|ji:j;!«;i!p!lH:nHi-: 
 

 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA 
 AT LOS ANGELES 
 
 ROBERT ERNEST COWAN
 
 THE P*ART 
 
 w OK ■ " 
 
 • 
 
 • »_. 
 
 J-E S U S 
 
 • AM" ol 
 
 TH-E APOSTLES 
 
 
 n 
 
 "/' Iiiud not duni' aiiiiiini tlit'iii the (?•(,;■/,>■ irhicli 
 • -^ 
 
 iiii.utlicr man did, .» 
 
 fii/ii (///r I'Jiiiyisi'i-.w) liKil ii'il lidd sins. 
 
 .iOIIN,,15, 24. 
 
 Il'i ;'/(*<) //"(?, Scrihix (tiid I'litt rlxi'rs ' 
 • ^"'» .'/"it co>iipns.i «"« o^(/ irnc' 
 2'<i /•rtiil-c one pro.iPliff\ 
 
 <•■> 
 
 FRO'IVI THE FRENCH * 
 
 DR. I. M. RABBINOWrCZ. 
 
 •• TRANSLATED IMTO ENGLISH 
 
 • 
 
 PHiLi:^ za6ig. ^ • 
 
 • 
 
 2~^^A - 
 
 SAX FRANCISCO : 
 FRANCIS,. VALENTINE & CO., PRINTERS, 517 CLAY ST. 
 
 188
 
 J THE PART 
 
 OF 
 
 JESUS 
 
 AND OF 
 
 THE APOSTLES 
 
 // / had not done among them the worJcs which 
 
 no other man did. 
 They {the Pharisees) had not had nine. 
 
 John, 15, 24. 
 
 Woe unto you. Scribes and Pharisees! 
 
 For you compass sea and land 
 
 To make one proselyte. Matt. 23, 15. 
 
 FROM THE FRENCH 
 
 BT 
 
 DR. I. M. RABBINOWICZ. 
 
 TRANSLATED INTO ENGLISH 
 
 BY 
 
 PHILIP ZADIG. 
 
 SAN FRANCISCO : 
 FRANCIS, VALENTINE & CO., PRINTERS, 517 CLAY ST. 
 
 1884.
 
 Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1S84, by Philip Zadig, in the Office of the Librarian 
 
 of Congress, at Washington, D. C. 
 

 
 
 /N 
 
 TO THE 
 
 KEY CHARLES VOYSEY, 
 
 Teacher of Religion in a Congregation in the 
 CITY OF LONDON, ENGLAND. 
 
 ^f3 
 
 ^ As a slight hut sincere token of admiration for his boldness 
 2 in taking a stand as a true cloampion of theism, breaking 
 
 CO 
 
 ■— ' with every tradition except the Old Testament, or 
 
 3* rather the moral teachings thereof, tJie annexed 
 
 ** translation is dedicated by an unknown 
 
 but faithful admirer. 
 
 The Translator. 
 
 262793
 
 PREFACE. 
 
 As is well known, there are already two extensive works on 
 the life of Jesus: one by the late German theologian, Strauss, 
 and the other by the French savant, Renan. The undersigned, 
 nevertheless, believes that an enlightened Christian public will 
 gladly receive the present work for the better establishment of 
 truth in history. 
 
 The author of it, Dr. Rabbinowicz, is, according to all that 
 can be learned about him, extraordinarily capacitated for it. 
 He is one of the greatest philologists and talmudists in Europe. 
 He is one of the first savants who has translated the Talmud 
 into a living language, the French — a work which of late has 
 become of so much interest to Christian theological scholars in 
 England, Germany and America, very likely on account of its 
 giving so much illumination to dark passages in the New Testa- 
 ment and the writings of the fii-st Christian fathers of the 
 Church. He has the Old as well as the New Testament, using 
 a familiar expression, at his fingers' ends; and, by his defini- 
 tions and illusti'ations of mysterious phrases — as, for instance: 
 " Son of God," " kingdom of God," " kingdom of heaven," 
 " holy ghost," — all proved irrefutably by similar applications of 
 the terms in the Old Testament — gives, as it were, a new color- 
 ing to the whole picture. 
 
 Strauss, in his extraordinarily learned woi"k, The Life of 
 Jesus, the history of whom, after a critical and profound inves- 
 tigation, he finds incredil^le, and all of it mythical, tries — in 
 the interest of the preservation of the Christian religion — to 
 give a new foundation to it through spiritual dogmas. 
 
 The undersigned believes he could not do better than to give 
 a few extracts from the work of Dr. Strauss, in order to assist
 
 VI 
 
 the recollection of those who have read his woi-k and for the 
 use of those who never knew it. 
 
 " RELATION OF CRITICAL AND SPECULATIVE THEOLOGY TO THE 
 
 CHURCH. 
 
 " Schleiermacher has said that Avhen he reflected on the ap- 
 proaching crisis in theology, and imagined himself obliged to 
 choose one of two alternatives, either to surrender the Christian 
 history, like every common history, as a spoil to criticism, or 
 hold his faith in fee to the speculative system, his decision was, 
 that for himself, considered singly, he would embrace the latter ; 
 but that, regarding himself as a member of the church, and 
 especially as one of its teachers, he should be induced rather to 
 take the opposite course. 
 
 " For the idea of God and of man, on which, according to 
 the speculative system, the truth of the Christian faith rests, is 
 indeed a precious jewel, but it can be possessed only by a few, 
 and he would not wish to be that privileged individual in the 
 church, who alone among thousands hold the faith on its true 
 grounds. As a member of the chui-ch, he could have no satis- 
 faction but in perfect equality, in the consciousness that all 
 receive alike, both in kind and manner, from the same source. 
 And as a teacher and a spokesman to the church, he could not 
 possibly attempt the task of elevating old and young, without 
 distinction, to the idea of God and of man : he must rather 
 attack their faith as a groundless one, or else endeavor to 
 strengthen and confirm it while knowing it to be groundless. 
 And thus in the matter of religion an impassable gulf would be 
 fixed between tlie parties in the church ; the speculative theology 
 threatens us with the distinction of an esoteric * and exoteric + 
 doctrine, which ill accords with the declaration of Christ, that 
 all shall be taught of God. The scientific alone have the found- 
 ation of the faith; the unscientific have only the faith, and 
 receive it only by means of tradition. If the EbionitishJ view, 
 on the contrary, leaves but little of Christ, yet this little is 
 
 * Esoteric — Pi'ivate, interior, 
 f Exoteric— External, public. 
 
 + El)ioiiites— Jewish Christians, who rejected mucli of the New Tes- 
 tament, and were considered lieretics.
 
 Vll 
 
 equally attainable by all, and we ai^e thereby secured from the 
 hierarchy of speculation, which ever tends to merge itself into 
 the hierarchy of Rome. 
 " So far Schleiermacher. 
 
 " Here we see presented, under the fonu of thought belonging 
 to a cultivated mind, the same opinion which is now expressed 
 by many in a less cultivated fashion; namely, that the theolo- 
 gian who is at once critical and speculative must, in relation to 
 the church, be a hypoci'ite. The real state of the case is this. 
 The church refers her christology to an individual who existed 
 historically at a certain period; the speculative theologian, to 
 an idea which only attains existence in the totality of individ- 
 uals; by the church the evangelical naiTatives are received as 
 history; by the critical theologian, they ai-e regarded for the 
 most part as mere myth. If he would continue to impart in- 
 struction to the church, four ways are open to him. 
 
 " First, the attempt of Schleiermacher to elevate the church 
 to his own point of view, and to resolve the historical into the 
 
 ideal — an attempt which must necessarily fail 
 
 " The second and opposite measure would be to transport 
 himself to the point of view of the Church, and, for the sake 
 of imparting edification ecclesiastically, to descend fi'om the 
 sphei'e of the ideal into the i-egion of popular conception. This 
 expedient is commonly undei^stood and judged too narrowl}^. 
 The difference between the theologian and the church is re- 
 garded as a total one; it is thought that in answer to the ques- 
 tion, whether he believes in the history of Christ, he ought to 
 say exactly, no; whereas he says, yes; and this is a falsehood. 
 . . . Still he may not believe the history, and only the relig- 
 ious truth therein contained Hence it is an evi- 
 dence of an uncultivated mind to denounce as a hypocrite a 
 theologian who preaches, for example, on the resui-rection of 
 Christ; since, though he may not believe in the reality of that 
 event, as a single sensible fact, he maj, nevertheless, hold to be 
 true the representation of the process of spiritual life which 
 
 the resviiTection of Christ affords Still he must 
 
 appear in the eyes of the church a hypocrite, and thus the re- 
 lation between the theologian and the church must be can- 
 celed.
 
 vm 
 
 " The third desperate course would be to forsake the minis- 
 terial office But if no theologian would meddle 
 
 any longer with inquiries about the truth, and rely on faith 
 only, the church could then not possibly long resist the at- 
 tacks of the critical and speculative laity. 
 
 "He will, therefore, seek another expedient; and, as such, 
 there presents itself a fourth, which is not, like the first two, 
 one-sided, nor like the third, mei-ely negative, but which offers 
 a positive mode of reconciling the two extremes — the conscious- 
 ness of the theologians and that of the church. In his dis- 
 cpurses to the church he will, indeed, adhere to the forms of 
 the popiUar conception, but on every opportunity he will ex- 
 hibit their spiritual significance, which, to him constitutes their 
 sole truth, and thus prepare the resolution of those forms into 
 their original ideas in the consciousness of the church also. 
 
 " But the danger is incurred that the community may dis- 
 cover the difference, and the preacher appear to it, and conse- 
 quently to himself, a hypocrite. 
 
 " In this difficulty the theologian may find himself driven, 
 either directly to state his opinions and attempt to elevate the 
 people to his ideas; or, since the attempt must necessai-ily fail, 
 carefully to adapt himself to the conception of the community ; 
 or, lastly, since even on this plan he may easily betray him- 
 self, in the end to leave the ministerial pi'ofession. 
 
 " We have thus admitted the difficulty with which critical and 
 speculative views are burdened, with reference to the relation 
 of the clergyman to the church. We have exhibited the col- 
 lision into which the theologian falls, when he is asked, what 
 coui-se remains for him in so far as he has adopted such views 1 
 And we have shown that our age has not arrived at a certain 
 decision on this subject. But this collision is not the effect of 
 the curiosity of an individual ; it is necessarily introduced by 
 the progress of time, and the development of Christian the- 
 ology.* It surprises and masters the individual, without his 
 being able to guard himself from it. Or, rather, he can do 
 this \vith slight labor, if he abstain from study and thought; 
 or, if not from these, from freedom of speech and writing. Of 
 
 * Not exactly, but by receding from the stupefaction and blind faith 
 of the middle ages.
 
 IX 
 
 such there are ah-eady enough in our day, and there was no 
 need to make continual additions to their number through the 
 cahimniation of those who have expressed themselves in the 
 spirit of advanced science.* But there are also a few, who, 
 notwithstanding such attacks, freely declare what can no longer 
 be concealed ; and time will show, whether by the one party or 
 the other, the church, mankind and truth are best served. 
 
 " The results of the inquiry which we have now brought to 
 a close, have apparently annihilated the greatest and most 
 valuable part of that which the Christian has been wont to be- 
 lieve concerning his Saviour Jesus; have uprooted all the 
 animating motives which he has gathered from his faith, and 
 withered all his consolations 
 
 "There presents itself this problem: to re-establish dogmati- 
 cally what has been destroyed critically." 
 
 These his ideas, presented to the public, seem to be his hon- 
 est aim and end.t If the reader expects to find in the annexed 
 work a similar philosophically critical version, he will find dis- 
 appointment. 
 
 Renan, in his history of ^^The Life of Jesus," looks as little as 
 Strauss upon Jesus as a God or pai't of a God, but neverthe- 
 less renders his work nothing less than a deification, a real 
 apotheosis, of the man Jesus. 
 
 In the most selected and beautiful language, every word and 
 every sentence of his hero is commented upon as if of divine 
 origin. And even the description of the man did not satisfy 
 him. The landscape, the hills and the valleys, the rivers and 
 the lakes, in the neighborhood of which Jesus at times so- 
 journed, are called upon to contribute as a high relief for the 
 figure in the picture. 
 
 In the reading of it we perceive what, through the beauti- 
 ful diction of the French language, the pen of a master is able 
 to accomplish. As a piece of unmetrical poetry it gives more 
 than satisfaction. Whether it will satisfy a searcher after sci- 
 
 * Or, rather, of returning to common sense in matters of religion, 
 which, in our days, is not lacking in any other branch of human science. 
 
 t Those who wish to know more particularly the standing of Schleier- 
 macher and Strauss, are referred to the Encydopcedia Britannica.
 
 X 
 
 ence or truth in liistory, is a different question. By no means 
 will the reader find in the annexed work, particularly in the 
 style of it, anything similar to Renan. He must expect 
 nothing more nor less than a natural and rational conception 
 of an epoch in history of extraordinary results, formed by a 
 combination of the most uncommon circumstances. 
 
 But there is a superiority in the present work in several 
 respects. First, we miss in Strauss everything concerning the 
 deeds of the apostles after the resun-ection. Certainly in a 
 description of the life of Jesus — as both writers are pleased 
 to entitle their respective woi-ks — properly, the apostles should 
 have no place. But, if we take into consideration what an 
 insignificant figure Jesus would have made, after his death, 
 had not the apostles taken the object so energetically in hand, 
 we are in duty bound to confess that, without the labors of the 
 apostles, Jesus of Nazareth would hardly have had any place 
 in history, the Christian religion no existence, and Mr, Strauss 
 no occasion to write the life of Jesus. 
 
 Secondly, the standing of Jesus toward his coreligionists 
 the Jews. 
 
 Strauss hardly mentions them, only when he is making the 
 proposition to the church to throw — by the means of a new in- 
 vestigation — the character of Jesus as a thaumaturgist on the 
 Jews, on account of their asking for miracles ; a proposition 
 which must necessai-ily fail, because of the copious passages in 
 the New Testament w^hich unmistakably shoAv that the main 
 enmity between Jesus and his coreligionists consisted in the 
 repugnance of the latter to the miracles ; and that only the 
 lowest classes of the nation, as occurs even in our own time, 
 wanted to see them or exhibited any faith in them. 
 
