xiv. 66, and\nfollowing; Luke xxii. 54, and following; John xviii. 15, and\nfollowing, 25, and following.]\n\nHanan, although the true author of the judicial murder about to be\naccomplished, had not power to pronounce the sentence upon Jesus; he\nsent him to his son-in-law, Kaiapha, who bore the official title. This\nman, the blind instrument of his father-in-law, would naturally ratify\neverything that had been done. The Sanhedrim was assembled at his\nhouse.[1] The inquiry commenced; and several witnesses, prepared\nbeforehand according to the inquisitorial process described in the\nTalmud, appeared before the tribunal. The fatal sentence which Jesus\nhad really uttered: \"I am able to destroy the temple of God and to\nbuild it in three days,\" was cited by two witnesses. To blaspheme the\ntemple of God was, according to the Jewish law, to blaspheme God\nhimself.[2] Jesus remained silent, and refused to explain the\nincriminated speech. If we may believe one version, the high priest\nthen adjured him to say if he were the Messiah; Jesus confessed it,\nand proclaimed before the assembly the near approach of his heavenly\nreign.[3] The courage of Jesus, who had resolved to die, renders this\nnarrative superfluous. It is probable that here, as when before Hanan,\nhe remained silent. This was in general his rule of conduct during his\nlast moments. The sentence was settled; and they only sought for\npretexts. Jesus felt this, and did not undertake a useless defense. In\nthe light of orthodox Judaism, he was truly a blasphemer, a destroyer\nof the established worship. Now, these crimes were punished by the law\nwith death.[4] With one voice, the assembly declared him guilty of a\ncapital crime. The members of the council who secretly leaned to him,\nwere absent or did not vote.[5] The frivolity which characterizes old\nestablished aristocracies, did not permit the judges to reflect long\nupon the consequences of the sentence they had passed. Human life was\nat that time very lightly sacrificed; doubtless the members of the\nSanhedrim did not dream that their sons would have to render account\nto an angry posterity for the sentence pronounced with such careless\ndisdain.\n\n[Footnote 1: Matt. xvi. 57; Mark xiv. 53; Luke xxii. 66.]\n\n[Footnote 2: Matt. xxiii. 16, and following.]\n\n[Footnote 3: Matt. xxvi. 64; Mark xiv. 62; Luke xxii. 69. John knows\nnothing of this scene.]\n\n[Footnote 4: _Levit._ xxiv. 14, and following; _Deut._ xiii. 1, and\nfollowing.]\n\n[Footnote 5: Luke xxiii. 50, 51.]\n\nThe Sanhedrim had not the right to execute a sentence of death.[1] But\nin the confusion of powers which then reigned in Judea, Jesus was,\nfrom that moment, none the less condemned. He remained the rest of\nthe night exposed to the ill-treatment of an infamous pack of\nservants, who spared him no indignity.[2]\n\n[Footnote 1: John xviii. 31; Jos., _Ant._, XX. ix. 1.]\n\n[Footnote 2: Matt. xxvi. 67, 68; Mark xiv. 65; Luke xxii. 63-65.]\n\nIn the morning the chief priests and the elders again assembled.[1]\nThe point was, to get Pilate to ratify the condemnation pronounced by\nthe Sanhedrim, which, since the occupation of the Romans, was no\nlonger sufficient. The procurator was not invested, like the imperial\nlegate, with the disposal of life and death. But Jesus was not a Roman\ncitizen; it only required the authorization of the governor in order\nthat the sentence pronounced against him should take its course. As\nalways happens, when a political people subjects a nation in which the\ncivil and the religious laws are confounded, the Romans had been\nbrought to give to the Jewish law a sort of official support. The\nRoman law did not apply to Jews. The latter remained under the\ncanonical law which we find recorded in the Talmud, just as the Arabs\nin Algeria are still governed by the code of Islamism. Although\nneutral in religion, the Romans thus very often sanctioned penalties\ninflicted for religious faults. The situation was nearly that of the\nsacred cities of India under the English dominion, or rather that\nwhich would be the state of Damascus if Syria were conquered by a\nEuropean nation. Josephus asserts, though this may be doubted, that if\na Roman trespassed beyond the pillars which bore inscriptions\nforbidding pagans to advance, the Romans themselves would have\ndelivered him to the Jews to be put to death.[2]\n\n[Footnote 1: Matt. xxvii. 1; Mark xv. 1; Luke xxii. 66, xxiii. 1; John\nxviii 28.]\n\n[Footnote 2: Jos., _Ant._, XV. xi. 5; _B.J._, VI. ii. 4.]\n\nThe agents of the priests therefore bound Jesus and led him to the\njudgment-hall, which was the former palace of Herod,[1] adjoining the\nTower of Antonia.[2] It was the morning of the day on which the\nPaschal lamb was to be eaten (Friday the 14th of Nisan, our 3d of\nApril). The Jews would have been defiled by entering the\njudgment-hall, and would not have been able to share in the sacred\nfeast. They therefore remained without.[3] Pilate being informed of\ntheir presence, ascended the _bima_[4] or tribunal, situated in the\nopen air,[5] at the place named _Gabbatha_, or in Greek,\n_Lithostrotos_, on account of the pavement which covered the ground.\n\n[Footnote 1: Philo, _Legatio ad Caium_, Sec. 38. Jos., _B.J._, II. xiv.\n8.]\n\n[Footnote 2: The exact place now occupied by the seraglio of the Pacha\nof Jerusalem.]\n\n[Footnote 3: John xviii. 28.]\n\n[Footnote 4: The Greek word [Greek: Bema] had passed into the\nSyro-Chaldaic.]\n\n[Footnote 5: Jos., _B.J._, II. ix. 3, xiv. 8; Matt. xxvii. 27; John\nxviii. 33.]\n\nHe had scarcely been informed of the accusation, before he displayed\nhis annoyance at being mixed up with this affair.[1] He then shut\nhimself up in the judgment-hall with Jesus. There a conversation took\nplace, the precise details of which are lost, no witness having been\nable to repeat it to the disciples, but the tenor of which appears to\nhave been well divined by John. His narrative, in fact, perfectly\naccords with what history teaches us of the mutual position of the two\ninterlocutors.\n\n[Footnote 1: John xviii. 29.]\n\nThe procurator, Pontius, surnamed Pilate, doubtless on account of the\n_pilum_ or javelin of honor with which he or one of his ancestors was\ndecorated,[1] had hitherto had no relation with the new sect.\nIndifferent to the internal quarrels of the Jews, he only saw in all\nthese movements of sectaries, the results of intemperate imaginations\nand disordered brains. In general, he did not like the Jews, but the\nJews detested him still more. They thought him hard, scornful, and\npassionate, and accused him of improbable crimes.[2]\n\n[Footnote 1: Virg., _AEn._, XII. 121; Martial, _Epigr._, I. xxxii., X.\nxlviii.; Plutarch, _Life of Romulus_, 29. Compare the _hasta pura_, a\nmilitary decoration. Orelli and Henzen, _Inscr. Lat._, Nos. 3574,\n6852, etc. _Pilatus_ is, on this hypothesis, a word of the same form\nas _Torquatus_.]\n\n[Footnote 2: Philo, _Leg. ad Caium_, Sec. 38.]\n\nJerusalem, the centre of a great national fermentation, was a very\nseditious city, and an insupportable abode for a foreigner. The\nenthusiasts pretended that it was a fixed design of the new procurator\nto abolish the Jewish law.[1] Their narrow fanaticism, and their\nreligious hatreds, disgusted that broad sentiment of justice and civil\ngovernment which the humblest Roman carried everywhere with him. All\nthe acts of Pilate which are known to us, show him to have been a good\nadministrator.[2] In the earlier period of the exercise of his office,\nhe had difficulties with those subject to him which he had solved in a\nvery brutal manner; but it seems that essentially he was right. The\nJews must have appeared to him a people behind the age; he doubtless\njudged them as a liberal prefect formerly judged the Bas-Bretons, who\nrebelled for such trifling matters as a new road, or the establishment\nof a school. In his best projects for the good of the country, notably\nin those relating to public works, he had encountered an impassable\nobstacle in the Law. The Law restricted life to such a degree that it\nopposed all change, and all amelioration. The Roman structures, even\nthe most useful ones, were objects of great antipathy on the part of\nzealous Jews.[3] Two votive escutcheons with inscriptions, which he\nhad set up at his residence near the sacred precincts, provoked a\nstill more violent storm.[4] Pilate at first cared little for these\nsusceptibilities; and he was soon involved in sanguinary suppressions\nof revolt,[5] which afterward ended in his removal.[6] The experience\nof so many conflicts had rendered him very prudent in his relations\nwith this intractable people, which avenged itself upon its governors\nby compelling them to use toward it hateful severities. The procurator\nsaw himself, with extreme displeasure, led to play a cruel part in\nthis new affair, for the sake of a law he hated.[7] He knew that\nreligious fanaticism, when it has obtained the sanction of civil\ngovernments to some act of violence, is afterward the first to throw\nthe responsibility upon the government, and almost accuses them of\nbeing the author of it. Supreme injustice; for the true culprit is, in\nsuch cases, the instigator!\n\n[Footnote 1: Jos., _Ant._, XVIII. iii. 1, init.]\n\n[Footnote 2: Jos., _Ant._, XVIII. ii.-iv.]\n\n[Footnote 3: Talm. of Bab., _Shabbath_, 33 _b_.]\n\n[Footnote 4: Philo, _Leg. ad Caium_, Sec. 38.]\n\n[Footnote 5: Jos., _Ant._, XVIII. iii. 1 and 2; Luke xiii. 1.]\n\n[Footnote 6: Jos., _Ant._, XVIII. iv. 1, 2.]\n\n[Footnote 7: John xviii. 35.]\n\nPilate, then, would have liked to save Jesus. Perhaps the dignified\nand calm attitude of the accused made an impression upon him.\nAccording to a tradition,[1] Jesus found a supporter in the wife of\nthe procurator himself. She may have seen the gentle Galilean from\nsome window of the palace, overlooking the courts of the temple.\nPerhaps she had seen him again in her dreams; and the idea that the\nblood of this beautiful young man was about to be spilt, weighed upon\nher mind. Certain it is that Jesus found Pilate prepossessed in his\nfavor. The governor questioned him with kindness, and with the desire\nto find an excuse for sending him away pardoned.\n\n[Footnote 1: Matt. xxvii. 19.]\n\nThe title of \"King of the Jews,\" which Jesus had never taken upon\nhimself, but which his enemies represented as the sum and substance\nof his acts and pretensions, was naturally that by which it was sought\nto excite the suspicions of the Roman authority. They accused him on\nthis ground of sedition, and of treason against the government.\nNothing could be more unjust; for Jesus had always recognized the\nRoman government as the established power. But conservative religious\nbodies do not generally shrink from calumny. Notwithstanding his own\nexplanation, they drew certain conclusions from his teaching; they\ntransformed him into a disciple of Judas the Gaulonite; they pretended\nthat he forbade the payment of tribute to Caesar.[1] Pilate asked him\nif he was really the king of the Jews.[2] Jesus concealed nothing of\nwhat he thought. But the great ambiguity of speech which had been the\nsource of his strength, and which, after his death, was to establish\nhis kingship, injured him on this occasion. An idealist that is to\nsay, not distinguishing the spirit from the substance, Jesus, whose\nwords, to use the image of the Apocalypse, were as a two-edged sword,\nnever completely satisfied the powers of earth. If we may believe\nJohn, he avowed his royalty, but uttered at the same time this\nprofound sentence: \"My kingdom is not of this world.\" He explained the\nnature of his kingdom, declaring that it consisted entirely in the\npossession and proclamation of truth. Pilate understood nothing of\nthis grand idealism.[3] Jesus doubtless impressed him as being an\ninoffensive dreamer. The total absence of religious and philosophical\nproselytism among the Romans of this epoch made them regard devotion\nto truth as a chimera. Such discussions annoyed them, and appeared to\nthem devoid of meaning. Not perceiving the element of danger to the\nempire that lay hidden in these new speculations, they had no reason\nto employ violence against them. All their displeasure fell upon those\nwho asked them to inflict punishment for what appeared to them to be\nvain subtleties. Twenty years after, Gallio still adopted the same\ncourse toward the Jews.[4] Until the fall of Jerusalem, the rule which\nthe Romans adopted in administration, was to remain completely\nindifferent to these sectarian quarrels.[5]\n\n[Footnote 1: Luke xxiii. 2, 5.]\n\n[Footnote 2: Matt. xxvii. 11; Mark xv. 2; Luke xxiii. 3; John xviii.\n33.]\n\n[Footnote 3: John xviii. 38.]\n\n[Footnote 4: _Acts_ xviii. 14, 15.]\n\n[Footnote 5: Tacitus (_Ann._, xv. 44) describes the death of Jesus as\na political execution by Pontius Pilate. But at the epoch in which\nTacitus wrote, the Roman policy toward the Christians was changed;\nthey were held guilty of secretly conspiring against the state. It was\nnatural that the Latin historian should believe that Pilate, in\nputting Jesus to death, had been actuated by a desire for the public\nsafety. Josephus is much more exact (_Ant._, XVIII. iii. 3.)]