{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_39052/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_39052","id":"gutenberg_39052","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/39052","summary":null,"tags":["Category: History - Religious","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Jesus Christ -- Biography -- Early works to 1800","Jesus Christ -- Rationalistic interpretations -- Early works to 1800"],"text":"Produced by the Freethought Archives (www.ftarchives.net)\nand the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at\nhttp://www.pgdp.net\n\n\n\n\n\n[Transcriber's note: archaic spellings such as \"desart\" for \"desert\"\nhave been retained, as have inconsistent spellings such as\n\"Galilee\"--\"Gallilee\", etc.]\n\n\n\n\nECCE HOMO!\n\nOR,\n\nA CRITICAL INQUIRY INTO\n\nTHE HISTORY OF JESUS OF NAZARETH:\n\nBEING A RATIONAL ANALYSIS OF THE GOSPELS\n\nby BARON d'HOLBACH\n\n(Paul Henri Thiry Holbach)\n\nThe Cross was the banner, under which madmen assembled to glut the earth\nwith blood.--_Vide Chap._ 18.\n\nGORDON PRESS\n\nNEW YORK\n\n1977\n\n\n      GORDON PRESS-Publishers\n      P.O. Box 459\n      Bowling Green Station\n      New York, N.Y. 10004\n\n      =Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data=\n\n      [Holbach, Paul Henri Thiry, baron d'] 1723-1789.\n      Ecce homo!\n\n      Translation of Histoire critique de Jesus Christ.\n\n      Reprint of the 1st American ed., rev. and corr., of\n      1827, printed for the proprietors of the Philosophical\n      library, New York, which was issued as no. 1 of the\n      Philosophical library.\n\n      1. Jesus Christ--Biography--Early works to 1800.\n      I. Title. II. Series: The Philosophical library;\n      no. 1.\n      BT30O.H74 1976      232.9'01      73-8281\n      ISBN 0-87968-077-6\n\n      Printed in the United States of America\n\n\n\n\nINTRODUCTION.\n\n\nAlthough the writings of the New Testament are in the hands of every\none, nothing is more uncommon than to find the professors of\nChristianity acquainted with the history or the founder of their\nreligion; and even among those who have perused that history, it is\nstill more rare to find any who have ventured seriously to examine it.\nIt must, indeed, be acknowledged, that the ignorance of the one, and the\nwant of reflection in the other, on a subject which they, nevertheless,\nregard as of infinite importance, may arise from the dislike naturally\noccasioned by the perusal of the New Testament. In that work there is a\nconfusion, an obscurity and a barbarity of stile, well adapted to\nconfound the ignorant, and to disgust enlightened minds. Scarcely is\nthere a history, ancient or modern, which does not possess more method\nand clearness than that of Jesus; neither do we perceive that the Holy\nSpirit, its reputed author, has surpassed, or even equalled many profane\nhistorians, whose writings are not so important to mankind. The clergy\nconfess, that the apostles were illiterate men, and of rough manners;\nand it does not appear that the Spirit which inspired them, troubled\nitself with correcting their defects. On the contrary, it seems to have\nadopted them; to have accommodated itself to the weak understandings of\nits instruments; and to have inspired them with works in which we do not\nfind the judgment, order, or precision, that prevail in many human\ncompositions. Hence, the gospels exhibit a confused assemblage of\nprodigies, anachronisms, and contradictions, in which criticism loses\nitself, and which would make any other book be rejected with contempt.\n\nIt is by _mysteries_ the mind is prepared to respect religion and its\nteachers. We are therefore warranted to suspect, that an obscurity was\ndesignedly given to these writings. In matters of religion it is prudent\nnever to speak very distinctly. Truths simple and easily understood, do\nnot strike the imagination in so lively a manner as ambiguous oracles,\nand impenetrable mysteries. Jesus, although come on purpose to enlighten\nthe world, was to be a _stumbling block_ to many nations. The small\nnumber of the elect, the difficulty of salvation, and the danger of\nexercising reason, are repeatedly announced in the gospels. Every thing\nseems indeed to demonstrate, that God sent his Son to the nations, on\npurpose to ensnare them, and that they should not comprehend any part of\nthe religion which he meant to promulgate. In this the Eternal appears\nto have intended to throw mortals into darkness, perplexity, a\ndiffidence of themselves, and a continual embarrassment, obliging them\nto have recourse to those infallible luminaries, their priests, and to\nremain forever under the tutelage of the church. Her ministers, we know,\nclaim the exclusive privilege of understanding and explaining the\nscriptures; and no mortal can expect to obtain future felicity if he\ndoes not pay due submission to their decisions.\n\nThus, it belongs not to the laity to examine religion. On mere\ninspection of the gospels, every person must be convinced that the book\nis divine; that every word contained in it is inspired by the Holy\nSpirit; and that the explanations given by the church of that celestial\nwork, in like manner emanate from the Most High. In the first ages of\nChristianity, those who embraced the religion of Jesus were only the\ndregs of the people; consequently very simple, unacquainted with\nletters, and disposed to believe all the wonders any one chose to\nannounce. Jesus, in his sermons, addressed himself to the vulgar only;\nhe would have intercourse with none but persons of that description; he\nconstantly refused to work miracles in presence of the most\nclear-sighted of the nation; he declaimed unceasingly against the\nlearned, the doctors, and the rich; against all in whom he could not\nfind the pliability necessary for adopting his maxims. We see him\ncontinually extolling poorness of spirit, simplicity, and faith.\n\nHis disciples, and after them the ministers of the church, have\nfaithfully followed his footsteps; they have always represented faith,\nor blind submission, as the first of virtues; as the disposition most\nagreeable to God, and most necessary to salvation. This principle serves\nfor a basis to the Christian religion, and, above all, to the\nusurpations of the clergy. The preachers, therefore, who succeeded the\napostles, employed the greatest care in secreting the gospels from the\ninspection of all who were not initiated in the mysteries of religion.\nThey exhibited these books to those only whose faith they had tried, and\nwhom they found already disposed to regard them as divine. This\nmysterious spirit has been transmitted down to our days. In several\ncountries, the laity are interdicted from perusing the scriptures,\nespecially in the Romish communion, whose clergy are best acquainted\nwith governing mankind. The council of Trent has decreed, that \"it\nbelongs to the church alone to decide on the true meaning of the\nscriptures, and give their interpretation.\"\n\nIt is true, the _reading_ of the sacred books is permitted, and even\nrecommended to protestants, who are also enjoined to _examine_ their\nreligion. But faith must always precede that reading, and follow that\nexamination; so that before reading, a protestant is bound to believe\nthe gospel to be divine: and the examination of it is permitted only,\nwhile he finds there what the ministers of his sect have resolved that\nhe shall find. Beyond this, he is regarded as an ungodly man, and often\npunished for the weakness of his intellect.\n\nThe salvation of Christians thus depends neither on the reading nor on\nthe understanding of the sacred books, but on the belief that these\nbooks are divine. If, unfortunately, the reading or examination of any\none, does not coincide with the decisions, interpretations, and\ncommentaries of the church, he is in danger of being ruined, and of\nincurring eternal damnation. To _read_ the gospel, he must commence with\nbeing disposed blindly to believe all which that book contains; to\n_examine_ the gospel, he must be previously resolved to find nothing\nthere but the holy and the adorable; in fine, to _understand_ the\ngospel, he must entertain a fixed persuasion, that the priests can never\nbe themselves deceived, or wish to deceive others in the manner they\nexplain it. \"Believe, (say they,) believe on our words that this book is\nthe work of God himself; if you dare to doubt it, you shall be damned.\nAre you unable to comprehend any thing which God reveals to you there?\nBelieve evermore: God has revealed himself that he may not be\nunderstood.--\"The glory of God is to conceal his word;\"--(Prov. xxv. 2.)\nor rather, by speaking, in a mysterious manner, does not God intimate\nthat he wishes every one to refer it to us, to whom he has confided his\nimportant secrets? A truth, of which you must not doubt, seeing that we\npersecute in this world, and damn in the other, whoever dares to\nquestion the testimony which we bear to ourselves.\"\n\nHowever erroneous this reasoning may appear to those accustomed to\nthink, it is sufficient for the greater part of believers. Where,\ntherefore, they do not read the gospel, or where they do read it, they\ndo not examine it; where they do examine it, it is with prejudiced eyes,\nand with a determination to find there only what can be conformable to\nthese prejudices, and to the interests of their guides.--In consistency\nwith his fears and prepossessions, a Christian conceives himself lost,\nshould he find in the sacred books reason to doubt the veracity of his\npriests.\n\nWith such dispositions, it is no way surprising to see men persisting in\ntheir ignorance, and making a merit of rejecting the lights which reason\noffers them. It is thus, that error is perpetuated, and that nations, in\nconcert with those who deceive them, confer on interested cheats an\nunbounded confidence in what they regard as of the greatest importance\nto their own felicity. But the darkness which for so many ages has\nenveloped the human mind, begins to dissipate. In spite of the tyrannic\ncares of their jealous guides, mankind seem desirous to burst from the\npupilage, wherein so many causes combine to retain them. The ignorance\nin which the priesthood fostered the credulous, has vanished from among\nmany nations; the despotism of priests is enfeebled in several\nflourishing states; science has rendered the mind more liberal; and\nmankind begin to blush at the ignominious fetters, under which the\nclergy have so long made both kings and people groan. The human mind is\nstruggling in every country to break in pieces its chains.\n\nHaving premised this, we proceed to examine, without any prejudice, the\nlife of Jesus. We shall deduce our facts from the gospels\nonly--memorials reverenced and acknowledged by the doctors of the\nChristian religion. To illustrate these facts, we shall employ the aid\nof criticism. We shall exhibit, in the plainest manner, the conduct,\nmaxims, and policy of an obscure legislator, who, after his death,\nacquired a celebrity to which he had no pretensions while alive. We\nshall contemplate in its cradle a religion which, at first, intended for\nthe vilest populace of a nation, the most abject, the most credulous,\nand the most stupid on earth, became, by little and little, mistress of\nthe Romans, the firebrand of nations, the absolute sovereign of European\nmonarchs; arbiter of the destiny of kingdoms; the cause of their\nfriendship, and of their hate; the cement which serves to strengthen\ntheir alliance or their discord; and the leaven always ready to put\nminds in fermentation. In fine, we shall behold an artizan, a melancholy\nenthusiast and unskilful juggler, abandoning his profession of a\ncarpenter to preach to men of his own cast; miscarrying in all his\nprojects; himself punished as a public incendiary; dying on a cross; and\nyet after his death becoming the legislator and the god of many nations,\nand an object of adoration to beings who pretend to common sense!\n\nIf the Holy Spirit had anticipated the transcendant fortune which the\nreligion of Jesus was one day to attain; if he had foreseen that this\nreligion would be received by kings, civilized nations, scholars, and\npersons in the higher circles of life; if he had suspected that it would\nbe examined, analyzed, discussed and criticised by logicians; there is\nreason to believe that he would have left us memoirs less shapeless,\nfacts more circumstantial, proofs more authentic, and materials better\ndigested than those we possess on the life and doctrine of its founder.\nHe would have chosen writers better qualified than those he has\ninspired, to transmit to nations the speeches and actions of the saviour\nof the world; he would have made him act and speak on the most trifling\npoint, in a manner more worthy of a god; he would have put in his mouth\na language more noble, more perspicuous, and more persuasive; and he\nwould have employed means more certain to convince rebellious reason,\nand abash incredulity.\n\nNothing of all this has occurred: the gospel is merely an eastern\nromance, disgusting to men of common sense, and obviously addressed to\nthe ignorant, the stupid, and the vulgar; the only persons whom it can\nmislead. Criticism finds there no connection of facts, no agreement of\ncircumstances, no illustration of principles, and no uniformity of\nrelation. Four men, unpolished and unlettered, pass for the faithful\nauthors of memoirs containing the life of Jesus; and it is on their\ntestimony that Christians believe themselves bound to receive the\nreligion they profess; and adopt, without examination, the most\ncontradictory facts, the most incredible actions, the most amazing\nprodigies, the most unconnected system, the most unintelligible\ndoctrines, and the most revolting mysteries!\n\nVictor of Tunis informs us, that, in the sixth century, the Emperor\nAnastasius \"caused the gospels to be corrected, as works composed by\n_fools_.\" The Elements of Euclid are intelligible to all who endeavor to\nunderstand them; they excite no dispute among geometricians. Is it so\nwith the Bible? and do its _revealed_ truths occasion no disputes among\ndivines? By what fatality have writings revealed by God himself still\nneed of commentaries? and why do they demand additional lights from on\nhigh, before they can be believed or understood? Is it not astonishing,\nthat what was intended as a _guide_ to mankind, should be wholly above\ntheir comprehension? Is it not cruel, that what is of most importance to\nthem, should be least known? All is mystery, darkness, uncertainty, and\nmatter of dispute, in a religion intended by the Most High to enlighten\nthe human race. In fact, God is every where represented in the bible as\na _seducer_. He permitted Eve to be _seduced_ by a serpent. He hardened\nthe heart of Pharaoh; and the prophet Jeremiah distinctly accuses him of\nbeing a deceiver.\n\nSupposing, however, that the gospels were in reality written by apostles\nor disciples of apostles, should it not follow from this alone, that\ntheir testimony ought to be suspected? Could not men who are described\nas illiterate, and destitute of talents, be themselves deceived? Could\nnot enthusiasts and credulous fanatics imagine, that they had seen many\nthings which never existed, and thus become the dupes of deception?\nWhoever has perused the ancient historians, particularly Herodotus,\nPlutarch, Livy, and Josephus, must admit the force of this reasoning.\nThese writers, with a pious credulity similar to that of Christians,\nrelate prodigies pregnant with absurdities, which they themselves\npretended to have witnessed, or were witnessed by others. Among the\nwonders that appeared at Rome, some time before the triumvirate, many\nstatues of the Gods sweat blood and water; and there was an Ox which\nspoke. Under the empire of Caligula, the statue of Jupiter Olympus burst\nforth into such loud fits of laughter, that those who were taking it\ndown to carry to Rome, abandoned their work and fled in terror. A crow\nprognosticated misfortune to Domitian, and an Owl paid the same\ncompliment to Herod.\n\nMoreover, could not impostors, strongly attached to a sect by which they\nsubsisted, and which, therefore, they had an interest to support, attest\nmiracles, and publish statements with the falsehood of which they were\nwell acquainted? and could not the first christians, by a _pious fraud_,\nafterwards add or retrench things essential to the works ascribed to the\napostles? We know that Origen, so early as the third century, complained\nloudly of the corruption of manuscripts. \"What shall we say (exclaims\nhe) of the errors of transcribers, and of the impious temerity with\nwhich they have corrupted the text? What shall we say of the licence of\nthose, who promiscuously interpolate or erase at their pleasure?\" These\nquestions form warrantable prejudices against the persons to whom the\ngospels have been ascribed, and against the purity of their text.\n\nIt is also extremely difficult to ascertain whether those books belong\nto the authors whose names they bear. In the first ages of Christianity\nthere was a great number of gospels, different from one another, and\ncomposed for the use of different churches and different sects of\nChristians. The truth of this has been confessed by ecclesiastical\nhistorians of the greatest credit. (Tillemont, tom. ii. 47, etc.\nEpiphan. Homil. 84. Dodwell's Disser. on Irenaeus, p. 66. Freret's\nExamin. Critique. Codex Apocryphus, &c.) There is, therefore, reason to\nsuspect, that the persons who composed the acknowledged gospels might,\nwith the view of giving them more weight, have attributed them to\napostles, or disciples, who actually had no share in them. That idea,\nonce adopted by ignorant and credulous christians, might be transmitted\nfrom age to age, and pass at last for certainty, in times when it was no\nlonger possible to ascertain the authors or the facts related.\n\nAmong some fifty gospels, with which Christianity in its commencement\nwas inundated, the church, assembled in council at Nice, chose four of\nthem, and rejected the rest as apocryphal, although the latter had\nnothing more ridiculous in them than those which were admitted. Thus, at\nthe end of three centuries, (_i.e._ in the three hundred and\ntwenty-fifth year of the Christian era,) some bishops decided, that\nthese four gospels were the only ones which ought to be adopted, or\nwhich had been inspired by the Holy Spirit. A miracle enabled them to\ndiscover this important truth, so difficult to be discerned at a time\neven then not very remote from that of the apostles. They placed, it is\nsaid, promiscuously, books apocryphal and authentic under an altar:--the\nFathers of the Council betook themselves to prayer, in order to induce\nthe Lord to permit the false or doubtful books to remain _under_ the\naltar, whilst those which were truly inspired should place themselves\nabove it--a circumstance which did not fail to occur. It is then on this\nmiracle that the faith of Christians depends! It is to it that they owe\nthe assurance of possessing the true gospels, or faithful memoirs of the\nlife of Jesus! It is from these only they are, permitted to deduce the\nprinciples of their belief, and the rule of conduct which they ought to\nobserve in order to obtain eternal salvation!\n\nThus, the authenticity of the books which are the basis of the Christian\nreligion, is founded solely on the authority of a council composed of\npriests and bishops. But these bishops and priests, judges and parties\nin an affair wherein they were obviously interested, could they not be\nthemselves deceived? Independently of the pretended miracle which\nenabled them to distinguish the true gospels from the false, had they\nany sign by which they could clearly distinguish the writings they ought\nto receive from those which they ought to reject? Some will tell us,\nthat the church assembled in a general council is _infallible_; that\nthen the Holy Spirit inspires it, and that its decisions ought to be\nregarded as those of God himself. If we demand, where is the proof of\nthis infallibility? it will be answered, that the gospel assures it, and\nthat Jesus has promised to assist and enlighten his church until the\nconsummation of ages. Here the incredulous reply, that the church, or\nits ministers, create rights to themselves; for it is their own\nauthority which establishes the authenticity of books whereby that\nauthority is established. This is obviously a circle of errors. In\nshort, an assembly of bishops and priests has decided, that the books\nwhich attribute to themselves an infallible authority, have been\ndivinely inspired!\n\nNotwithstanding this decision, there still remain some difficulties on\nthe authenticity of the gospels. In the _first_ place, it may be asked\nwhether the decision of the Council of Nice, composed of three hundred\nand eighteen bishops, ought to be regarded as that of the universal\nchurch? Were all who formed that assembly entirely of the same opinion?\nWere, there no disputes among these men inspired by the Holy Spirit? Was\ntheir decision unanimously accepted? Had not the authority of\nConstantine a chief share in the adoption of the decrees of that\ncelebrated council? In this case, was it not the imperial power, rather\nthan the spiritual authority, which decided the authenticity of the\ngospels?\n\nIn the _second_ place, many theologists agree, that the universal\nchurch, although infallible in doctrine, may err in _facts_. Now it is\nevident, that in the case alluded to, the doctrine depends on fact.\nIndeed, before deciding whether the doctrines contained in the gospels\nwere divine, it was necessary to know, whether the gospels themselves\nwere written by the inspired authors to whom they are ascribed. This is\nobviously a _fact_. It was further necessary to know, whether the\ngospels had never been altered, mutilated, augmented, interpolated, or\nfalsified, by the different hands through which they had passed in the\ncourse of three centuries. This is likewise a _fact_. Can the fathers of\nthe church guarantee the probity of all the depositaries of those\nwritings, and the exactness of all the transcribers? Can they decide\ndefinitively, that, during so long a period, none could insert in these\nmemoirs, marvelous relations or dogmas, unknown to those who are their\nsupposed authors? Does not ecclesiastical history inform us, that, in\nthe origin of Christianity, there were schisms, disputes, heresies, and\nsects without number; and that each of the disputants founded his\nopinion on the gospels? Even in the time of the Council of Nice, do we\nnot find that the whole church was divided on the fundamental article of\nthe Christian religion--the divinity of Jesus?\n\nThus it is seen that the council of Nice was the true founder of\nChristianity, which, till then, wandered at random; did not acknowledge\nJesus to be God; had no authentic gospels; was without a fixed law; and\nhad no code of doctrine whereon to rely. A number of bishops and\npriests, very few in comparison of those who composed the whole\nChristian church, and these bishops no way unanimous, decided on the\npoints most essential to the salvation of nations. They decided on the\ndivinity of Jesus; on the authenticity of the gospels; that, according\nto these, their own authority ought to be deemed infallible. In a word,\nthey decided on the sum total of faith! Nevertheless their decisions\nmight have remained without force, if they had not been supported by the\nauthority of Constantine. This prince gave prevalence to the opinion of\nthe fathers of the council, who knew how to draw him, for a time, to\ntheir own side; and who, amidst this multitude of gospels and writings,\ndid not fail to declare those divine which they judged most comformable\nto their own opinions, or to the ruling faction. In religion as in other\nthings, the reasoning of the _strongest_ party is always the best.\n\nBehold, then, the authority of an emperor, who determines the chief\npoints of the Christian religion! This emperor, unsettled in his own\nfaith, decides that Jesus is consubtantial with the Father, and compels\nhis subjects to receive, as inspired, the four gospels we have in our\nhands.--It is in these memoirs, adopted by a few bishops in the council\nof Nice; by them attributed to apostles, or unexceptionable persons\ninspired by the Holy Spirit; by them proposed to serve as an\nindispensable rule to Christians; that we are to seek for the materials\nof our history. We shall state them with fidelity; we shall compare and\nconnect their discordant relations; we shall see if the facts which they\ndetail are worthy of God, and calculated to procure to mankind the\nadvantages which they expect. This inquiry will enable us to judge\nrightly of the Christian religion; of the degree of confidence we ought\nto place in it; of the esteem we ought to entertain for its lessons and\ndoctrines; and of the idea we should form of Jesus its founder.\n\nThough, in composing this history, we have laid it down as a rule to\nemploy the gospels only, we presume not to flatter ourselves that it\nwill please every body, or that the clergy will adopt our labors. The\nconnections we shall form; the interpretations we shall give; the\nanimadversions we shall present to our readers, will not always be\nentirely agreeable to the views of our spiritual guides, the greater\npart of whom are enemies to all inquiry. To such men we would state,\nthat criticism gives a lustre to truth; that to reject all examination\nis to acknowledge the weakness of their cause; and that not to wish for\ndiscussion is to avow it to be incapable of sustaining a trial.\n\nIf they tell us, that our ideas are repugnant to the decisions of\ncouncils, of the fathers, and of the universal church; to this we shall\nanswer, that, according to their own books, _opposition_ is not always a\ncrime; we shall plead the example of an apostle, to whom the Christian\nreligion is under the greatest obligations--what do we say!--to whom\nalone, perhaps, it owes its existence. Now this apostle boasts of having\n_withstood_ the great St. Peter to his face, that visible head of the\nchurch, appointed by Jesus himself to feed his flock; and whose\ninfallibility is at least as probable as that of his successors.\n\nIf they charge us with _innovation_, we shall plead the example of Jesus\nhimself, who was regarded as an _innovator_ by the Jews, and who was a\nmartyr for the reform he intended to introduce. If the opinions be\nunacceptable, the author, as he has no pretensions to divine\ninspiration, leaves to every one the liberty of rejecting or receiving\nhis interpretations, and method of investigation. He does not threaten\nwith eternal torments those who resist his arguments; he has not credit\nenough to promise heaven to such as yield to them; he pretends neither\nto constrain, nor to seduce those who do not think as he does. He is\ndesirous only to calm the mind; allay animosity; and sooth the passions\nof those zealots, who are ever ready to harass and destroy their fellow\ncreatures on account of opinions which may not appear equally convincing\nto all the world. He promises to point out the ridiculous cruelty of\nthose men of blood, who persecute for dogmas which they themselves do\nnot understand. He ventures to flatter himself, that such as peruse this\ninquiry with coolness, will acknowledge, that it is very possible to\ndoubt of the inspiration of the gospels, and of the divine mission of\nJesus, without ceasing to be a rational and honest man.\n\nSuch as are exasperated against this work are entreated to remember,\nthat faith is a gift of heaven; that the want of it is not a vice; that\nif the Jews, who were eye witnesses of the wonders of Jesus, did not\nbelieve them, it is very pardonable to doubt them at the beginning of\nthe nineteenth century, especially on finding that the accounts of these\nmarvels, though said to have been inspired by the Holy Spirit, are not\nuniform nor in harmony with each other. In fine, fiery devotees are\nearnestly entreated to moderate their holy rage, and suffer the\nmeekness, so often recommended by their \"divine Saviour\" to occupy the\nplace of that bitter zeal, and persecuting spirit which creates so many\nenemies to the Christian religion. Let them remember, that if it was to\npatience and forbearance Jesus promised the possession of the earth, it\nis much to be feared that pride, intolerance and inhumanity, will render\nthe ministers of the church detestable, and make them lose that empire\nover minds, which to them is so agreeable. If they wish to reign over\nrational men, they must display reason, knowledge, and, above all,\nvirtues more useful than those wherewith the teachers of the gospel have\nso long infested society. Jesus has said, \"_Happy are the meek, for they\nshall inherit the earth_;\" unless indeed interpreters should pretend,\nthat this only signifies the necessity of persecuting, exterminating,\nand cutting the throats of those whose affections they wish to gain.\n\nIf it were permitted to cite the maxims of a profane person by that of\nthe Son of God, we would quote here the apophthegm of the profound\nMachiavel, that \"empires are preserved by the same means whereby they\nare established.\" It was by meekness, patience, and precaution, that the\ndisciples of Jesus are said to have at first established Christianity.\nTheir successors employed violence; but not until they found themselves\nsupported by devout tyrants. Since then, the gospel of peace has been\nthe signal of war; the pacific disciples of Jesus have become implacable\nwarriors; have treated each other as ferocious beasts; and the church\nhas been perpetually torn by dissentions, schisms, and factions. If the\nprimitive spirit of patience and meekness does not quickly return to the\naid of religion, it will soon become the object of the hatred of\nnations, who begin to feel that morality is preferable to obscure\ndogmas, and that peace is of greater value than the holy frenzy of the\nministers of the gospel.\n\nWe cannot, therefore, with too much earnestness exhort them, for their\nown sakes, to moderation. Let them imitate their divine Master, who\nnever employed his Father's power to exterminate the Jews, of whom he\nhad so much to complain. He did not make the armies of heaven descend,\nin order to establish his doctrine. He chose rather to surrender to the\nsecular power than give up the infidels, whom his prodigies and\ntranscendent reasoning could not convince. Though he is represented as\nbeing the depositary of the power of the Most High; though he was\ninspired by the Holy Spirit; though he had at his command all the angels\nof paradise, we do not find that he performed any miracles on the\nunderstandings of his auditory. He suffered them to remain in their\nblindness, though he had come on purpose to enlighten them. We cannot\ndoubt, that a conduct, so wise, was intended to make the pastors of his\nchurch (who are not possessed of more persuasive powers than their\nmaster) sensible that it is not by violence they can reconcile the mind\nto incredible things; and that it would be unjust to force others to\ncomprehend what, without favor from above; it would be impossible for\nthemselves to comprehend; or what, even with such favor, they but very\nimperfectly understand.\n\nBut it is time to conclude an introduction, perhaps, already too long to\na work which, even without preamble, may be tiresome to the clergy, and\nirritate the temper of the devout. The author does himself the justice\nto believe, that he has written enough to be attacked by a host of\nwriters, obliged, by situation to repel his blows, and to defend, right\nor wrong, a cause wherein they are so deeply interested. He calculates\nthat, on his death, his book will be calumniated, as well as his\nreputation, and his arguments misrepresented, or mutilated. He expects\nto be treated as impious--a blasphemer--an atheist, and to be loaded\nwith all the epithets which the pious are in use to lavish on those who\ndisquiet them. He will not, however, sleep the less tranquil for that;\nbut as his sleep may prevent him from replying, he thinks it his duty to\ninform his antagonists before hand, that _injuries are not reasons_. He\ndoes more--he bequeaths them charitable advice, to which the defenders\nof religion do not usually pay sufficient attention. They are then\napprised, that if, in their learned refutations, they do not resolve\ncompletely _all_ the objections brought against them, they will have\ndone nothing for their cause. The defenders of a religion, in which it\nis affirmed that every thing is divinely inspired, are bound not to\nleave a single argument behind, and ought to be convinced that\n_answering_ to an argument is not always refuting it. They should please\nalso to keep in remembrance, that a single falsehood, a single\nabsurdity, a single contradiction, or a single blunder, fairly pointed\nout in the gospels, is sufficient to render suspected, and even to\noverturn the authority of a book which ought to be perfect in all its\nparts, if it be true that it is the work of an infinitely perfect Being.\nAn incredulous person, being but a man, may reason wrong; but it is\nnever permitted to a God, or his instruments, either to contradict\nthemselves, or to talk nonsense.\n\n\n\n\nECCE HOMO!\n\nCHAP. I.\n\nACCOUNT OF THE JEWISH PEOPLE AND THEIR PROPHETS.--INQUIRY INTO THE\nPROPHECIES RELATING TO JESUS.\n\n\nHowever slightly we cast our eyes over the history of the Jews, as\ncontained in their sacred books, we are forced to acknowledge, that\nthese people were at all times the blindest, the most stupid, the most\ncredulous, the most superstitious, and the silliest that ever appeared\non earth. Moses, by dint of miracles, or delusions, succeeded in\nsubjugating the Israelites. After having liberated them from the iron\nrod of the Egyptians, he put them under his own. This celebrated\nlegislator had evidently the intention to subject the Hebrews for ever\nto his purposes, and, after himself, to render them the slaves of his\nfamily and tribe. It is obvious, that the mosaical economy had no other\nobject than to deliver up the people of Israel to the tyranny and\nextortions of priests and Levites. These the law, which was promulgated\nin name of the Eternal, authorised to devour the rest of the nation, and\nto crush them under an insupportable yoke. The chosen people of God were\ndestined solely to be the prey of the priesthood; to satiate their\navarice and ambition; and to become the instrument and victim of their\npassions.\n\nHence, by the law, and by the policy of the priests, the people of God\nwere kept in a profound ignorance, in an abject superstition, in an\nunsocial and savage aversion for the rest of mankind; in an inveterate\nhatred of other forms of worship, and in a barbarous and sanguinary\nintolerance towards every foreign religion. All the neighbors of the\nHebrews, were, therefore, their enemies. If the holy nation was the\nobject of the love of the most high, it was an object of contempt and\nhorror to all who had occasion to know it--a fact admitted by their own\nhistorian, Josephus. For this it was indebted to its religious\ninstitutions, to the labors of its priests, to its diviners, and its\nprophets, who continually profitted by its credulity, in displaying\nwonders and kindling its delirium.\n\nUnder the guidance of Moses, and of generals or judges who governed them\nafterwards, the Jewish people distinguished themselves only by\nmassacres, unjust wars, cruelties, usurpations, and infamies, which were\nenjoined them in the name of the Eternal. Weary of the government of\ntheir priests, which drew on them misfortunes and bloody defeats, the\ndescendants of Abraham demanded kings; but, under these, the state was\nperpetually torn with disputes between the priesthood and the\ngovernment. Superstition aimed at ruling over policy. Prophets and\npriests pretended to reign over kings, of whom such as were not\nsufficiently submissive to the interpreters of heaven, were renounced by\nthe Lord, and, from that moment, unacknowledged and opposed by their own\nsubjects. Fanatics and impostors, absolute masters of the understandings\nof the nation, were continually ready to rouse it, and excite in its\nbosom the most terrible revolutions. It was the intrigues of the\nprophets that deprived Saul of his crown, and bestowed it on David, _the\nman according to God's own heart_--that is to say, devoted to the will\nof the priests. It was the prophets, who, to punish the defection of\nSolomon in the person of his son, occasioned the separation of the\nkingdoms of Judea and Israel. It was the prophets who kept these two\nkingdoms continually at variance; weakened them by means of each other,\ndesolated them by religious and fatal wars, conducted them to complete\nruin, a total dispersion of their inhabitants, and a long captivity\namong the Assyrians.\n\nSo many calamities did not open the eyes of the Jews, who continued\nobstinate in refusing to acknowledge the true source of their\nmisfortunes. Restored to their homes by the bounty of Cyrus, they were\nagain governed by priests and prophets, whose maxims rendered them\nturbulent, and drew on them the hatred of sovereigns who subdued them.\nThe Greek princes treated with the greatest severity a people whom the\noracles and promises of their prophets rendered always rebellious, and\nungovernable. The Jews, in fine, became the prey of the Romans, whose\nyoke they bore with fear, against whom impostors often incited them to\nrevolt, and who, at last, tired of their frequent rebellions, entirely\ndestroyed them as a nation.\n\nSuch, in a few words, is the history of the Jewish people. It presents\nthe most memorable examples of the evils which fanaticism and\nsuperstition produce; for it is evident that the continual revolutions,\nbloody wars, and total destruction of that nation, had no other cause\nthan its unwearied credulity, its submission to priests, its enthusiasm,\nand its furious zeal, excited by the inspired. On reading the Old\nTestament, we are forced to confess, that the people of God (thanks to\nthe roguery of their spiritual guides) were, beyond contradiction, the\nmost unfortunate people that ever existed. Yet the most solemn promises\nof Jehovah seemed to assure to that people a flourishing and puissant\nempire. God had made an eternal alliance with Abraham and his posterity;\nbut the Jews, far from reaping the fruits of this alliance, and far from\nenjoying the prosperity they had been led to expect, lived continually\nin the midst of calamities, and were, more than all other nations, the\nsport of frightful revolutions. So many disasters, however, were\nincapable of rendering them more considerate; the experience of so many\nages did not hinder them from relying on oracles so often contradicted;\nand the more unfortunate they found themselves, the more rooted were\nthey in their credulity. The destruction of their nation could not bring\nthem to doubt of the excellence of their law, of the wisdom of their\ninstitutions, or of the veracity of their prophets, who successively\nrelieved each other, either in menacing them in the name of the Lord, or\nin re-animating their frivolous hopes.\n\nStrongly convinced that they were the sacred and chosen people of the\nMost High, alone worthy of his favors, the Jews, in spite of all their\nmiseries, were continually persuaded that their God could not have\nabandoned them.--They, therefore, constantly looked for an end to their\nafflictions, and promised themselves a deliverance, which obscure\noracles had led them to expect. Building on these fanatical notions,\nthey were at all times disposed to listen with avidity to every man who\nannounced himself as inspired by heaven; they eagerly ran after every\nsingular personage who could feed their expectations; they followed\nwhoever had the secret of astonishing them by impostures, which their\nstupidity made them consider supernatural works, and unquestionable\nsigns of divine power. Disposed to see the marvellous in the most\ntrifling events, every adroit impostor was on the watch to deceive them,\nand was certain of making more or less adherents, especially among the\npopulace, who are every where destitute of experience and knowledge.\n\nIt was in the midst of a people of this disposition that the personage\nappeared whose history we write. He very soon found followers in the\nmost despicable of the rabble. Seconded by these, he preached, as usual,\n_reformation_ to his fellow citizens, he wrought wonders; he styled\nhimself the envoy of the Divinity. He particularly founded his mission\non vague, obscure, and ambiguous predictions, contained in the sacred\nbooks of the Jews, which he applied to himself. He announced himself as\nthe messiah or messenger, the deliverer of Israel, who for so many ages\nwas the object of the nation's hope. His disciples, his apostles, and\nafterwards their successors, found means to apply to their master the\nancient prophecies, wherein he seemed the least perceptibly designed.\nThe Christians, docile and full of faith, have had the good fortune to\nsee the founder of their religion predicted in the clearest manner\nthroughout the whole Old Testament. By dint of allegories, figures,\ninterpretations, and commentaries, their doctors have brought them to\nsee, in this shapeless compilation, all that they had an interest in\npointing out to them. When passages taken literally did not countenance\ndeceit agreeably to their views, they contrived for them a two-fold\nsense: they pretended that it was not necessary to understand them\nliterally, but to give them a mystical, allegorical, and spiritual\nmeaning. To explain these pretended predictions, they continually\nsubstituted one name for another; they rejected the literal meaning, in\norder to adopt a figurative one; they changed the most natural\nsignification of words they applied the same passages to events quite\nopposite; they retrenched the names of some personages plainly designed,\nin order to introduce that of Jesus; and, in all this, they did not\nblush to make the most crying abuse of the principles of language.\n\nThe third chapter of Genesis furnishes a striking example of the manner\nin which the doctors of the Christian religion have allegorized passages\nof scripture, in order to apply then to Jesus. In this chapter, God says\nto the serpent, convicted of having seduced the woman, _the seed of the\nwoman shall bruise thy head_. This prophesy appears with so much the\nmore difficulty to apply to Jesus, that these words follow--_and thou\nshalt bruise his heel_. We do not comprehend, why the _seed of the\nwoman_ must be understood of Jesus. If he was the Son of God, or God\nhimself, he could not be produced from the _seed of the woman_. If he\nwas man, he is not pointed out in a particular manner by these words,\nfor all men, without exception, are produced from the _seed of women_.\nAccording to our interpreters, the serpent is sin, and the seed of the\nwoman that bruises it is Jesus incarnate in the womb of Mary. Since the\ncoming of Jesus, however, sin, typified by the serpent, has at all times\nexisted; from which we are led to conclude, that Jesus has not destroyed\nit, and that the prediction is neither literally nor allegorically\naccomplished.\n\nIn the twenty-second chapter of Genesis, God promises to Abraham, that\nin his seed _all the nations of the earth shall be blessed_. What we\nstyle prosperity, the Hebrews termed blessings. If Abraham and his race\nenjoyed prosperity, it was only for a short period; the Hebrews became\nafterwards the slaves of the Egyptians, and were, as has been seen, the\nmost unfortunate people on earth. Christians have also given a mystic\nsense to this prophecy:--they substitute the name of Jesus for that of\nAbraham, and it is in him that all the nations shall be blessed. The\nadvantages they shall enjoy will be persecutions, calamities, and\nmisfortunes of every kind; and his disciples, like himself, shall\nundergo the most painful punishments. Hence we see, that, following our\ninterpreters, the word _blessing_ has changed its meaning; it no longer\nimplies prosperity; it signifies what, in ordinary language, is termed\ncurses, disasters, afflictions, troubles, divisions, and religious\nwars--calamities with which the Christian nations have been continually\n_blessed_ since the establishment of the church.\n\nChristians believe that they see Jesus announced in the 49th chapter of\nGenesis. The patriarch Jacob there promises sovereign power to Judah.\n\"The sceptre (says he) shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from\nbetween his feet, until Shiloh come, and unto him shall the gathering of\nthe people be.\" It is thus that several interpreters translate the tenth\nverse of the 49th chapter of Genesis. Others have translated it thus,\n\"the authority shall forever be in Judah, when the Messiah shall have\ncome.\" Others read, \"the authority shall be in Judah, till the messenger\nreceive in Shiloh the sovereign power.\" Others again render the passage\nin this manner, \"the people of Judah shall be in affliction, till the\nmessenger of the Lord comes to put an end to it;\" and according to\nothers, \"till the city of Shiloh be destroyed.\"\n\nThis diversity in the translation of the same passage ought,\nunquestionably, to render the prophecy very suspicious. First, we see\nthat it is impossible to determine the signification of the word\n_Shiloh_, or to ascertain, whether it be the name of a man or a city?\nSecondly, it is proved by the sacred books, received equally by Jew and\nChristians, that the sovereign power is gone from Judah; was wholly\nannihilated during the Babylonish captivity, and has not been\nre-established since. If it is pretended, that Jesus came to restore the\npower of Judah, we assert, on the contrary, that, in the time of Jesus,\nJudah was without authority, for Judah had submitted to the Romans. But\nour doctors have again recourse to allegory:--according to them, the\npower of Judah was the spiritual power of Jesus over Christians,\ndesignated by Judah.\n\nThey, in like manner, see Jesus foretold by Balaam, who, by the bye, was\na false prophet. He thus expresses himself: (Numbers xxiv. 16,)--\"He\nhath said, who heard the words of God, and knew the knowledge of the\nMost High, who saw the vision of the Almighty, falling into a trance,\nbut having his eyes open: I shall see him but not now; I shall behold\nhim but not nigh; there shall come a star out of Jacob, and a sceptre\nshall rise out of Israel,\" &c. In this unintelligible jargon, they\npretend to shew Christians a clear prediction of the founder of their\nreligion. It is he who is the star, because his luminous doctrine\nenlightens all minds. _This sceptre, which shall rise out of Israel_, is\nthe cross of Jesus, by the aid of which he has triumphed over the Devil,\nwho, in spite of this victory, ceases not to reign on earth, and to\nrender useless the triumph of the Son of God.\n\nBut of all the prophecies contained in the Old Testament, there is not\none to which the Christian doctors have attached more importance than\nthat found in Isaiah, chap. vii. 14 A young woman _shall conceive, and\nbear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel_. To find out Jesus in this\nprediction, it is, first of all, necessary to be convinced, that this\nwoman is _Mary_; next, it is necessary to ascertain that _Immanuel_ is\nthe same with Jesus. It will always be objected against this pretended\nprophecy, that it is sufficient to read the chapter of Isaiah whence the\npassage is taken, to be satisfied that the prophet had in view Ahaz king\nof Judah. This prince is there represented as in consternation, on\naccount of the arrival of Rezin and Pekah, kings of Syria and Israel,\nwho, with their united armies, threatened his dominions. Isaiah\nencouraged him, by representing that he still had forces sufficient, and\npromised him the assistance of the Lord, whom every prophet made to be\nof his own party. To guarantee his promises, Isaiah told his sovereign,\nthat he had only to ask of him a sign. The dispirited prince replied,\nthat he did not wish to tempt the Lord. The prophet, however, wishing to\nconvince him, announced a sign--\"A young woman shall conceive, and bring\nforth a son, who shall be called Immanuel.\" Now the following chapter\ninforms us who this young woman was: she was the wife of Isaiah\nhimself.--\"I took unto me (says he) faithful witnesses; and I went unto\nthe _prophetess_, and she conceived and bare a son.\" The simple\ninspection of this text, evidently shows that it is in no respect\napplicable to Jesus. If what is recorded in 2d Chron. c. v. be true, the\nprophecy was not even accomplished, but the reverse of its fulfilment\ntook place. Instead of Ahaz defeating his enemies, as Isaiah promised he\nwould, his whole army was routed, 120,000 killed, and 200,000 carried\ninto captivity by the kings of Syria and Israel. It is evident, then,\nthat this famous sign of \"a young woman shall conceive,\" &c. served only\nin the first instance to _deceive_ the king of Judah, and has since been\nemployed to _mislead_ those who, like that king, relied on the\nprofessions of priests and prophets.\n\nProceeding forward in the perusal of Isaiah (chap. ix. 6,) we find the\nfollowing passage:--\"Unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given:\nand the government shall be upon his shoulder.\" If the child foretold by\nIsaiah was born in his time, it can no longer be said, that the prophet\nmeant to speak of Jesus, who was born several centuries after him; for\nthe birth of that person being so distant, could not be a sign of\ndeliverance to Ahaz, as his enemies pressed so closely upon him. To this\nit is answered, that the prophets spoke of future events as if they were\npast or present; but this answer requires to be established by proof. It\nis likewise said, that the birth of Isaiah's son was only a type of that\nof Jesus; for to him, it is affirmed, is applicable \"the government on\nthe shoulder,\" in which our doctors perceive distinctly pointed out the\ncross that Jesus carried on his shoulders when going to Calvary. Our\ninterpreters have thus the happiness of seeing the sign of dominion, or\nempire, in what appears to eyes less enlightened, the sign of\npunishment, weakness, and slavery.\n\nIt is proper also to inquire why it is said, in the Christian system,\nthat it is not necessary a prophecy have relation, in all its parts, to\nthe subject or fact to which it is applied. The sacred writers do not\nmean to cite a whole prophecy, but only a passage, a detached phrase, or\noften a single word, apposite to the subject they treat of, without\ntroubling themselves whether what precedes, or what follows their\nquotation has connexion or not with what they are speaking of. In the\nexample under discussion, Matthew, wishing to quote Isaiah and apply a\nprophecy to Jesus, takes of this prophecy these detached words only, _A\nyoung woman shall conceive_, &c.--he stood in need of no more of it.\nAccording to that Evangelist, Mary had conceived:--Isaiah had said, that\na girl, or woman, should conceive. Matthew therefore concluded, that the\nconception of Jesus was foretold by Isaiah. This vague connection is\nsufficient for all Christians, who, like Matthew, believe they see their\nfounder pointed out in prophecy.\n\nFollowing this strange method, they have referred to Isaiah to prove\nthat Jesus was the messiah promised to the Jews. In the 53d chapter,\nthis prophet describes in a very pathetic manner the misfortunes and\nsufferings of his brother Jeremiah. The clergy have long labored to\napply that prophecy to Jesus: they have distinctly seen him pointed out\nin the \"man of sorrows;\" so that it is regarded rather as a faithful and\ncircumstantial narrative of the passion of Jesus, than as a prediction.\nBut, agreeably to sound criticism, this history relates only to\nJeremiah. Not to deprive themselves, however, of the resources so useful\na passage might furnish, they have decided, that, in the case of\nprophecies, the indirect relation should have place. By this means, in\nadmitting that the narrative of Isaiah had Jeremiah for its object, they\nmaintained that Jeremiah was a figure or type of Jesus. It is not that\ntheir lives were strictly consentaneous; but, in the Christian religion,\nconformity followed by affinities, is not absolutely requisite to the\njustice of the comparison.\n\nThis manner of reasoning, peculiar to the Christian religion, has been\nvery convenient for it. Paul especially, like most of the first\npreachers of Christianity, and after them the fathers and doctors of the\nchurch, employed this curious method of proving their system. According\nto them, all under the ancient law was the image of the new; and the\nmost celebrated personages in the Old Testament, typified Jesus and his\nchurch. Abel, assassinated by his brother, was a prophetic figure of\nJesus put to death by the Jews. The sacrifice of Isaac, which was not\naccomplished, was the image of that accomplished on the cross. The\nrelations or predictions which had for their object Abraham, Isaac,\nJacob, Moses, Joshua, Samuel, David, Solomon, Jeremiah, Zorobabel, or\nother ancient personages, were applied to Jesus. His death was\nrepresented by the blood of he-goats and of bulls. By aid of these\nallegories, the books of the Jews served only to announce the events in\nthe life of Jesus, and the history of the establishment of his religion.