← catalogue

Ecce Homo! Or, A Critical Inquiry into the History of Jesus of Nazareth

by baron d' Paul Henri Thiry Holbach · English · Gutenberg #39052 · 444,351 chars · public domain (US)

The Project Gutenberg eBook of Ecce Homo! Or, A Critical Inquiry into the History of Jesus of Nazareth
    
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and
most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms
of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online
at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States,
you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located
before using this eBook.

Title: Ecce Homo! Or, A Critical Inquiry into the History of Jesus of Nazareth

Author: baron d' Paul Henri Thiry Holbach


        
Release date: March 4, 2012 [eBook #39052]

Language: English

Other information and formats: www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/39052

Credits: Produced by the Freethought Archives (www.ftarchives.net)
        and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at
        http://www.pgdp.net


*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK ECCE HOMO! OR, A CRITICAL INQUIRY INTO THE HISTORY OF JESUS OF NAZARETH ***




Produced by the Freethought Archives (www.ftarchives.net)
and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at
http://www.pgdp.net





[Transcriber's note: archaic spellings such as "desart" for "desert"
have been retained, as have inconsistent spellings such as
"Galilee"--"Gallilee", etc.]




ECCE HOMO!

OR,

A CRITICAL INQUIRY INTO

THE HISTORY OF JESUS OF NAZARETH:

BEING A RATIONAL ANALYSIS OF THE GOSPELS

by BARON d'HOLBACH

(Paul Henri Thiry Holbach)

The Cross was the banner, under which madmen assembled to glut the earth
with blood.--_Vide Chap._ 18.

GORDON PRESS

NEW YORK

1977


      GORDON PRESS-Publishers
      P.O. Box 459
      Bowling Green Station
      New York, N.Y. 10004

      =Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data=

      [Holbach, Paul Henri Thiry, baron d'] 1723-1789.
      Ecce homo!

      Translation of Histoire critique de Jesus Christ.

      Reprint of the 1st American ed., rev. and corr., of
      1827, printed for the proprietors of the Philosophical
      library, New York, which was issued as no. 1 of the
      Philosophical library.

      1. Jesus Christ--Biography--Early works to 1800.
      I. Title. II. Series: The Philosophical library;
      no. 1.
      BT30O.H74 1976      232.9'01      73-8281
      ISBN 0-87968-077-6

      Printed in the United States of America




INTRODUCTION.


Although the writings of the New Testament are in the hands of every
one, nothing is more uncommon than to find the professors of
Christianity acquainted with the history or the founder of their
religion; and even among those who have perused that history, it is
still more rare to find any who have ventured seriously to examine it.
It must, indeed, be acknowledged, that the ignorance of the one, and the
want of reflection in the other, on a subject which they, nevertheless,
regard as of infinite importance, may arise from the dislike naturally
occasioned by the perusal of the New Testament. In that work there is a
confusion, an obscurity and a barbarity of stile, well adapted to
confound the ignorant, and to disgust enlightened minds. Scarcely is
there a history, ancient or modern, which does not possess more method
and clearness than that of Jesus; neither do we perceive that the Holy
Spirit, its reputed author, has surpassed, or even equalled many profane
historians, whose writings are not so important to mankind. The clergy
confess, that the apostles were illiterate men, and of rough manners;
and it does not appear that the Spirit which inspired them, troubled
itself with correcting their defects. On the contrary, it seems to have
adopted them; to have accommodated itself to the weak understandings of
its instruments; and to have inspired them with works in which we do not
find the judgment, order, or precision, that prevail in many human
compositions. Hence, the gospels exhibit a confused assemblage of
prodigies, anachronisms, and contradictions, in which criticism loses
itself, and which would make any other book be rejected with contempt.

It is by _mysteries_ the mind is prepared to respect religion and its
teachers. We are therefore warranted to suspect, that an obscurity was
designedly given to these writings. In matters of religion it is prudent
never to speak very distinctly. Truths simple and easily understood, do
not strike the imagination in so lively a manner as ambiguous oracles,
and impenetrable mysteries. Jesus, although come on purpose to enlighten
the world, was to be a _stumbling block_ to many nations. The small
number of the elect, the difficulty of salvation, and the danger of
exercising reason, are repeatedly announced in the gospels. Every thing
seems indeed to demonstrate, that God sent his Son to the nations, on
purpose to ensnare them, and that they should not comprehend any part of
the religion which he meant to promulgate. In this the Eternal appears
to have intended to throw mortals into darkness, perplexity, a
diffidence of themselves, and a continual embarrassment, obliging them
to have recourse to those infallible luminaries, their priests, and to
remain forever under the tutelage of the church. Her ministers, we know,
claim the exclusive privilege of understanding and explaining the
scriptures; and no mortal can expect to obtain future felicity if he
does not pay due submission to their decisions.

Thus, it belongs not to the laity to examine religion. On mere
inspection of the gospels, every person must be convinced that the book
is divine; that every word contained in it is inspired by the Holy
Spirit; and that the explanations given by the church of that celestial
work, in like manner emanate from the Most High. In the first ages of
Christianity, those who embraced the religion of Jesus were only the
dregs of the people; consequently very simple, unacquainted with
letters, and disposed to believe all the wonders any one chose to
announce. Jesus, in his sermons, addressed himself to the vulgar only;
he would have intercourse with none but persons of that description; he
constantly refused to work miracles in presence of the most
clear-sighted of the nation; he declaimed unceasingly against the
learned, the doctors, and the rich; against all in whom he could not
find the pliability necessary for adopting his maxims. We see him
continually extolling poorness of spirit, simplicity, and faith.

His disciples, and after them the ministers of the church, have
faithfully followed his footsteps; they have always represented faith,
or blind submission, as the first of virtues; as the disposition most
agreeable to God, and most necessary to salvation. This principle serves
for a basis to the Christian religion, and, above all, to the
usurpations of the clergy. The preachers, therefore, who succeeded the
apostles, employed the greatest care in secreting the gospels from the
inspection of all who were not initiated in the mysteries of religion.
They exhibited these books to those only whose faith they had tried, and
whom they found already disposed to regard them as divine. This
mysterious spirit has been transmitted down to our days. In several
countries, the laity are interdicted from perusing the scriptures,
especially in the Romish communion, whose clergy are best acquainted
with governing mankind. The council of Trent has decreed, that "it
belongs to the church alone to decide on the true meaning of the
scriptures, and give their interpretation."

It is true, the _reading_ of the sacred books is permitted, and even
recommended to protestants, who are also enjoined to _examine_ their
religion. But faith must always precede that reading, and follow that
examination; so that before reading, a protestant is bound to believe
the gospel to be divine: and the examination of it is permitted only,
while he finds there what the ministers of his sect have resolved that
he shall find. Beyond this, he is regarded as an ungodly man, and often
punished for the weakness of his intellect.

The salvation of Christians thus depends neither on the reading nor on
the understanding of the sacred books, but on the belief that these
books are divine. If, unfortunately, the reading or examination of any
one, does not coincide with the decisions, interpretations, and
commentaries of the church, he is in danger of being ruined, and of
incurring eternal damnation. To _read_ the gospel, he must commence with
being disposed blindly to believe all which that book contains; to
_examine_ the gospel, he must be previously resolved to find nothing
there but the holy and the adorable; in fine, to _understand_ the
gospel, he must entertain a fixed persuasion, that the priests can never
be themselves deceived, or wish to deceive others in the manner they
explain it. "Believe, (say they,) believe on our words that this book is
the work of God himself; if you dare to doubt it, you shall be damned.
Are you unable to comprehend any thing which God reveals to you there?
Believe evermore: God has revealed himself that he may not be
understood.--"The glory of God is to conceal his word;"--(Prov. xxv. 2.)
or rather, by speaking, in a mysterious manner, does not God intimate
that he wishes every one to refer it to us, to whom he has confided his
important secrets? A truth, of which you must not doubt, seeing that we
persecute in this world, and damn in the other, whoever dares to
question the testimony which we bear to ourselves."

However erroneous this reasoning may appear to those accustomed to
think, it is sufficient for the greater part of believers. Where,
therefore, they do not read the gospel, or where they do read it, they
do not examine it; where they do examine it, it is with prejudiced eyes,
and with a determination to find there only what can be conformable to
these prejudices, and to the interests of their guides.--In consistency
with his fears and prepossessions, a Christian conceives himself lost,
should he find in the sacred books reason to doubt the veracity of his
priests.

With such dispositions, it is no way surprising to see men persisting in
their ignorance, and making a merit of rejecting the lights which reason
offers them. It is thus, that error is perpetuated, and that nations, in
concert with those who deceive them, confer on interested cheats an
unbounded confidence in what they regard as of the greatest importance
to their own felicity. But the darkness which for so many ages has
enveloped the human mind, begins to dissipate. In spite of the tyrannic
cares of their jealous guides, mankind seem desirous to burst from the
pupilage, wherein so many causes combine to retain them. The ignorance
in which the priesthood fostered the credulous, has vanished from among
many nations; the despotism of priests is enfeebled in several
flourishing states; science has rendered the mind more liberal; and
mankind begin to blush at the ignominious fetters, under which the
clergy have so long made both kings and people groan. The human mind is
struggling in every country to break in pieces its chains.

Having premised this, we proceed to examine, without any prejudice, the
life of Jesus. We shall deduce our facts from the gospels
only--memorials reverenced and acknowledged by the doctors of the
Christian religion. To illustrate these facts, we shall employ the aid
of criticism. We shall exhibit, in the plainest manner, the conduct,
maxims, and policy of an obscure legislator, who, after his death,
acquired a celebrity to which he had no pretensions while alive. We
shall contemplate in its cradle a religion which, at first, intended for
the vilest populace of a nation, the most abject, the most credulous,
and the most stupid on earth, became, by little and little, mistress of
the Romans, the firebrand of nations, the absolute sovereign of European
monarchs; arbiter of the destiny of kingdoms; the cause of their
friendship, and of their hate; the cement which serves to strengthen
their alliance or their discord; and the leaven always ready to put
minds in fermentation. In fine, we shall behold an artizan, a melancholy
enthusiast and unskilful juggler, abandoning his profession of a
carpenter to preach to men of his own cast; miscarrying in all his
projects; himself punished as a public incendiary; dying on a cross; and
yet after his death becoming the legislator and the god of many nations,
and an object of adoration to beings who pretend to common sense!

If the Holy Spirit had anticipated the transcendant fortune which the
religion of Jesus was one day to attain; if he had foreseen that this
religion would be received by kings, civilized nations, scholars, and
persons in the higher circles of life; if he had suspected that it would
be examined, analyzed, discussed and criticised by logicians; there is
reason to believe that he would have left us memoirs less shapeless,
facts more circumstantial, proofs more authentic, and materials better
digested than those we possess on the life and doctrine of its founder.
He would have chosen writers better qualified than those he has
inspired, to transmit to nations the speeches and actions of the saviour
of the world; he would have made him act and speak on the most trifling
point, in a manner more worthy of a god; he would have put in his mouth
a language more noble, more perspicuous, and more persuasive; and he
would have employed means more certain to convince rebellious reason,
and abash incredulity.

Nothing of all this has occurred: the gospel is merely an eastern
romance, disgusting to men of common sense, and obviously addressed to
the ignorant, the stupid, and the vulgar; the only persons whom it can
mislead. Criticism finds there no connection of facts, no agreement of
circumstances, no illustration of principles, and no uniformity of
relation. Four men, unpolished and unlettered, pass for the faithful
authors of memoirs containing the life of Jesus; and it is on their
testimony that Christians believe themselves bound to receive the
religion they profess; and adopt, without examination, the most
contradictory facts, the most incredible actions, the most amazing
prodigies, the most unconnected system, the most unintelligible
doctrines, and the most revolting mysteries!

Victor of Tunis informs us, that, in the sixth century, the Emperor
Anastasius "caused the gospels to be corrected, as works composed by
_fools_." The Elements of Euclid are intelligible to all who endeavor to
understand them; they excite no dispute among geometricians. Is it so
with the Bible? and do its _revealed_ truths occasion no disputes among
divines? By what fatality have writings revealed by God himself still
need of commentaries? and why do they demand additional lights from on
high, before they can be believed or understood? Is it not astonishing,
that what was intended as a _guide_ to mankind, should be wholly above
their comprehension? Is it not cruel, that what is of most importance to
them, should be least known? All is mystery, darkness, uncertainty, and
matter of dispute, in a religion intended by the Most High to enlighten
the human race. In fact, God is every where represented in the bible as
a _seducer_. He permitted Eve to be _seduced_ by a serpent. He hardened
the heart of Pharaoh; and the prophet Jeremiah distinctly accuses him of
being a deceiver.

Supposing, however, that the gospels were in reality written by apostles
or disciples of apostles, should it not follow from this alone, that
their testimony ought to be suspected? Could not men who are described
as illiterate, and destitute of talents, be themselves deceived? Could
not enthusiasts and credulous fanatics imagine, that they had seen many
things which never existed, and thus become the dupes of deception?
Whoever has perused the ancient historians, particularly Herodotus,
Plutarch, Livy, and Josephus, must admit the force of this reasoning.
These writers, with a pious credulity similar to that of Christians,
relate prodigies pregnant with absurdities, which they themselves
pretended to have witnessed, or were witnessed by others. Among the
wonders that appeared at Rome, some time before the triumvirate, many
statues of the Gods sweat blood and water; and there was an Ox which
spoke. Under the empire of Caligula, the statue of Jupiter Olympus burst
forth into such loud fits of laughter, that those who were taking it
down to carry to Rome, abandoned their work and fled in terror. A crow
prognosticated misfortune to Domitian, and an Owl paid the same
compliment to Herod.

Moreover, could not impostors, strongly attached to a sect by which they
subsisted, and which, therefore, they had an interest to support, attest
miracles, and publish statements with the falsehood of which they were
well acquainted? and could not the first christians, by a _pious fraud_,
afterwards add or retrench things essential to the works ascribed to the
apostles? We know that Origen, so early as the third century, complained
loudly of the corruption of manuscripts. "What shall we say (exclaims
he) of the errors of transcribers, and of the impious temerity with
which they have corrupted the text? What shall we say of the licence of
those, who promiscuously interpolate or erase at their pleasure?" These
questions form warrantable prejudices against the persons to whom the
gospels have been ascribed, and against the purity of their text.

It is also extremely difficult to ascertain whether those books belong
to the authors whose names they bear. In the first ages of Christianity
there was a great number of gospels, different from one another, and
composed for the use of different churches and different sects of
Christians. The truth of this has been confessed by ecclesiastical
historians of the greatest credit. (Tillemont, tom. ii. 47, etc.
Epiphan. Homil. 84. Dodwell's Disser. on Irenaeus, p. 66. Freret's
Examin. Critique. Codex Apocryphus, &c.) There is, therefore, reason to
suspect, that the persons who composed the acknowledged gospels might,
with the view of giving them more weight, have attributed them to
apostles, or disciples, who actually had no share in them. That idea,
once adopted by ignorant and credulous christians, might be transmitted
from age to age, and pass at last for certainty, in times when it was no
longer possible to ascertain the authors or the facts related.

Among some fifty gospels, with which Christianity in its commencement
was inundated, the church, assembled in council at Nice, chose four of
them, and rejected the rest as apocryphal, although the latter had
nothing more ridiculous in them than those which were admitted. Thus, at
the end of three centuries, (_i.e._ in the three hundred and
twenty-fifth year of the Christian era,) some bishops decided, that
these four gospels were the only ones which ought to be adopted, or
which had been inspired by the Holy Spirit. A miracle enabled them to
discover this important truth, so difficult to be discerned at a time
even then not very remote from that of the apostles. They placed, it is
said, promiscuously, books apocryphal and authentic under an altar:--the
Fathers of the Council betook themselves to prayer, in order to induce
the Lord to permit the false or doubtful books to remain _under_ the
altar, whilst those which were truly inspired should place themselves
above it--a circumstance which did not fail to occur. It is then on this
miracle that the faith of Christians depends! It is to it that they owe
the assurance of possessing the true gospels, or faithful memoirs of the
life of Jesus! It is from these only they are, permitted to deduce the
principles of their belief, and the rule of conduct which they ought to
observe in order to obtain eternal salvation!

Thus, the authenticity of the books which are the basis of the Christian
religion, is founded solely on the authority of a council composed of
priests and bishops. But these bishops and priests, judges and parties
in an affair wherein they were obviously interested, could they not be
themselves deceived? Independently of the pretended miracle which
enabled them to distinguish the true gospels from the false, had they
any sign by which they could clearly distinguish the writings they ought
to receive from those which they ought to reject? Some will tell us,
that the church assembled in a general council is _infallible_; that
then the Holy Spirit inspires it, and that its decisions ought to be
regarded as those of God himself. If we demand, where is the proof of
this infallibility? it will be answered, that the gospel assures it, and
that Jesus has promised to assist and enlighten his church until the
consummation of ages. Here the incredulous reply, that the church, or
its ministers, create rights to themselves; for it is their own
authority which establishes the authenticity of books whereby that
authority is established. This is obviously a circle of errors. In
short, an assembly of bishops and priests has decided, that the books
which attribute to themselves an infallible authority, have been
divinely inspired!

Notwithstanding this decision, there still remain some difficulties on
the authenticity of the gospels. In the _first_ place, it may be asked
whether the decision of the Council of Nice, composed of three hundred
and eighteen bishops, ought to be regarded as that of the universal
church? Were all who formed that assembly entirely of the same opinion?
Were, there no disputes among these men inspired by the Holy Spirit? Was
their decision unanimously accepted? Had not the authority of
Constantine a chief share in the adoption of the decrees of that
celebrated council? In this case, was it not the imperial power, rather
than the spiritual authority, which decided the authenticity of the
gospels?

In the _second_ place, many theologists agree, that the universal
church, although infallible in doctrine, may err in _facts_. Now it is
evident, that in the case alluded to, the doctrine depends on fact.
Indeed, before deciding whether the doctrines contained in the gospels
were divine, it was necessary to know, whether the gospels themselves
were written by the inspired authors to whom they are ascribed. This is
obviously a _fact_. It was further necessary to know, whether the
gospels had never been altered, mutilated, augmented, interpolated, or
falsified, by the different hands through which they had passed in the
course of three centuries. This is likewise a _fact_. Can the fathers of
the church guarantee the probity of all the depositaries of those
writings, and the exactness of all the transcribers? Can they decide
definitively, that, during so long a period, none could insert in these
memoirs, marvelous relations or dogmas, unknown to those who are their
supposed authors? Does not ecclesiastical history inform us, that, in
the origin of Christianity, there were schisms, disputes, heresies, and
sects without number; and that each of the disputants founded his
opinion on the gospels? Even in the time of the Council of Nice, do we
not find that the whole church was divided on the fundamental article of
the Christian religion--the divinity of Jesus?

Thus it is seen that the council of Nice was the true founder of
Christianity, which, till then, wandered at random; did not acknowledge
Jesus to be God; had no authentic gospels; was without a fixed law; and
had no code of doctrine whereon to rely. A number of bishops and
priests, very few in comparison of those who composed the whole
Christian church, and these bishops no way unanimous, decided on the
points most essential to the salvation of nations. They decided on the
divinity of Jesus; on the authenticity of the gospels; that, according
to these, their own authority ought to be deemed infallible. In a word,
they decided on the sum total of faith! Nevertheless their decisions
might have remained without force, if they had not been supported by the
authority of Constantine. This prince gave prevalence to the opinion of
the fathers of the council, who knew how to draw him, for a time, to
their own side; and who, amidst this multitude of gospels and writings,
did not fail to declare those divine which they judged most comformable
to their own opinions, or to the ruling faction. In religion as in other
things, the reasoning of the _strongest_ party is always the best.

Behold, then, the authority of an emperor, who determines the chief
points of the Christian religion! This emperor, unsettled in his own
faith, decides that Jesus is consubtantial with the Father, and compels
his subjects to receive, as inspired, the four gospels we have in our
hands.--It is in these memoirs, adopted by a few bishops in the council
of Nice; by them attributed to apostles, or unexceptionable persons
inspired by the Holy Spirit; by them proposed to serve as an
indispensable rule to Christians; that we are to seek for the materials
of our history. We shall state them with fidelity; we shall compare and
connect their discordant relations; we shall see if the facts which they
detail are worthy of God, and calculated to procure to mankind the
advantages which they expect. This inquiry will enable us to judge
rightly of the Christian religion; of the degree of confidence we ought
to place in it; of the esteem we ought to entertain for its lessons and
doctrines; and of the idea we should form of Jesus its founder.