 The \indersigned takes pleasure in noticing in this respect 
 the more elevated views of an impartial historian. On page 
 236 of The, Life of Jesus, Renan says : 
 
 " It would be departing from correct historic methods to lis- 
 ten too much to our own repugnances ; and, in order to evade 
 the objections which might be raised against the character of 
 Jesus, to suppress facts which in the eyes of his contemporaries 
 were of the first order. It would be agreeable to say that these 
 are additions of disciples far inferior to their Master, who, ima-
 
 XI 
 
 ble to conceive his true grandeur, have sought to elevate him 
 by illusioiis unworthy of him. But the four narrators of the 
 life of Jesus are unanimous in vaunting his miracles. 
 We will admit, therefore, unhesitatingly, that acts which at 
 the pi'esent time would be considered traits of illusion or hal- 
 lucination, figured lai-gely in the life of Jesus." 
 
 Still, this homage, which by the foregoing is paid by Renan 
 to the truth, is entirely destroyed again by other passages, as : 
 " We are permitted to believe that his reputation as a miracle- 
 worker was imposed upon him — that he did nothing to aid it." 
 While he (Renaa^ knows that Jesus hardly speaks without 
 alluding to his mighty works, the miracles ; that he curses Ca- 
 pernaum and other cities because they do not believe in his 
 mii'acles, and that he (Renan) himself, in the beginning of his 
 woi'k, alludes to them as works which ai-e necessary to success. 
 
 In other I'espects, certainly, M. Renan appears in his work 
 highly prejudiced against the Jews. He always speaks of the 
 few followers of Jesus as the people, and of the Pharisees as 
 an insignificant part of the nation, while in fact the reverse is 
 the case, and he knows it. He never mentions the liberality 
 and hospitality of the Jews — we may correctly say, of the Phar- 
 isees, because the great majority of the Jews belonged to that 
 sect ; he speaks of it as the liberality of the Orient, while in 
 fact it is the hospitality of the Jews toward teachers and 
 preachers, who from the oldest time did their labor voluntarily, 
 and were voluntarily paid by hospitality. The Jews, for more 
 than a year, fed and clothed Jesus, as well as his disciples; but, 
 as sensible men, they detested his miracles, and vexy likely 
 considered his disciples, whom he picked from the lowest classes 
 of the people, as helpers in his mighty works. Only when he 
 commenced to take violent and revolutionary measures even in 
 the temple, then they were compelled in the interest of law 
 and order to oppose him. 
 
 The annexed work fills the deficiencies of the labors of both 
 mentioned historians. It shows besides, irrefutably, by extracts 
 from the epistles of St. Paul and St. Peter, how these two men 
 laid the foundation for a complete hierarchical government. 
 By pretended visions of Jesus and angels, and by miracles, but 
 particularly by the institution of communism, the new Christian
 
 xu 
 
 community was subjected to an unconditional faith and obedi- 
 ence. Belief in miracles ceased to be a subject of free volition. 
 Want of faith in them was a crime to be avenged by the wrath 
 of the Holy Ghost, as Jesus had already pronounced it. 
 
 Charity, jurisdiction, education in the schools, uncontrolled 
 administration of the property of the commune, were all under 
 the unlimited power of the apostles. 
 
 Punishments for disobedience were privations of sustenance, 
 excommunication, and menaced vengeance of the Holy Ghost. 
 It was, in fact, the foundation for a state of society like that 
 of the middle ages, which became such a condition of barbaritv 
 and of moral and spii-itual decay. 
 
 During nine years after the death of Jesus the apostles 
 preached exclusively to the Jews, as the Master had expressly 
 ordered it. They had not much to say. " Prepare and repent, 
 the kingdom of heaven is near," was about all. But what they 
 lacked in moral verbiage they made up in calumniation against 
 the stiflf-necked unbelievers, their coreligionists, the Jews. St. 
 Paul did not hesitate to avow, in his epistles, that he did any- 
 thing to make converts to the new doctrine. He played the 
 Jew amongst Jews and the pagan amongst pagans, and calum- 
 niation of the unbelievers was the order of the day. And in 
 such a sense, without regard to truth, the gospels have in later 
 times been written. This unjust calumny has hardly ceased 
 yet, and the terrible ordeal through wliich the Jews have passed 
 in consequence of these calumnies have certainly been described 
 by philanthropic Christians, as for instance by the late Prof. 
 Schleiden, in Jena, in his history entitled Martyrdom of the 
 Jews; but they are hardly ever noticed, while misrepresenta- 
 tion of the Jews is continually inculcated in the hearts and the 
 minds of innocent children through catechisms and through 
 passages in the New Testament; and in such a way, cruel hate 
 of the innocent is perpetrated, if not eternized. 
 
 It is evident that such a laissez aller proceeding through cen- 
 uries cannot be a true characteristic of the Christian religion, 
 which by its professors is called par excellence the religion of 
 1 )ve. 
 
 The reader of the annexed work will soon comprehend the 
 soundness of the views of its writer, and at the same time he
 
 Xlll 
 
 will observe that his conceptions are substantiated by passages 
 from the gospels. He will be aware how the author honestly 
 endeavors to reduce records, dictated by passion and pseudo- 
 zeal, to their true value, and in this manner tries to make the 
 way plain for a true brotherly love in the near future, even 
 amongst professors of different creeds. 
 
 For promoting this last object I believe a few lines from a 
 Chi'istian philanthropist would not be unfavorably received. 
 In the admirable essay of Lord Amberly, entitled The Rela- 
 tion of the Jews to Jesus, he says: 
 
 " Victorious over Jesus Christ at the moment, the Jewish 
 nation have, from an early period in Christian history, been 
 subject in their turn to his disciples. Their polity — ci'ushed 
 under the iron heel of Vespasian, scattered to the winds by 
 Hadrian — vanished from existence not long after it had suc- 
 cessfully put down the founder of the new faith. Their reli- 
 gion, tolerated by the heathen Romans only under humiliating 
 and galling conditions, persecuted almost to death by the 
 Christians, suffered, until modern times, an oppression so terri- 
 ble and so cruel, that but for the deep and unshakable attach- 
 ment of its adherents, it would never have survived its perils. 
 Hence the course of events has been such that this unhappy 
 nation has never until quite recently enjoyed the freedom nec- 
 essary to present their case in the matter of Jesus the son of 
 Joseph; while the gradual decay of the rancor formerly felt 
 against them, at the same time it gives them liberty, renders it 
 less important for them to come forward in loliat would still be 
 an unpopular cause. Thus it ha]:)pens, that one side only in 
 controversy, that of the Christians, has been adequately heard. 
 They certainly have not shrunk from the presentation of their 
 views. Eveiy epithet that scorn, hatred or indignation could 
 suggest, has been heaped upon the generation of Jews who were 
 the immediate instigators of the execution of Jesus, while all the 
 subsequent miseries of their race has been regarded — by the 
 pai'ty which delighted to inflict them — as exhibitions of the 
 divine vengeance against that one criminal act. Nor have 
 3ven freethinkers shrunk from condemning the Jews as guilty 
 of gross and unpardonable persecution, and that toward one 
 who, if they do not think him God, nevertheless appears to
 
 XIV 
 
 them singularly free from blame. On the one side, according 
 to the prevailing conception, stands the innocent victim ; on 
 the other the bloodthirsty Jewish jjeople. All good is with 
 the one; all evil is Avith the other. It is supposed that only 
 their hardheartedness, their aversion to the pure doctrine of 
 the Redeemer, their determination to shut their eyes to the 
 light and their ears to the words of truth, could have led them 
 to the commission of so great a crime. 
 
 "Whether or not this theory be true, it at least suffers from 
 the vice of having been adopted without due examination. 
 An opinion can rest on no solid basis unless its opposite has 
 been duly supported by competent defenders. Now, in the 
 present instance, this has not happened. Owing to the causes 
 mentioned above, the Christian view has been practically uncon- 
 tested, and writer after writer has taken it up and repeated it 
 in the unreflecting way in which we all of us repeat assertions 
 about which there is no dispute. Yet, a very little considera- 
 tion will show that so simple an explanation of the transaction 
 has at least no a j»'iori probability in its favor. That a whole 
 nation should be completely in the wi-ong, and a few individuals 
 only in the right, is a supposition which can be accepted only 
 on the most convincing evidence. And, in oi'der even to justify 
 our entertaining it for a moment, we must be in possession of a 
 report of the circumstances of the case from the advocates of the 
 nation, as well as from the advocates of the individuals who 
 suffered by its action. A one-sided statement from the parti- 
 sans of a convicted person can never be sufficient to enable us 
 to pronounce a conclusive vei'dict against his judges. The 
 most ordinary rule of fairness prohibits this. Yet this it is 
 that is commonly done. 
 
 "No account whatever of the trial of Jesus has reached us 
 from the side of the prosecution. Josejihus, who might have 
 enlightened us, is silent. On the other hand, the side of the 
 defense has furnished us with its own vei-sion of what passed, 
 and from the imperfect materials thus supplied we must en- 
 deavor to discriminate between the two as best we can." 
 
 Lord Amberly then goes on investigating and criticising 
 Jesus according to the records in the New Testament, and at 
 the end of his essay arrives at the conclusion of a full justifi-
 
 XV 
 
 cation of the Jews in tbeii- proceedings toward Jesus, particu- 
 larly on account of his seditious and revolutionary movements 
 against constituted authority, thereby exposing the whole of 
 the Jewish nation to the danger of being massaci'ed and exter- 
 minated by the cruel Komans. As the high priest very jixdi- 
 ciously observed: "Let one man, on account of his audacious 
 proceedings, rather die, than that a whole nation should perish." 
 The undersigned may be a little too sanguine in his estima- 
 tion of the progress of enlightened sentiments, and the side of 
 the Jews in the case at issue, in the words of Lord Amberly, 
 may still be an unpopular one. But in one respect he believes 
 himself not wrong in his calculations, to wit : In the estima- 
 tion of the character of the people for which the labor of the 
 translation of the present work has been undertaken. The 
 love of fair play is a prominent property in the character of 
 the Anglo-Saxon on this side as well as on the other side of 
 the Atlantic ; and that it is, which chiefly animated him to risk 
 time and labor in translating the work by Dr. Rabbinowicz, in 
 which the chai-acter of both the parties seems to be fully 
 represented, and everything substantiated by the recoi'ds in the 
 New Testament, and in this manner theii- case left to the im- 
 partial judgment of the unbiased reader. 
 
 Translator.
 
 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 The most celebrated savants in Germany, France and En- 
 gland have written excellent works about the life of Jesus, 
 about his doctrines, abovit the apostles, and about the first 
 Christians. They have searched into these subjects, and have 
 studied them under all their aspects. It may, therefore, appear 
 bold on my part, or at least superfluous, to present to the 
 public a new work upon a subject which might be considered 
 exhausted. Nevertheless, those who would confer upon me 
 the honor to read my work will readily perceive that my way 
 to look upon this subject differs considerably from that of my 
 predecessors. It appeared to me, therefoi-e, nothing but proper 
 to submit to the public views which are novel about this an- 
 cient question, and to spread them before the people, in oi-der 
 to leave them to their impartial judgment. I shall feel happy 
 if I should have succeeded to contribute, according to my feeble 
 abilities, to elucidate certain questions which science has not 
 as yet definitely solved. 
 
 Before everything, I declare that I have not been biased by 
 any party feeling ; that I have not at all had the intention to 
 lower any doctrine or creed, nor to exalt any system. I study 
 such questions from a purely scientific point of view. Indeed, 
 in. the nineteenth century, and, above everything, in France, 
 where liberty of conscience has been proclaimed for the first 
 time through the men of the glorious Revolution ; where that 
 liberty, since almost a century, has been so efficaciously pro- 
 tected, as much by the laws under which the country is gov- 
 erned, as well as by the statesmen who administer these laws ; 
 where, finally, that liberty has entered into the manners and 
 morals, and taken profound root in all classes of society; in 
 that France, I say, and in the nineteenth century, the old 
 questions, if they divide still the minds, camiot, in discussing 
 2
 
 — 10 — 
 
 them again, be dealt with in any other interest than in that of 
 science and impartiality. 
 
 Any writer who should forget himself and misunderstand his 
 epoch so far as to mi:jc other interests than those of science into 
 these gi'ave discussions would hardly have any chance of suc- 
 cess. The public would not accept ideas which are an anach- 
 ronism in our century. Everybody would condemn him for 
 having profaned questions of such high importance by mixing 
 them with any other considerations than those of impai"tial 
 science. 
 
 I have just been remarking that my way to look upon these 
 subjects dilfers considerably from that of my predecessors. I 
 should commit useless repetitions, and should lengthen this 
 introduction too much, indeed, if I would start again anew 
 upon all the new apprehensions which I am going to ])resent in 
 this work. I shall, nevertheless, mention here some of them. 
 
 None of the modern savants who have written on these sub- 
 jects — none of those who have spoken of the doctrines and the 
 morals of Jesus and the apostles— have taken any account of those 
 of their contempoi'aries. To appreciate the docti'ines of Jesus 
 at their exact value, they ought to be compared with those of 
 his compatriots. There are, therefore, two terms to ponder 
 upon, but these two terms have not been treated in the same 
 manner. Jesus and the apostles are judged by modern savants 
 according to the advanced knowledge of our epoch, whilst the 
 Pharisees are still appreciated after the prejudices of the Mid- 
 dle Ages. M. Eenan, in his Life of Jesus, reports, it is true, 
 the doctrine of the Pharisee Hillel, who had lived before Jesus, 
 after whom the doctrine of loving one's neighbor Ls the base 
 of Judaism. He reports also sayings of other rabbis, predeces- 
 sors of Jesus, which he considers not inferior to those of Christ. 
 Notwithstanding, in many places M. Penan treats the Phari- 
 sees very badly. 
 
 M, Peyrat, in a work upon the same subject, judges Jesus 
 not after the traditional ideas. He says the object of Jesus 
 was " a political movement against foreigners ; a social revolu- 
 " tion, whose princij^le was war against the I'ich, and commu- 
 " nion of possessions, which should, on the one side, proA'oke 
 " the resistance of the rich, and on the other, frighten the
 
 — 11 — 
 
 " population exposed to the oppression of the Romans " 
 (p. 169). He says, even, that "the sadness places Jesus, the 
 " reformer, below a great number of martyrs, who have suf- 
 " fei-ed boiling water, melted lead, and have exclaimed, instead 
 " of a long cry of distress, continual transports of joy. What 
 " a difference between Jesus and St. Etienne! Jesus, in high- 
 " est agony, cries : * My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken 
 " me 1 ' St. Etienne, raptured with cheerfulness, cries : ' I see 
 " heaven open'" (p. 347). 
 