\nIn this manner it is easy to find in the scriptures whatever we desire.\n\nIt would be useless to investigate the famous prophecy of the seventy\nweeks of Daniel, in which the Christian doctors believe they see the\ncoming of Jesus clearly announced. It is true, that if Daniel, or his\neditors, had specified the nature of these _weeks_, they would have\nprevented much trouble to interpreters: this prediction might then have\nbeen a great resource to Christianity. The ablest critics, however,\ndeclare that they are greatly embarrassed when attempting to fix the\ncommencement and the end of these weeks. On this they are never\nunanimous, nor can they agree on a precise date, which hitherto is\nwanting to the great event of the coming of the messiah. We know the\nJews made use of weeks of days, weeks of weeks, and weeks of years. It\nis by a conjecture, merely hazarded, they advance in the bible of\nLouvain, that the weeks mentioned in Daniel are weeks of years. Yet that\nsupposition throws light on nothing, for the chronological table, which\nthe doctors of Louvain have published, gives only three hundred and\nforty-three years intervening between the time when they make the weeks\nto commence and the death of Jesus. Many have believed that this\nprediction was subsequently added to the text of Daniel, in favor of\nJonathan Maccabeus. We may judge of the little credit that can be given\nto this prophecy, from the prodigious number of commentaries that have\nbeen made on it.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER II.\n\nTHE BIRTH OF JESUS\n\n\nAll the prophecies contained in the sacred books of the Jews, coincide\nin making them hope for the return of the favor of the Almighty. God had\npromised them a deliverer, a messenger, a messiah, who should restore\nthe power of Israel. That deliverer was to be of the seed of David, the\nprince _according to God's own heart_; so submissive to the priests, and\nso zealous for religion. It was to recompense the devotion and docility\nof this holy usurper, that the prophets and the priests, loaded with\nkindness, promised him in the name of heaven, that his family should\nreign forever. If that famous prediction was belied during the\nBabylonish captivity, and at subsequent periods, the Jews, at this time\nno less credulous than their ancestors, persuaded themselves that it was\nimpossible for their prophets and diviners to deceive them. They\nimagined that their oracles sooner or later would be accomplished, and\nthat they should see a descendant of David restore the honor of their\nnation.\n\nIt was in conformity to these predictions and popular notions, that the\nwriters of the Gospels gave Jesus a genealogy; by which they pretended\nto prove that he was descended in a direct line from David, and\nconsequently, had a right to arrogate the character of messiah.\nNevertheless, criticism has exhausted itself on this genealogy. Such as\nare not possessed of faith, have been surprised to find, that the Holy\nSpirit has dictated it differently to the two evangelists who have\ndetailed it: for, as has been frequently remarked, the genealogy given\nby Matthew is not the same with that of Luke: a disparity which has\nthrown Christian interpreters into embarrassments, from which all their\nsubtilty has hitherto been unable to rescue them. They tell us, that one\nof these genealogies is that of Joseph; but, supposing Joseph to be of\nthe race of David, a Christian cannot believe that he was the real\nfather of Jesus, because his religion enjoins him to believe\nsteadfastly, that he is the Son of God. Supposing the two genealogies to\nbe Mary's, in that case the Holy Spirit has blundered in one of them.\nEven Matthew's account is contradictory of itself. He says (c. i. v. 17)\n\"To all the generations from Abraham to David are _fourteen_\ngenerations; and from David until the carrying away into Babylon are\n_fourteen_ generations; and from the carrying away into Babylon unto\nChrist are _fourteen_ generations.\" On enumerating the names given in\nthe last division of time, we find only _twelve_ generations, even\nincluding Joseph. In whatever way we consider them, one of the\ngenealogies will always appear faulty and incomplete, and the extraction\nof Jesus very weakly established.\n\nLet us now examine the occurrences which preceded and accompanied the\nbirth of Jesus. Only one evangelist has particularly narrated them; all\nthe others have superficially passed over circumstances as marvellous as\nthey are important. Matthew, content with his genealogy, speaks but in\nfew words of the preternatural manner wherein Jesus was formed in the\nwomb of his mother. The speech of an angel, seen in a dream, suffices to\nconvince Joseph of the virtue of his wife, and he adopts her child\nwithout hesitation. Mark makes no mention of this memorable incident.\nJohn, who, by the assistance of his mystic and Platonic theology, could\nembellish the story, or rather confound it, has not said one word on the\nsubject. We are, therefore, constrained to satisfy ourselves with the\nmaterials Luke has transmitted us.\n\nAccording to this evangelist, Elizabeth, kinswoman of Mary, and wife of\na priest named Zachariah, was in the sixth month of her pregnancy, \"when\nthe angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city called Nazareth, to a\nvirgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David,\nand the virgin's name was Mary. And the angel came in unto her, and\nsaid, Hail thou that art highly favored, the Lord is with thee; blessed\nart thou among women. And when she saw him, she was troubled at his\nsaying, and cast in her mind what manner of salutation this should be.\nAnd the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary; for thou hast found favor\nwith God. And behold thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a\nson, and shalt call his name Jesus. Then said Mary to the angel, How\nshall this be, for I know not a man? And the angel answered and said\nunto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the\nHighest shall overshadow thee; therefore, also that holy thing which\nshall be born of thee, shall be called the Son of God. And Mary said,\nBehold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word.\nThereafter (adds the text) the angel departed from her.\"\n\nNow what is there in all this that is any way marvellous? Nothing indeed\nis more simple than this narrative. If the least reflection is employed\non it, the wonderful will vanish; and we shall find the greatest care\nhas been taken to spare the modesty of the young persons who might read\nthe story. An angel entered the house of Mary, _whose husband was\nabsent_. He salutes her; that is, pays her a compliment, which may be\ntranslated as follows:--\"Good day, my dear Mary! you are indeed\nadorable--What attractions! what graces! of all women, you are the most\nlovely in my eyes. Your charms are pledges to you of my sincerity. Crown\nthen my passion. Fear not the consequences of your complaisance; your\nhusband is a simpleton; by visions and dreams we can make him believe\nwhatever we desire. The good man will regard your pregnancy as the\neffect of a miracle of the Most High; he will adopt your child with joy,\nand all will go on in the best manner possible.\" Mary, charmed with\nthese words, and little accustomed to receive the like compliments from\nher husband, replied, \"Well!--I yield--I rely on your word and address;\ndo with me as you please.\"\n\nNothing is more easy than to separate the relation of Luke from the\nmarvellous. The event of Mary's pregnancy follows in the order of\nnature; and if we substitute a young man in the place of the angel, the\npassage of the evangelist will have nothing incredible in it. In fact,\nmany have thought that the angel Gabriel was no other than a gallant,\nwho, profiting by the absence of Joseph, found the secret to declare and\ngratify his passion.\n\nWe shall not stop to form conjectures on the true name and station of\nMary's lover. The Jews, whose testimony on this subject may appear\nsuspicious, assert, as we shall afterwards relate, that this favorite\nlover was a soldier:--the military have always claims on the hearts of\nthe ladies. They add, that from his commerce with the wife of Joseph,\nthe messiah of the Christians sprung; that the discontented husband left\nhis faithless wife, in order to retire to Babylon, and that Jesus with\nhis mother went to Egypt, where he learned the trade of a conjurer, and\nafterwards returned to practise in Judea.\n\nThe _proto-gospel_, ascribed to James, relates some curious and\nridiculous circumstances, altogether omitted in the four canonical\nevangelists; yet they have nothing revolting to persons who possess\nfaith. This gospel informs us of the ill humor of Joseph on seeing his\nwife pregnant, and the reproaches he loaded her with on account of her\nlewdness, unworthy of a virgin reared under the eyes of priests. Mary\nexcuses herself with tears; she protests her innocence, and \"swears in\nthe name of the living God, that she is ignorant whence the child has\ncome to her.\" It appears, that in her distress she had forgot the\nadventure of Gabriel:--that angel came the night following to encourage\npoor Joseph, then on the point of having an affair with the priests, who\naccused him of having begot this child to the prejudice of Mary's vow of\nvirginity. On this the priests made the two spouses drink _of the waters\nof jealousy_; that is, of a potion, which, by a miracle, did them no\ninjury; the high priest, therefore, declared them innocent. It is\nrelated in the same gospel, that after Mary had been delivered,\n_Salome_, refusing to credit the midwife who assured her that the\ndelivered was still a virgin, laid her hand on Mary in order to satisfy\nherself of the fact. Immediately this rash hand felt itself on fire; but\nshe was cured on taking the little Jesus in her arms.\n\nWhether these histories, or Rabbinical narratives be true or false, it\nis certain that the narrative of Luke, if not divested of the\nmarvellous, will always present difficulties to the minds of the\nincredulous. They will ask, how God, being a pure spirit, could\n_overshadow a woman_, and excite in her the movements necessary to the\nproduction of a child? They will ask, how the divine nature could unite\nwith the nature of a woman? They will maintain, that the narrative is\nunworthy of the power and majesty of the Supreme Being, who did not\nstand in need of employing ridiculous and indecent instruments to\noperate the salvation of mankind. It will be thought, that the Almighty\nshould have employed other means for conveying Jesus into the womb of\nhis mother; he might have made him appear on the earth without being\nincarnate in the belly of a woman; but there must be wonders in\nromances, especially if they are religious. It was in all ages supposed\nthat great men were born in an extraordinary manner. Among the Heathen,\nMinerva sprung out of the brain of Jupiter; Bacchus was preserved in the\nthigh of the same god. Among the Chinese, the god Fo was generated by a\nvirgin rendered prolific by a ray of the sun. With Christians, Jesus is\nborn of a virgin, impregnated by the operation of the Holy Spirit, and\nshe remains a virgin after that operation! Incapable of elevating\nthemselves to God, men have made him descend to their own nature. Such\nis the origin of all incarnations, the belief of which is spread\nthroughout the world.\n\nTheologists have agitated the question, whether in the conception of\nJesus, the Virgin Mary _emiserit semen_? According to _Tillemont_, the\nGnostics, who lived in the time of the apostles, denied that the Word\nwas incarnate in the womb of the woman, and averred that it had taken a\nbody only _in appearance_--a circumstance which must destroy the miracle\nof the resurrection. Basilides also maintains that Jesus was not\nincarnate. Lactantius, in order to establish that the spirit of God\ncould impregnate a virgin, cites the example of the Thracian Mares, and\nother females, rendered prolific by the wind. Nothing is more indecent\nand ridiculous than the theological questions to which the birth of\nJesus has given rise. Some doctors, to preserve Mary's virginity, have\nmaintained, that Jesus did not come into the world, like other men,\n_aperta vulva_, but rather _per vulvam clausam_. The celebrated John\nScotus regarded that opinion as very dangerous, as it would follow, that\n\"Jesus could not be born of the virgin, but merely had come out of her.\"\nA monk of Citeaux, called Ptolemy de Luques, affirmed that Jesus was\nengendered near the virgin's heart, from three drops of her blood. The\ngreat St. Thomas Aquinas has examined, whether Jesus could not have been\nan _hermaphrodite_? and whether he could not have been of the _feminine\ngender_? Others have agitated the question, \"Whether Jesus could have\nbeen incarnate in a cow?\" We may therefore see, how one absurdity may\nengender others, in the prolific minds of theologists.\n\nAll the wonders which precede the birth of Jesus, are terminated by a\nvery natural occurrence. At the end of nine months his mother is\ndelivered like other women; and after so many incredible and\nsupernatural events, the Son of God comes into the world like all others\npeople's children. This conformity in birth, will ever occasion the\nsurmise of a conformity in the physical causes which produced the son of\nMary. Indeed, the supernatural only can produce the supernatural; from\nmaterial agents result physical effects; and they maintain in the\nschools, that there must always be a parity of nature between cause and\neffect.\n\nThough, according to Christians, Jesus was at the same time man and god,\nsome will say, it was necessary that the divine germ brought from heaven\nto be deposited in the womb of Mary, should contain at the same time\ndivinity and humanity to become Son of God. To use the language of\ntheologists, the _hypostatic union_ of the two natures must have taken\nplace before his birth, and immixed in the womb of his mother. In that\ncase, we cannot conceive how it could happen, that the divine nature\nshould continue torpid during the whole of Mary's pregnancy, in so much\nthat she herself was ignorant of the time of her in-lying. The proof of\nthis we find in Luke, chap. ii.--\"In those days (says he) there went out\na decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed. And\nas all went to be taxed, every one out of his own city, Joseph also went\nout of Nazareth and came to Bethlehem, to be taxed with Mary, who was\ngreat with child. And so it was, that while they were there, the days\nwere accomplished that she should be delivered, and she brought forth\nher first born son, and wrapt him in swadling clothes and laid him in a\nmanger, because there was no room for them in the inn.\"\n\nThis narrative proves that Mary was taken unprovided, and that the Holy\nSpirit, who had done so many things for her, had neglected to warn her\nof an event so likely to interest him, and so important to all mankind.\nThe humanity of Jesus, being subject to every casuality in our nature,\nmight have perished in this journey, undertaken at a time very critical\nto his mother. Nor do we understand how the mother could remain in\ncomplete ignorance of the proximity of her time, or how the Eternal\ncould so abandon the precious child he had deposited in her womb.\n\nSome other circumstances of the relation of Luke presents new\ndifficulties. He speaks of a _taxing_ (enumeration) by order of Caesar\nAugustus:--a fact of which no mention is made by any historian, Jewish\nor profane. We are also astonished to find the son of God born in\npoverty, having no other asylum than a stable, and no other cradle than\na manger; and at the tenderest age, in a rigorous season, exposed to\nmiseries without number.\n\nIt is true, our theologists have found a way to answer all these\ndifficulties. They maintain, that a just God wishing to appease himself,\ndestined his innocent son to afflictions, in order to have a motive for\npardoning the guilty human race, which had become hateful to him through\nAdam's transgression, in which, however, his decendants had no share. By\nan act of justice, whereof the mind of man can form no idea, a God whose\nessence renders him incapable of committing sin, is loaded with the\niniquities of man, and must expiate them in order to disarm the\nindignation of a father he has not offended! Such are the inconceivable\nprinciples which serve for the basis of the Christian theology.\n\nOur doctors add--It was the will of God that the birth of his son should\nbe accompanied with the same accidents as that of other men, to console\nthe latter for the misfortunes attendent on their existence. Man, say\nthey, is guilty before he is born, because all children are bound to pay\nthe debts of their fathers: thus man suffers justly as a sinner himself,\nand as charged with the sin of his first father.--Granting this, what\nmore consolatory than seeing a God, innocence and holiness itself,\nsuffering in a stable all the evils attached to indigence! That\nconsolation would have been wanting, if God had ordained that his son\nshould be born in splendor, and with an abundance of the comforts of\nlife. If the innocent Jesus had not suffered, mankind, incapable of\nextinguishing a debt contracted by Adam, would have been forever\nexcluded from paradise. The painful journey Mary was obliged to\nundertake in such critical circumstances, had been foreseen by Eternal\nwisdom, which had resolved that Jesus should be born at Bethlehem and\nnot at Nazareth. It was necessary--having been foretold, it behoved to\nbe accomplished.\n\nHowever solid these answers may appear to the faithful, they are not\ncapable of convincing the incredulous, who exclaim against the injustice\nof making an innocent God suffer, and loading him with the iniquities of\nthe earth. Neither can they conceive by what principle of equity the\nSupreme Being could make the human race responsible for a fault\ncommitted by their first parents, without their knowledge and\nparticipation. Finally, they contend that it would have been wiser to\nhave prevented man from committing sin, than to permit him to sin, and\nmake his own son die to expiate man's iniquity.\n\nWith respect to the journey to Bethlehem, we cannot discover the\nnecessity of it. The place where the saviour of the world was to be\nborn, seems a circumstance perfectly indifferent to the salvation of\nmankind.\n\nAs for the prophecy announcing the glory of Bethlehem, in having given\nexistence to the \"Leader of Israel\"--it does not appear to agree with\nJesus, who was born in a stable, and who was rejected by the people\nwhose leader he was to be. It is only a pious straining that can make\nthis prediction apply to Jesus. We are assured, that it had been\nforetold Jesus was to be born in poverty; while, on the other hand the\nmessiah of the Jews is generally announced by the prophets as a prince,\na hero, and a conqueror.--It is necessary to know then which of these\nprophecies we ought to adopt. Our doctors tell us \"the predictions\nannouncing that Jesus would be born and live in indigence and meanness,\nought to be taken _literally_, and those which announce his power and\nglory ought to be taken _allegorically_.\" But this solution will not\nsatisfy the incredulous; they will affirm, that by this manner of\nexplanation, we may always find in the sacred writings whatever we may\nthink we stand in need of. They will conclude that the scripture is to\nChristians, what the clouds are to the man who imagines he perceives in\nthem whatever figures he pleases.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER III.\n\nADORATION OF THE MAGI AND SHEPHERDS--MASSACRE OF THE INNOCENTS;--AND\nOTHER CIRCUMSTANCES, WHICH FOLLOWED THE BIRTH OF JESUS.\n\n\nOf the four historians of Jesus adopted by the church, two are wholly\nsilent on the facts we are to relate in this chapter; and Matthew and\nLuke, who have recorded them, are not at all unanimous in particulars.\nSo discordant are their relations, that the ablest commentators do not\nknow how to reconcile them. These differences, it is true, are less\nperceptible when the evangelists are read the one after the other, or\nwithout reflection; but they become particularly striking when we take\nthe trouble of comparing them. This is, undoubtedly, the reason why we\nhave hitherto had no concordance of the gospels which received the\ngeneral approbation of the church. Even those which have been printed\nhave not been universally adopted, though it must be acknowledged that\nthey contain nothing contrary to faith. It is, perhaps, from judicious\npolicy that the heads of the church have not approved of any system on\nthis point. They have, probably, felt the impossibility of reconciling\nnarratives so discordant as those of the four Evangelists; for the Holy\nSpirit, doubtless with a view to exercise the faith of the saints, has\ninspired them very differently. Besides, an able concordance of the\ngospels would prove a dangerous work:--it would bring together facts\nrelated by authors, who, far from supporting, would reciprocally weaken\neach other--a circumstance which could not fail to stagger at least the\nfaith of the compiler.\n\nMatthew, who, according to common opinion, (though a very erroneous\none,) wrote the first history of Jesus, asserts, that as soon as he was\nborn, and still in the stable at Bethlehem, Magi came from the East to\nJerusalem, and inquired where the king of the Jews was, whose star they\nhad observed in their own country. Herod, who then reigned in Judea,\nbeing informed of the motive of their journey, consulted the people of\nthe law; and having learned that the Christ was to be born at Bethlehem,\nhe permitted the Magi to go there, recommending to them to inform\nthemselves of this child, that he himself might do him homage. (Matt.\nii. 1.)\n\nIt appears, from the narrative of Matthew, that as soon as the Magi left\nHerod, they took the road to Bethlehem, a place not far from Jerusalem.\nIt is surprising that this prince, alarmed at the arrival of the Magi,\nwho had thus announced the birth of a king of the Jews, did not use more\nprecaution to allay his own uneasiness, and that of the capital, which\nthe gospel represents as in a state of consternation at this grand\nevent. It would have been very easy for him to have satisfied himself of\nthe fact without being under the necessity of relying on strangers, who\ndid not execute his commission. The Magi did not return; Joseph had time\nto save himself and his little family by flight; and Herod remained\ntranquil in spite of his suspicions and fears. It was not till after a\nconsiderable interval that he got into a passion on finding himself\ndeceived; and then, to preserve his crown in safety, he ordered a\ngeneral massacre of the children of Bethlehem and the neighboring\nvillages! But why suppose such conduct in this sovereign? He had\nassembled the doctors of the law and principal men of the nation; their\nadvice had confirmed the rumor spread by the wise men; they said it was\nat Bethlehem that Christ was to be born, and yet Herod did nothing for\nhis own tranquility! Either Herod had faith in the prophecies of the\nJews, or he had not. In the first case, and instead of relying on\nstrangers, he ought himself to have gone with all his court to\nBethlehem, and paid homage to the Saviour of the nation. In the second\ncase, it is absurd to make Herod order a general massacre of infants, on\naccount of a suspicion founded on a prophecy which he did not believe.\n\nThis prince's indignation is said not to have been roused till after the\nlapse of several days, and after he perceived that the Magi derided him,\nand took another road. Why did he not learn by the same means the flight\nof Jesus, of Joseph, and of his mother? Their retreat must certainly\nhave been observed in a place so small as Bethlehem. It will perhaps be\nsaid, that God on this occasion, permitted Herod to be blinded; but God\nshould not have permitted the inhabitants of Bethlehem and its environs\nto be so obstinate in preserving a secret that was to cost the lives of\nall their children. Possessed of the power of working miracles, could\nnot God have saved his son by more gentle means than the useless\nmassacre of a great number of innocents?--On the other hand, Herod was\nnot absolute master in Judea. The Romans would not have permitted him to\nexercise such cruelties; and the Jewish nation, persuaded of the birth\nof the Christ, would not have been accessary to them. A king of England,\nmore absolute than a petty sovereign of Judea, dependent on the Romans,\nwould not be obeyed, were he to order his guards to go and cut the\nthroats of all the children in a neighboring village, because three\nstrangers, in passing through London, had said to him, that among the\ninfants born in that village there was one, who, according to the rules\nof astrology, was destined to be one day king of Great Britain. At the\ntime when astrology was in vogue, they would have contented themselves\nwith causing search to be made for the suspected infant; they would have\nkept it in solitary confinement, or perhaps put it to death; but without\ncomprehending other innocent children in its proscription.\n\nWe might oppose to the relation of Matthew the silence of the other\nevangelists, and especially that of the historian Josephus, who, having\nreasons to hate Herod, would not have failed to relate a fact so likely\nto render him odious as the massacre of the innocents. Philo is likewise\nsilent on the subject; and no reason can be assigned why these two\ncelebrated historians should have agreed in concealing a circumstance so\nhorrible. We cannot suppose it has proceeded from hatred to the\nChristian religion; for that detached fact would prove neither for or\nagainst it. We are, therefore, warranted to conclude that this massacre\nis a fable; and that Matthew seems to have invented it merely to have\nthe opportunity of applying as ancient prophecy, which was his\npredominant taste. But in this instance he has deceived himself. The\nprophecy which he applied to the massacre of the innocents, is taken\nfrom Jeremiah, (xxxi. v. 15 and 16.) All the Jews understood it as\nrelating to the Babylonish captivity. It is as follows: \"Thus saith the\nLord; a voice was heard in Ramah, lamentation and bitter weeping: Rachel\nweeping for her children refused to be comforted because they were not.\"\nThe following verse is so plain, that it is inconceivable why Matthew\nventured to apply it to the pretended massacre at Bethlehem: \"Thus saith\nthe Lord, refrain thy voice from weeping, and thine eyes from tears; for\nthy work shall be rewarded, saith the Lord, and thy children shall come\nagain from the land of the enemy.\" Their return from the captivity is\nhere clearly pointed out, when the Israelites should again plant vines\nafter obtaining possession of their own country.\n\nIt is also to accomplish a prophecy, that Matthew makes Jesus travel\ninto Egypt. This journey, or rather Jesus' return, had, according to\nhim, been predicted by Hosea in these words: \"Out of Egypt have I called\nmy son.\" But it is evident, that this passage is to be considered only\nas relating to the deliverance of the Israelites from bondage, through\nthe ministry of Moses. Besides, the journey and abode of Jesus in Egypt,\ndo not agree with some circumstances which happened in his infancy, as\nrelated by Luke, who informs us, that at the end of eight days Jesus was\ncircumcised. The time of Mary's purification being accomplished\naccording to the law of Moses, Joseph and his mother carried Jesus to\nJerusalem, to present him to the Lord agreeably to the law, which\nordained the consecrating the first born (first fruits), and offering a\nsacrifice for them. On this occasion, Luke tells us that Simeon took the\ninfant in his arms, and declared in the presence of those assisting at\nthe ceremony, that the child was the Saviour of Israel. An old\nprophetess, called Anna, bore the same testimony, and spoke of him to\nall who looked for the redemption of the Jews. But why were speeches,\nthus publicly made in the temple of Jerusalem, in which city Herod\nresided, unknown to a prince so suspicious? They were much better\ncalculated to excite his uneasiness, and awaken his jealousy than the\narrival of astrologers from the East.\n\nDid Joseph and Mary, who came to Jerusalem for the presentation of\nJesus, and purification of his mother, return to Bethlehem? and went\nthey thence into Egypt in place of going to Nazareth? Luke says, that\nwhen they had performed all things according to the law of the Lord,\nthey returned into Galilee, to their own city Nazareth. But in what time\ndid the parents of Jesus accomplish all that the law ordained? Was it\nbefore going into Egypt, or after their return from that country, where,\naccording to Matthew, they had taken refuge to shelter themselves from\nthe cruelty of Herod? Did the purification of the virgin, and the\npresentation of her son in the temple, take place before or after the\ndeath of that wicked prince? According to Leviticus, the purification of\na mother who had brought a son into the world, was to be made at the end\nof thirty days. Hence we see how very difficult it is to reconcile the\nflight into Egypt, and the massacre of the innocents, which Matthew\nrelates, with the narrative of Luke, who says, that, \"after having\nperformed the ordinances of the law, Joseph and Mary returned into\nGalilee, to their own city Nazareth;\" and then adds, \"they went to\nJerusalem every year to celebrate the passover.\" If we could adopt the\nrelation of the two evangelists, at what time are we to place the coming\nof the Magi from the East in order to adore Jesus; the anger of Herod;\nthe flight into Egypt; and the massacre of the innocents? Either the\nrelation of Luke is defective, or Matthew wished to deceive his readers\nwith improbable tales. In whatever way we consider the matter, the Holy\nSpirit, who inspired these apostles, will be found to have committed a\nmistake.\n\nThere is another fact on which our two evangelists do not better agree.\nMatthew, as we have seen, makes the Magi come, guided by a star, to\nBethlehem, from the extremity of the East, to adore the child Jesus, and\noffer him presents. Luke, less taken with the marvellous, makes this\nchild adored by simple shepherds, who watched their flocks during night,\nand to whom an angel announced the great event of the birth of the\nSaviour of Israel. The latter evangelist speaks neither of the\nappearance of the star, of the coming of the Magi, nor of the cruelty of\nHerod--circumstances, however, which ought to have been recorded by\nLuke, who informs us that he was so exactly informed of every thing\nconcerning Jesus.\n\nThe parents of Jesus, either after their return from Egypt, or after his\npresentation in the temple, went to reside at Nazareth. Matthew, as\nusual, perceives in this the accomplishment of the prediction, _he shall\nbe called a Nazarene_; but unfortunately for his purpose, this prophecy\nis not to be found in the Bible, nor can it be imagined by whom it was\nuttered. It is however certain, that _Nazarene_ among the Jews signified\na _vagabond_, a person excluded from the rest of the world; that\nNazareth was a pitiful town, inhabited by beings so wretched that their\npoverty had become proverbial; and that beggars, vagrants, and people\nwhom nobody would own, were called _Nazarenes_.\n\nThe first Christians were so styled. We find them also called\n_Ebionites_, derived from a Hebrew word which signifies a _mendicant_, a\n_wretch_, and a _pauper_. St. Francis and St. Dominic, who, in the 13th\ncentury, proposed to revive primitive Christianity, founded orders of\nmendicant monks, destined to live solely on alms, to be true\n_Nazarenes_, and to levy contributions on the community, which these\nvagabonds have never ceased to oppress. Salmeron, in order to encourage\nthese mendicant monks, has maintained that Jesus himself was a beggar.\nThe name Nazarene was given to the apostles and Jews, who were first\nconverted. The other Jews regarded them as heretics and excommunicated\npersons; and, according to Jerome, anathematised them in all their\nsynagogues under the name of Nazarenes. The Jews even at present give\nthe name of Nazarenes (Nozerim) to the Christians whom the Arabs and\nPersians call Nazari. The first converts of Jesus and his apostles, were\nonly some reformed Jews: they preserved circumcision and other usages\nappointed by the law of Moses. In this they followed the example of\nJesus, who being circumcised, and a Jew during his whole life, had often\ntaught, that it was necessary to respect and observe the law. It is,\ntherefore, surprising to see them afterwards treated as heretics. But we\nshall (in chap. 17) see the true cause of this change. It was owing to\nPaul, whose party prevailed over Peter's, the other apostles', and the\nNazarenes or Judaising Christians. Paul corrected and reformed the\nsystem of Jesus, who had preached only a Judaism reformed. The apostle\nof the Gentiles succeeded in making his master, and his old comrades, be\nrewarded as heretics, or bad Christians. Thus it is that theologists\ntake the liberty of rectifying the religion of the Saviour they adore!\n\nWe have seen, in the course of this chapter, how little harmony exists\nbetween the two evangelists respecting the circumstances attending the\nbirth of Jesus. Let us now examine what could have been the views of\nthese two writers in relating these facts so differently. It is\nimpossible that Jesus, as Luke relates, could constantly reside at\nNazareth till he was twelve years of age if it be true that he was\ncarried soon after his birth into Egypt, where Matthew makes him remain\nuntil the death of Herod. Even in the time that Jesus lived, he was\nupbraided with his stay in Egypt. His enemies asserted that he there\nlearned magic, to which they attributed the wonders, or cunning tricks,\nthey saw him perform. Luke is silent as to the journey to Egypt, which\nmade his hero suspected. He fixes him, therefore, at Nazareth, and makes\nhim go every year with his parents to Jerusalem. But the precaution of\nthat evangelist seems to have been useless. Matthew, who wrote before\nhim, had established the journey and abode of Jesus in Egypt. Origen, in\nhis dispute with Celsus, does not deny it. Hence we see, that the\nChristian doctors did not doubt that Jesus had been in that country,\nnotwithstanding the silence of Luke. Let us endeavor then to develope\nthe motives of these two writers.\n\nThe Jews were agreed in the expectation of a messiah; but as the\ndifferent orders of the state had their prophets, they also possessed\ndifferent signs by which they were to know the deliverer. The great, the\nrich, and well informed persons, did not surely expect that the\ndeliverer of Israel would be born in a stable, and spring from the dregs\nof the people. They, undoubtedly, anticipated their deliverance by a\nprince, a warrior, a man of power, able to make himself respected by the\nnations inimical to Judea, and to break in pieces their chains. The\npoor, on the contrary, who, as well as the great and the rich, have\ntheir portion of self-love, thought they might flatter themselves that\nthe messiah would be born in their class. Their nation and their\nneighbors presented many examples of great men sprung from the bosom of\npoverty; and the oracles with which this nation was fed, were of such a\nnature that every family believed itself entitled to aspire to the honor\nof giving birth to a messiah; though the most general opinion was, that\nhe was to come of the race of David. Shepherds, and people of the lowest\norder might readily believe that a woman, delivered in a stable at\nBethlehem, had brought Jesus into the world. It may likewise be presumed\nthat Mary, with a view to render herself interesting, said to those who\nvisited her that she was descended from the blood of kings; a pretension\nwell adapted to excite the commiseration and wonderment of the people.\nThis secret, and the confused remembrance of some prophecies about\nBethlehem, the native country of David, were sufficient to operate on\nthe imaginations of these silly people, little scrupulous about proofs\nof what was told them.\n\nMatthew, who reckoned on the credulity of his readers, had his head full\nof prophecies and popular notions. To fill up a blank of thirty years in\nhis history of Jesus, he contrived to make him travel into Egypt,\nwithout foreseeing the objections that might be made on account of the\nneglect of the holy family to fulfil the ordinances of the law; such as\nthe circumcision of the child, his presentation in the temple, the\npurification of his mother, and the celebration of the passover;\nceremonies which only could be performed at Jerusalem. Perhaps it is to\njustify the journey to Egypt, and those negligences, that Matthew\nintroduces the prophecy of Hosea relative to the return from that place.\nIt seems also to countenance the duration of Jesus's abode there that he\nrelates the wrath of Herod, and the fable of the massacre of the\ninnocents, which he makes that prince order, though his crimes had, in\nother respects, rendered him sufficiently odious to the Jews as well as\nto strangers. Mankind in general are disposed to believe every thing of\na man who has become famous by his wickedness.\n\nLuke, to elude the reproaches which might be thrown on Jesus on account\nof his residence and journey in Egypt, has not mentioned it at all; but\nhis silence does not destroy its reality. It was necessary to free Jesus\nfrom the suspicion of magic, but he has not cleared him of accusations\nbrought against his birth, which are quite as weighty.\n\nCelsus, a celebrated physician, who lived in the second century of\nChristianity, and who had carefully collected all which had been\npublished against Jesus, asserts that he was the fruit of an illicit\nintercourse. Origen, in his works against Celsus, has preserved this\naccusation, but he has not transmitted the proofs on which it was\nfounded. The incredulous, however, have endeavoured to supply them, and\nfound the opinion of Celsus on what follows:\n\n_First._ From the testimony of Matthew himself, it is most certain that\nJoseph was very much dissatisfied with the pregnancy of his wife, in\nwhich he had no part. He formed the design of quitting her secretly; a\nresolution from which he was diverted by an angel, or dream, or perhaps\nreflection, which always passes among Jews for the effect of an\ninspiration from on high. It appears, however, that this design of\nJoseph had transpired, and was afterwards turned into a matter of\nreproach against Jesus. But Luke, more prudent than Matthew, has not\nventured to mention either the ill humor of Joseph, or the good-natured\nconduct he followed. Neither do we find, though he formed this\nresolution as to Mary, that this easy man again appeared on the stage\nfrom the time Jesus entered on it. We are no where informed of his\ndeath, and it is obvious that he never afterwards beheld his putative\nson with an eye of kindness.--When, at thirty years of age, Jesus and\nhis mother went to the wedding at Cana, there is no mention of Joseph.\nIf we admit with Luke, the history of Jesus's dispute with the doctors\nin the temple of Jerusalem, we shall find a new proof of the\nindifference which subsisted between the pretended father and supposed\nson: they met at the end of three days, and deigned not to interchange a\nword. Epiphanius (lib. i. 10.) assures us that Joseph was very old at\nthe time of his marriage with the virgin, and adds that he was a widower\nand father of six children by his first wife.--According to the\n_proto-gospel_, the good man had much difficulty in prevailing on\nhimself to espouse Mary, whose age intimidated him; but the high-priest,\nfinding that Joseph was the man most conformable to his own views,\nsucceeded in removing his scruples.\n\n_Secondly._ If to these presumptions are joined testimonies more\npositive, and a high antiquity, which confirm the suspicions entertained\nconcerning the birth of Jesus, we shall obtain proofs that must convince\nevery unprejudiced person. The Emperor Julian, as well as Celsus, who\nboth had carefully examined all the writings existing in their time for\nand against the Christian religion and its author, represent the mother\nof Jesus in a very unfavorable light.\n\nIn the works of the Jews, he is treated as an illegitimate child; and,\nalmost in our days, Helvidius, a learned Protestant critic, as well as\nseveral others, have maintained, not only that Jesus was the fruit of a\ncriminal intercourse, but also that Mary, repudiated by Joseph, had\nother children by different husbands. Besides, this supposed virgin did\nnot want a reason for forsaking Joseph, and flying into Egypt with her\nson. A prevailing tradition among the Jews states, that she made this\njourney to shelter herself from the pursuits of her spouse, who, in\nspite of the nocturnal visions which had been employed to pacify him,\nmight have delivered her up to the rigor of the laws. We know that the\nHebrews did not understand jesting on this subject.\n\nWe also find in the _Talmud_, the name of Panther, surnamed\n_Bar-Panther_, whom they reckon in the number of the husbands of the\nVirgin. From this it would appear, that Mary, repudiated by Joseph, or\nafter her flight, espoused Panther, an Egyptian soldier, her favorite\nlover, and the real father of Jesus. John Damascene thought to repair\nthe injury which this anecdote might do to Mary's reputation, by saying\nthat the name of _Bar-Panther_ was hereditary in the family of Mary, and\nconsequently in that of Joseph. But, _1st_, either Mary was not the\nkinswoman of Joseph, or she was not the cousin of Elizabeth, who was\nmarried to a priest, and therefore of the tribe of Levi.--2dly, we no\nwhere find in the Bible the name of _Panther_ among the descendants of\nDavid. If this had been an hereditary surname in that family, it would\nbe found somewhere, unless we suppose that John Damascene learned it by\na particular revelation. 3dly, The name of _Panther_ is by no means\nHebrew.\n\nIt will perhaps be said, that these rumours, so injurious to Jesus and\nhis mother, are calumnies invented by the enemies of the Christian\nreligion. But why decide if the pleas of both parties are not\ninvestigated? The imputations are very ancient; they have been advanced\nagainst Christianity ever since its origin, and they have never been\nsatisfactorily refuted. In the time of Jesus, we find that his\ncotemporaries regarded his wonders as the effects of magic, the\ndelusions of the devil, the consequences of the power of Belzebub.--The\nrelations of Jesus were also of that opinion, and regarded him as an\nimposter--a circumstance stated in the gospel itself, where we shall\nafterwards find that they wanted to arrest him. On the other hand, Jesus\nnever speaks of his infancy, nor of the time that had preceded his\npreaching:--he did not wish to recur to circumstances dishonorable to\nhis mother, towards whom, indeed, we shall very soon find him failing in\nfilial respect.\n\nThe evangelists, in like manner, pass very slightly over the first years\nof their hero's life. Matthew makes him return from Egypt on the death\nof Herod, without mentioning in what year that happened. He thus leaves\nhis commentators in doubt whether Jesus was then two or ten years old.\nWe find that the term of ten years is, through complaisance, invented on\naccount of the dispute between him and the doctors of Jerusalem, which\nLuke places in his twelfth year. This excepted, Jesus disappeared from\nthe scene not to shew himself again till thirty years of age.\n\nIt is difficult to discover what he did until that age. If we credit\nLuke, he remained at Nazareth. Yet it is clear that he was somewhere\nelse, for the purpose of learning the part which he was afterwards to\nplay. It has been supposed, not without reason, that Jesus passed a\nconsiderable part of his life among the contemplative _Essenians_, or\n_Therapeutes_, who were a kind of enthusiastic Jewish monks, living in\nthe vicinity of Alexandria, in Egypt, where it appears he drew up his\nsevere and monastic doctrine. If he had always resided at Nazareth, the\ninhabitants of that small town would have known him perfectly. Very far\nfrom this;--they were surprised at seeing him when thirty years of age.\nThey only conjectured that they knew him; and asked each other, \"Is not\nthis the son of Joseph?\"--a question very ridiculous in the mouths of\npersons who must have been in the constant habit of seeing Jesus in the\nnarrow compass of their town. This does not prevent Justin from telling\nus, that he became a carpenter in the workshop of his pretended father,\nand that he wrought at buildings or instruments of husbandry. But such a\nprofession could not long agree with a man in whom we find an ambitious\nand restless mind. The _Gospel_ of the _Infancy_ informs us, that Jesus,\nwhen young, amused himself with forming small birds of clay, which he\nafterwards animated, and then they flew into the air. The same book\nsays, that he knew more than his schoolmaster, whom he killed for having\nstruck him, because Jesus refused to read the letters of the alphabet.\nWe find also, that Jesus assisted Joseph in his labors, and by a miracle\nlengthened the pieces of wood, when cut too short or too narrow. All\nthese extravagancies are not more difficult to believe than many other\nwonders related in the acknowledged gospels.\n\nWe shall here quit Luke in order to follow Matthew, who places the\nbaptism of John after the return from Egypt, and makes Jesus forthwith\ncommence his mission. It is at this epoch, perhaps, that we ought to\nbegin the life of Jesus.--Yet, to let nothing be lost to the reader of\nthe evangelical memoirs, we thought it our duty not to pass over in\nsilence the circumstances which have been noticed, as these\npreliminaries are calculated to throw much light on the person and\nactions of Jesus. Besides, the interval between his birth and preaching\nhas not been the part of his history least exposed to the darts of\ncriticism. Matthew, as we have seen, to account for his master's absence\nduring the thirty years, makes him go into Egypt, and return in an\nunlimited time. Luke, who digested his memoirs after Matthew, perceiving\nthat the abode in Egypt cast a suspicion of magic on the miracles of\nJesus, makes him remain in Galilee, going and coming every year to\nJerusalem; and making him appear, at the age of twelve, in the capital,\nin the midst of the doctors, and debating with them. But Mark and John,\nprofiting by the criticism which these different arrangements had\nexperienced, make the messiah drop as it were from the clouds, and put\nhim instantly to labor at the great work of man's salvation.\n\nIt is thus that, on combining and comparing the several relations, we\nare enabled to discover the true system of the Gospels, in which,\nwithout adopting any alterations, we shall find materials for composing\nthe life of Jesus by merely reducing the marvellous to its proper value.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IV.\n\nBAPTISM OF JESUS--HIS ABODE IN THE DESERT--COMMENCEMENT OF HIS PREACHING\nAND MIRACLES--MARRIAGE AT CANA.\n\n\nFrom the time the Romans subdued Judea, the superstitious inhabitants of\nthat country, impatient to see the arrival of the messiah so often\npromised to their fathers, seemed inclined to quicken the slowness of\nthe Eternal by the ardor of their desires. This disposition of mind gave\nbirth to impostures, revolts, and disturbances; the authors of which the\nRoman power punished in such a manner as to discourage their adherents,\nor quickly to disperse them. Down to the era we are about to speak of,\n(which the gospel of Luke fixes at the fifteenth year of the reign of\nTiberius,) none of those who had attempted to pass for the messiah had\nbeen able to succeed. To have acted that part well required forces more\nconsiderable than those which all Judea could oppose to the conquerors\nof the world. It was, therefore, necessary to have recourse to craft,\nand to employ delusions and trick instead of force. For this purpose, it\nwas of importance to be fully acquainted with the disposition of the\nJewish nation; to affect a great respect for its laws and usages, for\nwhich it entertained the most profound veneration; to profit ingeniously\nby the predictions with which the were imbued; to move the passions, and\nwarm the imaginations of that fanatical and credulous people. But all\nthis behoved to be silently effected; it was necessary for him who\nattempted it, to avoid rendering himself suspected by the Romans; it was\nnecessary to be on his guard against the priests, doctors, and persons\nof education, capable of penetrating and thwarting his designs. It was\nessential to commence with gaining adherents and co-operators, and\nthereafter a party among the people, to support him against the grandees\nof the nation. Policy required that he should shew himself rarely in the\ncapital, to preach in the country, and render odious to the populace,\npriests who devoured the nation, nobles who oppressed it, and rich\npeople of whom it ought to be naturally jealous. Not to alarm too much,\nprudence demanded that he should speak in ambiguous language and in\nparables. Neither could he dispense with working miracles, which, much\nmore than all the harangues in the world, were calculated to seduce\nignorant devotees, disposed to see the finger of God in every act the\ntrue cause of which they were unable to comprehend.\n\nSuch was the conduct of the personage whose life we examine. Whether we\nsuppose that he had been in Egypt for the purpose of acquiring the\ntalents necessary to his views, or that he had always resided at\nNazareth, Jesus was not ignorant of the dispositions of his countrymen.\nAs he knew how much predictions were requisite to work on the minds of\nthe Jews, he made choice of a prophet and a forerunner in the person of\nhis cousin John Baptist. The latter, evidently in concert with Jesus,\npreached repentance, baptized on the banks of Jordan, and announced the\ncoming of a personage greater than himself. He said to those who gave\near to him, \"I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he\nthat cometh after me is mightier than I, the latchet of whose shoe I am\nnot worthy to loose: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with\nfire.\" Jesus accordingly repaired to John on purpose to arrange matters\nwith him, and to receive baptism from his hands. According to the report\nof Matthew, John, at first, evinced some difficulty; affirming, that, so\nfar from being worthy to baptize Jesus, it was from him that he himself\nought to receive baptism. At last, however, he yielded to the orders of\nJesus, and administered to him the sacrament of which the innocent son\nof God could not stand in need.\n\nIn this interview, the two kinsmen evidently settled their plans, and\ntook the necessary measures for insuring success. They both had\nambition, and shared the mission between them. John yielded the first\ncharacter to Jesus, whom he judged better qualified to play it with\nsuccess, and contented himself with being his precursor, preaching in\nthe desert, beating up for followers, and preparing the ways for\nhim--all in consequence of a prophecy of Isaiah, who had said, \"Prepare\nye the way of the Lord, make straight in the desert a highway for our\nGod\"--an obscure and vague prediction, in which, however, Christians\nbelieve they see clearly designated the messiah and his holy precursor.\n\nThe arrangements being once settled by our two missionaries, John took\ncare to tell those who came to hear him, that, to pacify Heaven, it was\ntime to repent; that the arrival of the messiah was not far off; and\nthat he had seen him. The sermons of John having made considerable\nnoise, the priests of Jerusalem, vigilant as to what might interest\nreligion, and wishing to be informed of his views, dispatched emissaries\nafter him. These men asked if he was the Christ, or Elias, or a prophet.\nJohn answered, that he was neither of these. But when he was questioned\nby what authority he baptized and preached, he declared, that he was the\nforerunner of the messiah. This proceeding of the priests only tended to\ngive greater weight to John's assertions, and naturally excited the\ncuriosity of the people assembled to hear him. The next day they went in\na crowd to the place where the preacher baptized, when, profiting\nskilfully by the circumstance, and perceiving Jesus approaching, he\nexclaimed, \"Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the\nworld. This is he of whom I said, after me cometh a man who is preferred\nbefore me.\"\n\nThe author of the gospel ascribed to John, perceiving that it was\nimportant to remove the suspicion of collusion between Jesus and his\nforerunner, makes the Baptist declare twice, that he knew him not before\nbaptizing him: but that it had been revealed to him by the Deity, that\nthe person on whom he should see the Holy Spirit descending during his\nbaptism, was the son of God. Whence we see that, according to this\nevangelist, John did not know Jesus, who was, however, his kinsman,\naccording to Luke.\n\nJohn was much esteemed by the people, whom an austere and extraordinary\nlife is always certain of seducing.