Though, in composing this history, we have laid it down as a rule to
employ the gospels only, we presume not to flatter ourselves that it
will please every body, or that the clergy will adopt our labors. The
connections we shall form; the interpretations we shall give; the
animadversions we shall present to our readers, will not always be
entirely agreeable to the views of our spiritual guides, the greater
part of whom are enemies to all inquiry. To such men we would state,
that criticism gives a lustre to truth; that to reject all examination
is to acknowledge the weakness of their cause; and that not to wish for
discussion is to avow it to be incapable of sustaining a trial.

If they tell us, that our ideas are repugnant to the decisions of
councils, of the fathers, and of the universal church; to this we shall
answer, that, according to their own books, _opposition_ is not always a
crime; we shall plead the example of an apostle, to whom the Christian
religion is under the greatest obligations--what do we say!--to whom
alone, perhaps, it owes its existence. Now this apostle boasts of having
_withstood_ the great St. Peter to his face, that visible head of the
church, appointed by Jesus himself to feed his flock; and whose
infallibility is at least as probable as that of his successors.

If they charge us with _innovation_, we shall plead the example of Jesus
himself, who was regarded as an _innovator_ by the Jews, and who was a
martyr for the reform he intended to introduce. If the opinions be
unacceptable, the author, as he has no pretensions to divine
inspiration, leaves to every one the liberty of rejecting or receiving
his interpretations, and method of investigation. He does not threaten
with eternal torments those who resist his arguments; he has not credit
enough to promise heaven to such as yield to them; he pretends neither
to constrain, nor to seduce those who do not think as he does. He is
desirous only to calm the mind; allay animosity; and sooth the passions
of those zealots, who are ever ready to harass and destroy their fellow
creatures on account of opinions which may not appear equally convincing
to all the world. He promises to point out the ridiculous cruelty of
those men of blood, who persecute for dogmas which they themselves do
not understand. He ventures to flatter himself, that such as peruse this
inquiry with coolness, will acknowledge, that it is very possible to
doubt of the inspiration of the gospels, and of the divine mission of
Jesus, without ceasing to be a rational and honest man.

Such as are exasperated against this work are entreated to remember,
that faith is a gift of heaven; that the want of it is not a vice; that
if the Jews, who were eye witnesses of the wonders of Jesus, did not
believe them, it is very pardonable to doubt them at the beginning of
the nineteenth century, especially on finding that the accounts of these
marvels, though said to have been inspired by the Holy Spirit, are not
uniform nor in harmony with each other. In fine, fiery devotees are
earnestly entreated to moderate their holy rage, and suffer the
meekness, so often recommended by their "divine Saviour" to occupy the
place of that bitter zeal, and persecuting spirit which creates so many
enemies to the Christian religion. Let them remember, that if it was to
patience and forbearance Jesus promised the possession of the earth, it
is much to be feared that pride, intolerance and inhumanity, will render
the ministers of the church detestable, and make them lose that empire
over minds, which to them is so agreeable. If they wish to reign over
rational men, they must display reason, knowledge, and, above all,
virtues more useful than those wherewith the teachers of the gospel have
so long infested society. Jesus has said, "_Happy are the meek, for they
shall inherit the earth_;" unless indeed interpreters should pretend,
that this only signifies the necessity of persecuting, exterminating,
and cutting the throats of those whose affections they wish to gain.

If it were permitted to cite the maxims of a profane person by that of
the Son of God, we would quote here the apophthegm of the profound
Machiavel, that "empires are preserved by the same means whereby they
are established." It was by meekness, patience, and precaution, that the
disciples of Jesus are said to have at first established Christianity.
Their successors employed violence; but not until they found themselves
supported by devout tyrants. Since then, the gospel of peace has been
the signal of war; the pacific disciples of Jesus have become implacable
warriors; have treated each other as ferocious beasts; and the church
has been perpetually torn by dissentions, schisms, and factions. If the
primitive spirit of patience and meekness does not quickly return to the
aid of religion, it will soon become the object of the hatred of
nations, who begin to feel that morality is preferable to obscure
dogmas, and that peace is of greater value than the holy frenzy of the
ministers of the gospel.

We cannot, therefore, with too much earnestness exhort them, for their
own sakes, to moderation. Let them imitate their divine Master, who
never employed his Father's power to exterminate the Jews, of whom he
had so much to complain. He did not make the armies of heaven descend,
in order to establish his doctrine. He chose rather to surrender to the
secular power than give up the infidels, whom his prodigies and
transcendent reasoning could not convince. Though he is represented as
being the depositary of the power of the Most High; though he was
inspired by the Holy Spirit; though he had at his command all the angels
of paradise, we do not find that he performed any miracles on the
understandings of his auditory. He suffered them to remain in their
blindness, though he had come on purpose to enlighten them. We cannot
doubt, that a conduct, so wise, was intended to make the pastors of his
church (who are not possessed of more persuasive powers than their
master) sensible that it is not by violence they can reconcile the mind
to incredible things; and that it would be unjust to force others to
comprehend what, without favor from above; it would be impossible for
themselves to comprehend; or what, even with such favor, they but very
imperfectly understand.

But it is time to conclude an introduction, perhaps, already too long to
a work which, even without preamble, may be tiresome to the clergy, and
irritate the temper of the devout. The author does himself the justice
to believe, that he has written enough to be attacked by a host of
writers, obliged, by situation to repel his blows, and to defend, right
or wrong, a cause wherein they are so deeply interested. He calculates
that, on his death, his book will be calumniated, as well as his
reputation, and his arguments misrepresented, or mutilated. He expects
to be treated as impious--a blasphemer--an atheist, and to be loaded
with all the epithets which the pious are in use to lavish on those who
disquiet them. He will not, however, sleep the less tranquil for that;
but as his sleep may prevent him from replying, he thinks it his duty to
inform his antagonists before hand, that _injuries are not reasons_. He
does more--he bequeaths them charitable advice, to which the defenders
of religion do not usually pay sufficient attention. They are then
apprised, that if, in their learned refutations, they do not resolve
completely _all_ the objections brought against them, they will have
done nothing for their cause. The defenders of a religion, in which it
is affirmed that every thing is divinely inspired, are bound not to
leave a single argument behind, and ought to be convinced that
_answering_ to an argument is not always refuting it. They should please
also to keep in remembrance, that a single falsehood, a single
absurdity, a single contradiction, or a single blunder, fairly pointed
out in the gospels, is sufficient to render suspected, and even to
overturn the authority of a book which ought to be perfect in all its
parts, if it be true that it is the work of an infinitely perfect Being.
An incredulous person, being but a man, may reason wrong; but it is
never permitted to a God, or his instruments, either to contradict
themselves, or to talk nonsense.




ECCE HOMO!

CHAP. I.

ACCOUNT OF THE JEWISH PEOPLE AND THEIR PROPHETS.--INQUIRY INTO THE
PROPHECIES RELATING TO JESUS.


However slightly we cast our eyes over the history of the Jews, as
contained in their sacred books, we are forced to acknowledge, that
these people were at all times the blindest, the most stupid, the most
credulous, the most superstitious, and the silliest that ever appeared
on earth. Moses, by dint of miracles, or delusions, succeeded in
subjugating the Israelites. After having liberated them from the iron
rod of the Egyptians, he put them under his own. This celebrated
legislator had evidently the intention to subject the Hebrews for ever
to his purposes, and, after himself, to render them the slaves of his
family and tribe. It is obvious, that the mosaical economy had no other
object than to deliver up the people of Israel to the tyranny and
extortions of priests and Levites. These the law, which was promulgated
in name of the Eternal, authorised to devour the rest of the nation, and
to crush them under an insupportable yoke. The chosen people of God were
destined solely to be the prey of the priesthood; to satiate their
avarice and ambition; and to become the instrument and victim of their
passions.

Hence, by the law, and by the policy of the priests, the people of God
were kept in a profound ignorance, in an abject superstition, in an
unsocial and savage aversion for the rest of mankind; in an inveterate
hatred of other forms of worship, and in a barbarous and sanguinary
intolerance towards every foreign religion. All the neighbors of the
Hebrews, were, therefore, their enemies. If the holy nation was the
object of the love of the most high, it was an object of contempt and
horror to all who had occasion to know it--a fact admitted by their own
historian, Josephus. For this it was indebted to its religious
institutions, to the labors of its priests, to its diviners, and its
prophets, who continually profitted by its credulity, in displaying
wonders and kindling its delirium.

Under the guidance of Moses, and of generals or judges who governed them
afterwards, the Jewish people distinguished themselves only by
massacres, unjust wars, cruelties, usurpations, and infamies, which were
enjoined them in the name of the Eternal. Weary of the government of
their priests, which drew on them misfortunes and bloody defeats, the
descendants of Abraham demanded kings; but, under these, the state was
perpetually torn with disputes between the priesthood and the
government. Superstition aimed at ruling over policy. Prophets and
priests pretended to reign over kings, of whom such as were not
sufficiently submissive to the interpreters of heaven, were renounced by
the Lord, and, from that moment, unacknowledged and opposed by their own
subjects. Fanatics and impostors, absolute masters of the understandings
of the nation, were continually ready to rouse it, and excite in its
bosom the most terrible revolutions. It was the intrigues of the
prophets that deprived Saul of his crown, and bestowed it on David, _the
man according to God's own heart_--that is to say, devoted to the will
of the priests. It was the prophets, who, to punish the defection of
Solomon in the person of his son, occasioned the separation of the
kingdoms of Judea and Israel. It was the prophets who kept these two
kingdoms continually at variance; weakened them by means of each other,
desolated them by religious and fatal wars, conducted them to complete
ruin, a total dispersion of their inhabitants, and a long captivity
among the Assyrians.

So many calamities did not open the eyes of the Jews, who continued
obstinate in refusing to acknowledge the true source of their
misfortunes. Restored to their homes by the bounty of Cyrus, they were
again governed by priests and prophets, whose maxims rendered them
turbulent, and drew on them the hatred of sovereigns who subdued them.
The Greek princes treated with the greatest severity a people whom the
oracles and promises of their prophets rendered always rebellious, and
ungovernable. The Jews, in fine, became the prey of the Romans, whose
yoke they bore with fear, against whom impostors often incited them to
revolt, and who, at last, tired of their frequent rebellions, entirely
destroyed them as a nation.

Such, in a few words, is the history of the Jewish people. It presents
the most memorable examples of the evils which fanaticism and
superstition produce; for it is evident that the continual revolutions,
bloody wars, and total destruction of that nation, had no other cause
than its unwearied credulity, its submission to priests, its enthusiasm,
and its furious zeal, excited by the inspired. On reading the Old
Testament, we are forced to confess, that the people of God (thanks to
the roguery of their spiritual guides) were, beyond contradiction, the
most unfortunate people that ever existed. Yet the most solemn promises
of Jehovah seemed to assure to that people a flourishing and puissant
empire. God had made an eternal alliance with Abraham and his posterity;
but the Jews, far from reaping the fruits of this alliance, and far from
enjoying the prosperity they had been led to expect, lived continually
in the midst of calamities, and were, more than all other nations, the
sport of frightful revolutions. So many disasters, however, were
incapable of rendering them more considerate; the experience of so many
ages did not hinder them from relying on oracles so often contradicted;
and the more unfortunate they found themselves, the more rooted were
they in their credulity. The destruction of their nation could not bring
them to doubt of the excellence of their law, of the wisdom of their
institutions, or of the veracity of their prophets, who successively
relieved each other, either in menacing them in the name of the Lord, or
in re-animating their frivolous hopes.

Strongly convinced that they were the sacred and chosen people of the
Most High, alone worthy of his favors, the Jews, in spite of all their
miseries, were continually persuaded that their God could not have
abandoned them.--They, therefore, constantly looked for an end to their
afflictions, and promised themselves a deliverance, which obscure
oracles had led them to expect. Building on these fanatical notions,
they were at all times disposed to listen with avidity to every man who
announced himself as inspired by heaven; they eagerly ran after every
singular personage who could feed their expectations; they followed
whoever had the secret of astonishing them by impostures, which their
stupidity made them consider supernatural works, and unquestionable
signs of divine power. Disposed to see the marvellous in the most
trifling events, every adroit impostor was on the watch to deceive them,
and was certain of making more or less adherents, especially among the
populace, who are every where destitute of experience and knowledge.

It was in the midst of a people of this disposition that the personage
appeared whose history we write. He very soon found followers in the
most despicable of the rabble. Seconded by these, he preached, as usual,
_reformation_ to his fellow citizens, he wrought wonders; he styled
himself the envoy of the Divinity. He particularly founded his mission
on vague, obscure, and ambiguous predictions, contained in the sacred
books of the Jews, which he applied to himself. He announced himself as
the messiah or messenger, the deliverer of Israel, who for so many ages
was the object of the nation's hope. His disciples, his apostles, and
afterwards their successors, found means to apply to their master the
ancient prophecies, wherein he seemed the least perceptibly designed.
The Christians, docile and full of faith, have had the good fortune to
see the founder of their religion predicted in the clearest manner
throughout the whole Old Testament. By dint of allegories, figures,
interpretations, and commentaries, their doctors have brought them to
see, in this shapeless compilation, all that they had an interest in
pointing out to them. When passages taken literally did not countenance
deceit agreeably to their views, they contrived for them a two-fold
sense: they pretended that it was not necessary to understand them
literally, but to give them a mystical, allegorical, and spiritual
meaning. To explain these pretended predictions, they continually
substituted one name for another; they rejected the literal meaning, in
order to adopt a figurative one; they changed the most natural
signification of words they applied the same passages to events quite
opposite; they retrenched the names of some personages plainly designed,
in order to introduce that of Jesus; and, in all this, they did not
blush to make the most crying abuse of the principles of language.

The third chapter of Genesis furnishes a striking example of the manner
in which the doctors of the Christian religion have allegorized passages
of scripture, in order to apply then to Jesus. In this chapter, God says
to the serpent, convicted of having seduced the woman, _the seed of the
woman shall bruise thy head_. This prophesy appears with so much the
more difficulty to apply to Jesus, that these words follow--_and thou
shalt bruise his heel_. We do not comprehend, why the _seed of the
woman_ must be understood of Jesus. If he was the Son of God, or God
himself, he could not be produced from the _seed of the woman_. If he
was man, he is not pointed out in a particular manner by these words,
for all men, without exception, are produced from the _seed of women_.
According to our interpreters, the serpent is sin, and the seed of the
woman that bruises it is Jesus incarnate in the womb of Mary. Since the
coming of Jesus, however, sin, typified by the serpent, has at all times
existed; from which we are led to conclude, that Jesus has not destroyed
it, and that the prediction is neither literally nor allegorically
accomplished.

In the twenty-second chapter of Genesis, God promises to Abraham, that
in his seed _all the nations of the earth shall be blessed_. What we
style prosperity, the Hebrews termed blessings. If Abraham and his race
enjoyed prosperity, it was only for a short period; the Hebrews became
afterwards the slaves of the Egyptians, and were, as has been seen, the
most unfortunate people on earth. Christians have also given a mystic
sense to this prophecy:--they substitute the name of Jesus for that of
Abraham, and it is in him that all the nations shall be blessed. The
advantages they shall enjoy will be persecutions, calamities, and
misfortunes of every kind; and his disciples, like himself, shall
undergo the most painful punishments. Hence we see, that, following our
interpreters, the word _blessing_ has changed its meaning; it no longer
implies prosperity; it signifies what, in ordinary language, is termed
curses, disasters, afflictions, troubles, divisions, and religious
wars--calamities with which the Christian nations have been continually
_blessed_ since the establishment of the church.

Christians believe that they see Jesus announced in the 49th chapter of
Genesis. The patriarch Jacob there promises sovereign power to Judah.
"The sceptre (says he) shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from
between his feet, until Shiloh come, and unto him shall the gathering of
the people be." It is thus that several interpreters translate the tenth
verse of the 49th chapter of Genesis. Others have translated it thus,
"the authority shall forever be in Judah, when the Messiah shall have
come." Others read, "the authority shall be in Judah, till the messenger
receive in Shiloh the sovereign power." Others again render the passage
in this manner, "the people of Judah shall be in affliction, till the
messenger of the Lord comes to put an end to it;" and according to
others, "till the city of Shiloh be destroyed."

This diversity in the translation of the same passage ought,
unquestionably, to render the prophecy very suspicious. First, we see
that it is impossible to determine the signification of the word
_Shiloh_, or to ascertain, whether it be the name of a man or a city?
Secondly, it is proved by the sacred books, received equally by Jew and
Christians, that the sovereign power is gone from Judah; was wholly
annihilated during the Babylonish captivity, and has not been
re-established since. If it is pretended, that Jesus came to restore the
power of Judah, we assert, on the contrary, that, in the time of Jesus,
Judah was without authority, for Judah had submitted to the Romans. But
our doctors have again recourse to allegory:--according to them, the
power of Judah was the spiritual power of Jesus over Christians,
designated by Judah.

They, in like manner, see Jesus foretold by Balaam, who, by the bye, was
a false prophet. He thus expresses himself: (Numbers xxiv. 16,)--"He
hath said, who heard the words of God, and knew the knowledge of the
Most High, who saw the vision of the Almighty, falling into a trance,
but having his eyes open: I shall see him but not now; I shall behold
him but not nigh; there shall come a star out of Jacob, and a sceptre
shall rise out of Israel," &c. In this unintelligible jargon, they
pretend to shew Christians a clear prediction of the founder of their
religion. It is he who is the star, because his luminous doctrine
enlightens all minds. _This sceptre, which shall rise out of Israel_, is
the cross of Jesus, by the aid of which he has triumphed over the Devil,
who, in spite of this victory, ceases not to reign on earth, and to
render useless the triumph of the Son of God.

But of all the prophecies contained in the Old Testament, there is not
one to which the Christian doctors have attached more importance than
that found in Isaiah, chap. vii. 14 A young woman _shall conceive, and
bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel_. To find out Jesus in this
prediction, it is, first of all, necessary to be convinced, that this
woman is _Mary_; next, it is necessary to ascertain that _Immanuel_ is
the same with Jesus. It will always be objected against this pretended
prophecy, that it is sufficient to read the chapter of Isaiah whence the
passage is taken, to be satisfied that the prophet had in view Ahaz king
of Judah. This prince is there represented as in consternation, on
account of the arrival of Rezin and Pekah, kings of Syria and Israel,
who, with their united armies, threatened his dominions. Isaiah
encouraged him, by representing that he still had forces sufficient, and
promised him the assistance of the Lord, whom every prophet made to be
of his own party. To guarantee his promises, Isaiah told his sovereign,
that he had only to ask of him a sign. The dispirited prince replied,
that he did not wish to tempt the Lord. The prophet, however, wishing to
convince him, announced a sign--"A young woman shall conceive, and bring
forth a son, who shall be called Immanuel." Now the following chapter
informs us who this young woman was: she was the wife of Isaiah
himself.--"I took unto me (says he) faithful witnesses; and I went unto
the _prophetess_, and she conceived and bare a son." The simple
inspection of this text, evidently shows that it is in no respect
applicable to Jesus. If what is recorded in 2d Chron. c. v. be true, the
prophecy was not even accomplished, but the reverse of its fulfilment
took place. Instead of Ahaz defeating his enemies, as Isaiah promised he
would, his whole army was routed, 120,000 killed, and 200,000 carried
into captivity by the kings of Syria and Israel. It is evident, then,
that this famous sign of "a young woman shall conceive," &c. served only
in the first instance to _deceive_ the king of Judah, and has since been
employed to _mislead_ those who, like that king, relied on the
professions of priests and prophets.