 As to the Jews, he treats them according to the tradition of 
 the middle ages. He tries to explain the history of the mira- 
 cles — in which he does not believe — because of the supersti- 
 tions of a people whose credulity was proverbial. Credat Ju- 
 dceus ajjella, has Horace said, lib. 1, sat. 5 (Peyrat, p. 341.) If 
 we should listen to the Romans, we had to believe that the Jews 
 worshiped an ass in the temple of Jerusalem, as Tacitus re- 
 lates. The Romans, who consulted saci-ed poultry, the augurs, 
 and the hearts of sacrificed animals, have surely no right to 
 speak of Jewish supei-stitions. Others admit that Jesus was 
 compelled to take recourse to miracles, in order to make his 
 high moral principles acceptable to the credulous and supersti- 
 tious Jews, who were not capable to comprehend them. But 
 Isaiah and the other biblical prophets have been very well un- 
 derstood by the Jews, and these great men have never consid- 
 ered a mii-acle necessary for confirming the truth of moral prin- 
 ciple. At the same time, at the time of Jesus, the Jews were 
 much more qualified for comprehending great moral principles 
 than at the time of Isaiah, Because, at that epoch, they had 
 much more aversion than then against paganism and against 
 all the superstitions allied to it ; they were besides in constant 
 communication with all the nations of the then-known world, 
 which naturally contributed much to elevate the standard of 
 their civilization, and finally from seven to eight hundred cen- 
 turies farther advanced than their ancestors, contemporaries of 
 Isaiah. 
 
 M. Peyrat says besides : " The rabbinical teaching was 
 «< harsh, pedantic, and, so to say, without heart. Jesus under- 
 " stands the morals differently ; that is an act of justice to say 
 " so which always has to be made, even against an enemy "
 
 — 12 — 
 
 (p. 161). About tills parallel between tlie. rabbinical teach- 
 ing and that of Jesus, I may refer to the second part of the 
 present work. In the meantime, I shall cite two passages, of which 
 one of them is of considerable authority in the church, coming 
 from an apostolic (ather, from St. Hermas, disciple of St. 
 Paul (see Romans, chapter xvi, 14), who was able to learn 
 the doctrines of this apostle to the gentiles, through the liv- 
 ing voice, and who, therefore, consequently, better than we, 
 should have known the principles of Jesus and his apostles, 
 who were his contemporaries. The other passage is to be found 
 in the " Treatise Abhot" which incloses the most celebrated 
 sentences of the Pharisees, Here is what we read in St. Her- 
 mas. An angel came to him, under the guise of a pastor, to 
 instruct him. Once the angel left him, in order to arrange 
 some other business. As St. Hermas was afraid to remain 
 alone, the angel recommended him, during his absence, to twelve 
 very beautiful virgins. 
 
 "They (the virgins) said unto me: 'The pastor "v\t.11 not 
 "comeback here to-day.' 'What shall I do, then ? ' I an. 
 " swered them. And they said unto me : ' Wait for him until 
 " to-night ; perhaps he might come, so that thou mayest con- 
 " verse with him, if thou stay est with us till he comes.' ' I 
 " shall wait, then, till evening,' I answered ; ' and if he does 
 " not come, I shall return to my house, and shall call again to- 
 " morrow.' They said to me : 'To us thou hast been confided, 
 " and we shall by no means let thee go.' Ajid having asked 
 " them where I should be lodged, they answered : ' Thou wilt 
 " sleep with us like a brother, and not Kke a husband. We 
 " shall consider thee a brother, and we are prepared to pass the 
 " night with thee, because we love thee much.' But I blushed 
 " for resting thus with them. Then she, who was the most 
 " charming of all of them, embraced me and commenced to 
 " kiss me. The others having seen that she had embraced me, 
 " commenced also to kiss me like a brother, promenading and 
 " playing with me. Some of them singing psalms, others 
 " formed a dancing-party. As to me, I pi'omenaded with them 
 " silently, and I was happy to a degree that my happiness 
 " seemed to have me made young again. When the day com- 
 " menced to disappear, I wanted to retii-e to my house ; but
 
 — 13 — 
 
 " they kept me back, and woukl by no means permit me to go 
 " away. I rested that night, then, with them. Then they 
 " spread their robes upon the ground (tissues of flax), and 
 " placed me in the midst of themselves. They began then to 
 " pray, and did nothing else. They were raptured to see me 
 " pray, and I remained with them till the rising of the sun. 
 " After we had worshiped the Lord, the pastor arrived, and 
 " asked them whether they had done me any hai-m ; but I said 
 " iinto him : ' I have had much pleasure in having remained 
 " with them.' Then he asked me : ' Wilt thou now listen to 
 "my teachings.? The virgins are the different gifts of the 
 " Holy Ghost, and nobody could enter into the kingdom of 
 " heaven if he should not have before been clothed with their 
 " robes. . . . Here are the names of the principal vii-gins : 
 " The first is called Faith ; the second, Ab.stinence ; the third, 
 " Power ; the fourth, Patience. As to the rest, who are in- 
 " ferior to the first, here are their names : Simplicity, Inno- 
 " cence. Chastity, Gayety, Truth, Intelligence, Concord, 
 " Charity." (The Pastor d'Hermas, torn. 3, parable 9.) Thus 
 the virgin which represents Faith is the most charming, whilst 
 she who represents Charity is the less beautiful of all of them. 
 St. Hermas continues : " Here are the names of the women 
 " dressed in black robes ; there are among these also four 
 " principals : the first one is called Perfidy ; the second, Intem- 
 " perance ; the third. Incredulity ; the fourth. Voluptuousness. 
 " As to the others, they are called Sadness, Maliciousness, 
 " Pleasure, Anger, Falsehood, Folly, Vanity, Hate. Thus the 
 " incredulous women are the worst. Anger is less bad, and 
 " Hate still less. There are twelve classes of individuals rep- 
 " resented by twelve different mountains. The first mountain 
 " represents the apostates ; there is no repentance for them, 
 " they are devoted to destruction. . . . The third mount- 
 " ain represents those who have believed, but who are rich or 
 " engaged in much business ; and because business prevents 
 " them to ally themselves to pioixs people, therefore they go 
 " astray into jirofane occupations ; the rich ones will not asso- 
 " ciate with pious men — afraid that these ask them for alms — 
 " and that is the reason that it is so hard for them to enter into 
 " the kingdom of heaven. . . . The fourth mountain rep-
 
 — U — 
 
 ' resents those who believe, but whose faith is tottering. The 
 
 * fiftli mountain rejiresents those who believe, but who submit 
 
 * themselves difficultly. . . . They want to jiass as the 
 ' teachers of others. . . . The sixth mountain I'epresents 
 ' those who conserve remembrance of injuries, and practice 
 ' hate and secret enmity among themselves. They are admit- 
 
 * ted to repentance. . . . The ninth mountain represents 
 ' the ministers who acquit themselves badly of their charge, 
 ' robbing widows and orphans, and appropriating to themselves 
 ' the alms which they receive for distributing among the 
 ' needy. If they change and acquit themselves worthier of 
 ' their ministry, they could obtain mercy." The gradation of 
 
 virtues and vices is thus seen according to the holy apostolic 
 father St. Hermas, disciple and intimate friend of St. Paul. 
 The inci'edulous are the greatest of sinners, they are monsters ; 
 after them come those who are rich ; while the ministers, who 
 rob widows and orphans, and who appropriate to themselves 
 the alms which ai'e confided to them to be distributed among 
 the poor, have only to promise not to do it any more, in oi'der 
 to obtain mei'cy! 
 
 Let us see now the gradation of vices and virtues according 
 to the Pharisees. " Rabbi Johannan, son of Zakkai, questioned 
 " his five pupils, Pharisees like himself. Which is the surest 
 " I'oad in order to obtain the most complete felicity in this 
 " world and in the next ] One of his pupils answered, To 
 " cultivate a good heart. He questioned again — Which is the 
 " most dangerous road which could be taken ? The same pupil 
 " replied, That is malignity of the heart. And the master 
 "approved the answers" [Treatise Abhot, chap. ii). The 
 Pharisees, Eabbi Johannan and his pupils, are not those whom 
 M. Peyrat can accuse of having adopted a hard and heai-tless 
 teaching. 
 
 Lessing has published "Fragmente des Wolfenhilttelschen Tin- 
 " genannten " (Fragments of an Anonym of Wolfenbiittel), the 
 fourth edition of which has been published at Berlin, 1835, 
 who discoui-ses upon Jesus and the apostles, and other biblical 
 subjects. He, admits — 
 
 (a.) That Jesus had no other object in view than to be 
 proclaimed A'mi^ of the Jews; that all his sermons and mii*acles
 
 — 15 — 
 
 had no other aim than to be himself accepted as the Messiah, 
 as predicted by the prophets; that is to say, to mount tlie throne 
 of David in Jerusalem, after having shaken off the yoke of 
 the Romans ; because he attached to the words Messiah and 
 kingdom of heaven or kingdom 0/ God exactly the same sense 
 as the Pharisees. John the Baptist and Jesus had agreed, or 
 had an understanding, according to tliat author. 
 
 (b.) That Jesus had for that reason forbidden the apostles 
 to preach to the gentiles ; that the passage, "Go and instruct 
 " all the nations, baptizing thein in the name of the Father, the 
 " Son and the Holy Ghost" (Matt, xxviii, 19), and other ana- 
 logical ones, are interpolated. 
 
 (c.) That Jesus never intended to introduce new dogmas 
 nor new moral principles ; that he even insisted upon the ob- 
 servance of Jewish ceremonial law. He intended by no means, 
 after that authoi', to be the reformer of Judaism, The expression 
 Son of God means simply loved by God; Holy Ghost means vir- 
 tuous disjjositions of the S07/1, or the gift of prophecy, or God 
 himself. The expression. Me and my Father are ordy one, 
 means, I love my father and my father loves me. 
 
 ((/.) That Jesus never wanted to die, and that he never pre- 
 dicted his resurrection. The passages which contain this pre- 
 diction are intercalated; because Jesus believed, like the 
 Pharisees, that the Messiah should not suffer, but conquer the 
 oppressors of Israel and mount the throne of David at Jeru- 
 salem. 
 
 (e.) That there were nevertheless some mystics among the 
 Jews, who admitted a system, according to which the Messiah 
 had at first to suffer, but later, at his second apj^earance, deliver 
 finally the Jews of their oppressors. Jesus was dead, and, in 
 their great consternation and stupefaction, they had recourse 
 to the second system. According to the German author, they 
 carried away the corpse of Jesus for concealing it, in order to 
 proclaim fifty days after his death that he was i-esuscitated, and 
 that he was going to make his second appearance upon the 
 clouds of heaven in order to mount the throne of Jerusalem. 
 They then arranged the history after their new system, effacing 
 as much as possible all that might prove the primitive system 
 of Jesus and interpolating new passages.
 
 — 16 — 
 
 (f.) That it was finally communism, inaugurated by Jesus 
 and continued by the apostles, which conferred to them consid- 
 erable power over the faithful, and which conti'ibuted, to an 
 extraordinary degree, to the propagation of Christianity. To 
 which has to be added, always after the German author, the 
 feebleness of the Jewish authorities under the Roman govern- 
 ment, and the bad faith of that government, which always as- 
 pired to weaken the national authorities and to incite divisions 
 among the people, in order to govern it easier, in such a way 
 that the apostles did not run any risk from the part of the 
 Jews, and that they could boldly act as they pleased. 
 
 From the foregoing we can see that the anonymous authoi', 
 of whose writings Lessing has published fragments, instead of 
 adopting the traditional ideas, has, on the contrary, traced out 
 a new road in the view which he entertains about Jesus and 
 the apostles. He is a free-thinker of an extreme boldness in 
 respect to the founders of Christianity. Strange enough, he 
 is less bold and almost timid in respect to the Jews. It seems 
 rational to admit — and indeed the savants admit it generally — 
 that the religious ideas, like those of sciences and arts, are al- 
 ways progressing. 
 
 The author of The Religious has demonstrated, in his remarkable 
 work, the religious progress, even in orthodox Catholicism, in respect 
 to the prohibition of eating blood, the fast, interest in the creed of the 
 material fire of hell, etc. {La Religieuse, par VAbh6 I., p. 223.) 
 
 That the gentiles, consequently, at the epoch of Moses, and 
 even of Isaiah, were much less apt to admit monotheism than 
 in the first centuries of Christianity, after Greek and Roman 
 civilization had made so much progi-ess, and after the Pagan 
 philosophers had combated so many superstitions. It was, 
 therefore, the pi-ogress of civilization, and the preparation 
 effected by the Pagan philosophers, which had made possible 
 the proi)agation of Christianity. In order to conclude logi- 
 cally, we ought to admit, also, that if the ancient Hebrews 
 have alone professed monotheism, that this should be consid- 
 ered a more elevated degree of civilization, and the possession 
 of more advanced religious ideas than those of the gentiles, 
 which has rendered them apt to adopt that religion. Lessing 
 has nevertheless a difierent opinion. He says, on the contrary:
 
 — 17 — 
 
 " As God neither could, nor would, reveal himself to every sin- 
 " gle individual, he chose a single people, the most savage, the 
 " most vulgar, in order to have it commence its i-eligious study 
 " ab ovo (from the egg). That was the people of Israel, of which 
 " we do not even know its worship during its sojourn in Egypt. 
 " Because, as contemplated slaves, they had not the right to 
 " take part in the worship of their masters, the Egyptians, and 
 " the God of Abraham was forgotten. It is possible that the 
 " Egyptians pretended that to worship at all was the privilege 
 " of free men, and that the slaves must be atheists. They ac- 
 " quired hereby a kind of right to tyrannize people abandoned 
 " by God. The Christians acted in the same manner with their 
 " slaves (negroes) in our time " (loco citato, p. 436). 
 
 He pretends, then, that the Hebrews had forgotten the God 
 of Abraham. Nevertheless, when God sent Moses for the first 
 time to the Israelites in Egyjit, he said to him : " Go, convoke 
 " the elders of Israel, and say unto them, The God of your 
 " fathers, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, will deliver you .... 
 " and they will believe thee, and they will go with thee to 
 " Pharaoh" (Exodus, ill, 16-18). They had then not forgot- 
 ten the God of their fathers. Lessing does not know which 
 woi-ship they practiced during their sojourn in Egypt. I can 
 tell him. They had the monotheism of Abraham. They had 
 even more than that ; they had even prophets who maintained 
 firmly the banner of Jehovah, the same as later at Jerusalem. 
 And these prophets had struggled, as their successors in Pales- 
 tine, against the invasion of pagan superstitions from which 
 the mass of the people could not withdraw themselves (Ezekiel, 
 XX, 5-10). 
 
 It is not correct that the Israelites had been slaves in Egypt. 
 The Bible says, it is true, that they were Ahadim, but that is to 
 say that they had been treated like a conquered people, and 
 that they had to pay tribute to the dominating nation. 
 