\n\nAn expedient suggested itself to the mind of the governor by which he\ncould reconcile his own feelings with the demands of the fanatical\npeople, whose pressure he had already so often felt. It was the custom\nto deliver a prisoner to the people at the time of the Passover.\nPilate, knowing that Jesus had only been arrested in consequence of\nthe jealousy of the priests,[1] tried to obtain for him the benefit of\nthis custom. He appeared again upon the _bima_, and proposed to the\nmultitude to release the \"King of the Jews.\" The proposition made in\nthese terms, though ironical, was characterized by a degree of\nliberality. The priests saw the danger of it. They acted promptly,[2]\nand in order to combat the proposition of Pilate, they suggested to\nthe crowd the name of a prisoner who enjoyed great popularity in\nJerusalem. By a singular coincidence, he also was called Jesus,[3]\nand bore the surname of Bar-Abba, or Bar-Rabban.[4] He was a\nwell-known personage,[5] and had been arrested for taking part in an\nuproar in which murder had been committed.[6] A general clamor was\nraised, \"Not this man; but Jesus Bar-Rabban;\" and Pilate was obliged\nto release Jesus Bar-Rabban.\n\n[Footnote 1: Mark xv. 10.]\n\n[Footnote 2: Matt. xxvii. 20; Mark xv. 11.]\n\n[Footnote 3: The name of Jesus has disappeared in the greater part of\nthe manuscripts. This reading has, nevertheless, very great\nauthorities in its favor.]\n\n[Footnote 4: Matt. xxvii. 16.]\n\n[Footnote 5: Cf. St. Jerome. In Matt. xxvii. 16.]\n\n[Footnote 6: Mark xv. 7; Luke xxiii. 19. John (xviii. 40), who makes\nhim a robber, appears here too much further from the truth than Mark.]\n\nHis embarrassment increased. He feared that too much indulgence shown\nto a prisoner, to whom was given the title of \"King of the Jews,\"\nmight compromise him. Fanaticism, moreover, compels all powers to make\nterms with it. Pilate thought himself obliged to make some concession;\nbut still hesitating to shed blood, in order to satisfy men whom he\nhated, wished to turn the thing into a jest. Affecting to laugh at the\npompous title they had given to Jesus, he caused him to be\nscourged.[1] Scourging was the general preliminary of crucifixion.[2]\nPerhaps Pilate wished it to be believed that this sentence had already\nbeen pronounced, hoping that the preliminary would suffice. Then took\nplace (according to all the narratives) a revolting scene. The\nsoldiers put a scarlet robe on his back, a crown formed of branches of\nthorns upon his head, and a reed in his hand. Thus attired, he was led\nto the tribunal in front of the people. The soldiers defiled before\nhim, striking him in turn, and knelt to him, saying, \"Hail! King of\nthe Jews.\"[3] Others, it is said, spit upon him, and struck his head\nwith the reed. It is difficult to understand how Roman dignity could\nstoop to acts so shameful. It is true that Pilate, in the capacity of\nprocurator, had under his command scarcely any but auxiliary\ntroops.[4] Roman citizens, as the legionaries were, would not have\ndegraded themselves by such conduct.\n\n[Footnote 1: Matt. xxvii. 26; Mark xv. 15; John xix. 1.]\n\n[Footnote 2: Jos., _B.J._, II. xiv. 9, V. xi. 1, VII. vi. 4;\nTitus-Livy, XXXIII. 36; Quintus Curtius, VII. xi. 28.]\n\n[Footnote 3: Matt. xxvii. 27, and following; Mark xv. 16, and\nfollowing; Luke xxiii. 11; John xix. 2, and following.]\n\n[Footnote 4: See _Inscript. Rom. of Algeria_, No. 5, fragm. B.]\n\nDid Pilate think by this display that he freed himself from\nresponsibility? Did he hope to turn aside the blow which threatened\nJesus by conceding something to the hatred of the Jews,[1] and by\nsubstituting for the tragic denouement a grotesque termination, to\nmake it appear that the affair merited no other issue? If such were\nhis idea, it was unsuccessful. The tumult increased, and became an\nopen riot. The cry \"Crucify him! crucify him!\" resounded from all\nsides. The priests becoming increasingly urgent, declared the law in\nperil if the corrupter were not punished with death.[2] Pilate saw\nclearly that to save Jesus he would have to put down a terrible\ndisturbance. He still tried, however, to gain time. He returned to the\njudgment-hall, and ascertained from what country Jesus came, with the\nhope of finding a pretext for declaring his inability to\nadjudicate.[3] According to one tradition, he even sent Jesus to\nAntipas, who, it is said, was then at Jerusalem.[4] Jesus took no part\nin these well-meant efforts; he maintained, as he had done before\nKaiapha, a grave and dignified silence, which astonished Pilate. The\ncries from without became more and more menacing. The people had\nalready begun to denounce the lack of zeal in the functionary who\nprotected an enemy of Caesar. The greatest adversaries of the Roman\nrule were suddenly transformed into loyal subjects of Tiberius, that\nthey might have the right of accusing the too tolerant procurator of\ntreason. \"We have no king,\" said they, \"but Caesar. If thou let this\nman go, thou art not Caesar's friend: whosoever maketh himself a king\nspeaketh against Caesar.\"[5] The feeble Pilate yielded; he foresaw the\nreport that his enemies would send to Rome, in which they would accuse\nhim of having protected a rival of Tiberius. Once before, in the\nmatter of the votive escutcheons,[6] the Jews had written to the\nemperor, and had received satisfaction. He feared for his office. By a\ncompliance, which was to deliver his name to the scorn of history, he\nyielded, throwing, it is said, upon the Jews all the responsibility of\nwhat was about to happen. The latter, according to the Christians,\nfully accepted it, by exclaiming, \"His blood be on us and on our\nchildren!\"[7]\n\n[Footnote 1: Luke xxiii. 16, 22.]\n\n[Footnote 2: John xix. 7.]\n\n[Footnote 3: John xix. 9. Cf. Luke xxiii. 6, and following.]\n\n[Footnote 4: It is probable that this is a first attempt at a \"Harmony\nof the Gospels.\" Luke must have had before him a narrative in which\nthe death of Jesus was erroneously attributed to Herod. In order not\nto sacrifice this version entirely he must have combined the two\ntraditions. What makes this more likely is, that he probably had a\nvague knowledge that Jesus (as John teaches us) appeared before three\nauthorities. In many other cases, Luke seems to have a remote idea of\nthe facts which are peculiar to the narration of John. Moreover, the\nthird Gospel contains in its history of the Crucifixion a series of\nadditions which the author appears to have drawn from a more recent\ndocument, and which had evidently been arranged with a special view to\nedification.]\n\n[Footnote 5: John xix. 12, 15. Cf. Luke xxiii. 2. In order to\nappreciate the exactitude of the description of this scene in the\nevangelists, see Philo, _Leg. ad Caium_, Sec. 38.]\n\n[Footnote 6: See _ante_, p. 351.]\n\n[Footnote 7: Matt. xxvii. 24, 25.]\n\nWere these words really uttered? We may doubt it. But they are the\nexpression of a profound historical truth. Considering the attitude\nwhich the Romans had taken in Judea, Pilate could scarcely have acted\notherwise. How many sentences of death dictated by religious\nintolerance have been extorted from the civil power! The king of\nSpain, who, in order to please a fanatical clergy, delivered hundreds\nof his subjects to the stake, was more blameable than Pilate, for he\nrepresented a more absolute power than that of the Romans at\nJerusalem. When the civil power becomes persecuting or meddlesome at\nthe solicitation of the priesthood, it proves its weakness. But let\nthe government that is without sin in this respect throw the first\nstone at Pilate. The \"secular arm,\" behind which clerical cruelty\nshelters itself, is not the culprit. No one has a right to say that he\nhas a horror of blood when he causes it to be shed by his servants.\n\nIt was, then, neither Tiberius nor Pilate who condemned Jesus. It was\nthe old Jewish party; it was the Mosaic Law. According to our modern\nideas, there is no transmission of moral demerit from father to son;\nno one is accountable to human or divine justice except for that which\nhe himself has done. Consequently, every Jew who suffers to-day for\nthe murder of Jesus has a right to complain, for he might have acted\nas did Simon the Cyrenean; at any rate, he might not have been with\nthose who cried \"Crucify him!\" But nations, like individuals, have\ntheir responsibilities, and if ever crime was the crime of a nation,\nit was the death of Jesus. This death was \"legal\" in the sense that it\nwas primarily caused by a law which was the very soul of the nation.\nThe Mosaic law, in its modern, but still in its accepted form,\npronounced the penalty of death against all attempts to change the\nestablished worship. Now, there is no doubt that Jesus attacked this\nworship, and aspired to destroy it. The Jews expressed this to Pilate\nwith a truthful simplicity: \"We have a law, and by our law he ought to\ndie; because he has made himself the Son of God.\"[1] The law was\ndetestable, but it was the law of ancient ferocity; and the hero who\noffered himself in order to abrogate it, had first of all to endure\nits penalty.\n\n[Footnote 1: John xix. 7.]\n\nAlas! it has required more than eighteen hundred years for the blood\nthat he shed to bear its fruits. Tortures and death have been\ninflicted for ages in the name of Jesus, on thinkers as noble as\nhimself. Even at the present time, in countries which call themselves\nChristian, penalties are pronounced for religious offences. Jesus is\nnot responsible for these errors. He could not foresee that people,\nwith mistaken imaginations, would one day imagine him as a frightful\nMoloch, greedy of burnt flesh. Christianity has been intolerant, but\nintolerance is not essentially a Christian fact. It is a Jewish fact\nin the sense that it was Judaism which first introduced the theory of\nthe absolute in religion, and laid down the principle that every\ninnovator, even if he brings miracles to support his doctrine, ought\nto be stoned without trial.[1] The pagan world has also had its\nreligious violences. But if it had had this law, how would it have\nbecome Christian? The Pentateuch has thus been in the world the first\ncode of religious terrorism. Judaism has given the example of an\nimmutable dogma armed with the sword. If, instead of pursuing the Jews\nwith a blind hatred, Christianity had abolished the regime which\nkilled its founder, how much more consistent would it have been!--how\nmuch better would it have deserved of the human race!\n\n[Footnote 1: _Deut._ xiii. 1, and following.]\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXV.\n\nDEATH OF JESUS.\n\n\nAlthough the real motive for the death of Jesus was entirely\nreligious, his enemies had succeeded, in the judgment-hall, in\nrepresenting him as guilty of treason against the state; they could\nnot have obtained from the sceptical Pilate a condemnation simply on\nthe ground of heterodoxy. Consistently with this idea, the priests\ndemanded, through the people, the crucifixion of Jesus. This\npunishment was not Jewish in its origin; if the condemnation of Jesus\nhad been purely Mosaic, he would have been stoned.[1] Crucifixion was\na Roman punishment, reserved for slaves, and for cases in which it was\nwished to add to death the aggravation of ignominy. In applying it to\nJesus, they treated him as they treated highway robbers, brigands,\nbandits, or those enemies of inferior rank to whom the Romans did not\ngrant the honor of death by the sword.[2] It was the chimerical \"King\nof the Jews,\" not the heterodox dogmatist, who was punished. Following\nout the same idea, the execution was left to the Romans. We know that\namongst the Romans, the soldiers, their profession being to kill,\nperformed the office of executioners. Jesus was therefore delivered to\na cohort of auxiliary troops, and all the most hateful features of\nexecutions introduced by the cruel habits of the new conquerors, were\nexhibited toward him. It was about noon.[3] They re-clothed him with\nthe garments which they had removed for the farce enacted at the\ntribunal, and as the cohort had already in reserve two thieves who\nwere to be executed, the three prisoners were taken together, and the\nprocession set out for the place of execution.\n\n[Footnote 1: Jos., _Ant._, XX. ix. 1. The Talmud, which represents the\ncondemnation of Jesus as entirely religious, declares, in fact, that\nhe was stoned; or, at least, that after having been hanged, he was\nstoned, as often happened (Mishnah, _Sanhedrim_, vi. 4.) Talmud of\nJerusalem, _Sanhedrim_, xiv. 16. Talm. of Bab., same treatise, 43 _a_,\n67 _a_.]\n\n[Footnote 2: Jos., _Ant._, XVII. x. 10, XX. vi. 2; _B.J._, V. xi. 1;\nApuleius, _Metam._, iii. 9; Suetonius, _Galba_, 9; Lampridius, _Alex.\nSev._, 23.]\n\n[Footnote 3: John xix. 14. According to Mark xv. 25, it could scarcely\nhave been eight o'clock in the morning, since that evangelist relates\nthat Jesus was crucified at nine o'clock.]\n\nThe scene of the execution was at a place called Golgotha, situated\noutside Jerusalem, but near the walls of the city.