Proceeding forward in the perusal of Isaiah (chap. ix. 6,) we find the
following passage:--"Unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given:
and the government shall be upon his shoulder." If the child foretold by
Isaiah was born in his time, it can no longer be said, that the prophet
meant to speak of Jesus, who was born several centuries after him; for
the birth of that person being so distant, could not be a sign of
deliverance to Ahaz, as his enemies pressed so closely upon him. To this
it is answered, that the prophets spoke of future events as if they were
past or present; but this answer requires to be established by proof. It
is likewise said, that the birth of Isaiah's son was only a type of that
of Jesus; for to him, it is affirmed, is applicable "the government on
the shoulder," in which our doctors perceive distinctly pointed out the
cross that Jesus carried on his shoulders when going to Calvary. Our
interpreters have thus the happiness of seeing the sign of dominion, or
empire, in what appears to eyes less enlightened, the sign of
punishment, weakness, and slavery.

It is proper also to inquire why it is said, in the Christian system,
that it is not necessary a prophecy have relation, in all its parts, to
the subject or fact to which it is applied. The sacred writers do not
mean to cite a whole prophecy, but only a passage, a detached phrase, or
often a single word, apposite to the subject they treat of, without
troubling themselves whether what precedes, or what follows their
quotation has connexion or not with what they are speaking of. In the
example under discussion, Matthew, wishing to quote Isaiah and apply a
prophecy to Jesus, takes of this prophecy these detached words only, _A
young woman shall conceive_, &c.--he stood in need of no more of it.
According to that Evangelist, Mary had conceived:--Isaiah had said, that
a girl, or woman, should conceive. Matthew therefore concluded, that the
conception of Jesus was foretold by Isaiah. This vague connection is
sufficient for all Christians, who, like Matthew, believe they see their
founder pointed out in prophecy.

Following this strange method, they have referred to Isaiah to prove
that Jesus was the messiah promised to the Jews. In the 53d chapter,
this prophet describes in a very pathetic manner the misfortunes and
sufferings of his brother Jeremiah. The clergy have long labored to
apply that prophecy to Jesus: they have distinctly seen him pointed out
in the "man of sorrows;" so that it is regarded rather as a faithful and
circumstantial narrative of the passion of Jesus, than as a prediction.
But, agreeably to sound criticism, this history relates only to
Jeremiah. Not to deprive themselves, however, of the resources so useful
a passage might furnish, they have decided, that, in the case of
prophecies, the indirect relation should have place. By this means, in
admitting that the narrative of Isaiah had Jeremiah for its object, they
maintained that Jeremiah was a figure or type of Jesus. It is not that
their lives were strictly consentaneous; but, in the Christian religion,
conformity followed by affinities, is not absolutely requisite to the
justice of the comparison.

This manner of reasoning, peculiar to the Christian religion, has been
very convenient for it. Paul especially, like most of the first
preachers of Christianity, and after them the fathers and doctors of the
church, employed this curious method of proving their system. According
to them, all under the ancient law was the image of the new; and the
most celebrated personages in the Old Testament, typified Jesus and his
church. Abel, assassinated by his brother, was a prophetic figure of
Jesus put to death by the Jews. The sacrifice of Isaac, which was not
accomplished, was the image of that accomplished on the cross. The
relations or predictions which had for their object Abraham, Isaac,
Jacob, Moses, Joshua, Samuel, David, Solomon, Jeremiah, Zorobabel, or
other ancient personages, were applied to Jesus. His death was
represented by the blood of he-goats and of bulls. By aid of these
allegories, the books of the Jews served only to announce the events in
the life of Jesus, and the history of the establishment of his religion.
In this manner it is easy to find in the scriptures whatever we desire.

It would be useless to investigate the famous prophecy of the seventy
weeks of Daniel, in which the Christian doctors believe they see the
coming of Jesus clearly announced. It is true, that if Daniel, or his
editors, had specified the nature of these _weeks_, they would have
prevented much trouble to interpreters: this prediction might then have
been a great resource to Christianity. The ablest critics, however,
declare that they are greatly embarrassed when attempting to fix the
commencement and the end of these weeks. On this they are never
unanimous, nor can they agree on a precise date, which hitherto is
wanting to the great event of the coming of the messiah. We know the
Jews made use of weeks of days, weeks of weeks, and weeks of years. It
is by a conjecture, merely hazarded, they advance in the bible of
Louvain, that the weeks mentioned in Daniel are weeks of years. Yet that
supposition throws light on nothing, for the chronological table, which
the doctors of Louvain have published, gives only three hundred and
forty-three years intervening between the time when they make the weeks
to commence and the death of Jesus. Many have believed that this
prediction was subsequently added to the text of Daniel, in favor of
Jonathan Maccabeus. We may judge of the little credit that can be given
to this prophecy, from the prodigious number of commentaries that have
been made on it.




CHAPTER II.

THE BIRTH OF JESUS


All the prophecies contained in the sacred books of the Jews, coincide
in making them hope for the return of the favor of the Almighty. God had
promised them a deliverer, a messenger, a messiah, who should restore
the power of Israel. That deliverer was to be of the seed of David, the
prince _according to God's own heart_; so submissive to the priests, and
so zealous for religion. It was to recompense the devotion and docility
of this holy usurper, that the prophets and the priests, loaded with
kindness, promised him in the name of heaven, that his family should
reign forever. If that famous prediction was belied during the
Babylonish captivity, and at subsequent periods, the Jews, at this time
no less credulous than their ancestors, persuaded themselves that it was
impossible for their prophets and diviners to deceive them. They
imagined that their oracles sooner or later would be accomplished, and
that they should see a descendant of David restore the honor of their
nation.

It was in conformity to these predictions and popular notions, that the
writers of the Gospels gave Jesus a genealogy; by which they pretended
to prove that he was descended in a direct line from David, and
consequently, had a right to arrogate the character of messiah.
Nevertheless, criticism has exhausted itself on this genealogy. Such as
are not possessed of faith, have been surprised to find, that the Holy
Spirit has dictated it differently to the two evangelists who have
detailed it: for, as has been frequently remarked, the genealogy given
by Matthew is not the same with that of Luke: a disparity which has
thrown Christian interpreters into embarrassments, from which all their
subtilty has hitherto been unable to rescue them. They tell us, that one
of these genealogies is that of Joseph; but, supposing Joseph to be of
the race of David, a Christian cannot believe that he was the real
father of Jesus, because his religion enjoins him to believe
steadfastly, that he is the Son of God. Supposing the two genealogies to
be Mary's, in that case the Holy Spirit has blundered in one of them.
Even Matthew's account is contradictory of itself. He says (c. i. v. 17)
"To all the generations from Abraham to David are _fourteen_
generations; and from David until the carrying away into Babylon are
_fourteen_ generations; and from the carrying away into Babylon unto
Christ are _fourteen_ generations." On enumerating the names given in
the last division of time, we find only _twelve_ generations, even
including Joseph. In whatever way we consider them, one of the
genealogies will always appear faulty and incomplete, and the extraction
of Jesus very weakly established.

Let us now examine the occurrences which preceded and accompanied the
birth of Jesus. Only one evangelist has particularly narrated them; all
the others have superficially passed over circumstances as marvellous as
they are important. Matthew, content with his genealogy, speaks but in
few words of the preternatural manner wherein Jesus was formed in the
womb of his mother. The speech of an angel, seen in a dream, suffices to
convince Joseph of the virtue of his wife, and he adopts her child
without hesitation. Mark makes no mention of this memorable incident.
John, who, by the assistance of his mystic and Platonic theology, could
embellish the story, or rather confound it, has not said one word on the
subject. We are, therefore, constrained to satisfy ourselves with the
materials Luke has transmitted us.

According to this evangelist, Elizabeth, kinswoman of Mary, and wife of
a priest named Zachariah, was in the sixth month of her pregnancy, "when
the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city called Nazareth, to a
virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David,
and the virgin's name was Mary. And the angel came in unto her, and
said, Hail thou that art highly favored, the Lord is with thee; blessed
art thou among women. And when she saw him, she was troubled at his
saying, and cast in her mind what manner of salutation this should be.
And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary; for thou hast found favor
with God. And behold thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a
son, and shalt call his name Jesus. Then said Mary to the angel, How
shall this be, for I know not a man? And the angel answered and said
unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the
Highest shall overshadow thee; therefore, also that holy thing which
shall be born of thee, shall be called the Son of God. And Mary said,
Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word.
Thereafter (adds the text) the angel departed from her."

Now what is there in all this that is any way marvellous? Nothing indeed
is more simple than this narrative. If the least reflection is employed
on it, the wonderful will vanish; and we shall find the greatest care
has been taken to spare the modesty of the young persons who might read
the story. An angel entered the house of Mary, _whose husband was
absent_. He salutes her; that is, pays her a compliment, which may be
translated as follows:--"Good day, my dear Mary! you are indeed
adorable--What attractions! what graces! of all women, you are the most
lovely in my eyes. Your charms are pledges to you of my sincerity. Crown
then my passion. Fear not the consequences of your complaisance; your
husband is a simpleton; by visions and dreams we can make him believe
whatever we desire. The good man will regard your pregnancy as the
effect of a miracle of the Most High; he will adopt your child with joy,
and all will go on in the best manner possible." Mary, charmed with
these words, and little accustomed to receive the like compliments from
her husband, replied, "Well!--I yield--I rely on your word and address;
do with me as you please."

Nothing is more easy than to separate the relation of Luke from the
marvellous. The event of Mary's pregnancy follows in the order of
nature; and if we substitute a young man in the place of the angel, the
passage of the evangelist will have nothing incredible in it. In fact,
many have thought that the angel Gabriel was no other than a gallant,
who, profiting by the absence of Joseph, found the secret to declare and
gratify his passion.

We shall not stop to form conjectures on the true name and station of
Mary's lover. The Jews, whose testimony on this subject may appear
suspicious, assert, as we shall afterwards relate, that this favorite
lover was a soldier:--the military have always claims on the hearts of
the ladies. They add, that from his commerce with the wife of Joseph,
the messiah of the Christians sprung; that the discontented husband left
his faithless wife, in order to retire to Babylon, and that Jesus with
his mother went to Egypt, where he learned the trade of a conjurer, and
afterwards returned to practise in Judea.

The _proto-gospel_, ascribed to James, relates some curious and
ridiculous circumstances, altogether omitted in the four canonical
evangelists; yet they have nothing revolting to persons who possess
faith. This gospel informs us of the ill humor of Joseph on seeing his
wife pregnant, and the reproaches he loaded her with on account of her
lewdness, unworthy of a virgin reared under the eyes of priests. Mary
excuses herself with tears; she protests her innocence, and "swears in
the name of the living God, that she is ignorant whence the child has
come to her." It appears, that in her distress she had forgot the
adventure of Gabriel:--that angel came the night following to encourage
poor Joseph, then on the point of having an affair with the priests, who
accused him of having begot this child to the prejudice of Mary's vow of
virginity. On this the priests made the two spouses drink _of the waters
of jealousy_; that is, of a potion, which, by a miracle, did them no
injury; the high priest, therefore, declared them innocent. It is
related in the same gospel, that after Mary had been delivered,
_Salome_, refusing to credit the midwife who assured her that the
delivered was still a virgin, laid her hand on Mary in order to satisfy
herself of the fact. Immediately this rash hand felt itself on fire; but
she was cured on taking the little Jesus in her arms.

Whether these histories, or Rabbinical narratives be true or false, it
is certain that the narrative of Luke, if not divested of the
marvellous, will always present difficulties to the minds of the
incredulous. They will ask, how God, being a pure spirit, could
_overshadow a woman_, and excite in her the movements necessary to the
production of a child? They will ask, how the divine nature could unite
with the nature of a woman? They will maintain, that the narrative is
unworthy of the power and majesty of the Supreme Being, who did not
stand in need of employing ridiculous and indecent instruments to
operate the salvation of mankind. It will be thought, that the Almighty
should have employed other means for conveying Jesus into the womb of
his mother; he might have made him appear on the earth without being
incarnate in the belly of a woman; but there must be wonders in
romances, especially if they are religious. It was in all ages supposed
that great men were born in an extraordinary manner. Among the Heathen,
Minerva sprung out of the brain of Jupiter; Bacchus was preserved in the
thigh of the same god. Among the Chinese, the god Fo was generated by a
virgin rendered prolific by a ray of the sun. With Christians, Jesus is
born of a virgin, impregnated by the operation of the Holy Spirit, and
she remains a virgin after that operation! Incapable of elevating
themselves to God, men have made him descend to their own nature. Such
is the origin of all incarnations, the belief of which is spread
throughout the world.

Theologists have agitated the question, whether in the conception of
Jesus, the Virgin Mary _emiserit semen_? According to _Tillemont_, the
Gnostics, who lived in the time of the apostles, denied that the Word
was incarnate in the womb of the woman, and averred that it had taken a
body only _in appearance_--a circumstance which must destroy the miracle
of the resurrection. Basilides also maintains that Jesus was not
incarnate. Lactantius, in order to establish that the spirit of God
could impregnate a virgin, cites the example of the Thracian Mares, and
other females, rendered prolific by the wind. Nothing is more indecent
and ridiculous than the theological questions to which the birth of
Jesus has given rise. Some doctors, to preserve Mary's virginity, have
maintained, that Jesus did not come into the world, like other men,
_aperta vulva_, but rather _per vulvam clausam_. The celebrated John
Scotus regarded that opinion as very dangerous, as it would follow, that
"Jesus could not be born of the virgin, but merely had come out of her."
A monk of Citeaux, called Ptolemy de Luques, affirmed that Jesus was
engendered near the virgin's heart, from three drops of her blood. The
great St. Thomas Aquinas has examined, whether Jesus could not have been
an _hermaphrodite_? and whether he could not have been of the _feminine
gender_? Others have agitated the question, "Whether Jesus could have
been incarnate in a cow?" We may therefore see, how one absurdity may
engender others, in the prolific minds of theologists.

All the wonders which precede the birth of Jesus, are terminated by a
very natural occurrence. At the end of nine months his mother is
delivered like other women; and after so many incredible and
supernatural events, the Son of God comes into the world like all others
people's children. This conformity in birth, will ever occasion the
surmise of a conformity in the physical causes which produced the son of
Mary. Indeed, the supernatural only can produce the supernatural; from
material agents result physical effects; and they maintain in the
schools, that there must always be a parity of nature between cause and
effect.

Though, according to Christians, Jesus was at the same time man and god,
some will say, it was necessary that the divine germ brought from heaven
to be deposited in the womb of Mary, should contain at the same time
divinity and humanity to become Son of God. To use the language of
theologists, the _hypostatic union_ of the two natures must have taken
place before his birth, and immixed in the womb of his mother. In that
case, we cannot conceive how it could happen, that the divine nature
should continue torpid during the whole of Mary's pregnancy, in so much
that she herself was ignorant of the time of her in-lying. The proof of
this we find in Luke, chap. ii.--"In those days (says he) there went out
a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed. And
as all went to be taxed, every one out of his own city, Joseph also went
out of Nazareth and came to Bethlehem, to be taxed with Mary, who was
great with child. And so it was, that while they were there, the days
were accomplished that she should be delivered, and she brought forth
her first born son, and wrapt him in swadling clothes and laid him in a
manger, because there was no room for them in the inn."

This narrative proves that Mary was taken unprovided, and that the Holy
Spirit, who had done so many things for her, had neglected to warn her
of an event so likely to interest him, and so important to all mankind.
The humanity of Jesus, being subject to every casuality in our nature,
might have perished in this journey, undertaken at a time very critical
to his mother. Nor do we understand how the mother could remain in
complete ignorance of the proximity of her time, or how the Eternal
could so abandon the precious child he had deposited in her womb.

Some other circumstances of the relation of Luke presents new
difficulties. He speaks of a _taxing_ (enumeration) by order of Caesar
Augustus:--a fact of which no mention is made by any historian, Jewish
or profane. We are also astonished to find the son of God born in
poverty, having no other asylum than a stable, and no other cradle than
a manger; and at the tenderest age, in a rigorous season, exposed to
miseries without number.

It is true, our theologists have found a way to answer all these
difficulties. They maintain, that a just God wishing to appease himself,
destined his innocent son to afflictions, in order to have a motive for
pardoning the guilty human race, which had become hateful to him through
Adam's transgression, in which, however, his decendants had no share. By
an act of justice, whereof the mind of man can form no idea, a God whose
essence renders him incapable of committing sin, is loaded with the
iniquities of man, and must expiate them in order to disarm the
indignation of a father he has not offended! Such are the inconceivable
principles which serve for the basis of the Christian theology.

Our doctors add--It was the will of God that the birth of his son should
be accompanied with the same accidents as that of other men, to console
the latter for the misfortunes attendent on their existence. Man, say
they, is guilty before he is born, because all children are bound to pay
the debts of their fathers: thus man suffers justly as a sinner himself,
and as charged with the sin of his first father.--Granting this, what
more consolatory than seeing a God, innocence and holiness itself,
suffering in a stable all the evils attached to indigence! That
consolation would have been wanting, if God had ordained that his son
should be born in splendor, and with an abundance of the comforts of
life. If the innocent Jesus had not suffered, mankind, incapable of
extinguishing a debt contracted by Adam, would have been forever
excluded from paradise. The painful journey Mary was obliged to
undertake in such critical circumstances, had been foreseen by Eternal
wisdom, which had resolved that Jesus should be born at Bethlehem and
not at Nazareth. It was necessary--having been foretold, it behoved to
be accomplished.

However solid these answers may appear to the faithful, they are not
capable of convincing the incredulous, who exclaim against the injustice
of making an innocent God suffer, and loading him with the iniquities of
the earth. Neither can they conceive by what principle of equity the
Supreme Being could make the human race responsible for a fault
committed by their first parents, without their knowledge and
participation. Finally, they contend that it would have been wiser to
have prevented man from committing sin, than to permit him to sin, and
make his own son die to expiate man's iniquity.

With respect to the journey to Bethlehem, we cannot discover the
necessity of it. The place where the saviour of the world was to be
born, seems a circumstance perfectly indifferent to the salvation of
mankind.

As for the prophecy announcing the glory of Bethlehem, in having given
existence to the "Leader of Israel"--it does not appear to agree with
Jesus, who was born in a stable, and who was rejected by the people
whose leader he was to be. It is only a pious straining that can make
this prediction apply to Jesus. We are assured, that it had been
foretold Jesus was to be born in poverty; while, on the other hand the
messiah of the Jews is generally announced by the prophets as a prince,
a hero, and a conqueror.--It is necessary to know then which of these
prophecies we ought to adopt. Our doctors tell us "the predictions
announcing that Jesus would be born and live in indigence and meanness,
ought to be taken _literally_, and those which announce his power and
glory ought to be taken _allegorically_." But this solution will not
satisfy the incredulous; they will affirm, that by this manner of
explanation, we may always find in the sacred writings whatever we may
think we stand in need of. They will conclude that the scripture is to
Christians, what the clouds are to the man who imagines he perceives in
them whatever figures he pleases.




CHAPTER III.

ADORATION OF THE MAGI AND SHEPHERDS--MASSACRE OF THE INNOCENTS;--AND
OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES, WHICH FOLLOWED THE BIRTH OF JESUS.


Of the four historians of Jesus adopted by the church, two are wholly
silent on the facts we are to relate in this chapter; and Matthew and
Luke, who have recorded them, are not at all unanimous in particulars.
So discordant are their relations, that the ablest commentators do not
know how to reconcile them. These differences, it is true, are less
perceptible when the evangelists are read the one after the other, or
without reflection; but they become particularly striking when we take
the trouble of comparing them. This is, undoubtedly, the reason why we
have hitherto had no concordance of the gospels which received the
general approbation of the church. Even those which have been printed
have not been universally adopted, though it must be acknowledged that
they contain nothing contrary to faith. It is, perhaps, from judicious
policy that the heads of the church have not approved of any system on
this point. They have, probably, felt the impossibility of reconciling
narratives so discordant as those of the four Evangelists; for the Holy
Spirit, doubtless with a view to exercise the faith of the saints, has
inspired them very differently. Besides, an able concordance of the
gospels would prove a dangerous work:--it would bring together facts
related by authors, who, far from supporting, would reciprocally weaken
each other--a circumstance which could not fail to stagger at least the
faith of the compiler.

Matthew, who, according to common opinion, (though a very erroneous
one,) wrote the first history of Jesus, asserts, that as soon as he was
born, and still in the stable at Bethlehem, Magi came from the East to
Jerusalem, and inquired where the king of the Jews was, whose star they
had observed in their own country. Herod, who then reigned in Judea,
being informed of the motive of their journey, consulted the people of
the law; and having learned that the Christ was to be born at Bethlehem,
he permitted the Magi to go there, recommending to them to inform
themselves of this child, that he himself might do him homage. (Matt.
ii. 1.)