--They did not suspect that a\nmissionary so detached from the things of this world, could ever deceive\nthem. They believed on his word, that the Holy Spirit, under the form of\na dove, had descended on Jesus, and that he was the Christ or messiah\npromised by the prophets. On another occasion we shall also find John\naffecting not to know his cousin Jesus: he deputed some of his disciples\nto learn _who he was_? Jesus replied, that they had only to relate to\nJohn the miracles he performed, and by that sign their master would\nrecognize him. We shall afterwards speak of this embassy.\n\nJesus had associated with him a confident, then called Simon, and\nafterwards Cephas or Peter, who had been the disciple of John. Scarcely\nhad Simon taken his arrangements with the messiah, when he drew over his\nbrother Andrew to the new sect. These two brothers were fishermen. We\nreadily presume that Jesus would not choose his followers among the\ngrandees of the country.\n\nThe progress of John Baptist, and the attachment of the people to him,\nalarmed the priests; they complained loudly, and John was arrested by\norder of the tetrarch Herod, who, according to Matthew, caused him to be\nbeheaded to please Herodias his sister-in-law. Yet we do not find the\nhistorians of this prince reproaching him with the punishment of the\nforerunner. After John's death, his disciples attached themselves to\nJesus, whose coming John had announced, and who, in his turn, had\nrendered in behalf of John the most public testimonies in presence of\nthe people: for Jesus had openly declared, that John was \"greater than a\nprophet, and greater than an angel, and that he was not born of woman\nwho was greater than him.\" Nevertheless, the messiah, dreading to be\ninvolved in the affair of his forerunner, left his two disciples at\nJerusalem, and withdrew into the desert, where he continued forty days.\nIt has been remarked, that during the imprisonment of John, Jesus did\nnot think of delivering him; he performed no miracle in his behalf;\nafter his death he spoke but little of him, and forebore pronouncing his\neulogy. He was no longer in need of him, and, perhaps, he wished by this\nconduct to teach those who serve the views of the ambitious in a\nsubordinate capacity, that they ought not to reckon too much on\ngratitude.\n\nIt would have been a bad exordium to assign fear as the motive of the\nmessiah's retreat. We are told that he was _carried up by the Spirit_,\nwhich transported him to the desert. It was necessary that Jesus should\nsurpass his forerunner. The latter had led a very austere life, his only\nnourishment being locust and wild honey; but the gospel affirms, that\nJesus ate _nothing at all_ during his retreat, and that on the last day,\nhaving _felt himself hungry_, angels came and ministered to him. The\nfasting of Jesus for forty days, is considered by his followers as a\nproof of his divinity. But this abstinence falls far short of that\npractised by a Talapoin at Siam, who, according to La Loubere, \"lived\nsatisfactorily without food for _one hundred and seven days_!\"\n\nTo evince the importance of his mission, the prejudice which it was to\noccasion to the empire of the devil, and the infinite advantages which\nwere to result from it to his followers, Jesus, on his return from the\ndesert, pretended that Satan had tempted him; made the most flattering\noffers to engage him to desist from his enterprise; and proffered him\nthe monarchy of the universe, if he would renounce his project of\nredeeming the human race. The refusal he gave to these propositions,\nevinced a supernatural desire to labor for the salvation of the world.\nSuch as heard these details must have been filled with astonishment,\npenetrated with gratitude, and burning with zeal for the preacher. Of\nconsequence, the number of his adherents increased.\n\nJohn the Evangelist, or the person who has written, under his name,\nwhose object appears to have been to establish the divinity of Jesus,\nhas not mentioned his carrying away, abode in the desert, and\ntemptation. These transactions must have been considered by him\nprejudicial to the doctrine he wished to introduce. Matthew, Mark, and\nLuke, relate the carrying away, and the temptations in a different\nmanner, but calculated to show the power of Satan over the messiah. He\ntransported him, no doubt in spite of himself, to the pinnacle of the\ntemple; and by a miracle, made Jesus contemplate, from the summit of a\nmountain, all the kingdoms of the universe, without even excepting those\nwhose inhabitants were _antipodes_ of Judea. According to the gospels,\nthe devil worked marvels, which far surpassed those of Jesus.\n\nThe absence of Jesus made him lose for a time, his two disciples Peter\nand Andrew. The necessity of providing for their subsistence,\nconstrained them to resume their former trade. As their master durst not\nthen reside in Jerusalem, he retired towards the banks of the sea of\nGalilee, where they joined him. \"Follow me, (said he to them,) leave\nyour nets; of catchers of fish I will make you fishers of men.\" He,\nprobably, made them understand, that the arrangements he had made during\nhis retirement, furnished him with the means of subsisting, without\ntoil, by the credulity of the vulgar. The two brothers immediately\nfollowed him.\n\nWhether Jesus had been expelled from Nazareth by his fellow citizens, or\nquitted it of his own accord, he fixed his residence at Capernaum, a\nmaritime city, on the confines of the tribes of Zabulon and Naphtali.\nHis mother, a widow, or separated from her husband, followed him: she\ncould be useful to Jesus and the little troop of adherents who lived\nwith him.\n\nIt was at this time that our hero, seconded by his disciples, opened his\nmission. His sermon, like that of the Baptist, consisted in saying,\n_Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand_. John, we have seen,\ncommenced preaching in the fifteenth year of Tiberius. It was in the\nsame year that his interview with Jesus took place, when he was baptized\nby John. Towards the end of this year John disappeared: after which\nJesus was in the desert, whence he returned to reside with his mother in\nthe city of Capernaum. There he remained a short time only on account of\nthe approach of the festival of the passover, to celebrate which he\nrepaired to Jerusalem. We may, therefore, fix the commencement of his\npreaching in the sixteenth year of Tiberius. He celebrated the passover\nthree times before his death; and the common opinion is, that his\npreaching lasted three years, or until the nineteenth year of Tiberius.\n\nThe rumours excited by the baptism and preaching of John, and the\ntestimonies he bore in behalf of Jesus, having died away on the\nimprisonment and death of the forerunner, and flight of the messiah, the\nlatter resumed courage, and thought that, with the assistance of his\ndisciples, he ought to make a new attempt. Too well known at Nazareth,\nand slighted by his relations, who, on all occasions, seemed to think\nbut little of him, he quitted that ungrateful city to establish himself,\nas we have remarked, at Capernaum, in the sixteenth year of Tiberius. It\nwas there that he commenced preaching his new system to some poor\nfishermen, and other low people. He soon found, however, that his\nmission was too circumscribed in that place: but to acquire some eclat,\nhe judged it necessary to perform a miracle; that is, in the language of\nthe Jews, some trick capable of exciting the wonder of the vulgar. An\nopportunity occurred for this: some inhabitants of Cana, a small village\nOf Galilee Superior, at the distance of about fifteen leagues from\nCapernaum, invited Jesus and his mother to a wedding. The married\npersons were poor, though John, who alone relates this story, gives them\na steward; yet he tells us that their wine failed at the moment the\nguests were half intoxicated, or gay. On this Mary, who knew the power\nor the dexterity of her son, said to him: _They have no wine._ Jesus\nanswered her very roughly, and in a manner which evidently denoted a man\nwarmed with wine: _Woman, what have I to do with thee?_ It may, however,\nbe supposed, that Jesus had not totally lost the use of his reason, as\nhe still possessed presence of mind to transmute water into wine, so\nthat the miraculous wine was found better than the natural wine they had\ndrank at the beginning.\n\nThis first miracle of Jesus was performed in presence of a great number\nof persons, already half intoxicated; but the text does not inform us,\nwhether they were equally astonished the day following, when the fumes\nof the wine were dissipated. Perhaps this miracle was witnessed by the\nsteward only, with whom Jesus had secret intelligence. The incredulous,\nless easily persuaded than the poor inebriated villagers, do not observe\nin this transmutation of water into wine, a motive for being convinced\nof the divine power of Jesus. They remark, that in the operation, he\nemployed water in order to make his wine; a circumstance which may give\nroom to suspect, that he made only a composition, of which be, like many\nothers, might have the secret. There was in fact, no more power\nnecessary to create wine, and fill the pitchers without putting water\ninto them, than to make an actual transmutation or water into wine. At\nleast, by acting in this manner, he would have removed the suspicion of\nhaving made only a mixture.\n\nIn whatever manner the miracle was performed, it appears to have made\nsome impression on those who saw it, or who heard it related. It is\ncertain Jesus profited by it to extend his mission even to the capital\nof Judea; only giving time for his miracle to spread, in order to\nproduce its effect. In expectation of this, he withdrew with his mother,\nbrothers, and disciples, to Capernaum, where he remained till the\nfestival of the passover (the time of which was near) should collect at\nJerusalem a multitude of people, before whom he flattered himself with\nbeing able to operate a great number of marvels.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER V.\n\nJOURNEY OF JESUS TO JERUSALEM.--THE SELLERS DRIVEN OUT OF THE\nTEMPLE.--CONFERENCE WITH NICODEMUS.\n\n\nThe noise of the miracle at Cana having reached Jerusalem, by means of\nthose who repaired to that city from Galilee, Jesus went there,\naccompanied by some of his disciples; but of the number of the latter we\nare ignorant. It was, as has been mentioned, the time of the passover,\nand consequently, a moment when almost the whole nation were assembled\nin the capital. Such an occasion was favorable for working miracles.\nJohn accordingly affirms that Jesus performed a great number, without,\nhowever, detailing any of them. Several of the witnesses of Jesus' power\nbelieved in him, according to our historian; but he did not place much\nconfidence in them. The reason given for this by John, is, \"Because he\nknew all men, and needed not that any should testify of man; for he knew\nwhat was in man.\" In short, he knew every thing except the means of\ngiving to those who saw his miracles the dispositions he desired.\n\nBut, how reconcile faith in these new converts, in the wonders performed\nby Jesus, with the bad dispositions they were known to possess? If he\nknew the state of mind of these witnesses of his miracles, why perform\nthem with certain loss? In this there is a want of just inference in the\nwriter, which must not, however, be imputed to Jesus. It is perhaps\nbetter not to refer to John in this matter, than to believe that his\nsagacious master would perform miracles without design, or for the sole\npleasure of working them.\n\nIn the same journey to Jerusalem, Jesus performed an exploit which is as\ngreat as a miracle, and evinces a powerful arm. According to an ancient\nusage, merchants had established themselves, especially during the\nsolemn festivals, under the porticos which environed the temple. They\nfurnished victims and offerings to the devout, which they were to\npresent to the Lord, in order to accomplish the ordinances of the law;\nand, for the accommodation of the Jews who repaired thither from\ndifferent countries, and for their own interest, the priests had\npermitted the money changers to fix their stalls in this place. Jesus,\nwho on every occasion shewed himself but little favorable to the clergy,\nwas shocked at this usage, which, far from being criminal, tended to\nfacilitate the accomplishment of the Mosaical law. He made a scourge of\nropes, and, displaying a vigorous arm on those merchants, drove them\ninto the streets, frightened their cattle, and overturned the counters,\nwithout their being able to oppose his enterprise. It may be\nconjectured, that the people had no reason to be displeased with the\ndisturbance, but profited by the money and effects which Jesus\noverturned in the paroxysm of his zeal. No doubt his disciples did not\nforget themselves: their master could by this exploit make provision for\nthem, especially if they had been in the secret, and enable them to\ndefray all expenses during their residence in the capital. Besides, they\nsaw in this event the accomplishment of a prophecy of the Psalmist, who\nforetold, that the Messiah would be \"eaten up with the zeal of the house\nof the Lord\"--a prophecy that was clearly verified by the uproar which\nJesus had occasioned. It would appear that the brokers had not\ncomprehended the mystic sense of this prediction; at least they did not\nexpect to see it verified at their expense. In their first surprise,\nthey neglected to oppose the unexpected attacks of a man who must have\nappeared to them a maniac; but, on recovering from their astonishment,\nthey complained to the magistrates of the loss they had sustained. The\nmagistrates, afraid, perhaps, of weakening their authority by punishing\na man of whom the people had become the accomplice, or a fanatic whose\nzeal might be approved by the devotees, did not wish to use rigor for\nthis time; they contented themselves with sending to Jesus to know from\nhimself by what authority he acted--\"What sign (said they) shewest thou\nunto us, seeing that thou doest these things?\" On which Jesus answered,\n\"Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.\" But the\nJews were not tempted to make the trial;--they took him for a fool, and\nreturned, shrugging their shoulders. If they had taken Jesus at his\nword, they would have experienced great embarrassment; for the gospel\ninforms us, that it was not of the temple of Jerusalem he spoke, but of\nhis own body. He meant his resurrection, says John, which was to happen\nthree days after his death. The Jews had not discernment to divine this\nenigma, and the disciples did not penetrate its true meaning till a long\ntime after, when they pretended their master had risen from the dead. We\ncannot forbear admiring that Providence, which, wishing to instruct,\nenlighten, and convert the Jewish people by the mouth of Jesus, employed\nonly figures, allegories, and enigmatical symbols, totally inexplicable\nby persons the most ingenious and most experienced.\n\nThough Jesus had the power of raising himself from the dead, he did not\nwish to employ it when in the hands of the Jews, who were ready to\narrest and punish him as a disturber of the public repose. He thought it\nmore prudent to decamp without noise, and shelter himself from the\npursuit of those whom his brilliant exhibitions might have displeased.\nHe intended to withdraw from Jerusalem during night, when a devout\nPharisee, wishing to be instructed, came to see him. He was called\nNicodemus, and held the place of senator--a rank which does not always\nexempt from credulity. \"Rabbi, (said he to Jesus,) we know that thou art\na teacher sent from God; for no man can do these miracles that thou\ndoest, except God be with him.\"\n\nThis opportunity was favorable for Jesus to declare himself: by a single\nword he could have decided on his divinity, and acknowledged, before\nthis senator so kindly disposed, that he was God. Yet he evaded a direct\nanswer; contenting himself with saying to Nicodemus, that nobody can\nshare in the kingdom of God unless he be born again. The astonished\nproselyte exclaimed, that it was impossible for a man already old to be\nborn again, or enter anew into his mother's womb. On which Jesus\nreplied: \"I say unto thee, except a man be born of water and of the\nspirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.\" It appears, that\nNicodemus was no better satisfied than before. Jesus, to make himself\nmore perspicuous, added, \"that which is born of the flesh is flesh, and\nthat which is born of the spirit is spirit. Marvel not, that I said unto\nthee, ye must be born again--The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou\nhearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, nor\nwhither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the spirit.\"\n\nNotwithstanding the precision and plainness of these instructions,\n(resembling the reasoning of our theologians,) Nicodemus, whose\nunderstanding was doubtless shut up, did not comprehend any part of\nthem. \"How (asks he) can these things be?\" Here Jesus, pushed to\nextremity, grew warm:--\"Art thou (says he) a master of Israel, and\nknowest not these things? Verily, verily, I say unto thee, we speak that\nwe do know, and testify that we have seen, and ye receive not our\nwitness. If I have told you earthly things and ye believe not, how shall\nye believe if I tell you of heavenly things? And no man hath ascended up\nto heaven but he that came down from heaven, even the son of man which\nis in heaven.\" (John iii. 1-13.)\n\nWe thought it our duty to relate this curious dialogue, as a specimen of\nthe logic of Jesus; the more so as it seems to have served as a model\nfor the fashion of reasoning observed by Christian doctors, who are in\nthe use of explaining obscure things by things still more obscure and\nunintelligible. They terminate all disputes by referring the decision to\ntheir own testimony; that is, to the authority or the church or clergy,\nentrusted by God himself with regulating what the faithful ought to\nbelieve.\n\nThe rest of the conversation of Jesus with Nicodemus is equally\nperspicuous, and in the same style:--The former alone speaks, and\nappears by the dint of his reasons to have silenced the docile senator,\nwho, it seems, retired fully convinced. Thus it is, that _faith_\ndisposes the elect to yield to the lessons, dogmas, and mysteries of\nreligion even when it is impossible to attach any meaning to the words\nthey hear pronounced.\n\nThere is no further mention of Nicodemus--We know not whether he\nresigned his office of Senator to enrol himself among the disciples of\nJesus. Perhaps he was contented with secretly furnishing necessaries to\nhis adherents, in gratitude for the luminous instructions he had\nreceived. He evidently knew how to profit by them, for John makes him\nreturn after the death of Jesus, bringing a hundred pounds of aloes and\nmyrrh, for the purpose of embalming his body, and then interring it,\nwith the assistance of Joseph of Arimathea. This proves that he had come\nfrom his conversation with Jesus a more able theologist than he had\nbegun it. On this occasion, Jesus must have granted him saving grace,\nwithout which it would have been impossible to comprehend any of his\nsublime dogmas.\n\nAccording to theology, men have occasion for _supernatural grace_ to do\ngood. This doctrine is injurious to sound morality. Men always wait for\nthe call from above to do good, and those who direct them, never employ\nthe _calls from below_; that is the natural motives to excite them to\nvirtue. But the clergy cannot give a correct definition of virtue. They\nsay it is an effect of grace that disposes men to do that which is\nagreeable to the Divinity. But what is grace? How does it act on man?\nWhat is it that is agreeable to God? Wherefore doth not God give to all\nmen the grace to do that which is agreeable in his eyes? We are\nunceasingly told to do good, _because God requires_ it; but no one has\nbeen able to teach us what that good is which is acceptable to the\nAlmighty, and by the performance of which we shall obtain his\napprobation.\n\nIt must be acknowledged, that the impossibility of comprehending the\ndoctrine of Jesus furnishes a good reason for denying that it can be\ndivine. It cannot be conceived why a God, sent to instruct men, should\nnever distinctly explain himself. No Pagan oracle employed terms more\nambiguous, than the divine missionary chosen by Providence to enlighten\nnations. In this the Deity appears to have made it his study to create\nobstacles to his projects, and to have laid a snare not only for the\nJews, but for all those who must read the gospel to obtain salvation; a\nconduct equally unworthy of a good and just God, endowed with prescience\nand wisdom; yet by faith we may succeed in reconciling every thing, and\nreadily comprehend why God should speak without wishing to be\nunderstood.\n\nAs soon as Jesus had quitted Nicodemus, he left Jerusalem, his abode in\nwhich had become very dangerous, and wandered through the country of\nJudea, where he enjoyed greater safety. The uproar he had occasioned in\nthe capital, where so great a multitude were assembled, had not failed\nto make him known to many; but it was at a distance that he gained the\ngreatest number of partisans. John informs us, in chapter third, that\nduring this period he baptized; thereafter he tells us, in chapter\nfourth, that he did _not_ baptize, but that his disciples baptized for\nhim.\n\nOne thing is certain, that, after this, he quitted Judea to go into\nGalilee. It was, perhaps, to be more private, or to prevent the schism,\nwhich, according to the gospel, was ready to take place between the Jews\nbaptized by John, and those whom Jesus and his disciples had baptized.\nJesus conceived that prudence required him to remain at a distance, and\nto leave the field open to a man who was useful to him, and who\ncontented himself with playing the second part under him. It very soon\nappeared that Jesus made a greater number of proselytes than his cousin;\na circumstance which, in the end, might have created a misunderstanding\nbetween them. Jesus therefore directed his march towards Samaria,\nwhither we are to follow him, and thence he passed into Galilee.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VI.\n\nADVENTURE OF JESUS WITH THE FEMALE SAMARITAN--HIS JOURNEY AND MIRACLES\nIN THE COUNTRY OF THE GERASENES.\n\n\nIt may be observed that in this examination of the history of Jesus, we\nfollow the most generally received arrangement of facts, without meaning\nto guarantee that they occurred precisely in that order. Chronological\nmistakes are not of much importance when they do not influence the\nnature of events. Besides, the evangelists, without fixing any eras,\ncontent themselves with saying _at that time_, which precludes our\ngiving an exact chronology of the following transactions. Precision\nwould require a labor as immense as superfluous, and tend only to shew\nthat the history of Jesus, dictated by the Holy Spirit, is more\nincorrect than that of celebrated Pagans of an antiquity more remote. It\nwould also prove that the inspired writers contradict themselves every\ninstant, by making their hero act at the same time in different places,\nand often remote from each other. On the other hand, this great labor\nwould not inform us which of the evangelists we ought to prefer, seeing\nall in the eyes of faith have truth on their side. Time and place do not\nchange the nature of facts; and it is from these facts we must form our\nideas of the legislator of the Christians.\n\nJesus having commenced his journey in the summer season, felt oppressed\nwith thirst near Sichar, in the country of Samaria, which gave rise to a\nsingular adventure. Near this city there was a well, known by the name\nof Jacob's fountain. Fatigued with his journey, Jesus sat down on the\nbrink of the well, waiting the return of his disciples, who had gone to\nthe city for provisions. It was about noon, when a female came to draw\nwater. Jesus asked her to let him drink out of the vessel she held; but\nthe Samaritan, who knew from his countenance that he was a Jew, was\nastonished at his request, as there was no intercourse between the\northodox Jews and the Samaritans. According to the custom of partisans\nof different sects, they detested each other most cordially. The\nmessiah, who was not so fastidious as the ordinary Jews, undertook the\nconversion of the female heretic, for whose sex we find in him a strong\nattachment through the whole course of his history. \"If thou knewest,\"\nsaid he to her, \"the gift of God, and who it is that saith to thee, give\nme to drink, thou wouldst have asked of him, and he would have given\nthee living water.\" The Samaritan woman, who did not observe Jesus to\nhave any vessel in his hand, asked whence he could draw the living water\nof which he spoke? On this the messiah, assuming a mysterious tone,\nanswered, \"Whoso drinketh of this well shall thirst again, but whosoever\ndrinketh of the water that I shall give him, shall never thirst; It\nshall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life.\" The\nfemale, who was a dame of easy virtue, asked some of that marvellous\nwater; and Jesus, from this discourse having discovered the profession\nof the woman, ingeniously got off by telling her to go and seek her\nhusband; calculating, perhaps, on being able to steal away when she was\ngone. But the lady related to him her life; gave some details of her\nconduct; and thereby enabled him to conjecture enough of it to speak as\na conjuror. Accordingly, he told her that she had had five husbands;\nthat she had none at that time, and that the man with whom she lived was\nonly a gallant. The Samaritan woman took Jesus for a sorcerer or a\nprophet; he did not deny it; and as he was not then afraid of being\nstoned or punished, he made bold for the first time to confess that he\nwas the messiah.\n\nThey were at this part of their dialogue, when the return of Jesus'\ndisciples put an end to it. The latter, whether they knew the profession\nof the loquacious dame, or were more intolerant than their master, were\nsurprised at the tete-a-tete; yet none of them ventured to criticise the\nconduct of Jesus; while the Samaritan woman seeing his retinue believed\nin reality that he was a prophet or the messiah. Leaving her pitcher,\nshe went directly to Sichar, \"Come and see,\" said she to the\ninhabitants, \"a man who told me all things that ever I did; is not this\nthe Christ?\"--The astonished inhabitants went and met Jesus; and charmed\nwith hearing him preach, without comprehending one word of his\ndiscourse, they invited him to come and reside with them. He yielded to\ntheir request for two days only: the provisions purchased were put up in\nreserve, and the troop lived during that time at the cost of these\nheretics, delighted no doubt with defraying the expenses of the Saviour\nand his followers.\n\nAll the marvellous in this adventure turns on Jesus having divined that\nthe Samaritan lady had had five husbands, and lived at that time in\ncriminal intercourse with a favorite. Yet it is easy to perceive that\nJesus could learn this anecdote either in his conversation with the\nprating dame, or by public rumor, or in some other very easy way.\n\nBut unbelievers find another reason for criticising this relation of\nJohn. Laying aside the marvellous, they attack the _truth_ of the\ntransaction. All history attests, that in the time of Jesus, Samaria was\npeopled by colonies of different nations, which the Assyrians had\ntransported thither after the destruction of the kingdom of Israel. This\nwould seem to exclude the expectation of the messiah, in which,\naccording to John, the Samaritans lived. Pagans and Idolators could not\nhave very distinct notions of an event peculiar to Judea. If the\nSamaritans were the descendants of Jacob, it was not necessary to put\ninto the mouth of the Samaritan woman these words, \"Our fathers\nworshipped in this mountain, and ye say, Jerusalem is the place where\nmen ought to worship.\" It was also absurd to make Jesus say, \"ye shall\nno more worship the Father, either in this mountain or at Jerusalem; ye\nworship ye know not what;\" for the law of Moses does not forbid the\nworshipping God in whatever place we may find ourselves. In the time of\nJesus, the laws or usages of the Jews required, that none should offer\nsacrifice any where, except in the temple of the capital; but the places\nof prayer depended on every man's own will and pleasure. It is, besides,\nabsurd to say, that the descendants of Jacob did not know the God whom\nthey adored to be Jehovah, the God of Moses and of the Jews; unless it\nis pretended, that they did not know whom they worshipped. Since the\nmission of Jesus, Christians have undoubtedly nothing to reproach them\nwith on this head. Moreover the words of Jesus seem to insinuate, that\nhe wished to abolish the worship of the Father. It is certain that\nChristians share their homage between him and his Son, which, faith a\npart, annihilates the dogma of the unity of God. Finally, Jesus did not\nconjecture right in saying, that the Father would be no longer\nworshipped at Jerusalem, or on the mountain; for this Father has not\nceased one instant to be worshipped there for these eighteen centuries,\nby Jews, by Christians, and by Mahometans.\n\nIf it is maintained, that the Samaritan woman was a heathen, it is not\nlikely that she would have regarded Jesus as the messiah, whom she\nneither knew nor expected. Add to this, that the Samaritans believed in\nJesus on the word of a courtezan; a credulity of which Jews and\nChristians only could be susceptible. Jesus and his disciples were Jews,\nand in that character excluded from Samaria. It is of no import,\ntherefore, by whom the country was inhabited.\n\nTwo days having elapsed, and the people of Sichar being, in all\nappearance, sufficiently instructed, Jesus quitted their city, and with\nhis disciples took the road of Upper Galilee. In this journey, Jesus\nconsidering the hostile disposition of his countrymen, thought proper\nnot to enter Nazareth, the place of his nativity. He applied to himself\nthe famous proverb, _a prophet has no honor in his own country_. It was\notherwise in the rest of the province:--as soon as the people knew of\nhis arrival, they gave him welcome. Luke assures us that he was esteemed\nand honored by every body. These good people had beheld the wonders\nwhich he had operated in Jerusalem, during the festival of the passover.\nIn gratitude for these favorable dispositions, and for the faith he\nfound among the Galileans, Jesus did not content himself with\ninstructing them, but confirmed his mission, and testified his love by a\ncrowd of prodigies. The number was, doubtless, very great, as Matthew is\nconstrained to say generally, that he healed all manner of sickness, and\nall manner of disease among the people; and that it was sufficient to\nobtain a cure, to present to him the sick, whatever might be their\ndisease. Lunatics, whose number was great in that country; idiots,\nhypochondriacs, and persons possessed with devils, had but to fly to him\nfor relief, and their cure was certain.\n\nThis multitude of miracles, for so they style the cures operated by\nJesus, drew after him a crowd of idlers and vagabonds from Galilee,\nJerusalem, Decapolis, Judea, and the country beyond Jordan. It was in\nthis journey he obtained two famous disciples: they were brothers, sons\nof a fisherman of the name of Zebedee, and called James and John. The\nfirst, though, probably, he could not read, afterwards composed mystical\nworks, which are at this day revered by Christians. With respect to\nJohn, he was the favorite of his master, and received from him marks of\ndistinguished attention. He afterwards became a sublime Platonist, and,\nthrough gratitude, deified Jesus in the gospels and epistles published\nin his name.\n\nThe reputation and resources of Jesus were so great in Galilee, that, to\nincrease the number of his followers, it was only necessary for him to\nopen his mouth and speak. The two disciples already mentioned, he called\nwith an intention to keep near his person. Wishing, however, to repose\nafter the fatigues of preaching and performing miracles, he resolved to\nquit the cities and retire to the sea coast. He conjectured, that to\nmake himself desirable, and not exhaust his credit, it was prudent not\nto suffer himself to be seen too long or too near. The people, fond of\nhearing the wonderful sermons of Jesus, followed him. Pressed by the\ncrowd, he happily perceived two vessels; and stepping into the one\nbelonging to Simon Peter, he harangued the eager multitude from it. Thus\nthe boat of a fisherman became a pulpit, whence the Deity uttered his\noracles.\n\nThe Galileans were not rich, and, accordingly, the troop of Jesus'\nadherents augmented. We find his four first apostles laboring in their\ntrade of fishermen during the abode of the messiah in the province. The\nday on which he preached in the vessel had not been fortunate for them;\nand the night preceding was not more favorable. Jesus, who knew more\nthan one profession, thought that it behoved him to do something for\npeople who shewed so much zeal. When, therefore, he had finished his\nharangue and the crowd had retired, he bade Simon advance into the\nmiddle of the water and cast his net; the latter excused himself,\nsaying, that he had already thrown several times without success. But\nJesus insisted:--then said Simon, _I will cast it on thy word_: on\nwhich, by an astonishing miracle, the net broke on all sides. Simon and\nAndrew were unable to drag it out, they called their comrades, and drew\nout of it fishes enough to fill two ships. Our fishermen were so\nsurprised, that Peter took his master for a wizard, and prayed him to\ndepart. But Jesus encouraged him, and promised not to alarm them again,\nseeing that henceforth he, Peter, should no longer occupy himself with\ncatching fish, but men.\n\nThe messiah finding himself near Cana, judged it proper, as he had once\nperformed a miracle there, to enter that place. An officer of Capernaum,\nwhose son was sick of a fever, repaired to this village on purpose to\ntry the remedies of Jesus, of whose powers so many persons boasted. He\nentreated the physician to come to his house and cure his son; but our\nEsculapius, who did not chuse to operate before eyes too clear-sighted,\ngot rid of this importunate person in such a way as not to incur any\nrisk, in case he should not succeed: Go, said he to the officer, _thy\nson liveth_. The officer, while approaching his own habitation, learned\nthat the fever, which perhaps was intermittent, had left his son. No\nmore was necessary to cry up the miracle, and convert all the family.\n\nAfter having traversed the sea coast, and made some stay at Cana, Jesus\nrepaired to Capernaum, where, as has been related, he fixed his\nresidence. The family of Simon Peter was established in that city; and\nit was no doubt this reason, joined with the bad treatment he had\nreceived from the inhabitants of Nazareth, that determined Jesus to make\nchoice of this residence. It appears he was abhorred in the city where\nhe had been educated; for as soon as he attempted to preach there, the\npeople wanted to throw him headlong. At Capernaum they listened to and\nadmired him; he harangued in the synagogue, explained the scripture, and\nshowed that he himself was foretold in it. In the midst of his sermon,\none Sabbath day, they brought him a person possessed, who perhaps in\nconcert with him, began to cry out with all his might; \"Let us alone:\nwhat have we to do with thee, thou Jesus of Nazareth? Art thou come to\ndestroy us? I know thee who thou art, the holy one of God.\" The people\nwaited in terror for the issue of this adventure, when Jesus, certain of\nhis ground, addressed himself not to the man, but to the devil\npossessing him: \"Hold thy peace,\" said he, \"and come out of him.\"\nImmediately the malign spirit overturned the possessed, threw him into\nhorrible convulsions, and disappeared without any person seeing him.\n\nPhysicians, especially those acquainted with the eastern countries, do\nnot admit miracles of the nature of this one. They know that the\ndiseases considered _possessions_, were owing solely to disorders\nproduced in the brain by excessive heat. These maladies were frequent in\nJudea, where superstition and ignorance impeded the progress of medicine\nand all useful knowledge. Out of that country we find but few possessed\nwith devils. This incredulity strips Jesus of a great number of his\nmiracles; yet taking away the _possessions_, there still remain enough.\nMost of the possessed among us are hypochondriacs, maniacs, hysterical\nwomen, melancholy persons, and those tormented with the vapors or\nspasms; or they are impostors, who, to gain money, to interest the\nsimple and to display the power of the priests, consent to receive the\ndevil, that the clergy may have the glory of expelling him. There is\nscarcely a possession now-a-days which could resist a flogging.\n\nMiracles are food for the imagination, but the body requires more\nsubstantial aliments: the adventure which has been related had led to\nthe hour of dinner. On leaving the synagogue, Jesus was invited to the\nhouse of Peter, where every thing appears to have been prepared for\nperforming a second miracle. The mother-in-law of Simon felt sick at the\nmoment they had need of her in managing the kitchen. Jesus, who\npossessed the talent of readily curing the relatives of his disciples,\ntook her by the hand, and made her rise from her bed: she arose\ncompletely cured, cooked the victuals, and was in a condition to serve\nthe guests.\n\nIn the evening of the same day, they brought Jesus all the sick in\nCapernaum, and all the possessed, whom, according to Matthew, he cured\nby some words; but, according to Luke, by laying hands on them. Several\ndevils, on coming out of the possessed, had the impudence to betray the\nsecret of the physician, and openly declare, that he was \"Christ the Son\nof God.\" This indiscretion displeased Jesus, who wished, or feigned to\nwish, to keep private. Luke tells us that \"he rebuked them, and suffered\nthem not to speak, for they knew that he was Christ.\"\n\nAccording to theologists, the Son of God, in all his conduct, had in\nview only to lead the devil astray, and conceal from him the mystery of\nredemption: Yet we see, that Jesus was never able to deceive his cunning\nenemy. In the whole gospel system, the devil is more sly and powerful\nthan both God the Father and God the Son: he is always successful in\nthwarting their designs, and succeeds in reducing God the Father to the\ndire necessity of making his dear Son die in order to repair the evil\nwhich Satan had done to mankind. Christianity is real manichaeism,\nwherein every advantage is on the side of the bad principle, who, by the\ngreat number of his adherents renders nugatory all the purposes of the\nDeity. If the devil knew that Jesus was \"the Christ,\" such knowledge\nmust have been posterior to his retirement into the desert, for he then\nspoke to him in a style which intimated that he knew him not. It is\nsuperfluous to examine at what time the devil acquired this knowledge;\nbut it is manifest that he had it only by divine permission. Now God, by\ngranting to the devil the knowledge of his Son, either wished, or did\nnot wish, that he should speak of it. If he wished it, Jesus did wrong\nin opposing it: if he did not wish it, how was the devil able to act\ncontrary to the divine will? Jesus carefully concealed his quality, the\nknowledge of which could alone operate salvation. But, in this case, the\ndevil had the greatest interest to conceal it; yet in opposition to this\ninterest, and the will of the Almighty, the devil made known the quality\nof Jesus. Besides, if Jesus did not wish that the devil should discover\nhim, why delay imposing silence on him until after he had spoken?\n\nThe conduct of the Messiah in these particulars has made it to be\nbelieved, that not daring to endanger himself by publicly assuming the\nquality of Christ, or Son of God, he was not displeased with the devils\nfor divulging his secret, and sparing him the trouble of speaking. It\nwas, moreover, eliciting a very important confession out of the mouth of\nan enemy.\n\nJesus was not ignorant, that to retain his influence over the minds of\nmen, it was necessary to prevent satiety. Accordingly, on the day\nfollowing that on which so many miracles had been wrought in Capernaum,\nhe departed before day-break, and withdrew into a desert. All\nlegislators have loved retirement. It is there they have had divine\ninspirations, and it is on emerging from these mysterious asylums, they\nhave performed miracles calculated to deceive the vulgar. Solitary\nreflection is at times necessary to ascertain the state of our affairs.\n\nMeanwhile the disciples of Jesus, notwithstanding his flight, did not\nlose sight of him; they repaired to him at the moment he wished to be\nalone, and informed him that they had been every where in search of him.\nIn fact, there were still many sick and possessed in the country; yet\nthis consideration did not induce Jesus to return to Capernaum; on which\naccount many resorted to him in his retreat. To get rid of them, he\nagain traversed Galilee, where he cured the sick and cast out devils.\nThis is all the gospel mentions. It appears he tarried little on his\nroad, while he preached as he went along; for in a short time he had\nadvanced a considerable way on the shore of the sea of Galilee. As the\nmultitude augmented by idle and curious people from the villages, our\npreacher, finding himself pressed by the crowd, gave orders to his\ndisciples to convey him to the other side, on the territory of the\nGerasenes.\n\nWhen he had landed, a doctor of the law offered to become his follower:\nbut Jesus readily conceived that a _doctor_ would not suit him. He would\nhave cut a poor figure in a company composed of fishermen and clowns,\nsuch as those of whom the messiah had formed his court. He gave the\ndoctor to understand, that he would repent of this step; that this kind\nof life would not agree with him: \"the son of man,\" said he to the\ndoctor, \"hath no where to lay his head.\"\n\nJesus would not permit his disciples to ramble too far in the territory\nof the Gerasenes; for amongst them were some of that country. One asked\npermission to go and perform the last duties to his father;--another, to\nembrace his family; but Jesus harshly refused their requests. The first\nreceived for answer, \"let the dead bury their dead.\" The other, \"whoever\nhaving put his hand to the plough, and looketh back, is not fit for the\nkingdom of heaven.\" The incredulous think they perceive in these answers\na proof of the rough habits, and repulsive and despotic spirit of Jesus,\nwho, for the kingdom of heaven, obliged his disciples to neglect the\nmost sacred duties of morality. But Christians, docile to the lessons of\ntheir divine master, which they dare not examine, have made perfection\nconsist in a total abandonment of those objects which nature has\nrendered dearest to man. Christianity seems intended only to create\ndiscord, detach men from every thing on earth, and break the ties which\nought to unite them. There is, according to Jesus, but one thing\nneedful; namely, to be attached to him exclusively: a maxim very useful\nin meriting heaven, but calculated to destroy every society on the\nearth.\n\nAfter our missionary had spent some time in the country of the\nGerasenes, one day towards the evening he passed over to the other side\nof the lake, having previously dismissed the people, who had come that\nday on purpose to hear him; but he did not preach. Fatigued, he fell\nasleep on the passage, whilst a furious tempest overtook the ship. His\naffrighted disciples, impressed with the idea of their master being more\npowerful when awake than when asleep, acquainted him with the danger.\nThis drew on them reproaches for their want of faith, which, probably,\ngave time for the tempest to subside. Then Jesus, in a tone of\nauthority, commanded the sea to be still, and immediately the order was\nobeyed. In spite of this prodigy, the faith of the disciples was for a\nlong time wavering. Jesus after this returned to the country of the\nGerasenes, without having either preached or performed miracles on the\nother side.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VII.\n\nJESUS CURES TWO PERSONS POSSESSED WITH DEVILS--MIRACLE OF THE\nSWINE--WONDERS PERFORMED BY JESUS TILL THE END OF THE FIRST YEAR OF HIS\nMISSION.\n\n\nLanded again in the country of the Gerasenes, Jesus took a route by\nwhich no person had for some time passed. Two demoniacs, inhabiting the\ntombs in the neighborhood, rendered this passage dangerous. Scarcely had\nJesus shown himself, when these madmen ran to meet him. As he was a\nconnoisseur in matters of possession, he no sooner perceived them than\nhe began to exorcise, to make the unclean spirits come out of them.\nNotwithstanding his divine skill, he acquitted himself very imperfectly\non this occasion. It was not with _one_ devil, but with a legion of\ndevils he had to deal. One of them, amused at the mistake of the son of\nGod who asked him his name, answered, _I am called Legion_. On this\nJesus changed his batteries, and was proceeding to dislodge them, when\nthe devils, obstinate in continuing in the country, or very little\ndesirous of returning to hell, proposed a capitulation. One of the\narticles stipulated, that on leaving the body of the possessed, they\nshould enter into a herd of swine, which fed close by on the declivity\nof a hill. Jesus readily agreed, for once, to grant something on the\nprayer of the devils, and not to use his authority rigorously. Neither\nhe nor his disciples, as good Jews, ate pork: he supposed, therefore,\nthat swine, prohibited by the law, might well serve for a retreat to\ndevils. He consented to the treaty; the demons came out of their former\nresidence to enter into the swine, who, feeling Satan within them, were\nthrown into commotion, or, perhaps, were terrified--a very natural\nthing; and having precipitated themselves into the sea, were drowned to\nthe number of about two thousand. If a legion of devils is composed of\nthe same number as a Roman legion, we must believe that there were six\nthousand devils. This evidently makes three devils for each hog, a\nsufficient number to induce them to commit suicide.\n\nSome grave authors assure us, that Jesus never laughed, nor even smiled;\nyet it is very difficult to believe, that the \"son of God\" could\npreserve his gravity after performing such a trick. But it did not\nappear so humorous to the herdsmen, who found this fine miracle so\nlittle pleasant that they complained of it to their employers, and ran\nto the city; where the affair was no sooner known than the proprietors\nof the swine, far from being converted, bewailed a prodigy so ruinous to\nthem, and maintained that it was a matter of public concern. The\nGerasenes went in a body to oppose the entry of Jesus into their city,\nand, from inability to punish, besought him to leave their territory as\nsoon as possible. Such was the effect which the miracle of sending\ndevils into the swine produced.\n\nThis memorable transaction must be true, for it is attested by three\nevangelists, who, however, vary in some circumstances. Matthew informs\nus, that the possessed were _two_ in number; Mark and Luke maintain that\nthere was only _one_; but so furious, according to Mark, that they could\nnot bind him _even with fetters_. Luke is certain that the devil\nfrequently carried him into the deserts; Mark affirms that he spent his\ndays and nights in the tombs, and on the neighboring mountains. On this\noccasion Jesus was also proclaimed _Christ_ by the devil. As he was\namong his friends, or disciples, he did not enjoin silence to Satan. The\nacknowledgement was useful when given in private, and could not hurt\nhim; but there were occasions on which it might do harm if made in\npublic. It was necessary, therefore, our puissant miracle-worker should\nbe circumspect, especially when he did not perceive himself sufficiently\nsupported.\n\nUnbelievers discover important errors, and evident marks of falsehood in\nthe narrative, which also appears ridiculous, 1st, They are surprised to\nsee devils, who, according to Christians, are condemned to eternal\ntorments in hell, leaving it to take possession of the inhabitants of\nthis earth. 2dly, They are astonished at seeing the devils address\nprayers to the son of God. It is an article of Christian faith, that to\npray, grace is requisite; that the damned cannot pray; and much more,\nthat this grace must be denied to the chief of the damned. 3dly, The\nincredulous are offended at a miracle by which Jesus benefitted two\npersons possessed with devils, at the expense of the proprietors of two\nthousand swine, to whom this miracle cost at least eighteen thousand\ndollars;--a transaction not quite agreeable to the rules of equity.\n4thly, It cannot be conceived how Jews, whom their law inspired with\nhorror towards swine, could have herds of these animals among them, and\nwhich they could not even touch without being defiled; and, 5thly, It is\nindecorous to make the \"son of God\" enter into a compromise with devils;\nridiculous to make them enter into swine; and unjust to make them enter\ninto and destroy other people's property.\n\nWe are not informed what became of these devils after being precipitated\ninto the sea. It is not unreasonable to believe, that, in coming out of\nthe swine, they entered into the Jews, to procure the saviour the\npleasure of casting them out again; for the curing of people possessed\nwas, of all miracles, that in which he was most expert.\n\nThe possessed person cured by Jesus, penetrated with gratitude to his\nphysician, with whom he was perhaps previously acquainted, wanted to\nfollow Jesus, according to Mark; but it was foreseen that his testimony\nmight become suspicious if he put himself in the train of the messiah,\nwho, therefore, chose rather that he should repair to his family, and\nannounce the mercies he had received from the Lord. He was a native of\nDecapolis, a country, as we have seen, very much disposed to credulity.\nAccordingly, as soon as the man had there recounted this adventure,\nevery body was transported with admiration. We are, however, astonished\nat the difference between these folks, so remarkable for a docile faith,\nand the Gerasenes:--the inhabitants of Decapolis believe all without\nseeing any thing, whilst the Gerasenes, eye witnesses of the prodigy,\nare not moved by it, and uncivilly refuse Jesus admittance into their\ncity. We commonly find in the gospel, that to witness a miracle is a\nvery strong reason for not believing it.\n\nThe hardness of heart and unbelief of the Gerasenes, and particularly\nthe request they made to the messiah not to come among them, obliged him\nto re-embark with his disciples and return to Galilee, where he was very\nkindly received. It is not, however, related whether he preached and\nperformed miracles; even the time he continued there is not accurately\nknown.--The friends of Jesus, and the relations of his disciples and\nmother, received, it appears, from time to time, intelligence of his\nwonders, which they took care to circulate; and, on learning that they\nwanted him, he returned to Capernaum. Scarcely was his arrival known,\nwhen the people, always fond of sermons and miracles, resorted to him in\ncrowds. Neither his house nor the space before the door could contain\nthe multitude; he required the voice of a Stentor to make himself heard\nat the extremities of the crowd; but the idlers, content with following\nhim without knowing why, were very little troubled about understanding\nhis orations.\n\nThe Pharisees, to whom Jesus' success began to give umbrage, resolved to\nsatisfy themselves, if there was any reality in what was reported of\nhim. Some doctors of Gallilee, who were not of the number of our\nmissionary's admirers, repaired to him. They heard him preach, and came\nfrom his sermons more possessed against him: even his miracles could not\nconvert them, though, according to Luke, the power of the Lord was\ndisplayed in their presence in the cure of the sick. But, as has been\nremarked, the miracles of the messiah were calculated to convince those\nonly who did not see them. Thus it is, that these miracles are believed\nat present by people who would not credit those performed in their\npresence.\n\nFour men who carried a paralytic on his bed, unable to penetrate through\nthe crowd, were advised to ascend with the burden to the roof of the\nhouse, and, making an opening there, to let down the sick man in his\nbed, and lay him at the physician's feet. The idea appeared ingenious\nand new to the latter, and indicated first rate faith; accordingly,\naddressing the sick man, he said, \"My son, be of good courage, thy sins\nare forgiven thee.\" This absolution or remission, was pronounced so as\nto be heard by the emissary doctors, who were highly offended at it.\nJesus, divining their dispositions, addressed his discourse to\nthem--\"Why do you suffer wicked thoughts to enter into your hearts?\nwhich is easier to say to this paralytic, thy sins are forgiven thee; or\nto say to him, Arise, take up thy bed and walk.