[1] The name\n_Golgotha_ signifies a _skull_; it corresponds with the French word\n_Chaumont_, and probably designated a bare hill or rising ground,\nhaving the form of a bald skull. The situation of this hill is not\nprecisely known. It was certainly on the north or northwest of the\ncity, in the high, irregular plain which extends between the walls and\nthe two valleys of Kedron and Hinnom,[2] a rather uninteresting\nregion, and made still worse by the objectionable circumstances\narising from the neighborhood of a great city. It is difficult to\nidentify Golgotha as the precise place which, since Constantine, has\nbeen venerated by entire Christendom.[3] This place is too much in the\ninterior of the city, and we are led to believe that, in the time of\nJesus, it was comprised within the circuit of the walls.[4]\n\n[Footnote 1: Matt. xxvii. 33; Mark xv. 22; John xix. 20; _Heb._ xiii.\n12.]\n\n[Footnote 2: Golgotha, in fact, seems not entirely unconnected with\nthe hill of Gareb and the locality of Goath, mentioned in Jeremiah\nxxxi. 39. Now, these two places appear to have been at the northwest\nof the city. I should incline to fix the place where Jesus was\ncrucified near the extreme corner which the existing wall makes toward\nthe west, or perhaps upon the mounds which command the valley of\nHinnom, above _Birket-Mamilla_.]\n\n[Footnote 3: The proofs by which it has been attempted to establish\nthat the Holy Sepulchre has been displaced since Constantine are not\nvery strong.]\n\n[Footnote 4: M. de Voguee has discovered, about 83 yards to the east of\nthe traditional site of Calvary, a fragment of a Jewish wall analogous\nto that of Hebron, which, if it belongs to the inclosure of the time\nof Jesus, would leave the above-mentioned site outside the city. The\nexistence of a sepulchral cave (that which is called \"Tomb of Joseph\nof Arimathea\"), under the wall of the cupola of the Holy Sepulchre,\nwould also lead to the supposition that this place was outside the\nwalls. Two historical considerations, one of which is rather strong,\nmay, moreover, be invoked in favor of the tradition. The first is,\nthat it would be singular if those, who, under Constantine, sought to\ndetermine the topography of the Gospels, had not hesitated in the\npresence of the objection which results from _John_ xix. 20, and from\n_Heb._ xiii. 12. Why, being free to choose, should they have wantonly\nexposed themselves to so grave a difficulty? The second consideration\nis, that they might have had to guide them, in the time of\nConstantine, the remains of an edifice, the temple of Venus on\nGolgotha, erected by Adrian. We are, then, at times led to believe\nthat the work of the devout topographers of the time of Constantine\nwas earnest and sincere, that they sought for indications, and that,\nthough they might not refrain from certain pious frauds, they were\nguided by analogies. If they had merely followed a vain caprice, they\nmight have placed Golgotha in a more conspicuous situation, at the\nsummit of some of the neighboring hills about Jerusalem, in accordance\nwith the Christian imagination, which very early thought that the\ndeath of Christ had taken place on a mountain. But the difficulty of\nthe inclosures is very serious. Let us add, that the erection of a\ntemple of Venus on Golgotha proves little. Eusebius (_Vita Const._,\niii. 26), Socrates (_H.E._, i. 17), Sozomen (_H.E._, ii. 1), St.\nJerome (_Epist._ xlix., ad Paulin.), say, indeed, that there was a\nsanctuary of Venus on the site which they imagined to be that of the\nholy tomb; but it is not certain that Adrian had erected it; or that\nhe had erected it in a place which was in his time called \"Golgotha\";\nor that he had intended to erect it at the place where Jesus had\nsuffered death.]\n\nHe who was condemned to the cross, had himself to carry the instrument\nof his execution.[1] But Jesus, physically weaker than his two\ncompanions, could not carry his. The troop met a certain Simon of\nCyrene, who was returning from the country, and the soldiers, with the\noff-hand procedure of foreign garrisons, forced him to carry the\nfatal tree. Perhaps they made use of a recognized right of forcing\nlabor, the Romans not being allowed to carry the infamous wood. It\nseems that Simon was afterward of the Christian community. His two\nsons, Alexander and Rufus,[2] were well known in it. He related\nperhaps more than one circumstance of which he had been witness. No\ndisciple was at this moment near to Jesus.[3]\n\n[Footnote 1: Plutarch, _De Sera Num. Vind._, 19; Artemidorus,\n_Onirocrit._, ii. 56.]\n\n[Footnote 2: Mark xv. 21.]\n\n[Footnote 3: The circumstance, Luke xxiii. 27-31, is one of those in\nwhich we are sensible of the work of a pious and loving imagination.\nThe words which are there attributed to Jesus could only have been\nwritten after the siege of Jerusalem.]\n\nThe place of execution was at last reached. According to Jewish\ncustom, the sufferers were offered a strong aromatic wine, an\nintoxicating drink, which, through a sentiment of pity, was given to\nthe condemned in order to stupefy him.[1] It appears that the ladies\nof Jerusalem often brought this kind of wine to the unfortunates who\nwere led to execution; when none was presented by them, it was\npurchased from the public treasury.[2] Jesus, after having touched the\nedge of the cup with his lips, refused to drink.[3] This mournful\nconsolation of ordinary sufferers did not accord with his exalted\nnature. He preferred to quit life with perfect clearness of mind, and\nto await in full consciousness the death he had willed and brought\nupon himself. He was then divested of his garments,[4] and fastened to\nthe cross. The cross was composed of two beams, tied in the form of\nthe letter T.[5] It was not much elevated, so that the feet of the\ncondemned almost touched the earth. They commenced by fixing it,[6]\nthen they fastened the sufferer to it by driving nails into his hands;\nthe feet were often nailed, though sometimes only bound with cords.[7]\nA piece of wood was fastened to the upright portion of the cross,\ntoward the middle, and passed between the legs of the condemned, who\nrested upon it.[8] Without that, the hands would have been torn and\nthe body would have sunk down. At other times, a small horizontal rest\nwas fixed beneath the feet, and sustained them.[9]\n\n[Footnote 1: Talm. of Bab., _Sanhedrim_, fol. 43 _a_. Comp. _Prov._\nxxi. 6.]\n\n[Footnote 2: Talm. of Bab., _Sanhedrim_, _l.c._]\n\n[Footnote 3: Mark xv. 23; Matt. xxvii. 34, falsifies this detail, in\norder to create a Messianic allusion from Ps. lxix. 20.]\n\n[Footnote 4: Matt. xxvii. 35; Mark xv. 24; John xix. 23. Cf.\nArtemidorus, _Onirocr._, ii. 53.]\n\n[Footnote 5: Lucian, _Jud. Voc._, 12. Compare the grotesque crucifix\ntraced at Rome on a wall of Mount Palatine. _Civilta Cattolica_, fasc.\nclxi. p. 529, and following.]\n\n[Footnote 6: Jos., _B.J._, VII. vi. 4; Cic., _In Verr._, v. 66;\nXenoph. Ephes., _Ephesiaca_, iv. 2.]\n\n[Footnote 7: Luke xxiv. 39; John xx. 25-27; Plautus, _Mostellaria_,\nII. i. 13; Lucan., _Phars._, vi. 543, and following, 547; Justin,\n_Dial. cum Tryph._, 97; Tertullian, _Adv. Marcionem_, iii. 19.]\n\n[Footnote 8: Irenaeus, _Adv. Haer._, ii. 24; Justin, _Dial. cum\nTryphone_, 91.]\n\n[Footnote 9: See the _graffito_ quoted before.]\n\nJesus tasted these horrors in all their atrocity. A burning thirst,\none of the tortures of crucifixion,[1] devoured him, and he asked to\ndrink. There stood near, a cup of the ordinary drink of the Roman\nsoldiers, a mixture of vinegar and water, called _posca_. The soldiers\nhad to carry with them their _posca_ on all their expeditions,[2] of\nwhich an execution was considered one. A soldier dipped a sponge in\nthis drink, put it at the end of a reed, and raised it to the lips of\nJesus, who sucked it.[3] The two robbers were crucified, one on each\nside. The executioners, to whom were usually left the small effects\n(_pannicularia_) of those executed,[4] drew lots for his garments,\nand, seated at the foot of the cross, kept guard over him.[5]\nAccording to one tradition, Jesus pronounced this sentence, which was\nin his heart if not upon his lips: \"Father, forgive them, for they\nknow not what they do.\"[6]\n\n[Footnote 1: See the Arab text published by Kosegarten, _Chrest.\nArab._, p. 64.]\n\n[Footnote 2: Spartianus, _Life of Adrian_, 10; Vulcatius Gallicanus,\n_Life of Avidius Cassius_, 5.]\n\n[Footnote 3: Matt. xxvii. 48; Mark xv. 36; Luke xxiii. 36; John xix.\n28-30.]\n\n[Footnote 4: Dig., XLVII. xx., _De bonis damnat._, 6. Adrian limited\nthis custom.]\n\n[Footnote 5: Matt. xxvii. 36. Cf. Petronius, _Satyr._, cxi., cxii.]\n\n[Footnote 6: Luke xxiii. 34. In general, the last words attributed to\nJesus, especially such as Luke records, are open to doubt. The desire\nto edify or to show the accomplishment of prophecies is perceptible.\nIn these cases, moreover, every one hears in his own way. The last\nwords of celebrated prisoners, condemned to death, are always\ncollected in two or three entirely different shapes, by even the\nnearest witnesses.]\n\nAccording to the Roman custom, a writing was attached to the top of\nthe cross, bearing, in three languages, Hebrew, Greek, and Latin, the\nwords: \"THE KING OF THE JEWS.\" There was something painful and\ninsulting to the nation in this inscription. The numerous passers-by\nwho read it were offended. The priests complained to Pilate that he\nought to have adopted an inscription which would have implied simply\nthat Jesus had called himself King of the Jews. But Pilate, already\ntired of the whole affair, refused to make any change in what had been\nwritten.[1]\n\n[Footnote 1: John xix. 19-22.]\n\nHis disciples had fled. John, nevertheless, declares himself to have\nbeen present, and to have remained standing at the foot of the cross\nduring the whole time.[1] It may be affirmed, with more certainty,\nthat the devoted women of Galilee, who had followed Jesus to Jerusalem\nand continued to tend him, did not abandon him. Mary Cleophas, Mary\nMagdalen, Joanna, wife of Khouza, Salome, and others, stayed at a\ncertain distance,[2] and did not lose sight of him.[3] If we must\nbelieve John,[4] Mary, the mother of Jesus, was also at the foot of\nthe cross, and Jesus seeing his mother and his beloved disciple\ntogether, said to the one, \"Behold thy mother!\" and to the other,\n\"Behold thy son!\" But we do not understand how the synoptics, who name\nthe other women, should have omitted her whose presence was so\nstriking a feature. Perhaps even the extreme elevation of the\ncharacter of Jesus does not render such personal emotion probable, at\nthe moment when, solely preoccupied by his work, he no longer existed\nexcept for humanity.[5]\n\n[Footnote 1: John xix. 25, and following.]\n\n[Footnote 2: The synoptics are agreed in placing the faithful group\n\"afar off\" the cross. John says, \"at the side of,\" governed by the\ndesire which he has of representing himself as having approached very\nnear to the cross of Jesus.]\n\n[Footnote 3: Matt. xxvii. 55, 56; Mark xv. 40, 41; Luke xxiii. 49, 55;\nxxiv. 10; John xix. 25. Cf. Luke xxiii. 27-31.]\n\n[Footnote 4: John xix. 25, and following. Luke, who always adopts a\nmiddle course between the first two synoptics and John, mentions also,\nbut at a distance, \"all his acquaintance\" (xxiii. 49). The expression,\n[Greek: gnostoi], may, it is true, mean \"kindred.\" Luke, nevertheless\n(ii. 44), distinguishes the [Greek: gnostoi] from the [Greek:\nsungeneis]. Let us add, that the best manuscripts bear [Greek: oi\ngnostoi auto], and not [Greek: oi gnostoi autou]. In the _Acts_ (i.\n14), Mary, mother of Jesus, is also placed in company with the\nGalilean women; elsewhere (Gospel, chap. ii. 35), Luke predicts that a\nsword of grief will pierce her soul. But this renders his omission of\nher at the cross the less explicable.]\n\n[Footnote 5: This is, in my opinion, one of those features in which\nJohn betrays his personality and the desire he has of giving himself\nimportance. John, after the death of Jesus, appears in fact to have\nreceived the mother of his Master into his house, and to have adopted\nher (John xix. 27.) The great consideration which Mary enjoyed in the\nearly church, doubtless led John to pretend that Jesus, whose favorite\ndisciple he wished to be regarded, had, when dying, recommended to his\ncare all that was dearest to him. The presence of this precious trust\nnear John, insured him a kind of precedence over the other apostles,\nand gave his doctrine a high authority.]\n\nApart from this small group of women, whose presence consoled him,\nJesus had before him only the spectacle of the baseness or stupidity\nof humanity. The passers-by insulted him. He heard around him foolish\nscoffs, and his greatest cries of pain turned into hateful jests: \"He\ntrusted in God; let him deliver him now, if he will have him: for he\nsaid, I am the Son of God.\" \"He saved others,\" they said again;\n\"himself he cannot save. If he be the king of Israel, let him now\ncome down from the cross, and we will believe him! Ah, thou that\ndestroyest the temple, and buildest it in three days, save\nthyself.\"[1] Some, vaguely acquainted with his apocalyptic ideas,\nthought they heard him call Elias, and said, \"Let us see whether Elias\nwill come to save him.