It appears, from the narrative of Matthew, that as soon as the Magi left
Herod, they took the road to Bethlehem, a place not far from Jerusalem.
It is surprising that this prince, alarmed at the arrival of the Magi,
who had thus announced the birth of a king of the Jews, did not use more
precaution to allay his own uneasiness, and that of the capital, which
the gospel represents as in a state of consternation at this grand
event. It would have been very easy for him to have satisfied himself of
the fact without being under the necessity of relying on strangers, who
did not execute his commission. The Magi did not return; Joseph had time
to save himself and his little family by flight; and Herod remained
tranquil in spite of his suspicions and fears. It was not till after a
considerable interval that he got into a passion on finding himself
deceived; and then, to preserve his crown in safety, he ordered a
general massacre of the children of Bethlehem and the neighboring
villages! But why suppose such conduct in this sovereign? He had
assembled the doctors of the law and principal men of the nation; their
advice had confirmed the rumor spread by the wise men; they said it was
at Bethlehem that Christ was to be born, and yet Herod did nothing for
his own tranquility! Either Herod had faith in the prophecies of the
Jews, or he had not. In the first case, and instead of relying on
strangers, he ought himself to have gone with all his court to
Bethlehem, and paid homage to the Saviour of the nation. In the second
case, it is absurd to make Herod order a general massacre of infants, on
account of a suspicion founded on a prophecy which he did not believe.

This prince's indignation is said not to have been roused till after the
lapse of several days, and after he perceived that the Magi derided him,
and took another road. Why did he not learn by the same means the flight
of Jesus, of Joseph, and of his mother? Their retreat must certainly
have been observed in a place so small as Bethlehem. It will perhaps be
said, that God on this occasion, permitted Herod to be blinded; but God
should not have permitted the inhabitants of Bethlehem and its environs
to be so obstinate in preserving a secret that was to cost the lives of
all their children. Possessed of the power of working miracles, could
not God have saved his son by more gentle means than the useless
massacre of a great number of innocents?--On the other hand, Herod was
not absolute master in Judea. The Romans would not have permitted him to
exercise such cruelties; and the Jewish nation, persuaded of the birth
of the Christ, would not have been accessary to them. A king of England,
more absolute than a petty sovereign of Judea, dependent on the Romans,
would not be obeyed, were he to order his guards to go and cut the
throats of all the children in a neighboring village, because three
strangers, in passing through London, had said to him, that among the
infants born in that village there was one, who, according to the rules
of astrology, was destined to be one day king of Great Britain. At the
time when astrology was in vogue, they would have contented themselves
with causing search to be made for the suspected infant; they would have
kept it in solitary confinement, or perhaps put it to death; but without
comprehending other innocent children in its proscription.

We might oppose to the relation of Matthew the silence of the other
evangelists, and especially that of the historian Josephus, who, having
reasons to hate Herod, would not have failed to relate a fact so likely
to render him odious as the massacre of the innocents. Philo is likewise
silent on the subject; and no reason can be assigned why these two
celebrated historians should have agreed in concealing a circumstance so
horrible. We cannot suppose it has proceeded from hatred to the
Christian religion; for that detached fact would prove neither for or
against it. We are, therefore, warranted to conclude that this massacre
is a fable; and that Matthew seems to have invented it merely to have
the opportunity of applying as ancient prophecy, which was his
predominant taste. But in this instance he has deceived himself. The
prophecy which he applied to the massacre of the innocents, is taken
from Jeremiah, (xxxi. v. 15 and 16.) All the Jews understood it as
relating to the Babylonish captivity. It is as follows: "Thus saith the
Lord; a voice was heard in Ramah, lamentation and bitter weeping: Rachel
weeping for her children refused to be comforted because they were not."
The following verse is so plain, that it is inconceivable why Matthew
ventured to apply it to the pretended massacre at Bethlehem: "Thus saith
the Lord, refrain thy voice from weeping, and thine eyes from tears; for
thy work shall be rewarded, saith the Lord, and thy children shall come
again from the land of the enemy." Their return from the captivity is
here clearly pointed out, when the Israelites should again plant vines
after obtaining possession of their own country.

It is also to accomplish a prophecy, that Matthew makes Jesus travel
into Egypt. This journey, or rather Jesus' return, had, according to
him, been predicted by Hosea in these words: "Out of Egypt have I called
my son." But it is evident, that this passage is to be considered only
as relating to the deliverance of the Israelites from bondage, through
the ministry of Moses. Besides, the journey and abode of Jesus in Egypt,
do not agree with some circumstances which happened in his infancy, as
related by Luke, who informs us, that at the end of eight days Jesus was
circumcised. The time of Mary's purification being accomplished
according to the law of Moses, Joseph and his mother carried Jesus to
Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord agreeably to the law, which
ordained the consecrating the first born (first fruits), and offering a
sacrifice for them. On this occasion, Luke tells us that Simeon took the
infant in his arms, and declared in the presence of those assisting at
the ceremony, that the child was the Saviour of Israel. An old
prophetess, called Anna, bore the same testimony, and spoke of him to
all who looked for the redemption of the Jews. But why were speeches,
thus publicly made in the temple of Jerusalem, in which city Herod
resided, unknown to a prince so suspicious? They were much better
calculated to excite his uneasiness, and awaken his jealousy than the
arrival of astrologers from the East.

Did Joseph and Mary, who came to Jerusalem for the presentation of
Jesus, and purification of his mother, return to Bethlehem? and went
they thence into Egypt in place of going to Nazareth? Luke says, that
when they had performed all things according to the law of the Lord,
they returned into Galilee, to their own city Nazareth. But in what time
did the parents of Jesus accomplish all that the law ordained? Was it
before going into Egypt, or after their return from that country, where,
according to Matthew, they had taken refuge to shelter themselves from
the cruelty of Herod? Did the purification of the virgin, and the
presentation of her son in the temple, take place before or after the
death of that wicked prince? According to Leviticus, the purification of
a mother who had brought a son into the world, was to be made at the end
of thirty days. Hence we see how very difficult it is to reconcile the
flight into Egypt, and the massacre of the innocents, which Matthew
relates, with the narrative of Luke, who says, that, "after having
performed the ordinances of the law, Joseph and Mary returned into
Galilee, to their own city Nazareth;" and then adds, "they went to
Jerusalem every year to celebrate the passover." If we could adopt the
relation of the two evangelists, at what time are we to place the coming
of the Magi from the East in order to adore Jesus; the anger of Herod;
the flight into Egypt; and the massacre of the innocents? Either the
relation of Luke is defective, or Matthew wished to deceive his readers
with improbable tales. In whatever way we consider the matter, the Holy
Spirit, who inspired these apostles, will be found to have committed a
mistake.

There is another fact on which our two evangelists do not better agree.
Matthew, as we have seen, makes the Magi come, guided by a star, to
Bethlehem, from the extremity of the East, to adore the child Jesus, and
offer him presents. Luke, less taken with the marvellous, makes this
child adored by simple shepherds, who watched their flocks during night,
and to whom an angel announced the great event of the birth of the
Saviour of Israel. The latter evangelist speaks neither of the
appearance of the star, of the coming of the Magi, nor of the cruelty of
Herod--circumstances, however, which ought to have been recorded by
Luke, who informs us that he was so exactly informed of every thing
concerning Jesus.

The parents of Jesus, either after their return from Egypt, or after his
presentation in the temple, went to reside at Nazareth. Matthew, as
usual, perceives in this the accomplishment of the prediction, _he shall
be called a Nazarene_; but unfortunately for his purpose, this prophecy
is not to be found in the Bible, nor can it be imagined by whom it was
uttered. It is however certain, that _Nazarene_ among the Jews signified
a _vagabond_, a person excluded from the rest of the world; that
Nazareth was a pitiful town, inhabited by beings so wretched that their
poverty had become proverbial; and that beggars, vagrants, and people
whom nobody would own, were called _Nazarenes_.

The first Christians were so styled. We find them also called
_Ebionites_, derived from a Hebrew word which signifies a _mendicant_, a
_wretch_, and a _pauper_. St. Francis and St. Dominic, who, in the 13th
century, proposed to revive primitive Christianity, founded orders of
mendicant monks, destined to live solely on alms, to be true
_Nazarenes_, and to levy contributions on the community, which these
vagabonds have never ceased to oppress. Salmeron, in order to encourage
these mendicant monks, has maintained that Jesus himself was a beggar.
The name Nazarene was given to the apostles and Jews, who were first
converted. The other Jews regarded them as heretics and excommunicated
persons; and, according to Jerome, anathematised them in all their
synagogues under the name of Nazarenes. The Jews even at present give
the name of Nazarenes (Nozerim) to the Christians whom the Arabs and
Persians call Nazari. The first converts of Jesus and his apostles, were
only some reformed Jews: they preserved circumcision and other usages
appointed by the law of Moses. In this they followed the example of
Jesus, who being circumcised, and a Jew during his whole life, had often
taught, that it was necessary to respect and observe the law. It is,
therefore, surprising to see them afterwards treated as heretics. But we
shall (in chap. 17) see the true cause of this change. It was owing to
Paul, whose party prevailed over Peter's, the other apostles', and the
Nazarenes or Judaising Christians. Paul corrected and reformed the
system of Jesus, who had preached only a Judaism reformed. The apostle
of the Gentiles succeeded in making his master, and his old comrades, be
rewarded as heretics, or bad Christians. Thus it is that theologists
take the liberty of rectifying the religion of the Saviour they adore!

We have seen, in the course of this chapter, how little harmony exists
between the two evangelists respecting the circumstances attending the
birth of Jesus. Let us now examine what could have been the views of
these two writers in relating these facts so differently. It is
impossible that Jesus, as Luke relates, could constantly reside at
Nazareth till he was twelve years of age if it be true that he was
carried soon after his birth into Egypt, where Matthew makes him remain
until the death of Herod. Even in the time that Jesus lived, he was
upbraided with his stay in Egypt. His enemies asserted that he there
learned magic, to which they attributed the wonders, or cunning tricks,
they saw him perform. Luke is silent as to the journey to Egypt, which
made his hero suspected. He fixes him, therefore, at Nazareth, and makes
him go every year with his parents to Jerusalem. But the precaution of
that evangelist seems to have been useless. Matthew, who wrote before
him, had established the journey and abode of Jesus in Egypt. Origen, in
his dispute with Celsus, does not deny it. Hence we see, that the
Christian doctors did not doubt that Jesus had been in that country,
notwithstanding the silence of Luke. Let us endeavor then to develope
the motives of these two writers.

The Jews were agreed in the expectation of a messiah; but as the
different orders of the state had their prophets, they also possessed
different signs by which they were to know the deliverer. The great, the
rich, and well informed persons, did not surely expect that the
deliverer of Israel would be born in a stable, and spring from the dregs
of the people. They, undoubtedly, anticipated their deliverance by a
prince, a warrior, a man of power, able to make himself respected by the
nations inimical to Judea, and to break in pieces their chains. The
poor, on the contrary, who, as well as the great and the rich, have
their portion of self-love, thought they might flatter themselves that
the messiah would be born in their class. Their nation and their
neighbors presented many examples of great men sprung from the bosom of
poverty; and the oracles with which this nation was fed, were of such a
nature that every family believed itself entitled to aspire to the honor
of giving birth to a messiah; though the most general opinion was, that
he was to come of the race of David. Shepherds, and people of the lowest
order might readily believe that a woman, delivered in a stable at
Bethlehem, had brought Jesus into the world. It may likewise be presumed
that Mary, with a view to render herself interesting, said to those who
visited her that she was descended from the blood of kings; a pretension
well adapted to excite the commiseration and wonderment of the people.
This secret, and the confused remembrance of some prophecies about
Bethlehem, the native country of David, were sufficient to operate on
the imaginations of these silly people, little scrupulous about proofs
of what was told them.

Matthew, who reckoned on the credulity of his readers, had his head full
of prophecies and popular notions. To fill up a blank of thirty years in
his history of Jesus, he contrived to make him travel into Egypt,
without foreseeing the objections that might be made on account of the
neglect of the holy family to fulfil the ordinances of the law; such as
the circumcision of the child, his presentation in the temple, the
purification of his mother, and the celebration of the passover;
ceremonies which only could be performed at Jerusalem. Perhaps it is to
justify the journey to Egypt, and those negligences, that Matthew
introduces the prophecy of Hosea relative to the return from that place.
It seems also to countenance the duration of Jesus's abode there that he
relates the wrath of Herod, and the fable of the massacre of the
innocents, which he makes that prince order, though his crimes had, in
other respects, rendered him sufficiently odious to the Jews as well as
to strangers. Mankind in general are disposed to believe every thing of
a man who has become famous by his wickedness.

Luke, to elude the reproaches which might be thrown on Jesus on account
of his residence and journey in Egypt, has not mentioned it at all; but
his silence does not destroy its reality. It was necessary to free Jesus
from the suspicion of magic, but he has not cleared him of accusations
brought against his birth, which are quite as weighty.

Celsus, a celebrated physician, who lived in the second century of
Christianity, and who had carefully collected all which had been
published against Jesus, asserts that he was the fruit of an illicit
intercourse. Origen, in his works against Celsus, has preserved this
accusation, but he has not transmitted the proofs on which it was
founded. The incredulous, however, have endeavoured to supply them, and
found the opinion of Celsus on what follows:

_First._ From the testimony of Matthew himself, it is most certain that
Joseph was very much dissatisfied with the pregnancy of his wife, in
which he had no part. He formed the design of quitting her secretly; a
resolution from which he was diverted by an angel, or dream, or perhaps
reflection, which always passes among Jews for the effect of an
inspiration from on high. It appears, however, that this design of
Joseph had transpired, and was afterwards turned into a matter of
reproach against Jesus. But Luke, more prudent than Matthew, has not
ventured to mention either the ill humor of Joseph, or the good-natured
conduct he followed. Neither do we find, though he formed this
resolution as to Mary, that this easy man again appeared on the stage
from the time Jesus entered on it. We are no where informed of his
death, and it is obvious that he never afterwards beheld his putative
son with an eye of kindness.--When, at thirty years of age, Jesus and
his mother went to the wedding at Cana, there is no mention of Joseph.
If we admit with Luke, the history of Jesus's dispute with the doctors
in the temple of Jerusalem, we shall find a new proof of the
indifference which subsisted between the pretended father and supposed
son: they met at the end of three days, and deigned not to interchange a
word. Epiphanius (lib. i. 10.) assures us that Joseph was very old at
the time of his marriage with the virgin, and adds that he was a widower
and father of six children by his first wife.--According to the
_proto-gospel_, the good man had much difficulty in prevailing on
himself to espouse Mary, whose age intimidated him; but the high-priest,
finding that Joseph was the man most conformable to his own views,
succeeded in removing his scruples.

_Secondly._ If to these presumptions are joined testimonies more
positive, and a high antiquity, which confirm the suspicions entertained
concerning the birth of Jesus, we shall obtain proofs that must convince
every unprejudiced person. The Emperor Julian, as well as Celsus, who
both had carefully examined all the writings existing in their time for
and against the Christian religion and its author, represent the mother
of Jesus in a very unfavorable light.

In the works of the Jews, he is treated as an illegitimate child; and,
almost in our days, Helvidius, a learned Protestant critic, as well as
several others, have maintained, not only that Jesus was the fruit of a
criminal intercourse, but also that Mary, repudiated by Joseph, had
other children by different husbands. Besides, this supposed virgin did
not want a reason for forsaking Joseph, and flying into Egypt with her
son. A prevailing tradition among the Jews states, that she made this
journey to shelter herself from the pursuits of her spouse, who, in
spite of the nocturnal visions which had been employed to pacify him,
might have delivered her up to the rigor of the laws. We know that the
Hebrews did not understand jesting on this subject.

We also find in the _Talmud_, the name of Panther, surnamed
_Bar-Panther_, whom they reckon in the number of the husbands of the
Virgin. From this it would appear, that Mary, repudiated by Joseph, or
after her flight, espoused Panther, an Egyptian soldier, her favorite
lover, and the real father of Jesus. John Damascene thought to repair
the injury which this anecdote might do to Mary's reputation, by saying
that the name of _Bar-Panther_ was hereditary in the family of Mary, and
consequently in that of Joseph. But, _1st_, either Mary was not the
kinswoman of Joseph, or she was not the cousin of Elizabeth, who was
married to a priest, and therefore of the tribe of Levi.--2dly, we no
where find in the Bible the name of _Panther_ among the descendants of
David. If this had been an hereditary surname in that family, it would
be found somewhere, unless we suppose that John Damascene learned it by
a particular revelation. 3dly, The name of _Panther_ is by no means
Hebrew.

It will perhaps be said, that these rumours, so injurious to Jesus and
his mother, are calumnies invented by the enemies of the Christian
religion. But why decide if the pleas of both parties are not
investigated? The imputations are very ancient; they have been advanced
against Christianity ever since its origin, and they have never been
satisfactorily refuted. In the time of Jesus, we find that his
cotemporaries regarded his wonders as the effects of magic, the
delusions of the devil, the consequences of the power of Belzebub.--The
relations of Jesus were also of that opinion, and regarded him as an
imposter--a circumstance stated in the gospel itself, where we shall
afterwards find that they wanted to arrest him. On the other hand, Jesus
never speaks of his infancy, nor of the time that had preceded his
preaching:--he did not wish to recur to circumstances dishonorable to
his mother, towards whom, indeed, we shall very soon find him failing in
filial respect.

The evangelists, in like manner, pass very slightly over the first years
of their hero's life. Matthew makes him return from Egypt on the death
of Herod, without mentioning in what year that happened. He thus leaves
his commentators in doubt whether Jesus was then two or ten years old.
We find that the term of ten years is, through complaisance, invented on
account of the dispute between him and the doctors of Jerusalem, which
Luke places in his twelfth year. This excepted, Jesus disappeared from
the scene not to shew himself again till thirty years of age.

It is difficult to discover what he did until that age. If we credit
Luke, he remained at Nazareth. Yet it is clear that he was somewhere
else, for the purpose of learning the part which he was afterwards to
play. It has been supposed, not without reason, that Jesus passed a
considerable part of his life among the contemplative _Essenians_, or
_Therapeutes_, who were a kind of enthusiastic Jewish monks, living in
the vicinity of Alexandria, in Egypt, where it appears he drew up his
severe and monastic doctrine. If he had always resided at Nazareth, the
inhabitants of that small town would have known him perfectly. Very far
from this;--they were surprised at seeing him when thirty years of age.
They only conjectured that they knew him; and asked each other, "Is not
this the son of Joseph?"--a question very ridiculous in the mouths of
persons who must have been in the constant habit of seeing Jesus in the
narrow compass of their town. This does not prevent Justin from telling
us, that he became a carpenter in the workshop of his pretended father,
and that he wrought at buildings or instruments of husbandry. But such a
profession could not long agree with a man in whom we find an ambitious
and restless mind. The _Gospel_ of the _Infancy_ informs us, that Jesus,
when young, amused himself with forming small birds of clay, which he
afterwards animated, and then they flew into the air. The same book
says, that he knew more than his schoolmaster, whom he killed for having
struck him, because Jesus refused to read the letters of the alphabet.
We find also, that Jesus assisted Joseph in his labors, and by a miracle
lengthened the pieces of wood, when cut too short or too narrow. All
these extravagancies are not more difficult to believe than many other
wonders related in the acknowledged gospels.

We shall here quit Luke in order to follow Matthew, who places the
baptism of John after the return from Egypt, and makes Jesus forthwith
commence his mission. It is at this epoch, perhaps, that we ought to
begin the life of Jesus.--Yet, to let nothing be lost to the reader of
the evangelical memoirs, we thought it our duty not to pass over in
silence the circumstances which have been noticed, as these
preliminaries are calculated to throw much light on the person and
actions of Jesus. Besides, the interval between his birth and preaching
has not been the part of his history least exposed to the darts of
criticism. Matthew, as we have seen, to account for his master's absence
during the thirty years, makes him go into Egypt, and return in an
unlimited time. Luke, who digested his memoirs after Matthew, perceiving
that the abode in Egypt cast a suspicion of magic on the miracles of
Jesus, makes him remain in Galilee, going and coming every year to
Jerusalem; and making him appear, at the age of twelve, in the capital,
in the midst of the doctors, and debating with them. But Mark and John,
profiting by the criticism which these different arrangements had
experienced, make the messiah drop as it were from the clouds, and put
him instantly to labor at the great work of man's salvation.