\" This question, boldly\nproposed in the midst of a fanatical people, the sport of prejudice,\nembarrassed the doctors, who did not think proper to reply. Jesus,\nprofiting by their embarrassment, said to the paralytic, _Arise, take up\nthy bed, and go into thine house_. This prodigy impressed their minds\nwith terror: it especially made our doctors, the spies, tremble, while\nthe people exclaimed, \"Never have we seen before anything so wonderful.\"\nBut if the doctors were afraid, they were not converted; and\nnotwithstanding the cure of the paralytic, they had no faith in the\nabsolution granted by Jesus. It may, therefore, be supposed, that this\nmiracle was attended with circumstances which rendered it suspicious:\nperhaps the gospel will enable us to discover them.\n\nWhen the same fact is differently related by different historians equal\nin authority, we are constrained to doubt it; or, at least, are entitled\nto deny that it happened in the manner supposed. This principle of\ncriticism must apply to the narratives of the gospel writers, as well as\nto those of others. Now, Matthew merely tells us, that a paralytic was\npresented to Jesus, who cured him, without relating the wonderful\ncircumstance of the roof being perforated, and the other ornaments with\nwhich Mark and Luke embellished their narratives. Thus, either we are in\nthe right in suspending our belief as to this fact, or we may believe\nthat it has not occurred in the manner related by the two last\nevangelists. Again, Mark and Luke, who say that the sick man was\nelevated on his bed to the top of the house, having previously informed\nus the crowd was so great that the bearers of the diseased were unable\nto force their way, suppose, without expressing it in words, another\nvery great miracle. They make the carriers penetrate through the crowd.\nArrived, we know not how, at the foot of the wall, they could not\nsingly, and far less loaded with the sick man, climb up to the roof of\nthe house. Luke says they made an opening through it. In that case the\npeople must have perceived them, particularly, those in the inside of\nthe house. During the silent attention they gave to the discourse of\nJesus, they must have heard the noise made by the men in raising up a\nbed to the roof, and afterwards uncovering, or making a hole in it,\nthrough which to convey the sick man. This operation became more\ndifficult if the roof, instead of being covered with tiles, was flat.\nNow, all the houses of the Jews and orientals were, and still are,\nconstructed in this manner. These difficulties furnish sufficient\nmotives for doubting this grand miracle. But it will become more\nprobable, if we suppose that the sick man was already in the house with\nJesus; or that things being previously arranged, they let down by a\ntrap-door made on purpose, a paralytic most certain of being cured on\ncommand of the messiah. This transaction might appear marvellous to a\npopulace disposed to see prodigies every where; but it made less\nimpression on the doctors, who had come purposely to scrutinize the\nconduct of our adventurer. They conjectured, that it was dangerous to\ncontradict weak fanatics, though they did not credit the miracle they\nhad witnessed.\n\nSome days thereafter Jesus preached along the sea coast, and passing\nnear the custom-house, perceived Matthew, one of the officers, who sat\nthere. His mien pleased the messiah, on whose invitation the subaltern\nfinancier quitted his post, and followed him, after having given a great\nentertainment to Jesus and his party. Matthew introduced his new master\nto publicans, and toll collectors, his brethren in trade, and others of\nsimilar repute. The Pharisees and doctors, who watched our missionary,\ncame to Matthew's house to be assured of the fact. Jesus, occupied with\ngratifying his appetite, did not at first observe that he was watched.\nSome words, however, spoken rather loudly, attracted his attention: it\nwas the doctors who reproached the disciples with eating and drinking\nwith persons of doubtful reputation. \"How,\" probably said they to them,\n\"how dares your master, who constantly preaches up virtue, sobriety, and\nrepentance, show himself publicly in such bad company? How can he\nassociate with knaves, monopolizers, and men whom their extortions\nrender odious to the nation? Why does he have in his train women of bad\nlives, such as Susan and Jane, who accompany him continually?\" The\ndisciples, attacked in this manner, knew not how to reply; but Jesus,\nwithout being disconcerted, answered with a proverb:--\"It is not the\nwhole,\" said he, \"but the sick who have need of a physician.\" After this\nhe cited a passage of scripture, which cannot now be found--\"Learn,\"\nsaid he, \"the truth of this saying, _I love mercy better than\nsacrifice_.\" It appears the doctors did not consider themselves\ndefeated, and Jesus was so transported with zeal as to say, that he\n\"came not to call the righteous but sinners to repentance.\" In that\ncase, why did he reject the Pharisees and doctors, whom he called\n_whitened sepulchres_? If the adversaries of Jesus were not righteous,\nthey were sinners, whom he was come to call to repentance; consequently\nhe ought not to have renounced them.\n\nWhatever reason Jesus might have to palliate or justify his conduct, it\nwas very soon published abroad. John Baptist's disciples who heard it,\nand whom, perhaps, jealously excited, came in search of him, and asked\nthe reason of the difference in the life he and his disciples led, and\nthat which they themselves followed. We fast, (said they) continually,\nwhilst you and your followers enjoy good cheer. We practise austerities,\nand live in retirement, whilst you run about and frequently keep company\nwith persons of evil repute, &c. The reproach was embarrassing, but\nJesus contrived to evade it. \"The friends of the bridegroom, (replied\nhe,) ought neither to fast, nor live in sorrow whilst they have the\nbridegroom with them; a time will come when the bridegroom shall be\ntaken away from them; and then they shall fast. No man putteth a piece\nof new cloth on an old garment--neither do men put new wine into old\nbottles: and no person asks for new wine when he can get old, for he\nfinds the old better.\" John's disciples had no reply to reasons so\nsublime and convincing. The enigmatical symbol, or pompous bombast, by\nwhich Jesus got out of this affair, is closely imitated by our modern\npreachers, who find it very proper argument to shut the mouths of those\nwho are not inclined to dispute eternally about what they do not\nunderstand.\n\nThis incident demonstrates, that the Pharisees and doctors were not the\nonly persons who were offended with Jesus, and the company he kept. In\nthe epistles, ascribed to Barnabas, that apostle says expressly, that\nthe \"apostles, whom the Lord chose, were very wicked men, and above all\nsinners iniquitous.\" The fact is also confirmed in Matthew ix., Mark ii.\nand Luke v. This evidently decides the cause in favour of the partizans\nof lax morality, and furnishes them with victorious arms against the\nmodern puritans. We may also remark, that the actions and expressions of\nJesus on this occasion, authorise the conduct and language of our holy\nguides, our lords the bishops, who when reproached with their iniquitous\nbehaviour, shut our mouths by averring, that _we ought to do as they\ntell us, and not what they do_!\n\nIt cannot be denied, that the discrepancy which existed between the\nconduct of Jesus and the principles of the Jews, or even in his own\ndoctrine, required extraordinary miracles to prove his mission. He was\nnot ignorant of this; prodigies, therefore, were commonly the strongest\nof his arguments; these were well calculated to gain the vulgar, who\nnever value themselves on reasoning, but are ready to applaud the man\nwho exhibits wonders, and acquires the secret of pleasing their fancy.\n\nAfter Jesus had silenced John's disciples, the chief of a synagogue\nwaited on him, and besought him to come and lay hands on his daughter,\ntwelve years old, _who was dead_, according to Matthew, but who was only\n_very sick_, according to Mark and Luke; a difference which seems to\nmerit some attention. Jesus complied with the invitation; and whilst\nproceeding to the house overheated himself so much that a virtue went\nout of him sufficient to cure all who were in its atmosphere. We shall\nnot form conjectures on the nature of this virtue or divine\ntranspiration. We shall only remark, that it was so potent as\ninstantaneously to cure a woman afflicted for twelve years with an issue\nof blood; a disease which, probably, the spectators had not better\nverified than its cure. On this occasion, Jesus perceiving that there\nhad gone out of him a considerable portion of virtue, turned towards the\nafflicted female, whom his disciples had rudely pushed back, and seeing\nher prostrate at his feet, \"Daughter, (said he) be of good cheer, thy\nfaith hath made thee whole.\" The poor woman, whom the disciples had\nintimidated, charmed with being relieved from her fright in so easy a\nmanner, confessed openly she was cured.\n\nWhen our miracle performer was arrived at the house of Jairus, the chief\nof the synagogue, it was announced to the latter that his daughter had\nexpired, and that the house was full of minstrels, who were performing a\ndirge or mournful concert according to the custom of the country. Jesus,\nwho on the way had got the father of the girl to prattle, was not\ndisconcerted at the news. He began with making every body retire, and\nthen by virtue of some words raised her from the dead.\n\nIn historical matters we must prefer two writers who agree, to a third\nwho contradicts them. Luke and Mark affirm that the damsel was dead; but\nhere unfortunately it is the hero himself who weakens his victory. On\ntheir saying that she was dead, he affirmed that she was only _asleep_.\nThere are girls who at twelve years of age are subject to such swoons.\nOn the other hand, the father of the damsel appears to have acquainted\nthe physician with the condition of his child; and he, more in the\nsecret than others, did not believe the intelligence of her death. He\nentered alone into her chamber, well assured of her recovery if she was\nonly in a swoon: if he had found her dead, there is every reason to\nbelieve, he would have returned, and told the father that he had been\ncalled too late, and regreted the accident.\n\nJesus did not wish that this miracle should be published; he forbade the\nfather and mother of the damsel to tell what had happened. Our charlatan\nwas not solicitous to divulge an affair which might increase the\nindignation of the Jews of Jerusalem, whither he was soon to repair to\ncelebrate the passover. The account of this miracle seems to evince that\nthe Son of God had acquired some smattering of medicine in Egypt. It\nappears that he was versant in the spasmodic diseases of women; and no\nmore was wanting to induce the vulgar to regard him as a sorcerer, or\nperformer of miracles.\n\nOnce in the way of performing wonders, Jesus did not rest satisfied with\none merely. According to Matthew, (who alone relates the facts we are\nnow to notice,) two blind men who followed him began to exclaim, _Son of\nDavid, have mercy on us_. Though Jesus, in his quality of God, knew the\nmost secret thoughts of men, he chose to be _viva voce_ assured of the\ndisposition of the sick with whom he had intercourse. He asked, if they\nhad much faith, or if they sincerely believed that he was able to do\nwhat they requested of him. Our blind folks answered in the affirmative;\nthen touching their eyes, \"Be it unto you,\" said he, \"according to your\nfaith,\" and instantly they received their sight.\n\nWe know not how to reconcile such lively faith in two blind men, with\ntheir disobedience. Their physician, who might have good reasons for not\nbeing known, expressly forbade them to speak of their cure; they,\nhowever, spread it instantly through the country. The silence of those\nwho were witnesses of this great miracle, is not more astonishing than\nthe indiscretion of the blind men who were the objects of it. A fact\nstill more miraculous is the obduracy of the Jews, who were so stubborn,\nthat the many wonders performed one after another and on the same day,\nwere not able to convince them. Jesus, far from being discouraged,\ndetermined still to exhibit specimens of his power. A dumb man,\npossessed with a devil, being presented to him, he expelled the demon\nand the dumb began to speak. At sight of this miracle, the people, as\nusual, were in extasy, whilst the pharisees and doctors, who had also\nexorcists among them, saw nothing surprising in it: they pretended that\ntheir exorcists performed their conjurations in the name of God, whilst\nJesus operated in the name of the devil. Thus they accused Jesus of\ncasting out the devil by the devil, which was indeed a contradiction.\nBut this did not prove the divinity of Jesus; it proved only that the\nPharisees were capable of talking nonsense and contradicting themselves,\nlike all superstitious and credulous people. When theologists dispute,\nwe soon discover that the wranglers on both sides speak nonsense; and,\nby contradicting themselves, impugn their own authority.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VIII.\n\nOF WHAT JESUS DID AT JERUSALEM DURING THE SECOND PASSOVER IN HIS\nMISSION.\n\n\nOur doctor having closed the first year of his mission in a glorious\nmanner, he proceeded to Jerusalem, to try his fortune, and gather the\nfruits of his labour, or form a party in the capital, after having\nacquired adherents in the country. There was reason to expect that the\nwonders which he had performed the year preceding in Galilee, would have\na powerful effect on the populace of Jerusalem; but they produced\nconsequences opposite to those which Jesus had hoped for. It might be\nsaid that the infernal legion which he had sent into the swine of the\nGerasenes, had returned and fixed their abode in the heads of the\ninhabitants of the country. The gospel shows in the former an incredible\nhardness of heart. In vain Jesus wrought before their eyes a multitude\nof prodigies, calculated to confirm the wonders related to them; in vain\ndid he employ his divine rhetoric to demonstrate the divinity of his\nmission. His efforts served only to increase the anger of his enemies,\nand induce them to devise means to punish him whom they persisted in\nregarding as a juggler, a charlatan, and a dangerous impostor.\n\nIt is true, the adversaries of Jesus surprised him sometimes at\nfault--They reproached him with violating the ordinances of a law\nvenerated by them as sacred, and from which he had promised never to\ndepart. They regarded these violations as a proof of heresy, and it did\nnot enter their heads that a God could raise himself above ordinary\nrules, and possess the right of changing every thing. They were Jews,\nand therefore obstinately attached to their ordinances; and they did not\nconceive how a true messenger of God could allow himself to trample\nunder foot, what they were accustomed to regard as sacred and agreeable\nto Deity.\n\nSo many obstacles did not discourage Jesus. He determined to succeed at\nany price; and though he might have foreseen what would be the issue of\nhis enterprise, he was sensible he must conquer or die; that fortune\nfavours only the brave; and that it was necessary to play an illustrious\npart, or tamely consent to languish in misery in the solitude of some\nobscure village in Galilee.\n\nOn arriving at Jerusalem, he devoted his attention to sick paupers--the\nrich had their own physicians. At this time there was in the city, and\nnear the sheep port, a fountain, or pool, of which, with the exception\nof the gospel, no historian has ever spoken, though, it well deserved to\nbe transmitted to posterity. It was a vast edifice, surrounded with five\nmagnificent galleries, in the centre of which was a sheet of water, that\npossessed admirable properties; but these were known only to indigent\npeople and mendicants; and they knew them, doubtless, by a particular\nrevelation. Under these galleries were soon languishing a great number\nof sick persons, who patiently waited for a miracle. God, on giving to\nthe water of this pool the faculty of curing all diseases, had annexed a\ncondition to it--The first who could plunge therein after an angel had\ntroubled it, which happened only at a certain time, could alone obtain\nthe benefit of a cure. The chief magistrate of Jerusalem, who probably\nknew nothing of the existence of this extraordinary fountain, had not\nestablished any regulation respecting it. The most forward and agile,\nand such as had friends always in readiness to lead them to the water\nwhen it was troubled, succeeded often in obtaining deliverance from\ntheir diseases.\n\nA paralytic had been there for thirty-eight years, without any one\nhaving had the charity to lend him a helping hand in descending to the\nfountain. Jesus, who beheld him lying, asked him if he wanted to be\ncured? \"Yes,\" answered the sick man, \"but I have nobody to put me into\nthe water when it is troubled.\" \"That signifies nothing, (replied\nJesus,) Arise, take up thy bed and walk.\" This wretched man, perhaps not\nunlike many of our beggars, who, to soften the public, feigned diseases,\nand who on this occasion might be gained over by some trifle to be\naccessary to the farce; this miserable, we say, did not leave him to\nspeak twice--on the order of Jesus he took up his couch and departed.\n\nThis cure was performed on the Sabbath. Our paralytic having been met by\na man of the law, the latter reprimanded him for violating the\nordinances of religion by carrying his bed. The transgressor had no\nother excuse to give, but, that he who had cured him had commanded him\nso to do. He was then questioned about the person who had given this\norder, but he knew nothing of him. Jesus had not said who he was; and,\nas if the act had been very trifling, the person on whom the miracle was\nperformed had not informed himself of the author of it. Here the matter\nended; but Jesus having some time after met the paralytic, made himself\nknown to him, and then the latter informed the Jews of the name of his\nphysician. The priests were so irritated, that from this instant they\nformed the design of putting Jesus to death, because, according to John,\n_he had done these things on the Sabbath day_.\n\nIt is not probable that this was the true cause of the rage of the Jews.\nHowever scrupulous we suppose them, it is presumed that their physicians\ndid not think themselves obliged to refuse medicines to the sick on the\nSabbath. Jesus, not content with curing, also authorised those he cured\nto violate the Sabbath by carrying their bed, which was a servile work;\nor rather these unbelievers regarded the miracles of the saviour as mere\ndelusions, impostures, tricks of dexterity, and himself as a cheat who\nmight excite disturbances.\n\nJesus having learned that the Jews were ill disposed towards him,\nattempted to justify himself. He made a speech to prove that he was the\nSon of God, and that his Father authorised him not to observe the\nSabbath. But he took care not to explain himself very distinctly on this\n_filiation_; and by his ambiguous language, insinuated the eternity of\nhis father, though he did not call him God. Yet the Jews perceiving his\nobject, were very much offended at this pretension. He changed,\ntherefore, his ground, and threw himself on the necessity by which he\nacted. \"Verily,\" said he to them, \"the Son does nothing of himself, but\nwhat he seeth the Father do. The Father, who loves him, sheweth him all\nthings that he himself doeth, and he will show him greater works than\nthese.\" By these expressions, Jesus seems to overthrow his own eternity\nand infinite knowledge; for he announces himself as susceptible of\nlearning something, or as the pupil of the Divinity.\n\nTo impress the minds of these unbelievers, whom his enigmatical language\ncould not convince, he declared that henceforth the Father would no\nlonger interfere in judging men, but had devolved that care on his Son.\nThis, however, had no effect; as the Jews expected a great judge, they\nwere not yet staggered. Jesus, like our modern teachers, for want of\nbetter arguments proceeded to intimidate his audience, knowing well that\nfear prevents the exercise of reason. He gave them to understand, that\nthe end of the world was near, which ought to make them tremble.\n\nThe testimony of John Baptist, had facilitated the first successes of\nJesus; but the difference remarked between his conduct and that of the\nforerunner, destroyed the force of this testimony. Our orator pretended\nto have no need of it and endeavored to weaken its value. \"_He was a\nburning and a shining light_\" to them; \"_you were willing for a season\nto rejoice in his light; I have a greater witness than his_.\" Here he\nappealed to his own works, which he maintained to be infallible proofs\nof his divine mission. He undoubtedly forgot at this moment, that he\nspoke to people who regarded his marvellous deeds as delusions and\nimpostures. His works were precisely the thing which it was necessary to\nprove even to the Jews, who saw them performed! This manner of reasoning\nhas been since adopted with success by Christian doctors, who, when\ndoubts or objections are advanced against the mission of Jesus, appeal\nto his miraculous works, which were at all times incapable of convincing\nthe very persons whom they tell us had been witnesses of them.\n\nAmong the proofs employed by Jesus to exalt his mission, he advanced\none, the tendency of which is to destroy the mission of Moses, and cause\nhim to be regarded as an impostor. He told them, _You have never heard\nthe voice of my Father_; whilst it was on the voice of this Father, of\nwhom Moses was the interpreter, that the law of the Jews was founded.\nAfter having annihilated the authority of scripture, our orator wished\nto prop his mission on the same scriptures, by which he pretended he was\nannounced. \"Fear\" says he, \"the Father; I will not be the person who\nwill accuse you before him; it will be Moses, in whom you trust, because\nyou believe not in him; for if you believed in him, you would also\nbelieve in me. I am come in the name of the Father, and you pay no\nattention to it; another will come in his own name, and you will believe\nin him.\"\n\nThe hearers of this sermon were not moved by it: they considered it\nunconnected, contradictory, and blasphemous; the fear of seeing the end\nof the world arrive, did not hinder them from perceiving the want of\njust inference in the orator, who took away from his Father, and\nrestored to him the quality of judge of men, which he had at first\nappropriated to himself. Besides, it would appear the Jews were of good\ncourage as to this end of the world, which events had so often belied.\nTheir posterity, who beheld the world subsisting after this,\nnotwithstanding the express prediction of Jesus and his disciples, have\nfounded their repugnance for his doctrine, among other things, on this\nwant of accomplishment. From his sublime discourse the incredulous\nconclude, that it is very difficult for an imposter to speak long\nwithout contradicting and exposing himself.\n\nThe inefficacy of this harangue convinced Jesus that it was in vain to\nrely on miracles, in order to draw over the Jews of Jerusalem. He\nforbore to perform them, though the festival of the passover might\nfurnish him with a favourable opportunity. It appears he was completely\ndisgusted with the incredulity of these wretches, who showed themselves\nno way disposed to witness the great things which he had exhibited with\nsuccess to the inhabitants of Galilee. To make miracles pass in a\ncapital, there must be a greater share of credulity than in the country.\nBesides, if the populace are well disposed even in large cities, the\nmagistrates and better informed oppose a bulwark to imposition. The same\nthing happened to Jesus in Jerusalem. Perhaps he despaired of the\nsalvation of these infidels, for during the short time he sojourned in\nthat city, he kept no measures with them, but loaded them with abusive\nlanguage. It does not appear, however, that this plan gained proselytes,\nthough since that time his disciples and the priests have frequently\nendeavored to succeed by similar means, and even by coercion.\n\nIn this journey, Jesus had no success--his disciples did not meet with\ngood cheer; to sustain life they were reduced to the necessity of taking\na little corn in the environs of the city; and were caught in this\noccupation on the Sabbath day. Complaint was made to their master; but\nno satisfaction could be obtained. He replied to the Pharisees, by\ncomparing what his disciples had done with the conduct of David, who, on\nan emergency, ate, and also made his followers eat, the shew bread, the\nuse of which was reserved for the priests, adding, that \"the Sabbath was\nmade for man, and not man for the Sabbath;\" therefore, he concluded,\n\"the Son of man is Lord of the Sabbath.\"\n\nCritics have remarked in several circumstances of the life of Jesus,\nthat he was frequently liable to commit mistakes. For example, on the\noccasion we speak of, he gave the name of _Abiathar_ to the high priest\nwho permitted David to eat the shew bread. The Holy Spirit, however,\ninforms us, in the first book of Kings, that this high priest was called\n_Achimelech_. The error would be nothing if an ordinary man had fallen\ninto it, but it becomes embarrassing in a man-God, or in God made man,\nwhom we ought to suppose incapable of blunders.\n\nOn the same occasion, Jesus maintained that the priests themselves\nviolated the Sabbath, by serving God in the temple on that day; and,\nthis, according to the principles of theology, is confounding _servile_\nworks with _spiritual_. But this is to have the same idea of a robbery\nand of an oblation; it is to tax God with being ignorant of what he did,\nby ordaining, at one and the same time, the observance and the violation\nof a day which he had consecrated to repose.\n\nOur doctors further justify Jesus by saying, that, as God, he was\nabsolute master of all things. But in that case he ought to have\nprocured better fare for his disciples. It would not have cost him more\nto have permitted them to encroach on the table of some rich financier\nof Jerusalem, or even that of the high priest, who lived at the expense\nof God his Father, than to permit his followers to forage in the fields\nof the poor inhabitants of the country. At least it was previously\nnecessary to verify such sovereignty over all things in the eyes of the\nJews, who, from not knowing this truth, were offended at the conduct\nwhich the Son of God seemed to authorise. It is apparently on this\nprinciple several Christian doctors have pretended, that _all things\nappertain to the just_; that it is permitted them to seize on the\nproperty of infidels and the unholy; that the clergy have a right to\nlevy contributions on the people; and that the pope may dispose of\ncrowns at his pleasure. It is on the same principle that actions are\ndefended, which unbelievers regard as usurpations and violence,\nexercised by the Christians on the inhabitants of the new world. Hence\nit is of the utmost importance to Christians not to depart from the\nexample which Jesus has given them in this passage of the gospel; it\nappears especially to concern the rights of the clergy.\n\nPretensions, so well founded, did not, however, strike the carnal minds\nof the Jews; they persisted in believing that it was not permitted to\nrob, particularly on the Sabbath; and not knowing the extent of the\nrights of Jesus, they considered him an impostor, and his disciples\nknaves. They believed him to be a dangerous man, who, under pretence of\nreformation, sought to subvert their laws, trample on their ordinances,\nand overturn their religion. They agreed, therefore, to collect the\nproofs they had against him, accuse, and cause him to be arrested. But\nour hero, who had information of their designs, frustrated them by\nleaving Jerusalem.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IX.\n\nJESUS WORKS NEW MIRACLES--ELECTION OF THE TWELVE APOSTLES.\n\n\nAs soon as Jesus was safe from the malice of his enemies, and found that\nhe was among persons of more favourable dispositions than the\ninhabitants of Jerusalem, he again commenced working miracles. His\nexperience convinced him, that to gain the capital, it was necessary to\naugment his forces in the environs, and procure, in the country, a great\nnumber of adherents, who might, in due time and place, aid him in\novercoming the incredulity of priests, doctors, and magistrates; and put\nhim in possession of the holy city, the object of his eager desires.\n\nThese new prodigies, however, produced no remarkable effect. The Jews,\nwho had been at Jerusalem during the passover, on returning home,\nprepossessed their fellow-citizens against our missionary. If he found\nthe secret of gaining the admiration of the people in the places he\npassed through on leaving the capital, he had the chagrin to find\nopponents in the Pharisees and doctors. The following fact shows to what\na degree the people were influenced:--On a Sabbath, Jesus entered the\nsynagogue of a place, the name of which has not been preserved. He there\nfound a man who had, or said he had, a withered hand. The sight of the\ndiseased, who was, probably, some noted mendicant and knave, and the\npresence of the physician, excited the attention of the doctors. They\nwatched Jesus closely--\"Let us see, (said they, one to another) if he\nwill dare to heal this man on the Sabbath day.\" But observing that Jesus\nremained inactive, they questioned him as to the Sabbath, for which he\nhad, on so many occasions, shown but little respect. It was apparently\none of the principal points of his reform, to abrogate a number of\nfestivals. The doctors asked him, \"Master, is it lawful to heal on this\nday?\" He was frequently in the habit of answering one question by\nanother: Logic was not the science in which the Jews were most\nconversant. Jesus replied, \"Is it lawful to do good on the Sabbath day,\nor to do evil--to save life, or to take it away?\" This question,\naccording to Mark, confounded the doctors. Nevertheless, there is reason\nto believe, unless we suppose the Jews to have been a hundred times more\nstupid than they really were, that this question was ill timed. They\nwere prohibited from applying to servile occupations only, but must have\nbeen permitted to discharge the most urgent duties of morality even on\nthe Sabbath day. It is to be presumed, that a midwife, for example, lent\nher ministry on that day, as on any other. It is stated in the Talmud,\nthat it was permitted to annoint the sick with oil on the Sabbath. The\nEssenians observed the Sabbath with so much rigor, that they did not\nallow themselves to satisfy the most pressing wants of life. This,\nperhaps, gave occasion to the reproaches with which this sect loaded\nJesus, who had by his own authority reformed this ridiculous custom.\n\nJesus continued his questions, and asked them, if when a sheep fell into\na ditch on the Sabbath, they would not draw it out? Hence, without\nwaiting for an answer, he very justly concluded that it was permitted to\ndo good on that day. To prove it, he said to the sick, whom he had,\nperhaps, suborned to play this part in the synagogue, \"Arise, stand up,\nand stretch forth thy hand;\" and immediately his hand became as the\nother. But Jesus, finding this prodigy produced no change in their\nminds, darted a furious look on the assembly, and, boiling with a holy\ncholer, instantly forsook the detestable place. Matt. xii. Mark xii. 6.\n\nJesus acted wisely; for these naughty doctors immediately took counsel\nwith the officers of Herod, \"how they might destroy him.\" Informed of\nevery thing by his adherents, he gained the sea shore, where it was\nalways easy for him to effect his escape. His disciples, several of whom\nunderstood navigation, followed him. A number of people, more credulous\nthan the doctors, resorted to him on the noise of his marvels. There\ncame hearers from Galilee, from Jerusalem, from Idumea, from the other\nside of Jordan, and even from Tyre and Sidon. This multitude furnished\nhim with a pretext for ordering his disciples to hold a boat in\nreadiness, that he might not be too much thronged, but, in truth, to\nescape, in case it should be attempted to pursue him.\n\nOn this shore, favorable to his designs, Jesus performed a great number\nof miracles, and cured an infinity of people. We must piously believe it\non the word of Matthew and Mark. These wonders were performed on the\nsick, and especially on the possessed. The latter, at whatever distance\nthey perceived the Saviour, prostrated themselves before him, rendered\nhomage to his glory, and proclaimed him the \"Christ;\" whilst he, always\nfull of modesty, commanded them with threats not to reveal him; the\nwhole to accomplish a prophecy, which said of him, _He shall not\ndispute, nor cry, nor make his voice be heard in the streets_; a\nprophecy, which, however, was frequently contradicted by his continual\ndisputes with the doctors and Pharisees, and by the uproar he occasioned\nin the temple, in the streets of Jerusalem, and in the synagogues.\n\nNothing is more astonishing than the obstinacy of the devil in\nacknowledging Jesus, and confessing his divinity, and the stubbornness\nof the doctors in not recognizing him, in spite of his cares to make the\none silent to convince the others. It is evident, that the son of God\nhas come with the sole intent of preventing the Jews from profiting by\nhis coming, and acknowledging his mission. It may be said that he has\nshown himself merely to receive the homage of satan; at least we\nperceive only the devil and his disciples proclaiming the character of\nJesus.\n\nWhen he had preached much, cured much, and exorcised much, our\nmissionary wished to be alone to reflect on the situation of his\naffairs. With a view to enjoy more liberty, he ascended a mountain,\nwhere he spent the whole night. The result of his solitary reflections\nwas, that although he required assistants, he could no longer, without\ngiving umbrage to the government, continue marching up and down with a\ncompany so numerous as that of the idlers who composed his suite.\n\nWhen day appeared, he called those of his disciples whom he judged most\nworthy of confidence, and selected twelve to remain near his person.\nThis is what Luke says; but Mark insinuates that he chose his twelve\napostles on purpose to send them on a mission. As Jesus, however,\nassures us, that he chose them _to be near him_, and as the apostles,\ncontent with begging and making provision for themselves and their\nmaster, did not perform any mission during his life, at least out of\nJudea, we shall adhere to the first opinion. The names of these apostles\nwere Simon Peter, Andrew, Matthew, Simon-Zelotes, James, Philip, Thomas,\nJude, John, Bartholomew, another James, and Judas Iscariot, the\ntreasurer.\n\nAs Jesus had no money to give his disciples, he told them no doubt to go\nand push their fortune. He, however, took care to impart to them his\nsecret; to teach them the art of miracles, to cure diseases, and to cast\nout devils. He also gave them the power of remitting sins, and to bind\nand unbind in the name of Heaven; prerogatives, which, if they did not\nenrich the apostles, have been worth immense treasures to their\nsuccessors. To them the roughest staff has become a _crosier_, a staff\nof command, making its power felt by the mightiest sovereigns of the\nearth. The _bag_ or _wallet_ of the apostles has been converted into\ntreasures, benefices, principalities and revenues. Permission to beg has\nbecome a right to exact tithes, devour nations, fatten on the substance\nof the wretched, and enjoy, by _divine right_, the privilege of\npillaging society, and disturbing it with impunity. The successors of\nthe first missionaries of Jesus, though professing to be mendicants,\nenjoyed the prerogative of coercing all who refused to bestow charities\non them, or to obey their commands. Many have imagined, that Jesus never\nconcerned himself about the subsistence of the ministers of the church;\nbut if we examine attentively the gospel, especially the Acts of the\nApostles, we shall find the basis of the riches, grandeur, and even\ndespotism of the clergy.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER X.\n\nSERMON ON THE MOUNT--SUMMARY OF THE MORALITY OF JESUS--OBSERVATIONS ON\nTHAT MORALITY.\n\n\nThe dread of being arrested having constrained Jesus to abandon the\ncities, where he had many enemies, the country became his ordinary\nresidence. The people, or at least some male and female devotees whom he\nhad converted, furnished provisions to the divine man and his followers.\nObliged to wander about, bury themselves in mountains and in deserts,\nand sleep in the open air, our apostles became discontented with their\nlot. In spite of the spiritual graces, which they received in the\nsociety of the messiah, these carnal men expected something more\nsubstantial on devoting themselves to his service. They were doubtless\npromised important posts, riches, and power in the kingdom he was about\nto establish. Jesus on this account frequently experienced as much\ndifficulty in retaining them, as in convincing the rebellious Jews by\nhis miracles and conclusive arguments. The measure of their appetite,\nand well being, was at this time, the only rule of their faith. To\nprevent their murmurs, and familiarize them with a frugal life, which\nour missionary saw he would be obliged, perhaps for a long time, to make\nthem lead, he pronounced an oration on true happiness: it is the one\nknown by the name of the Sermon on the Mount, and related by Matthew,\nchap v.\n\nAccording to our orator, true happiness consists in _poverty of Spirit_;\nthat is, in ignorance, and contempt of knowledge, which bids us exercise\nour reason, and strips man of the blind submission that is necessary to\ninduce him to submit to a guide. Jesus preached a pious docility, which\nimplicitly credits every thing without examination; and to tell them,\nthat the kingdom of heaven would be the reward of this happy\ndisposition. Such is the sense which the church has given to the words\nof Jesus, \"Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of\nheaven.\"\n\nAmong the apostles, there were some whose passionate dispositions might\nhave been prejudicial to the progress of the sect. It may in general be\npresumed, that rough men, devoid of education, have repulsive manners.\nJesus demonstrated the necessity of meekness, civility, and patience, in\norder to gain proselytes; he recommended moderation and toleration, as\nthe certain means of insinuating themselves into the minds of men, of\nthriving in the world, and as the surest way of making conquests. This\nis the true sense of these words, \"Happy are the meek, for they shall\ninherit the earth.\"\n\nWishing to inspire them with courage, and console them for their\nmiserable situation, he told them, that to live in tears is felicity,\nand an infallible method of expiating iniquity. He promised that their\nvexations should not endure forever; that their tears should be dried\nup; that their misery should terminate; and that their hunger should be\nappeased. These consolations and promises, were indispensably necessary\nto fortify the apostles against every accident which, in the course of\ntheir enterprises, might befal them in the retinue of a chief destitute\nof riches and power, and incapable of procuring to himself or others the\ncomforts of existence.\n\nJesus, with a view, no doubt, of sweetening the lot of his apostles,\nrecommended compassion to the listening multitude, of which he, as well\nas his party, stood in the greatest need. It is readily perceived, that\nthe messiah felt the most imperious necessity to preach charity to his\nauditors; for he lived on alms, and his success depended on the\ngenerosity of the public, and the benefactions of the good souls who\nhearkened to his lessons.\n\nThe preacher recommended peace and concord; dispositions necessary to a\nnew born, weak, and persecuted sect; but this necessity ceased when this\nsect had attained strength enough to dictate the law.\n\nHe afterwards fortified his disciples against the persecutions which\nthey were to experience; he addressed their self love--spurring them on\nby motives of honor: \"Ye are (says he) the salt of the earth, the light\nof the world.\" He gave them to understand that they were the \"successors\nof the prophets,\" men so much respected by the Jews: and, to share in\nwhose glory, they ought to expect the same crosses which their\nillustrious predecessors experienced. He told them to regard hatred,\npersecution, contempt, and the deprivation of every thing that\nconstitutes the well being and happiness of man, as true felicity, and\nmost worthy of heavenly rewards.\n\nAfter haranguing his disciples, he addressed himself to the people. He\npresented to them a new morality, which, far from being repugnant to\nthat of the Jews, could easily be reconciled with it. Things were not as\nyet sufficiently matured for abrogating the law of Moses: too great\nchanges alarm mankind. A feeble missionary must at first confine himself\nto reforming abuses, without seeking to probe to the bottom. Jesus\nwisely contented himself with showing, that the law was faulty in some\nparticulars, and that he proposed to perfect it. Such is the language,\nof all reformers.\n\nJesus expressly declared, that he was not come to destroy, but to fulfil\nthe law: and he affirmed that, in heaven, ranks would be fixed according\nto the rigorous observance of all its articles. He insinuated, however,\nto his audience, that neither they, nor their doctors, understood any\npart of that law which, they believed, they faithfully practised. He\nundertook, therefore, to explain it; and as all reformers pretend to\npuritanical austerity, and to a supernatural and more than human\nperfection, he went beyond the law. The following is the substance of\nhis marvellous instructions:\n\nYou have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not\nkill; and whosoever shall kill shall be punished with death; but I say\nunto you, that it is necessary to extend this prohibition and punishment\neven to wrath, seeing it is wrath which urges one on to put his fellow\ncreature to death. You would punish adultery only when it is committed;\nbut I tell you, that desire alone renders one as culpable as fact. You,\nperhaps, will answer, that man is not the master of his passions and\ndesires, and that he can hardly resist them: I agree with you in this;\nyou have not any power, even on the hairs of your head. The penances,\nsacrifices, and expiations which your priests impose, are not capable of\nprocuring the remission of your sins; behold, then, the only means of\npreventing them, or making reparation: has your eye, or any of your\nmembers solicited you to commit iniquity? Cut off that member, or pull\nout that eye, and cast it from you; for it is more expedient that one of\nyour members should perish, than that the whole body be thrown into hell\nfire. If Moses, inspired by the divinity, had known this hell, destined\nfor your suffering eternal punishment, he would not have failed to\nmenace you with it; but he was ignorant of the dogma of another life; he\nspoke only of the present, to which he has limited your misfortunes, or\nyour felicity. Had it not been for this, he would not have neglected to\nacquaint you with a fact so well calculated to inspire you with fear,\nand render life insupportable.\n\nWe are quite surprised at finding, that Moses and the ancient Hebrew\nwriters have no where mentioned the dogma of a future life, which\nnow-a-days forms one of the most important articles of the Christian\nreligion. Solomon speaks of the death of men by comparing it with that\nof brutes. Some of the prophets, it is true, have spoken of a place\ncalled _Cheol_, which has been translated _Hell (Enfer)_; yet it is\nevident, that this word implies merely sepulchre or tomb. They have also\ntranslated the Hebrew word _Topheth_ into _Hell_: but on examining the\nword, we find that it designates a place of punishment near Jerusalem,\nwhere malefactors were punished, and their carcases burned. It was after\nthe Babylonish captivity that the Jews knew the dogma of another life,\nand the resurrection, which they learned of the Persian disciples of\nZoroaster. In the time of Jesus, that dogma was not even generally\nreceived. The Pharisees admitted it, and the Sadducees rejected it.\n\nYou use too freely (proceeded our missionary) the permission of divorce;\nthe least disgust makes you repudiate your wives; but I tell you, that\nyou ought to repudiate them only when you have surprised them in\nadultery. It is cruel to stone one for this fault; we ought to have\nrespect for the weakness of the sex. Jesus, whose birth was very\nequivocal, had particular reasons for wishing that adultery should be\ntreated with indulgence. Independently of Mary his mother, from whom\nJoseph was probably separated, our preacher had in his train dames,\nwhose conduct had not been irreproachable anterior to their conversion.\nBesides Mary Magdalene, who was a noted courtesan, Jesus had in his\nsuite Joanna, wife of Chuza, Herod's steward, who, according to the\ntradition, robbed and forsook her husband to follow the messiah, and\nassist him with her property. Moreover, the indulgence which he preached\nmust have gained him the hearts of all the ladies in his auditory.\n\nThe messiah continued nearly in these terms:--God has of old promised\nyou blessings, prosperity, and glory; but he has changed his intention,\nand revoked these promises. As you were almost always, and still are the\nmost unhappy, the most foolish, and most despised people on earth, you\nought to suspect that these pompous promises were mere allegories. You\nought, therefore, to have an abject and mortifying morality, conformable\nto your genius, your situation, and your misery. If it does not procure\nyou welfare in this world, you should hope that it will render you more\nhappy in the next. Your humiliations are the certain means of attaining\none day that glory, which hitherto neither you nor your fathers have\never been able to acquire. When therefore a person shall give you a blow\non one cheek, offer him the other. Do not go to law--lawyers will ruin\nyou; and, besides, the poor are always in the wrong when opposed to the\nrich. Give to whoever asks of you, and refuse nothing you possess; it is\nby relying on the punctual practice of this important precept, that I\nsend my disciples into the world without money or provisions.\n\nI do not give you any description of paradise--it is sufficient to know\nthat you will be perfectly happy there. But to get there, it is\nnecessary to be more than men--it is necessary to love your enemies; to\nrender good for evil; to preserve no remembrance of cruel outrages; to\nbless the hand that strikes you; and not to speak one silly word; for\none only will precipitate you into hell. Have a pleasant aspect when you\nfast; but especially live without foresight. Accumulate nothing, lest\nyou excite the wrath of my father. Think not of to-morrow--live at\nrandom, like the birds that never think of sowing, gathering, or\naccumulating provisions. Detach yourselves from all things below--seek\nthe kingdom of God, which I and my disciples will give you for your\ncharities. This conduct cannot fail to plunge you into misery; but then\nyou shall beg in your turn. God will provide for your wants--ask and it\nshall be given you. Do not beggars find, agreeably to our divine\nprecepts, wherewith to live at the expense of the simpletons who labor?\nMy disciples and I, are a proof that without toil, one may avoid\ndifficulties, and not perish by hunger? If our manner of living appears\nnot to agree with my language, I charge you not judge my actions, nor\ncondemn your masters and doctors. Do not intermeddle with state\naffairs;--that care is reserved for me, and those in whom I confide. The\nmaster is superior to the disciple--it is to me in particular you ought\nto listen. If you call me master, it is necessary to do what I desire\nyou. The practice of my morality is difficult, and even impossible to\nmany persons; but the broad and easy way conducts to perdition; and to\nenter heaven, it is necessary to be as perfect as my heavenly father. I\nmust caution you against my enemies, or those who shall preach a\ncontrary doctrine. Treat them as wolves; they are false prophets--show\nthem no indulgence: for it is not to them that you ought to be humane,\ntolerant, and pacific.\n\nIn the course of his sermon Jesus taught them a short form of prayer,\nknown by the name of _the Lord's prayer_. Though the Son of God may have\nshewn himself on this occasion the enemy of long prayers, the Christian\nchurch is full of pious sluggards, who, in spite of his decision,\nbelieve they cannot perform any thing more agreeable to God, than\nspending their whole time in mumbling prayers in a very low tone,\nsinging them in a high one, and frequently in a language they do not\nunderstand. It appears, that in this, as in many other things, the\nchurch has rectified the practice of its divine founder.\n\nMatthew informs us, that the discourse, of which we have given the\nsubstance, transported the people with admiration, for Jesus instructed\nthem as one having authority, and not as the scribes.--The latter,\nperhaps, spoke in a more simple manner, and consequently less admired by\nthe vulgar, whose wonder is excited in proportion to their inability to\ncomprehend, or practise the precepts given them. Thus the sermon of\nJesus had not, at that time, any contradictors. It has however,\nfurnished ample scope for dispute to our casuists and theologians. They\nhave subtlely distinguished between things which were merely of\n_counsel_, and those of _precept_ which ought rigorously to be observed.\nIt was soon felt, that the sublime morality of the Son of God did not\nsuit mankind, and its literal observance was destructive to society. It\nwas, therefore, requisite to moderate it, and recur to that marvellous\ndistinction, in order to shelter the honour of the divine legislator,\nand reconcile his fanatical morality with the wants of the human race.\n\nMoreover, this discourse presents difficulties, which will always appear\nembarrassing to persons accustomed to reflect on what they read. They\nfind, that it is ridiculous and false to say, a law is accomplished,\nwhen it is proposed and permitted to violate it, and add or retrench the\nmost essential points. Since the time of Jesus, why has the Jewish law\nbeen completely abrogated by Paul and his adherents, who, as we have\nseen, ceceded from the Christian partizans of Judaism? Why do Christians\nentertain at present so much horror at that same Judaism, except indeed\nwhen the privileges and pretensions of the clergy are in\nquestion--articles on which our Christian priests are very judaical, and\nwhich they have prudently borrowed from Leviticus; all to supply the\nneglect of Jesus, who was not sufficiently attentive either to their\ntemporal interests, _divine rights_, or sacred hierarchy? By what law do\nthe inquisitors (if Christians) in Portugal and Spain burn those who are\naccused, or convicted, of having observed the usages of a law, which\nJesus has declared he did not wish to _abolish_, but to _fulfil_? By\nwhat law have Christians, dispensed with circumcision, and permit them\nselves to eat pork, bacon, pudding, hare, &c? Why has sunday, or the day\nof the sun among Pagans been substituted for Sabbath or Saturday?\n\n2dly, It is held unjust to punish in the same manner a man in a passion\nand a murderer. One may be in a passion and restrain himself, or\nafterwards repair the injury; but he cannot restore life to a man whom\nhe has deprived of it.\n\n3dly, The restriction of divorce to the single case of adultery is a law\nvery hard, and very prejudicial to the happiness of married persons.\nThis precept compels a man to live with a woman who in other respects\nmay be odious to him. Besides, it is generally difficult to convict a\nfemale of adultery; she usually takes precaution to avoid this. Is it\nnot very grievous, and even dangerous to live with a person who\noccasions continual suspicions?\n\n4thly, It is absurd to make a crime of _desire_, especially without\nsupposing the _liberty_ of man; but Jesus is not explicit on that\nimportant article. On the contrary, from the train of his discourse he\nappears to recognize the _necessity_ of man, who has no authority over a\nsingle hair of his head. Paul, his apostle, declares in many places\nagainst the liberty of man, whom he compares with a vessel in the hands\nof a potter. But if there be no proportion between the workman and his\nwork; if the latter has no right to say to the former, _why have you\nfashioned me thus_? if there be no analogy between them, how can they\nbear any relation to each other? If God is incorporeal, how does he act\nupon bodies? or how can these bodies disturb his repose, or excite in\nhim emotions of anger? If man is relatively to God as an _earthen vase_,\nthis vase owes neither thanks nor adoration to the potter who gave him\nso insignificant a form. If this power is displeased with his own vessel\nbecause he formed it badly, or because it is not fit for the uses he\nintended, the potter, if he is not an irrational being, can only blame\nhimself for the defects which appear. He no doubt can break it in\npieces, and the vase cannot prevent him; but if instead of forming it\nanew, and giving it a figure more suitable to his designs, he punishes\nthe vase for the bad qualities he has conferred upon it, he would show\nhimself to be completely deprived of reason. This, in fact, is the view\nwhich Christianity gives of its God. It represents mankind as having no\nmore relation with the divinity than stones. But if God owes nothing to\nman; if he is not bound to show him either justice or goodness, man on\nhis part can owe nothing to God. We have no idea of any relation between\nbeings which are not reciprocal. The duties of men amongst themselves\nare founded on their mutual wants. If God has no occasion for these\nservices, they cannot owe him any thing; neither can they possibly\noffend him by their actions.