\" It appears that the two crucified thieves at\nhis side also insulted him.[2] The sky was dark;[3] and the earth, as\nin all the environs of Jerusalem, dry and gloomy. For a moment,\naccording to certain narratives, his heart failed him; a cloud hid\nfrom him the face of his Father; he endured an agony of despair a\nthousand times more acute than all his torture. He saw only the\ningratitude of men; he perhaps repented suffering for a vile race, and\nexclaimed: \"My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?\" But his divine\ninstinct still prevailed. In the degree that the life of the body\nbecame extinguished, his soul became clear, and returned by degrees to\nits celestial origin. He regained the idea of his mission; he saw in\nhis death the salvation of the world; he lost sight of the hideous\nspectacle spread at his feet, and, profoundly united to his Father, he\nbegan upon the gibbet the divine life which he was to live in the\nheart of humanity through infinite ages.\n\n[Footnote 1: Matt. xxvii. 40, and following; Mark xv. 29, and\nfollowing.]\n\n[Footnote 2: Matt. xxvii. 44; Mark xv. 32. Luke has here modified the\ntradition, in accordance with his taste for the conversion of\nsinners.]\n\n[Footnote 3: Matt. xxvii. 45; Mark xv. 33; Luke xxiii. 44.]\n\nThe peculiar atrocity of crucifixion was that one might live three or\nfour days in this horrible state upon the instrument of torture.[1]\nThe haemorrhage from the hands quickly stopped, and was not mortal. The\ntrue cause of death was the unnatural position of the body, which\nbrought on a frightful disturbance of the circulation, terrible pains\nof the head and heart, and, at length, rigidity of the limbs. Those\nwho had a strong constitution only died of hunger.[2] The idea which\nsuggested this cruel punishment was not directly to kill the condemned\nby positive injuries, but to expose the slave nailed by the hand of\nwhich he had not known how to make good use, and to let him rot on the\nwood. The delicate organization of Jesus preserved him from this slow\nagony. Everything leads to the belief that the instantaneous rupture\nof a vessel in the heart brought him, at the end of three hours, to a\nsudden death. Some moments before yielding up his soul, his voice was\nstill strong.[3] All at once, he uttered a terrible cry,[4] which some\nheard as: \"Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit!\" but which\nothers, more preoccupied with the accomplishment of prophecies,\nrendered by the words, \"It is finished!\" His head fell upon his\nbreast, and he expired.\n\n[Footnote 1: Petronius, _Sat._, cxi., and following; Origen, _In Matt.\nComment. series_, 140 Arab text published in Kosegarten, _op. cit._,\np. 63, and following.]\n\n[Footnote 2: Eusebius, _Hist. Eccl._, viii. 8.]\n\n[Footnote 3: Matt. xxvii. 46; Mark xv. 34.]\n\n[Footnote 4: Matt. xxvii. 50; Mark xv. 37; Luke xxiii. 46; John xix.\n30.]\n\nRest now in thy glory, noble initiator. Thy work is completed; thy\ndivinity is established. Fear no more to see the edifice of thy\nefforts crumble through a flaw. Henceforth, beyond the reach of\nfrailty, thou shalt be present, from the height of thy divine peace,\nin the infinite consequences of thy acts. At the price of a few hours\nof suffering, which have not even touched thy great soul, thou hast\npurchased the most complete immortality. For thousands of years the\nworld will extol thee. Banner of our contradictions, thou wilt be the\nsign around which will be fought the fiercest battles. A thousand\ntimes more living, a thousand times more loved since thy death than\nduring the days of thy pilgrimage here below, thou wilt become to such\na degree the corner-stone of humanity, that to tear thy name from this\nworld would be to shake it to its foundations. Between thee and God,\nmen will no longer distinguish. Complete conqueror of death, take\npossession of thy kingdom, whither, by the royal road thou has traced,\nages of adorers will follow thee.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXVI.\n\nJESUS IN THE TOMB.\n\n\nIt was about three o'clock in the afternoon, according to our manner\nof reckoning,[1] when Jesus expired. A Jewish law[2] forbade a corpse\nsuspended on the cross to be left beyond the evening of the day of the\nexecution. It is not probable that in the executions performed by the\nRomans this rule was observed; but as the next day was the Sabbath,\nand a Sabbath of peculiar solemnity, the Jews expressed to the Roman\nauthorities[3] their desire that this holy day should not be profaned\nby such a spectacle.[4] Their request was granted; orders were given\nto hasten the death of the three condemned ones, and to remove them\nfrom the cross. The soldiers executed this order by applying to the\ntwo thieves a second punishment much more speedy than that of the\ncross, the _crurifragium_, or breaking of the legs,[5] the usual\npunishment of slaves and of prisoners of war. As to Jesus, they found\nhim dead, and did not think it necessary to break his legs. But one of\nthem, to remove all doubt as to the real death of the third victim,\nand to complete it, if any breath remained in him, pierced his side\nwith a spear. They thought they saw water and blood flow, which was\nregarded as a sign of the cessation of life.\n\n[Footnote 1: Matt. xxvii. 46; Mark xv. 37; Luke xxiii. 44. Comp. John\nxix. 14.]\n\n[Footnote 2: _Deut._ xxi. 22, 23; Josh. viii. 29, x. 26, and\nfollowing. Cf. Jos., _B.J._, IV. v. 2; Mishnah, _Sanhedrim_, vi. 5.]\n\n[Footnote 3: John says, \"To Pilate\"; but that cannot be, for Mark (xv.\n44, 45) states that at night Pilate was still ignorant of the death of\nJesus.]\n\n[Footnote 4: Compare Philo, _In Flaccum_, Sec. 10.]\n\n[Footnote 5: There is no other example of the _crurifragium_ applied\nafter crucifixion. But often, in order to shorten the tortures of the\nsufferer, a finishing stroke was given him. See the passage from\nIbn-Hischam, translated in the _Zeitschrift fuer die Kunde des\nMorgenlandes_, i. p. 99, 100.]\n\nJohn, who professes to have seen it,[1] insists strongly on this\ncircumstance. It is evident, in fact, that doubts arose as to the\nreality of the death of Jesus. A few hours of suspension on the cross\nappeared to persons accustomed to see crucifixions entirely\ninsufficient to lead to such a result. They cited many instances of\npersons crucified, who, removed in time, had been brought to life\nagain by powerful remedies.[2] Origen afterward thought it needful to\ninvoke miracle in order to explain so sudden an end.[3] The same\nastonishment is found in the narrative of Mark.[4] To speak truly, the\nbest guarantee that the historian possesses upon a point of this\nnature is the suspicious hatred of the enemies of Jesus. It is\ndoubtful whether the Jews were at that time preoccupied with the fear\nthat Jesus might pass for resuscitated; but, in any case, they must\nhave made sure that he was really dead. Whatever, at certain periods,\nmay have been the neglect of the ancients in all that belonged to\nlegal proof and the strict conduct of affairs, we cannot but believe\nthat those interested here had taken some precautions in this\nrespect.[5]\n\n[Footnote 1: John xix. 31-35.]\n\n[Footnote 2: Herodotus, vii. 194; Jos., _Vita_, 75.]\n\n[Footnote 3: _In Matt. Comment. series_, 140.]\n\n[Footnote 4: Mark xv. 44, 45.]\n\n[Footnote 5: The necessities of Christian controversy afterward led to\nthe exaggeration of these precautions, especially when the Jews had\nsystematically begun to maintain that the body of Jesus had been\nstolen. Matt. xxvii. 62, and following, xxviii. 11-15.]\n\nAccording to the Roman custom, the corpse of Jesus ought to have\nremained suspended in order to become the prey of birds.[1] According\nto the Jewish law, it would have been removed in the evening, and\ndeposited in the place of infamy set apart for the burial of those who\nwere executed.[2] If Jesus had had for disciples only his poor\nGalileans, timid and without influence, the latter course would have\nbeen adopted. But we have seen that, in spite of his small success at\nJerusalem, Jesus had gained the sympathy of some important persons who\nexpected the kingdom of God, and who, without confessing themselves\nhis disciples, were strongly attached to him. One of these persons,\nJoseph, of the small town of Arimathea (_Ha-ramathaim_[3]), went in\nthe evening to ask the body from the procurator.[4] Joseph was a rich\nand honorable man, a member of the Sanhedrim. The Roman law, at this\nperiod, commanded, moreover, that the body of the person executed\nshould be delivered to those who claimed it.[5] Pilate, who was\nignorant of the circumstance of the _crurifragium_, was astonished\nthat Jesus was so soon dead, and summoned the centurion who had\nsuperintended the execution, in order to know how this was. Pilate,\nafter having received the assurances of the centurion, granted to\nJoseph the object of his request. The body probably had already been\nremoved from the cross. They delivered it to Joseph, that he might do\nwith it as he pleased.\n\n[Footnote 1: Horace, _Epistles_, I. xvi. 48; Juvenal, xiv. 77; Lucan.,\nvii. 544; Plautus, _Miles glor._, II. iv. 19; Artemidorus, _Onir._,\nii. 53; Pliny, xxxvi. 24; Plutarch, _Life of Cleomenes_, 39;\nPetronius, _Sat._, cxi.-cxii.]\n\n[Footnote 2: Mishnah, _Sanhedrim_, vi. 5.]\n\n[Footnote 3: Probably identical with the ancient Rama of Samuel, in\nthe tribe of Ephraim.]\n\n[Footnote 4: Matt. xxvii. 57, and following; Mark xv. 42, and\nfollowing; Luke xxiii. 50, and following; John xix. 38, and\nfollowing.]\n\n[Footnote 5: Dig. XLVIII. xxiv., _De cadaveribus puntorum_.]\n\nAnother secret friend, Nicodemus,[1] whom we have already seen\nemploying his influence more than once in favor of Jesus, came forward\nat this moment. He arrived, bearing ample provision of the materials\nnecessary for embalming. Joseph and Nicodemus interred Jesus according\nto the Jewish custom--that is to say, they wrapped him in a sheet with\nmyrrh and aloes. The Galilean women were present,[2] and no doubt\naccompanied the scene with piercing cries and tears.\n\n[Footnote 1: John xix. 39, and following.]\n\n[Footnote 2: Matt. xxvii. 61; Mark xv. 47; Luke xxiii. 55.]\n\nIt was late, and all this was done in great haste. The place had not\nyet been chosen where the body would be finally deposited. The\ncarrying of the body, moreover, might have been delayed to a late\nhour, and have involved a violation of the Sabbath--now the disciples\nstill conscientiously observed the prescriptions of the Jewish law. A\ntemporary interment was determined upon.[1] There was at hand, in the\ngarden, a tomb recently dug out in the rock, which had never been\nused. It belonged, probably, to one of the believers.[2] The funeral\ncaves, when they were destined for a single body, were composed of a\nsmall room, at the bottom of which the place for the body was marked\nby a trough or couch let into the wall, and surmounted by an arch.[3]\nAs these caves were dug out of the sides of sloping rocks, they were\nentered by the floor; the door was shut by a stone very difficult to\nmove. Jesus was deposited in the cave, and the stone was rolled to the\ndoor, as it was intended to return in order to give him a more\ncomplete burial. But the next day being a solemn Sabbath, the labor\nwas postponed till the day following.[4]\n\n[Footnote 1: John xix. 41, 42.]\n\n[Footnote 2: One tradition (Matt. xxvii. 60) designates Joseph of\nArimathea himself as owner of the cave.]\n\n[Footnote 3: The cave which, at the period of Constantine, was\nconsidered as the tomb of Christ, was of this shape, as may be\ngathered from the description of Arculphus (in Mabillon, _Acta SS.\nOrd. S. Bened._, sec. iii., pars ii., p. 504), and from the vague\ntraditions which still exist at Jerusalem among the Greek clergy on\nthe state of the rock now concealed by the little chapel of the Holy\nSepulchre. But the indications by which, under Constantine, it was\nsought to identify this tomb with that of Christ, were feeble or\nworthless (see especially Sozomen, _H.E._, ii. 1.) Even if we were to\nadmit the position of Golgotha as nearly exact, the Holy Sepulchre\nwould still have no very reliable character of authenticity. At all\nevents, the aspect of the places has been totally modified.]\n\n[Footnote 4: Luke xxiii. 56.]\n\nThe women retired after having carefully noticed how the body was\nlaid. They employed the hours of the evening which remained to them in\nmaking new preparations for the embalming. On the Saturday all\nrested.[1]\n\n[Footnote 1: Luke xxiii. 54-56.]\n\nOn the Sunday morning, the women, Mary Magdalen the first, came very\nearly to the tomb.[1] The stone was displaced from the opening, and\nthe body was no longer in the place where they had laid it. At the\nsame time, the strangest rumors were spread in the Christian\ncommunity. The cry, \"He is risen!\" quickly spread amongst the\ndisciples. Love caused it to find ready credence everywhere. What had\ntaken place? In treating of the history of the apostles we shall have\nto examine this point and to make inquiry into the origin of the\nlegends relative to the resurrection. For the historian, the life of\nJesus finishes with his last sigh. But such was the impression he had\nleft in the heart of his disciples and of a few devoted women, that\nduring some weeks more it was as if he were living and consoling them.