It is thus that, on combining and comparing the several relations, we
are enabled to discover the true system of the Gospels, in which,
without adopting any alterations, we shall find materials for composing
the life of Jesus by merely reducing the marvellous to its proper value.




CHAPTER IV.

BAPTISM OF JESUS--HIS ABODE IN THE DESERT--COMMENCEMENT OF HIS PREACHING
AND MIRACLES--MARRIAGE AT CANA.


From the time the Romans subdued Judea, the superstitious inhabitants of
that country, impatient to see the arrival of the messiah so often
promised to their fathers, seemed inclined to quicken the slowness of
the Eternal by the ardor of their desires. This disposition of mind gave
birth to impostures, revolts, and disturbances; the authors of which the
Roman power punished in such a manner as to discourage their adherents,
or quickly to disperse them. Down to the era we are about to speak of,
(which the gospel of Luke fixes at the fifteenth year of the reign of
Tiberius,) none of those who had attempted to pass for the messiah had
been able to succeed. To have acted that part well required forces more
considerable than those which all Judea could oppose to the conquerors
of the world. It was, therefore, necessary to have recourse to craft,
and to employ delusions and trick instead of force. For this purpose, it
was of importance to be fully acquainted with the disposition of the
Jewish nation; to affect a great respect for its laws and usages, for
which it entertained the most profound veneration; to profit ingeniously
by the predictions with which the were imbued; to move the passions, and
warm the imaginations of that fanatical and credulous people. But all
this behoved to be silently effected; it was necessary for him who
attempted it, to avoid rendering himself suspected by the Romans; it was
necessary to be on his guard against the priests, doctors, and persons
of education, capable of penetrating and thwarting his designs. It was
essential to commence with gaining adherents and co-operators, and
thereafter a party among the people, to support him against the grandees
of the nation. Policy required that he should shew himself rarely in the
capital, to preach in the country, and render odious to the populace,
priests who devoured the nation, nobles who oppressed it, and rich
people of whom it ought to be naturally jealous. Not to alarm too much,
prudence demanded that he should speak in ambiguous language and in
parables. Neither could he dispense with working miracles, which, much
more than all the harangues in the world, were calculated to seduce
ignorant devotees, disposed to see the finger of God in every act the
true cause of which they were unable to comprehend.

Such was the conduct of the personage whose life we examine. Whether we
suppose that he had been in Egypt for the purpose of acquiring the
talents necessary to his views, or that he had always resided at
Nazareth, Jesus was not ignorant of the dispositions of his countrymen.
As he knew how much predictions were requisite to work on the minds of
the Jews, he made choice of a prophet and a forerunner in the person of
his cousin John Baptist. The latter, evidently in concert with Jesus,
preached repentance, baptized on the banks of Jordan, and announced the
coming of a personage greater than himself. He said to those who gave
ear to him, "I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he
that cometh after me is mightier than I, the latchet of whose shoe I am
not worthy to loose: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with
fire." Jesus accordingly repaired to John on purpose to arrange matters
with him, and to receive baptism from his hands. According to the report
of Matthew, John, at first, evinced some difficulty; affirming, that, so
far from being worthy to baptize Jesus, it was from him that he himself
ought to receive baptism. At last, however, he yielded to the orders of
Jesus, and administered to him the sacrament of which the innocent son
of God could not stand in need.

In this interview, the two kinsmen evidently settled their plans, and
took the necessary measures for insuring success. They both had
ambition, and shared the mission between them. John yielded the first
character to Jesus, whom he judged better qualified to play it with
success, and contented himself with being his precursor, preaching in
the desert, beating up for followers, and preparing the ways for
him--all in consequence of a prophecy of Isaiah, who had said, "Prepare
ye the way of the Lord, make straight in the desert a highway for our
God"--an obscure and vague prediction, in which, however, Christians
believe they see clearly designated the messiah and his holy precursor.

The arrangements being once settled by our two missionaries, John took
care to tell those who came to hear him, that, to pacify Heaven, it was
time to repent; that the arrival of the messiah was not far off; and
that he had seen him. The sermons of John having made considerable
noise, the priests of Jerusalem, vigilant as to what might interest
religion, and wishing to be informed of his views, dispatched emissaries
after him. These men asked if he was the Christ, or Elias, or a prophet.
John answered, that he was neither of these. But when he was questioned
by what authority he baptized and preached, he declared, that he was the
forerunner of the messiah. This proceeding of the priests only tended to
give greater weight to John's assertions, and naturally excited the
curiosity of the people assembled to hear him. The next day they went in
a crowd to the place where the preacher baptized, when, profiting
skilfully by the circumstance, and perceiving Jesus approaching, he
exclaimed, "Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the
world. This is he of whom I said, after me cometh a man who is preferred
before me."

The author of the gospel ascribed to John, perceiving that it was
important to remove the suspicion of collusion between Jesus and his
forerunner, makes the Baptist declare twice, that he knew him not before
baptizing him: but that it had been revealed to him by the Deity, that
the person on whom he should see the Holy Spirit descending during his
baptism, was the son of God. Whence we see that, according to this
evangelist, John did not know Jesus, who was, however, his kinsman,
according to Luke.

John was much esteemed by the people, whom an austere and extraordinary
life is always certain of seducing.--They did not suspect that a
missionary so detached from the things of this world, could ever deceive
them. They believed on his word, that the Holy Spirit, under the form of
a dove, had descended on Jesus, and that he was the Christ or messiah
promised by the prophets. On another occasion we shall also find John
affecting not to know his cousin Jesus: he deputed some of his disciples
to learn _who he was_? Jesus replied, that they had only to relate to
John the miracles he performed, and by that sign their master would
recognize him. We shall afterwards speak of this embassy.

Jesus had associated with him a confident, then called Simon, and
afterwards Cephas or Peter, who had been the disciple of John. Scarcely
had Simon taken his arrangements with the messiah, when he drew over his
brother Andrew to the new sect. These two brothers were fishermen. We
readily presume that Jesus would not choose his followers among the
grandees of the country.

The progress of John Baptist, and the attachment of the people to him,
alarmed the priests; they complained loudly, and John was arrested by
order of the tetrarch Herod, who, according to Matthew, caused him to be
beheaded to please Herodias his sister-in-law. Yet we do not find the
historians of this prince reproaching him with the punishment of the
forerunner. After John's death, his disciples attached themselves to
Jesus, whose coming John had announced, and who, in his turn, had
rendered in behalf of John the most public testimonies in presence of
the people: for Jesus had openly declared, that John was "greater than a
prophet, and greater than an angel, and that he was not born of woman
who was greater than him." Nevertheless, the messiah, dreading to be
involved in the affair of his forerunner, left his two disciples at
Jerusalem, and withdrew into the desert, where he continued forty days.
It has been remarked, that during the imprisonment of John, Jesus did
not think of delivering him; he performed no miracle in his behalf;
after his death he spoke but little of him, and forebore pronouncing his
eulogy. He was no longer in need of him, and, perhaps, he wished by this
conduct to teach those who serve the views of the ambitious in a
subordinate capacity, that they ought not to reckon too much on
gratitude.

It would have been a bad exordium to assign fear as the motive of the
messiah's retreat. We are told that he was _carried up by the Spirit_,
which transported him to the desert. It was necessary that Jesus should
surpass his forerunner. The latter had led a very austere life, his only
nourishment being locust and wild honey; but the gospel affirms, that
Jesus ate _nothing at all_ during his retreat, and that on the last day,
having _felt himself hungry_, angels came and ministered to him. The
fasting of Jesus for forty days, is considered by his followers as a
proof of his divinity. But this abstinence falls far short of that
practised by a Talapoin at Siam, who, according to La Loubere, "lived
satisfactorily without food for _one hundred and seven days_!"

To evince the importance of his mission, the prejudice which it was to
occasion to the empire of the devil, and the infinite advantages which
were to result from it to his followers, Jesus, on his return from the
desert, pretended that Satan had tempted him; made the most flattering
offers to engage him to desist from his enterprise; and proffered him
the monarchy of the universe, if he would renounce his project of
redeeming the human race. The refusal he gave to these propositions,
evinced a supernatural desire to labor for the salvation of the world.
Such as heard these details must have been filled with astonishment,
penetrated with gratitude, and burning with zeal for the preacher. Of
consequence, the number of his adherents increased.

John the Evangelist, or the person who has written, under his name,
whose object appears to have been to establish the divinity of Jesus,
has not mentioned his carrying away, abode in the desert, and
temptation. These transactions must have been considered by him
prejudicial to the doctrine he wished to introduce. Matthew, Mark, and
Luke, relate the carrying away, and the temptations in a different
manner, but calculated to show the power of Satan over the messiah. He
transported him, no doubt in spite of himself, to the pinnacle of the
temple; and by a miracle, made Jesus contemplate, from the summit of a
mountain, all the kingdoms of the universe, without even excepting those
whose inhabitants were _antipodes_ of Judea. According to the gospels,
the devil worked marvels, which far surpassed those of Jesus.

The absence of Jesus made him lose for a time, his two disciples Peter
and Andrew. The necessity of providing for their subsistence,
constrained them to resume their former trade. As their master durst not
then reside in Jerusalem, he retired towards the banks of the sea of
Galilee, where they joined him. "Follow me, (said he to them,) leave
your nets; of catchers of fish I will make you fishers of men." He,
probably, made them understand, that the arrangements he had made during
his retirement, furnished him with the means of subsisting, without
toil, by the credulity of the vulgar. The two brothers immediately
followed him.

Whether Jesus had been expelled from Nazareth by his fellow citizens, or
quitted it of his own accord, he fixed his residence at Capernaum, a
maritime city, on the confines of the tribes of Zabulon and Naphtali.
His mother, a widow, or separated from her husband, followed him: she
could be useful to Jesus and the little troop of adherents who lived
with him.

It was at this time that our hero, seconded by his disciples, opened his
mission. His sermon, like that of the Baptist, consisted in saying,
_Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand_. John, we have seen,
commenced preaching in the fifteenth year of Tiberius. It was in the
same year that his interview with Jesus took place, when he was baptized
by John. Towards the end of this year John disappeared: after which
Jesus was in the desert, whence he returned to reside with his mother in
the city of Capernaum. There he remained a short time only on account of
the approach of the festival of the passover, to celebrate which he
repaired to Jerusalem. We may, therefore, fix the commencement of his
preaching in the sixteenth year of Tiberius. He celebrated the passover
three times before his death; and the common opinion is, that his
preaching lasted three years, or until the nineteenth year of Tiberius.

The rumours excited by the baptism and preaching of John, and the
testimonies he bore in behalf of Jesus, having died away on the
imprisonment and death of the forerunner, and flight of the messiah, the
latter resumed courage, and thought that, with the assistance of his
disciples, he ought to make a new attempt. Too well known at Nazareth,
and slighted by his relations, who, on all occasions, seemed to think
but little of him, he quitted that ungrateful city to establish himself,
as we have remarked, at Capernaum, in the sixteenth year of Tiberius. It
was there that he commenced preaching his new system to some poor
fishermen, and other low people. He soon found, however, that his
mission was too circumscribed in that place: but to acquire some eclat,
he judged it necessary to perform a miracle; that is, in the language of
the Jews, some trick capable of exciting the wonder of the vulgar. An
opportunity occurred for this: some inhabitants of Cana, a small village
Of Galilee Superior, at the distance of about fifteen leagues from
Capernaum, invited Jesus and his mother to a wedding. The married
persons were poor, though John, who alone relates this story, gives them
a steward; yet he tells us that their wine failed at the moment the
guests were half intoxicated, or gay. On this Mary, who knew the power
or the dexterity of her son, said to him: _They have no wine._ Jesus
answered her very roughly, and in a manner which evidently denoted a man
warmed with wine: _Woman, what have I to do with thee?_ It may, however,
be supposed, that Jesus had not totally lost the use of his reason, as
he still possessed presence of mind to transmute water into wine, so
that the miraculous wine was found better than the natural wine they had
drank at the beginning.

This first miracle of Jesus was performed in presence of a great number
of persons, already half intoxicated; but the text does not inform us,
whether they were equally astonished the day following, when the fumes
of the wine were dissipated. Perhaps this miracle was witnessed by the
steward only, with whom Jesus had secret intelligence. The incredulous,
less easily persuaded than the poor inebriated villagers, do not observe
in this transmutation of water into wine, a motive for being convinced
of the divine power of Jesus. They remark, that in the operation, he
employed water in order to make his wine; a circumstance which may give
room to suspect, that he made only a composition, of which be, like many
others, might have the secret. There was in fact, no more power
necessary to create wine, and fill the pitchers without putting water
into them, than to make an actual transmutation or water into wine. At
least, by acting in this manner, he would have removed the suspicion of
having made only a mixture.

In whatever manner the miracle was performed, it appears to have made
some impression on those who saw it, or who heard it related. It is
certain Jesus profited by it to extend his mission even to the capital
of Judea; only giving time for his miracle to spread, in order to
produce its effect. In expectation of this, he withdrew with his mother,
brothers, and disciples, to Capernaum, where he remained till the
festival of the passover (the time of which was near) should collect at
Jerusalem a multitude of people, before whom he flattered himself with
being able to operate a great number of marvels.




CHAPTER V.

JOURNEY OF JESUS TO JERUSALEM.--THE SELLERS DRIVEN OUT OF THE
TEMPLE.--CONFERENCE WITH NICODEMUS.


The noise of the miracle at Cana having reached Jerusalem, by means of
those who repaired to that city from Galilee, Jesus went there,
accompanied by some of his disciples; but of the number of the latter we
are ignorant. It was, as has been mentioned, the time of the passover,
and consequently, a moment when almost the whole nation were assembled
in the capital. Such an occasion was favorable for working miracles.
John accordingly affirms that Jesus performed a great number, without,
however, detailing any of them. Several of the witnesses of Jesus' power
believed in him, according to our historian; but he did not place much
confidence in them. The reason given for this by John, is, "Because he
knew all men, and needed not that any should testify of man; for he knew
what was in man." In short, he knew every thing except the means of
giving to those who saw his miracles the dispositions he desired.

But, how reconcile faith in these new converts, in the wonders performed
by Jesus, with the bad dispositions they were known to possess? If he
knew the state of mind of these witnesses of his miracles, why perform
them with certain loss? In this there is a want of just inference in the
writer, which must not, however, be imputed to Jesus. It is perhaps
better not to refer to John in this matter, than to believe that his
sagacious master would perform miracles without design, or for the sole
pleasure of working them.

In the same journey to Jerusalem, Jesus performed an exploit which is as
great as a miracle, and evinces a powerful arm. According to an ancient
usage, merchants had established themselves, especially during the
solemn festivals, under the porticos which environed the temple. They
furnished victims and offerings to the devout, which they were to
present to the Lord, in order to accomplish the ordinances of the law;
and, for the accommodation of the Jews who repaired thither from
different countries, and for their own interest, the priests had
permitted the money changers to fix their stalls in this place. Jesus,
who on every occasion shewed himself but little favorable to the clergy,
was shocked at this usage, which, far from being criminal, tended to
facilitate the accomplishment of the Mosaical law. He made a scourge of
ropes, and, displaying a vigorous arm on those merchants, drove them
into the streets, frightened their cattle, and overturned the counters,
without their being able to oppose his enterprise. It may be
conjectured, that the people had no reason to be displeased with the
disturbance, but profited by the money and effects which Jesus
overturned in the paroxysm of his zeal. No doubt his disciples did not
forget themselves: their master could by this exploit make provision for
them, especially if they had been in the secret, and enable them to
defray all expenses during their residence in the capital. Besides, they
saw in this event the accomplishment of a prophecy of the Psalmist, who
foretold, that the Messiah would be "eaten up with the zeal of the house
of the Lord"--a prophecy that was clearly verified by the uproar which
Jesus had occasioned. It would appear that the brokers had not
comprehended the mystic sense of this prediction; at least they did not
expect to see it verified at their expense. In their first surprise,
they neglected to oppose the unexpected attacks of a man who must have
appeared to them a maniac; but, on recovering from their astonishment,
they complained to the magistrates of the loss they had sustained. The
magistrates, afraid, perhaps, of weakening their authority by punishing
a man of whom the people had become the accomplice, or a fanatic whose
zeal might be approved by the devotees, did not wish to use rigor for
this time; they contented themselves with sending to Jesus to know from
himself by what authority he acted--"What sign (said they) shewest thou
unto us, seeing that thou doest these things?" On which Jesus answered,
"Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." But the
Jews were not tempted to make the trial;--they took him for a fool, and
returned, shrugging their shoulders. If they had taken Jesus at his
word, they would have experienced great embarrassment; for the gospel
informs us, that it was not of the temple of Jerusalem he spoke, but of
his own body. He meant his resurrection, says John, which was to happen
three days after his death. The Jews had not discernment to divine this
enigma, and the disciples did not penetrate its true meaning till a long
time after, when they pretended their master had risen from the dead. We
cannot forbear admiring that Providence, which, wishing to instruct,
enlighten, and convert the Jewish people by the mouth of Jesus, employed
only figures, allegories, and enigmatical symbols, totally inexplicable
by persons the most ingenious and most experienced.

Though Jesus had the power of raising himself from the dead, he did not
wish to employ it when in the hands of the Jews, who were ready to
arrest and punish him as a disturber of the public repose. He thought it
more prudent to decamp without noise, and shelter himself from the
pursuit of those whom his brilliant exhibitions might have displeased.
He intended to withdraw from Jerusalem during night, when a devout
Pharisee, wishing to be instructed, came to see him. He was called
Nicodemus, and held the place of senator--a rank which does not always
exempt from credulity. "Rabbi, (said he to Jesus,) we know that thou art
a teacher sent from God; for no man can do these miracles that thou
doest, except God be with him."

This opportunity was favorable for Jesus to declare himself: by a single
word he could have decided on his divinity, and acknowledged, before
this senator so kindly disposed, that he was God. Yet he evaded a direct
answer; contenting himself with saying to Nicodemus, that nobody can
share in the kingdom of God unless he be born again. The astonished
proselyte exclaimed, that it was impossible for a man already old to be
born again, or enter anew into his mother's womb. On which Jesus
replied: "I say unto thee, except a man be born of water and of the
spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." It appears, that
Nicodemus was no better satisfied than before. Jesus, to make himself
more perspicuous, added, "that which is born of the flesh is flesh, and
that which is born of the spirit is spirit. Marvel not, that I said unto
thee, ye must be born again--The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou
hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, nor
whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the spirit."

Notwithstanding the precision and plainness of these instructions,
(resembling the reasoning of our theologians,) Nicodemus, whose
understanding was doubtless shut up, did not comprehend any part of
them. "How (asks he) can these things be?" Here Jesus, pushed to
extremity, grew warm:--"Art thou (says he) a master of Israel, and
knowest not these things? Verily, verily, I say unto thee, we speak that
we do know, and testify that we have seen, and ye receive not our
witness. If I have told you earthly things and ye believe not, how shall
ye believe if I tell you of heavenly things? And no man hath ascended up
to heaven but he that came down from heaven, even the son of man which
is in heaven." (John iii. 1-13.)

We thought it our duty to relate this curious dialogue, as a specimen of
the logic of Jesus; the more so as it seems to have served as a model
for the fashion of reasoning observed by Christian doctors, who are in
the use of explaining obscure things by things still more obscure and
unintelligible. They terminate all disputes by referring the decision to
their own testimony; that is, to the authority or the church or clergy,
entrusted by God himself with regulating what the faithful ought to
believe.

The rest of the conversation of Jesus with Nicodemus is equally
perspicuous, and in the same style:--The former alone speaks, and
appears by the dint of his reasons to have silenced the docile senator,
who, it seems, retired fully convinced. Thus it is, that _faith_
disposes the elect to yield to the lessons, dogmas, and mysteries of
religion even when it is impossible to attach any meaning to the words
they hear pronounced.