 In the following lines I shall prove my statements : 
 
 Esdras, after the return from the exile of Babylon, and after 
 the construction of the second temple, says in his prayer, "TFe 
 are Ahadim" (Esdras, ix, 9) ; that is to say, subjected to the 
 king of Persia. Nehemias said, at the same epoch, after the 
 return of the Jews to Palestine, "We are still at present Ahad-
 
 — 18 — 
 
 im, and the land (Palesthie) which thou (God) hast given to 
 our fathers, we are still therein Abadim" (Nehemiah, ix, 36). 
 That is to say, subjected to the king of Persia ; only the sub- 
 jection to the king of Persia consisted in paying tribute and 
 occasionally to furnish a militaiy contingent, whilst in Egypt 
 the impost consisted in furnishing laborers for building Fithom 
 and Raamses. The Jews were, besides, oppi'essed by unjust 
 laws, but they were no slaves. We have never heaixi of it that 
 the Americans had condemned all the male infants of the ne- 
 groes to be drowned. Such an act would have been (if it might 
 be permitted to use a vulgar expression) like throwing the 
 money out of the window. When Phai-aoh did, then, do such 
 a thing against the Israelites, it shows plainly that they were 
 not his propei-ty, but his enemies, whom he had to weaken 
 or exterminate in order to prevent a revolution. Moses and 
 Aaron came and went freely; all the elders of Israel as- 
 sembled undisturbed for receiving the message of ]\Io.se.s, which 
 had no other object but to enfranchise, by all possible means, 
 the entire nation, and to make them go out of the country. 
 Could anything like it be done with slaves % A long time be- 
 fore Moses, a great army of the tribe of Ephraim was freely 
 going out from Egypt with the intention to make war upon the 
 Philistines of the city of Gath (1 Chron., vii, 21). Others 
 of the same tribe built considerable cities, of which they were 
 masters (1 Chron., vii, 24). Mared, of the tribe of Judah, mar- 
 ried the daughter of Pharaoh (1 Chron., iv, 18). Yabetz, of 
 the same tribe, ])rayed to the God of Isi-ael for the aggi-andize- 
 ment of his domain, and God granted his prayer (1 Chron., iv, 
 10). He knew then the God of Israel, and possessed a gi-eat 
 domain. Those of the tribe of Benjamin made war upon the 
 Philistines of the city of Gath, and vanquished them (1 Chron., 
 VIII, 14). Up to the time of the departure from Egypt, the 
 Hebrews occupied the land of Goshen, the most fertile part of 
 Egypt (Genesis, xlviii, 6). The whole of the people continued 
 to live under the patriarchal system, and kept herds of cattle 
 and sheep (Exodus, ix, 4, and x, 26) ; above all, the tribes 
 of Reuben and Gad (Numbers, xxxili, 1). Here we have a 
 sufficiently great number of proofs which are clearly demon- 
 strating that the Jews had been no slaves in Egypt, Finally,
 
 — 19 — 
 
 if the negroes should go out of America and should be aban- 
 doned to themselves, they would probably believe they could 
 do nothing better than to fall upon some country inhabited by 
 white people, massacre and pillage them. The Jews departed 
 from Egypt, proclaimed the decalogue, the laws of Moses, and 
 made the Pentateuch, which is still, in our own time, the glory 
 of the human race. 
 
 Finally M. Havet, continually defending the Jews against 
 the reproaches of M. E^nan, says in the Revue des Deux 
 Mondes (August 1st, 1863) : " Jesus has for the first time pro- 
 " nounced the sublime words, 'You shall not worship any more 
 " upon this mountain, neither at Jerusalem.' Greek spirit, to 
 " the length and depth of which Judaism has never attained." 
 Notwithstanding, Jesus himself made to Judaism the contrary 
 reproach, saying : " "Woe unto you. Scribes and Pharisees ; for 
 " ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte " (Matt., xxiir, 
 15). He gives hereby the most formal lie to all the ancient 
 and modern savants, who pretend that the Pharisees wanted 
 monotheism for themselves only, and that its propagation was 
 the new idea introduced by the founders of Christianity. He 
 himself declines that honor made to him gratuitously. I con- 
 fess, between Jesus Christ and M. Havet the choice is not of 
 any difficulty ; I rather prefer Jesus Chx-ist, who ought to be 
 more competent on this subject. 
 
 According to our remai-ks just now made, there has hardly 
 anybody yet judged the Jews without a prejudice of some kind. 
 All the authors are more or less under the influence of the 
 tradition of the middle ages. Some of them consider it neces- 
 sary to degrade the Jews, in order to be pardoned for their 
 boldness against the authorities of the church. The motives 
 are therefore sufficient for taking up again these important 
 questions from an historical point of view, and to study on one 
 side the deeds and movements of Jesus and of the apostles, and 
 those of their adversaries on the other side, and constantly 
 compare the ideas and the doctrines of these two parties, and 
 examine then the result of the comparisoia of the respective 
 characters without party bias, and from a point of view purely 
 scientific. 
 
 I must say beforehand that, as to the question of miracles,
 
 — 20 — 
 
 I have left that qiiestion entirely aside. I leave that 
 matter to persons more competent than myself concerning 
 it. As for myself, it has no importance whatever. Those 
 who believe in miracles will very likely not read me j 
 while those who do not believe in them consider the question 
 as solved already. Maimonidas, the greatest authority of the 
 synagogue, who has flourished in the twelfth century, says, 
 besides, that we have to follow the doctrines of Moses for the 
 reason that they are conforming to reason, and not because 
 they ai-e confirmed by miracles. We shall then in the New 
 Testament examine the principles exclusively, and leave the 
 miracles aside. 
 
 M. Peyrat, in his excellent work, cites several passages of 
 the most celebrated fathers of the church who did not believe 
 in many of the miracles of the New Testament, and which 
 they explain in an allegorical sense. He cites St. Paul, St. Am- 
 broise (in Psal. cxviii, 18, No. 36), St. Jei'ome (in Epist. ad. 
 Galat., c. IV., t. 4), who explain the whole of the scriptures 
 through allegory ; St. Augustin, who had undertaken a work 
 entitled Genesis of the Letter, in order to explain the scriptures 
 according to literal sense ; but he was obliged to abandon his 
 project, succumbing, as he says himself, under the weight of 
 literal ex2:)lication, and he confessed that he had Recourse to the 
 allegory, not having been able to disperse the obscurity of the 
 letter. (Z)e Genes, ad Litt, lib. viii, chap. 2.) " Nothing is more 
 " miserable," says he, " than the subjection of a soul which takes 
 " the signs for so many real things, and who cannot elevate the 
 " eyes of reason above sensible objects to inform himself of the 
 " eternal light." (Be Doct. Christ., lib. ill., chap. 5.) De Lacy, 
 in his bible (foui-th volume. Dissertations, p. 343), cites Father 
 Cassien, who admits four different senses in the Scriptures, 
 to wit : 
 
 (a.) Literal sense — for instance, Jerusalem is the capital of 
 Judea. 
 
 (6.) Allegorical sense — in that sense, Jerusalem is the church 
 of Jes;is. 
 
 (c.) Tropological sense — Jerusalem signifies the human soul. 
 
 {d) A nagogical sense, which, elevating itself above allegorical 
 sense, penetrates up to the most sublime and the most high
 
 — 21 — 
 
 mysteries of the heavens. In that sense Jerusalem signifies 
 the church of heaven and celestial Jerusalem. ^ 
 
 These four diflferent senses correspond with the four senses of the 
 CabaHsts of the Middle Ages. The literal sense is the Pesliat of the 
 Cat.alists ; the allegorical sense is their Rcmez ; the tropological sense 
 is their Derttsh, and the anagogical sense is their Sod. 
 
 M. Peyi-at cites also Origen, who says : "There are three 
 
 " different senses in the scrijitures — the literal, the moral and 
 
 " the mystic. The literal is for the edification of the simple 
 
 " ones, which does not prevent that i\\e letter has been the 
 
 '' cause of an infinity of errors, often falsehoods, contradictions, 
 
 " impossibilities. The mystic is necessary to cover the truth 
 
 " of the scripture and make it worthy of God. We must 
 
 " abandon the letter all the time as soon as it is false, useless, 
 
 " and unworthy of God " (Origene, de Princip., lib. 4, chap. 2. 
 
 See also contra C'else, vol. vii, homel. 2, about the Exodus ; vol. 
 
 VII, homel. 7, about the Leviticus). Origen says, also: "The 
 
 ' evangelists have related that which had passed at a certain 
 
 ' time and at a certain place, as if that had not passed at any 
 
 ' other one ; which was said in a manner that appeared as 
 
 ' altering it. Their object was to say the truth spiritually 
 
 ' and corporeally ; that is to say, according to the mystical and 
 
 ' to the literal sense ; and if the one and the other were not 
 
 ' possible, to prefer the spiritual to the coi'poreal, by conserv- 
 
 ' ing often — let us say it frankly and withouV evasion — the 
 
 ' spiritual truth through a corporeal lie " {In Joh., p. 153, B, 
 
 edit. Huet). Theodoret, in his questions about Genesis (n. ix, 
 
 col. 2, p. 12), says : " We must not always take the sci'iptures 
 
 " literally — Eo quod ipsa littera divince scripturce interdam 
 
 '^ falsum dicat — because the letter of the holy scripture says 
 
 " often a lie" (lib. I). 
 
 That is an excellent means to explain the scriptures and to 
 answer all the questions of one's adversaries. Unhappily, 
 Origen himself says : " If one interrogates which is the mys- 
 " tical sense, or which mysterious idea has the Holy Ghost in- 
 " tended to represent in these passages of the scriptures, how 
 " answer, if not through the confession of one's impotency, at 
 " least, if having not the spirit of caprice and being spoiled by 
 " aiTOgance'?" (Origene, de Princip., lib. 4, chap. 2). The alle-
 
 
 
 gorical metliod explains well all the miracles. A man bad an 
 xlnclean spirit, being fui-ious, breaking his chains, naked, is 
 miraculously healed by Jesus, who drives out the devils and 
 makes them enter into two thousand swine (Mark, v., 1-20), 
 This miracle is an allegoiy, according to Origene and St. Hi- 
 laire. The man possessed is the human species, after St. Au- 
 gustin. He is so furious, says St. Ambroise, that he broke the 
 chains of reason. He was naked because he lost the covering 
 of virtue. He inhabited the sepulcher, where the spirit does 
 not inhabit. The swine are the heretics, the only refuge for 
 the devils (Peyrat, p. 197). A paralytic is carried by four 
 men to Jesus, who heals him (Mark, ii, 3-12). The paralytic 
 is the human species ; the four carriers are the four evangelists 
 who led the world to Jesus (Peyrat, p. 199). 
 
 I do not know how M. Peyrat explains the same passage in Luke 
 (v., 18), which does not speak of four carriers. 
 
 A man born blind comes to Jesus, who makes a plaster 
 composed of earth and saliva for an ointment for the eyes of 
 the blind man (John, ix, 1-7). According to Origen, the 
 blind man is again the human sj^ecies. The plaster is a mys- 
 tical salve applied on the eyes of reason, the earth is the letter 
 of the scripture, the saliva is the water of the spirit, the dirt 
 represents the perfect doctrine, unknown before Jesus (Peyrat, 
 p. 206). For all the analogovis allegoi-ies I refer, like M. Pey- 
 rat, to the treatise of the literal and of the mystical sense of 
 the holy scriptures, according to the doctrine of the fathers, by 
 Leonard, 1727. 
 
 The birth of Jesus has no more importance to me than the 
 miracles. St. Luke says : " He was, as Avas supposed, the son 
 of Joseph" (Luke, iii, 23). Celse, in his work against Chris- 
 tianity, is not afraid to mention a repoi't after which he should 
 have been the son of a Roman soldier called Panter (Origen 
 contra Celse). Celse, the pagan philosopher, believed he had 
 found in this report a terrible argument against Jesus. The 
 Pharisees attached no importance whatever to it. They knew 
 that Esau was the son of Isaac, and that Abram was the son 
 of Therah. There is no religious book in existence, as far as I 
 know, which establishes the equality of man and rejects all
 
 — 23 — 
 
 other distinctions but tliose of personal meint and intellectual 
 faculties, in tenns so clear and energetic as the Talmud, which 
 says : "A sage and learned bastard is superior to a high priest 
 who is ignorant " (Treatise Horjoth). This was the acknowl- 
 edged principle of the Pliarisees. 
 
 I will not omit to remark here, that in this publication, which 
 I have divided into three parts, I have only explained the parts 
 of Jesns and of the apostles, the motive of their actions, and 
 the means which they employed in order to succeed. It re- 
 mains yet to expose the })iinciples which have been developed 
 from this drama in which the apostles have played such a con- 
 siderable pai-t, and which have sei-ved as elements for Oluistian- 
 ity, so distinct from the primitive rehgion, Judaism. It remains 
 to define the charactei-istics which define it from Judaism, to 
 explain how they have an-ived at the divinity of Jesus, and to 
 the other dogmas ; fi:aally, to study the causes of its marvelous 
 propagation, and the bx'illiant destiny which was reserved for 
 it, to change the almost entire aspect of the whole of the known 
 world. 
 
 That will be the subject of the fourth part of my work, 
 which I entitle Origin of Christianiti/j and which I will pub - 
 lish when time and circumstances will pei-mit it. I am obliged 
 to give a new title to that part, because it will constitute a sep- 
 arate work, which will be divided into three pai-ts, to wit : 
 
 (rt.) The theories of the a})ostles and of the first Christians, 
 above all, those of St. Paul. 
 
 (6.) The biblical passages invoked by the apostles. 
 
 (c.) Finally, the comparison ,of Christianity with the Juda- 
 ism of the Pharisees ; the clu-istian morality with that of the 
 Jews, and above all, the passages of morals to be foimd in the 
 New Testament with those of the biblical and talmudical books. 
 Such a comparison is, I believe, the best means to understand 
 well the apostles and the fathers of the church. M. E,enan has 
 already said, in his Life of Jesus, these excellent words : " His- 
 " tory is full of synchronisms, working in a manner that, with- 
 " out any communication among them, the most remote con- 
 " temporary fractions of the human race arrive, at the same 
 " time, at exactly identical ideas. At the thii-teenth century 
 " the Latins, the Greeks, the Syrians, the Jews, the Mussul-
 
 — 24 — 
 
 " mans, had the same scholastics. In the fourteenth century 
 " all the world was adopting the taste for mystical allegory, in 
 " Italy, in Pereia and in India. In the sixteenth century the 
 " same method is developed in Italy, upon Mount Athos, at 
 " the court of the gi-eat Moguls, without that St. Thomas, 
 " the rabbis of Narbonne, etc., should have known one another. 
 " It will be said that gi'eat moi-al influences run thi-ough the 
 " world, in the manner of epidemics, without regard to frontier 
 " or race. The commerce of ideas is not solely accomplished 
 " by books, but also through secre^ canals, and through that 
 " kind of sympathy which exists between the divers portions 
 " of the human race." {Life of Jesus, p. 454.) 
 