\n\n5thly, It is a strange remedy to cut off or pluck out a member every\ntime it is the occasion of sin; it contradicts the precept not to make\nan attempt on one's life. Origen is blamed by the Christians for having\nperformed an operation, which he no doubt judged necessary for\npreserving his chastity. It is not through the members, but the\ninclination, that a person sins: it is therefore absurd to say that one\nshall escape damnation of the body by depriving himself of a member.\nWhat would become of so many ecclesiastical libertines, if to appease\nthe lusts of the flesh, and make reparation for scandal, they should\ntake it into their heads to follow the counsel of Jesus?\n\n6thly, The suppression of a just defence of one's person and rights\nagainst an aggressor or unjust litigant, is to overturn the laws of\nsociety. It is to open a door to iniquities and crimes, and render\nuseless the exercise of justice. By such maxims a people could not exist\nten years. To _love_ our enemies is impossible. We may _abstain_ from\nretaliating on the person by whom we are injured; but love is an\naffection which can only be excited in the heart by a friendly object.\n\n7thly, The counsel or precept, to possess nothing, amass nothing, and\nthink not of the morrow, would be very prejudicial to families:--a\nfather ought to provide a subsistence for his children. These maxims can\nsuit sluggards only, such as priests and monks, who hold labor in\nhorror, and calculate on living at the expense of the public.\n\n8thly, It is now easy to perceive, that the promises made the Jews by\nthe mouth of Moses, inspired by the divinity, have not been verified\nliterally, and are only allegorical. But it was not from the Son of God\nthat the Jews should have learned this fatal truth. Once imposed on,\nthey ought to have dreaded being again deceived by another envoy. Like\nJesus, Moses had made promises; like Jesus, Moses had confirmed his\npromises and mission by miracles; yet these promises have been found\ndeceptive, and merely allegorical. This idea ought to have created\npresumptions against the promises of Jesus.\n\n9thly, To say, that it is necessary to be _poor in spirit_, and to say\nafterwards that to attain heaven it is necessary to be perfect as the\nheavenly father is perfect, is to make God a stupid being; to afford to\natheists a solution for all the evil they perceive in nature; and to\nassert that to enter paradise one must be a fool. But has man the power\nof being spiritual or poor in spirit, reasonable or foolish, believing\nor unbelieving? Is not the holy stupidity of faith a gift which God\ngrants only to whom he will? Is it not unjust to damn people of\nunderstanding?\n\nLastly, In this sermon Jesus recommends to beware of _false prophets_,\nand says, that it is by their works we shall know them. Yet, the priests\ntell us, \"we ought to do as they say, without imitating what they do,\"\nwhen we find their conduct opposed to the maxims they preach. Another\nsign, therefore, than works ought to have been given whereby to\nrecognize false prophets; otherwise the faithful will be reduced to\nbelieve that the clergy are provided only with lying prophets.\n\nIn this manner unbelievers argue; that is all those who have not\nreceived from heaven _poorness of spirit_, so necessary for not\nperceiving the want of inference, false principles, and numberless\ninconsistencies, which result from the morality of Jesus. This morality\nappears a divine _chef d'oeuvre_ to docile Christians illuminated by\nfaith; and it was much admired by those who heard it. We know not,\nhowever, if the auditors were so affected by it as to follow it\nliterally. To admire a doctrine, and believe it true and divine, is a\nthing much more easy than to practice it. Many persons set a higher\nvalue on evangelical virtues, which are sublime in theory, than on moral\nvirtues, which reason commands us to practice. It is not then surprising\nthat the supernatural and marvellous morality of Jesus was applauded by\nthose who heard it. It was addressed to paupers, the dregs of the\npeople, and the miserable. An austere stoical morality must please the\nwretched; it transforms their situation into virtue; it flatters their\nvanity; makes them proud of their misery; hardens them against the\nstrokes of fortune; and persuades them that they are more valuable than\nthe rich, who maltreat them; and that Deity, which delights in seeing\nmen suffer, prefers the wretched to those who enjoy felicity.\n\nOn the other hand, the vulgar imagine that those who can restrain their\npassions, and deprive themselves of what excites the desires of others,\nare extraordinary beings, agreeable to God, and endowed with\npreternatural grace, without which they would be incapable of these\nexertions. Thus a harsh morality, which seems to proceed from\ninsensibility, pleases the rabble, imposes on the ignorant, and is\nsufficient to excite the admiration of the simple. It is not even\ndispleasing to persons placed in happier situations, who admire the\ndoctrine, well assured of finding the secret to elude the practice of it\nby the assistance of their indulgent guides. There is only a small\nnumber of fanatics who follow it literally.\n\nSuch were the dispositions which must have induced so many people to\nreceive the instructions of Jesus. His maxims produced a multitude of\nobstinate martyrs, who, in the hope of opening a road to heaven, set\ntorments and afflictions at defiance. The same maxims produced penitents\nof every kind, solitaries, anchorites, cenobites, and monks, who, in\nemulation of each other, rendered themselves illustrious in the eyes of\nnations by their austerities, voluntary poverty, a total renunciation of\nthe comforts of nature, and a continual struggle against the gentlest\nand most lawful inclinations. The counsels and precepts of the gospel\ninundated nations with a vast number of madmen, enemies of themselves,\nand perfectly useless to others. These wonderful men were admired,\nrespected, and revered as saints by their fellow-citizens, who,\nthemselves deficient in grace or enthusiasm necessary for imitating\nthem, or following faithfully the counsels of the Son of God, had\nrecourse to their intercession, in order to obtain pardon for their\nsins, and indulgence from the Almighty, whom they supposed irritated at\nthe impossibility in which they found themselves of following literally\nthe precepts of Jesus. In fine, it is easy to perceive that these\nprecepts, rigorously observed, would drag society into total ruin; for\nsociety is supported only because that most Christians, admiring the\ndoctrine of the Son of God as divine, dispense with practicing it, and\nfollow the propensity of nature, even at the risk of being damned.\n\nIn the gospel, Jesus threatens with eternal punishment those who shall\nnot fulfil his precepts. This frightful doctrine was not contradicted in\nthe assembly; the superstitious love to tremble; those who frighten them\nmost, are the most eagerly listened to. This was undoubtedly the time\nfor establishing firmly the dogma of the _spirituality_ and\n_immortality_ of the soul. The Son of God ought to have explained to\nthose Jews, but little acquainted with this matter, how a part of man\ncould suffer in hell, whilst another part was rotting in the earth. But\nour preacher was not acquainted with any of the dogmas which this church\nhas since taught. He had not clear ideas of spirituality; he spoke of it\nonly in a very obscure manner: \"Fear, (said he, in one place,) him who\ncan throw both body and soul into hell\"--words which must have appeared\nunintelligible in a language in which the soul was taken for the blood\nor animating principle. It was not till a long time after Jesus, and\nwhen some Platonists had been initiated in Christianity, that the\nspirituality and immortality of the soul were converted into dogmas.\nBefore their time, the Jews and Christians had only vague notions on\nthat important subject. We find doctors in the first ages speaking to us\nof God and the soul as _material_ substances, more subtile indeed than\nordinary bodies. It was reserved for latter metaphysicians to give such\nsublime ideas of mind, that our understandings are bewildered when\nemployed on them.\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. XI.\n\nACTIONS AND PARABLES OF JESUS--ENTERPRIZE OF HIS RELATIONS AGAINST\nHIM--JOURNEY TO NAZARETH, AND THE SUCCESS JESUS HAD THERE.\n\n\nThough the obstinacy of the doctors of the law and principal men among\nthe Jews, created continual obstacles to the success of Jesus, he did\nnot lose courage; he again had recourse to prodigies, the certain means\nof captivating the populace, on whom he perceived it was necessary to\nfound his hopes. This people were subject to diseases of the skin, such\nas leprosy and similar cutaneous disorders. No doubt can be entertained\non this point when we consider the precaution which the law of Moses\nordains against these infirmities. To establish his reputation, Jesus\nresolved to undertake the cure of this disgusting disease with which his\ncountrymen were so much infected.\n\nAccording to Luke, a leper prostrated himself at the feet of Jesus, and\nadored him, saying, that he had heard him spoken of as a very able man,\nand that, if he was inclined, he could cure him. On this, Jesus merely\nstretched forth his hand, and the leprosy disappeared. Hitherto, the\nmessiah had only recommended it to those he cured to present themselves\nto the priests and to offer them the gift prescribed in such cases; but\non this occasion he thought that he would reconcile them by strictly\nenjoining this mark of deference. He, therefore, exacted of the cured\nleper, that he would satisfy the ordinance of the law; but at the same\ntime recommended secrecy as to the physician's name--a secret which was\nno better preserved by him than by others. Jesus forgot that it was not\nsufficient to impose silence on the persons he cured, but that it was\nlikewise necessary to lay a restraint on all the tongues of the\nspectators; unless indeed it is supposed that these miracles were\nperformed with shut doors, and witnessed by the Saviour's disciples\nonly; or, rather, that they were not performed at all.\n\nMeanwhile, the leper's indiscretion was the cause why Jesus, according\nto Mark, no longer ventured to appear in the city. The priests seem to\nhave taken in ill mood the cure he had performed: He therefore withdrew\ninto the desart, where the more he was followed the more he buried\nhimself in concealment. It was in vain that the people desired to hear\nhim; it was in vain that the sick, who ran after him, requested their\ncure. He no longer suffered that marvellous virtue, calculated to cure\nevery disorder, to exhale from him.\n\nAfter having wandered for some time in the desart, ruminating on his\naffairs, he re-appeared at Capernaum. The domestic of a Roman centurion,\nmuch beloved by his master, was at the point of death from an attack of\nthe palsy. This Pagan believed that Jesus could easily cure his slave;\nbut, instead of presenting him to the physician as he ought to have\ndone, he deputed some Jewish senators to wait on him. However\ndisagreeable this commission might be to persons whom the centurion had\nno right to command, and who by that step seemed to acknowledge the\nmission of Jesus, these senators performed it. Flattered with seeing an\nidolator apply to him, our miracle-worker set out immediately; but the\ncenturion sent some of his people to inform Jesus that he was not worthy\nof the honour thus intended him by entering his house; and that to cure\nhis servant it was sufficient to speak only one word. Jesus was\ndelighted with this; he declared, that _he had not found so much faith\nin Israel_; and with one word, if the gospel may be believed, he\nperformed the cure. He afterwards told the Jews, that if they persisted\nin their hardness of heart, (the only disease which the Son of God could\nnever cure, though he had come for that purpose,) the idolatrous nations\nwould be substituted in their stead, and that God, notwithstanding his\npromises, would forever abandon his ancient friends. The gospel,\nhowever, does not tell us, whether this centurion, so full of faith, was\nhimself converted.\n\nThe day after this cure, Jesus having left Capernaum, arrived at Nain, a\nsmall town in Galilee, about twenty leagues distant, which proves that\nthe messiah was a great walker. Fortunately he got there in time to\nperform a splendid miracle. A poor widow had lost her son; they were\nalready carrying him to be burried, and the disconsolate mother,\naccompanied by a great multitude, followed the funeral procession.\nJesus, moved with compassion, approached the bier and laid his hand on\nit. Immediately those who carried it stopped. _Young man!_ said he,\naddressing the deceased, _I say to thee, arise_. Forthwith, he who was\ndead sat up. This miracle terrified all the attendants, but converted\nnobody. The transaction is related by Luke alone; but even were it\nbetter verified, we might justly suspect that the disconsolate mother\nheld secret intelligence with the performer.\n\nSome historians have made John Baptist live to this period; others made\nhim die much earlier. Here Matthew and Luke introduce the disciples or\nthe precursor, on purpose to question Jesus on the part of their master.\n\"Art thou he that was to come, or look we for another?\" The messiah in\nreply worked miracles in their presence, cured the sick, cast out\ndevils, and gave sight to the blind; after which he said to John's\ndeputies, \"Go and relate to John what you have heard and seen.\" It was\non this occasion that Jesus pronounced the eulogy of John. He had, as we\nhave seen in chapter fourth of this history, his reasons for so doing.\n\"Amongst all those,\" said he, \"that are born of women, verily I say unto\nyou there is not a greater than John Baptist.\" Our panegyrist profited\nafterwards by this circumstance to abuse the pharisees and doctors, who\nrejected both his baptism and John's. He compared these unbelievers to\n\"Children sitting in the market place, and calling to one another: We\nhave piped to you, and you have not danced; we have chaunted funeral\nairs, and ye have not weeped.\" But we are not informed that this jargon\nconverted the doctors.\n\nAfter this our speech-maker compared his own conduct with that of the\nprecursor. \"John,\" said he, \"came neither eating bread nor drinking\nwine, and you say he hath a devil. I eat, drink, and love good cheer,\nyet you reject me also, under pretence that I keep company with men and\nwomen of bad reputation.\" He gave the populace, however, to understand,\nthat their suffrage was sufficient for him; as if he had told them, \"I\nam certain of you--you are too _poor in spirit_ to perceive the\nirregularity of my conduct--my wonders pass with you; you should not\nreflect; you are the true _children Of wisdom, which will be justified\nby you_.\"\n\nAfter this harangue, a Pharisee, who to judge of him by his conduct had\nbeen noways moved by Jesus, invited the orator to dinner; but he used\nhim in the most unpolite manner. He did not cause his feet to be bathed,\nnor did he present perfumes according to the established custom of the\nJews. Though Jesus might be offended at this omission, he did not\ndecline sitting down at table; but while he was eating, a woman of bad\nfame bathed his feet with her tears, wiped them with her hair, and\nthereafter anointed them with a precious ointment. The pharisee did not\ncomprehend the mystery. Stupid and incredulous, he conjectured that\nJesus did not know the profession of the female; but he was mistaken:\nthe courtezan in question and all her family were intimately connected\nwith the messiah. John informs us, that she was called Mary Magdalane,\nand that she was the sister of Martha and Lazarus, people well known to\nJesus, and who held a regular correspondence with him. In particular it\nappears, that Magdalane entertained the most tender sentiments for\nJesus.\n\nThis action of the courtezan did not disconcert the Saviour; he\nexplained her love, the attention paid him, and the kisses with which\nshe loaded him, in a mystical and spiritual sense; and assuming the tone\nof one inspired, he assured her that her sins were forgiven on account\nof the love she had displayed. Luke informs us in the following chapter,\nthat Jesus had delivered this lady of _seven devils_--a service which\nwell merited her gratitude. Be that as it may, Jesus employed this\nindirect way of shewing the pharisee the incivility of his behaviour to\na man of his consequence.\n\nThe relations of Jesus, informed of the noise he made, and suspecting\nthat he could not lead a very pure life among the gentry with whom he\nassociated; or fearing that his conduct in the end would draw him into\nscrapes, went from Nazareth to Capernaum to seize him, and cause him to\nbe confined. They were afraid of being involved in his disgrace, and\nchose rather to charge themselves with his correction, than to see him\ndelivered up to justice; an event which they perceived was likely soon\nto happen. They therefore circulated a rumor, that he was a fool, whose\nbrain was disordered. Jesus, informed of the motive of their journey,\nkept close, and had a prodigy in reserve the moment they should appear.\nThe people, who had a hint of this, or were told of it by the emissaries\nof the messiah, repaired thither. As soon as the relations appeared, a\nblind and dumb man possessed with a devil was brought forth. Jesus\nexorcised him, the possessed was delivered, and the people were in\nextacies.\n\nThe doctors beheld with pain the credulity of the rabble, and foresaw\nthe consequences of it. The kinsmen of Jesus, little affected by this\nmiracle, promised to the doctors to use all their efforts to deliver him\nup to them. He is a sorcerer, said some; he is a prophet, said others;\nhe must prove it, said a third; and, notwithstanding the great miracle\nhe had performed, others added, _Let us ask of him a sign in the air_.\n\"Good God!\" said the Nazarenes, \"he is neither sorcerer nor prophet; he\nis a poor lad whose brain is disordered.\"\n\nThese speeches being related to Jesus, he answered them by parables and\ninvectives, and defended himself from the charge of being a wizard, by\nmaintaining that it was absurd to suppose he cast out devils by the\npower of the devil. As to the imputation of folly, he repelled it with\naffirming that whoever should question his intellect, could not expect\nthe remission of his sins either in this or in the other world. This\nundoubtedly is what must be understood by _the Sin against the Holy\nGhost_.\n\nNevertheless the midway course of demanding a sign was followed; for\nthis purpose a deputation was sent to Jesus; but instead of a sign in\nthe air, he gave them one in the water. He referred our inquisitive\nfolks to Jonas, and told them they should have no other sign; for, added\nhe, \"As Jonas was three days and three nights in the belly of the whale,\nso shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of\nthe earth.\" These Jews who were neither wizards nor prophets, could not\ncomprehend this language. Jesus, to whom miracles cost nothing when\nevery thing was arranged for performing them, did not risk himself by\nworking them _impromptu_, or in the presence of those he judged acute\nenough to examine them. On this occasion he put off these poor Jews,\nwhom he calculated on converting to himself for ever, with an\nunintelligible answer.\n\nHaving refused to perform a prodigy in the air, he began to rail at\nthem. He got into a passion, and launched out in prophetical invectives\nagainst the Jews. He compared the conduct of the queen of Sheba with\ntheirs; boasted of _his_ being greater and wiser than Solomon; and\nthreatened to deprive them of the light which he shed in their country.\nWe are of opinion, however, that, if he had deigned to give the sign\ndemanded, he would have spread this light much further. But the messiah\nfelt that a sign in the air was much more difficult than those he had\ngiven on the earth, where he was better able to arrange matters than\naloft in the atmosphere, a region in which there was nobody to concert\nwith.\n\nMeanwhile Jesus' mother had joined her other children and relations in\norder to induce them to desist from their pursuit, but she could not\nprevail on them. They persisted in the design of apprehending our\nadventurer. As however, they could not penetrate through the multitude\nand get close up to him, they sent notice they were there. \"Behold,\"\nsaid some one to Jesus, \"thy mother and thy brethren who seek\nthee.\"--Jesus knowing the object of their visit which he was no ways\neager to receive, abjured such froward relations; \"Who is my mother, and\nwho are my brethren?\" said he; after which, stretching forth his hand\ntowards the people, \"_Behold_,\" added he, \"_my mother and brethren_; I\nknow no other kinsmen than those who hearken to my word, and put it in\npractice.\" The people, flattered with the preference, took Jesus under\ntheir protection, and the attempt of his family was thus turned to their\nconfusion.\n\nEscaped from this perilous adventure, afraid of being ensnared or\nmistrusting the constancy of the populace, who, notwithstanding the\npleasure they found in seeing him perform his juggles, might desert him\nat last, Jesus thought proper to provide for his safety by leaving the\ntown. He accordingly departed with his twelve apostles, the ladies of\nhis train, Mary his mother, Jane and Magdalane, _who assisted the\ncompany with their property_. No doubt the last, who before she was with\nthe messiah had made gain of her charms, was rich in jewels and ready\nmoney. This rendered her conversion of great importance to the sect, and\nespecially to Jesus, who could not, without cruelty, refuse to repay so\nmuch love with a little return.\n\nThe persecution which Jesus experienced excited an interest in his\nbehalf, and it would seem procured him greater countenance. A multitude\nof people impelled by curiosity, as soon as they knew the road he had\ntaken, went out of the towns and hamlets in the environs to see him. To\navoid being incommoded by the crowd, he again resolved to go on board a\nvessel, from which he preached to those on shore; but recollecting the\ntrouble, which his former sermons had brought him into, he did not think\nit prudent to explain himself so clearly. He, therefore, preferred\nspeaking in parables, which are always susceptible of a double meaning.\n\nOne day chagrined at his little success, he distinctly avowed that he\nhad changed his resolution as to the jews, and meant to abandon their\nconversion. The reason for doing, so he expressed to them in parables;\n\"that seeing, they may not perceive, and hearing they may not\nunderstand, lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins\nshould be forgiven them.\"\n\nIt must be owned that it is very difficult to reconcile this conduct of\nGod. Were we not afraid of committing sacrilege by hazarding objections\non the mission of Jesus, might it not be presumed that at first he had\nthe design of giving laws to the Jews; but perceiving afterwards his\nlittle success, he resolved to seek his fortune elsewhere, and gain\nother subjects? What he communicated to his disciples in this secret\nview, appears to have been for the purpose of preparing them for this\nchange; but his punishment prevented all his designs, which were not\nexecuted till a long time after by his apostles, who no doubt carefully\ntreasured up this conference.\n\nWe shall not enter into a detail of all the parables which Jesus\nemployed in communicating his marvellous doctrine to the Jews, or\npreaching without being understood. Such a discussion would become very\ntiresome; we therefore advise those who may have a taste for such kind\nof apologues rather to read those of Esop or La Fontaine, which they\nwill find more amusing and more instructive than the fables of Jesus.\nThose, however, who wish to consult the parables of the gospel, will\nfind them in the following places:--The parable of the _sower_, Luke,\nviii. 5--of the _concealed lamp_, ib. viii. 16--of the _tares_, Matt.\nxiii. 24--of the _seed_, Mark iv. 26--of the _grain of mustard_, Matt.\nxiii. 31--of the _leaven_, ib. xiii. 33--of the _hidden treasure_, ib.\nxiii. 44--of the _pearl_, ib. xiii. 45--of the _net cast into the sea_,\nib. 47--and of the _father of the family_, ib. 52.\n\nJesus informed that his brothers and cousins were from home, went to\nNazareth accompanied with his apostles. He perhaps wanted to convince\nhis countrymen that he was not such a fool as was reported. Probably he\nhoped to confer with his family, and gain them over to his party. He\narrived on the Sabbath, and repaired to the synagogue: immediately the\npriest very politely presented him with a book; he opened it, and\nstumbled precisely on this passage of Isaiah: \"The spirit of the Lord\nhas rested upon me, and therefore I am anointed to preach.\" Having shut\nthe book, he delivered it to the priest and sat down; but he did not\nneglect to apply to himself this passage of the prophet, where also\nmention is made of miracles and prodigies. There were present, either by\nchance or design, several Gallileans, who having been witnesses of the\nmarvels Jesus had previously performed, did not hesitate to bear\ntestimony in his favour. But the Nazarenes, who knew what to think of\nhim, were shocked at his magisterial tone. \"Is not this,\" said they to\none another, \"the carpenter, the son of Joseph the carpenter? Is not his\nmother called Mary? Are not his brethren and sisters with us? Whence\nthen has he so much skill? How, and by what means does he work\nmiracles?\"\n\nJesus, hearing these remarks, saw plainly that this was not the proper\nplace for performing prodigies. But he wished that his inaction might be\nattributed to the evil dispositions of his countrymen, who were\nsurprised to hear the sagacity and power of a man extolled whose conduct\nappeared to them very equivocal. \"I perceive,\" said Jesus to them, \"that\nyou apply to me the proverb, Physician cure thyself; and that, to prove\nthe truth of what you have heard of me, you wish me to perform some of\nthose miracles which I have elsewhere exhibited; but I know I shall\nlabour in vain in this city: I am too well convinced of the truth of the\nproverb, No man is a prophet in his own country.\" To justify himself he\nquoted examples which would seem to throw a suspicion on the miracles of\nthe prophets of the Old Testament, whom this proverb, even by itself,\nwas calculated to make pass for knaves. Whatever opinion we may form of\nthis, he cited the example of Elias, who, among all the widows of\nIsrael, did not find one more deserving of a miracle than her of\nSarepta, a woman of the country of the Sidonians. In the days of Elias,\nJudea was overrun with lepers; and yet the prophet cured Naaman, who was\na Syrian and an idolater, in preference to his countrymen.\n\nThis harangue, which insinuated the reprobation and perversity of the\naudience, excited their rage so much that they dragged the orator out of\nthe synagogue, and led him to the top of a mountain with an intention to\nthrow him down headlong; but he had the good fortune to escape, and thus\navoid the fate which was intended him in the place of his nativity.\nMatthew, speaking of this journey to Nazareth, says that his master did\nnot perform many miracles there on account of the unbelief of the\ninhabitants. But Mark says positively, that he could not do any, which\nis still more probable.\n\nOur luminous interpreters and commentators believe, that Jesus escaped\nonly by a miracle out of the hands of the Nazarenes. But would it have\ncost him more to perform a miracle in order to convert them, and thereby\nprevent their mischievous designs? This was all that was required of\nhim, in order to save himself and place his person in security. Jesus\nnever performed miracles but with certain loss; he always dispensed with\nworking any when they would have been decisive, and beneficial.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XII.\n\nMISSION OF THE APOSTLES.--THE INSTRUCTIONS JESUS GAVE THEM.--MIRACLES\nWROUGHT UNTIL THE END OF THE SECOND YEAR OF HIS OWN MISSION.\n\n\nDissatisfied with his expedition to Nazareth, Jesus went to Upper\nGallilee, which had already been the theatre of his wonders. He found\nthe disposition of the inhabitants of that country better adapted to his\npurpose. He perceived, however, that the necessity they were under of\nsuspending their labor to come and hear him, kept a great number at\nhome. This consideration obliged him to disperse his apostles by two and\ntwo in the province. It is probable he resolved on this dispersion\nbecause he found his own sermons and prodigies did not gain many\nproselytes. The continual enterprizes of his enemies made him feel the\nnecessity of increasing his party.\n\nIt appears that Jesus had already sent several of his disciples on\nmissions, retaining near himself his twelve apostles only. It may,\nhowever, be presumed, that these preachers were as yet mere novices, as\ntheir labors were unsuccessful, the devils obstinately resisting their\nexorcisms. Yet this want of success was owing solely to the weakness of\ntheir faith, and would seem to throw a shade on the foresight and\npenetration of their divine master. Why did he send missionaries whose\ndispositions were not sufficiently known to him? Besides, it belonged to\nhim alone to bestow on them a necessary stock of faith for their\njourney.\n\nWhatever opinion way be formed of this, those of the apostles, who never\nquitted their master, who saw him continually operating, who enjoyed his\nconfidence, and had faith from the first hand--were better qualified\nthan the others to labor to the satisfaction of the public. Fully\nresolved to make a desperate effort, Jesus renewed all their powers, and\ngave them his instructions, of which the following is the substance:\n\"Every thing being well considered, do not go among the Gentiles, for\nour Jews will charge it as a crime against you, and as a reproach\nagainst me. It is true, I have already threatened to renounce them, but\nit is still necessary to make one attempt more; you will therefore\npreach to the Jews only. Repentance supposes sobriety and few wants;\nhence the inutility of riches. I have no money to give you, but strive\nto pick up for yourselves what you can. Providence will provide for you;\nif he takes care of the sparrows, he will take care of you. Moreover\nexpect to be ill received, reviled, and persecuted; but be of good\ncourage; all is for the best. Silence is no longer requisite; preach\nopenly and on the house tops what I have spoken to you in secret. Inform\nthe world that I am the messiah, the son of David and the Son of God. We\nhave no longer to observe discretion; we must either conquer or die;\naway then with pusillanimity.\n\n\"Though I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves, explain to the\ngood people that you are under the safeguard of the Most High, who will\ntake a terrible revenge for the outrages offered you, and liberally\nreward those who welcome you. You do not require to concert measures for\nsupplying your wants; it belongs to those whose souls you are going to\nsave to provide you in necessaries for the body. Carry not therefore\neither gold, or silver, or provision, or two suits of raiment; take a\ngood cudgel, and depart in the name of the Lord.\n\n\"Take care in your way always to preach that _the kingdom of heaven is\nat hand_. Speak of the end of the world: this will intimidate women and\npoltroons. On entering cities and villages, inform yourself of such\ncredulous people as are very charitable and prepossessed in our favor.\nYou will salute them civilly; saying _Peace be to this house_. But the\npeace you bring must be _allegorical_; for my doctrine is calculated to\ncreate trouble, discord, and division every where. Whoever would follow\nme, must abandon father, mother, kinsmen, and family; we want only\nfanatics and enthusiasts, who attaching themselves wholly to us, trample\nevery human consideration under foot. _I came not to send peace, but a\nsword._ As a like conduct might embroil you with your hosts, you will\nchange your abode from time to time. Do not rely on the power I have of\nraising the dead the safest way for you is not to risk your being\nkilled; shun therefore places where you may be menaced with persecution.\nAbandon disobedient cities and houses, _shaking the dust from off your\nfeet_. Tell them, that they have incurred the punishment of Sodom and\nGomorrah. Declare, in my name, that the divine vengeance is ready to\nmake them sensible of their guilt, and that the inhabitants of these\ncities will be less rigorously punished than those who shall have the\naudacity to resist your lessons. The great and last day is at hand. I\nassure you that you will not have finished your tour through all the\ncities of Israel before the son of man shall arrive.\"\n\nSuch is the sense and spirit of the instructions which Jesus gave to his\napostles. In charging them to divulge his secret, he gave them a\ncommission, which, notwithstanding his omnipotence, he himself dared not\nexecute. But it was a grand policy to have instruments to act without\nexposing himself to personal injury.\n\nThese trifles, however, scarcely merit notice:--We are more surprised to\nfind the Son of God proclaiming peace and charity, and at the same time\nasserting that he brings war and hatred. It is without doubt a God only\nwho can reconcile these contradictions. It is besides unquestionable,\nthat the apostles, and especially their successors in the sacred\nministry have, in preaching their gospel, brought on the world troubles\nand divisions unknown in all other preceding religions. The incredulous,\nwho by the way refer to the history of the church, find, that the _glad\ntidings_ which a God came on purpose to announce, have plunged the human\nrace into tears and blood.\n\nIt is obvious from this language, that Jesus charged people of property\nwith the maintenance of his apostles. Their successors have taken\nsufficient advantage of this, and through it assumed an authority to\nexercise the most cruel extortions on impoverished nations. Would not\nthe Almighty have rendered his apostles more respectable by rendering\nthem incapable of suffering, and exempting them from the wants of\nnature? This would have given more weight to their sublime sermons and\nthose of their infallible successors.\n\nCritics maintain also, that it was false to say eighteen hundred years\nago that _the end of the world was near_, and still more false to affirm\nthat the great Judge would arrive before the apostles could make the\ntour of the cities of Israel. It is true, theologists understand that\nthe end of the world shall happen when all the Jewish cities, that is,\nwhen all the Jews shall be converted. Time will demonstrate whether it\nbe in that sense we ought to understand the words of Jesus: meanwhile\nthe world still remains, and does not appear to threaten speedy ruin.\n\nIt is probable that, besides these public instructions, Jesus gave more\nparticular ones to his apostles. They departed in the hope of charities\nwhich they were to receive from Jews, of whom the greatest number were\nalready in a state of reprobation. Jesus altered his orders in part; he\nreserved for himself the cities, and left the villages to his apostles.\nAccordingly they went here and there, calling out, _Hearken to the glad\ntidings; the world is near its end. Repent therefore, pray, fast, and\ngive us money and provisions, for having acquainted you with this\ninteresting secret._ We are assured that they cured several diseases by\nthe application of a certain oil. They had doubtless done more excellent\nthings, but the _paraclete_ (the comforter) was not yet come: maugre the\ninstructions of the Son of God, the understandings of the apostles were\nnot yet sufficiently brightened; for we do not find that the\nmissionaries, with their balsam and fine speeches, made any converts.\nThe incredulous are still much surprised to find in the instructions of\nJesus to his apostles, an explicit order to labor only for the\nconversion of the Jews, and an express prohibition against preaching to\nthe Gentiles. They maintain, that a righteous God could make no\ndistinction of persons; that the common father of mankind must show an\nequal love to all his children: that it cost no more to the Almighty to\nconvert and save all nations; that a God, who is friendly to one country\nonly, is a God purely local, and cannot be the God of the universe; and\nthat a God partial, exclusive, and unjust, who follows caprice alone in\nhis choice, can neither be perfect nor the model of perfection. In\nshort, those who have not the happiness of being _sacredly_ blinded by\nfaith, cannot comprehend how the equitable and wise Lord of all the\nnations of the earth could cherish exclusively the Jewish people; his\ninfinite prescience ought to have shown him that his love and favors\nwould be completely lost on this untractable people.\n\nUnbelievers remark, that it does not become the Son of God to exclaim,\n\"Woe unto thee, Chorazin! woe unto thee, Bethsaida! for if the mighty\nworks which were done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would\nhave repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes.\" Would it not have been\nwiser to have gone and preached to cities so docile, where Jesus was\ncertain of success, than to persist in preaching to the Jews, of whom he\nwas not certain of making converts?\n\nJesus went about preaching through many cities of Gallilee; but deprived\nof the assistance of his confidents, he did not work any wonders. We\nhave seen the magistrates and the great paying little attention to his\nconduct. They despised one whom they regarded a vagrant, or a fool\nlittle to be feared. 'Tis true, that some of Herod's officers are said\nto have been on the watch, with the pharisees, to destroy him; but this\ncombination had no success. After all, he gave umbrage only to the\npriests and the doctors of the law, against whom he declaimed with the\ngreatest indecorum. By this conduct he rendered himself agreeable to the\npeople, weary of the extortions of these bloodsuckers, who, without\npity, drained the nation, treated the poor with disdain, and, as the\nparable of the priest and the Samaritan evinces, were destitute of\ncharity. The priests and doctors were very numerous in Jerusalem; on\nwhich account the people in the capital were less disposed than\nelsewhere to listen to our preacher, and the influence of the priests\nwas the cause of the hatred and contempt entertained against him in this\ngreat city.\n\nBy a singular contrariety, the most obscure interval in our hero's life\nwas that wherein he acquired the greatest renown. Jesus was wholly\nunknown at the court of Herod; while at the head of his troop, and\nsurrounded by multitudes, he chased away devils, gave sight to the blind\nand speech to the mute, expelled the sellers from the temple, and raised\nthe dead. But while he led a private life in Gallilee; when, during the\nmission of his apostles, he found himself alone and without followers,\nand content with preaching repentance, it was then that his fame,\npenetrating even to the throne, excited in the monarch a desire to see\nhim. According to Luke, a ray of light struck the heart of Herod; doubt\nfilled his mind; \"John,\" said he, \"I have caused to be beheaded, but he\nmust have risen from the dead, and, therefore, it is that so many\nmiracles are performed by him; but who should this be of whom I hear\nsuch great things?\" Herod wished to see Jesus to explain these matters,\nand for this purpose he sent for him.\n\nIf nature had given Jesus a right to the throne of Judea, we might judge\nhis motives for not putting himself in the power of a prince, the\nusurper of his crown. But Jesus could not dissemble that his pretensions\nwere not well established; he knew that for a long time the family of\nDavid had lost the sovereign power. We must, therefore, search for\nanother motive for his refusing to see Herod, as the interview with the\nSon of God would not only have contributed to the conversion of this\nprince and his court, but of all Judea, and perhaps of the whole Roman\nempire. A single miracle of consequence, performed before a court, and\nacknowledged and attested by persons of high authority, would have been\nmore effectual than the suspected testimony of all the peasantry and\nvagabonds in Gallilee. Far from complying with the request of Herod, and\nconferring so eminent a benefit, Jesus withdrew into a desert as soon as\nhe learned the prince's intention. He, who often uttered the most\nterrible curses against such as rejected him, scorned the invitation of\na sovereign, and fled into a desert, instead of laboring for his\nconversion. The messiah, who made no difficulty in entering the house of\na centurion to heal his slave, refused to visit a monarch in order to\ncure his blindness, and bring back to himself all his subjects, for\nwhom, he affirmed, that he was specially sent!\n\nOur theologians explain these contradictions by referring to the\ninexplicable decrees of Providence. But the incredulous maintain, that\nJesus, who well knew how to work wonders in the eyes of a simple\npopulace, dared not to expose himself before an enlightened court; and\nit must be owned, that the manner in which he comported himself before\nhis judges, strengthens this opinion.\n\nMeanwhile, the mission of the apostles expired. In a short time they had\ntraversed Gallilee; and it appears from the repast which Jesus soon\nafter gave to a crowd of people, that the preaching of his missionaries\nhad procured an abundant harvest. Loaded with the alms of the\nGallileans, the apostles returned to their master, who again found\nhimself incommoded by the multitude which flocked to see him. To enjoy\nmore liberty, the party embarked on board a small vessel, which conveyed\nthem across the sea of Gallilee. There, in a retired spot, the apostles\ngave an account of the success of their mission; they made arrangements\nfor the future, and especially secured their provisions in a place of\nsafety.\n\nThose who had seen Jesus embark, thought, perhaps, they were forever to\nbe deprived of the pleasure of seeing him perform wonders. They made the\ntour of the lake, and though on foot, reached the other side before\nJesus arrived there in his vessel. He preached, wrought miracles, and\ncured the diseased; and these labors lasted until the evening. His\ndisciples then advised him to send the people in search of lodging and\nvictuals in the neighboring villages. He made no reply on the article of\nlodging;--there were doubtless few persons in this multitude who were\naccustomed to sleep on down.--Besides, the nights were likely not cold\nin that season and climate. But, wishing to amuse himself with the\nembarrassment of those who made the proposal, and who might not know the\nresources which the collections of his apostles had procured, \"it is not\nnecessary,\" said he, \"that they should go into the villages; give them\nyourselves wherewith to eat.\" \"Think you so?\" replied they,--\"shall we\ngo and buy two hundred penny-worth of bread, and give them to\neat?\"--Philip, who perhaps was not in the secret, represented the\nimpossibility of finding bread to feed this multitude. On which Jesus\nsaid to Peter, \"See how many loaves you have.\" He found none--a\ncircumstance the more surprising, as, according to Mark, they had\nwithdrawn to this place \"on purpose to eat.\" Peter, without answering\nthe question, said to his master, \"There is a young lad here, who has\nfive barley loaves and two small fishes.\" Jesus ordered them to be\nbrought, and made the multitude range themselves in companies of\nhundreds and of fifties. From this arrangement it appeared that there\nwere five thousand men, besides women and children. When every one had\ntaken his place on the grass, Jesus, according to the usage of the Jews,\nblessed the loaves and fishes, broke, and distributing them among the\napostles, who gave thereof to the people as much as they desired. They\nlikewise filled twelve baskets with the fragments of this celebrated\nentertainment. The guests, penetrated with admiration, exclaimed, \"This\nis of a truth a prophet, and that prophet who should come into the\nworld;\" which, translated into ordinary language, means, the true\nAmphitrion is he who gives us our dinner. The apostles spoke not a word.\n\nSome critics, perceiving the impossibilities this miracle presents, have\nventured to doubt the truth of it, as if the _impossibility_ of things\ncould prejudice the reality of a miracle, the essence of which is to\nproduce things impossible. Yet if attention is given to the account of\nthe evangelists, who are not, however, very unanimous on particulars, we\nshall find, that this miracle presents nothing impossible if we are\ninclined to give any credit to the prudence of the Son of God; who, on\nthis occasion, found that he could not make a better use of the\nprovisions amassed by his apostles, than to distribute them to a hungry\nmultitude. By this act, he saw himself certain of gaining their favor.\nIt may be the crowd was not quite so numerous as is related. Besides,\nour apostles, in passing to the opposite shore, might have thrown their\nnets with sufficient success to furnish fish for the whole company. This\nmeal must have appeared miraculous to persons who knew that Jesus had no\nfortune, and lived on alms. We accordingly find, that the people wanted\nto proclaim king the person who had so sumptuously regaled them. The\nentertainment no doubt recalled to their mind the idea of a messiah,\nunder whose government abundance was to reign. No more was requisite to\ninduce a handful of miserables to believe, that the preacher, who by a\nmiracle fed them so liberally, must be the extraordinary man the nation\nexpected.\n\nThis great miracle then will become very probable, by supposing that the\napostles in their collection had received a large quantity of bread.\nThey amused themselves, as has been observed, with fishing while they\ncrossed the lake; Jesus gave them the hint:--when evening was come,\nthings were disposed without the observation of the people, who were\nthus fed with provisions amassed by very natural means.\n\nThough the Gallileans wished to proclaim Jesus king, he did not think\nproper to accept an honor which he found himself for the present\nincapable of supporting. His exhausted provisions did not suffer him to\nundertake the frequent entertaining of so many guests at his own\nexpense; and though this conduct, much more than all his other miracles,\nwould have gained him the affections of the beggars, idlers, and\nvagabonds of the country, the necessity of his affairs prevented him\nfrom recurring to it.\n\nThus Jesus crowned the second year of his mission with an action well\nadapted to conciliate the love of the people, and at the same time give\nuneasiness to the magistrates. This stroke of eclat must doubtless have\nalarmed those in power, who perceived that the affair might become very\nserious, especially considering the intention of the Gallileans to\nproclaim our adventurer king. The priests probably profitted by these\ndispositions in order to destroy Jesus, who at all times appeared\nanxious to gain the populace, in order to aid him in subduing the great.\nThis project might have succeeded if Judea, as in times past, had been\ngoverned by kings of its own nation, who, as the Bible shows, depended\ncontinually on the caprice of priests, of prophets, or of the first\ncomer, who by predictions, declamations, and wonders, could, at will,\nstir up the Hebrew nation, and dispose of the crown: whereas in the time\nof Jesus the Roman government had nothing to fear from the efforts of\nsuperstition.\n\n\n\n\n[CHAPTER XIII.]\n\nJESUS REPASSES INTO GALLILEE ABOUT THE TIME OF THE THIRD PASSOVER IN HIS\nMISSION--WHAT HE DID UNTIL THE TIME HE LEFT IT.\n\n\nThe expression of John, who tells us, that _Jesus knowing_ the guests he\nhad entertained _would come and take him by force on purpose to make him\ntheir king_, demonstrates that these guests had withdrawn at the end of\nthe entertainment. This observation enabled us to fix pretty correctly\nthe route of Jesus, and affords a reason for his conduct.\n\nIt was already late when the disciples said to their master, that it was\ntime to send away the people. The preparations for the repast must have\nconsumed time: the distribution of the victuals required also some\nhours; so that daylight could not have been far off when the meal was\nfinished, and when Jesus dismissed his guests. It was about the evening\nhe learned the design they had of carrying him off to make him king; and\nit was not until after having received this intelligence, that he\nresolved to conceal himself in a mountain, after having dispatched his\ndisciples to Capernaum. To reach the place, the latter were obliged to\nmake several tacks; when Jesus, observing this, changed his resolution,\nand set out for Gennesaret, on the north side of the lake. Seeing him\napproach at the moment they thought him far off in the recesses of the\nmountain, his disciples were terrified; _they took him for a spirit_,\nfor spirits were very common in Judea. They were confirmed in their\nopinion when they perceived his shadow near the vessel. Simon Peter\nobserving him advance, did not doubt but he was walking on the waters.\nIn attempting to go and meet his master, he felt himself sinking; but\nJesus took him by the hand, and saved him from the danger. After\nreprimanding him for his cowardice, he went with him on board the ship.\nThe apostles, who had not been much struck with the miracle of the five\nloaves, were astonished at this. They had been in great fear, and fear\ndisposes to believe; in their distress they confessed unanimously, _that\nhe was the Son of God_.\n\nJesus reached Gennesaret at noon. There several of his guests recognized\nhim, and announced his arrival to others. They presented him the\ndiseased, and he performed a great number of cures. We cannot too much\nadmire the faith of the Gallileans, who exposed at all seasons their\nsick in the streets, and the complaisance of Jesus, who indefatigably\ncured them.\n\nThe guests at the miraculous supper, whom their affairs called home, had\nreturned; but the greatest number, that is, all the laboring people,\nhaving seen Jesus' ship steer for Capernaum, had set out by land for\nthat city. Some vessels from Tiberias arrived there at the same time,\nbut none carried Jesus, and nobody had seen him; for he had made his\npassage during night. The crowd, however, remained, in hopes of being\nagain entertained _gratis_, when they learned at Capernaum that Jesus\nwas on the opposite shore. Immediately, all our idle folks set out,\neither by land or by water, to visit him. But these parasites, instead\nof finding a repast served out on the grass, were entertained with a\nsermon. Jesus, who had not always wherewith to defray the expenses of so\nnumerous a court, held forth to them this language: \"Verily, verily, I\nsay unto you, ye seek me, not because you saw the miracles, but because\nye did eat of the loaves, and were filled.\" \"Labour,\" added he, \"for\nlife everlasting.----\" His hearers, whose ideas extended not beyond the\npresent life, did not comprehend what Jesus meant; they therefore asked\nhim what it was requisite they should do; on which he told them that it\nwas necessary they should become his disciples, as he was the messiah.\nHere we are surprised to find them asking of Jesus, What sign showest\nthou then that we may believe? What extraordinary thing do you perform\nfor that purpose? You will perhaps instance the supper you gave us; but\ndid not our fathers eat manna in the desert for forty years? And after\nall, what is your supper in comparison with that wonder?\n\nFrom this we may perceive that Jesus labored in vain to draw over these\nGallileans to his party. The continuation of the miraculous repast was\nalone capable of moving them. It was to no purpose Jesus maintained,\nthat the bread with which Moses had fed their fathers, was not the bread\nof heaven, which alone could properly nourish. _An empty belly has no\nears_; so they suffered him to preach on. After he had spoken a great\ndeal--Well, said they, give us this bread which alone nourishes, for it\nsignifies little to us what kind of bread we eat; but some we must have.\nPromise to furnish us with it at all times, and at this price we shall\nbe at your devotion.