There is no further mention of Nicodemus--We know not whether he
resigned his office of Senator to enrol himself among the disciples of
Jesus. Perhaps he was contented with secretly furnishing necessaries to
his adherents, in gratitude for the luminous instructions he had
received. He evidently knew how to profit by them, for John makes him
return after the death of Jesus, bringing a hundred pounds of aloes and
myrrh, for the purpose of embalming his body, and then interring it,
with the assistance of Joseph of Arimathea. This proves that he had come
from his conversation with Jesus a more able theologist than he had
begun it. On this occasion, Jesus must have granted him saving grace,
without which it would have been impossible to comprehend any of his
sublime dogmas.

According to theology, men have occasion for _supernatural grace_ to do
good. This doctrine is injurious to sound morality. Men always wait for
the call from above to do good, and those who direct them, never employ
the _calls from below_; that is the natural motives to excite them to
virtue. But the clergy cannot give a correct definition of virtue. They
say it is an effect of grace that disposes men to do that which is
agreeable to the Divinity. But what is grace? How does it act on man?
What is it that is agreeable to God? Wherefore doth not God give to all
men the grace to do that which is agreeable in his eyes? We are
unceasingly told to do good, _because God requires_ it; but no one has
been able to teach us what that good is which is acceptable to the
Almighty, and by the performance of which we shall obtain his
approbation.

It must be acknowledged, that the impossibility of comprehending the
doctrine of Jesus furnishes a good reason for denying that it can be
divine. It cannot be conceived why a God, sent to instruct men, should
never distinctly explain himself. No Pagan oracle employed terms more
ambiguous, than the divine missionary chosen by Providence to enlighten
nations. In this the Deity appears to have made it his study to create
obstacles to his projects, and to have laid a snare not only for the
Jews, but for all those who must read the gospel to obtain salvation; a
conduct equally unworthy of a good and just God, endowed with prescience
and wisdom; yet by faith we may succeed in reconciling every thing, and
readily comprehend why God should speak without wishing to be
understood.

As soon as Jesus had quitted Nicodemus, he left Jerusalem, his abode in
which had become very dangerous, and wandered through the country of
Judea, where he enjoyed greater safety. The uproar he had occasioned in
the capital, where so great a multitude were assembled, had not failed
to make him known to many; but it was at a distance that he gained the
greatest number of partisans. John informs us, in chapter third, that
during this period he baptized; thereafter he tells us, in chapter
fourth, that he did _not_ baptize, but that his disciples baptized for
him.

One thing is certain, that, after this, he quitted Judea to go into
Galilee. It was, perhaps, to be more private, or to prevent the schism,
which, according to the gospel, was ready to take place between the Jews
baptized by John, and those whom Jesus and his disciples had baptized.
Jesus conceived that prudence required him to remain at a distance, and
to leave the field open to a man who was useful to him, and who
contented himself with playing the second part under him. It very soon
appeared that Jesus made a greater number of proselytes than his cousin;
a circumstance which, in the end, might have created a misunderstanding
between them. Jesus therefore directed his march towards Samaria,
whither we are to follow him, and thence he passed into Galilee.




CHAPTER VI.

ADVENTURE OF JESUS WITH THE FEMALE SAMARITAN--HIS JOURNEY AND MIRACLES
IN THE COUNTRY OF THE GERASENES.


It may be observed that in this examination of the history of Jesus, we
follow the most generally received arrangement of facts, without meaning
to guarantee that they occurred precisely in that order. Chronological
mistakes are not of much importance when they do not influence the
nature of events. Besides, the evangelists, without fixing any eras,
content themselves with saying _at that time_, which precludes our
giving an exact chronology of the following transactions. Precision
would require a labor as immense as superfluous, and tend only to shew
that the history of Jesus, dictated by the Holy Spirit, is more
incorrect than that of celebrated Pagans of an antiquity more remote. It
would also prove that the inspired writers contradict themselves every
instant, by making their hero act at the same time in different places,
and often remote from each other. On the other hand, this great labor
would not inform us which of the evangelists we ought to prefer, seeing
all in the eyes of faith have truth on their side. Time and place do not
change the nature of facts; and it is from these facts we must form our
ideas of the legislator of the Christians.

Jesus having commenced his journey in the summer season, felt oppressed
with thirst near Sichar, in the country of Samaria, which gave rise to a
singular adventure. Near this city there was a well, known by the name
of Jacob's fountain. Fatigued with his journey, Jesus sat down on the
brink of the well, waiting the return of his disciples, who had gone to
the city for provisions. It was about noon, when a female came to draw
water. Jesus asked her to let him drink out of the vessel she held; but
the Samaritan, who knew from his countenance that he was a Jew, was
astonished at his request, as there was no intercourse between the
orthodox Jews and the Samaritans. According to the custom of partisans
of different sects, they detested each other most cordially. The
messiah, who was not so fastidious as the ordinary Jews, undertook the
conversion of the female heretic, for whose sex we find in him a strong
attachment through the whole course of his history. "If thou knewest,"
said he to her, "the gift of God, and who it is that saith to thee, give
me to drink, thou wouldst have asked of him, and he would have given
thee living water." The Samaritan woman, who did not observe Jesus to
have any vessel in his hand, asked whence he could draw the living water
of which he spoke? On this the messiah, assuming a mysterious tone,
answered, "Whoso drinketh of this well shall thirst again, but whosoever
drinketh of the water that I shall give him, shall never thirst; It
shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life." The
female, who was a dame of easy virtue, asked some of that marvellous
water; and Jesus, from this discourse having discovered the profession
of the woman, ingeniously got off by telling her to go and seek her
husband; calculating, perhaps, on being able to steal away when she was
gone. But the lady related to him her life; gave some details of her
conduct; and thereby enabled him to conjecture enough of it to speak as
a conjuror. Accordingly, he told her that she had had five husbands;
that she had none at that time, and that the man with whom she lived was
only a gallant. The Samaritan woman took Jesus for a sorcerer or a
prophet; he did not deny it; and as he was not then afraid of being
stoned or punished, he made bold for the first time to confess that he
was the messiah.

They were at this part of their dialogue, when the return of Jesus'
disciples put an end to it. The latter, whether they knew the profession
of the loquacious dame, or were more intolerant than their master, were
surprised at the tete-a-tete; yet none of them ventured to criticise the
conduct of Jesus; while the Samaritan woman seeing his retinue believed
in reality that he was a prophet or the messiah. Leaving her pitcher,
she went directly to Sichar, "Come and see," said she to the
inhabitants, "a man who told me all things that ever I did; is not this
the Christ?"--The astonished inhabitants went and met Jesus; and charmed
with hearing him preach, without comprehending one word of his
discourse, they invited him to come and reside with them. He yielded to
their request for two days only: the provisions purchased were put up in
reserve, and the troop lived during that time at the cost of these
heretics, delighted no doubt with defraying the expenses of the Saviour
and his followers.

All the marvellous in this adventure turns on Jesus having divined that
the Samaritan lady had had five husbands, and lived at that time in
criminal intercourse with a favorite. Yet it is easy to perceive that
Jesus could learn this anecdote either in his conversation with the
prating dame, or by public rumor, or in some other very easy way.

But unbelievers find another reason for criticising this relation of
John. Laying aside the marvellous, they attack the _truth_ of the
transaction. All history attests, that in the time of Jesus, Samaria was
peopled by colonies of different nations, which the Assyrians had
transported thither after the destruction of the kingdom of Israel. This
would seem to exclude the expectation of the messiah, in which,
according to John, the Samaritans lived. Pagans and Idolators could not
have very distinct notions of an event peculiar to Judea. If the
Samaritans were the descendants of Jacob, it was not necessary to put
into the mouth of the Samaritan woman these words, "Our fathers
worshipped in this mountain, and ye say, Jerusalem is the place where
men ought to worship." It was also absurd to make Jesus say, "ye shall
no more worship the Father, either in this mountain or at Jerusalem; ye
worship ye know not what;" for the law of Moses does not forbid the
worshipping God in whatever place we may find ourselves. In the time of
Jesus, the laws or usages of the Jews required, that none should offer
sacrifice any where, except in the temple of the capital; but the places
of prayer depended on every man's own will and pleasure. It is, besides,
absurd to say, that the descendants of Jacob did not know the God whom
they adored to be Jehovah, the God of Moses and of the Jews; unless it
is pretended, that they did not know whom they worshipped. Since the
mission of Jesus, Christians have undoubtedly nothing to reproach them
with on this head. Moreover the words of Jesus seem to insinuate, that
he wished to abolish the worship of the Father. It is certain that
Christians share their homage between him and his Son, which, faith a
part, annihilates the dogma of the unity of God. Finally, Jesus did not
conjecture right in saying, that the Father would be no longer
worshipped at Jerusalem, or on the mountain; for this Father has not
ceased one instant to be worshipped there for these eighteen centuries,
by Jews, by Christians, and by Mahometans.

If it is maintained, that the Samaritan woman was a heathen, it is not
likely that she would have regarded Jesus as the messiah, whom she
neither knew nor expected. Add to this, that the Samaritans believed in
Jesus on the word of a courtezan; a credulity of which Jews and
Christians only could be susceptible. Jesus and his disciples were Jews,
and in that character excluded from Samaria. It is of no import,
therefore, by whom the country was inhabited.

Two days having elapsed, and the people of Sichar being, in all
appearance, sufficiently instructed, Jesus quitted their city, and with
his disciples took the road of Upper Galilee. In this journey, Jesus
considering the hostile disposition of his countrymen, thought proper
not to enter Nazareth, the place of his nativity. He applied to himself
the famous proverb, _a prophet has no honor in his own country_. It was
otherwise in the rest of the province:--as soon as the people knew of
his arrival, they gave him welcome. Luke assures us that he was esteemed
and honored by every body. These good people had beheld the wonders
which he had operated in Jerusalem, during the festival of the passover.
In gratitude for these favorable dispositions, and for the faith he
found among the Galileans, Jesus did not content himself with
instructing them, but confirmed his mission, and testified his love by a
crowd of prodigies. The number was, doubtless, very great, as Matthew is
constrained to say generally, that he healed all manner of sickness, and
all manner of disease among the people; and that it was sufficient to
obtain a cure, to present to him the sick, whatever might be their
disease. Lunatics, whose number was great in that country; idiots,
hypochondriacs, and persons possessed with devils, had but to fly to him
for relief, and their cure was certain.

This multitude of miracles, for so they style the cures operated by
Jesus, drew after him a crowd of idlers and vagabonds from Galilee,
Jerusalem, Decapolis, Judea, and the country beyond Jordan. It was in
this journey he obtained two famous disciples: they were brothers, sons
of a fisherman of the name of Zebedee, and called James and John. The
first, though, probably, he could not read, afterwards composed mystical
works, which are at this day revered by Christians. With respect to
John, he was the favorite of his master, and received from him marks of
distinguished attention. He afterwards became a sublime Platonist, and,
through gratitude, deified Jesus in the gospels and epistles published
in his name.

The reputation and resources of Jesus were so great in Galilee, that, to
increase the number of his followers, it was only necessary for him to
open his mouth and speak. The two disciples already mentioned, he called
with an intention to keep near his person. Wishing, however, to repose
after the fatigues of preaching and performing miracles, he resolved to
quit the cities and retire to the sea coast. He conjectured, that to
make himself desirable, and not exhaust his credit, it was prudent not
to suffer himself to be seen too long or too near. The people, fond of
hearing the wonderful sermons of Jesus, followed him. Pressed by the
crowd, he happily perceived two vessels; and stepping into the one
belonging to Simon Peter, he harangued the eager multitude from it. Thus
the boat of a fisherman became a pulpit, whence the Deity uttered his
oracles.

The Galileans were not rich, and, accordingly, the troop of Jesus'
adherents augmented. We find his four first apostles laboring in their
trade of fishermen during the abode of the messiah in the province. The
day on which he preached in the vessel had not been fortunate for them;
and the night preceding was not more favorable. Jesus, who knew more
than one profession, thought that it behoved him to do something for
people who shewed so much zeal. When, therefore, he had finished his
harangue and the crowd had retired, he bade Simon advance into the
middle of the water and cast his net; the latter excused himself,
saying, that he had already thrown several times without success. But
Jesus insisted:--then said Simon, _I will cast it on thy word_: on
which, by an astonishing miracle, the net broke on all sides. Simon and
Andrew were unable to drag it out, they called their comrades, and drew
out of it fishes enough to fill two ships. Our fishermen were so
surprised, that Peter took his master for a wizard, and prayed him to
depart. But Jesus encouraged him, and promised not to alarm them again,
seeing that henceforth he, Peter, should no longer occupy himself with
catching fish, but men.

The messiah finding himself near Cana, judged it proper, as he had once
performed a miracle there, to enter that place. An officer of Capernaum,
whose son was sick of a fever, repaired to this village on purpose to
try the remedies of Jesus, of whose powers so many persons boasted. He
entreated the physician to come to his house and cure his son; but our
Esculapius, who did not chuse to operate before eyes too clear-sighted,
got rid of this importunate person in such a way as not to incur any
risk, in case he should not succeed: Go, said he to the officer, _thy
son liveth_. The officer, while approaching his own habitation, learned
that the fever, which perhaps was intermittent, had left his son. No
more was necessary to cry up the miracle, and convert all the family.

After having traversed the sea coast, and made some stay at Cana, Jesus
repaired to Capernaum, where, as has been related, he fixed his
residence. The family of Simon Peter was established in that city; and
it was no doubt this reason, joined with the bad treatment he had
received from the inhabitants of Nazareth, that determined Jesus to make
choice of this residence. It appears he was abhorred in the city where
he had been educated; for as soon as he attempted to preach there, the
people wanted to throw him headlong. At Capernaum they listened to and
admired him; he harangued in the synagogue, explained the scripture, and
showed that he himself was foretold in it. In the midst of his sermon,
one Sabbath day, they brought him a person possessed, who perhaps in
concert with him, began to cry out with all his might; "Let us alone:
what have we to do with thee, thou Jesus of Nazareth? Art thou come to
destroy us? I know thee who thou art, the holy one of God." The people
waited in terror for the issue of this adventure, when Jesus, certain of
his ground, addressed himself not to the man, but to the devil
possessing him: "Hold thy peace," said he, "and come out of him."
Immediately the malign spirit overturned the possessed, threw him into
horrible convulsions, and disappeared without any person seeing him.

Physicians, especially those acquainted with the eastern countries, do
not admit miracles of the nature of this one. They know that the
diseases considered _possessions_, were owing solely to disorders
produced in the brain by excessive heat. These maladies were frequent in
Judea, where superstition and ignorance impeded the progress of medicine
and all useful knowledge. Out of that country we find but few possessed
with devils. This incredulity strips Jesus of a great number of his
miracles; yet taking away the _possessions_, there still remain enough.
Most of the possessed among us are hypochondriacs, maniacs, hysterical
women, melancholy persons, and those tormented with the vapors or
spasms; or they are impostors, who, to gain money, to interest the
simple and to display the power of the priests, consent to receive the
devil, that the clergy may have the glory of expelling him. There is
scarcely a possession now-a-days which could resist a flogging.

Miracles are food for the imagination, but the body requires more
substantial aliments: the adventure which has been related had led to
the hour of dinner. On leaving the synagogue, Jesus was invited to the
house of Peter, where every thing appears to have been prepared for
performing a second miracle. The mother-in-law of Simon felt sick at the
moment they had need of her in managing the kitchen. Jesus, who
possessed the talent of readily curing the relatives of his disciples,
took her by the hand, and made her rise from her bed: she arose
completely cured, cooked the victuals, and was in a condition to serve
the guests.

In the evening of the same day, they brought Jesus all the sick in
Capernaum, and all the possessed, whom, according to Matthew, he cured
by some words; but, according to Luke, by laying hands on them. Several
devils, on coming out of the possessed, had the impudence to betray the
secret of the physician, and openly declare, that he was "Christ the Son
of God." This indiscretion displeased Jesus, who wished, or feigned to
wish, to keep private. Luke tells us that "he rebuked them, and suffered
them not to speak, for they knew that he was Christ."

According to theologists, the Son of God, in all his conduct, had in
view only to lead the devil astray, and conceal from him the mystery of
redemption: Yet we see, that Jesus was never able to deceive his cunning
enemy. In the whole gospel system, the devil is more sly and powerful
than both God the Father and God the Son: he is always successful in
thwarting their designs, and succeeds in reducing God the Father to the
dire necessity of making his dear Son die in order to repair the evil
which Satan had done to mankind. Christianity is real manichaeism,
wherein every advantage is on the side of the bad principle, who, by the
great number of his adherents renders nugatory all the purposes of the
Deity. If the devil knew that Jesus was "the Christ," such knowledge
must have been posterior to his retirement into the desert, for he then
spoke to him in a style which intimated that he knew him not. It is
superfluous to examine at what time the devil acquired this knowledge;
but it is manifest that he had it only by divine permission. Now God, by
granting to the devil the knowledge of his Son, either wished, or did
not wish, that he should speak of it. If he wished it, Jesus did wrong
in opposing it: if he did not wish it, how was the devil able to act
contrary to the divine will? Jesus carefully concealed his quality, the
knowledge of which could alone operate salvation. But, in this case, the
devil had the greatest interest to conceal it; yet in opposition to this
interest, and the will of the Almighty, the devil made known the quality
of Jesus. Besides, if Jesus did not wish that the devil should discover
him, why delay imposing silence on him until after he had spoken?

The conduct of the Messiah in these particulars has made it to be
believed, that not daring to endanger himself by publicly assuming the
quality of Christ, or Son of God, he was not displeased with the devils
for divulging his secret, and sparing him the trouble of speaking. It
was, moreover, eliciting a very important confession out of the mouth of
an enemy.

Jesus was not ignorant, that to retain his influence over the minds of
men, it was necessary to prevent satiety. Accordingly, on the day
following that on which so many miracles had been wrought in Capernaum,
he departed before day-break, and withdrew into a desert. All
legislators have loved retirement. It is there they have had divine
inspirations, and it is on emerging from these mysterious asylums, they
have performed miracles calculated to deceive the vulgar. Solitary
reflection is at times necessary to ascertain the state of our affairs.

Meanwhile the disciples of Jesus, notwithstanding his flight, did not
lose sight of him; they repaired to him at the moment he wished to be
alone, and informed him that they had been every where in search of him.
In fact, there were still many sick and possessed in the country; yet
this consideration did not induce Jesus to return to Capernaum; on which
account many resorted to him in his retreat. To get rid of them, he
again traversed Galilee, where he cured the sick and cast out devils.
This is all the gospel mentions. It appears he tarried little on his
road, while he preached as he went along; for in a short time he had
advanced a considerable way on the shore of the sea of Galilee. As the
multitude augmented by idle and curious people from the villages, our
preacher, finding himself pressed by the crowd, gave orders to his
disciples to convey him to the other side, on the territory of the
Gerasenes.

When he had landed, a doctor of the law offered to become his follower:
but Jesus readily conceived that a _doctor_ would not suit him. He would
have cut a poor figure in a company composed of fishermen and clowns,
such as those of whom the messiah had formed his court. He gave the
doctor to understand, that he would repent of this step; that this kind
of life would not agree with him: "the son of man," said he to the
doctor, "hath no where to lay his head."

Jesus would not permit his disciples to ramble too far in the territory
of the Gerasenes; for amongst them were some of that country. One asked
permission to go and perform the last duties to his father;--another, to
embrace his family; but Jesus harshly refused their requests. The first
received for answer, "let the dead bury their dead." The other, "whoever
having put his hand to the plough, and looketh back, is not fit for the
kingdom of heaven." The incredulous think they perceive in these answers
a proof of the rough habits, and repulsive and despotic spirit of Jesus,
who, for the kingdom of heaven, obliged his disciples to neglect the
most sacred duties of morality. But Christians, docile to the lessons of
their divine master, which they dare not examine, have made perfection
consist in a total abandonment of those objects which nature has
rendered dearest to man. Christianity seems intended only to create
discord, detach men from every thing on earth, and break the ties which
ought to unite them. There is, according to Jesus, but one thing
needful; namely, to be attached to him exclusively: a maxim very useful
in meriting heaven, but calculated to destroy every society on the
earth.