 F. Nork has published a work entitled Rahbinishe Duellen unci 
 Parallelen zu neuteslamentlichen Schriftstellern. But there is room for 
 resuming that question, which is of such high importance. 
 
 Finally, instead of indicating the cited passages by ciphers 
 at the base of the page, as it is generally done, I have prefen-ed 
 to transcribe them entirely, and on account of several reasons. 
 First, the reader will, in general, not take the trouble to verify 
 the citations at their source, and he likes, nevertheless, to know 
 exactly the expression of the authors cited. Lastly, in ciphers 
 errors may slip in, and the author may be suspected of having 
 passages arranged or invented. I believe, therefore, that the 
 reader will approve of my proceeding in this respect, which 
 adds to the power of the citation, and at the same time ofiers 
 more convenience to the reader.
 
 PART I. 
 
 §1- 
 
 What is the end which Jesus was going to attain by his 
 teachinors and his actions ] If he had come in order to die and 
 to fultill the predictions of the prophets, what is it that he 
 woukl have been doing, if, what he uninterruptedly had been 
 insisting upon, the Jews woukl have accepted him as the Mes- 
 siah ] Would he all alone have fastened himself on the cross 
 in order to expiate the sins of mankind 1 The Roman soldiers 
 would then have had no kind of claim upon him. Would he 
 have recommended them to divide his gannents among them, 
 " casting lots, that it might be fultilled which was spoken by 
 " the prophet"? (Matthew, xxvii, 35); as told by John, that, 
 without being thii-sty, he says that all things were now accom- 
 plished, " that the scripture might be fulfilled which said, I 
 " thirst"? (John, xix, 28). Or, would Pilate have been honored 
 with completing all alone that which should have i-emained in- 
 complete in the divine mission of Jesus 1 Would he have 
 crucified him in spite of the Jews, in order to accomjilish the 
 prophecies 1 It is well known that the prophecy of Isaias 
 (chap. Liii) which speaks, it is said, of the passion of Jesus, 
 is by many savants interpi-eted as relating to the whole nation 
 of Israel. Should Pilate, with whom Hebrew was not a forte, 
 not have adopted this interpretation and have inflicted terrible 
 sufferings upon all the Jews, with Jesus included, whom they 
 would have accepted as their Messiah ? 
 
 So much is certain : if the Jews had accepted Jesus as the 
 Messiah, which he was sti'iving to obtain, the issue would have 
 been very different from that which actually took place. By no 
 means was it a condemnation to death which Jesus intended 
 and which he expected. We ought then to inquire what Jesus 
 3
 
 — 26 — 
 
 expected to obtain, in case the Jews would have conformed to 
 his words, and would have accepted hiui as the Messiahs 
 
 The evangelists and the apostles have undertaken, without 
 any doubt, to diffuse the doctrines of their Master ; but there 
 are weighty reasons which oblige us to separate completely that 
 which the apostles teach in their books, from that which Jesus 
 himself has really pronounced and taught. Because the apostles 
 have been masters also. They taught their proper ideas, and 
 in their writings they not always maintained that which Jesus 
 himself said and pronounced and taught. The four evangelists 
 are the only ones who present themselves as simple historians. 
 They are, therefore, those who give us information about the 
 words and the actions of Jpsus. Since there are four of them, 
 who, as to the foundation of the teachings of the Master, agree 
 in the main part, it is evident that they could neither have 
 omitted nor forgotten anything essential of those teachings. 
 It remains, therefore, solely in the four evangelists, where we 
 have to look for the designs of Jesus, and we must not mix 
 with it that which the apostles have said or done, because the 
 latter do not present themselves as historians, but as masters. 
 
 §2. 
 
 All the words of Jesus contained in the four evangelists may 
 be condensed into the phrase, "Amend, and have faith in evan- 
 " gelism " (Mark, i, 15); or, "Amend, because the kingdom of 
 " heaven is at hand" (Matt., iv, 17). He said to the apostles, 
 "Preach, saying, the kingdom of heaven is at hand'' (Matt., 
 X, 7). "Jesus went from town to town and village to village, 
 " preaching and shewing the glad tidings of the kingdom ef 
 " God " (Luke, viii, 1). " I must preach the kingdom of God to 
 " other cities also, for therefore I am sent " (Luke, iv, 43). John 
 the Baptist, the forerunner of Jesus, said likewise : " Repent, 
 " for the kingdom of heaven is at hand " (Matt., in, 2). " He 
 " sent them to preach the kingdom of God " (Luke, ix, 2). The 
 expression, "the kingdom of heaven," in the mouth of Jesus, 
 is to say, without any doubt, that which the Jews have always 
 understood by these words, the arrival of the Messiah or of 
 the king. He wanted the Jews to be prepared for the arrival 
 of the Messiah by godliness and rejjentance, leaving off" sin
 
 27 
 
 and doino; good works. Sucli was, indeed, the ancient custom 
 with this religious people, as besides with all nations, to pre- 
 pare by repentance and good deeds for memorable events, be- 
 cause they alwciys ascribed their national calamities to sins 
 committed by them. When, then, the Jews, miserable as they 
 were under Roman dominion, wanted to become independent 
 through the Messiah, they had before everything to amend and 
 prepai'e for it, by repentance and good woi'ks, exactly as they 
 had done when they had been oppressed by the Egyptians, the 
 Philistines, Assyrians, the Babylonians, and their other ene- 
 mies. All the harangues of Jesus may be then confined to 
 these two things, to wit, the kingdom of heaA^en which he an- 
 nounces, and repentance in order to prepare for it. 
 
 §3. 
 He pi'oposes nothing but moral pi-inciples, and teaches neither 
 a new dogma nor any niystenj. 
 
 1 shall treat this more fully iu the fourth part, entitled Orhjin of 
 Christianity. 
 
 The mysteries are the parables which he always explains to the 
 disciples in parables (Mark, iv, 11, 34 ; Luke, viii, 40.) 
 
 A man who burns in the flames of hell says : " I pray thee, 
 " father Abraham, send Lazarus to the house of my father, 
 " because I have five brothers, to advise them lest they also 
 " come into this place of torment." Abraham answered him : 
 " They have Moses and the prophets ; let them hear them " 
 (Luke, XVI, 27-29). A doctor of the law asked Jesus : "Good 
 " Master, what good thing shall I do that I may have eternal 
 " lifel " And he said unto him : " Why callest thou me good I 
 " There is none good but one — that is God ; but if thou wilt 
 " enter into life, keep the commandments" (Matt., xix, 16-19; 
 Mark, X, 17-19 ; Luke, xxviii, 18-20). Another put the same 
 question, in order to try him : " What is it that has been ^Yrit- 
 " ten in the law?" The Jewish doctor replied : "Thou shalt 
 " love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and thy neighbor 
 " like thyself." And Jesus said to him: "Thou hast answered 
 " right ; this do, and thou shalt live " (Luke, x, 25-28). 
 
 The passages of all the other evangelists prove that Jesus intended 
 nothing but to recall the Biblical commandments, aud that he cited the
 
 — 28 — 
 
 passage of Moses, "Thou slialt love thy neighljor like thyself," without 
 any change therein. If St. John, tlien, speaks of a new commandment, 
 evidently he intends to say, after the recommendation of Jesus, that 
 his disciples should have more love for their core'igionists than for 
 strangers, in order to sustain themselves mutually. That is what al- 
 ways is done by the members of a new society. That it is that has 
 also been done by the first Christians. That it is which was at first 
 manifested through communism. "Neither was there any among them 
 " that lacked, for as many as were possessors of land or houses sold 
 " them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold and laid 
 " them down at the apostles' feet, and distribution was made unto 
 " every man according as he had need" (Acts, iv, 34-35). Later, when 
 the persecutions commenced, the Christians must also have had more 
 love amongst themselves than for members of other worships, because 
 they had to sustain themselves against their persecutors. That is what 
 all the oppressed members of a separate religion are doing. Thus St. 
 John intended only to indicate a new recommendation of Jesus, ade- 
 quate to the circiimstances, antl not a new principle. That is what the 
 other evangelists also relate in expressing more clearly that this love 
 of the Christians amongst themselves existed in communism. Jesus 
 told a Jew to observe the commandments of Moses in order to have 
 eternal life. The Jew said unto him that he observed them well. 
 Jesus answered him: " One thing thoii lackest; go thy way, sell what- 
 " ever thou hast, and give to the poor, and tliou shalt have treasure in 
 " heaven, and come and follow me " (Luke, xviii, 22). It is evident 
 that it is a recommendation urged by circumstances, and not a new 
 principle. 
 
 "And the scribe said unto Jesus, Well, Master, tliou hast 
 " said the truth, for there is one God, and tliere is none othei* 
 •' but he ; and to h)ve liim with all the heai't, and with all the 
 " understanding, and with all the sonl, and with all the strength, 
 " and to love his neighbor as himself, is more than all whole 
 " burnt-offerings and sacrifices. And when Jesus saw that he 
 " answered discreetly, he said unto him, Thou art not far from 
 " the kingdom of God." 
 
 A phariseean doctor questioned, in order to try him, 
 " Wliich is the greatest commandment of the law of Moses 1 
 " and Jesus told him : Love thy God . . . Love thy neighbor" 
 (Matt., XXII, 34, 40) ; and the Pharisee was satisfied with the 
 answer. All Pharisees knew, therefore, that love of the neigh- 
 bor is the gi-eatest connnandment and the foundation of Mosa- 
 ism. Jesus did not believe that he shduld disjjlay theories 
 about the soul, about God and his properties or attri-
 
 — 29—. 
 
 bates, about tlie paradise in the otlier world, or aliout immor- 
 tality of the soul, for he supposed all these doctrines known a 
 long time since and spread among the people. He was not 
 come to abolish the law of Moses, but to accomplish it. He 
 gives the character of the false prophets, but he did not say 
 that the false prophets were heretics, or those who teach a new 
 dogma or a false creed ; he said that those under the appearance 
 of piety and innocence doing evil to their neighbor were hypo- 
 crites. He said : " Beware of false prophets, which come to 
 you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves." 
 
 Nevertheless, it is generally accepted that Jesus intended to 
 reveal new doctrines and mysteries, and consequently to a])olish 
 the Jewish religion, particularly the sacrifices, circumcision, 
 purification, the Sabbath and other ceremonials. This error 
 arises from mixing the teachi^igs of Jesus with those of the 
 apostles. 
 
 It is true that the apostles — mainly Paulus — had intro- 
 duced changes ; that there were introduced more dogmas and 
 mysteries long after the epoch of Jesus ; and besides, by and by 
 they abandoned the Jewish ceremonials ; till at last the law of 
 Moses had been entirely abolished, and quite a new religion 
 had been established in its place. But Jesus himself, born 
 and raised a Jew, wanted to remain a Jew. We repeat, he 
 did not want to abolish the law, but to accomplish it. Every- 
 thing that he had said about the immortality of the soul, high 
 judgment, resurrection of the dead, paradise, kingdom of heaven, 
 and Christ or Messiah — all this was known, and conformed to 
 the Jewish creed of the time. The new that he did say was, 
 that he himself was the Messiah. Tliis was the only new thing 
 which he was going to estaljlish. " Jesus said to them, This is 
 " the work of God, that ye believe in liim whom he had sent " 
 (John, VI, 29). In the same way did he insist upon his mes- 
 sianic mission, consisting in realizing the hopes of the Jews, in 
 bringing them moral and material happiness, as predicted by 
 the prophets. 
 
 §^- 
 The faith which Jesus demands is nothing but confidence in 
 him, and relates in the most of cases to his power of perform-
 
 . - 30 - • 
 
 ing miracles. He says of a centurion, wJio, though remaining 
 pagan, believed in his miracles: " I have not at all found such 
 " a great faith, not even in Israel" (Matt., viii, 10 ; Luke vii, 
 
 9). 
 
 He said to a Avoman of the people who had manifested the same faith: 
 "Thy faith has healed thee" (Matt., ix, 22; Mark, v, 34; Luke, viii, 
 18). He said to the hUud ones who asked him to be healed, "Do 
 "you believe that I can do that ? They answered him. Yes. Then he 
 " touched their eyes, saying. According to your faith, be it unto you. 
 "And they were healed" (Matt., ix, 28. 29). He said to St. Peter, 
 who was going to drown in the water: "Oh, thou of little faith, where- 
 " fore didst thou doubt ?" [of my power to perform miracles] (Matt., 
 XIV, 31). The disciples having asked him: "Why could we not cast 
 "out devils ?" Jesus tokl them: "Because of your unbelief ; for verily, 
 " I say unto you, if ye have faith of a grain of mustard, you would say 
 "to this mountain. Move from there, and it wouhl move; and nothing 
 "should be impossible to you" (M^tt., x^^I, 10, 20; Luke, xvii, 6)- 
 We read in Luke vii, ' ' A woman of bad behavior brought an elabo- 
 " rate vase, full of odorous oil; she kissed his feet [Jesus] and fin- 
 " ointed them with the oil, and Jesus said to the woman, Tliy faith 
 " has saved thee. " A Samaritan wlio was leprous was miiaculo.usly 
 healed by Jesus; he threw himself prostrate before him in order to 
 thank him, when Jesus told him, " Tliy faith has saved thee " (Luke, 
 XVII, 19). A blind man, seated near the road, asking alms from the 
 passers-by, began to cry, saying "Jesus, son of David, have pity on 
 "me" (Luke, xviii, 38); and Jesus told him, "Receive thy sight 
 " again; thy faith has saved thee." 
 
 In fact, faith was necessaiy, because St. Mark the evange- 
 list affirms that, coming unto his native jdace, Jesus said: "A 
 " pi'ophet is contemned in his own country, among his parents 
 " and those of his own family" .... and he was aston- 
 ished at their incredulity (Mark vi, 4-6). 
 
 Often such fiiith or confidence relates to the messianic mis- 
 sion of Jesus. When he says, " The reign of God approaches ; 
 repent, and believe in the gospel " (Mark, i, 35), it is as much 
 as, Have confidence in the good news that the kingdom of the 
 Messiah will be established. 
 