\n\nIf Jesus at this moment had possessed the same resources as formerly, he\nwould have been able, at little expense, to form a small army, which the\nassurance of having food without toil would have soon increased; but all\nfailed. These people offered themselves providing he would always\nfurnish them with bread. The proposition was urgent, and Jesus got off\nwith so bad a grace, that his disciples themselves were shocked at it.\nHe said to them, that he himself was bread, that his flesh was meat, and\nhis blood wine; and that those only who eat it would be raised up, and\nconducted to everlasting banquets. Our dull folks comprehended none of\nthis mysterious jargon, contrived on purpose to puzzle them. Perceiving\nthat they were not moved by it, he informed them that in order to follow\nhim, a particular _call_ was necessary, and that as they were not\ndisposed to do this, they were, therefore, not called.\n\nThe adherents Jesus obtained on this occasion were but few. The Jews\nwere indignant that he should pretend to have descended from heaven. We\n_know_, said they, his _father and mother_, and we _know where he was\nborn_. These rumors, spreading as far as Jerusalem, so irritated the\npriests that they resolved on his death; but the son of God, by skilful\nmarches and countermarches, disconcerted their vigilance. It was\nespecially in the capital that they wished to ensnare him; but Jesus had\nnot been lately there. His distance from the metropolis did not,\nhowever, prevent them from knowing his most secret proceedings; and from\nthis he concluded there were some false brethren among his disciples. He\nwas not deceived; but the fear of being betrayed in a country where his\nresources began to fail, induced him to dissemble till he should arrive\nin a place of safety. He set out, therefore, for Capernaum. At this\nplace he recited nearly the same sermon he had in vain preached to the\nGallileans. But no one would consent to receive as food his flesh and\nblood. Those who enjoyed his confidence knew that he gave better cheer;\nbut his other disciples asserted that they could not subsist on this\nmysterious mess, and took their leave of him. Unable to do better, Jesus\nwas obliged to let them depart.\n\nObserving the defection of a part of his followers, our adventurer was\nvexed at it; and, in sorrow for the injuries it would occasion, he asked\nthe twelve, \"And will you also leave me?\" On which Simon Peter answered,\n\"Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life. And we\nbelieve, and are sure, that thou art the Christ, the son of the living\nGod.\" Thus Jesus was assured, in the best way he could, of the fidelity\nof his apostles; yet we see, in spite of his infinite knowledge, that he\nalways kept the traitor Judas in his company, though he must have\nforeseen that he would deliver him up to his enemies.\n\nMeanwhile, Jesus set out for Gallilee, whither his apostles followed\nhim, though his last preaching, and particularly the refusal of\nvictuals, had dissatisfied the Gallileans. They did not, indeed, give\nhim a welcome reception. The arrival of some pharisees and doctors from\nJerusalem completely marred everything. They were deputed by the chiefs\nin the capital to watch the conduct of Jesus, and to put the people on\ntheir guard. Every one knows how strictly the Jews adhere to the\nceremonies of their law; and, in spite of his protestations of\nattachment to it, Jesus, like his trusty friends, observed none of its\nordinances. It was particularly offensive that they ate without washing\ntheir hands. But he defended himself with saying, that it was better to\nviolate traditions and neglect ceremonies, than to infringe the\ncommandments of God, as the doctors did. He advanced, contrary to\nexpress law, _that nothing which enters the body defiles it, and that it\nis what comes out of it that renders it impure_. This seems to\nestablish, that Jesus and his party were not scrupulous as to their\nvictuals. Thereafter he launched out in invectives against the doctors,\nwhom he called hypocrites, ignorant and blind, who directed others that\nwere also blind. In his anger he did not perceive that the compliment\nwas not less offensive to the people than to their guides. On this\naccount the latter entertained a deep resentment, but the populace did\nnot regard it. Besides, Jesus did not allow them time for reflection: he\nengaged their attention by a fine discourse, to prove that lawyers and\npriests were the worst of men and the least charitable, and, that none\ncould be happy, either in this world or in the other, without becoming\nhis disciples.\n\nHe was now informed that there was no safety for him in this place. He\ntherefore left it in great haste, intending to go towards the frontiers\nof Tyre and Sidon. His design was to live concealed in the country; but\nwith such great renown as that of our hero it was difficult to continue\nlong unknown. The secret of his retreat was divulged; and, as misfortune\nsometimes turns to good, this trifling duplicity gave him an opportunity\nof performing a miracle among the Gentiles. A woman of Canaan besought\nhim to deliver her daughter from a devil that tormented her. Jesus at\nfirst made her no answer. She insisted; the apostles interceded, and\npressed their master to grant her request, merely to silence her; for\nshe was clamorous, and might have disclosed that he was the messiah. He\ndefended himself on the plea of being sent to the Jews only, and not to\nthe Heathen. They again besought him, and answered his comparison by\nanother. He at length yielded; and the girl was delivered from her\ndevil, or her vapors.\n\nThe success of Jesus in this country terminated with this miracle. He\npassed into Decapolis, and there acquired some consequence from the cure\nof a dumb and deaf man on pronouncing the word _Epheta_, and then\nputting his finger into his ears and spittle on his tongue. Our\nmissionary on this occasion made a sufficiently abundant harvest of\nalms. He moreover wrought a number of miracles on the sick, the cripple,\nand the maimed. But it was his custom to steal away when his miraculous\npower began to make a noise; he accordingly withdrew to a mountain at\nthe distance of three days journey from the place where he had performed\nso many miracles. The people followed him in his retreat, and it appears\nthat they did so without eating. Loaded with provisions or money\nprocured by his miracles, Jesus again saw himself in a situation to lay\nthe table cloth. As if he knew nothing of this, he asked one of his\napostles how many loaves they had: seven was the answer. He then ordered\nthe multitude to sit down on the ground; and taking the loaves, blessed\nthem, together with some small fishes. These were distributed to four\nthousand men, besides women and children, who were all satisfied; and\nwith the remains of the repast, they afterwards filled seven baskets.\n\nThis prodigy appears to be a mere repetition of what we have related\nbefore; yet St. Chrysostom maintains, that the difference of the number\nof baskets proves irrefragably they must not be confounded. Admitting\nthis, it would appear that Jesus once more sacrificed the money and\nprovisions his prodigies had enabled him to amass. It was necessary to\ngain the people, and he at that time felt he had very great need of\nthem; he was generous when he had the means to be so, and he had not\nforgotten that they had promised to follow him, provided he would give\nthem food.\n\nThe evangelists, however, overheated with the idea of this miracle,\nforgot another equally deserving their notice. It was indeed a prodigy\nto see four thousand men, without reckoning, women and little children,\nfollowing Jesus during three days without eating or drinking; or else we\nmust believe, that, prepared to travel, these people had provided\nthemselves with provisions, which suddenly failed. But, in a desert,\nwhence came the baskets they made use of in gathering up the remains of\nthe entertainment? It is to be presumed, that they dropt down from\nheaven. But why not make loaves and fishes drop down also? It was\nundoubtedly requisite to feed this multitude during the three days march\nnecessary for their return. But would it not have been a short way to\nhave made the people feel neither hunger nor thirst? Would it not have\nbeen easier, by an effort of mercy, to have converted at once all the\ninhabitants of Judea, and spared Jesus the trouble of so many\nentertainments, flights, marches, and countermarches, which at last\nterminated in a manner so tragical to this hero of the romance?\n\nThe pharisees and sadducees did not lose sight of Jesus: on learning\nthat he had returned to the interior of the kingdom, they went in search\nof him. The evangelists, it is suspected, made them much worse than they\nwere in reality, by representing them as eager to ruin them. Was it then\nso difficult to arrest thirteen men? Be that as it may, the Pharisees at\nthis time accosted Jesus very politely, and demanded of him a miracle.\n\"You perform them,\" said they, \"by dozens, in presence of a thousand\npeople, who by your own confession, do not believe in you; give us then\na specimen of your skill, and we shall be less opiniative than those of\nwhom you complain. Do then show us this condescension.\" Jesus was\ninexorable, and perpetually referred them to Jonas. This refusal\noffended them: he, in turn, inveighed against them; and as the presence\nof these inconvenient spectators rendered his power useless, he quitted\nthem in order to go to Bethsaida.\n\nOn the way, his apostles asked him the reason of his refusal to work a\nmiracle in presence of persons who entreated him in so handsome a\nmanner; on which Jesus, by a figure, gave them to understand, that he\ncould not operate before people so clear-sighted; \"Beware,\" said he, \"of\nthe leaven of the Pharisees, and of the leaven of Herod.\" Our silly\nfolks, who had not time to provide bread, thought their master meant to\nreprove them for their negligence. Any other but Jesus would have\nlaughed at the mistake, but the state of his affairs chagrined him, and\nhe treated them very harshly.\n\nOn entering Bethsaida, they brought him a blind man whom he cured by\napplying spittle to his eyes. This remedy at first produced a pleasant\neffect: the man saw other men, like trees, walking; Jesus then laid his\nhands on him, and immediately he saw quite otherwise.\n\nBut this miracle gained no conquest to the messiah. He, therefore, went\nto try his fortune in the villages in the environs of Caesarea-Philippi.\nIt is in this journey that asking his apostles what they thought of him,\nsome said, that he passed for Elias, others for Jeremiah, &c.; but Peter\nopenly confessed that he acknowledged him for the Christ: a confession\nwhich has since gained him the honor of supremacy in the sacred college,\nand of being declared the head of the church.\n\nThough sovereign in heaven, Jesus possessed nothing on earth, and of\ncourse could confer no temporal gifts. Instead of these, he gave his\ndisciples the spiritual privilege of damning and saving the rest of\nmankind at their pleasure. He promised to Peter the place of\n_door-keeper of Paradise_, since become so lucrative an office to his\nsuccessors and assigns. Meanwhile Jesus recommended silence to the party\non this promotion; but perhaps the traitor Judas, not satisfied with the\noffice of treasurer, did not preserve the secret.\n\nNotwithstanding the suffrage of Peter, the consequences which might\nresult from the choler of the priests were always present to the mind of\nJesus. Cried down and rejected, he presumed, with good sense, that,\nbeing once excluded from all the provinces, and the Gentiles not much\ninclined to receive for legislator a Jew, expelled his own country, he\nwould be constrained sooner or later, to return to Jerusalem, where he\nmust expect to meet with perilous adventures. On the other hand, the\nRomans, masters of the forces over whom the Jews could arrogate no\nauthority, would very quickly have put an end to the mission of a man\nwhom they must have regarded either as a fool or as a disturber of the\npublic peace, if he should have dared to declare against them. It is\nevident, indeed, that the mission of Jesus existed in Judea merely\nbecause the Romans were not much displeased that a restless and\nturbulent people should amuse themselves with following a man of his\ncharacter--a pretended messiah, to whose appearance the prepossessions\nof the nation gave rise. Always certain of being able to crush those who\ndared to undertake the boldest enterprises, they troubled themselves\nlittle about what might be done in the country by a party no way\nformidable to an authority seconded by disciplined legions.\n\nThe situation of the Son of God must have alarmed his companions,\nhowever dull we may suppose them to have been. It was, therefore,\nnecessary to devise means to encourage those at least who were the\nhonest dupes of his vain promises. He did not dissemble the bad state of\nhis affairs, the fate he had to dread, and the death with which he was\nmenaced. He anticipated them on this subject, and declared that even if\nhe should suffer death, they must not be discouraged, for at the end of\nthree days he would rise triumphant from the tomb. We shall afterwards\nsee the use the apostles made of this prediction, which must at the time\nhave appeared to them as foolish as incredible.\n\nTo retain them as his followers, and revive their zeal, Jesus\nentertained them incessantly with the beauty of his Father's kingdom;\nbut he told them that to arrive there, they must have courage, love him\nsincerely, and consent to suffer with him. These melancholy sermons\ndemonstrated the situation of the orator, and tended rather to depress\nthan incite the courage of his auditory. He, therefore, thought it\nseasonable to present to his disciples a specimen of the glory which he\nhad so often vaunted. For this purpose he exhibited the brilliant\nspectacle of the _transfiguration_. All the apostles were not witnesses\nof it: he granted this favor to three only, Peter, James, and John, his\nmost intimate confidents, to whom he recommended silence. This scene\ntook place, it is said, on mount Thabor. There Jesus appeared irradiated\nwith glory, accompanied with two others, whom the apostles took for\nMoses and Elias, and whom, as far as we can discover, they had never\nseen before. A cloud unexpectedly enveloped the three luminous bodies;\nand when they no longer beheld any person, a voice was heard pronouncing\nthese words, _This is my beloved Son_. The disciples were asleep while\nthe spectacle was displayed--a circumstance which has occasioned a\nsuspicion, that the whole was only a dream.\n\nThe apostles, who remained at the foot of the mountain, and had been\ndeprived of this spectacle, wished to try their spiritual powers on a\nlunatic, or one possessed; but the devil disregarded their exorcisms.\nThe father of the disordered person, perceiving their master descending\nfrom the mountain, immediately presented his son to him, whom Jesus\ncured; he then gave a strong reprimand to those _fumblers_; told them\nthat their want of success was owing to want of faith, a grain of which\nwas sufficient to remove mountains; and recommended to them fasting and\nprayer, as the surest means of expelling certain demons more rebellious\nthan others.\n\nThe people, however, withstood all these wonders: the devils, with whom\n_they_ were possessed, could not be expelled by any thing which Jesus\nhad not contrived. Expecting, therefore, to draw over some of the\nstrangers whom the solemnities always brought in great numbers to the\ncapital, he resolved, as the feast of the tabernacles was approaching,\nsecretly to repair thither. But, agitated by the most troublesome\nmisgivings, he traversed Gallilee; he explained himself on his fears in\nan enigmatical manner to his apostles, who could not comprehend what he\nsaid; but who, on observing their master grieved, conformed themselves\nto his humor.\n\nOn arriving at Capernaum, the place of his usual residence, the officers\ncharged with collecting the customs taking him for a stranger, and not\neven recognising Matthew, their old companion exacted tribute from them.\nJesus being a Jew, was offended at their demand; but whether they did\nnot hearken to his reasons, or that he did not wish to be known, he\ndispatched Peter in search of a piece of thirty-pence in the mouth of a\nfish; or rather desired him go and catch a fish, which being sold for\nthat sum, served to pay the custom.\n\nThe apostles having understood from the Saviour's discourses, that his\nkingdom was still very distant, occupied themselves with disputing on\nthe pre-eminence and ranks they should enjoy in the empire which had\nbeen obscurely announced to them. In this they have been since\nfaithfully imitated by their successors. In the mean time Jesus took\noccasion from this dispute to deliver a sermon on humility. He called\nfor a child, placed it in the midst of them, and declared that this\nchild was the greatest among them. This sermon, by which our clergy have\nprofitted so well, contains fine parables, and points out excellent\nmeans whereby to attain heaven, but not to thrive on earth. As all\nthese, however, are only repetitions of what is taught in the sermon on\nthe mount, we refer the reader to it.\n\nJesus wrought no miracles during his abode at Capernaum, where he had an\ninterest not to be too much spoken of. His brethren or his parents, who\nwere of the same mind as the priests, proceeded to that place on purpose\nto persuade him to leave his asylum and go into Judea, where he might\nexhibit his skill. They reminded him that the feast should draw him to\nJerusalem, where he could not fail to find an opportunity of signalising\nhimself.\n\nThis ironical tone enabled Jesus to foresee that they were plotting\nagainst him. Here eternal truth extricated itself from these\nimportunities by means of falsehood. The Son of God told his brethren to\ngo to the feast, but assured them that for himself he would _not_ go.\n(John vii. 8.) This, however, did not hinder him from taking the road to\nJerusalem, but with the greatest secresy. In his way he cured ten\nlepers, among whom one only, who was a Samaritan, shewed any gratitude\nto his physician; and from courtesy to his faith his sins were remitted.\nNotwithstanding this miracle and absolution, the incredulous do not\nadmit that Jesus can be acquitted of having prevaricated. It seems very\nstrange, that the Son of God, to whom his omnipotence furnished so many\nhonorable means of acting openly, had recourse to subtlety and deception\nin order to elude the snares of his enemies. This conduct can be\nexplained only by supposing that what seems falsehood to carnal eyes is\ntruth in the gospel.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XIV.\n\nJESUS SHEWS HIMSELF AT JERUSALEM.--HE IS FORCED TO LEAVE\nIT.--RESURRECTION OF LAZARUS.--TRIUMPHANT ENTRY OF JESUS.--HIS RETREAT\nTO THE GARDEN OF OLIVES.--THE LORD'S SUPPER.--HE IS ARRESTED.\n\n\nIt is probable that our hero changed his intention of showing himself\npublicly at Jerusalem on learning the diversity of opinions which\ndivided the capital on his account. He imagined that his presence and\ndiscourses would remedy the inconstancy of the people, and remove the\nperplexity of disputants; but he deceived himself. He who so often\nrecommended the _cunning of serpents_, failed on this occasion. But how\nrevoke an immutable decree? The world had been created solely on purpose\nthat man might sin, and man had sinned in order that Jesus by his death\nmight have the glory of making atonement for sinners.\n\nIf they spoke much evil of Jesus in Jerusalem, they spoke also much\ngood. Praise is a snare, wherein the Son of God himself was caught.\nFlattering himself with being able to reconcile the suffrages, he went\nto the temple and preached. But what must have been his surprise when on\nbeginning to speak he heard the cries of rage, and the multitude\naccusing him of being possessed with a devil. In spite of the noise that\nprevailed among the audience, Jesus continued to harangue. Perhaps he\nmight have succeeded in conquering the bad disposition of the assembly,\nif a company of soldiers had not arrived, and interrupted him precisely\nin the most pathetic part of his sermon. He was speaking of his heavenly\nFather; and this occurrence has undoubtedly made us lose a sublime\ntreatise on the nature of the divinity. The soldiers, however, had no\ndesign to seize him; they wished only to impose silence on him; it was,\ntherefore, easy for him to steal away.\n\nJesus, whose temper appears to have been vindictive and restless, was\npiqued at the insult, and continued his invectives against the priests,\ndoctors, and principal men among the Jews, who taking counsel on the\nsubject, agreed to issue a decree against him and try him for contumacy;\nbut Nicodemus, whom we mentioned before, undertook his defence, and\nproposed to his brethren to go and hear him before condemning him. They,\nhowever, insisted that no _good ever came out of Nazareth_, i.e. that\nhis protegee could be no other than a vagabond.\n\nIn his retreat on the mount of Olives, Jesus learned that they had\npostponed proceedings against him. He therefore appeared next day in the\ntemple by day break. The doctors and senators came a little later, and\nbrought him a female accused of adultery--a crime for which, according\nto the law, she ought to suffer death. The doctors, perhaps acquainted\nwith her conduct, and informed of Jesus' having women of wicked lives in\nhis train, wanted to ensnare him. He might have got off by merely\nsaying, that it was not for him to judge; but he wished to argue. He\nwrote on the ground; and concluded, very prudently, that for one to\njudge it is necessary to be himself exempted from all sin. Then\naddressing himself to the doctors, \"let him among you who is without\nsin, cast the first stone at her.\" At these words they departed,\nshrugging their shoulders. Jesus remained alone with the adulteress,\nwhom the Jews would not have treated so tenderly if she had been really\nculpable. On this he said to her, \"Since no man hath accused thee,\nneither will I condemn thee: Go then, and sin no more.\"\n\nHaving happily escaped from this danger, Jesus thought himself in\nsafety; but, induced by his natural petulence, he again hazarded a\nsermon in the temple: he spoke only of himself; and what follows was\nnearly his strongest argument: \"You ask,\" said he, \"a full proof by two\nwitnesses. Now I bear witness of my Father, and my Father bears witness\nof me; you therefore ought to believe in me;\" which amounts to this; _my\nFather proves me, and I prove my Father_. The doctors, but little\nsurprised with this circuitous and erroneous reasoning, and with a view\nto come directly to the point, asked him, \"Who art thou?\" \"I am,\"\nreplied Jesus, \"from the beginning, and I have many things to say to\nyou; but I speak to the world those things only which I have heard of my\nFather.\" The audience were no doubt impatient at these ambiguous\nanswers: Jesus, who wished to increase their embarrassment, then added\nthat they would know him much better after they had put him to death.\n\nThe messiah did not omit to display great views in this conference: he\ninformed his hearers in dark language, that it would not perhaps be\nimpossible to shake off the Roman yoke. But either through fear, or that\nthey did not believe such a man in a condition to effect so great a\nrevolution, they affected not to comprehend him. Piqued at finding the\ndoctors and pharisees so dull and opiniative, he called them _children\nof the devil_; he affirmed that he was _older than Abraham_. In short,\nhe broke out in a manner so unreasonable that the people, declaring\nagainst him, were about to stone him. Jesus, perceiving his folly when\ntoo late, concealed himself until an opportunity offered to escape.\n\nFrom this time his miracles became more rare, and the zeal of the people\nsubsided. It was therefore necessary to rekindle it: Jesus accordingly\nperformed a miracle by curing a man born blind with a little earth\nmoistened with spittle. This man was a well known mendicant, whom they\ncould not suspect of any artifice. Yet they would no longer tolerate him\nafter he had received his sight; an incident which no doubt diminished\nthe alms he was in use to receive. But, perhaps, he was made a disciple.\nSome legends, indeed, assert, that after the death of Jesus he came into\nGaul, where he became a bishop or inspector; which at least presupposes\ngood organs of vision.\n\nThis prodigy coming to the knowledge of the Pharisees, the beggar\nunderwent an examination; he openly confessed that one called Jesus had\ncured him with a clay of his composition and some bathings in Siloam. On\nthis occasion, the bad humor of the pharisees went a little too far.\nThey made it a crime for the physician to have composed his ointment on\nthe Sabbath, and formed the project of excommunicating whoever should\ncountenance him.\n\nThis resolution made Jesus tremble. He knew the power of excommunication\namong the Jews; he found himself crossed in all his designs; and dared\nnot venture to preach in Jerusalem, or show himself in any other place.\nEvery thing, even his miracles, turned against him, and it was not\nwithout some difficulty that he had escaped from the capital. At a\nlittle distance he knew of an asylum in Bethany, where his friend\nLazarus possessed a house. He accordingly took the resolution of\nretiring thither; but though it was a large house, the party that\naccompanied him might have incommoded their host. This determined Jesus\nto send seventy of his disciples on a mission to Judea, to whom it\nappears he now gave very able powers; for on their return we find them\napplauding themselves, and overjoyed at the facility with which they\nexpelled the devils.\n\nScarcely had Jesus arrived at Bethany, when in order to receive him in a\nbecoming manner, they prepared a banquet. But the voluptuous Magdalane,\ncontent to devour with her eyes her dear Saviour, left Martha her sister\nto superintend the arrangements in the kitchen while she herself\ncontinued at his feet. Peevishness, and perhaps jealousy, got the better\nof Martha; she came and scolded Magdalane; but the tender messiah\nundertook the defence of his penitent, and asserted that she had chosen\nthe better part. Brother Lazarus, who came in unexpectedly, terminated\nthe squabble by ordering them to their work.\n\nThis little altercation was the cause why Jesus did not tarry long at\nBethany. When about leaving it, a pharisee through pure curiosity\ninvited him to dinner. The messiah accepted his invitation; but our\nunpolished Jew had not the civility to give his guest water to wash\nwith. This occasioned him a fine lecture on charity and filled with\nmarvellous comparisons, which, however, we shall omit, as our orator so\nfrequently conned over the same lesson, and as this dinner appears to be\na repetition of one we have already mentioned.\n\nFrom this period till the feast of the dedication of the temple, our\nhero wandered in the environs of Jerusalem with his disciples, whom he\nincessantly entertained with the grandeur of his aerial kingdom, and\nwhat it was necessary to do in order to enter it. It was, according to\nLuke, on this occasion, and according to Matthew in the sermon on the\nmount, that he taught the apostles, who could not read, a short prayer\ncalled since that time the Lord's prayer, which (injurious as it is to\nthe Divinity, whom it seems to accuse of leading us into temptation,)\nChristians still continue to repeat.\n\nMeanwhile time passed away without any advantage. The cessation of\nprodigies and preaching occasioned that of alms. Jesus again hazarded a\nsermon in a village; but although it attracted the admiration of the\npeople, it produced no effect. Towards the end of our hero's mission we\nsee the crowd no longer running after him. If he wished to perform a\nmiracle, he was under the necessity of calling those he wished to cure.\nFor eighteen years an old woman of this village had been quite bent. It\nwas, according to the language of the country, the devil who had kept\nher in this inconvenient posture. Jesus called her and exclaimed;\n\"Woman, thou art loosed from thine infirmity.\" The old woman made\nefforts to become straight; she approached the feet of the messiah with\nthe pace of a tortoise; he laid his hands on her and immediately she\nwalked upright like a girl of fifteen. At this time the devil spoke not\na word; on which it has been remarked, that Satan always followed the\nopinion of the spectators of the Saviour's miracles, and marvellously\ncoincided with them in acknowledging or rejecting him. This analogous\nconduct of the spectators and Satan was perhaps the result of the\nexcommunication fulminated against all who regarded Jesus as the\nmessiah.\n\nThe reputation of John Baptist still subsisted on the banks of the\nJordan. To excite the primitive zeal, or, perhaps, with an intention to\ninduce the disciples of John, who had borne him such flattering\ntestimony, to follow him, Jesus turned towards that quarter. But the\nattempt was fruitless: he succeeded no better in curing a dropsical\nperson that chanced to be in the house of a pharisee who gave the\nSaviour a dinner. His cures were admired, but he spoiled all by his\nextravagant arguments, so offensive were they to the greatest part of\nhis hearers. As a last resource, he endeavored to attach publicans,\nofficers, and such like disreputable persons to his party; but these\nwere only feeble props, and their familiarity made him lose the little\nesteem which others still entertained for him.\n\nThe sight of punishment has often occasioned the loss of courage even to\nthe most determined hero. Ours, agitated by a crowd of untoward events,\nimagined that nothing being dearer to men than life, and nothing more\ndifficult than to come back after leaving it, the people of Jerusalem,\nnotwithstanding the clamors of the priests, would declare in his favor\nif he could succeed in making them believe that he had the power of\nraising the dead. Lazarus the intimate friend of Jesus appeared to him\nthe fittest person for presenting to the public the spectacle of a dead\nman brought to life. When every thing was properly concerted, Jesus set\nout for Bethany. Learning this, Martha and Magdalane went to meet him,\nand publicly informed him that their brother was very sick. Jesus made\nthem no answer, but speaking loud so as to be heard, \"This sickness,\"\nsaid he, \"is not unto death, but for the glory of God.\" This was already\ntelling too much.\n\nInstead of going to Bethany, Jesus remained two days in the village\nwithout doing any thing; thereafter he told his apostles that it was\nnecessary to return into Judea. He was there at the time he spoke, but\nhe meant, no doubt, the capital. They represented that it would be a\nvery imprudent journey as the populace had recently wanted to stone him.\nWe see that Jesus said this on purpose to give room to his friends to\ninvite him not to neglect brother Lazarus in his sickness. Besides, the\nfollowing words evince that he had no intention of going to Jerusalem.\n\"Our friend Lazarus sleepeth; but I go that I may awake him out of\nsleep.\" On hearing this, the apostles thought Lazarus had recovered.\nJesus declared that he was dead, and that he was highly pleased with not\nhaving been present at his decease, as it would afford means to confirm\nthem in the faith.\n\nThe two days which Jesus passed in the village, joined to the time he\ntook in going about half a league, were immediately converted into four\ndays from the period he pretended Lazarus was dead. At last he arrived\nat the abode of the defunct, whom they had deposited in a vault\nadjoining to his house, and not, according to the custom of those days,\nin a sepulchre out of the city. After some questions put to Martha on\nher belief, he assured her that her brother would rise again. \"Yes,\"\nsaid she, \"but it will be at the last day.\" Here our Thaumaturge\naffected to be very sensibly touched; he trembled, he wept, invoked the\naid of heaven, advanced to the vault, made it be opened, called on\nLazarus with a loud voice, and commanded him to come forth. The dead\nman, though wrapped up in his grave clothes, arose and was unloosed\nbefore witnesses at the entrance of the vault.\n\nThis prodigy was conducted with very little dexterity. John, the only\nEvangelist who relates this striking miracle, in vain supports his\nrelation with the presence of the Jews: he destroys his own work by not\nmaking them come till after the death of Lazarus to console his sisters.\nIt was necessary that the Jews should have seen him die, dead, and\nembalmed; that they should have felt the smell of his corruption; and\nthat they should have conversed with him after his coming out of the\ntomb. Unbelievers have exhausted all the darts of criticism on this\nmiracle. To investigate it would be only repeating what they have said.\nThe Jews found in it such strong marks of knavery, that far from being\nconverted, they took more serious measures against Jesus, who having\nintimation of this, withdrew towards the desert to a city called\n_Ephrem_, where he abode with his disciples. In the mean time the cities\nand villages were ordered to refuse him an asylum, and the inhabitants\nto deliver him up to the magistrates. In fact this miracle occasioned a\ngeneral proscription of the messiah. On presenting himself at the gates\nof a town in Samaria, they at first refused to let him pass; he was not\npermitted to stop at Jericho, though he gave sight to a blind man, whom\nMatthew magnifies into two. Jesus returned to Bethany, where he was\nreceived, not by Lazarus, who had, perhaps, been obliged to save himself\non account of his being concerned in such an imposture; but, as Matthew\naffirms, by Simon the leper. Lazarus after his resurrection appeared no\nlonger on the stage.\n\nA legend, according to Baronius, affirms that Lazarus went afterwards to\npreach the faith to the Provencals, and was the first bishop of\nMarseilles. As for Magdalane, she went to bewail her sins and the death\nof her lover in a desart of Province, called _la Sainte Baume_ (the Holy\nBalm.) Martha, as every body knows, lies interred at Tarascon.\n\nThis rejection and desertion of Jesus threw the apostles into\nconsternation. To reanimate their confidence, Jesus caused a fig-tree to\ndie in twenty-four hours to punish it for not producing figs at a season\nwhen it was physically impossible for it to bear any; that is about the\nmonth of March. As all the actions of the messiah, even when they appear\nfoolish to ordinary men, have an important signification in the eyes of\ndevotees illuminated by faith, we ought to perceive in the miracle of\nthis fig-tree one of the fundamental dogmas of the Christian religion\nsymbolically represented. The fig-tree cursed is the mass of mankind,\nwhom, according to our theologists, the God of mercy curses, and\ncondemns to eternal flames, for having neither faith nor grace, which\nthey could not possibly acquire of themselves, and which God does not\nseem to have been willing to give them. Thus we find that the ridiculous\npassage of the fig-tree in the gospel, is intended to typify one of the\nmost profound dogmas of the Christian religion.\n\nWhilst Jesus in this manner instructed his apostles by figures and\ningenious parables, his enemies were laboring hard against him at\nJerusalem. It appears that the Sanhedrim was divided on his account.\nThey perhaps wished to punish him, but not to put him to death. All were\nof opinion that he should be arrested without noise, and that they\nshould afterwards consider on the punishment to be inflicted. The most\nfiery of the priests wished that he should be seized in the capital, and\nassassinated during the hurry of the festival. This shows they did not\nconsider themselves certain that the people would not interest\nthemselves in his behalf. Perhaps they had some reason: what a part of\nthe populace did in his favor when he approached Jerusalem, evinced that\nit would have been very dangerous to act openly. In pursuance of this\nplan, they secretly promised a reward to whoever should deliver up\nJesus; and we shall soon find one of his apostles betraying his master\nfor a very trifling sum.\n\nBefore entering Jerusalem, Jesus evidently caused his approach to be\nannounced by his friends in that city. His adherents labored to render\nhis entry into the capital somewhat brilliant. Affecting to display\nmodesty in the midst of his triumph, or unable to do better, Jesus chose\nfor his steed a young ass that had never been rode on, which his\ndisciples, by his order, had seized with its mother. In place of a\nsaddle, some of the disciples laid their clothes on the back of the ass.\nThe company advanced in good order. The people, ever fond of a\nspectacle, ran to see this; and we may believe that if some at this time\npaid sincere homage to the triumpher, the greatest number laughed at him\nand shouted at the ridiculous farce. The chief magistrate fearing an\nuproar, endeavored to quiet the populace, to whom the disciples had set\nthe example. He accordingly addressed Jesus himself, who answered that\n\"the stones would speak, rather than his friends would be silent.\" This\nseemed to insinuate an insurrection in case they should attempt force;\nand the magistrate understood very well that this was not the moment to\nprovoke Jesus.\n\nAs soon as the Messiah had entered Jerusalem, he betook himself to\nweeping and predicting its ruin. The announcing calamities was, and will\never be, a sure method to excite the attention of the vulgar. Some\npersons of consequence who knew not the cause of the riotous assemblies\nof the people around Jesus, on enquiry were answered, it is Jesus of\nNazareth--it is a prophet of Galilee. Mark assures us, that in this\ntransaction, decisive in behalf of the Son of God, Jesus once more gave\nto the people the pillage of the merchandise exposed to sale in the\ncourt before the porch of the temple. This is very credible: it was\nindeed more necessary at present than at the former period.\n\nProfitting by the tumult, Jesus cured a great many blind and lame\npeople. Whilst these wonders were performing on one side, they exclaimed\nHosannah on the other. Some besought the author of these exclamations\nand tumult to stop them; but the messiah had no longer measures to\nobserve, he perceived it was necessary to engage the popular enthusiasm,\nand that it would be silly to appease it. Besides, the uncertainty of\nsuccess had thrown him into distress, which hindered him from seeing or\nunderstanding any thing. A child, frightened, or too much pressed in the\ncrowd, began to cry while Jesus was speaking, \"Father, save me from this\nhour.\" They took the child's voice for a voice from heaven. John,\nmoreover, informs us, that the disciples had palmed on the people the\nfamous miracle of Lazarus' resurrection, which, attested by\neye-witnesses, must have made a great impression on the astonished\nvulgar. They did not entertain a doubt that the voice from heaven which\nthey had heard, was that of an angel who bore testimony to Jesus; and\nthe latter, profitting dexterously of the occasion, said to them, \"This\nvoice came not because of me, but for your sakes.\" He afterwards\nharangued the people, and announced himself as \"the Christ;\" but he\nspoiled his sermon by timid expressions, and not knowing how to draw\nfrom the circumstance all the advantage it seemed to promise, he left\nthe city and retired to Bethany, where he passed the night with his\ndisciples.\n\nIn general our hero was subject to low spirits:--we constantly find in\nhim a mixture of audacity and pusillanimity. Accustomed to operate in\nthe country, and among rude and ignorant people, he did not know how to\nconduct himself in a city, or to succeed among vigilant and intelligent\nenemies. Thus he lost the fruit of his memorable journey, which had been\nso long before projected. We do not indeed find that after this he\nreturned to Jerusalem, except to be tried. Melancholy and fear had\ndeprived him of all presence of mind, and his disciples were under the\nnecessity of reminding him that it was time to take the passover. They\nasked him where he wished them to go and prepare the entertainment: He\nbade them take the first house they met with, which they did. A chamber\nwas provided for them where they assembled with their master, who, ever\noccupied with his sorrowful thoughts, gave them to understand that this\npassover would likely be the last which he should celebrate. His\nlanguage was mournful; he bathed their feet in order to teach them that\nhumility was essentially necessary when they were weakest. Having\nafterwards set down to table, he told them that he was afraid of being\nbetrayed by one of themselves. His suspicions fell on Judas, whose\nfrequent visits to the houses of the priests might be known to his\nmaster. As Judas was treasurer to the party, and charged with paying for\nthe entertainment, Jesus wished it to be understood that they were then\nregaled at the expense of his life and his blood. \"Take,\" said he to\nthem in a figurative style, \"for this is my body.\" Thereafter he gave\nthem the cup, saying that it was \"his blood which was to be shed for\nthem.\" Judas readily comprehending the meaning of his enigma, arose from\ntable, and immediately withdrew: but the other apostles did not\nunderstand it.--It is, however, on this emblem that some doctors have\nsince built the famous dogma of _transubstantiation_: they enjoin\nrational beings to believe, that _at the word of a priest bread is\nchanged into the real body, and wine into the real blood of Jesus_! They\nhave taken the figurative words of our missionary literally, and have\nemployed them in forming a _mystery_, or rather the most curious juggle\nthat ever has been devised by priests in order to deceive mankind.\n\nAfter supper our guests retired with their master to the mount of\nOlives, where they thought themselves in safety; but our hero did not\nentertain the same opinion. Scarcely had the Man-God entered the garden\nof Olives when a mortal terror seized him; he wept like a child and\nanticipated the pangs of death. His apostles, more tranquil, yielded to\nsleep, and Jesus, who was afraid of being surprised, mildly reproached\nthem. \"Could you not,\" said he, \"watch with me one hour?\" Judas, whom we\nhave seen depart suddenly and who had not rejoined the party, gave\nextreme uneasiness to Jesus and every moment redoubled his terror. It is\naffirmed that an angel came to strengthen him in his situation: Yet he\nwas afterwards seized with a bloody sweat, which can only denote a very\ngreat weakness.\n\nThe agitated condition of the Saviour appears very surprising to persons\nin whose minds faith has not removed every difficulty the gospel\npresents. They are much astonished to find such weakness in a God who\nknew from all eternity that he was destined to die for the redemption of\nthe human race. They aver, that God his father, without exposing his son\nto such cruel torments, might by one word have pardoned guilty men, and\nconformed them to his views. They think that the conduct of God would\nhave been more generous in appeasing his wrath at less expense on\naccount of an apple eat four thousand years ago. But the ways of God are\nnot as those of men. The Deity ought never to act in a _natural_ way, or\nbe easily understood. It is the essence of religion that men should not\ncomprehend any part of the divine conduct. This furnishes to their\nspiritual guides the pleasure of explaining it to them for their money.\n\nOn the near approach of death the Man-God showed a weakness which many\nordinary men would blush to display in a similar situation. The traitor\nJudas, at the head of a company of archers or soldiers, proceeded\ntowards Jesus whose retreats he know. A kiss was the signal by which the\nguards were to recognise the person whom they had orders to seize.\nAlready Jesus beheld the lanthorns advancing which lighted the march of\nthese sbirri; and perceiving the impossibility of escaping, he made a\nvirtue of necessity. Like a coward become desperate, he resolutely\npresented himself to the party: \"_whom seek ye?_\" said he, with a firm\ntone:--\"Jesus,\" answered they. \"_I am he._\" Here Judas confirmed with a\nkiss this heroical confession. The apostles, awakened by the noise, came\nto the succour of their master. Peter, the most zealous among them, cut\noff with a stroke of his sabre the ear of Malchus, servant of the High\nPriest. Jesus, convinced of the folly of resistance, commanded him to\nput up his sword, set in order the ear of Malchus, (who escaped at the\nexpense of being frightened,) and then surrendered himself.\n\nIt is said that the party who came to apprehend Jesus, were forced at\nfirst to give way. The fact is very probable: it was dark, and the\narchers perceiving the apostles but very indistinctly, might believe\nthat their enemies were more numerous than they were; but plucking up\ncourage they fulfilled their commission. Whilst they bound the Son of\nGod with cords, he besought the chief of the detachment not to molest\nhis apostles, and as they wanted him only, he easily obtained his\nrequest. John believes that Jesus made this entreaty in order to fulfil\na prophecy; but it appears our hero thought it was neither useful nor\njust to involve men in his ruin, whose assistance might still be\nnecessary, or who, being at large, would have a better opportunity to\nact in his favor.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XV.\n\nTRIAL AND CONDEMNATION OF JESUS.--HIS PUNISHMENT AND DEATH.\n\n\nWhen the enemies of Jesus saw him in their hands, they were not less\nembarrassed than before. From the time the Romans had subdued the Jewish\nnation, they had no longer the power of the sword. To punish those who\nhad sinned against religion, it was sufficient at any former period,\nthat the high priest pronounced sentence on the culprit. The Romans,\nmore tolerant, rarely punished with death; and, besides, to take away\nlife, they required decisive proofs against the accused. Annanias,\nfather-in-law of the high priest Caiphas, was known among the Jews for a\nvery subtle man. It was to Annanias' house, therefore, that they first\nconducted Jesus. We are ignorant of what passed in this first scene of\nthe bloody tragedy. It is to be presumed, that the prisoner underwent an\nexamination which proved no way favorable to him.\n\nFrom the house of Annanias they conducted Jesus to that of Caiphas. He\nwas the man most interested by his office in the ruin of every innovator\nin matters of religion; yet we do not find this pontiff speaking with\nanger: he conducted himself according to law, and as a man who\nunderstood his profession. \"Who,\" said he to Jesus, \"are your disciples,\ntheir number and names?\" Jesus made no answer. \"But at least,\" continued\nCaiphas, \"explain to me your doctrine. What end does it propose? You\nmust have a system. Tell us then what it is.\" At last the messiah\ncondescended to say, \"I spoke openly to the world; it is not I, but\nthose who have heard me, that ought to be interrogated.\" Here one of the\nofficers of the high priest gave Jesus a blow on the ear, saying,\n\"Answerest thou the high priest so!\" The reprimand was harsh, but it\nmust be owned, that the answer of Jesus was disrespectful to a man\ninvested with authority, and with the right of putting questions, in\norder to discover the truth from the mouth of the accused. Jesus ought\nto have been better acquainted with his own doctrine than the peasants\nof Galilee or Judea, before whom he had through preference affected to\npreach in an unintelligible manner. It was therefore just and natural to\nsuppose, that Jesus could give a better account of his sentiments and\nparables, than an ignorant multitude who had listened without being able\nto comprehend him. He alone could be supposed to possess the secret of\nforming into a system the scattered and unconnected principles of his\nheavenly doctrine.\n\nCaiphas, unable to draw any thing from the accused, waited till next\nmorning, when the council would assemble in order to continue the\ninquest. Jesus appeared before the Sanhedrim, the most respectable\ntribunal in the nation. The gospel represents the priests and chiefs of\nthe Jews occupied during the whole night that Jesus was arrested, in\nsearching for and suborning _false witnesses_ against him. They produced\ntwo persons, on whom they very unjustly bestowed this epithet. These\nwitnesses deposed to a fact verified by the gospel itself.--\"We heard\nhim say that he would destroy the temple, and rebuild it in three days.\"\nIt is certain that Jesus had uttered these words, \"Destroy this temple,\nand in three days I will raise it up.\" But the poor witnesses knew not\nthat he then spoke in his figurative style. Their mistake was\npardonable, for, according to the gospel, the apostles themselves did\nnot discover the true sense of these words till after the resurrection\nof their master.\n\nThis evidence was not sufficient to condemn Jesus. The Jews, however\niniquitous we may suppose them to have been, did not sentence fools to\ndie; and these words of their prisoner must have appeared to them the\neffect of delirium. Accordingly the high priest contented himself with\nasking what he had to answer? and as the accused refused to speak, he\ndid not further insist on that point. He proceeded to questions more\nserious: \"Are you the Christ?\" said he to Jesus. How did the messiah\nanswer this question? \"If I tell it, you will not believe me, nor suffer\nme to depart. But hereafter the Son of man shall sit on the right hand\nof God.\" \"You are then the Son of God?\" continued the priest.--\"You have\nsaid it,\" replied the accused. \"But it is not sufficient that we should\nsay it; it is you who are to answer: once more, are you the Christ? I\nconjure you by the living God tell us if you are his Son?\"--\"You have\nsaid it,\" answered Jesus: \"the Son of man shall one day come in the\nclouds of heaven.\" Notwithstanding these perplexing answers, the judges\nimagined they understood the meaning of his words: they plainly\nperceived that he wished to give himself out for _the Son of God_. \"He\nhath spoken blasphemy,\" said they; and immediately concluded that he\ndeserved death--a judgment which was valid according to the law of the\nJews, and which must also appear so to Christians whose sanguinary laws\npunish capitally those whom the clergy accuse of blasphemy. They have,\ntherefore, no right to blame the conduct of the Jews, so often imitated\nby ecclesiastical and secular tribunals.\n\nOn the other hand, if it was necessary that Jesus should die; if he\nwished it; if the reprobation of the Jews was resolved on, he acted very\nproperly in keeping them in error. But if this was the intention of\nprovidence, why preach to them? Why perform miracles before a whole\npeople whilst a small number were only to profit by it? Did Jesus wish\nto save them? In that case why not convince the whole Sanhedrim of his\npower? Why did he not burst his bonds? Why did he not by a single word\nchange their obstinate hearts? Did he wish to destroy them? Why not then\nstrike them dead? Why not instantly precipitate them into hell?\n\nThe judges could not comprehend why the accused, who could not extricate\nhimself from their hands, could be the Son of God. They accordingly\ndeclared him worthy of death; but not definitely, as it was requisite\nthat the sentence should be approved of and executed by the Romans,\nsovereigns of the nation. During these transactions, Jesus was treated\nin the cruelest manner by the Jews, whom, as well as Christians, their\nzeal permitted, or rather enjoined, to be savage.\n\nIt is during this night, and the morning of the following day, so fatal\nto the Saviour of the world, that we must place the three denials of\nPeter, the chief of the apostles. His master had prayed for him. His\ncomrades, seized with dismay, had dispersed themselves in Jerusalem and\nits neighborhood. Several among them would have acted like Peter if they\nhad found themselves in a similar situation. He had at least the merit\nof keeping near his master; he abjured him, it is true; but would it\nhave been of more avail if, by acknowledging him openly, he should have\nentangled himself in a very awkward affair, without being able to\nrelieve the Saviour.\n\nThe Sanhedrim repaired to the palace of Pilate the Roman governor, in\norder to get the sentence confirmed. Jesus was conducted thither. Pilate\ninstantly perceived that it was an affair in which fanaticism and folly\nhad the greatest share. Filled with contempt for so ridiculous a motive,\nhe was at first unwilling to interfere. _Judge him yourselves_, said he\nto the magistrates. On this the latter became false witnesses. Zeal, no\ndoubt, made them imagine that every thing was allowable against an enemy\nof religion. They interested the sovereign power in their quarrel--They\naccused Jesus of wishing \"to make himself king of the Jews,\" and of\nhaving maintained, that \"they ought not to pay tribute to Casar.\" We\nrecognize here the genius of the clergy, who, to ruin their enemies, are\nnever very fastidious in the choice of means. They especially strive to\nrender the latter suspected by the temporal power, in order to engage\nit, through motives of self-interest, to satiate their revenge.