\nHad his body been taken away,[2] or did enthusiasm, always credulous,\ncreate afterward the group of narratives by which it was sought to\nestablish faith in the resurrection? In the absence of opposing\ndocuments this can never be ascertained. Let us say, however, that\nthe strong imagination of Mary Magdalen[3] played an important part in\nthis circumstance.[4] Divine power of love! Sacred moments in which\nthe passion of one possessed gave to the world a resuscitated God!\n\n[Footnote 1: Matt. xxviii. 1; Mark xvi. 1; Luke xxiv. 1; John xx. 1.]\n\n[Footnote 2: See Matt. xxviii. 15; John xx. 2.]\n\n[Footnote 3: She had been possessed by seven demons (Mark xvi. 9; Luke\nviii. 2.)]\n\n[Footnote 4: This is obvious, especially in the ninth and following\nverses of chap. xvi. of Mark. These verses form a conclusion of the\nsecond Gospel, different from the conclusion at xvi. 1-8, with which\nmany manuscripts terminate. In the fourth Gospel (xx. 1, 2, 11, and\nfollowing, 18), Mary Magdalen is also the only original witness of the\nresurrection.]\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXVII.\n\nFATE OF THE ENEMIES OF JESUS.\n\n\nAccording to the calculation we adopt, the death of Jesus happened in\nthe year 33 of our era.[1] It could not, at all events, be either\nbefore the year 29, the preaching of John and Jesus having commenced\nin the year 28,[2] or after the year 35, since in the year 36, and\nprobably before the passover, Pilate and Kaiapha both lost their\noffices.[3] The death of Jesus appears, moreover, to have had no\nconnection whatever with these two removals.[4] In his retirement,\nPilate probably never dreamt for a moment of the forgotten episode,\nwhich was to transmit his pitiful renown to the most distant\nposterity. As to Kaiapha, he was succeeded by Jonathan, his\nbrother-in-law, son of the same Hanan who had played the principal\npart in the trial of Jesus. The Sadducean family of Hanan retained the\npontificate a long time, and more powerful than ever, continued to\nwage against the disciples and the family of Jesus, the implacable war\nwhich they had commenced against the Founder. Christianity, which owed\nto him the definitive act of its foundation, owed to him also its\nfirst martyrs. Hanan passed for one of the happiest men of his\nage.[5] He who was truly guilty of the death of Jesus ended his life\nfull of honors and respect, never having doubted for an instant that\nhe had rendered a great service to the nation. His sons continued to\nreign around the temple, kept down with difficulty by the\nprocurators,[6] ofttimes dispensing with the consent of the latter in\norder to gratify their haughty and violent instincts.\n\n[Footnote 1: The year 33 corresponds well with one of the data of the\nproblem, namely, that the 14th of Nisan was a Friday. If we reject the\nyear 33, in order to find a year which fulfils the above condition, we\nmust at least go back to the year 29, or go forward to the year 36.]\n\n[Footnote 2: Luke iii. 1.]\n\n[Footnote 3: Jos., _Ant._, XVIII. iv. 2 and 3.]\n\n[Footnote 4: The contrary assertion of Tertullian and Eusebius arises\nfrom a worthless apocryphal writing (See Philo, _Cod. Apocr., N.T._,\np. 813, and following.) The suicide of Pilate (Eusebius, _H.E._, ii.\n7; _Chron._ ad annl. Caii) appears also to be derived from legendary\nrecords.]\n\n[Footnote 5: Jos., _Ant._, XX. ix. 1.]\n\n[Footnote 6: Jos., _l.c._]\n\nAntipas and Herodias soon disappeared also from the political scene.\nHerod Agrippa having been raised to the dignity of king by Caligula,\nthe jealous Herodias swore that she also would be queen. Pressed\nincessantly by this ambitious woman, who treated him as a coward,\nbecause he suffered a superior in his family, Antipas overcame his\nnatural indolence, and went to Rome to solicit the title which his\nnephew had just obtained (the year 39 of our era). But the affair\nturned out in the worst possible manner. Injured in the eyes of the\nemperor by Herod Agrippa, Antipas was removed, and dragged out the\nrest of his life in exile at Lyons and in Spain. Herodias followed him\nin his misfortunes.[1] A hundred years, at least, were to elapse\nbefore the name of their obscure subject, now become deified, should\nappear in these remote countries to brand upon their tombs the murder\nof John the Baptist.\n\n[Footnote 1: Jos., _Ant._, XVIII. vii. 1, 2; _B.J._, II. ix. 6.]\n\nAs to the wretched Judas of Kerioth, terrible legends were current\nabout his death. It was maintained that he had bought a field in the\nneighborhood of Jerusalem with the price of his perfidy. There was,\nindeed, on the south of Mount Zion, a place named _Hakeldama_ (the\nfield of blood[1]). It was supposed that this was the property\nacquired by the traitor.[2] According to one tradition,[3] he killed\nhimself. According to another, he had a fall in his field, in\nconsequence of which his bowels gushed out.[4] According to others, he\ndied of a kind of dropsy, accompanied by repulsive circumstances,\nwhich were regarded as a punishment from heaven.[5] The desire of\nshowing in Judas the accomplishment of the menaces which the Psalmist\npronounces against the perfidious friend[6] may have given rise to\nthese legends. Perhaps, in the retirement of his field of Hakeldama,\nJudas led a quiet and obscure life; while his former friends conquered\nthe world, and spread his infamy abroad. Perhaps, also, the terrible\nhatred which was concentrated on his head, drove him to violent acts,\nin which were seen the finger of heaven.\n\n[Footnote 1: St. Jerome, _De situ et nom. loc. hebr._ at the word\n_Acheldama_. Eusebius (_ibid._) says to the north. But the Itineraries\nconfirm the reading of St. Jerome. The tradition which styles the\nnecropolis situated at the foot of the valley of Hinnom _Haceldama_,\ndates back, at least, to the time of Constantine.]\n\n[Footnote 2: _Acts_ i. 18, 19. Matthew, or rather his interpolator,\nhas here given a less satisfactory turn to the tradition, in order to\nconnect with it the circumstance of a cemetery for strangers, which\nwas found near there.]\n\n[Footnote 3: Matt. xxvii. 5.]\n\n[Footnote 4: _Acts_, _l.c._; Papias, in Oecumenius, _Enarr. in Act.\nApost._, ii., and in Fr. Muenter, _Fragm. Patrum Graec._ (Hafniae, 1788),\nfasc. i. p. 17, and following; Theophylactus, in Matt. xxvii. 5.]\n\n[Footnote 5: Papias, in Muenter, _l.c._; Theophylactus, _l.c._]\n\n[Footnote 6: Psalms lxix. and cix.]\n\nThe time of the great Christian revenge was, moreover, far distant.\nThe new sect had no part whatever in the catastrophe which Judaism was\nsoon to undergo. The synagogue did not understand till much later to\nwhat it exposed itself in practising laws of intolerance. The empire\nwas certainly still further from suspecting that its future destroyer\nwas born. During nearly three hundred years it pursued its path\nwithout suspecting that at its side principles were growing destined\nto subject the world to a complete transformation. At once theocratic\nand democratic, the idea thrown by Jesus into the world was, together\nwith the invasion of the Germans, the most active cause of the\ndissolution of the empire of the Caesars. On the one hand, the right of\nall men to participate in the kingdom of God was proclaimed. On the\nother, religion was henceforth separated in principle from the state.\nThe rights of conscience, withdrawn from political law, resulted in\nthe constitution of a new power--the \"spiritual power.\" This power has\nmore than once belied its origin. For ages the bishops have been\nprinces, and the Pope has been a king. The pretended empire of souls\nhas shown itself at various times as a frightful tyranny, employing\nthe rack and the stake in order to maintain itself. But the day will\ncome when the separation will bear its fruits, when the domain of\nthings spiritual will cease to be called a \"power,\" that it may be\ncalled a \"liberty.\" Sprung from the conscience of a man of the people,\nformed in the presence of the people, beloved and admired first by the\npeople, Christianity was impressed with an original character which\nwill never be effaced. It was the first triumph of revolution, the\nvictory of the popular idea, the advent of the simple in heart, the\ninauguration of the beautiful as understood by the people. Jesus thus,\nin the aristocratic societies of antiquity, opened the breach through\nwhich all will pass.\n\nThe civil power, in fact, although innocent of the death of Jesus (it\nonly countersigned the sentence, and even in spite of itself), ought\nto bear a great share of the responsibility. In presiding at the scene\nof Calvary, the state gave itself a serious blow. A legend full of\nall kinds of disrespect prevailed, and became universally known--a\nlegend in which the constituted authorities played a hateful part, in\nwhich it was the accused that was right, and in which the judges and\nthe guards were leagued against the truth. Seditious in the highest\ndegree, the history of the Passion, spread by a thousand popular\nimages, displayed the Roman eagles as sanctioning the most iniquitous\nof executions, soldiers executing it, and a prefect commanding it.\nWhat a blow for all established powers! They have never entirely\nrecovered from it. How can they assume infallibility in respect to\npoor men, when they have on their conscience the great mistake of\nGethsemane?[1]\n\n[Footnote 1: This popular sentiment existed in Brittany in the time of\nmy childhood. The gendarme was there regarded, like the Jew elsewhere,\nwith a kind of pious aversion, for it was he who arrested Jesus!]\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXVIII.\n\nESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE WORK OF JESUS.\n\n\nJesus, it will be seen, limited his action entirely to the Jews.\nAlthough his sympathy for those despised by orthodoxy led him to admit\npagans into the kingdom of God--although he had resided more than once\nin a pagan country, and once or twice we surprise him in kindly\nrelations with unbelievers[1]--it may be said that his life was passed\nentirely in the very restricted world in which he was born. He was\nnever heard of in Greek or Roman countries; his name appears only in\nprofane authors of a hundred years later, and then in an indirect\nmanner, in connection with seditious movements provoked by his\ndoctrine, or persecutions of which his disciples were the object.[2]\nEven on Judaism, Jesus made no very durable impression. Philo, who\ndied about the year 50, had not the slightest knowledge of him.\nJosephus, born in the year 37, and writing in the last years of the\ncentury, mentions his execution in a few lines,[3] as an event of\nsecondary importance, and in the enumeration of the sects of his time,\nhe omits the Christians altogether.[4] In the _Mishnah_, also, there\nis no trace of the new school; the passages in the two Gemaras in\nwhich the founder of Christianity is named, do not go further back\nthan the fourth or fifth century.[5] The essential work of Jesus was\nto create around him a circle of disciples, whom he inspired with\nboundless affection, and amongst whom he deposited the germ of his\ndoctrine. To have made himself beloved, \"to the degree that after his\ndeath they ceased not to love him,\" was the great work of Jesus, and\nthat which most struck his contemporaries.[6] His doctrine was so\nlittle dogmatic, that he never thought of writing it or of causing it\nto be written. Men did not become his disciples by believing this\nthing or that thing, but in being attached to his person and in loving\nhim. A few sentences collected from memory, and especially the type of\ncharacter he set forth, and the impression it had left, were what\nremained of him. Jesus was not a founder of dogmas, or a maker of\ncreeds; he infused into the world a new spirit. The least Christian\nmen were, on the one hand, the doctors of the Greek Church, who,\nbeginning from the fourth century, entangled Christianity in a path of\npuerile metaphysical discussions, and, on the other, the scholastics\nof the Latin Middle Ages, who wished to draw from the Gospel the\nthousands of articles of a colossal system. To follow Jesus in\nexpectation of the kingdom of God, was all that at first was implied\nby being Christian.\n\n[Footnote 1: Matt. viii. 5, and following; Luke vii. 1, and following;\nJohn xii. 20, and following. Comp. Jos., _Ant._, XVIII. iii. 3.]\n\n[Footnote 2: Tacitus, _Ann._, xv. 45; Suetonius, _Claudius_, 25.]\n\n[Footnote 3: _Ant._, XVIII. iii. 3. This passage has been altered by a\nChristian hand.]\n\n[Footnote 4: _Ant._, XVIII. i.; _B.J._, II. viii.; _Vita_, 2.]\n\n[Footnote 5: Talm. of Jerusalem, _Sanhedrim_, xiv. 16; _Aboda zara_,\nii. 2; _Shabbath_, xiv. 4; Talm. of Babylon, _Sanhedrim_, 43 _a_, 67\n_a_; _Shabbath_, 104 _b_, 116 _b_. Comp. _Chagigah_, 4 _b_; _Gittin_,\n57 _a_, 90 _a_. The two Gemaras derive the greater part of their data\nrespecting Jesus from a burlesque and obscene legend, invented by the\nadversaries of Christianity, and of no historical value.]