After our missionary had spent some time in the country of the
Gerasenes, one day towards the evening he passed over to the other side
of the lake, having previously dismissed the people, who had come that
day on purpose to hear him; but he did not preach. Fatigued, he fell
asleep on the passage, whilst a furious tempest overtook the ship. His
affrighted disciples, impressed with the idea of their master being more
powerful when awake than when asleep, acquainted him with the danger.
This drew on them reproaches for their want of faith, which, probably,
gave time for the tempest to subside. Then Jesus, in a tone of
authority, commanded the sea to be still, and immediately the order was
obeyed. In spite of this prodigy, the faith of the disciples was for a
long time wavering. Jesus after this returned to the country of the
Gerasenes, without having either preached or performed miracles on the
other side.




CHAPTER VII.

JESUS CURES TWO PERSONS POSSESSED WITH DEVILS--MIRACLE OF THE
SWINE--WONDERS PERFORMED BY JESUS TILL THE END OF THE FIRST YEAR OF HIS
MISSION.


Landed again in the country of the Gerasenes, Jesus took a route by
which no person had for some time passed. Two demoniacs, inhabiting the
tombs in the neighborhood, rendered this passage dangerous. Scarcely had
Jesus shown himself, when these madmen ran to meet him. As he was a
connoisseur in matters of possession, he no sooner perceived them than
he began to exorcise, to make the unclean spirits come out of them.
Notwithstanding his divine skill, he acquitted himself very imperfectly
on this occasion. It was not with _one_ devil, but with a legion of
devils he had to deal. One of them, amused at the mistake of the son of
God who asked him his name, answered, _I am called Legion_. On this
Jesus changed his batteries, and was proceeding to dislodge them, when
the devils, obstinate in continuing in the country, or very little
desirous of returning to hell, proposed a capitulation. One of the
articles stipulated, that on leaving the body of the possessed, they
should enter into a herd of swine, which fed close by on the declivity
of a hill. Jesus readily agreed, for once, to grant something on the
prayer of the devils, and not to use his authority rigorously. Neither
he nor his disciples, as good Jews, ate pork: he supposed, therefore,
that swine, prohibited by the law, might well serve for a retreat to
devils. He consented to the treaty; the demons came out of their former
residence to enter into the swine, who, feeling Satan within them, were
thrown into commotion, or, perhaps, were terrified--a very natural
thing; and having precipitated themselves into the sea, were drowned to
the number of about two thousand. If a legion of devils is composed of
the same number as a Roman legion, we must believe that there were six
thousand devils. This evidently makes three devils for each hog, a
sufficient number to induce them to commit suicide.

Some grave authors assure us, that Jesus never laughed, nor even smiled;
yet it is very difficult to believe, that the "son of God" could
preserve his gravity after performing such a trick. But it did not
appear so humorous to the herdsmen, who found this fine miracle so
little pleasant that they complained of it to their employers, and ran
to the city; where the affair was no sooner known than the proprietors
of the swine, far from being converted, bewailed a prodigy so ruinous to
them, and maintained that it was a matter of public concern. The
Gerasenes went in a body to oppose the entry of Jesus into their city,
and, from inability to punish, besought him to leave their territory as
soon as possible. Such was the effect which the miracle of sending
devils into the swine produced.

This memorable transaction must be true, for it is attested by three
evangelists, who, however, vary in some circumstances. Matthew informs
us, that the possessed were _two_ in number; Mark and Luke maintain that
there was only _one_; but so furious, according to Mark, that they could
not bind him _even with fetters_. Luke is certain that the devil
frequently carried him into the deserts; Mark affirms that he spent his
days and nights in the tombs, and on the neighboring mountains. On this
occasion Jesus was also proclaimed _Christ_ by the devil. As he was
among his friends, or disciples, he did not enjoin silence to Satan. The
acknowledgement was useful when given in private, and could not hurt
him; but there were occasions on which it might do harm if made in
public. It was necessary, therefore, our puissant miracle-worker should
be circumspect, especially when he did not perceive himself sufficiently
supported.

Unbelievers discover important errors, and evident marks of falsehood in
the narrative, which also appears ridiculous, 1st, They are surprised to
see devils, who, according to Christians, are condemned to eternal
torments in hell, leaving it to take possession of the inhabitants of
this earth. 2dly, They are astonished at seeing the devils address
prayers to the son of God. It is an article of Christian faith, that to
pray, grace is requisite; that the damned cannot pray; and much more,
that this grace must be denied to the chief of the damned. 3dly, The
incredulous are offended at a miracle by which Jesus benefitted two
persons possessed with devils, at the expense of the proprietors of two
thousand swine, to whom this miracle cost at least eighteen thousand
dollars;--a transaction not quite agreeable to the rules of equity.
4thly, It cannot be conceived how Jews, whom their law inspired with
horror towards swine, could have herds of these animals among them, and
which they could not even touch without being defiled; and, 5thly, It is
indecorous to make the "son of God" enter into a compromise with devils;
ridiculous to make them enter into swine; and unjust to make them enter
into and destroy other people's property.

We are not informed what became of these devils after being precipitated
into the sea. It is not unreasonable to believe, that, in coming out of
the swine, they entered into the Jews, to procure the saviour the
pleasure of casting them out again; for the curing of people possessed
was, of all miracles, that in which he was most expert.

The possessed person cured by Jesus, penetrated with gratitude to his
physician, with whom he was perhaps previously acquainted, wanted to
follow Jesus, according to Mark; but it was foreseen that his testimony
might become suspicious if he put himself in the train of the messiah,
who, therefore, chose rather that he should repair to his family, and
announce the mercies he had received from the Lord. He was a native of
Decapolis, a country, as we have seen, very much disposed to credulity.
Accordingly, as soon as the man had there recounted this adventure,
every body was transported with admiration. We are, however, astonished
at the difference between these folks, so remarkable for a docile faith,
and the Gerasenes:--the inhabitants of Decapolis believe all without
seeing any thing, whilst the Gerasenes, eye witnesses of the prodigy,
are not moved by it, and uncivilly refuse Jesus admittance into their
city. We commonly find in the gospel, that to witness a miracle is a
very strong reason for not believing it.

The hardness of heart and unbelief of the Gerasenes, and particularly
the request they made to the messiah not to come among them, obliged him
to re-embark with his disciples and return to Galilee, where he was very
kindly received. It is not, however, related whether he preached and
performed miracles; even the time he continued there is not accurately
known.--The friends of Jesus, and the relations of his disciples and
mother, received, it appears, from time to time, intelligence of his
wonders, which they took care to circulate; and, on learning that they
wanted him, he returned to Capernaum. Scarcely was his arrival known,
when the people, always fond of sermons and miracles, resorted to him in
crowds. Neither his house nor the space before the door could contain
the multitude; he required the voice of a Stentor to make himself heard
at the extremities of the crowd; but the idlers, content with following
him without knowing why, were very little troubled about understanding
his orations.

The Pharisees, to whom Jesus' success began to give umbrage, resolved to
satisfy themselves, if there was any reality in what was reported of
him. Some doctors of Gallilee, who were not of the number of our
missionary's admirers, repaired to him. They heard him preach, and came
from his sermons more possessed against him: even his miracles could not
convert them, though, according to Luke, the power of the Lord was
displayed in their presence in the cure of the sick. But, as has been
remarked, the miracles of the messiah were calculated to convince those
only who did not see them. Thus it is, that these miracles are believed
at present by people who would not credit those performed in their
presence.

Four men who carried a paralytic on his bed, unable to penetrate through
the crowd, were advised to ascend with the burden to the roof of the
house, and, making an opening there, to let down the sick man in his
bed, and lay him at the physician's feet. The idea appeared ingenious
and new to the latter, and indicated first rate faith; accordingly,
addressing the sick man, he said, "My son, be of good courage, thy sins
are forgiven thee." This absolution or remission, was pronounced so as
to be heard by the emissary doctors, who were highly offended at it.
Jesus, divining their dispositions, addressed his discourse to
them--"Why do you suffer wicked thoughts to enter into your hearts?
which is easier to say to this paralytic, thy sins are forgiven thee; or
to say to him, Arise, take up thy bed and walk." This question, boldly
proposed in the midst of a fanatical people, the sport of prejudice,
embarrassed the doctors, who did not think proper to reply. Jesus,
profiting by their embarrassment, said to the paralytic, _Arise, take up
thy bed, and go into thine house_. This prodigy impressed their minds
with terror: it especially made our doctors, the spies, tremble, while
the people exclaimed, "Never have we seen before anything so wonderful."
But if the doctors were afraid, they were not converted; and
notwithstanding the cure of the paralytic, they had no faith in the
absolution granted by Jesus. It may, therefore, be supposed, that this
miracle was attended with circumstances which rendered it suspicious:
perhaps the gospel will enable us to discover them.

When the same fact is differently related by different historians equal
in authority, we are constrained to doubt it; or, at least, are entitled
to deny that it happened in the manner supposed. This principle of
criticism must apply to the narratives of the gospel writers, as well as
to those of others. Now, Matthew merely tells us, that a paralytic was
presented to Jesus, who cured him, without relating the wonderful
circumstance of the roof being perforated, and the other ornaments with
which Mark and Luke embellished their narratives. Thus, either we are in
the right in suspending our belief as to this fact, or we may believe
that it has not occurred in the manner related by the two last
evangelists. Again, Mark and Luke, who say that the sick man was
elevated on his bed to the top of the house, having previously informed
us the crowd was so great that the bearers of the diseased were unable
to force their way, suppose, without expressing it in words, another
very great miracle. They make the carriers penetrate through the crowd.
Arrived, we know not how, at the foot of the wall, they could not
singly, and far less loaded with the sick man, climb up to the roof of
the house. Luke says they made an opening through it. In that case the
people must have perceived them, particularly, those in the inside of
the house. During the silent attention they gave to the discourse of
Jesus, they must have heard the noise made by the men in raising up a
bed to the roof, and afterwards uncovering, or making a hole in it,
through which to convey the sick man. This operation became more
difficult if the roof, instead of being covered with tiles, was flat.
Now, all the houses of the Jews and orientals were, and still are,
constructed in this manner. These difficulties furnish sufficient
motives for doubting this grand miracle. But it will become more
probable, if we suppose that the sick man was already in the house with
Jesus; or that things being previously arranged, they let down by a
trap-door made on purpose, a paralytic most certain of being cured on
command of the messiah. This transaction might appear marvellous to a
populace disposed to see prodigies every where; but it made less
impression on the doctors, who had come purposely to scrutinize the
conduct of our adventurer. They conjectured, that it was dangerous to
contradict weak fanatics, though they did not credit the miracle they
had witnessed.

Some days thereafter Jesus preached along the sea coast, and passing
near the custom-house, perceived Matthew, one of the officers, who sat
there. His mien pleased the messiah, on whose invitation the subaltern
financier quitted his post, and followed him, after having given a great
entertainment to Jesus and his party. Matthew introduced his new master
to publicans, and toll collectors, his brethren in trade, and others of
similar repute. The Pharisees and doctors, who watched our missionary,
came to Matthew's house to be assured of the fact. Jesus, occupied with
gratifying his appetite, did not at first observe that he was watched.
Some words, however, spoken rather loudly, attracted his attention: it
was the doctors who reproached the disciples with eating and drinking
with persons of doubtful reputation. "How," probably said they to them,
"how dares your master, who constantly preaches up virtue, sobriety, and
repentance, show himself publicly in such bad company? How can he
associate with knaves, monopolizers, and men whom their extortions
render odious to the nation? Why does he have in his train women of bad
lives, such as Susan and Jane, who accompany him continually?" The
disciples, attacked in this manner, knew not how to reply; but Jesus,
without being disconcerted, answered with a proverb:--"It is not the
whole," said he, "but the sick who have need of a physician." After this
he cited a passage of scripture, which cannot now be found--"Learn,"
said he, "the truth of this saying, _I love mercy better than
sacrifice_." It appears the doctors did not consider themselves
defeated, and Jesus was so transported with zeal as to say, that he
"came not to call the righteous but sinners to repentance." In that
case, why did he reject the Pharisees and doctors, whom he called
_whitened sepulchres_? If the adversaries of Jesus were not righteous,
they were sinners, whom he was come to call to repentance; consequently
he ought not to have renounced them.

Whatever reason Jesus might have to palliate or justify his conduct, it
was very soon published abroad. John Baptist's disciples who heard it,
and whom, perhaps, jealously excited, came in search of him, and asked
the reason of the difference in the life he and his disciples led, and
that which they themselves followed. We fast, (said they) continually,
whilst you and your followers enjoy good cheer. We practise austerities,
and live in retirement, whilst you run about and frequently keep company
with persons of evil repute, &c. The reproach was embarrassing, but
Jesus contrived to evade it. "The friends of the bridegroom, (replied
he,) ought neither to fast, nor live in sorrow whilst they have the
bridegroom with them; a time will come when the bridegroom shall be
taken away from them; and then they shall fast. No man putteth a piece
of new cloth on an old garment--neither do men put new wine into old
bottles: and no person asks for new wine when he can get old, for he
finds the old better." John's disciples had no reply to reasons so
sublime and convincing. The enigmatical symbol, or pompous bombast, by
which Jesus got out of this affair, is closely imitated by our modern
preachers, who find it very proper argument to shut the mouths of those
who are not inclined to dispute eternally about what they do not
understand.

This incident demonstrates, that the Pharisees and doctors were not the
only persons who were offended with Jesus, and the company he kept. In
the epistles, ascribed to Barnabas, that apostle says expressly, that
the "apostles, whom the Lord chose, were very wicked men, and above all
sinners iniquitous." The fact is also confirmed in Matthew ix., Mark ii.
and Luke v. This evidently decides the cause in favour of the partizans
of lax morality, and furnishes them with victorious arms against the
modern puritans. We may also remark, that the actions and expressions of
Jesus on this occasion, authorise the conduct and language of our holy
guides, our lords the bishops, who when reproached with their iniquitous
behaviour, shut our mouths by averring, that _we ought to do as they
tell us, and not what they do_!

It cannot be denied, that the discrepancy which existed between the
conduct of Jesus and the principles of the Jews, or even in his own
doctrine, required extraordinary miracles to prove his mission. He was
not ignorant of this; prodigies, therefore, were commonly the strongest
of his arguments; these were well calculated to gain the vulgar, who
never value themselves on reasoning, but are ready to applaud the man
who exhibits wonders, and acquires the secret of pleasing their fancy.

After Jesus had silenced John's disciples, the chief of a synagogue
waited on him, and besought him to come and lay hands on his daughter,
twelve years old, _who was dead_, according to Matthew, but who was only
_very sick_, according to Mark and Luke; a difference which seems to
merit some attention. Jesus complied with the invitation; and whilst
proceeding to the house overheated himself so much that a virtue went
out of him sufficient to cure all who were in its atmosphere. We shall
not form conjectures on the nature of this virtue or divine
transpiration. We shall only remark, that it was so potent as
instantaneously to cure a woman afflicted for twelve years with an issue
of blood; a disease which, probably, the spectators had not better
verified than its cure. On this occasion, Jesus perceiving that there
had gone out of him a considerable portion of virtue, turned towards the
afflicted female, whom his disciples had rudely pushed back, and seeing
her prostrate at his feet, "Daughter, (said he) be of good cheer, thy
faith hath made thee whole." The poor woman, whom the disciples had
intimidated, charmed with being relieved from her fright in so easy a
manner, confessed openly she was cured.

When our miracle performer was arrived at the house of Jairus, the chief
of the synagogue, it was announced to the latter that his daughter had
expired, and that the house was full of minstrels, who were performing a
dirge or mournful concert according to the custom of the country. Jesus,
who on the way had got the father of the girl to prattle, was not
disconcerted at the news. He began with making every body retire, and
then by virtue of some words raised her from the dead.

In historical matters we must prefer two writers who agree, to a third
who contradicts them. Luke and Mark affirm that the damsel was dead; but
here unfortunately it is the hero himself who weakens his victory. On
their saying that she was dead, he affirmed that she was only _asleep_.
There are girls who at twelve years of age are subject to such swoons.
On the other hand, the father of the damsel appears to have acquainted
the physician with the condition of his child; and he, more in the
secret than others, did not believe the intelligence of her death. He
entered alone into her chamber, well assured of her recovery if she was
only in a swoon: if he had found her dead, there is every reason to
believe, he would have returned, and told the father that he had been
called too late, and regreted the accident.

Jesus did not wish that this miracle should be published; he forbade the
father and mother of the damsel to tell what had happened. Our charlatan
was not solicitous to divulge an affair which might increase the
indignation of the Jews of Jerusalem, whither he was soon to repair to
celebrate the passover. The account of this miracle seems to evince that
the Son of God had acquired some smattering of medicine in Egypt. It
appears that he was versant in the spasmodic diseases of women; and no
more was wanting to induce the vulgar to regard him as a sorcerer, or
performer of miracles.

Once in the way of performing wonders, Jesus did not rest satisfied with
one merely. According to Matthew, (who alone relates the facts we are
now to notice,) two blind men who followed him began to exclaim, _Son of
David, have mercy on us_. Though Jesus, in his quality of God, knew the
most secret thoughts of men, he chose to be _viva voce_ assured of the
disposition of the sick with whom he had intercourse. He asked, if they
had much faith, or if they sincerely believed that he was able to do
what they requested of him. Our blind folks answered in the affirmative;
then touching their eyes, "Be it unto you," said he, "according to your
faith," and instantly they received their sight.

We know not how to reconcile such lively faith in two blind men, with
their disobedience. Their physician, who might have good reasons for not
being known, expressly forbade them to speak of their cure; they,
however, spread it instantly through the country. The silence of those
who were witnesses of this great miracle, is not more astonishing than
the indiscretion of the blind men who were the objects of it. A fact
still more miraculous is the obduracy of the Jews, who were so stubborn,
that the many wonders performed one after another and on the same day,
were not able to convince them. Jesus, far from being discouraged,
determined still to exhibit specimens of his power. A dumb man,
possessed with a devil, being presented to him, he expelled the demon
and the dumb began to speak. At sight of this miracle, the people, as
usual, were in extasy, whilst the pharisees and doctors, who had also
exorcists among them, saw nothing surprising in it: they pretended that
their exorcists performed their conjurations in the name of God, whilst
Jesus operated in the name of the devil. Thus they accused Jesus of
casting out the devil by the devil, which was indeed a contradiction.
But this did not prove the divinity of Jesus; it proved only that the
Pharisees were capable of talking nonsense and contradicting themselves,
like all superstitious and credulous people. When theologists dispute,
we soon discover that the wranglers on both sides speak nonsense; and,
by contradicting themselves, impugn their own authority.




CHAPTER VIII.

OF WHAT JESUS DID AT JERUSALEM DURING THE SECOND PASSOVER IN HIS
MISSION.


Our doctor having closed the first year of his mission in a glorious
manner, he proceeded to Jerusalem, to try his fortune, and gather the
fruits of his labour, or form a party in the capital, after having
acquired adherents in the country. There was reason to expect that the
wonders which he had performed the year preceding in Galilee, would have
a powerful effect on the populace of Jerusalem; but they produced
consequences opposite to those which Jesus had hoped for. It might be
said that the infernal legion which he had sent into the swine of the
Gerasenes, had returned and fixed their abode in the heads of the
inhabitants of the country. The gospel shows in the former an incredible
hardness of heart. In vain Jesus wrought before their eyes a multitude
of prodigies, calculated to confirm the wonders related to them; in vain
did he employ his divine rhetoric to demonstrate the divinity of his
mission. His efforts served only to increase the anger of his enemies,
and induce them to devise means to punish him whom they persisted in
regarding as a juggler, a charlatan, and a dangerous impostor.

It is true, the adversaries of Jesus surprised him sometimes at
fault--They reproached him with violating the ordinances of a law
venerated by them as sacred, and from which he had promised never to
depart. They regarded these violations as a proof of heresy, and it did
not enter their heads that a God could raise himself above ordinary
rules, and possess the right of changing every thing. They were Jews,
and therefore obstinately attached to their ordinances; and they did not
conceive how a true messenger of God could allow himself to trample
under foot, what they were accustomed to regard as sacred and agreeable
to Deity.