\n\nPilate could not avoid paying attention to accusations of so serious a\nnature. Unable to persuade himself that the man he beheld could have\nconceived projects so ridiculous, he interrogated him:--\"Are you the\nking of the Jews?\" On which Jesus demanded of Pilate--\"Say you this of\nyourself, or have others told it you?\"--\"Of what consequence is it to\nme,\" returned Pilate, \"that you pretend to be the king of the Jews? You\ndo not appear a man much to be dreaded by the Emperor my master--I am\nnot of your nation; I concern myself very little with your silly\nquarrels. Your priests are your accusers--I have my own opinion of\nthem--but they accuse you; they deliver you into my hands--Tell me then,\nwhat have you done?\" Jesus might very easily have got off; but in his\ndistress his judgment failed; and, far from penetrating the favorable\ndisposition of Pilate, who wished to save him, he replied, \"that his\nkingdom was not of this world--that he was the truth,\" &c. On this the\nGovernor asked him \"What is the truth?\" But the Saviour made no reply,\nthough the question well deserved a categorical answer.\n\nPilate, a little alarmed on account of Jesus, declared, that he \"found\nnothing in him worthy of death.\" But this redoubled the cries of his\nenemies. Having learned that the accused was a Galilean, he, to get quit\nof the ridiculous business, seized the opportunity to send him to Herod,\nto whose tetrarchate Jesus originally belonged. We have said elsewhere,\nthat this prince had desired to see our hero, and his desire was now\ngratified. But on perceiving his obstinacy and constant refusal to\nanswer the questions put to him, he conceived a sovereign contempt for\nhim. To Pilate therefore he sent him back clothed in a white robe by way\nof derision. The governor, however, saw no capital crime in Jesus, and\nwished to save him; besides, his superstitious wife had a dream, that\ninterested her in favor of our missionary. Pilate then said to the Jews,\nthat he could find nothing in the man which rendered him worthy of\ndeath. But the people misled, and wishing him to be crucified, cried out\n_Tolle, Tolle_; away, away with him. The Governor now devised another\nplan to save him. \"I release,\" said he, \"every year a criminal;\nsupposing that Jesus may be culpable, I am going to set him free.\" The\ncries were redoubled, and the Jews demanded, that a robber called\nBarabbas should profit of this mercy in preference to Jesus, whose\npunishment they persisted to urge.\n\nThe Romans, desirous to calm the rage of a fanatical people, caused\nJesus to be whipped; dressed him in a ridiculous manner, crowned him\nwith thorns, and made him hold a reed instead of a sceptre. Thus\ndecorated, Pilate showed him to the people, saying, \"Behold your king!\nare you not yet satisfied? See how to please you I have bedecked him. Be\nthen less cruel: do not carry your indignation further; he ought no\nlonger to give you umbrage.\"\n\nThe priests, whose maxim it is \"never to forgive,\" were not moved by\nthis spectacle; nothing short of the death of their enemy could satisfy\nthem. They changed their ground, and, to intimidate the governor, told\nhim that by suffering the accused to live he betrayed the interests of\nhis master. It was then that Pilate, fearing the effects of the malice\nof the clergy, consigned Jesus to the Jews, that they might satiate\ntheir rage on him; declaring, however, that \"he washed his hands of it,\"\nand that it was against his opinion if they put him to death. We cannot\nwell conceive how a Roman governor, who exercised sovereign power in\nJudea, could yield so easily to the wishes of the Jews: but we cannot\nmore easily conceive how God permitted this honest governor to become an\naccomplice in the death of his dear Son.\n\nJesus, abandoned to the rage of devotees, again suffered the cruellest\ntreatment. Pilate, to humble those barbarians, wished the label affixed\nto the upper part of the cross to bear, that he was their king; and\nnothing could induce him to recede from this resolution. \"What is\nwritten is written,\" said he to those who requested him to alter an\ninscription dishonorable to their nation. It is also proper to observe,\nthat this inscription is differently expressed by the four evangelists.\n\nThe Jews treated Jesus as a dethroned king, and made him experience the\nmost bloody outrages. Though he had said that he could make _legions of\nangels_ come to his protection, yet the Jews, notwithstanding their\nnatural credulity, paid no credit to his assertion, and nothing could\nstop their religious cruelty, excited by the priests. They made him take\nthe road to Calvary. He sunk under the weight of his cross, but they\nloaded Simon with it, who was more vigorous. The unfortunate Jesus must\nhave been indeed much enfeebled by what he had suffered during both the\nnight and the morning. At last he was placed on the cross, the usual\npunishment of slaves. He did not suffer long under the agonies of\ncrucifixion: after invoking his Father, and lamenting his being so\nshamefully abandoned, he expired, it is said, between two thieves. It is\nsaid that Jesus when dying exclaimed, \"_Eli! Eli! lamma sabbactani!_\"\n(My God! my God! why hast thou forsaken me!) This complaint was very\nridiculous in the mouth of Jesus, if, as is pretended, the part he acted\nwas agreed on with his father from all eternity. Matthew and Mark tells\nus, that _both_ the thieves insulted him with abusive language; while\nLuke assures us, that _one_ only of the two abused the Saviour, and that\nthe other reprimanded his comrade for his insolence, and besought Jesus\n\"to remember him when he should come to his kingdom.\" But our\ninterpreters have a thousand ways of proving that the Holy Spirit never\ncontradicts himself, even when he speaks in the most contradictory\nmanner. Those who have faith are satisfied with their arguments, but\nthey do not so powerfully impress freethinkers, who have the misfortune\nto reason.\n\nThe remorse of Judas soon revenged Jesus on this traitor. He restored to\nthe priests the thirty pieces he had received from them, and went\nforthwith to _hang_ himself. This is what Matthew says, in opposition to\nthe writer of the Acts of the Apostles, (Luke) who tells us, that Judas\n\"purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong he\nburst asunder in the midst.\" Mark and John are silent respecting this\nmemorable event. According to Matthew, the selling of Jesus for thirty\npieces had been foretold by Jeremiah. The prediction, however, does not\nappear in the writings of this prophet, which would create a suspicion\nthat the evangelists, little satisfied with applying to Jesus some\nprophecies, such as are extant in the Old Testament, have drawn from\ntheir own store, or forged them when in need. But our able interpreters\nare not at all embarrassed with this; and a holy blindness will always\nprevent these trifles from being perceived.\n\nThe gospel informs us, that at the death of Jesus all Nature seemed to\ntake part in the grand event. At the moment he expired there was a total\neclipse; a frightful shaking of the earth was felt, and several holy\npersonages came out of their tombs to take a walk on the streets of\nJerusalem. The Jews alone had the misfortune to see nothing of all this;\nit appears, that these wonders were performed only in the fancy of the\ndisciples of Jesus. As for the eclipse, it was, doubtless, an\ninconceivable prodigy which could not have taken place without a total\nderangement in the machine of the world. A total eclipse of the sun\nduring full moon, the time at which the celebration of the passover was\nfixed by the Jews, is of all miracles the most impossible. No\ncontemporary author has mentioned it, though this phenomenon well\nmerited to be transmitted to posterity. The incredulous therefore\nmaintain, that there was no other eclipse on this occasion but of the\ncommon sense of those who saw all these marvels, or of the good faith of\nthe writers who have attested them. With respect to the shaking of the\nearth, they suspect that the apostles of Jesus, agitated with fear at\nthe sight of their divine master's fate, were the only persons who felt\nit. In this way indeed the thing becomes very probable. If the\npunishment of Jesus is proved by the gospel, some circumstances may\ncreate a doubt whether he died immediately. We are told, that they did\nnot, according to custom, break his legs. His friends had the liberty of\ntaking away his body, and they might dress his wounds on finding that he\nwas not dead, and in this manner bring him back to life, at least for\nsome time.\n\nWhen Jesus was dead, or believed to be so after an incision had been\nmade in his side, from which came blood and a whitish fluid, which they\ntook for water, his body was embalmed and deposited in a new tomb. This\nwas done on Friday evening. He had several times intimated that he would\nrise again the third day; that is, at the end of three days and three\nnights. Yet on the Sunday following, early in the morning, the tomb\nwherein he had been laid was found empty. The Jews, always opiniative,\ndid not admit that he was risen again. They held it more natural to\nbelieve that he had failed in his word; or to suppose that his disciples\nhad carried him off. This could easily have been executed by force; by\nbribing the guards, whom the priests and Pharisees had placed around his\nsepulchre; or by cunning. As Pilate felt but little interest in the\nmatter, he appears not to have punished the guards for neglecting to\ntake care of what he had confided to them. The idolatrous governor,\nlittle acquainted with the resources or designs of the apostles, never\nsuspected they could persuade any person, that a man, whose death was\nwell attested, could return to life. It is not surprising that a Pagan\nshould doubt the resurrection of Jesus; from the first day of the\nchurch, several Christians have not believed it, perceiving the\nincongruity of supposing that the Son of God could die. They have\ntherefore denied the death of their divine master. The followers of\nBasilides affirmed that Jesus at the time of his passion assumed the\nappearance of Simon the Cyrenean, and transferred to him his own, under\nwhich the said Simon was crucified in his stead, while Jesus, who beheld\nthis without being himself seen, laughed at their mistake. The\nCerinthians, or disciples of Cerinthus, who was contemporary with the\napostles; and the Carpocratians likewise denied that Jesus could have\nbeen actually crucified. Some have maintained, that the traitor Judas\nwas punished in place of his master. These sectaries regarded Jesus as a\nmere man, and not as a god. Thus we find Christians contemporary with\nthe apostles believing in Jesus and yet doubting his death. It was,\nhowever, on this marvellous notion, as we shall see, that a sect was\nafterwards founded, powerful enough to subject by degrees the Roman\nempire and a considerable portion of the globe.\n\nThe punishment of our hero must have produced very little sensation in\nthe world, and his adventures must have been strangely unknown, since we\ndo not find that any historian, with the exception of the evangelists,\nmakes mention of them. In the year 1263, a conference was held in\npresence of Don Jaques king of Arragon, and the queen his wife, between\nthe Rabbin Zechial, and the Dominician, Friar Paul, called Cyraic. This\nconference is very memorable. The two champions were well versed in the\nHebrew and in antiquity. The _Talmud_, the _Targum_, the archives of the\nSanhedrim were on the table. The contested passages were explained into\nSpanish. Zechiel maintained, that Jesus had been condemned under the\nking Alexander Jannaeus, (and not under Herod the Tetrarch,) agreeably\nto what is related in the _Toldos Jaschut_, and in the _Talmud_. \"Your\ngospels,\" said he, \"were not written till towards the beginning of your\nsecond century, and are not authentic like our _Talmud_. We could not\ncrucify him you speak of in the time of Herod the Tetrarch, since we had\nnot the power of life and death in our hands. We could not have\ncrucified him, because that manner of punishment was not in use among\nus. Our _Talmud_ has it, that he who perished in the time of Jannaeus\nwas condemned to be _stoned_ to death. We can no more believe your\ngospels than those pretended _Letters of Pilate_, which you have\nforged.\"--_Letters on Eminent Writers_, p. 123. The illustrious and\nprofound _Freret_, perpetual Secretary to the Academy of Belles Lettres\nat Paris, had no hesitation in avowing, that, after the closest\ninvestigation he was clearly of opinion, the account given in the\n_Talmud_ respecting Jesus, was the correct one. This opinion he\nsupported by showing, that the gospels were not written till upwards of\n40 years after the period fixed for the death of Jesus; that they were\ncomposed in foreign languages, at places distant from Jerusalem, which\nwere full of the disciples of John, called Therapeutae; of Judaites, and\nof Galileans, all of whom had their gospels differing from each other,\nwhich they insisted were genuine; that the four gospels now held\ncanonical, were the last written; that there is incontestible proof of\nthis fact arising from the circumstance, that the first fathers of the\nchurch often quote passages which are to be found only in the gospel of\nthe Egyptians or in that of St. James; and that Justin is the first who\nexpressly quoted the received gospels. Justin was not born till a\ncentury after the commencement of our vulgar era.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XVI.\n\nRESURRECTION OF JESUS--HIS CONDUCT UNTIL HIS ASCENSION--EXAMINATION OF\nTHE PROOFS OF THE RESURRECTION.\n\n\nThe history of the life of an ordinary man terminates commonly, with his\ndeath; but it is different with a Man-God who has the power of raising\nhimself from the dead, or whom his adherents have the faculty of making\nrise at will. This happened to Jesus: thanks to his apostles or\nevangelists, we see him still playing a considerable part even after his\ndecease. The moment he was arrested, the disciples of Jesus, as we have\nseen, dispersed themselves into Jerusalem and the neighborhood, with the\nexception or Simon Peter, who did not lose sight of him during his\nexamination at the house of the high priest. This apostle was anxious,\nfor his own sake, to know the result of it. Encouraging themselves on\nfinding that Jesus had not criminated them in his examinations, the\ndisciples reassembled, concerted measures, and determined, as their\nmaster was dead, or reputed so, to take advantage of the notions which\nhe had diffused during his mission. Accustomed for so long a period to\nlead a wandering life under his command, and subsist at the expence of\nthe public by preaching, exorcisms, and miracles, they resolved to\ncontinue a profession more easily exercised, and incomparably more\nlucrative than their original occupations. They had enjoyed an\nopportunity of observing that it was better to catch men than fish. But\nhow could the disciples of a man who was punished as an impostor, make\nthemselves be listened to? It was necessary to give out that their\nmaster during his life having raised others from the dead, had, after\nhis own death, raised himself in virtue of his omnipotence. Jesus had\npredicted it; it was therefore necessary to accomplish the prediction.\nThe honor of the master and his disciples thereby acquired a new lustre;\nand the sect, far from seeing itself annihilated or disgraced, was\nenabled to acquire new partizans in this credulous nation.\n\nIn consequence of this reasoning, the apostles had only to make the body\nof their master, dead or alive, to disappear; whereas if it had remained\nin the tomb, it would have borne evidence against them. They did not\neven wait till the three days and three nights in the pretended prophecy\nwere expired. The dead body disappeared on the second day; and thus the\nsecond day after his decease, our hero, triumphing over hell and the\ngrave, found himself revivified.\n\nIf Jesus did not die of his punishment, his resurrection had nothing\nsurprising in it. If he was actually dead, the cave where his body was\ndeposited, might have secret passages, through which they could enter\nand return without being observed, or stopt by the enormous stone with\nwhich they had affected to block up its entrance, and near which the\nguards had been placed. Thus the dead body might have been carried off\neither by force or by stratagem; and, perhaps, it had never been\ndeposited in the tomb at all. In whatever manner the affair was\ntransacted, a report was circulated that Jesus was risen and his body\nnot to be found.\n\nNothing is of more importance to a Christian, than to ascertain\nsatisfactorily the resurrection of Jesus. Paul tells us, that \"if Jesus\nbe not risen, our hope is vain.\" Indeed without this miracle of\nOmnipotence, intended to manifest the superiority of Jesus over other\nmen, and the interest Deity took in his success, he must appear only as\nan adventurer, or weak fanatic, punished for having given umbrage to the\npriests of his country. It is therefore requisite to examine seriously a\nfact on which alone the belief of every Christian is founded. In doing\nthis it is necessary to satisfy ourselves of the quality of the\nwitnesses who attest the fact; whether they were acute, disinterested,\nintelligent persons; and if they agree in their narratives. These\nprecautions are the more necessary, when it is intended to examine\n_supernatural_ facts, which, to be believed, require much stronger\nproofs than ordinary facts. On the unanimous testimony of some\nhistorians, we readily believe that Casar made himself master of Gaul.\nThe circumstances of his conquest would be less established were we to\nfind them related by himself only, or his adherents; but they would\nappear incredible, if we found in them prodigies or facts contrary to\nthe order of nature. We should then have reason to believe that it was\nintended to impose on us; or, if we judged more favorably of the\nauthors, we would regard them as enthusiasts and fools.\n\nAgreeably to these principles of sound criticism, let us consider who\nare the witnesses that attest the marvellous, and, consequently, the\nleast probable fact which history can produce. They are apostles--But\nwho are these apostles? they are adherents of Jesus. Were these apostles\n_enlightened_ men? Every thing proves that they were ignorant and rude,\nand that an indefatigable credulity was the most prominent trait in\ntheir character. Did they behold Jesus rising from the dead?--No:--no\none beheld this great miracle. The apostles themselves did not see their\nmaster coming out of the grave; they merely found that his tomb was\nempty; which by no means proves that he had risen. It will, however, be\nsaid, that the apostles saw him afterwards and conversed with him, and\nthat he showed himself to some women who knew him very well. But these\napostles and these women, did they see distinctly? Did not their\nprepossessed imaginations make them see what did not exist? Is it\nabsolutely certain that their master was dead before they laid him in\nthe tomb?\n\nIn the _second_ place, were these witnesses _disinterested_? The\napostles and disciples of Jesus were, doubtless interested in the glory\nof their master. Their interests were closely connected with those of a\nman who enabled them to subsist without toil. Several among them\nexpected to be recompensed for their attachment, by the favors which he\npromised to bestow on them in the kingdom he was about to establish.\nFinding these hopes destroyed by the death, real or supposed, of their\nchief, most of the apostles, persuaded that all was over, lost courage;\nbut, others, less daunted, conceived that it was not necessary to give\nup all hope, but that they might still profit by the impressions which\nthe preaching and wonders of Jesus had made on the people. They believed\nthat their master might again return, or, if they supposed him dead,\nthey could assert that he had foretold he would rise again. They\ntherefore agreed to circulate the report of his resurrection, and to say\nthat they had seen him after he had triumphantly come out of the tomb.\nThis would appear very credible in the case of a personage who had\nproved himself capable of raising others from the dead. Knowing the\nimbecility of those they had to deal with, they presumed that the people\nwere prepared long beforehand to believe the marvellous wonder which\nthey intended to announce. They conceived that it was necessary in order\nto subsist, to continue preaching doctrines which would not attract an\naudience if it had not been taken for granted that their author was\nrisen again. They felt that it was necessary to preach the resurrection\nof Jesus, or perish with hunger. They foresaw, moreover, that it was\nrequisite to brave chastisement and even death, rather than renounce an\nopinion on which their daily subsistence and welfare absolutely\ndepended. Hence unbelievers conclude, that the witnesses of the\nresurrection were any thing but disinterested, and were spurred on by\nthe principle, that _he who risks nothing, gains nothing_.\n\nIn the _third_ place, are the witnesses of the resurrection unanimous in\ntheir evidence? Much more, are they consistent with themselves in their\nnarratives? We find neither the one nor the other. Though Jesus,\naccording to some of the evangelists, had foretold in the most positive\nmanner, that he would rise again, John makes no mention of this\nprediction, but expressly declares, that the disciples of Jesus knew not\nthat he must rise again from the dead. This denotes in them a total\nignorance of that great event, said, however, to have been announced by\ntheir master; and creates a suspicion that these predictions were\npiously invented afterwards. Yet nothing can be more positive than the\nmanner in which Matthew speaks of the prediction: he supposes it so well\nknown to the public, that he affirms the priests and pharisees went to\nPilate and told him, \"We remember this deceiver said while he was yet\nalive, that after three days he would rise again.\" We do not, however,\nfind in any of the evangelists a passage where this resurrection is\nforetold in so public and decided a manner. Matthew himself relates only\nthe answer of Jesus to those who demanded a sign; it consisted, as we\nhave elsewhere remarked, in referring them to \"Jonas, who was three days\nand three nights in the belly of the whale; so,\" said he, \"shall the Son\nof man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.\" Now\nJesus, having died on Friday, at the ninth hour, or three o'clock in the\nafternoon, and risen again the second day early in the morning, was not\n\"three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.\" Besides, the\nobscure manner in which Jesus expressed himself in this pretended\nprediction, could not enable the priests and pharisees to conclude that\nhe must die and rise again, or excite their alarm; unless it is\npretended, that on this occasion these enemies of Jesus received the\ninterpretation of the mysterious prediction by a particular revelation.\n\nJohn tells us, that when Jesus was taken down from the cross by Joseph\nof Arimathea, Nicodemus brought a mixture of aloes and myrrh, weighing\nabout a hundred pounds, to embalm him, and that he afterwards took the\nbody, wrapped it in a clean linen cloth, applied the spices according to\nthe practice of the Jews in their funeral ceremonies, and laid it in the\ntomb. Thus was Jesus embalmed, carried away, and buried. On the other\nhand, Matthew and Luke tell us that this sepulchre and embalming were\nperformed in presence of Mary Magdalane and Mary the mother of Jesus,\nwho consequently must have known what Nicodemus had done; yet Mark,\nforgetting all this, tells us that these same women brought sweet spices\n(aromatics) in order to embalm his body, and came for that purpose early\nin the morning of the day subsequent to the Sabbath. Luke has no better\nmemory: he informs us that these ladies came also to embalm a dead body,\nwhich, according to John, had already received a hundred pounds weight\nof aromatics, and was inclosed in a sepulchre, the entrance of which was\nblocked up by a massy stone that embarrassed the women as much at\nfinding it as the incredulous are with these contradictions of our\nevangelists.\n\nThe ladies, however, who felt interrupted by the stone, had no dread of\nthe guard which Matthew placed at the entrance of the tomb. But if these\nwomen knew that Jesus was to rise again at the end of three days, why\nwere they so careful in embalming his body?--unless indeed we suppose\nthat Jesus made a secret to his mother and the tender Magdalane, of an\nevent, which, it is asserted, was publicly predicted, and perfectly well\nknown not only to his disciples, but to the priests and pharisees.\nAccording to Matthew, the precautions used were founded on the fear the\npriests entertained that the disciples should come and carry away the\nbody, and afterwards say unto the people, that Jesus had risen from the\ndead; an error, which, in their opinion, would be more dangerous than\nthe first. Nevertheless, we find several women and disciples continually\nroaming about the tomb, going and coming freely, and offering to embalm\nthe same dead body twice. It must be acknowledged, that all this\nsurpasses human understanding.\n\nIt is not more easy to conceive the conduct of the guards placed near\nthe tomb at the solicitation of the priests, or that of the priests\nthemselves. According to Matthew, these guards, terrified at the\nresurrection of Jesus, ran to Jerusalem to tell the priests, \"that the\nangel of the Lord had descended from heaven, and taken away the stone\nwhich blocked up the tomb; and that at the sight of him they had nearly\nexpired through fear.\" On this the priests, not at all doubting the\ntruth of the relation of the guards, enjoined them to say publicly that\nthe disciples of Jesus had carried away his body during the night, and\nwhile they were asleep. They also gave the soldiers money to speak in\nthis manner, and promised to pacify the governor if he intended to\npunish them for their negligence.\n\nThe guards, it will be observed, did not say they had seen Jesus rise;\nthey pretended merely to have seen \"the angel of the Lord descending\nfrom heaven, and rolling away the stone which was at the entrance of the\ntomb.\" Thus this history announces _an apparition_ only, and not _a\nresurrection_. We might explain it in a manner natural enough by\nsupposing that during the night, while the guards were asleep, the\nadherents of Jesus came by the light of flambeaus, with an armed force\nto open the tomb and intimidate the soldiers, who, in the alarm imagined\nthey had seen their prey taken out of their hands by a supernatural\npower; and that they afterwards affirmed all this in order to justify\nthemselves.\n\nThe most singular circumstance is the conduct of the priests, who\nbelieved the story of the guards, and consequently gave credit to a\nmiracle strong enough to convince them of the power of Jesus. But far\nfrom being convinced by the prodigy which they thus believed, they gave\nmoney to the soldiers to engage them to tell, not the incident as it\noccurred, but that the disciples of Jesus came by night to take away the\nbody of their master. On the other hand, the guards, who must have been\nmore dead than alive through terror at the spectacle they had witnessed,\naccepted money for publishing a falsehood; a conduct for which the angel\nof the Lord might very properly have punished them. Far, however, from\ndreading punishment, these soldiers for a sum of money consented to\nbetray their consciences. But could the Jewish priests, however base we\nmay suppose them, be silly enough to imagine that these men, after\nhaving witnessed so striking a miracle, would be very faithful in\npreserving the secret? It must have been an insignificant miracle indeed\nwhich could make no impression either on the soldiers who had seen it,\nor on the priests who believed it on the relation of these soldiers. If\nthe priests were convinced of the reality of the miracle, was it not\nnatural that they should recognize Jesus for the messiah, and that they\nshould unite with him in laboring to deliver their country from the yoke\nof idolaters?\n\nOn this occasion, indeed, the angel of the Lord seems to have bungled\nthe affair, by so terrifying the soldiers that they fled without having\ntime to see Jesus rising from the dead; whose resurrection, however, was\nthe object of all this pompous preparation. Very far from allowing it to\nbe seen by any one, this awkward angel chased away the guards who ought\nto have been the witnesses of the mighty wonder. It appears, in fact,\nthat the transaction or Jesus' resurrection was seen by nobody. His\ndisciples did not see it; the soldiers, who guarded his tomb, did not\nsee it; and the priests and Jews did not hold this fact to be so\nmemorable as some persons who beheld no part of it. It was only after\nhis resurrection that Jesus showed himself. But to whom did he show\nhimself? To disciples, interested in saying that he was risen again; to\nwomen, who to the same interest joined also weak minds and ardent\nimaginations, disposed to form phantoms and chimeras.\n\nThese remarks will enable us to judge of all the pretended appearances\nof Jesus after his resurrection. Besides, the evangelists are not\nunanimous as to these appearances. Matthew relates, that Jesus showed\nhimself to Mary Magdalane and the other Mary; John makes mention of Mary\nMagdalane singly. Matthew tells us, that Jesus showed himself to the two\nMarys on the road whilst returning from the sepulchre on purpose to\napprize the disciples of what they had seen. John informs us, that Mary\nMagdalane, after visiting the sepulchre, carried the news to the\ndisciples, and thereafter returned to this same sepulchre, where she\nbeheld Jesus in the company of angels. Matthew affirms, that the two\nMarys embraced the feet of Jesus. John says, Jesus forbade Mary\nMagdalane to touch him. Matthew informs us, that Jesus bade the two\nMarys tell his disciples _that he was going into Galilee_. John says,\nJesus ordered Mary to acquaint his disciples, _that he was going to his\nFather_; that is, to heaven. But it is more singular still, that,\naccording to Mark, the disciples themselves were not inclined to credit\nthe apparition of Jesus to Magdalane. Agreeably to Luke, they treated\nall that she told them of angels, as reveries. According to John,\nMagdalane herself did not at first believe that she had seen her\nadorable lover, whom she took for the gardener.\n\nThere is no greater certainty in the apparition of Jesus to Peter and\nJohn. These two apostles went to the sepulchre, but they did not find\ntheir dear master. According to John, he himself saw neither Jesus nor\nhis angels. From Luke it appears, that these apostles arrived _after_\nthe angels were gone; and from John, _before_ the angels had arrived.\nThe witnesses are, indeed, very little unanimous as to these angels, who\nseem to have been seen only by the good ladies, whom they charged to\nannounce to the disciples the resurrection of Jesus. Matthew makes\nmention of _one angel_ only, whom Mark calls _a young man_.\n\nJohn affirms that there were _two_.\n\nIt is said that Jesus showed himself again to two disciples of Emaus,\ncalled _Simon_ and _Cleophas_; but they did not recognize him, though\nthey had lived familiarly with him. They proceeded a long while in his\ncompany without suspecting who he was--a circumstance which,\nundoubtedly, evinced a very strange failure of memory. It is true, Luke\ntells us that their _eyes were as if shut_. Is it not very singular that\nJesus should show himself in order not to be known again? They, however,\nrecognized him afterwards; but immediately dreading, as it would seem,\nto be seen too nearly, the phantom disappeared. The two disciples went\nimmediately and announced the news to their brethren assembled at\nJerusalem, where Jesus arrived fully as soon as they.\n\nMatthew, Mark, and Luke, agree in telling us, that when the disciples\nwere informed of the resurrection of Jesus, they saw him for the first\nand last time. But the author of the Acts of the Apostles, John and Paul\ncontradict this assertion, for they speak of several other appearances\nwhich afterwards occurred. Matthew and Mark inform us, that the\ndisciples received orders to go and join Jesus _in Galilee_; but Luke\nand the author of the Acts (i.e. the same Luke) says, that the disciples\nwere ordered _not to go out of Jerusalem_. As to this last apparition,\nMatthew places it on a _mountain in Galilee_, where Jesus had fixed the\nrendezvous for the evening of the day of his resurrection; whilst Luke\ninforms us that it was at Jerusalem, and tells us that immediately\nthereafter Jesus ascended into heaven, and disappeared forever. Yet the\nauthor of the Acts of the Apostles is not of this opinion: he maintains,\n_against himself_, that Jesus tarried still forty days with his\ndisciples in order to instruct them.\n\nThere still remain to be considered two appearances of Jesus to his\napostles, the one at which Thomas was not present, and refused to\nbelieve those who assured him of their having seen their master, and the\nother when Thomas recognized his master, who shewed him his wounds. To\nrender one of these apparitions more marvellous, they assure us that\nJesus was seen in the midst of his disciples whilst the doors were shut.\nBut this will not appear surprizing to those who know that Jesus after\nhis resurrection, had an immaterial or incorporeal body, which could\nmake itself a passage through the smallest orifices. His disciples took\nhim for a _spirit_: yet this _spirit_ had wounds, was palpable, and took\nfood. But, perhaps, all this was only chimerical, and those apparitions\nmere illusions. Indeed, how could the apostles be assured of the reality\nof what they saw? A being who has the power of changing the course of\nnature, can destroy all the rules by which we judge of certainty: how\nthen could they ever be certain of having seen Jesus after his\nresurrection?\n\nJohn speaks of several appearances of Jesus to his disciples, of which\nno mention is made by the other evangelists: hence we see that his\ntestimony destroys theirs, or that theirs destroy his. As to the\napparitions of Jesus which Paul mentions, he was not a witness of them,\nand knew them only by hearsay; we find him accordingly speaking of them\nin a manner not very exact. He says that Jesus showed himself \"to the\ntwelve,\" while it is evident that, by the death of Judas, the apostolic\ncollege was reduced to eleven. We are surprized to see these\ninaccuracies in an inspired author; they may render suspicious what he\nlikewise says of the apparition of Jesus to five hundred of the brethren\nat once. As to himself we know, that he never saw his master but in a\n_vision_; and considering the testimonies on which the resurrection of\nJesus is founded, perhaps we may say as much of the other apostles and\ndisciples. They were Jews, enthusiasts, and prophets; and consequently\nsubject to dreaming even while awake. The incredulous consider this to\nbe the most favorable opinion they can form of witnesses who attest the\nresurrection of the Saviour, on which however the Christian religion is\nsolely established.\n\nIt appears, indeed, most certain from the nature of the testimonies we\nhave examined, that providence has in a singular manner neglected to\ngive to an event so memorable and of such great importance, the\nauthenticity it seemed to require. Laying aside faith, which never\nexperiences any difficulty about proofs, no man can believe facts, even\nthe most natural, from vouchers so faulty, proofs so weak, relations so\ncontradictory, and testimonies so suspicious as those which the\nevangelists furnish us on the most incredible and marvellous occurrence\nthat was ever related. Independent of the visible interest these\nhistorians had in establishing the belief of the resurrection of their\nmaster, and which ought to put us on our guard against them, they seem\nto have written merely to contradict one another, and reciprocally\nweaken their evidence. To adopt relations in which we have only a tissue\nof contradictions, improbable facts, and absurdities, calculated to\ndestroy all confidence in history, requires indeed grace from above. Yet\nChristians do not for a moment doubt the resurrection; and their belief\nin this respect is founded on a _rock_; that is on prejudices they have\nnever examined, and to which from early infancy their spiritual guides\nhave prudently attached the greatest importance. They teach them to\nimmolate reason, judgment, and good sense, on the altar of faith. After\nthis sacrifice, it is no longer difficult to make them acknowledge,\nwithout enquiry, the most palpable absurdities for truths, on which it\nis not permitted even to be sceptical.\n\nIt is in vain that people of sense demonstrate the falsity of these\npretended truths; it is in vain that an intelligent critic stands up\nagainst interested testimonies, visibly suggested by enthusiasm and\nimposture; it is in vain, that humanity exclaims against wars,\nmassacres, and horrors without number, which absurd disputes on absurd\ndogmas have occasioned. They silence the credulous by saying, that \"it\nis written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to\nnought the understanding of the prudent.--Where is the wise? Where are\nthe scribes? (the doctors of the law). Hath not God made foolish the\nwisdom of this world by causing the foolishness of the gospel to be\npreached?\" It is by such declamations against reason and wisdom that\nfanatics and impostors have almost banished good sense from the earth,\nand formed slaves who make a merit of rejecting reason, of extinguishing\na sacred torch which would conduct them with certainty, on purpose to\nlead them astray in the darkness which these interested guides know how\nto infuse into minds.\n\nThe dogma of the resurrection of Jesus is only attested by men whose\nsubsistence depended on that absurd romance; and as roguery continually\nbelies itself, these witnesses could not agree among themselves in their\nevidence. They tell us, that Jesus had publicly predicted his own\nresurrection. He ought therefore to have risen publicly; he ought to\nhave shewn himself, not in secret to his disciples, but openly to\npriests, pharisees, doctors, and men of understanding, especially after\nhaving intimated, that it was the _only sign which would be given them_.\nWas it not acknowledging the falsehood of his mission, to refuse the\nsign by which he had solemnly promised to prove the truth of that\nmission? Was it reasonable to require the Jews to believe, on the word\nof his disciples, a fact which he could have demonstrated before their\nown eyes? How is it possible for rational persons of the present age to\nbelieve, after the lapse of eighteen hundred years, on the discordant\ntestimonies of four interested evangelists, fanatics, or fabulists, a\nstory which they could not make be believed in their own time; except by\na small number of imbecile people, incapable of reasoning, fond of the\nmarvellous, and of too limited understandings to escape the snares laid\nfor their simplicity. A Roman governor, a tetrarch, a Jewish high\npriest, converted by the apparition of Jesus, would have made a greater\nimpression on a man of sense than a hundred secret apparitions to his\nchosen disciples. The conversion of the Sanhedrim at Jerusalem to the\nfaith, would have been of greater weight than all the obscure rabble\nwhich the apostles prevailed on to believe their improbable marvels, and\npersuaded that they had seen Jesus alive after his death.\n\nIf the apparitions of Jesus to his apostles were not obviously fables\ninvented by roguery, or adopted through enthusiasm and ignorance, the\nmotive of these clandestine visits cannot be divined. Become incapable\nof suffering, and re-established in his divine omnipotence, was he still\nafraid of the Jews? Could he dread being put to death a second time? By\nagain showing himself, had he not better reason to calculate on\nconverting them than he derived from all his sermons and miracles?\n\nBut it is said that the Jews by their opposition deserved to be\nrejected; that the views of providence were changed; and that God no\nlonger wished his chosen people should be converted. These answers are\nso many insults to the Divinity. How is it possible for men to withstand\nGod? Is it not to deny the Divine Omnipotence to pretend that man can\noppose its will? Man, it is asserted, is free; but must not a God who\nknew every thing, have foreseen that the Jews would abuse their liberty\nby resisting his will? In that case why send them his Son? Why make him\nsuffer to no purpose an infamous and cruel death? Why not send him at\nonce to creatures disposed to hear him, and render him homage? To\npretend that the views of providence were changed, is it not to attack\nthe divine immutability? Unless indeed it be said, that Deity had from\nall eternity resolved on this change; which, however, will not shelter\nthat immutability.\n\nThus, in whatever point of view we contemplate the matter, it will\nremain a decided fact, that the resurrection of Jesus, far from being\nfounded on solid proofs, unexceptionable testimony, and respectable\nauthority, is obviously established on falsehood and knavery, which\npervade every page of the discordant relations of those who have\npretended to vouch it.\n\nAfter having made their hero revive and show himself, we know not how\noften, to his trusty disciples, it was necessary in the end to make him\ndisappear altogether--to send him back to heaven, in order to conclude\nthe romance. But our story-tellers are not more in union on his\ndisappearance than on other things. They agree neither as to the time\nnor the place of Jesus' ascension. Mark and Luke inform us, that Jesus\nafter having shown himself to the eleven apostles while they were at\ntable, and spoken to them, ascended into heaven. Luke adds, that he\nconducted them as far as Bethany; lifted up his hands and blessed them,\nand was afterwards carried up to heaven. Mark contradicts Luke, and\nmakes Jesus ascend to heaven from Galilee: and as if he had seen what\npassed on high, places him on the right hand of God, who on this\noccasion yielded to him the place of honor. Matthew and John do not\nspeak of this ascension. If we leave it to them, we must say, that Jesus\nis still on earth according to the first of these evangelists, his last\nwords to his disciples gave them to understand, that he would \"remain\nwith them until the end of the world.\" To fix our ideas on this subject,\nLuke tells us, as we have seen, that Jesus ascended into heaven the very\nevening of the day of the resurrection. But he afterwards informs us,\nthat Jesus tarried _forty days after his resurrection_ with his\ndisciples. Faith only can extricate us from this embarrassment. John\nadvances nothing in the matter; but leaves us in uncertainty as to the\ntime which Jesus passed on earth after his resurrection. Some\nunbelievers on observing the romantic style of the gospel of this\napostle, have concluded from the manner in which he finishes his\nhistory, that he meant to give free course to the fables which might\nafterwards be published about Jesus. He terminates his narrative with\nthese words; \"Jesus did also many other things, and if they should be\nwritten every one, I suppose, that even the world itself could not\ncontain the books that should be written:\" and with this hyperbole, the\nwell-beloved apostle finishes the Platonic romance which he made about\nhis master.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XVII.\n\nGENERAL REFLECTIONS ON THE LIFE OF JESUS.--PREACHING OF THE\nAPOSTLES.--CONVERSION OF ST. PAUL. ESTABLISHMENT OF\nCHRISTIANITY.--PERSECUTIONS IT SUFFERS.--CAUSES OF ITS PROGRESS.\n\n\nThe mere reading of the life of Jesus, as we have represented it\naccording to documents which Christians consider inspired, must be\nsufficient to undeceive every thinking being. But it is the property of\nsuperstition to prevent thinking: it benumbs the soul, confounds the\nreason, perverts the judgment, renders doubtful the most obvious truths,\nand makes a merit with its slaves of despising inquiry, and of relying\non the word of those who govern them. It is not unseasonable, therefore,\nto offer some reflections which may be useful to those who have not\ncourage to draw out of the preceding inquiry, the consequences which\nnaturally result from it; and thus aid them in forming rational ideas of\nthe Jesus they adore, of his disciples whom they revere, and of books\nwhich they are accustomed to regard as sacred.\n\nOur examination of the birth of Jesus ought to render it very\nsuspicious. We have found the Holy Spirit mistaken on that important\narticle of Jesus' life; for he inspired two evangelists with two very\ndifferent genealogies. Notwithstanding so striking a blunder, and the\nconsanguinity of Mary and Elizabeth wife of the priest Zacharias, we\nshall not cavil on these points. We shall grant that Mary might really\nbe of the race of David: many examples demonstrate that the branches of\nraces more illustrious have fallen into misery. Departing also from the\nsupposition, that Mary, the _immaculate_ wife of Joseph, may have\nwillingly yielded to the angel; or, simple and devout, may have been\ndeceived by the angel, there is every reason to believe that she\nafterwards taught her son his descent from David, and perhaps, some\nmarvellous circumstances which, by justifying the mother, might kindle\nthe enthusiasm of the child. Thus Jesus, at a very early age, might be\nreally persuaded of his royal extraction, and of the wonders which had\naccompanied his birth. These ideas might afterwards inflame his\nambition, and lead him to think that he was destined to play a grand\npart in his native country. Prepossessed with these notions, and\nintoxicating himself more and more by the perusal of obscure prophecies\nand traditions, it is very possible, that our adventurer might believe\nhimself actually called by the Divinity, and pointed out by the prophets\nto be the reformer, the chief, and the messiah of Israel. He was indeed\na visionary, and found people silly enough to be caught by his reveries.\n\nAnother cause might likewise contribute to heat the brain of our\nmissionary. Some learned men have conjectured with much appearance of\ntruth, that Jesus acquired his morality among a kind of monks or Jewish\nCoenobites (friars) called Therapeutes or Essenians. We certainly find a\nstriking conformity between what Philo tells us of these pious\nenthusiasts, and the sublime precepts of Jesus. The Therapeutes\nabandoned father and mother, wife, children, and property, in order to\ndevote themselves to contemplation. They explained the scripture in a\nmanner purely allegorical; abstained from oaths; lived in common;\nsuffered with resolution the misfortunes of life, and died with joy. It\nis certain, that, in the time of the historian Josephus, three sects\nwere reckoned in Judea, the pharisees, sadducees, and the Essenians, or\nEssenes. From the time of that writer, there is no longer any mention\nmade of the latter; hence some have concluded that these Essenians, or\nTherapeutes, were afterwards confounded or incorporated with the first\nChristians, who, according to every evidence, led a manner of life\nperfectly similar to theirs. From all which it may be concluded, either\nthat Jesus had been a Therapeute before his preaching, or that he had\nborrowed their doctrines.\n\nWhatever may be in this, in the midst of an ignorant and superstitious\nnation, perpetually fed with oracles and pompous promises; miserable at\nthat time and discontented with the Roman yoke; continually cajoled with\nthe expectation of a deliverer, who was to restore them with honor, our\nenthusiast without difficulty found an audience, and, by degrees,\nadherents. Men are naturally disposed to listen to, and believe those\nwho make them hope for an end to their miseries. Misfortunes render them\ntimorous and credulous, and lead them to superstition. A fanatic easily\nmakes conquests among a wretched people. It is not then wonderful that\nJesus should soon acquire partizans, especially among the populace who\nin every country are easily seduced.\n\nOur hero knew the weakness of his fellow-citizens. They wanted\nprodigies, and he, in their eyes, performed them. A stupid people,\ntotally strangers to the natural sciences, to medicine, or to the\nresources of artifice, easily mistook very simple operations for\nmiracles, and attributed effects to the finger of God which might be\nowing to the knowledge Jesus had acquired during the long interval that\npreceded his mission. Nothing is more common than the combination of\nenthusiasm and imposture; the most sincere devotees, when they intend to\nadvance what they believe to be the word of God, often countenance\nfrauds which they style _pious_. There are but few zealots who do not\neven think crimes allowable when the interests of religion are\nconcerned. In religion, as at play, _one begins with being dupe, and\nends with being knave_.\n\nThus on considering things attentively, and comparing the different\naccounts of the life of Jesus, we must be persuaded that he was a\nfanatic, who really thought himself inspired, favored by Heaven, sent to\nhis nation; in short, that he was the messiah, who, to support his\ndivine mission, felt no difficulty to employ such deceptions as were\nbest calculated for a people to whom miracles were absolutely necessary;\nand whom, without miracles, the most eloquent harangues, the wisest\nprecepts, the most intelligent counsels, and the truest principles could\nnever have convinced. A medley of enthusiasm and juggling constitute the\ncharacter of Jesus, and it is that of all spiritual adventurers who\nassume the name of Reformers, or become the chiefs of a sect.\n\nWe always find Jesus, during his whole mission, preaching the kingdom of\nhis Father, and supporting his preaching with wonders. At first he spoke\nin a very reserved manner of his quality of messiah, son of God, and son\nof David. There was prudence in not giving himself out for such. But he\nsuffered the secret to be revealed by the mouth of the devil, to impose\nsilence on whom he commonly took great care; not, however, until after\nthe devil had spoken in a manner sufficiently intelligible to make an\nimpression on the spectators. So that with the assistance of his\npossessed, his proselytes, or his convulsionaries, he procured\ntestimonies, which from his own mouth would have been very suspicious,\nand might have rendered him odious.\n\nOur operator also took care to choose his ground for performing\nmiracles; he constantly refused to operate before those whom he supposed\ninclined to criticise his wonders. If he sometimes performed them in the\nsynagogues, and in presence of the doctors, it was in the certainty that\nthe less fastidious populace, who believed in his miracles, would take\nhis part, and defend him against the evil designs of the more acute\nspectators.\n\nThe apostles of Jesus appear to have been men of their master's\ntemper--credulous or misled enthusiasts, dexterous cheats, or often both\ntogether. Jesus, who had skill in men, admitted into his intimate\nconfidence those only in whom he remarked the most submissive credulity\nor the greatest address. On important occasions, such as the miracle of\nmultiplying the loaves, the transfiguration, &c. we find, as already\nnoticed, that he used always the ministry of Peter, James, and John.\n\nIt is easy to conceive that his disciples were attached to him from\ninterest or credulity. The most crafty perceived that their fortune\ncould only be ameliorated under the conduct of a man who knew how to\nimpose on the vulgar, and to make his followers live at the expence of\ncharitable devotees. Fishermen, formerly obliged to subsist by painful\nand often unsuccessful labour, conceived that it was more advantageous\nto attach themselves to one who without trouble made them live\ncomfortably. The most credulous expected to make a brilliant fortune,\nand to fill posts of eminence in the new kingdom their chief intended to\nestablish. It was evidently from _earthly_ or interested motives, and\nnot heavenly, that the apostles attached themselves to Jesus. At the\nlast supper there was a strife amongst them _who should be accounted the\ngreatest_. \"The meanest,\" as Bishop Parker expressed it, \"hoped at least\nto have been made lord mayor of Capernaum.\" And even at his ascension\nthe only question his disciples asked, was, _Lord, wilt thou at this\ntime restore again the kingdom of Israel_?