 He says to a paralytic, " Thy sins are forgiven thee " (Matt., ix, 2 ; 
 Mark, ii, 5 ; Luke v, 20), because he had believed that Jesus was the 
 Messiah. " He who receives me [as Messiah] receives him who has sent 
 " me, and he will be saved " (Matt. xix» 40 ; Mark, ix, 37 ; Luke, ix, 
 48). He said again, "He wLo will lose his life for the love of me and
 
 — 31 — 
 
 " the gospel [for the kingdom of heaven] he will save it" (Mark, viii. 
 35 ; Luke ix, 24). A man says to him, " Lord, I shall follow thee, but 
 " permit me to take leave of those who are in my house ;" but Jesus 
 told him, "He who puts his hand to the plow and looks behind is not 
 " tit for the kingdom of heaven " (Luke, ix, 61, 62) ; because his faith 
 is not strong enough. " He who rejects me, rejects him who has sent 
 " me" (Luke x, 16). " If any man comes to me, and hates not his 
 " father and mother, aiul wife and children, and brethren and sisters, 
 " j'ea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple " (Luke xiv, 26). 
 " When the Son of man shall come, do you believe that he will find 
 '' much faith ?" "I have prayed for thee [St. Peter] that thy faith fail 
 " not " (Luke, xxii, 32); that is to say, that Jesus will be the Messiah. 
 The Samaritan woman had never seen a miracle, but Jesus had a long 
 conversation with her, and among other things he told her, " Thou hast 
 " had five husbands, and he whom thou now hast is not i\\y husband 
 " (John, IV, 18); and I am the Messiah who speaks to thee (iv, 26). 
 " And upon this came his disciples, and marveled that he talked with a 
 woman " (27). And what kind of a woman! She who has had five hus- 
 bands, and not a single legitimate one. But Jesus said unto them, " My 
 " meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work " 
 (John, IV, 34. Indeed, several Samaritans believed in him on account of 
 the woman who had given this testimony: "He has told me everything I 
 " have done" (John, iv, 39). Still he left quickly the Samaritans, in 
 order to occupy himself only with Jews, as we shall see farther on ; so 
 that his divination in resj^ect to the woman and all her talk were not 
 good for anything; because two days after [this conversation] "he 
 " [Jesus] departed from there and went to Galilee." Jesus had declared 
 that a prophet had no honor in his own country (John, XLiii, 44). The 
 Samaritans had then very likely further refiected upon it. 
 
 Jesus said, again : " He [John] lias borne witness unto the 
 " truth [that I am the Messiah], but I receive not testimony 
 " from man, but these things I say that you might be saved " 
 (John, V, 33, 34). The Jews having asked him, " What shall 
 " we do that we might work the works of God 1 Jesus an- 
 " swered and said unto them : This is the work of God, that 
 " ye believe in him whom he hath sent [me], and this is the 
 " will of him that sent me [God], in order that he that believ- 
 " eth in me shall have everlasting life " (John, vi, 47). After 
 having miraculously healed a blind man, he asked him, " Dost 
 " thou believe in the Son of God 1 He answered. Who is he, 
 " Lord, that I may believe in him 1 And Jesus said to him : 
 " Thou hast both seen him and heard lum, and it is he that 
 " talketh with thee" (John, ix, 35-37).
 
 — 32 — 
 
 In that way the catechism in the jirimitive chnrch was very 
 short. The first Christians had to believe nothing bnt the good 
 news — to wit, having faith that the Messiah will soon come, 
 establishing the kingdom of heaven, if they prepare for it by 
 repentance. 
 
 This catechism has then not more than one sole article, and 
 that article itself has never been defined or explained by Jesiis, 
 or by John, his precursor. Neither the one nor the other has 
 ever said what it is — the Messiah, the kingdom of heaven, or 
 the kingdom of God, or the gospel (the good news). They sup- 
 posed these expressions long well known among the Jews, be- 
 cause the parables, where the kingdom of heaven is compai-ed 
 to a grain of mustard, to a king, to a father of a family, etc., 
 give no explanation about the kingdom of heaven nor of the 
 Messiah. If one did not know, from the literature of the 
 Jews, what meaning is attached to the words Messiah and 
 kingdom of heaven, the sense of these expressions would have 
 remained very obscure. Occasionally, Jesus explains these 
 parables to the disciples, it is true, and tells them that they are 
 the only ones who comprehend the mysteries of the kingdom 
 of God (Luke, viil, 10). But these mysteries are nothing but 
 the explanation of parables, which imply nothing l)ut the ideas 
 which the Jews a long time l efore attached to them. How 
 easily we are deceived through words ! In our days the words 
 faith and gospel, the whole of the Christian doctrine or dogmas 
 of Christianity, are called mysteries, because they are above 
 reason, or because they cannot be demonstrated by reason. In 
 that way it is easily believed that the words faith, gospel, mys- 
 teries, signif}' the same thing in the New Testament. Now, 
 that is a mistake. 
 
 §-^- 
 Since the trinity and the redemption through Jesus— the Son 
 of God, amounting to just as much as God himself — constitute 
 the jirincipal mysteries of Christianit}% we are going to com- 
 mence by proving that there is no trace of it to be found in the 
 words of Jesus. 
 
 As to the ideas of the apostles on this subject, I shall treat the same 
 ill the fourth part, entitled Origin of Chrldhinlty.
 
 — 33 — 
 
 For this purpose we liave to explain wliat kind of a concep- 
 tion we should attach to the expression " Son of God " and 
 " Holy Ghost." 
 
 Jesus invests himself with the name " Son of God," and lets 
 himself be called so by others, particularly by his disciples. It 
 is not the catechism wherein we have to look for the reason of 
 doing so, and for the meaning of this expression, but in the 
 Bible and in the gospel. 
 
 In the Bible Son of God signified nothing else but plainly 
 this : Loved hy God. God calls son those whom he loves ; as 
 even in the present time we say to him whom we love, iny son. 
 God said to Moses : " Thou wilt say to Pharaoh that the people 
 " of Israel is my first-born son " (Exodus, iv, 22). God also 
 said of Solomon, " I choose him to be my son, and I shall be 
 "his father" (1 Chronicles, xxvii, 6). God said also to David, 
 " Thou art my son ; this day I have begotten thee " (Psalms, 
 II, 7). 
 
 God said also, "Ephraim is my beloved son " (Jeremiah, xxxi, 20); 
 " You have forgotten him who has begotten you " (Baruch, iv, 8). In 
 the Book of Wisdom, the author puts into the mouth of impious ones, 
 who were going to assault an honest or innocent man, the following 
 words: " He [the innocent man] boasts that he has the knowledge of 
 "God and calls himself the son of God [protegi of God]; let us see 
 " whether this language will l)e verified ; let us experience what will 
 " happen to him, for if he is truly the son of God, God will protect 
 "him" (Book of Wisdom, ii, 13, 17, 18). 
 
 In all *these passages, and many othere, simple men are called 
 sons of God, provided they deserve the divine protection. 
 
 Let us see now whether, in the New Testament, the expres- 
 sion, "son of God" had a different signification. Satan said to 
 Jesus, " If thou art the Son of God, command that these stones 
 "be made bread" (Matt., iv, 3). What did Jesus reply to 
 •Satan % He did not tell him, I am tlie only begotten Son of 
 God since the beginning; I am God by my essence, and equal 
 to my father. No, he replies, "It is written, man shall not 
 "live by bread alone" (Matt., iv, 4). He said again, "It is 
 " written, thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God" (Matt., iv, 7); 
 which means that a man shall not tempt God, demanding mir- 
 acles. Satan said to him, " All these things will I give thee,
 
 — 34 — 
 
 " if tliou wilt fall down and worship me" (Matt., iv, 9). Jesus 
 did not reply that he was God himself; he ought rather to be 
 worshiped than worship another ; but he replies, " Tt is writ- 
 "ten, Thou shalt worship thy God and him only." He then 
 considers himself a simple man, who must worship God. 
 
 St. Paul said to the Corinthians, " I have begotten you 
 through the gospel (I Corinth., iv, 15). In such a way all the 
 Christians are the sons of the apostles, and are begotten by 
 them because they follow their doctrines and love them. 
 
 The high priest said to him: " I adjure thee by the living God that 
 " thou tell U8 whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God." Jesus said 
 to him, "Thou sayest so [that is to say, lam]. Nevertheless, I say 
 "unto you, hereafter shall you see the Son of man, sitting on the 
 " right hand of power " (Matt., xxvi, 53-64:). He is therefore at the 
 same time Son of man and Son of God, which means the son of Joseph 
 and the proterj4 of God. St. Mark narrates the same thing: "Art thou 
 "the Christ ? the Son of God ?" And Jesus said to him, " I am; and ye 
 " shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power " (!Mark, 
 XIV, 62). St. Paul says to the Christians of Corinth, " And I will be a 
 " father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, said the 
 Lord almighty " (II Corinth., vi, 18). He says to the Galatians, 
 "For ye are the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus" (Galatians, 
 III, 26), because they believe in God; as he said of their enemies, that 
 they are the children of disobedience (Ephesians, ii, 2, 3). " Be j'^e 
 " therefore folloM'ers of God as dear children " (Ephesians, v. 1). 
 
 "That ye may be blameless and harmless the sons of God" (Philip., 
 II, 15). Children of light, children of the day, children of the night, 
 of darkness (I Thessal. , v, 5). Son of perdition (II Thessal. , ii, 3). 
 St. Paul said to his disciple : " My son Oneisme, whom I havcubegotten 
 " in my bonds" (I Phil., i, 10-12), as if he was sou accordmg to the 
 flesh. Any master could thus say to his disciple or serv^ant, " I have 
 " begotten thee ;" which does not prevent the same St. Paul to address, 
 for the necessities of his case, the following question to the Jews : "To 
 " whom of the angels has God ever said, Thou art my son, I have be- 
 " gotten thee " (Hebrew, i, 5). The thus-depicted form of language 
 was to the other apostles also familiar. Thus, " Everything comes 
 " from the father of light." . . . "Of his own will begat he us • 
 " with the word of truth" (James, i, 14, 18). John the apostle said, 
 " Ve know that every one that does righteousness is born of him" 
 (I John, II, 29); that is to say, born of God. » "Behold, what manner 
 " of love the Father has bestowed upon us, that we should be called 
 " the sons of God!" (I John, iii, 1). " Whosoever is born of God does 
 " not commit sin, for his seed remainoth in him ; and he cannot sin be 
 " cause he is born of God. In this the children of God are mani-
 
 — 35 — 
 
 " fest, cand the children of the devil" (I John, in, 9, 10). "Everyone 
 " that loveth is born of God" (I John, chap, iv, 7). "Whosoever be- 
 " lieveth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God" (I John, v, 1). 
 Jesus, in his Sermon on the Mount, says, "Blessed be the peacemakers, 
 " for they shall be called the cliildren of (Tod " (Matt., v, 9). " That 
 " ye be the sons {hioi) of your Father who is iu heaven" (Matt., v, 45). 
 He calls the Jews the children of the kingdom (Matt., viii, 12). Jesus 
 said to his auditory, " You shall be the children of the highest " (Luke, 
 VI, 35). " The children of the resurrection and the children of God" 
 (Luke, XX, 36). 
 
 §6. 
 
 From all that has l)een shown in the preceding lines, it will 
 be seen that the expression " Son of God," even in the New 
 Testament, will merely say, a man loved hy God. Neverthe- 
 less is it sometimes taken in an exceptional sense, as the word 
 prophet is often taken as a prophet hy way of eminence, or the 
 greatest of prophets ; as also the word Messiah, or anointed 
 one, is often taken in the sense of Messiah, or anointed one, in 
 an eminent degree. The contemporary Jews of Jesus applied 
 o their fviture king the exceptional eminent sense to all three 
 of the named expressions, to wit : Son of God, Prophet, Mes- 
 siah, or a)winted one. In that way their expected Savior ought 
 to be the greatest king or anointed one, and the most loved by 
 God ; so much more as the Romans were mightier than the na- 
 tions conquered by David, and the pi-ophets and kings. In 
 this way " Son of God," and " Messiah " or " Christ " have be- 
 come synonyms. All those who believed that Jesus was the 
 Messiah, or the Christ, called him also the Son of God. It is, 
 therefore, entirely contrary to the sense of the Old and the 
 New Testament to attach to the expi-ession " Son of God " the 
 idea of a son begotten by God since eternity, and he a God equal 
 to the Father. Such a son of God is unknown to the Jews 
 and even to the evangelists. Jesus never presented himself as 
 such. It was only much later that the apostles attached to 
 this qualification of " Son of God " a more eminent value than 
 that which it had before. 
 
 Ideas of the apostles concerning the divinity of Christ, I shall 
 treat in the fourth part, Orhjhi of Christianity. 
 
 St. Paul asked the Jews, " To whom of the angels has he
 
 — 36 — 
 
 " ever said, Thou art my son, and I have begotten thee 1 " and 
 in another place, "1 shall be his father, and he shall be my son" 
 (Hebrews, i, 5). He concludes thus that Jesus is greater than 
 the angels. Still, we have demonstrated, farther above, that 
 the expression " son of God " is applied to all virtuous men, 
 even to the whole nation, among which, as among all peoples, 
 must have been many bad people. Besides, the passage cited 
 by St. Paul applied to David, and not to Jesus. 
 
 It is true that Jesus attribvites to himself all the qualities which 
 the Jews attributed to their Messiah or future king ; he called him- 
 self the greatest prophet, the greatest king of Israel, and the Son 
 of God [the beloved by God] the most eminently; that is to say, 
 moi'e beloved by God than all other men ; but he always has re- 
 mained in the boundaries of humanity. So it is also wheii he 
 says, "A gi-eater than Jonas is here, a greater than Solomon is 
 here" (Matt., xir, 41, 42); but he always remains man. He 
 even prefers the appellation " Son of man " to " Son of God." 
 So, in undergoing an examination, he will not call himself the 
 " Son of God," and to him who interrogates him whether he be 
 the Son of God, he replies only, "Thou hast said it" (Matt,, 
 XXVI, 63, 64). He says also of John the Baptist, his precursor, 
 *' For I say unto you, among those that are born of woman 
 " there is not a greater prophet tlian John the Baptist " (Luke, 
 VII, 28). Still, John was a man like any other man. Jesus 
 said, at another time, " I, who am a man, who hath told you 
 " the truth, which I had heard of God " (John, viii, 40). St. 
 Paul said of him, "And being found in fashion as a man, he 
 " humbled himself and became obedient unto death ; that is 
 " why God has i-aised him" (Philip., ii, 8). For, since by man 
 " came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead ; 
 " for, as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made 
 " alive" (I Corinth., xv, 21, 22). One of his disciples said to 
 him, " Lord, teach us to pray. And Jesus said to him. When 
 " ye pray, say. Our Father which art in heaven, hallowed be 
 " thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, as in 
 " heaven, so on earth. Give us day by day our daily bread " 
 (Luke, IX, 1-3). He has, then, not said, " Our God, the Fa- 
 ther and the Son." One of the principals of the place came 
 to him and said unto him, " Good master, what shall I do that
 
 — 37 — 
 
 (( 
 
 I may have eternal life 1 And he [Jesus] said unto him, 
 " Why callest thou me good I There is none good but one — 
 " that is God" (Matt., xix, 17; Mark, x, 18 ; Luke, xviii, 18, 
 19). He is then not God. He said, also, " Your father Abra- 
 " ham rejoiced to see my day, and he saw it and was glad. 
 " Then said the Jews unto him, " Thou art not yet fifty years, 
 "and thou ha.st seen Abraham] And he said unto them, 
 " Verily, veiily, I say unto you, before Abraham was I am" 
 (John, VIII, 56-58). That means that his arrival had been 
 promised even before Abraham. 
 