\n\n[Footnote 6: Jos., _Ant._, XVIII. iii. 3.]\n\nIt will thus be understood how, by an exceptional destiny, pure\nChristianity still preserves, after eighteen centuries, the character\nof a universal and eternal religion. It is, in fact, because the\nreligion of Jesus is in some respects the final religion. Produced by\na perfectly spontaneous movement of souls, freed at its birth from all\ndogmatic restraint, having struggled three hundred years for liberty\nof conscience, Christianity, in spite of its failures, still reaps the\nresults of its glorious origin. To renew itself, it has but to return\nto the Gospel. The kingdom of God, as we conceive it, differs notably\nfrom the supernatural apparition which the first Christians hoped to\nsee appear in the clouds. But the sentiment introduced by Jesus into\nthe world is indeed ours. His perfect idealism is the highest rule of\nthe unblemished and virtuous life. He has created the heaven of pure\nsouls, where is found what we ask for in vain on earth, the perfect\nnobility of the children of God, absolute purity, the total removal of\nthe stains of the world; in fine, liberty, which society excludes as\nan impossibility, and which exists in all its amplitude only in the\ndomain of thought. The great Master of those who take refuge in this\nideal kingdom of God is still Jesus. He was the first to proclaim the\nroyalty of the mind; the first to say, at least by his actions, \"My\nkingdom is not of this world.\" The foundation of true religion is\nindeed his work: after him, all that remains is to develop it and\nrender it fruitful.\n\n\"Christianity\" has thus become almost a synonym of \"religion.\" All\nthat is done outside of this great and good Christian tradition is\nbarren. Jesus gave religion to humanity, as Socrates gave it\nphilosophy, and Aristotle science. There was philosophy before\nSocrates and science before Aristotle. Since Socrates and since\nAristotle, philosophy and science have made immense progress; but all\nhas been built upon the foundation which they laid. In the same way,\nbefore Jesus, religious thought had passed through many revolutions;\nsince Jesus, it has made great conquests: but no one has improved, and\nno one will improve upon the essential principle Jesus has created; he\nhas fixed forever the idea of pure worship. The religion of Jesus in\nthis sense is not limited. The Church has had its epochs and its\nphases; it has shut itself up in creeds which are, or will be but\ntemporary: but Jesus has founded the absolute religion, excluding\nnothing, and determining nothing unless it be the spirit. His creeds\nare not fixed dogmas, but images susceptible of indefinite\ninterpretations. We should seek in vain for a theological proposition\nin the Gospel. All confessions of faith are travesties of the idea of\nJesus, just as the scholasticism of the Middle Ages, in proclaiming\nAristotle the sole master of a completed science, perverted the\nthought of Aristotle. Aristotle, if he had been present in the debates\nof the schools, would have repudiated this narrow doctrine; he would\nhave been of the party of progressive science against the routine\nwhich shielded itself under his authority; he would have applauded his\nopponents. In the same way, if Jesus were to return among us, he would\nrecognize as disciples, not those who pretend to enclose him entirely\nin a few catechismal phrases, but those who labor to carry on his\nwork. The eternal glory, in all great things, is to have laid the\nfirst stone. It may be that in the \"Physics,\" and in the \"Meteorology\"\nof modern times, we may not discover a word of the treatises of\nAristotle which bear these titles; but Aristotle remains no less the\nfounder of natural science. Whatever may be the transformations of\ndogma, Jesus will ever be the creator of the pure spirit of religion;\nthe Sermon on the Mount will never be surpassed. Whatever revolution\ntakes place will not prevent us attaching ourselves in religion to\nthe grand intellectual and moral line at the head of which shines the\nname of Jesus. In this sense we are Christians, even when we separate\nourselves on almost all points from the Christian tradition which has\npreceded us.\n\nAnd this great foundation was indeed the personal work of Jesus. In\norder to make himself adored to this degree, he must have been\nadorable. Love is not enkindled except by an object worthy of it, and\nwe should know nothing of Jesus, if it were not for the passion he\ninspired in those about him, which compels us still to affirm that he\nwas great and pure. The faith, the enthusiasm, the constancy of the\nfirst Christian generation is not explicable, except by supposing at\nthe origin of the whole movement, a man of surpassing greatness. At\nthe sight of the marvellous creations of the ages of faith, two\nimpressions equally fatal to good historical criticism arise in the\nmind. On the one hand we are led to think these creations too\nimpersonal; we attribute to a collective action, that which has often\nbeen the work of one powerful will, and of one superior mind. On the\nother hand, we refuse to see men like ourselves in the authors of\nthose extraordinary movements which have decided the fate of humanity.\nLet us have a larger idea of the powers which Nature conceals in her\nbosom. Our civilizations, governed by minute restrictions, cannot give\nus any idea of the power of man at periods in which the originality of\neach one had a freer field wherein to develop itself. Let us imagine a\nrecluse dwelling in the mountains near our capitals, coming out from\ntime to time in order to present himself at the palaces of sovereigns,\ncompelling the sentinels to stand aside, and, with an imperious tone,\nannouncing to kings the approach of revolutions of which he had been\nthe promoter. The very idea provokes a smile. Such, however, was\nElias; but Elias the Tishbite, in our days, would not be able to pass\nthe gate of the Tuileries. The preaching of Jesus, and his free\nactivity in Galilee, do not deviate less completely from the social\nconditions to which we are accustomed. Free from our polished\nconventionalities, exempt from the uniform education which refines us,\nbut which so greatly dwarfs our individuality, these mighty souls\ncarried a surprising energy into action. They appear to us like the\ngiants of an heroic age, which could not have been real. Profound\nerror! Those men were our brothers; they were of our stature, felt and\nthought as we do. But the breath of God was free in them; with us, it\nis restrained by the iron bonds of a mean society, and condemned to an\nirremediable mediocrity.\n\nLet us place, then, the person of Jesus at the highest summit of human\ngreatness. Let us not be misled by exaggerated doubts in the presence\nof a legend which keeps us always in a superhuman world. The life of\nFrancis d'Assisi is also but a tissue of miracles. Has any one,\nhowever, doubted of the existence of Francis d'Assisi, and of the part\nplayed by him? Let us say no more that the glory of the foundation of\nChristianity belongs to the multitude of the first Christians, and not\nto him whom legend has deified. The inequality of men is much more\nmarked in the East than with us. It is not rare to see arise there, in\nthe midst of a general atmosphere of wickedness, characters whose\ngreatness astonishes us. So far from Jesus having been created by his\ndisciples, he appeared in everything as superior to his disciples. The\nlatter, with the exception of St. Paul and St. John, were men without\neither invention or genius. St. Paul himself bears no comparison with\nJesus, and as to St. John, I shall show hereafter, that the part he\nplayed, though very elevated in one sense, was far from being in all\nrespects irreproachable. Hence the immense superiority of the Gospels\namong the writings of the New Testament. Hence the painful fall we\nexperience in passing from the history of Jesus to that of the\napostles. The evangelists themselves, who have bequeathed us the image\nof Jesus, are so much beneath him of whom they speak, that they\nconstantly disfigure him, from their inability to attain to his\nheight. Their writings are full of errors and misconceptions. We feel\nin each line a discourse of divine beauty, transcribed by narrators\nwho do not understand it, and who substitute their own ideas for those\nwhich they have only half understood. On the whole, the character of\nJesus, far from having been embellished by his biographers, has been\nlowered by them. Criticism, in order to find what he was, needs to\ndiscard a series of misconceptions, arising from the inferiority of\nthe disciples. These painted him as they understood him, and often in\nthinking to raise him, they have in reality lowered him.\n\nI know that our modern ideas have been offended more than once in this\nlegend, conceived by another race, under another sky, and in the midst\nof other social wants. There are virtues which, in some respects, are\nmore conformable to our taste. The virtuous and gentle Marcus\nAurelius, the humble and gentle Spinoza, not having believed in\nmiracles, have been free from some errors that Jesus shared. Spinoza,\nin his profound obscurity, had an advantage which Jesus did not seek.\nBy our extreme delicacy in the use of means of conviction, by our\nabsolute sincerity and our disinterested love of the pure idea, we\nhave founded--all we who have devoted our lives to science--a new\nideal of morality. But the judgment of general history ought not to be\nrestricted to considerations of personal merit. Marcus Aurelius and\nhis noble teachers have had no permanent influence on the world.\nMarcus Aurelius left behind him delightful books, an execrable son,\nand a decaying nation. Jesus remains an inexhaustible principle of\nmoral regeneration for humanity. Philosophy does not suffice for the\nmultitude. They must have sanctity. An Apollonius of Tyana, with his\nmiraculous legend, is necessarily more successful than a Socrates with\nhis cold reason. \"Socrates,\" it was said, \"leaves men on the earth,\nApollonius transports them to heaven; Socrates is but a sage,\nApollonius is a god.\"[1] Religion, so far, has not existed without a\nshare of asceticism, of piety, and of the marvellous. When it was\nwished, after the Antonines, to make a religion of philosophy, it was\nrequisite to transform the philosophers into saints, to write the\n\"Edifying Life\" of Pythagoras or Plotinus, to attribute to them a\nlegend, virtues of abstinence, contemplation, and supernatural powers,\nwithout which neither credence nor authority were found in that age.\n\n[Footnote 1: Philostratus, _Life of Apollonius_, i. 2, vii. 11, viii.\n7; Unapius, _Lives of the Sophists_, pages 454, 500 (edition Didot).]\n\nPreserve us, then, from mutilating history in order to satisfy our\npetty susceptibilities! Which of us, pigmies as we are, could do what\nthe extravagant Francis d'Assisi, or the hysterical saint Theresa, has\ndone? Let medicine have names to express these grand errors of human\nnature; let it maintain that genius is a disease of the brain; let it\nsee, in a certain delicacy of morality, the commencement of\nconsumption; let it class enthusiasm and love as nervous\naccidents--it matters little. The terms healthy and diseased are\nentirely relative. Who would not prefer to be diseased like Pascal,\nrather than healthy like the common herd? The narrow ideas which are\nspread in our times respecting madness, mislead our historical\njudgments in the most serious manner, in questions of this kind. A\nstate in which a man says things of which he is not conscious, in\nwhich thought is produced without the summons and control of the will,\nexposes him to being confined as a lunatic. Formerly this was called\nprophecy and inspiration. The most beautiful things in the world are\ndone in a state of fever; every great creation involves a breach of\nequilibrium, a violent state of the being which draws it forth.\n\nWe acknowledge, indeed, that Christianity is too complex to have been\nthe work of a single man. In one sense, entire humanity has\nco-operated therein. There is no one so shut in, as not to receive\nsome influence from without. The history of the human mind is full of\nstrange coincidences, which cause very remote portions of the human\nspecies, without any communication with each other, to arrive at the\nsame time at almost identical ideas and imaginations. In the\nthirteenth century, the Latins, the Greeks, the Syrians, the Jews, and\nthe Mussulmans, adopted scholasticism, and very nearly the same\nscholasticism from York to Samarcand; in the fourteenth century every\none in Italy, Persia, and India, yielded to the taste for mystical\nallegory; in the sixteenth, art was developed in a very similar manner\nin Italy, at Mount Athos, and at the court of the Great Moguls,\nwithout St. Thomas, Barhebraeus, the Rabbis of Narbonne, or the\n_Motecallemin_ of Bagdad, having known each other, without Dante and\nPetrarch having seen any _sofi_, without any pupil of the schools of\nPerouse or of Florence having been at Delhi. We should say there are\ngreat moral influences running through the world like epidemics,\nwithout distinction of frontier and of race. The interchange of ideas\nin the human species does not take place only by books or by direct\ninstruction. Jesus was ignorant of the very name of Buddha, of\nZoroaster, and of Plato; he had read no Greek book, no Buddhist Sudra;\nnevertheless, there was in him more than one element, which, without\nhis suspecting it, came from Buddhism, Parseeism, or from the Greek\nwisdom. All this was done through secret channels and by that kind of\nsympathy which exists among the various portions of humanity. The\ngreat man, on the one hand, receives everything from his age; on the\nother, he governs his age. To show that the religion founded by Jesus\nwas the natural consequence of that which had gone before, does not\ndiminish its excellence; but only proves that it had a reason for its\nexistence that it was legitimate, that is to say, conformable to the\ninstinct and wants of the heart in a given age.