\n\nThe hopes and comforts of both vanished on the death of Jesus. The\npusillanimous lost courage, but the most able and subtle did not think\nit necessary to abandon the party. They therefore contrived, as we have\nseen, the tale of the resurrection, by the aid of which the reputation\nof their master and their own fortune were secured. It also appears,\nthat the apostles never sincerely believed their master was a _God_. The\nActs incontestibly demonstrate the contrary. The same Simon Peter, who\nhad recognized Jesus for the Son of the living God, declared in his\nfirst sermon, that he was man. \"Ye know,\" says he, \"that Jesus of\nNazareth was a <sc>MAN</sc> whom God hath rendered famous among you--Yet ye have\ncrucified him--but God hath raised him up again,\" &c. This passage\nproves clearly that the chief of the apostles dared not yet hazard, or\nwas wholly ignorant of the doctrine of the divinity of Jesus, which was\nafterwards contrived by the self-interest of the clergy and adopted by\nthe foolishness of Christians, whose credulity was never startled by the\ngreatest absurdities. Self-interest and folly have perpetuated this\ndoctrine until our time. By dint of repeating the same tales for so long\na period, they have succeeded in making people believe the most\nridiculous fables. The religion of the children is always regulated by\nthe fancy of their fathers.\n\nIt appears however, that the apostles of Jesus, deprived of the counsels\nof their master, could not have succeeded if they had not received\npowerful aid after his death, and selected associates, men more active\nthan themselves, and better calculated for the business. They\ndeliberated together on their common interests; it was then the Holy\nSpirit descended on them; that is, they considered on the means of\nearning a subsistence, gaining proselytes, and increasing the number of\ntheir adherents, in order to secure themselves against the enterprizes\nof the priests and grandees of the nation, whom the new sect might have\nvery much displeased. Not satisfied with having put Jesus to death, they\nhad the impudence to persecute his disciples. They engaged Herod to\ndestroy James the brother of Jesus; finally they caused Stephen to be\nstoned. These priests and doctors did not perceive that persecution is\nthe surest method of spreading fanaticism, and that it always gives\nimportance to the party persecuted.\n\nAccordingly this persecuting spirit, inherent in the clergy, created new\npartisans to the persecuted sect. Hard treatment, and imprisonment\nalways render sectaries more obstinate, and interesting objects to those\nwho witness their sufferings. Tortures excite our pity in behalf of the\nperson who endures them. Every fanatic that is punished is certain of\nfinding credulous friends to aid him, because they persuade themselves\nit is for truth he is persecuted.\n\nThe proceedings instigated by the priests, convinced the new sectaries\nthat it was of the utmost importance to unite their interests. They felt\nit necessary to avoid quarrels, and every thing which could create\ndivision; they in consequence lived in concord and peace.\n\nThe apostles, now become heads of the sect, did not neglect their own\ninterests. One of the first faculties with which the Holy Spirit\ninspired them, was to profit by devout souls, and engage them to place\nall their property in common. The apostles were the depositaries of\nthese goods, and had under their orders ministers or servants, known by\nthe name of deacons, charged with the distribution of alms. These great\nsaints, it is to be presumed, did not forget themselves in these\ndistributions. It appears also, that the law for this communion of\ngoods, was observed with rigor, as we find, in the Acts of the Apostles,\nAnanias and Saphira struck dead, on the prayer of Peter, for having had\nthe temerity to retain a portion of their own property: a conduct which\nwould appear as unjust, as barbarous in any other person but an apostle\nof Jesus. It must however be acknowledged, that the law, which obliged\nthe rich to place their property in common, was very important, not only\nto the apostles, but for increasing the sect. The poor undoubtedly must\nhave been eager to join a party where the rich engaged to _lay the\ncloth_. Hence it is easy to perceive, how this institution might augment\nthe number of the faithful without a miracle.\n\nOf all the adherents the new-born sect acquired, there was none superior\nto Saul, afterwards known by the name of Paul. The actions and writings\nascribed to this Apostle exhibit him as an ambitious, active, intrepid,\nand opiniative man, full of enthusiasm, and capable of inspiring others\nwith it. Engaged at first in the profession of a tent-maker, he\nafterwards attached himself to Gamaliel, a doctor of the law and\nrendered services to the priests in their persecutions against\nChristians. Perceiving the utility which a man of Saul's character might\nbe of to the party, the apostles profited by some disgust he had taken\nto draw him over to their sect. He consented readily conceiving that by\nhis superior talents he might easily succeed in making himself the head\nof a party, to which he also knew the means of rendering himself\nnecessary. He pretended, therefore, that his conversion was the effect\nof a miracle, and that God himself had called him. He was baptised at\nDamascus, joined the apostles at Jerusalem, was admitted a member of\ntheir college, and soon gave them proofs of his talents. He commenced\npreaching Jesus and his resurrection, and labored in gaining souls. His\nvehement zeal hurried him, without fear or hesitation, into quarrels\nwith the priests, always indignant at the conduct of the apostles; but\nhis persecutions rendered him dearer to his party, of which he became\nfrom that time the prime mover.\n\nOften maltreated by the Jews, Paul conjectured that it would be\nbeneficial not to confine himself to them, but that conquests might be\nmade among the heathen. He no doubt knew that mankind resemble each\nother in all superstitions; that they are every where curious about the\nmarvellous; susceptible of fanaticism, lovers of novelties, and easily\ndeceived. He therefore, sometimes preached to Jews, and sometimes to\nGentiles, among whom he succeeded in enlisting a considerable number of\nrecruits.\n\nJesus, born in the bosom of Judaism, and knowing the attachment of his\nfellow-citizens to the law of Moses, had always openly declared, that he\nwas come to \"accomplish, and not to destroy it.\" His first apostles were\nJews, and showed much attachment to the rites of their religion. They\nwere displeased that Paul their brother would not subject his Gentile\nproselytes to Judaical usuages. Filled with views more vast than those\nentertained by the other apostles, he did not wish to disgust his new\nconverts with inconvenient ceremonies, such as circumcision and\nabstinence from certain meats. The better to attain his ends, he\nneglected these usuages, which he considered as trifles, while his\nbrethren regarded them as most essential. The first proselytes or the\napostles as we have said, were called _Nazarenes_ or Ebionites, who\nbelieved in Jesus without forsaking the law of Moses. They of course\nregarded Paul as an heretic or apostate. This fact, attested by Origen,\nEusebius, and Epiphanius, is important in giving us a distinct idea of\nprimitive Christianity, which we see divided into two sects almost as\nsoon as Paul had embraced it. This new apostle very soon indeed\nseparated from his brethren to preach a doctrine different from theirs,\nand openly undermined the Judaism which Peter, James, and the other\nheads of the church persisted in respecting. But as Paul was successful\namong the Gentiles, his party prevailed: Judaism was entirely\nproscribed, and Christianity became quite a new religion, of which\nJudaism had been only the figure. Thus Paul wholly changed the religious\nsystem of Jesus, who had merely proposed to reform Judaism. The\nprincipal apostles followed the conduct of their master, and showed\nthemselves much attached to the law and usages of their fathers. Paul\nnotwithstanding their protestations, took a different course; he\ndisplayed a contempt or indifference for the legal ordinances, to which\nthrough policy, however, he sometimes subjected himself. Thus we find he\ncircumcised Timothy, and performed Jewish ceremonies in the temple of\nJerusalem.\n\nNot content with decrying the law of Moses, Paul, by his own confession,\npreached a gospel of his own. He says positively, in his epistle to the\nGalatians, \"That the gospel which I preach is not after men,\" and that\nhe had received it by a particular revelation of Jesus. He speaks\nlikewise of his quarrels with the other heads of the sect; but his\ndisciple Luke passes over these very slightly in the Acts, which are\nmuch more the _Acts of Paul_ than the Acts of the Apostles. It appears\nevident, that he embroiled himself with his brethren, the partisans of\nthe circumcision, and the founders of the Nazarenes or Ebionites, who\nhad a gospel different from that of Paul, as they combined the law of\nJesus with that of Moses. Irenaeus, Justin, Epiphanius, Eusebius,\nTheodoret, and Augustine, agree in telling us, that these Ebionites, or\nconverted Jews, regarded Jesus as a \"mere man, son of Joseph and Mary,\nto whom they gave the name of _Son of God_ only on account of his\nvirtues.\" From this it is evident, that it was Paul who _deified_ Jesus\nand abolished Judaism. The Paulites, become the strongest, prevailed\nover the Ebionites, or disciples of the apostles, and regarded them as\nheretics. Hence we see that it is the religion of Paul, and not of\nJesus, which at present subsists.\n\nThis altercation of Paul and the apostles of Jesus produced a real\nschism. Paul left the preaching of the Judaical gospel or circumcision\nto his brethren whilst he preached his own in Asia Minor and in Greece,\nsometimes to the Hellenistic Jews, whom he found established there, and\nsometimes to the idolatrous Greeks, whose language, though unknown to\nthe other apostles, Paul was acquainted with. The success of his mission\nfar surpassed that of his brethren; and if we refer to the Acts of the\nApostles, we shall perceive in this new preacher an activity, a warmth,\na vehemence, and an enthusiasm well adapted to communicate itself. The\nmissionaries he formed, spread his doctrine to a great distance. The\ngospel of the apostle of the gentiles prevailed over the gospel of the\nJudaizing apostles; and in a short time there were a great number of\nChristians in all the provinces of the Roman empire.\n\nTo a miserable people, crushed by tyrants and oppressors of every kind,\nthe principles of the new sect had powerful attractions. Its maxims,\nwhich tended to introduce equality and a community of goods, were\ncalculated to entice the unfortunate. Its promises flattered miserable\nfanatics, to whom was announced the end of a perverse world, the\napproaching arrival of Jesus, and a kingdom wherein abundance and\nhappiness would reign. To be admitted there, they merely required of the\nproselytes \"to believe in Jesus and be baptized.\" As for the austere\nmaxims of the sect, they were not of a nature to disgust miserables,\naccustomed to suffering, and the want of the conveniences of life. Its\ndogmas, few in the beginning, were readily adopted by ignorant men, fond\nof wonders, whom their own mythology disposed to receive the fables of\nChristians. Besides, their own priests wrought miracles, which rendered\nthose said to have been performed by Jesus no way improbable in their\nestimation. Different missionaries, in emulation of one another composed\nromances or histories of Jesus in which they related a number of\nprodigies calculated to make their hero be revered, and to interest the\nveneration of the faithful. In this manner the different collections,\nknown by the name of Gospels, were framed, wherein, along with very\nsimple facts which might have really occurred, we find numerous\nstatements that appear credible only to enthusiasts and fools. These\nhistories, composed from traditions by different hands, and by authors\nof very different characters, are not in harmony. Hence the want of\nconformity in the relations of our evangelists, which has been\nfrequently noticed in the course of this work. There were, as we have\nbefore remarked, a vast number of gospels in the first ages of the\nchurch; and out of these the council of Nice chose only four, to which\nthey gave the divine sanction.\n\nWe shall not here examine whether these gospels really belong to the\nauthors to whom they are ascribed. The opinion which attributes them to\nto their putative writers, might have been founded at first on some\ntradition, true or false, which existed in the time of the council of\nNice, or which the fathers of that council had an interest in\nsanctioning. It is difficult to persuade ourselves without faith, that\nthe gospel of John, filled with Platonic notions could be composed by\nthe son of Zebedee; by a poor fisherman, who, perhaps, incapable of\nwriting, and even reading, could not be acquainted with the philosophy\nof Plato. From the commencement of christianity there have been many who\nhave denied the authenticity of the gospels. _Marcias_ accused them of\nbeing filled with falsehoods. The Alloges and Theodocians rejected the\ngospel of John, which they regarded as a tissue of lies. Augustin says,\nthat he found in the Platonists the whole beginning of the gospel of\nJohn. Origen below informs us, that Celsus reproached Jesus with having\ntaken from Plato his finest maxims, and among others the one which says,\nthat \"it is more easy for a camel to go through the eye of a needle,\nthan for a rich man to be saved.\"\n\nWhatever opinion may be formed as to this, we find the mystical and\nmarvellous philosophy of Plato introduced very early into Christianity,\nwhich agreed in several respects with the tenets held by the followers\nof that eminent philosopher; while his perplexed philosophy must also\nhave easily amalgamated with the principles of the new sect. This was\nthe source of _Spirituality_, _Trinity_, and the _Logos_, or _Word_,\nbesides a multitude of magical and theurgical ceremonies, which in the\nhands of the priests of Christianity have become _mysteries_ or\n_sacraments_. On reading Porphyry, Jamblichus, and particularly\nPlotinus, we are surprised to hear them speaking so frequently in the\nsame style as our theologists. These marks of resemblance drew several\nPlatonists over to the faith, who figured among the doctors of the\nchurch. Of this number were Clement of Alexandria, Irenaeus, Justin\nMartyr, Origen, &c. Platonism may indeed be regarded as the source of\nthe principal dogmas and mysteries of the Christian religion.\n\nThose who doubt the truth of this assertion have only to read the works\nof the disciples of Plato, who were all superstitious persons and\nTheurgists, whose ideas were analogous to those of Christians. We find,\nindeed, these writings filled with receipts to make the gods and good\ngenii descend, and to drive away the bad. Tertullian reproaches the\nheretics of his time with having wandered astray in order to introduce\nPlatonism, Stoicism, and Dialects into Christianity. It was evidently\nthe mixture of the unintelligible doctrine of Plato, with the Dialectics\nof Aristotle, which rendered theology so senseless, disputable, and\nfraught with subtleties. The cardinal Pallavicini acknowledges, that\n\"without Aristotle the Christians would have wanted a great number of\narticles of faith.\"\n\nThe austere and fanatical lives of Christians must also have favorably\ndisposed a great number of Stoics, who were accustomed to make a merit\nof despising objects desirable to other men, depriving themselves of the\ncomforts of life, and braving affliction and death. We accordingly find\namong the early Christians a great number of enthusiasts tinctured with\nthese maxims. This fanatical way of thinking was necessary to console\nthe first Christians in the midst of persecutions which they suffered at\nfirst from the Jews, and thereafter from the emperors and grandees,\nincited by the heathen priests. The latter, according to the custom of\nthe priesthood in all countries, made war on a sect which attacked their\nGods, and menaced their temples with a general desertion. The universe\nwas weary of the impostures and exactions of these priests, their costly\nsacrifices and lying oracles. Their knaveries had been frequently\nunveiled, and the new religion tendered to mankind a worship less\nexpensive and, which, without being addressed so much to the eyes as the\nworship of idols, was better adapted than its rival to seize the\nimagination, and to excite enthusiasm.\n\nChristianity was moreover flattering and consolatory to the wretched,\nwhile it placed all men on the same level, and thus humbled the rich, it\nwas announced as destined for the poor through preference. Among the\nRomans, slaves were in some measure excluded from religion; and it might\nhave been said that the gods did not concern themselves with the homage\nof these degraded beings. The poor, besides, had not wherewith to\nsatisfy the rapacity of Pagan priests, who, like ours, did nothing\nwithout money. Thus slaves and miserable persons must have been strongly\nattached to a system, which taught that all men are equal in the eyes of\nthe Divinity, and that the wretched have better right to the favors of a\nsuffering and contemned God than those who are temporally happy. The\npriests of Paganism became uneasy at the rapid progress of the sect. The\ngovernment was alarmed at the clandestine assemblies which the\nChristians held. They were believed to be the enemies of the emperors,\nbecause they refused to offer sacrifices to the gods of the country for\ntheir prosperity. Even the people, ever zealous, believed them enemies\nof their gods because they would not join in their worship. They treated\nthe Christians as Atheists and impious persons, because they did not\nconceive what could be the objects of their adoration; and because they\ntook offence at the mysteries, which they saw them celebrating in the\ngreatest secrecy. The Christians, thus loaded with the public hatred,\nvery soon became its victims; they were persecuted; and persecution, as\nit always happens, rendered them more opiniative. Enthusiasm inflamed\ntheir souls; they considered it a glory to resist the efforts of\ntyrants; they even went so far as to brave their punishments, and\nconcluded with believing that the greatest happiness was to perish under\ntheir severities. In this they flattered themselves with resembling the\nSon of God, and were persuaded, that by dying for his cause they were\ncertain of reigning with him in heaven.\n\nIn consequence of these fanatical ideas, so flattering to vanity,\nmartyrdom became an object of ambition to Christians. Independent of the\nheavenly rewards, which they believed assured to those who suffered with\nconstancy, and perished for religion, they saw them esteemed, revered,\nand carefully attended to during their lives, while honors almost divine\nwere decreed them after death. On the contrary, those of the Christian\ncommunity who had the weakness to shrink from tortures, and renounce\ntheir religion, were scoffed at, despised, and regarded as infamous. So\nmany circumstances combined contributed to warm the imaginations of the\nfaithful, already sufficiently agitated by notions of the approaching\nend of the world, the coming of Jesus, and his happy reign. They\nsubmitted cheerfully to punishment, and gloried in their chains: they\ncourted martyrdom as a favor, and often, through a blind zeal, provoked\nthe rage of their persecutors. The magistrates, by their proscriptions\nand tortures, caused the enthusiasm of the Christians to kindle more and\nmore. Their courage was besides supported by the heads of their sect,\nwho constantly displayed the heavens opening to the heroes who consented\nto suffer and perish for their cause, which they took care to make the\npoor fanatics regard as the cause of God himself. A martyr, at all\ntimes, is merely the victim of the enthusiastic or knavish priest who\nhas been able to seduce him.\n\nMen are always disgusted with those who use violence; they conclude that\nthey are wrong, and that those against whom they commit violence have\nreason on their side. Persecution will always make partisans to the\ncause persecuted; and those to which we allude, tended the more to\nconfirm Christians in their religion. The spectators of their sufferings\nwere interested for them. They were curious to know the principles of a\nsect which drew on itself such cruel treatment, and infused into its\nadherents a courage believed to be supernatural. They imagined that such\na religion could be no other than the work of God; its partisans\nappeared extraordinary men, and their enthusiasm became contagious.\nViolence served only to spread it the more, and, according to the\nlanguage of a Christian doctor, \"the blood of the martyrs became the\nseed of the church.\"\n\nThe clergy would fain make the propagation of Christianity pass for a\nmiracle of divine omnipotence; while it was owing solely to natural\ncauses inherent in the human mind, which always adheres strenuously to\nits own way of thinking; hardens itself against violence; applauds\nitself for its pertinacity; admires courage in others; feels an interest\nfor those who display it; and suffers itself to be gained by their\nenthusiasm. The learned Dodwell has written two copious dissertations on\nthe martyrs: the one to prove that they were not so numerous as is\ncommonly imagined; and the other to demonstrate that their constancy\noriginated in natural causes. The frenzy of martyrdom was in fact an\nepidemical disease among the first Christians, to which their spiritual\nphysicians were obliged to apply remedies, as these wretched beings were\nguilty of suicide. Many of the primitive Christians, says Fleury,\ninstead of _flying_ as the gospel directs, not only ran voluntarily to\nexecution, but provoked their judges to do them that favor. Under\nTrajan, all the Christians in a city of Asia came in a body to the\nproconsul, and offered themselves to the slaughter, which made him cry,\n\"O! ye unhappy people, if ye have a mind to die, have ye not halters and\nprecipices enough to end your lives, but ye must come here for\nexecutioners.\" Marcus Antoninus severely reflected on the obstinacy of\nthe Christians in thus running headlong to death; and Cyprian labored\nhard to comfort those who were so unhappy as to _escape_ the crown of\nmartyrdom. Even the enemies of Julian, called the apostate by fanatics,\nadmit that the Christians of his time did every thing they could to\nprovoke that emperor to put them to death. Dr. Hickes, a celebrated\nprotestant divine, says that the Christians \"were _not_ illegally\npersecuted by Julian.\" Pride, vanity, prejudice, love, patriotism, and\neven vice itself, produce martyrs--a contempt of every kind of danger.\nIs it then surprising that enthusiasm and fanaticism, the strongest of\npassions, have so often enabled men to face the greatest dangers and\ndespise death? Besides, if Christians can boast a catalogue of martyrs,\nJews can do the same. The unfortunate Jews, condemned to the flames by\nthe inquisition, were martyrs to their religion; and their fortitude\nproves as much in their favor as that of the Christians. If martyrs\ndemonstrate the truth of a religion or sect, where are we to look for\nthe true one?\n\nIt is thus obvious that the obstinacy of the martyrs, far from being a\nsign of the divine protection or of the goodness of their cause, was the\neffect of blindness, occasioned by the reiterated lessons of their\nfanatical or deceitful priests. What conduct more extravagant than that\nof a sovereign able and without effusion of blood to extend his power,\nwho should prefer to do it by the massacre of the most faithful of his\nsubjects? Is it not annihilating the divine wisdom and goodness to\nassert, that a God to whom every thing is possible, among so many ways\nwhich he could have chosen to establish his religion, wished to follow\nthat only of making its dearest friends fall a sacrifice to the fury of\nits cruellest enemies? Such are the notions which Christianity presents;\nand it is easy to perceive that they are the necessary consequences of a\nfundamental absurdity on which that religion is established. It\nmaintains, that a just God had no wish to redeem guilty men, than by\nmaking his dear innocent son be put to death. According to such\nprinciples, it can excite no surprise that so unreasonable a God should\nwish to convert the heathen, his enemies, by the murder of Christians,\nhis children. Though these absurdities are believed, such as do not\npossess the holy blindness of faith cannot comprehend why the Son of\nGod, having already shed his blood for the redemption of men, was not a\nsufficient sacrifice? and why, to effect the conversion of the world,\nthere was still a necessity for the blood of an immense number of\nmartyrs, whose merits must have been undoubtedly much less than those of\nJesus? To resolve these difficulties, theologians refer us to the\neternal decrees, the wisdom of which we are not permitted to criticise.\nThis is sending us far back indeed; yet notwithstanding the solidity of\nthe answer, the incredulous persist in saying, that their limited\nunderstandings can neither find justice, nor wisdom, nor goodness, in\neternal decrees which could in so preposterous a manner effect the\nsalvation of the human race.\n\nPersecutions were not the only means by which Christianity was\npropagated. The preachers, zealous for the salvation of souls, or rather\ndesirous to extend their own power over the minds of men, and strengthen\ntheir party, inherited from the Jews the passion of making proselytes.\nThis passion suited presumptuous fanatics, who were persuaded, that they\nalone possessed the divine favor. It was unknown to the heathen, who\npermitted every one to adore his gods, providing that his worship did\nnot disturb the public tranquillity. Prompted by zeal, the Christian\nmissionaries, notwithstanding persecutions and dangers, spread\nthemselves with an ardour unparalleled wherever they could penetrate, in\norder to convert idolators and bring back strayed sheep to the fold of\nJesus. This activity merited the recompense of great success. Men, whom\ntheir idolatrous priests neglected, were flattered at being courted, and\nbecoming the objects of the cares of those who, through pure\ndisinterestedness, came from afar, and through the greatest perils to\nbring them consolation. They listened favourably to them; they shewed\nkindness to men so obliging, and were enchanted with their doctrine.\nMany adopted their lessons; placed themselves under their guidance, and\nsoon became persuaded that their God and dogmas were superior to those\nwhich had preceded them.\n\nThus by degrees, and without a miracle, Christianity planted colonies,\nmore or less considerable, in every part of the Roman empire. They were\ndirected, and governed by _inspectors_, _overseers_, or _bishops_, who,\nin spite of the dangers with which they were menaced, labored\nobstinately, and without intermission in augmenting the number of their\ndisciples that is, of slaves devoted to their holy will. Empire over\nopinions was always the most unbounded. As nothing has greater power\nover the minds of the vulgar than religion, Christians every where\ndisplayed an unlimited submission to their spiritual sovereign, on whose\nlaws they believed their eternal happiness depended. Thus our\nmissionaries, converted into bishops, exercised a spiritual magistracy\nand sacred jurisdiction, which in the end placed them not only above\nother priests, but made them respected by, and necessary to, the\ntemporal power. Princes have always employed religion and its ministers\nin crushing the people, and keeping them under the yoke. Impostures and\ndelusions are of no use to sovereigns who govern, but they are very\nuseful to those who _tyrannize_.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XVIII.\n\nACCOUNT OF CHRISTIANITY FROM CONSTANTINE TO THE PRESENT TIME.\n\n\nAt the end of three centuries we find Christianity, advanced by all\nthese means, become a formidable party in the Roman empire. The\nsovereign power acknowledged the impossibility of stifling it; and\nChristians, scattered in great numbers through all the provinces, formed\nan imposing combination. Ambitious chiefs incessantly wrested from one\nanother the right of reigning over the wrecks of an enslaved republic:\neach sought to encrease his own strength, and acquire an advantage over\nhis rivals. It was in these circumstances that Constantine, to\nstrengthen himself first against Maxentius, and thereafter against\nLicinius, thought it his interest, by a stroke of policy, to draw over\nall the Christians to his party. For this purpose he openly favored\nthem, and thereby reinforced his army with all the soldiers of that\nnumerous sect. In gratitude for the advantages they procured him, he\nconcluded with embracing their religion, now become so powerful. He\nhonored, distinguished, and enriched the Christian bishops, well assured\nof attaching them to himself by his liberality to their pastors and the\nfavor he shewed them. Aided by their succors, he flattered himself with\nthe disposal of the flock.\n\nBy this political revolution, so favorable to the clergy, the bashful\nchiefs of the Christians, who hitherto had reigned only in secret and\nwithout eclat, sprung out of the dust, and became men of importance.\nSeconded by a despotical emperor, whose interests were linked with\ntheirs, they soon used their influence to avenge their injuries, and\nreturn to their enemies, with usury, the evils which they had received.\nThe unexpected change in the fortune of the Christians made them forget\nthe mild and tolerating maxims of their legislator. They conceived, that\nthese maxims, made for wretches destitute of power, could no longer suit\nmen supported by sovereigns; they attacked the temples and gods of\npaganism; their worshipers were excluded from places of trust, and the\nmaster lavished his favors on those only who consented to think like\nhim, and justify his change by imitating it. Thus, without any miracle,\nthe court became Christian, or at least feigned to be so, and the\ndescendants of hypocritical courtiers were Christians in reality.\n\nEven before the time of Constantine, Christianity had been rent by\ndisputes, heresies, schisms, and animosities between the Christian\nchiefs. The adherents of the different doctors had reviled,\nanathematised, and maltreated each other without their quarrels making\nany noise. The subtleties of Grecian metaphysics introduced into the\nChristian religion, had hatched an infinity of disputes, which had not\nhitherto been attended with any remarkable occurrence. All these\nquarrels burst forth in the reign of Constantine. The bishops and\nchampions of different parties caballed to draw over the emperor to\ntheir side, and thus aid them in crushing their adversaries. At the same\ntime a considerable party under the priest _Arius_, denied the divinity\nof Jesus. Little versed in the principles of the religion that party had\nembraced, but wishing to decide the question, Constantine referred it to\nthe judgment of the bishops. He convened them in the city of Nice, and\nthe plurality of suffrages regulated definitively the symbol of\nfaith--Jesus became a God _consubstantial_ with his father; the Holy\nGhost was likewise a God, _proceeding_ from the two others; finally,\nthese _three_ Gods combined made only _one_ God!\n\nTumultuous clamors carried this unintelligible decision, and converted\nit into a sacred dogma notwithstanding the reclamations of opponents,\nwho were silenced by denouncing them blasphemers and heretics. The\npriests who had the strongest lungs, declared themselves _orthodox_. The\nemperor, little acquainted with the nature of the quarrel, ranged\nhimself for the time on their side, and quitted it afterwards according\nas he thought proper to lend an ear sometimes to the bishops of one\nparty, and sometimes to those of another. The history of the church\ninforms us, that Constantine, whom we here see adhering to the decision\nof the council of Nice, made the orthodox and the heretics alternately\nexperience his severities.\n\nAfter many years, and even ages of disputes, the bishops of Christendom\nhave agreed in regarding Jesus as a true God. They felt that it was\nimportant for them to have a God for their founder, as this could not\nfail to render their own claims more respected. They maintained, that\ntheir authority was derived from the apostles, who held theirs directly\nfrom Christ; that is, from God himself. It would now-a-days be criminal\nto doubt the truth of this opinion, though many Christians are not yet\nconvinced of it, and venture to appeal to the decision of the universal\nchurch. Except the English, all Protestant Christians reject Episcopacy,\nand regard it as an usurped power. Among the Catholics, the Jansenists\nthink the same, which is the true cause of the enmity the Pope and\nBishops display against them. It appears St. Jerome was, on this point,\nof the opinion of the Jansenists. Yet we see Paul at first much occupied\nin advancing the Episcopal dignity. Ignatius of Antioch, disciple of the\napostles, insinuates in his epistles, the high opinion which the\nChristians ought to have of a bishop; and the very ancient author of the\nApostolic Constitutions, openly declares, that a _bishop is a God on\nearth, destined to rule over all men, priests, kings, and magistrates_.\nThough these Constitutions are reputed Apocryphal, the bishops have\nconformed their conduct to them more than to the canonical gospel,\nwherein Jesus, far from assigning prerogatives to bishops, declares,\nthat in his kingdom there will be _neither first nor last_.\n\nThe bishops assembled at Nice, decided also, as we have related, on the\nauthenticity of the gospels and books ordained to serve as a rule to\nChristians. It is then to these doctors, as has been already remarked,\nthat Christians owe their faith; which, however, was afterwards\nfrequently shaken by disputes, heresies, and wars, and even by\nassemblies of bishops, who often annulled what other assemblies of\nbishops had decreed in the most solemn manner. From Constantine to our\ntime, the interest of the heads of the church dictated every decree, and\nestablished doctrines wholly unknown to the founders of their religion.\nThe universe became the arena of the passions, the disputes, intrigues,\nand cruelties of these holy gladiators, who treated each other with the\nutmost barbarity. Kings, united in interest with spiritual chiefs, or\nblinded by them, thought themselves at all times obliged to partake of\ntheir fury. Princes seemed to hold the sword for the sole purpose of\ncutting the throats of victims pointed out by the priests. These blinded\nrulers believed they served God, or promote the welfare of their\nkingdoms by espousing all the passions of the priests who were become\nthe most arrogant, the most vindictive, the most covetous, and the most\nflagitious of men.\n\nWe shall not enter into a detail of all the quarrels which the Christian\nreligion has produced. We shall merely observe, that they were\ncontinual, and have frequently been attended with consequences so\ndeplorable that nations have had reason more than a hundred times every\ncentury to regret the peaceful paganism, and tolerating idolatry of\ntheir ancestors. The gospel, or _the glad tidings_, constantly gave the\nsignal for the commission of crimes. _The Cross was the Banner under\nwhich madmen assembled to glut the earth with blood._ The will of heaven\nwas understood by nobody: and the clergy disputed without end on the\nmanner of explaining oracles, which the Deity had himself come to reveal\nto mortals. It was always indispensable to take a side in the most\nunintelligible quarrels: neutrality was regarded as impiety. The party\nfor which the prince declared, was always _orthodox_, and on that\naccount, believed it had a right to exterminate all others: the orthodox\nin the church were those who had the power to exile, imprison, and\ndestroy their adversaries. Lucifer Calaritanus, a most orthodox bishop,\nin several discourses addressed to the son of Constantine, did not\nscruple to tell the emperor himself that it was the duty of the orthodox\nto kill Constantius on account of his Arianism, which he called\nIdolatry; and for this he quoted Deut. xiii. 6., and I Maccab. i. 43, to\nv. 29 of c. ii.\n\nThe bishops, whom the puissance of an emperor had raised from the dust,\nsoon became rebellious subjects; and, under pretence of maintaining\ntheir spiritual power, laboured to be independent of the sovereign, and\neven the laws of society. They maintained that princes themselves,\n\"being subjects of Christ,\" ought to be subjected to the jurisdiction of\nhis representatives on earth. Thus the pretended successors of some\nfishermen of Judea, whom Constantine had raised from obscurity arrogated\nto themselves the right of reigning over kings; and in this way the\nkingdom of heaven served to conquer the kingdoms of the earth.\n\nHitherto the Christians had been governed by bishops or chiefs\nindependent of each other, and perfectly equal as to jurisdiction. This\nmade the church an aristocratical republic; but its government soon\nbecame monarchial, and even despotical. The respect which was always\nentertained for Rome the capital of the world, seemed to give a kind of\nsuperiority to the bishop or spiritual head of the Christians\nestablished there. His brethren, therefore frequently showed a deference\nto him, and occasionally consulted him. Nothing more was wanting to the\nambition of the bishops of Rome, to advance the right they arrogated of\ndictating to their brethren, and to declare themselves the monarchs of\nthe Christian church. A very apocryphal tradition had made Peter travel\nto Rome, and had also made this chief of the apostles establish his see\nin that city. The Roman bishop therefore, pretended to have succeeded to\nthe rights of Simon Peter, to whom Jesus in the gospel had entrusted\nmore particularly the care of feeding his sheep. He accordingly assumed\nthe pompous titles of \"Successor of St. Peter, Universal Bishop, and\nVicar of Jesus Christ.\" It is true, these titles were often contested\nwith him by the oriental bishops, too proud to bow under the yoke of\ntheir brother. But by degrees, through artifice, intrigue, and\nfrequently violence, those who enjoyed the See of Rome, and prosecuting\ntheir project with ardor, succeeded in getting themselves acknowledged\nin the west as the heads of the Christian church.\n\nPliant and submissive at first to sovereigns, whose power they dreaded,\nthey soon mounted on their shoulders; and trampled them under their feet\nwhen they were certain of their power over the minds of devotees\nrendered frantic by superstition. Then indeed they threw off the mask,\ngave to nations the signal of revolt, incited Christians to their mutual\ndestruction, and precipitated kings from their thrones. To support their\npride, they shed oceans of blood: they made weak princes the vile sport\nof their passions, sometimes their victims and sometimes their\nexecutioners. Sovereigns, become their vassals, executed with fear and\ntrembling the decrees Heaven pronounced against the enemies of the holy\nsee which had created itself the arbiter of faith. In fact, these\ninhuman pontiffs immolated to their God a thousand times more human\nvictims than paganism had sacrificed to all its divinities.\n\nAfter having succeeded in subduing the bishops, the head of the church,\nwith a view to establish and preserve his empire inundated the states of\nthe princes attached to the sect with a multitude of sabaltern priests\nand monks, who acted as his spies, his emissaries, and the organs which\nhe employed in making known his will at a distance. Thus nations were\ndeluged with men useless or dangerous. Some, under pretext of attaining\nChristian perfection, astonished the vulgar with a frantic life, denied\nthemselves the pleasures of existence, renounced the world, and\nlanguished in the recesses of a cloister awaiting the death which their\ndisagreeable pursuits must have rendered desirable. They imagined to\nplease God by occupying themselves solely with prayers, and sterile and\nextravagant meditations; thus rendering themselves the victims of a\ndestructive fanaticism. These, fools, whom Christianity esteems, may be\nconsidered as the victims and martyrs of the higher clergy, who take\ncare never to imitate them.\n\nFew however felt themselves inclined to aspire to this sublime\nperfection. Most of the monks, more indulgent, were content with\nrenouncing the world, vegetating in solitude, languishing in sloth, and\nliving in absolute idleness at the expence of nations who toil. If some\namong them were devoted to study, it was only with the vain subtleties\nof an unintelligible theology calculated to incite disturbances in\nsociety. Others more active spread themselves over the globe; and, under\npretence of preaching the gospel, preached up themselves, the interests\nof the clergy, and especially the submission due to the Roman pontiff,\nwho was always their true sovereign. These emissaries, indeed, never had\nany other country than the church, any other master than its head, or\nany other interest than that of disturbing the state, in order to\nadvance _the divine rights_ of the clergy. Faithful in following the\nexample of Jesus, they brought _the sword_, sowed discord, and kindled\nwars, seditions, persecutions, and crusades. They sounded the tocsin of\nrevolt against all princes who were disagreeable or rebellious to the\nhaughty tyrant of the church; they frequently employed the sacrificing\nknife of fanaticism, and plunged it in the hearts of kings; and, to make\nthe _cause of God_ prosper, they justified the most horrible crimes, and\nthrew the whole earth into consternation.\n\nSuch, especially in latter times, were the maxims and conduct of an\norder of monks, who, pretending to walk in the footsteps of Jesus,\nassumed the name of his _Society_. Solely and blindly devoted to the\ninterests of the Roman pontiff, they seemed to have come into the world\nfor the purpose of bringing the universe under his chains. They\ncorrupted the youth, the education of whom they wished exclusively to\nengross; they strove to restore barbarism, knowing well that want of\nknowledge is the greatest prop of superstition; they extolled ignorance\nand blind submission; they depraved morals for which they substituted\nvain usages and superstitions, compatible with every vice, and\ncalculated to suppress the remorse which crime occasions. They preached\nup slavery and unbounded submission to princes, who themselves were\ntheir slaves, and who consented to become the instruments of their\nvengeance. They preached rebellion and regicide against the princes who\nrefused to bend under the odious yoke of the successor of St. Peter,\nwhom they had the effrontery to declare _infallible_, and whose\ndecisions they preferred above those of the universal church. By their\nassistance the pope became not only the despot, but even the true God of\nthe Christians.\n\nThere were some however, who ventured to protest against the violences,\nextortions, and usurpations of this spiritual tyrant. There were\nsovereigns who ventured to struggle with him; but in times of ignorance,\nthe contest is always unequal between the temporal and spiritual power.\nAt last preachers discontented with the Roman pontiff, opened the eyes\nof many; they preached _reformation_, and destroyed some abuses and\ndogmas which appeared to them that the most disgusting. Some princes\nseized this opportunity to break the chains wherewith they had been so\nlong oppressed. Without renouncing Christianity, which they always\nregarded as a divine religion, they renounced Romish Christianity, which\nthey considered a superstition corrupted through the avarice, influence,\nand passions of the clergy. Content with merely loping off some branches\nof a poisoned tree, which its bitter fruits should have discovered, our\n_reformers_ did not perceive that even the principles of a religion,\nfounded on fanaticism and imposture, must of necessity produce fanatics\nand knaves. They did not observe, that religion, which pretends to enjoy\nexclusively the approbation of the Most High, must be from its essence\narrogant and proud, and become at last tyrannical, intolerant, and\nsanguinary. They did not perceive that the mania of proselytism, the\npretended zeal for the salvation of souls, the passion of the priests\nfor dominion over consciences, must, sooner or later, create\ndevastation. Christianity _reformed_, pretending to resemble the pure\nChristianity of the first days of the church, produced fiery preachers,\npersons illuminated, and public incendiaries, who under pretence of\n_establishing the kingdom of Christ_ excited endless troubles,\nmassacres, and revolts. Christian Princes of every sect thought\nthemselves obliged to support the decisions of their doctors. They\nregarded as infallible opinions which they themselves had adopted; they\nenforced them by fire and sword; and were every where in confederacy\nwith their priests to make war on all who did not think like them.\n\nWe see, especially, the intolerant and persecuting spirit reigning in\ncountries which continue subject to the Roman pontiff. It was there that\npriests, nurtured in the maxims of a spiritual despotism, dared with\nmost insolence to tyrannize over minds. They had the effrontery to\nmaintain, that the prince could not without impiety dispense with\nentering into their quarrels, share their frenzy, and shed the blood of\ntheir enemies. Contrary to the express orders of Jesus, the emissaries\nof his vicar preached openly in his name persecution, revenge, hatred,\nand massacre. Their clamors imposed on sovereigns; and the least\ncredulous trembled at sight of their power, which they dared not curb. A\nsuperstitious and cowardly policy made them believe, that it was the\ninterest of the throne to unite itself for ever with these inhuman and\nboisterous madmen. Thus princes, submissive to the clergy, and making\ncommon cause with them, became the ministers of their vengeance, and the\nexecutors of their will. These blind rulers were obliged to support a\npower the rival of their own; but they did not perceive, that they\ninjured their own authority by delivering up their subjects to the\ntyranny and extortions of a swarm of men, whose interest it was to\nplunge them into ignorance, incite their fanaticism, control their\nminds, domineer over their consciences, make them fit instruments to\nserve their pride, avarice, and revenge. By this worthless policy, the\nliberty of thinking was proscribed with fury, activity was repressed,\nscience was punished, and industry crushed, while morals were neglected,\nand their place supplied by traditional observances. Nations vegetated\nin inactivity; men cultivated only monastic virtues, grievous to\nthemselves and useless to society. They had no other impulse than what\ntheir fanaticism afforded, and no other science than an obscure jargon\nof theology. Their understandings were constantly occupied with puerile\ndisputes on mysterious subtleties, unworthy of rational beings. Those\nfutile occupations engrossed the attention of the most profound genius,\nwhose labors would have been useful if they had been directed to objects\nreally interesting.\n\nUnder the despotism of priestcraft, nations were impoverished to foster,\nin abundance, in luxury, and often in drunkenness, legions of monks,\npriests, and pontiffs, from whom they derived no real benefit. Under\npretence of supporting the intercessors with God, they richly endowed a\nmultitude of drones, whose prayers and reveries procured only misery and\ndissensions. Education, entrusted throughout Christendom, to base or\nignorant priests, formed superstitious persons only, destitute of the\nqualities necessary to make useful citizens. The instructions they gave\nto Christians were confined to dogmas and mysteries which they could\nnever comprehend; they incessantly preached evangelical morality; but\nthat sublime morality which all the world applauds, and which so few\npractise, because it is compatible with the nature and wants of man, did\nnot restrain the passions, or check their irregularities. When that\nStoical morality was attempted to be practised, it was only by imbecile\nfanatics or fiery enthusiasts, whom the ardour of their zeal rendered\ndangerous to society. The saints of Christianity were either the most\nuseless or most flagitious of men.\n\nPrinces, the great, the rich, and even the heads of the church,\nconsidered themselves excused from the literal practice of precepts and\ncounsels, which a God himself had come to communicate. They left\nChristian perfection to some miserable monks, for whom alone it seemed\noriginally destined. Complaisant guides smoothed for others the to\nParadise, and, without bridling the passions, persuaded their votaries\nthat it was sufficient to come at stated times _to confess_ their faults\nto them, humble themselves at their feet, undergo the penances and\nceremonies which they should impose, and especially make donations to\nthe church, in order to obtain from God remission of the outrages they\ncommitted on his creatures. By these means, in most Christian countries,\npeople and princes openly united devotion with the most hideous\ndepravity of manners, and often with the blackest crimes. There were\ndevout tyrants and adulterers, oppressors and iniquitous ministers,\ncourtiers without morals, and public depredators--all very devout. There\nwere knaves of every kind displaying the greatest zeal for a religion,\nthe ministers of which imposed easy expiations even on those who\nviolated its most express precepts. Thus, by the cares of the spiritual\nguides of Christians, concord was banished from states; princes sunk\ninto bondage; the people were blinded; science was stifled; nations were\nimpoverished; true morality was unknown; and the most devout Christians\nwere devoid of those talents and virtues which are indispensably\nnecessary for the support of society.\n\nSuch are the immense advantages which the religion of Jesus has procured\nto the world! Such are the effects we see resulting from the gospel, or\nthe _glad tidings_ which the Son of God came in person to announce! To\njudge of it by its fruits; that is, according to the rule which the\nmessiah himself has given, the incredulous find that Christianity was\nallegorically represented by the fig tree accursed. But those who have\nfaith assure us, that in the other world this tree will produce\ndelicious fruits. We must therefore wait for them in patience, for every\nthing evinces that the great benefits promised by this religion are very\nlittle perceptible in the present world.\n\nThere are, however, some who carry incredulity so far as to think, that\nif there exists a God really jealous of his rights, he will confer no\nreward on those who are so impious as to associate with him a man, a\nJew, and a Charlatan; and to pay him honors which are due only to the\ndivinity. Indeed, in supposing that God is offended with the actions of\nhis creatures, and concerns himself with their behaviour, he must be\nirritated at the odious conduct of many Christians, who, under pretence\nof devotion and zeal, believe themselves permitted to violate the most\nsacred duties of nature of which they make the Deity the author.\n\nIt is, add our unbelievers, very difficult to calculate the duration of\nhuman extravagancies; but they flatter themselves that the reign of\nfalsehood and error will terminate at some period, and give place to\nreason and truth. They hope, the nations and their chiefs will one day\nperceive the danger resulting from their prejudices; that they will\nblush at having prostituted their praises on objects deserving sovereign\ncontempt; that they will regret the blood and treasure which baneful\nfables and reveries have cost them; and that they will be at last\nashamed of having been the dupes and victims of a mass of romances,\ndestitute of probability, at never possessing a more solid foundation\nthan the astonishing credulity of men, and the astonishing impudence of\nthose who preach them. These unbelievers venture at least a glimpse at a\ntime when men, become more sensible of their own interest, will\nacknowledge the truly barbarous folly of hating and tormenting\nthemselves, and cutting one another's throats for obscure dogmas,\npuerile opinions, and ceremonially unworthy of rational beings, and on\nwhich it is impossible to be ever unanimous. They even have the temerity\nto maintain, that it is very possible sovereigns and subjects may one\nday loathe a religion burdensome to the people, and producing real\nadvantages only to the priests of a beggarly and crucified God. They\nthink, that the profane laity, if undeceived, could easily bring their\npriests back to the frugal life of the apostles or of Jesus whom they\nought to regard as a model at least, these unbelievers imagine that the\nministers of the God of peace would be obliged to live more peaceably,\nand follow some occupation more honest than that of deceiving, and\ntearing to pieces the society which fosters them.\n\nIf it is demanded of us what can be substituted for a religion which at\nall times has produced effects pernicious to the happiness of the human\nrace, we will bid men cultivate the reason, which, much better than\nabsurd and deceptive systems, will advance their welfare, and make them\nsensible to the value of virtue. Finally, we will tell them with\nTertullian, _Why pain yourselves in seeking for a divine law, when you\nhave that which is common to mankind, and engraven on the tablets of\nNATURE_.","title":"Ecce Homo! Or, A Critical Inquiry into the History of Jesus of Nazareth: Being a Rational Analysis of the Gospels","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":72537}