 Still there are other passages, similar to the last-mentioned by John, 
 which could hardly he explained in that manner; but I shall speak 
 about them in the fourth part, which I have already mentioned above. 
 
 Let us see now what is the sense of the expression JIoli/ 
 Ghost in Hebrew. It signifies 
 
 1st. The soul. 
 
 2ud. The faculties of the soul. 
 
 3rd. Its state and its emotions. 
 
 From all these difterent meanings may be derived forms of 
 speech which easily may lead to an error with those who do 
 not well understand the spirit of the Hebrew language. We 
 read in the Bible that King Saul was troubled by a bad ghost 
 (I Samuel, xvi, 14); that is to say, full of melancholy. The 
 Hebrew gave the name of ghost to all the states and all the 
 passions of the soul. Thus we find expressions in the Bible 
 like " ghost of anger," " ghost of joy," " restless ghost," " patient 
 ghost," " false ghost," "impure ghost," " good ghost," and "new" 
 and " steady ghost." 
 
 It is in this way we must understand the expression " holy 
 ghost." 
 
 1st. God himself; as the expression, "the name of God," 
 " the face of God," " tlie soul of God," which likewise signifies 
 God himself. David addresses God : " Whither shall I go from 
 "thy spirit or flee from thy presence " (Psalms, cxxxix, 7.) 
 
 2nd. Spirit signifies the excellent qualities of man — common 
 or natural qualities, or extraordinary ones, as prophecy, or the 
 gift of miracles. The Lord raised up the holy ghost of a young 
 
 262793
 
 — 38 — 
 
 child named Daniel (History of Susannah, i, 45); that is to 
 say, his excellent qualities as judge put at the service of in- 
 nocence. 
 
 3rd. That expression signifies also the good dispositions of 
 the soul. David, repenting of his sins, prayed to God that the 
 holy gliost (the good dispositions of his soul) may not leave 
 him (Psalm, Li, 13). "The holy ghost of discipline flees from 
 dissimulation " (Book of Wisdom, i, 5); that is to say, an honest 
 man Avho observes the discipline of justice, of which the author 
 speaks very highly. 
 
 In the NeAv Testament, the holy ghost is oftentimes spoken 
 of, l)ut always in the same sense as in the Bible. 
 
 1st. God himself . Saint Peter says to Ananias: "Why 
 " has Satan possession of thy heart, inducing thee to lie to the 
 " holy ghost, and to keep back the price of the land ? Thou 
 " hast lied, not unto men biit unto God " (Acts, v, 3, 4). It 
 shows, then, it is the same thing to lie unto God as unto the 
 holy gliost. John the Evangelist says : " God is spirit '' 
 (John, IV, 24). 
 
 2nd. Still more often the expression " holy ghost " signifies 
 the qualities of man, common or uncommon. Elizabeth was 
 full of the holy ghost, and she cried, " Blessed art thou among 
 " women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb " (Luke, i, 
 41, 42). 
 
 The holy ghost is the quality to prophesy. " To be baptized 
 " by the holy ghost," is to say, to acquire all the excellent qual. 
 ities of the soul. We read in the Acts : " They [the Samari- 
 " tans] were baptized : he [the Holy Ghost] as yet was fallen 
 " upon none of them ; only they were baptized in the name of 
 " the Lord Jesus. Then the apostles laid their hands on them, 
 " and they [the Samaritans] received the holy ghost " (Acts, 
 VIII, 12, 16, 17). St. Paul says : "There are diversities of 
 " gifts, but the same spirit ; for to one is given by the spirit 
 " the word of wisdom, to another the word of knowledge by 
 " the spirit ; to another faith ; to another the gift of healing ; 
 " to another the working of miracles ; to another prophecy ; 
 " to another divers kinds of tongues ; but all these work by 
 " one and the self-same spirit, for by one and the same spirit 
 " are we all baptized" (I Corinth., iv, 13). " Zachariiis was
 
 — 39 — 
 
 " fillecl with tlie liolj gliost, and propliesiecl " (Luke, i, 
 67). 
 
 3i'd. " Holy ghost " signifies histly the good dispositions of 
 the soul, as the word spirit means faculties of the soul ; good 
 or bad ones. But nowhere does holy ghost mean a particular 
 person in God. We find in the New Testament the expi-es- 
 sions, "He ba])tizeth you with the holy ghost and with fire" 
 (Matt., Ill, 11). That is to say, he will give you the excellent 
 qualities and the enthvisiasm necessaiy for divine works. "And 
 " behold, there was a man in Jerusalem, whose name was 
 " Simeon ; and the same man was just and devout, waiting for 
 " the consolation of Isi'ael ; and the holy ghost was upon him. 
 " And it was revealed upon him by 'the holy ghost that he 
 " should not see death before he had seen the Lord's Christ " 
 (Luke, II, 2.5, 26). 
 
 The holy ghost is then in this case the gift of prophecy. 
 " The comforter, which is the holy ghost, whom the Father 
 " will send in my name, he shall teach you all things and bring 
 " all things to your remembrance " (Luke, xiv, 26). And in 
 the same chapter we read, "And I will pi'ay the Father, and 
 " he shall give you another comforter, that he may abide with 
 " you forever. Even the spirit of truth" John, xiv, 16, 17). 
 The same comforter is sometimes called " spirit," and some- 
 times " holy ghost "; consequently these two expressions mean 
 the same — are synonyms. 
 
 " But when the comforter is come whom I will send unto 
 " you from the Father, even the spirit of truth which proceed- 
 " eth from the Father, he shall testify of me " (John, xv, 26). 
 " Howbeit, when he, the spii-it of truth, is come, he will guide 
 " you into all truth; for he shall not speak of him.self ; but 
 "whatsoever he shall hear that shall he speak" (John, xvi, 
 26). The spirit of truth or the holy ghost is, therefore, here not 
 God, but it is the gift of prophecy. 
 
 "When the Christians of Ephesus were baptized, St. Paul 
 said to them, " Have ye received the holy ghost %" They an- 
 swered, " We have not so much as heard whether there be any 
 "holy ghost" (xix, 1, 2). "And when St. Paul ha* laid his 
 " hands upon them, the holy ghost came on them, and they 
 " spake with tongues and prophesied " (Acts, xix, 6). Here,
 
 — 40 — 
 
 again, " the holy ghost " means the spirit of prophecy, and the 
 gift of speaking foreign tongues. 
 
 We find also the expressions, "restless spirit" (Luke, xii, 29), 
 " spirit of bondage" (Romans, viii, 15), "spirit of man, of God " (I 
 Corinth., ii, 14), "spirit of sweetness" (I Corinth., "iv, 21). "We 
 " render oui'selves recommendable through a patient spirit, through do- 
 " cility, through the holy ghost" (II Corinth., vi, 6). Here "holy 
 " ghost," " spirit of patience," and " docility," indicate the good dispo- 
 sitions of the soul. "Spirit of wisdom and revelation" (Ephes., i, 17); 
 " the spirit which is active in the spirit of rebellion " (Ephes. , ii, 2); 
 "spirit of patience " (Ephes. , VI, 2): "endeavoring to keep the imity 
 " of the spirit in the bond of peace. . . . There is one body and 
 "one spirit" (Ephes, iv, 3-4); "spirit of contention" (Philipp., I, 
 16); " spirit of fear, spirjt of power, of love, and of a sound mind " 
 (II Timothy, i, 1-7); "poor in spirit" (Matt., v, 3); "the spirit of 
 " glory, which is the sj^irit of God " (I Peter, iv, 14). 
 
 We are going to treat at present the passages wherein it is 
 believed are found the three persons together, the 'Father, the 
 Son, and the Holy Ghost. There are two of them in the 
 evangelists. One is found in the baptism of Jesus (Matt., in 
 and John, ii), and the other in the form of baptism, which 
 Jesus prescribed to his disciples after his resurrection (Matt., 
 XXVIII, 10). As to the last one, we shall again refer to it, after 
 having explained the ceremonial of baptism. 
 
 We shall speak primarily of the first passage. St. Matthew 
 relates : " When Jesus had been baptized, he went immediately 
 " out of the water, and the heavens were opened unto him, 
 " and he saw the spirit of God descending like a dove and 
 " lighting upon him. And, lo ! a voice from heaven .saying : 
 " This is my beloved son, in whom I am well pleased" (Matt., 
 Ill, 16, 17). We read in John the evangelist: " And John 
 " bare record, saying : I saw the spirit descending from heaven 
 ** like a dove, and it abode upon him [Jesus]. But he [God] 
 " that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, 
 " Upon him thou .slialt see the spirit descending and remaining 
 " on him, which baptized with the holy ghost. And I saw 
 " and Bare record that this is the Son of God " (John i, 32, 
 34). All this was nothing but a vision of John the Baptist ; 
 the assistants have neither lieard nor seen anything ; because
 
 — 41 — 
 
 if all this should i-eally have taken place, all the assistants 
 should have seen and heard it, and the evangelists would not 
 have failed to refer to the numerous assistants as ear and eye 
 witnesses. It was thei-efore a simple vision, like that of 
 Etienne, who says: " Behold, I see the heavens opened and the 
 " son of man standing on the right hand of God " (Acts, vii, 
 56); or as Peter : "He [St. Peter] saw heaven opened, and a 
 " certain vessel descending unto him, as it had been a great 
 " sheet knit at the four corners and let down to the earth ; 
 " wherein were all manner of four-footed beasts of the earth, 
 " and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air ; 
 " and there came a voice to him: Pise, Peter, kill and eat (Acts, 
 X, 11, 12) ; or as Cornelius, the pagan, who saw in a vision 
 evidently an angel of God coming to him, saying : " Cornelius, 
 " call for Simon whose surname is Peter " (Acts, x, 3-5). Al- 
 most all these visions begin with the opening of the heavens. 
 It is obvious that the writers of the New Testament never in- 
 tended to make believe that the heavens in reality had been 
 opened, but that they employed emphatic forms of speech, very 
 frequently made use of in the Oriental tongues. However 
 that may be, after that which we have demonsti-ated above, 
 there is in the passage of the baptism of Jesus only one God, 
 whose voice has been heard by John, because the holy ghost 
 that descends upon Jesus represents nothing but the qualities of 
 prophecy which God imparts to him, and the expression " Son 
 " of God" means "beloved of God." 
 
 If we admit that Jesus intended to teach the doctrine of the 
 Trinity, which was at the time new and entirely unknown, 
 why did he never speak of it during his lifetime 1 According 
 to Matthew, he said, after his reswrrection, " Go ye, therefore, 
 " and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Fa- 
 " ther, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost (Matt., xxviii, 
 19). But why has he, during his lifetime, always pres-ented 
 himself as man, and consequently inferior to his father, as we 
 have shown above 1 This passage is, then, suspicious. He has 
 certainly said, "I and my Father are one" (John, x, 30). 
 " The Father is in me, and I am in him " (John, x, 38). But 
 he says also to his disciples, "At that day ye shall know that I 
 " am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you " (John, xiv, 
 4
 
 — 42 — 
 
 20). He said again to his disciples, "Abide in me, and I in 
 " you " (John, xv, 4-7). He explains it further on, saying, 
 " As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you. If ye keep 
 " my commandments ye shall abide in my love, even as I have 
 " kept my Father's commandments and abide in his love " 
 (John, XV, 9-10). Thus the three expressions, " to be one," 
 " to be or abide one in tho other," and " to love one anothei-," 
 are applied as synonyms, and "/ and my Father are one," only 
 We are loving one another. 
 
 Such occurs in many other passages. Jesus prays God for his disci- 
 ples, and says, " That they [disciples] may be one, as we are ; and fur- 
 ther on, " That they all may be one, as thou, Father, art in me, and I 
 " in thee, that they also may be one in us; that the world may believe 
 ' ' that thou hast sent me. All the glory which thou gavest me, I have 
 '■ given them [the Christians]; they may be one, even as we are one; I 
 " in them, and thou in me; that they may be perfect in one, and that 
 " the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them as 
 " thou hast loved me" (John, xvii, 21-23). St. Paul says, "So we, 
 ' ' being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of 
 " another" (Eomans, xii, 5). "But he that is joined unto the Lord 
 " is one spirit" (I Corinth., vi, 17). " For we, being many, are one 
 " bread and one body, for we are all partakers of that one bread " (I 
 Corinth., 10-17). "For by one spirit we are all baptized into one 
 " body, whether we be Jews or gentiles, whether we be bond or free, 
 " and have been all made to drink into one spirit" (Corinth, i, 12-13). 
 " You are all one in Christ" (Galat., iii, 28). "For both he that 
 " sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of one" (Hebrews, ii, 
 14). St. John the apostle says, also, " He who will confess that Jesus 
 " is the son of God, God lives in him and he lives in God" (John, 
 IV, 15). 
 
 §9. 
 
 We have seen that Jesus intended not to establish any new 
 dogmas.* We are going now to see whether he wanted to 
 abolish Jewish ceremonials, or to introduce new ones. It is 
 true that he gi'anted a higher value to moral principles than to 
 ceremonial law, and that he blamed the hypocrites; but all the 
 prophets and all the rabbis before Jesus had done the same 
 thing. The hypocrites have always been despised by the Jews 
 as well as by all other nations. This reproach comprehends 
 then nothing new. But Jesus never intended to modify any 
 
 * On dogmas and morals I shall treat in the fourth part.
 