So many obstacles did not discourage Jesus. He determined to succeed at
any price; and though he might have foreseen what would be the issue of
his enterprise, he was sensible he must conquer or die; that fortune
favours only the brave; and that it was necessary to play an illustrious
part, or tamely consent to languish in misery in the solitude of some
obscure village in Galilee.

On arriving at Jerusalem, he devoted his attention to sick paupers--the
rich had their own physicians. At this time there was in the city, and
near the sheep port, a fountain, or pool, of which, with the exception
of the gospel, no historian has ever spoken, though, it well deserved to
be transmitted to posterity. It was a vast edifice, surrounded with five
magnificent galleries, in the centre of which was a sheet of water, that
possessed admirable properties; but these were known only to indigent
people and mendicants; and they knew them, doubtless, by a particular
revelation. Under these galleries were soon languishing a great number
of sick persons, who patiently waited for a miracle. God, on giving to
the water of this pool the faculty of curing all diseases, had annexed a
condition to it--The first who could plunge therein after an angel had
troubled it, which happened only at a certain time, could alone obtain
the benefit of a cure. The chief magistrate of Jerusalem, who probably
knew nothing of the existence of this extraordinary fountain, had not
established any regulation respecting it. The most forward and agile,
and such as had friends always in readiness to lead them to the water
when it was troubled, succeeded often in obtaining deliverance from
their diseases.

A paralytic had been there for thirty-eight years, without any one
having had the charity to lend him a helping hand in descending to the
fountain. Jesus, who beheld him lying, asked him if he wanted to be
cured? "Yes," answered the sick man, "but I have nobody to put me into
the water when it is troubled." "That signifies nothing, (replied
Jesus,) Arise, take up thy bed and walk." This wretched man, perhaps not
unlike many of our beggars, who, to soften the public, feigned diseases,
and who on this occasion might be gained over by some trifle to be
accessary to the farce; this miserable, we say, did not leave him to
speak twice--on the order of Jesus he took up his couch and departed.

This cure was performed on the Sabbath. Our paralytic having been met by
a man of the law, the latter reprimanded him for violating the
ordinances of religion by carrying his bed. The transgressor had no
other excuse to give, but, that he who had cured him had commanded him
so to do. He was then questioned about the person who had given this
order, but he knew nothing of him. Jesus had not said who he was; and,
as if the act had been very trifling, the person on whom the miracle was
performed had not informed himself of the author of it. Here the matter
ended; but Jesus having some time after met the paralytic, made himself
known to him, and then the latter informed the Jews of the name of his
physician. The priests were so irritated, that from this instant they
formed the design of putting Jesus to death, because, according to John,
_he had done these things on the Sabbath day_.

It is not probable that this was the true cause of the rage of the Jews.
However scrupulous we suppose them, it is presumed that their physicians
did not think themselves obliged to refuse medicines to the sick on the
Sabbath. Jesus, not content with curing, also authorised those he cured
to violate the Sabbath by carrying their bed, which was a servile work;
or rather these unbelievers regarded the miracles of the saviour as mere
delusions, impostures, tricks of dexterity, and himself as a cheat who
might excite disturbances.

Jesus having learned that the Jews were ill disposed towards him,
attempted to justify himself. He made a speech to prove that he was the
Son of God, and that his Father authorised him not to observe the
Sabbath. But he took care not to explain himself very distinctly on this
_filiation_; and by his ambiguous language, insinuated the eternity of
his father, though he did not call him God. Yet the Jews perceiving his
object, were very much offended at this pretension. He changed,
therefore, his ground, and threw himself on the necessity by which he
acted. "Verily," said he to them, "the Son does nothing of himself, but
what he seeth the Father do. The Father, who loves him, sheweth him all
things that he himself doeth, and he will show him greater works than
these." By these expressions, Jesus seems to overthrow his own eternity
and infinite knowledge; for he announces himself as susceptible of
learning something, or as the pupil of the Divinity.

To impress the minds of these unbelievers, whom his enigmatical language
could not convince, he declared that henceforth the Father would no
longer interfere in judging men, but had devolved that care on his Son.
This, however, had no effect; as the Jews expected a great judge, they
were not yet staggered. Jesus, like our modern teachers, for want of
better arguments proceeded to intimidate his audience, knowing well that
fear prevents the exercise of reason. He gave them to understand, that
the end of the world was near, which ought to make them tremble.

The testimony of John Baptist, had facilitated the first successes of
Jesus; but the difference remarked between his conduct and that of the
forerunner, destroyed the force of this testimony. Our orator pretended
to have no need of it and endeavored to weaken its value. "_He was a
burning and a shining light_" to them; "_you were willing for a season
to rejoice in his light; I have a greater witness than his_." Here he
appealed to his own works, which he maintained to be infallible proofs
of his divine mission. He undoubtedly forgot at this moment, that he
spoke to people who regarded his marvellous deeds as delusions and
impostures. His works were precisely the thing which it was necessary to
prove even to the Jews, who saw them performed! This manner of reasoning
has been since adopted with success by Christian doctors, who, when
doubts or objections are advanced against the mission of Jesus, appeal
to his miraculous works, which were at all times incapable of convincing
the very persons whom they tell us had been witnesses of them.

Among the proofs employed by Jesus to exalt his mission, he advanced
one, the tendency of which is to destroy the mission of Moses, and cause
him to be regarded as an impostor. He told them, _You have never heard
the voice of my Father_; whilst it was on the voice of this Father, of
whom Moses was the interpreter, that the law of the Jews was founded.
After having annihilated the authority of scripture, our orator wished
to prop his mission on the same scriptures, by which he pretended he was
announced. "Fear" says he, "the Father; I will not be the person who
will accuse you before him; it will be Moses, in whom you trust, because
you believe not in him; for if you believed in him, you would also
believe in me. I am come in the name of the Father, and you pay no
attention to it; another will come in his own name, and you will believe
in him."

The hearers of this sermon were not moved by it: they considered it
unconnected, contradictory, and blasphemous; the fear of seeing the end
of the world arrive, did not hinder them from perceiving the want of
just inference in the orator, who took away from his Father, and
restored to him the quality of judge of men, which he had at first
appropriated to himself. Besides, it would appear the Jews were of good
courage as to this end of the world, which events had so often belied.
Their posterity, who beheld the world subsisting after this,
notwithstanding the express prediction of Jesus and his disciples, have
founded their repugnance for his doctrine, among other things, on this
want of accomplishment. From his sublime discourse the incredulous
conclude, that it is very difficult for an imposter to speak long
without contradicting and exposing himself.

The inefficacy of this harangue convinced Jesus that it was in vain to
rely on miracles, in order to draw over the Jews of Jerusalem. He
forbore to perform them, though the festival of the passover might
furnish him with a favourable opportunity. It appears he was completely
disgusted with the incredulity of these wretches, who showed themselves
no way disposed to witness the great things which he had exhibited with
success to the inhabitants of Galilee. To make miracles pass in a
capital, there must be a greater share of credulity than in the country.
Besides, if the populace are well disposed even in large cities, the
magistrates and better informed oppose a bulwark to imposition. The same
thing happened to Jesus in Jerusalem. Perhaps he despaired of the
salvation of these infidels, for during the short time he sojourned in
that city, he kept no measures with them, but loaded them with abusive
language. It does not appear, however, that this plan gained proselytes,
though since that time his disciples and the priests have frequently
endeavored to succeed by similar means, and even by coercion.

In this journey, Jesus had no success--his disciples did not meet with
good cheer; to sustain life they were reduced to the necessity of taking
a little corn in the environs of the city; and were caught in this
occupation on the Sabbath day. Complaint was made to their master; but
no satisfaction could be obtained. He replied to the Pharisees, by
comparing what his disciples had done with the conduct of David, who, on
an emergency, ate, and also made his followers eat, the shew bread, the
use of which was reserved for the priests, adding, that "the Sabbath was
made for man, and not man for the Sabbath;" therefore, he concluded,
"the Son of man is Lord of the Sabbath."

Critics have remarked in several circumstances of the life of Jesus,
that he was frequently liable to commit mistakes. For example, on the
occasion we speak of, he gave the name of _Abiathar_ to the high priest
who permitted David to eat the shew bread. The Holy Spirit, however,
informs us, in the first book of Kings, that this high priest was called
_Achimelech_. The error would be nothing if an ordinary man had fallen
into it, but it becomes embarrassing in a man-God, or in God made man,
whom we ought to suppose incapable of blunders.

On the same occasion, Jesus maintained that the priests themselves
violated the Sabbath, by serving God in the temple on that day; and,
this, according to the principles of theology, is confounding _servile_
works with _spiritual_. But this is to have the same idea of a robbery
and of an oblation; it is to tax God with being ignorant of what he did,
by ordaining, at one and the same time, the observance and the violation
of a day which he had consecrated to repose.

Our doctors further justify Jesus by saying, that, as God, he was
absolute master of all things. But in that case he ought to have
procured better fare for his disciples. It would not have cost him more
to have permitted them to encroach on the table of some rich financier
of Jerusalem, or even that of the high priest, who lived at the expense
of God his Father, than to permit his followers to forage in the fields
of the poor inhabitants of the country. At least it was previously
necessary to verify such sovereignty over all things in the eyes of the
Jews, who, from not knowing this truth, were offended at the conduct
which the Son of God seemed to authorise. It is apparently on this
principle several Christian doctors have pretended, that _all things
appertain to the just_; that it is permitted them to seize on the
property of infidels and the unholy; that the clergy have a right to
levy contributions on the people; and that the pope may dispose of
crowns at his pleasure. It is on the same principle that actions are
defended, which unbelievers regard as usurpations and violence,
exercised by the Christians on the inhabitants of the new world. Hence
it is of the utmost importance to Christians not to depart from the
example which Jesus has given them in this passage of the gospel; it
appears especially to concern the rights of the clergy.

Pretensions, so well founded, did not, however, strike the carnal minds
of the Jews; they persisted in believing that it was not permitted to
rob, particularly on the Sabbath; and not knowing the extent of the
rights of Jesus, they considered him an impostor, and his disciples
knaves. They believed him to be a dangerous man, who, under pretence of
reformation, sought to subvert their laws, trample on their ordinances,
and overturn their religion. They agreed, therefore, to collect the
proofs they had against him, accuse, and cause him to be arrested. But
our hero, who had information of their designs, frustrated them by
leaving Jerusalem.




CHAPTER IX.

JESUS WORKS NEW MIRACLES--ELECTION OF THE TWELVE APOSTLES.


As soon as Jesus was safe from the malice of his enemies, and found that
he was among persons of more favourable dispositions than the
inhabitants of Jerusalem, he again commenced working miracles. His
experience convinced him, that to gain the capital, it was necessary to
augment his forces in the environs, and procure, in the country, a great
number of adherents, who might, in due time and place, aid him in
overcoming the incredulity of priests, doctors, and magistrates; and put
him in possession of the holy city, the object of his eager desires.

These new prodigies, however, produced no remarkable effect. The Jews,
who had been at Jerusalem during the passover, on returning home,
prepossessed their fellow-citizens against our missionary. If he found
the secret of gaining the admiration of the people in the places he
passed through on leaving the capital, he had the chagrin to find
opponents in the Pharisees and doctors. The following fact shows to what
a degree the people were influenced:--On a Sabbath, Jesus entered the
synagogue of a place, the name of which has not been preserved. He there
found a man who had, or said he had, a withered hand. The sight of the
diseased, who was, probably, some noted mendicant and knave, and the
presence of the physician, excited the attention of the doctors. They
watched Jesus closely--"Let us see, (said they, one to another) if he
will dare to heal this man on the Sabbath day." But observing that Jesus
remained inactive, they questioned him as to the Sabbath, for which he
had, on so many occasions, shown but little respect. It was apparently
one of the principal points of his reform, to abrogate a number of
festivals. The doctors asked him, "Master, is it lawful to heal on this
day?" He was frequently in the habit of answering one question by
another: Logic was not the science in which the Jews were most
conversant. Jesus replied, "Is it lawful to do good on the Sabbath day,
or to do evil--to save life, or to take it away?" This question,
according to Mark, confounded the doctors. Nevertheless, there is reason
to believe, unless we suppose the Jews to have been a hundred times more
stupid than they really were, that this question was ill timed. They
were prohibited from applying to servile occupations only, but must have
been permitted to discharge the most urgent duties of morality even on
the Sabbath day. It is to be presumed, that a midwife, for example, lent
her ministry on that day, as on any other. It is stated in the Talmud,
that it was permitted to annoint the sick with oil on the Sabbath. The
Essenians observed the Sabbath with so much rigor, that they did not
allow themselves to satisfy the most pressing wants of life. This,
perhaps, gave occasion to the reproaches with which this sect loaded
Jesus, who had by his own authority reformed this ridiculous custom.

Jesus continued his questions, and asked them, if when a sheep fell into
a ditch on the Sabbath, they would not draw it out? Hence, without
waiting for an answer, he very justly concluded that it was permitted to
do good on that day. To prove it, he said to the sick, whom he had,
perhaps, suborned to play this part in the synagogue, "Arise, stand up,
and stretch forth thy hand;" and immediately his hand became as the
other. But Jesus, finding this prodigy produced no change in their
minds, darted a furious look on the assembly, and, boiling with a holy
choler, instantly forsook the detestable place. Matt. xii. Mark xii. 6.

Jesus acted wisely; for these naughty doctors immediately took counsel
with the officers of Herod, "how they might destroy him." Informed of
every thing by his adherents, he gained the sea shore, where it was
always easy for him to effect his escape. His disciples, several of whom
understood navigation, followed him. A number of people, more credulous
than the doctors, resorted to him on the noise of his marvels. There
came hearers from Galilee, from Jerusalem, from Idumea, from the other
side of Jordan, and even from Tyre and Sidon. This multitude furnished
him with a pretext for ordering his disciples to hold a boat in
readiness, that he might not be too much thronged, but, in truth, to
escape, in case it should be attempted to pursue him.

On this shore, favorable to his designs, Jesus performed a great number
of miracles, and cured an infinity of people. We must piously believe it
on the word of Matthew and Mark. These wonders were performed on the
sick, and especially on the possessed. The latter, at whatever distance
they perceived the Saviour, prostrated themselves before him, rendered
homage to his glory, and proclaimed him the "Christ;" whilst he, always
full of modesty, commanded them with threats not to reveal him; the
whole to accomplish a prophecy, which said of him, _He shall not
dispute, nor cry, nor make his voice be heard in the streets_; a
prophecy, which, however, was frequently contradicted by his continual
disputes with the doctors and Pharisees, and by the uproar he occasioned
in the temple, in the streets of Jerusalem, and in the synagogues.

Nothing is more astonishing than the obstinacy of the devil in
acknowledging Jesus, and confessing his divinity, and the stubbornness
of the doctors in not recognizing him, in spite of his cares to make the
one silent to convince the others. It is evident, that the son of God
has come with the sole intent of preventing the Jews from profiting by
his coming, and acknowledging his mission. It may be said that he has
shown himself merely to receive the homage of satan; at least we
perceive only the devil and his disciples proclaiming the character of
Jesus.

When he had preached much, cured much, and exorcised much, our
missionary wished to be alone to reflect on the situation of his
affairs. With a view to enjoy more liberty, he ascended a mountain,
where he spent the whole night. The result of his solitary reflections
was, that although he required assistants, he could no longer, without
giving umbrage to the government, continue marching up and down with a
company so numerous as that of the idlers who composed his suite.

When day appeared, he called those of his disciples whom he judged most
worthy of confidence, and selected twelve to remain near his person.
This is what Luke says; but Mark insinuates that he chose his twelve
apostles on purpose to send them on a mission. As Jesus, however,
assures us, that he chose them _to be near him_, and as the apostles,
content with begging and making provision for themselves and their
master, did not perform any mission during his life, at least out of
Judea, we shall adhere to the first opinion. The names of these apostles
were Simon Peter, Andrew, Matthew, Simon-Zelotes, James, Philip, Thomas,
Jude, John, Bartholomew, another James, and Judas Iscariot, the
treasurer.

As Jesus had no money to give his disciples, he told them no doubt to go
and push their fortune. He, however, took care to impart to them his
secret; to teach them the art of miracles, to cure diseases, and to cast
out devils. He also gave them the power of remitting sins, and to bind
and unbind in the name of Heaven; prerogatives, which, if they did not
enrich the apostles, have been worth immense treasures to their
successors. To them the roughest staff has become a _crosier_, a staff
of command, making its power felt by the mightiest sovereigns of the
earth. The _bag_ or _wallet_ of the apostles has been converted into
treasures, benefices, principalities and revenues. Permission to beg has
become a right to exact tithes, devour nations, fatten on the substance
of the wretched, and enjoy, by _divine right_, the privilege of
pillaging society, and disturbing it with impunity. The successors of
the first missionaries of Jesus, though professing to be mendicants,
enjoyed the prerogative of coercing all who refused to bestow charities
on them, or to obey their commands. Many have imagined, that Jesus never
concerned himself about the subsistence of the ministers of the church;
but if we examine attentively the gospel, especially the Acts of the
Apostles, we shall find the basis of the riches, grandeur, and even
despotism of the clergy.




CHAPTER X.

SERMON ON THE MOUNT--SUMMARY OF THE MORALITY OF JESUS--OBSERVATIONS ON
THAT MORALITY.


The dread of being arrested having constrained Jesus to abandon the
cities, where he had many enemies, the country became his ordinary
residence. The people, or at least some male and female devotees whom he
had converted, furnished provisions to the divine man and his followers.
Obliged to wander about, bury themselves in mountains and in deserts,
and sleep in the open air, our apostles became discontented with their
lot. In spite of the spiritual graces, which they received in the
society of the messiah, these carnal men expected something more
substantial on devoting themselves to his service. They were doubtless
promised important posts, riches, and power in the kingdom he was about
to establish. Jesus on this account frequently experienced as much
difficulty in retaining them, as in convincing the rebellious Jews by
his miracles and conclusive arguments. The measure of their appetite,
and well being, was at this time, the only rule of their faith. To
prevent their murmurs, and familiarize them with a frugal life, which
our missionary saw he would be obliged, perhaps for a long time, to make
them lead, he pronounced an oration on true happiness: it is the one
known by the name of the Sermon on the Mount, and related by Matthew,
chap v.

According to our orator, true happiness consists in _poverty of Spirit_;
that is, in ignorance, and contempt of knowledge, which bids us exercise
our reason, and strips man of the blind submission that is necessary to
induce him to submit to a guide. Jesus preached a pious docility, which
implicitly credits every thing without examination; and to tell them,
that the kingdom of heaven would be the reward of this happy
disposition. Such is the sense which the church has given to the words
of Jesus, "Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of
heaven."

Among the apostles, there were some whose passionate dispositions might
have been prejudicial to the progress of the sect. It may in general be
presumed, that rough men, devoid of education, have repulsive manners.
Jesus demonstrated the necessity of meekness, civility, and patience, in
order to gain proselytes; he recommended moderation and toleration, as
the certain means of insinuating themselves into the minds of men, of
thriving in the world, and as the surest way of making conquests. This
is the true sense of these words, "Happy are the meek, for they shall
inherit the earth."

Wishing to inspire them with courage, and console them for their
miserable situation, he told them, that to live in tears is felicity,
and an infallible method of expiating iniquity. He promised that their
vexations should not endure forever; that their tears should be dried
up; that their misery should terminate; and that their hunger should be
appeased. These consolations and promises, were indispensably necessary
to fortify the apostles against every accident which, in the course of
their enterprises, might befal them in the retinue of a chief destitute
of riches and power, and incapable of procuring to himself or others the
comforts of existence.

Jesus, with a view, no doubt, of sweetening the lot of his apostles,
recommended compassion to the listening multitude, of which he, as well
as his party, stood in the greatest need. It is readily perceived, that
the messiah felt the most imperious necessity to preach charity to his
auditors; for he lived on alms, and his success depended on the
generosity of the public, and the benefactions of the good souls who
hearkened to his lessons.

The preacher recommended peace and concord; dispositions necessary to a
new born, weak, and persecuted sect; but this necessity ceased when this
sect had attained strength enough to dictate the law.

He afterwards fortified his disciples against the persecutions which
they were to

Showing first 200,000 characters. Full text: gutenberg.org/ebooks/39052