\n\nIs it more just to say that Jesus owes all to Judaism, and that his\ngreatness is only that of the Jewish people? No one is more disposed\nthan myself to place high this unique people, whose particular gift\nseems to have been to contain in its midst the extremes of good and\nevil. No doubt, Jesus proceeded from Judaism; but he proceeded from it\nas Socrates proceeded from the schools of the Sophists, as Luther\nproceeded from the Middle Ages, as Lamennais from Catholicism, as\nRousseau from the eighteenth century. A man is of his age and his race\neven when he reacts against his age and his race. Far from Jesus\nhaving continued Judaism, he represents the rupture with the Jewish\nspirit. The general direction of Christianity after him does not\npermit the supposition that his idea in this respect could lead to any\nmisunderstanding. The general march of Christianity has been to remove\nitself more and more from Judaism. It will become perfect in returning\nto Jesus, but certainly not in returning to Judaism. The great\noriginality of the founder remains then undiminished; his glory admits\nno legitimate sharer.\n\nDoubtless, circumstances much aided the success of this marvellous\nrevolution; but circumstances only second that which is just and true.\nEach branch of the development of humanity has its privileged epoch,\nin which it attains perfection by a sort of spontaneous instinct, and\nwithout effort. No labor of reflection would succeed in producing\nafterward the masterpieces which Nature creates at those moments by\ninspired geniuses. That which the golden age of Greece was for arts\nand literature, the age of Jesus was for religion. Jewish society\nexhibited the most extraordinary moral and intellectual state which\nthe human species has ever passed through. It was truly one of those\ndivine hours in which the sublime is produced by combinations of a\nthousand hidden forces, in which great souls find a flood of\nadmiration and sympathy to sustain them. The world, delivered from the\nvery narrow tyranny of small municipal republics, enjoyed great\nliberty. Roman despotism did not make itself felt in a disastrous\nmanner until much later, and it was, moreover, always less oppressive\nin those distant provinces than in the centre of the empire. Our petty\npreventive interferences (far more destructive than death to things of\nthe spirit) did not exist. Jesus, during three years, could lead a\nlife which, in our societies, would have brought him twenty times\nbefore the magistrates. Our laws upon the illegal exercise of medicine\nwould alone have sufficed to cut short his career. The unbelieving\ndynasty of the Herods, on the other hand, occupied itself little with\nreligious movements; under the Asmoneans, Jesus would probably have\nbeen arrested at his first step. An innovator, in such a state of\nsociety, only risked death, and death is a gain to those who labor for\nthe future. Imagine Jesus reduced to bear the burden of his divinity\nuntil his sixtieth or seventieth year, losing his celestial fire,\nwearing out little by little under the burden of an unparalleled\nmission! Everything favors those who have a special destiny; they\nbecome glorious by a sort of invincible impulse and command of fate.\n\nThis sublime person, who each day still presides over the destiny of\nthe world, we may call divine, not in the sense that Jesus has\nabsorbed all the divine, or has been adequate to it (to employ an\nexpression of the schoolmen), but in the sense that Jesus is the one\nwho has caused his fellow-men to make the greatest step toward the\ndivine. Mankind in its totality offers an assemblage of low beings,\nselfish, and superior to the animal only in that its selfishness is\nmore reflective. From the midst of this uniform mediocrity, there are\npillars that rise toward the sky, and bear witness to a nobler\ndestiny. Jesus is the highest of these pillars which show to man\nwhence he comes, and whither he ought to tend. In him was condensed\nall that is good and elevated in our nature. He was not sinless; he\nhas conquered the same passions that we combat; no angel of God\ncomforted him, except his good conscience; no Satan tempted him,\nexcept that which each one bears in his heart. In the same way that\nmany of his great qualities are lost to us, through the fault of his\ndisciples, it is also probable that many of his faults have been\nconcealed. But never has any one so much as he made the interests of\nhumanity predominate in his life over the littlenesses of self-love.\nUnreservedly devoted to his mission, he subordinated everything to it\nto such a degree that, toward the end of his life, the universe no\nlonger existed for him. It was by this access of heroic will that he\nconquered heaven. There never was a man, Cakya-Mouni perhaps excepted,\nwho has to this degree trampled under foot, family, the joys of this\nworld, and all temporal care. Jesus only lived for his Father and the\ndivine mission which he believed himself destined to fulfill.\n\nAs to us, eternal children, powerless as we are, we who labor without\nreaping, and who will never see the fruit of that which we have sown,\nlet us bow before these demi-gods. They were able to do that which we\ncannot do: to create, to affirm, to act. Will great originality be\nborn again, or will the world content itself henceforth by following\nthe ways opened by the bold creators of the ancient ages? We know not.\nBut whatever may be the unexpected phenomena of the future, Jesus will\nnot be surpassed. His worship will constantly renew its youth, the\ntale of his life will cause ceaseless tears, his sufferings will\nsoften the best hearts; all the ages will proclaim that among the sons\nof men, there is none born who is greater than Jesus.\n\n\n[THE END.]\n\n\n\n\n_Modern Library of the World's Best Books_\n\nCOMPLETE LIST OF TITLES IN\n\nTHE MODERN LIBRARY\n\nFor convenience in ordering use number at right of title\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nADAMS, HENRY               The Education of Henry Adams 76\nAIKEN, CONRAD              A Comprehensive Anthology of\n                             American Poetry 101\nAIKEN, CONRAD              20th-Century American Poetry 127\nANDERSON, SHERWOOD         Winesburg, Ohio 104\nAQUINAS, ST. THOMAS        Introduction to St. Thomas Aquinas 259\nARISTOTLE                  Introduction to Aristotle 248\nARISTOTLE                  Politics 228\nBALZAC                     Droll Stories 193\nBALZAC                     Pere Goriot and Eugenie Grandet 245\nBEERBOHM, MAX              Zuleika Dobson 116\nBELLAMY, EDWARD            Looking Backward 22\nBENNETT, ARNOLD            The Old Wives' Tale 184\nBERGSON, HENRI             Creative Evolution 231\nBIERCE, AMBROSE            In the Midst of Life 133\nBOCCACCIO                  The Decameron 71\nBRONTE, CHARLOTTE          Jane Eyre 64\nBRONTE, EMILY              Wuthering Heights 106\nBUCK, PEARL                The Good Earth 15\nBURK, JOHN N.              The Life and Works of Beethoven 241\nBURTON, RICHARD            The Arabian Nights 201\nBUTLER, SAMUEL             Erewhon and Erewhon Revisited 136\nBUTLER, SAMUEL             The Way of All Flesh 13\nBYRNE, DONN                Messer Marco Polo 43\nCALDWELL, ERSKINE          God's Little Acre 51\nCALDWELL, ERSKINE          Tobacco Road 249\nCANFIELD, DOROTHY          The Deepening Stream 200\nCARROLL, LEWIS             Alice in Wonderland, etc. 79\nCASANOVA, JACQUES          Memoirs of Casanova 165\nCELLINI, BENVENUTO         Autobiography of Cellini 150\nCERVANTES                  Don Quixote 174\nCHAUCER                    The Canterbury Tales 161\nCOMMAGER, HENRY STEELE     A Short History of the United States 235\nCONFUCIUS                  The Wisdom of Confucius 7\nCONRAD, JOSEPH             Heart of Darkness\n                             (In Great Modern Short Stories 168)\nCONRAD, JOSEPH             Lord Jim 186\nCONRAD, JOSEPH             Victory 186\nCORNEILLE and RACINE       Six Plays of Corneille and Racine 194\nCORVO, FREDERICK BARON     A History of the Borgias 192\nCRANE, STEPHEN             The Red Badge of Courage 130\nCUMMINGS, E.E.             The Enormous Room 214\nDANA, RICHARD HENRY        Two Years Before the Mast 236\nDANTE                      The Divine Comedy 208\nDAY, CLARENCE              Life with Father 230\nDEFOE, DANIEL              Robinson Crusoe and A Journal of the\n                             Plague Year 92\nDEFOE, DANIEL              Moll Flanders 122\nDEWEY, JOHN                Human Nature and Conduct 173\nDICKENS, CHARLES           A Tale of Two Cities 189\nDICKENS, CHARLES           David Copperfield 110\nDICKENS, CHARLES           Pickwick Papers 204\nDICKINSON, EMILY           Selected Poems of 25\nDINESEN, ISAK              Seven Gothic Tales 54\nDOS PASSOS, JOHN           Three Soldiers 205\nDOSTOYEVSKY, FYODOR        Crime and Punishment 199\nDOSTOYEVSKY, FYODOR        The Brothers Karamazov 151\nDOSTOYEVSKY, FYODOR        The Possessed 55\nDOUGLAS, NORMAN            South Wind 5\nDOYLE, SIR ARTHUR CONAN    The Adventures and Memoirs of Sherlock\n                             Holmes 206\nDREISER, THEODORE          Sister Carrie 8\nDUMAS, ALEXANDRE           Camille 69\nDUMAS, ALEXANDRE           The Three Musketeers 143\nDU MAURIER, DAPHNE         Rebecca 227\nDU MAURIER, GEORGE         Peter Ibbetson 207\nEDMAN, IRWIN               The Philosophy of Plato 181\nEDMAN, IRWIN               The Philosophy of Santayana 224\nELLIS, HAVELOCK            The Dance of Life 160\nEMERSON, RALPH WALDO       Essays and Other Writings 91\nFAST, HOWARD               The Unvanquished 239\nFAULKNER, WILLIAM          Sanctuary 61\nFAULKNER, WILLIAM          The Sound and the Fury and As I Lay\n                             Dying 187\nFIELDING, HENRY            Joseph Andrews 117\nFIELDING, HENRY            Tom Jones 185\nFLAUBERT, GUSTAVE          Madame Bovary 28\nFORESTER, C.S.             The African Queen 102\nFORSTER, E.M.              A Passage to India 218\nFRANCE, ANATOLE            Penguin Island 210\nFRANKLIN, BENJAMIN         Autobiography, etc. 39\nFROST, ROBERT              The Poems of 242\nGALSWORTHY, JOHN           The Apple Tree\n                             (In Great Modern Short Stories 168)\nGAUTIER, THEOPHILE         Mlle. De Maupin and\n                             One of Cleopatra's Nights 53\nGEORGE, HENRY              Progress and Poverty 36\nGODDEN, RUMER              Black Narcissus 256\nGOETHE                     Faust 177\nGOETHE                     The Sorrows of Werther\n                             (In Collected German Stories 108)\nGOGOL, NIKOLAI              Dead Souls 40\nGRAVES, ROBERT             I, Claudius 20\nHAMMETT, DASHIELL           The Maltese Falcon 45\nHAMSUN, KNUT               Growth of the Soil 12\nHARDY, THOMAS              Jude the Obscure 135\nHARDY, THOMAS              The Mayor of Casterbridge 17\nHARDY, THOMAS              The Return of the Native 121\nHARDY, THOMAS              Tess of the D'Urbervilles 72\nHART AND KAUFMAN           Six Plays by 233\nHARTE, BRET                The Best Stories of 250\nHAWTHORNE, NATHANIEL       The Scarlet Letter 93\nHELLMAN, LILLIAN           Four Plays by 223\nHEMINGWAY, ERNEST          A Farewell to Arms 19\nHEMINGWAY, ERNEST          The Sun Also Rises 170\nHEMON, LOUIS               Maria Chapdelaine 10\nHENRY, O.                  Best Short Stones of 4\nHERODOTUS                  The Complete Works of 255\nHERSEY, JOHN               A Bell for Adano 16\nHOMER                      The Iliad 166\nHOMER                      The Odyssey 167\nHORACE                     The Complete Works of 141\nHUDSON, W.H.               Green Mansions 89\nHUDSON, W.H.               The Purple Land 24\nHUGHES, RICHARD            A High Wind in Jamaica 112\nHUGO, VICTOR               The Hunchback of Notre Dame 35\nHUXLEY, ALDOUS             Antic Hay 209\nHUXLEY, ALDOUS             Point Counter Point 180\nIBSEN, HENRIK              A Doll's House, Ghosts, etc. 6\nIRVING, WASHINGTON         Selected Writings of Washington Irving\n                             240\nJACKSON, CHARLES           The Lost Weekend 258\nJAMES, HENRY               The Portrait of a Lady 107\nJAMES, HENRY               The Turn of the Screw 169\nJAMES, HENRY               The Wings of the Dove 244\nJAMES, WILLIAM             The Philosophy of William James 114\nJAMES, WILLIAM             The Varieties of Religious Experience 70\nJEFFERS, WILLIAM           Roan Stallion; Tamar and Other\n                             Poems 118\nJEFFERSON, THOMAS          The Life and Selected Writings of 234\nJOYCE, JAMES               Dubliners 124\nJOYCE, JAMES               A Portrait of the Artist as a Young\n                             Man 145\nKAUFMAN AND HART           Six Plays by 233\nKOESTLER, ARTHUR           Darkness at Noon 74\nKUPRIN, ALEXANDRE          Yama 203\nLAOTSE                     The Wisdom of 262\nLARDNER, RING              The Collected Short Stories of 211\nLAWRENCE, D.H.             The Rainbow 128\nLAWRENCE, D.H.             Sons and Lovers 109\nLAWRENCE, D.H.             Women in Love 68\nLEWIS, SINCLAIR            Arrowsmith 42\nLEWIS, SINCLAIR            Babbitt 162\nLEWIS, SINCLAIR            Dodsworth 252\nLONGFELLOW, HENRY W.       Poems 56\nLOUYS, PIERRE              Aphrodite 77\nLUDWIG, EMIL               Napoleon 95\nMACHIAVELLI                The Prince and The Discourses of\n                             Machiavelli 65\nMALRAUX, ANDRE             Man's Fate 33\nMANN, THOMAS               Death in Venice\n                             (In Collected German Stories 108)\nMANSFIELD, KATHERINE       The Garden Party 129\nMARQUAND, JOHN P.          The Late George Apley 182\nMARX, KARL                 Capital and Other Writings 202\nMAUGHAM, W. SOMERSET       Of Human Bondage 176\nMAUGHAM, W. SOMERSET       The Moon and Sixpence 27\nMAUPASSANT, GUY DE         Best Short Stories 98\nMAUROIS, ANDRE             Disraeli 46\nMcFEE, WILLIAM             Casuals of the Sea 195\nMELVILLE, HERMAN           Moby Dick 119\nMEREDITH, GEORGE           Diana of the Crossways 14\nMEREDITH, GEORGE           The Ordeal of Richard Feverel 134\nMEREDITH, GEORGE           The Egoist 253\nMEREJKOWSKI, DMITRI        The Romance of Leonardo da Vinci 138\nMILTON, JOHN               The Complete Poetry and Selected\n                             Prose of John Milton 132\nMISCELLANEOUS              An Anthology of American Negro\n                             Literature 163\n                           An Anthology of Light Verse 48\n                           Best Amer. Humorous Short Stories 87\n                           Best Russian Short Stories, including\n                             Bunin's The Gentleman from San\n                             Francisco 18\n                           Eight Famous Elizabethan Plays 94\n                           Famous Ghost Stories 73\n                           Five Great Modern Irish Plays 30\n                           Four Famous Greek Plays 158\n                           Fourteen Great Detective Stories 144\n                           Great German Short Novels and\n                             Stories 108\n                           Great Modern Short Stories 168\n                           Great Tales of the American West 238\n                           Outline of Abnormal Psychology 152\n                           Outline of Psychoanalysis 66\n                           The Consolation of Philosophy 226\n                           The Federalist 139\n                           The Making of Man: An Outline of\n                             Anthropology 149\n                           The Making of Society: An Outline of\n                             Sociology 183\n                           The Poetry of Freedom 175\n                           The Sex Problem in Modern Society 198\n                           The Short Bible 57\n                           Three Famous French Romances 85\n                             Sapho, by Alphonse Daudet\n                             Manon Lescaut, by Antoine Prevost\n                             Carmen, by Prosper Merimee\nMOLIERE                    Plays 78\nMORLEY, CHRISTOPHER        Parnassus on Wheels 190\nNASH, OGDEN                The Selected Verse of Ogden Nash 191\nNEVINS, ALLAN              A Short History of the United States 235\nNIETZSCHE, FRIEDRICH       Thus Spake Zarathustra 9\nNOSTRADAMUS                Oracles of 81\nODETS, CLIFFORD            Six Plays of 67\nO'NEILL, EUGENE            The Emperor Jones, Anna Christie and\n                             The Hairy Ape 146\nO'NEILL, EUGENE            The Long Voyage Home and Seven\n                             Plays of the Sea 111\nPALGRAVE, FRANCIS          The Golden Treasury 232\nPARKER, DOROTHY            The Collected Short Stories of 123\nPARKER, DOROTHY            The Collected Poetry of 237\nPASCAL, BLAISE             Pensees and The Provincial Letters 164\nPATER, WALTER              Marius the Epicurean 90\nPATER, WALTER              The Renaissance 86\nPAUL, ELLIOT               The Life and Death of a Spanish\n                             Town 225\nPEARSON, EDMUND            Studies in Murder 113\nPEPYS, SAMUEL              Samuel Pepys' Diary 103\nPERELMAN, S.J.             The Best of 247\nPETRONIUS ARBITER          The Satyricon 156\nPLATO                      The Philosophy of Plato 181\nPLATO                      The Republic 153\nPOE, EDGAR ALLAN           Best Tales 82\nPOLO, MARCO                The Travels of Marco Polo 196\nPOPE, ALEXANDER            Selected Works of 257\nPORTER, KATHERINE ANNE     Flowering Judas 88\nPROUST, MARCEL             Swann's Way 59\nPROUST, MARCEL             Within a Budding Grove 172\nPROUST, MARCEL             The Guermantes Way 213\nPROUST, MARCEL             Cities of the Plain 220\nPROUST, MARCEL             The Captive 120\nPROUST, MARCEL             The Sweet Cheat Gone 260\nRAWLINGS, MARJORIE KINNAN  The Yearling 246\nREADE, CHARLES             The Cloister and the Hearth 62\nREED, JOHN                 Ten Days that Shook the World 215\nRENAN, ERNEST              The Life of Jesus 140\nROSTAND, EDMOND            Cyrano de Bergerac 154\nROUSSEAU, JEAN JACQUES     The Confessions of Jean Jacques\n                             Rousseau 243\nRUSSELL, BERTRAND          Selected Papers of Bertrand Russell 137\nSCHOPENHAUER               The Philosophy of Schopenhauer 52\nSHAKESPEARE, WILLIAM       Tragedies, 1, 1A--complete, 2 vols.\nSHAKESPEARE, WILLIAM       Comedies, 2, 2A--complete, 2 vols.\nSHAKESPEARE, WILLIAM       Histories, 3         }\n                           Histories, Poems, 3A } complete, 2 vols.\nSHEEAN, VINCENT            Personal History 32\nSMOLLETT, TOBIAS           Humphry Clinker 159\nSNOW, EDGAR                Red Star Over China 126\nSPINOZA                    The Philosophy of Spinoza 60\nSTEINBECK, JOHN            In Dubious Battle 115\nSTEINBECK, JOHN            Of Mice and Men 29\nSTEINBECK, JOHN            The Grapes of Wrath 148\nSTEINBECK, JOHN            Tortilla Flat 216\nSTENDHAL                   The Red and the Black 157\nSTERNE, LAURENCE           Tristram Shandy 147\nSTEWART, GEORGE R.         Storm 254\nSTOKER, BRAM               Dracula 31\nSTONE, IRVING              Lust for Life 11\nSTOWE, HARRIET BEECHER     Uncle Tom's Cabin 261\nSTRACHEY, LYTTON           Eminent Victorians 212\nSUETONIUS                  Lives of the Twelve Caesars 188\nSWIFT, JONATHAN            Gulliver's Travels, A Tale of a Tub, The\n                             Battle of the Books 100\nSWINBURNE, CHARLES         Poems 23\nSYMONDS, JOHN A.           The Life of Michelangelo 49\nTACITUS                    The Complete Works of 222\nTCHEKOV, ANTON             Short Stories 50\nTCHEKOV, ANTON             Sea Gull, Cherry Orchard, Three Sisters,\n                             etc. 171\nTHACKERAY, WILLIAM         Henry Esmond 80\nTHACKERAY, WILLIAM         Vanity Fair 131\nTHOMPSON, FRANCIS          Complete Poems 38\nTHOREAU, HENRY DAVID       Walden and Other Writings 155\nTHUCYDIDES                 The Complete Writings of 58\nTOLSTOY, LEO               Anna Karenina 37\nTOMLINSON, H.M.            The Sea and the Jungle 99\nTROLLOPE, ANTHONY          Barchester Towers and The Warden 41\nTROLLOPE, ANTHONY          The Eustace Diamonds 251\nTURGENEV, IVAN             Fathers and Sons 21\nVAN LOON, HENDRIK W.       Ancient Man 105\nVEBLEN, THORSTEIN          The Theory of the Leisure Class 63\nVIRGIL'S WORKS             Including The Aeneid, Eclogues, and\n                             Georgics 75\nVOLTAIRE                   Candide 47\nWALPOLE, HUGH              Fortitude 178\nWALTON, IZAAK              The Compleat Angler 26\nWEBB, MARY                 Precious Bane 219\nWELLS, H.G.                Tono Bungay 197\nWHARTON, EDITH             The Age of Innocence 229\nWHITMAN, WALT              Leaves of Grass 97\nWILDE, OSCAR               Dorian Gray, De Profundis 125\nWILDE, OSCAR               Poems and Fairy Tales 84\nWILDE, OSCAR               The Plays of Oscar Wilde 83\nWOOLF, VIRGINIA            Mrs. Dalloway 96\nWOOLF, VIRGINIA            To the Lighthouse 217\nWRIGHT, RICHARD            Native Son 221\nYEATS, W.B.                Irish Fairy and Folk Tales 44\nYOUNG, G.F.                The Medici 179\nZOLA, EMILE                Nana 142\nZWEIG, STEFAN              Amok (In Collected German Stories 108)\n\n\n\n\nMODERN LIBRARY GIANTS\n\n_A series of full-sized library editions of books that formerly were\navailable only in cumbersome and expensive sets._\n\nTHE MODERN LIBRARY GIANTS REPRESENT A\nSELECTION OF THE WORLD'S GREATEST BOOKS\n\n_Many are illustrated and some of them are over 1200 pages long._\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nG1.  TOLSTOY, LEO. War and Peace.\nG2.  BOSWELL, JAMES. Life of Samuel Johnson.\nG3.  HUGO, VICTOR. Les Miserables.\nG4.  THE COMPLETE POEMS OF KEATS AND SHELLEY.\nG5.  PLUTARCH'S LIVES (The Dryden Translation).\nG6.} GIBBON, EDWARD. The Decline and Fall of the Roman\nG7.}   Empire (Complete in three volumes).\nG8.}\nG9.  YOUNG, G.F. The Medici (Illustrated).\nG10. TWELVE FAMOUS RESTORATION PLAYS (1660-1820)\n       (Congreve, Wycherley, Gay, Goldsmith, Sheridan, etc.)\nG11. JAMES, HENRY. The Short Stories of.\nG12. THE MOST POPULAR NOVELS OF SIR WALTER\n       SCOTT (Quentin Durward, Ivanhoe and Kenilworth).\nG13. CARLYLE, THOMAS. The French Revolution.\nG14. BULFINCH'S MYTHOLOGY (Illustrated).\nG15. CERVANTES. Don Quixote (Illustrated).\nG16. WOLFE, THOMAS. Look Homeward, Angel.\nG17. THE POEMS AND PLAYS OF ROBERT BROWNING.\nG18. ELEVEN PLAYS OF HENRIK IBSEN.\nG19. THE COMPLETE WORKS OF HOMER.\nG20. THE LIFE AND WRITINGS OF ABRAHAM LINCOLN.\nG21. SIXTEEN FAMOUS AMERICAN PLAYS.\nG23. TOLSTOY, LEO. Anna Karenina.\nG24. LAMB, CHARLES. The Complete Works and Letters of\n       Charles Lamb.\nG25. THE COMPLETE PLAYS OF GILBERT AND SULLIVAN.\nG26. MARX, KARL. Capital.\nG27. DARWIN, CHARLES. The Origin of Species and The Descent\n       of Man.\nG28. THE COMPLETE WORKS OF LEWIS CARROLL.\nG29. PRESCOTT, WILLIAM H. The Conquest of Mexico and\n       The Conquest of Peru.\nG30. MYERS, GUSTAVUS. History of the Great American\n       Fortunes.\nG31. WERFEL, FRANZ. The Forty Days of Musa Dagh.\nG32. SMITH, ADAM. The Wealth of Nations.\nG33. COLLINS, WILKIE. The Moonstone and The Woman in White.\nG34. NIETZSCHE, FRIEDRICH. The Philosophy of Nietzsche.\nG35. BURY, J.B. A History of Greece.\nG36. DOSTOYEVSKY, FYODOR. The Brothers Karamazov.\nG37. THE COMPLETE NOVELS AND SELECTED TALES OF\n       NATHANIEL HAWTHORNE.\nG38. ROLLAND, ROMAIN. Jean-Christophe.\nG39. THE BASIC WRITINGS OF SIGMUND FREUD.\nG40. THE COMPLETE TALES AND POEMS OF EDGAR\n       ALLAN POE.\nG41. FARRELL, JAMES T. Studs Lonigan.\nG42. THE POEMS AND PLAYS OF TENNYSON.\nG43. DEWEY, JOHN. Intelligence in the Modern World: John\n       Dewey's Philosophy.\nG44. DOS PASSOS, JOHN. U.S.A.\nG45. LEWISOHN, LUDWIG. The Story of American Literature.\nG46. A NEW ANTHOLOGY OF MODERN POETRY.\nG47. THE ENGLISH PHILOSOPHERS FROM BACON TO\n       MILL.\nG48. THE METROPOLITAN OPERA GUIDE.\nG49. TWAIN, MARK. Tom Sawyer and Huckleberry Finn.\nG50. WHITMAN, WALT. Leaves of Grass.\nG51. THE BEST-KNOWN NOVELS OF GEORGE ELIOT.\nG52. JOYCE, JAMES. Ulysses.\nG53. SUE, EUGENE. The Wandering Jew.\nG54. FIELDING, HENRY. Tom Jones.\nG55. O'NEILL, EUGENE. Nine Plays by.\nG56. STERNE, LAURENCE. Tristram Shandy and A Sentimental\n       Journey.\nG57. BROOKS, VAN WYCK. The Flowering of New England.\nG58. THE COMPLETE NOVELS OF JANE AUSTEN.\nG59. HEMINGWAY, ERNEST. The Short Stories of.\nG60. DOSTOYEVSKY, FYODOR. The Idiot. (Illustrated by\n       Boardman Robinson).\nG61. SPAETH, SIGMUND. A Guide to Great Orchestral Music.\nG62. THE POEMS, PROSE AND PLAYS OF PUSHKIN.\nG63. SIXTEEN FAMOUS BRITISH PLAYS.\nG64. MELVILLE, HERMAN. Moby Dick.\nG65. THE COMPLETE WORKS OF RABELAIS.\nG66. THREE FAMOUS MURDER NOVELS\n     _Before the Fact_, Francis Iles.\n     _Trent's Last Case_, E.C. Bentley.\n     _The House of the Arrow_, A.E.W. Mason.\nG67. ANTHOLOGY OF FAMOUS ENGLISH AND AMERICAN\n       POETRY.\nG68. THE SELECTED WORK OF TOM PAINE.\nG69. ONE HUNDRED AND ONE YEARS' ENTERTAINMENT.\nG70. THE COMPLETE POETRY OF JOHN DONNE AND\n       WILLIAM BLAKE.\nG71. SIXTEEN FAMOUS EUROPEAN PLAYS.\nG72. GREAT TALES OF TERROR AND THE SUPERNATURAL.\nG73. A SUBTREASURY OF AMERICAN HUMOR.","title":"The Life of Jesus","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":119391}