 — 43 — 
 
 of the Jewish ceremonials; on the contrary, he observ'ed all of 
 them without making the most unimportant change. He fre- 
 quented i-egularly the synagogues and the temple, and took part 
 in the i-eligious services. He attended on the Sabbath to the 
 reading of the Pentateuch and of the prophets, according to 
 the custom among the Jews (Luke, iv, 16). 
 
 He traveled, according to the law of Moses, to Jerusalem, in 
 order to be present during the festivals, particularly Easter 
 day, and doing all that was ordained by the law of the Jews; 
 he is there also at the festival of the Maccabees (John, x, 22, 
 22), which was established by the rabbis. He had the Easter 
 lamb killed for himself and disciples, and he eats it singing 
 Jewish iiymns (Matt., xxxvi, 30; Mark, xvi, 26). He says in 
 his Sermon on the Mount: " Think not that I am come to 
 " destroy the law [of the Jews] or the prophets; I am not come 
 " to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily, I say unto you, till 
 " heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise 
 " pass fi'om the law till all be fulfilled. Whosoever, thei-efore, 
 " shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach 
 " men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven; 
 " but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be 
 " called great in the kingdom of heaven" (Matt., v, 17, 18, 19); 
 and " It is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle 
 "of the law to fail" (Luke, xvi, 17). He ordains, then, to 
 observe the Jewish ceremonials in all their details. 
 
 He said to the leper whom he cured : " Show thyself to the 
 " priests, and offer the gift which Moses has ordained for a 
 " testimony unto them (Matt., viii, 4; Mark, i, 44; (Luke, v, 
 14). He said to his disciples : " The Scribes and the Pharisees 
 " sit in Moses' seat ; all therefore whatsoever they bid you to 
 " observe, that obsei've and do" (Matt., xxiii, 2, 3). He or- 
 dains, then, to follow the commandments of the Phai'isees, al- 
 though he represents them as hyj^ocrites. He blames those 
 who carry on devotion to paying the tithe upon things of 
 little value, but at the same time are less scinipulous in the 
 application of morals. Nevertheless he adds : " These are 
 " things [ceremonials] which have to be observed, and not 
 "to leave undone the other" (Matt., xxiii, 23; Luke, 
 XI, 42).
 
 — 44 — 
 
 He says well that we may cure the sick on the Sabbath, but the 
 rabbis said the same already before him. The Maccabees particularly 
 insisted upon the duty to work on the Sabbath in urgent cases, about 
 two centuries before Jesus Christ (Mace, i, 2, 41). The disciples 
 plucked the ears of corn on the Sabbath, and Jesus said not that this 
 was permitted ; on'the contrary, he excuses them with the danger of 
 starving, and compares them to David, "when David was under the 
 " necessity to eat what was not at all permitted to eat. . . . Man is 
 " master even of the Sabbath " (Luke, vi, 1-5) ; that is to say, in case 
 of danger of life. Moreover, all the disciples, as well as their master, 
 had it so much at heart to celebrate the Sabbath, that Jesus said to 
 them : "But pray ye that your flight be not on the Sabbath-day, neither 
 " in the winter " (Matt., xxiv, 20). He considered.it, then, a great 
 misfortune to flee on the Sabbath, because the prohibition to work on 
 that day would render the fugitive more unhappy still. This is easily 
 explained ; because the pious Christian women who made the long 
 voj^age from Galilee to Jerusalem in order to follow Jesus, and had the 
 special honor to be the onlj^ ones to do the last services to their adored 
 master, interrupted the exercises of this sacred duty on the Sabbath. 
 " The women that came with Jesus from Galilee prepared aromatic 
 " tlrugs and perfumery, and they rested on the Sabbath according to 
 " the custom of the Jews ; but on the first day of the week [Sunday] 
 " these women arrived" (Luke, xxiri, 55, 56). 
 
 He [Jesus] approves also the custom of the Pharisees wear- 
 ing phylacteries iii remembrance of the laws of Moses ; he 
 blames only those who made them too big and too large, there- 
 by intending to be considered more pious than other people. 
 " But all their works they do for to be seen of men. They 
 " make broad their phylacteries, and enlarge the borders of 
 " their garments " (Matt., xxiii, 5). It was not that he would 
 have that law not observed. "And when they saw some of his 
 " disciples eat bread with unwashed hands, the Pharisees asked 
 " him, Why do they take their meals with unAvashed hands 1 " 
 (Mark, vii, 2-5). Jesus, after having proved that Isaiah had 
 already prophesied that they will be hypocrites, concludes, say- 
 ing, " To eat with unwashed hands defileth not a man" (Matt., 
 XV, 20). It must be remarked here that this custom was not 
 considered by the Pharisees as dating fi-om Moses. The Phar- 
 isees said, " Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of 
 " the elders ? for they wash not their hands when they eat 
 " bread " (Matt., xv, 2). And, since the apostles were con-
 
 — 45 — 
 
 stantly ti-aveling, they might legally dispense themselves from 
 washing outside of the cities. 
 
 It is true, Jesus begins by saying, in a general manner, that 
 " that which enters in man does not defile man," but he fin- 
 ishes by declaring that he does apply this principle only to the 
 real case. He says one day of his disciples, " But the days 
 " will come when the bridegroom shall be taken away from 
 " them, and then shall they fast in those days" (Luke, v, 35). 
 He eulogizes John the Baptist. " For John the Baptist came 
 " neither eating bread nor drinking wine" (Luke, vii, 33). He 
 said also to his discijjles, " Moreover, when you fast, be not, as 
 " the hypocrites, of a sad countenance, for they disfigure their 
 "faces that they may appear unto men to fast" (Matt., vi, 
 16-18). " Howbeit, this kind [demon] goeth not out but by 
 " prayer and fasting" (Matt., xvii, 21 ; Mark, xr, 29). Fast- 
 ing is, then, a good woi'k before God. It is known that the 
 apostles have prohibited the blood and the sacrifices of idols, 
 etc. (Acts, XV, 29). The Catholics have never made a general 
 application of this principle ; they observe Lent, etc. 
 
 The apostles have therefore acted contrarily -to the doctrine 
 and to the commandments of Jesus, in dispensing their disci- 
 ples from the Jewish laws, and also in dispensing themselves 
 from those laws ; because, after the death of Jesus, they did 
 observe them only in the presence of Jews, and transgressed 
 them before t^ie eyes of gentiles. 
 
 St. Paul declares at one time the laws of Moses useful, and 
 at another time he calls them useless, and even compares them 
 to sweepings, A man by the name of Timothy, a born pagan, 
 wanted to be converted to Christianity ; instead of baptizing 
 him, St. Paul circumcised him (Acts, xvi, 3). igOne day the 
 apostles said to St. Paul : " Thou seest, brother, how many 
 " thousands of Jews there are which believe ; and they are all 
 " zealous of the law. Now, they have been informed of thee 
 " that thou teachest all the Jews which are amoug the Gentiles 
 " to forsake Moses ; saying that they ought not to circumcise 
 " their children, neither to walk after the customs. What is 
 " it, therefore ? The multitude must needs come together ; for 
 " they will hear that thou art come. Do, therefore, this that 
 " we say to thee : we have four men which have a vow on
 
 — 46 — 
 
 " them. Them take, and purify thyself with them, and be at 
 " charges with them, that they may shave their heads ; and 
 " all may know that those things whei-eof they were informed 
 " concerning thee are nothing, and that they believe thou hast 
 " been calumniated ; but that thou thyself also walkest orderly 
 " and keepest the law " [of Moses]. For a similar motive it 
 was that St. Paul shaved his head before entering the syna- 
 gogue of Ephesus, to the end to make believe that he had made 
 a Mosaical vow, because we read : " He embarked for Syria ; 
 " had his hair cut iirst for reason of a vow [to be Nazir ac- 
 " cording to the law of Moses] ; then he arrived at Ephesus, 
 " and having entered the synagogue, he conferred with the 
 " Jews " (Acts, XVIII, 18, 19). He said once : "I am a Phar- 
 '• isee, the son of a Pharisee " (Acts, xxiiii, 6). " I have done 
 ," nothing against the law of the Jews" (Acts, xxv, 8). "I 
 " have lived as a Pharisee, which is the most strict sect of our 
 " religion " (Acts, xxvi, 5). 
 
 When St. Paul arrived at Rome, where he had nothing at 
 all to fear from the part of the Jews, " Paul called the chiefs 
 " of the Jews together. And when they were come together, he 
 " said unto them : Men and brethren, though I have committed 
 " nothing against the people or customs of our fathers" (Acts, 
 xxviii, 47). He said also to the Romans : " For circumcision 
 "verily profiteth " (Romans, ii, 25^. And unto the Jews: "I 
 " became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews,; to them that 
 " are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them 
 " under the law ; to them that are without law, as without 
 " law, being not without law to God, bitt under the law to 
 " Christ, that I might gain them that are without law " (Co- 
 rinthians, ix|l20, 21). He writes : " All these things are writ- 
 " ten for our admonition" (Cor., x, 11). Nevertheless, in an- 
 other chapter he says : " That the law of Moses, though glori- 
 " ous, is a ministration of death, which glory was to be done 
 " away " (II Cor., in, 7). 
 
 In his epistle to the Galatians he says : " For as many as 
 " are of the works of the law [who observe the law of Moses, 
 " even if they believe in Jesus] are under the curse, because it 
 " is written : Cursed is every one that continueth not in all 
 " things which are written in the book of the law to do them "
 
 — 47 — 
 
 (Galat., Ill, 10). The proof is strange. In the meantime he 
 adds : " The law of Moses was our schoolmaster to bring us 
 " unto Christ ; that we may be justified by faith, we are no 
 " longer under a schoohnaster. There is neither Jew nor 
 " Greek, for you are all one in Christ" (Gal., iii, 24, 25, 28). 
 Thus is the law abolished. It had some utility before Jesus ; 
 St. Paul declares it now frankly, and he curses the Jew- 
 Christians if they observe the law of Moses. He is frank to 
 such a degi-ee now, that he begins to blame St. Peter. He 
 writes to the Galatians : " But when Peter was come to An- 
 " tioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be 
 " blamed. For before that certain came from. James, he did 
 " eat with the gentiles ; but when they were come, he with- 
 " drew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the 
 " circumcision. The other Jews dissembled likewise with him, 
 " insomuch that Barnabas [the apostle of the gentiles] was 
 " also carried away with their dissimulation. But when I 
 " saw that they walked not upinghtly according to the truth 
 " of the gospel, I said unto Peter befoi'e them all. If thou, 
 " being a Jew, livest after the manner of the gentiles and not 
 " as do the Jews, why compellest thovi the gentiles to live as 
 " do the Jews"1 (Galat., ii, 11, 14). 
 
 In his epistle to the Philippians he goes a little fuiiher. He 
 says of the laws of Moses, " I do count them but dung " 
 (Philipp., in, 8). This is a rather strong expression — rather 
 strong for things necessary to lead to Christ ; as he had said in 
 a passage mentioned above. 
 
 The motive of the advances in his removal from Moses, might it not 
 be indicated in the following jjassages ? We read in Acts, xxi, 20 : 
 "How many thousands of Jews there are whichftelieve"; and the 
 apostles counseled him to do more than the Jews, even to make mosaic 
 vows, which were not obligatory ; Imt in the epistle to the Colossians 
 we read : " They are Jews by birth, and they are the only ones which 
 " at present work with me" (Coloss., iv, 14). The thousands of Jews 
 have then left him, and have returned to Judaism, with the exception 
 of two or three persons ; inde irae. 
 
 In his epistle to Titus, he calls them fables (Titus, i, 14). 
 Nevertheless, he congratulates Timothy on his knowledge of 
 the Hebrew, and calls it " holy scriptures which are able to
 
 — 48 — 
 
 make thee wise unto salvation through faith " (II Timothy, iii, 
 15). The apostle James had a view different from St. Paul, 
 because he says, " He who will have observed the whole law of 
 Moses, and yet offend in one poiiit, he is guilty of all " (James, 
 II, 10). Nevertheless, it is the same apostle James whom Paul 
 considers one of the three columns of the church, because he 
 says, "And when James, Cephas and John, who seemed to be 
 " pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave 
 " to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship, that we 
 " should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision, 
 " the Jews " (Galat., ii, 9). It is, then, James and his two 
 colleagues which had given to Paul the authority to preach. 
 Now, then, this same James has made the proposition to the 
 general assembly of apostles to dispense the gentiles from the 
 laws of Moses, and not the Jews (Acts, xv, 19), and that prop- 
 osition had been adopted by the council. St. Paul had tlien 
 agitated against the council,* against James, of whom he had 
 received his title of apostle, and particularly against the teach- 
 ing of Jesus himself, as we have shortly demonstiated it. 
 
 § 10. 
 Still, it is said that the law of Moses is not compatible with 
 the mission of Jesus to the gentiles. We reply that he never 
 wanted to extend his kingdom of heaven upon others than 
 upon the Jews. In sending the twelve apostles to announce 
 the arrival of his kingdom, he says to them, in very plain terms 
 and without any parables, " These twelve Jesus sent forth, and 
 " commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the gentiles, 
 " and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not. But go 
 " rather to th^ost sheep of the house of Israel. And as ye 
 " go, preach, saying. The kingdom of heaven is at hand. Heal 
 " the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out devils. 
 " Freely ye have rece.ved, freely give " (Matt., x, 5-8). "And 
 " behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and 
 " cried unto him, saying, Have mercy on me, oh Lord, thou 
 " son of David ! My daughter is grievously vexed with a 
 " devil. But he answered her not a word. And his disciples 
 " came and besought him, saying, Send her away, for she crieth 
 " after us. But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto
 
 — 49 — 
 
 " the lost sheep of the house of Israel. Then came she and 
 " worshiped him, saying, Lord, help me. But he answered 
 " and said, It is not meet to take the children's bread and to 
 " cast it to dogs " (Matt., xv, 22-26). 
 
 It is, in this place, only proper to remark that the Jews always were 
 in the habit of succoring the pagans. Moses commauds them, in sev- 
 eral passages, to treat the stranger with equal |}iindness as the Israelite. 
 The prophet Elisha cured the pagan Naaman of leprosy (II Kings, v, 
 10). The rabbis and the Talmud ordained to make no difference be- 
 tween the sick pagan or Jew. If Jesus, then, makes a difference so 
 strange and so contrary to the traditions of the Pharisees and Jews in 
 general, treating and looking upon the pagans as dogs, so is this a new 
 proof in support of the idea which we are going to develop further on. 
 
 He says to his twelve aix)stles: "You shall sit upon twelve 
 " thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel" (Matt., xix, 28). 
 Thus are the gentiles not at all under the apostolic jurisdic- 
 tion. ".For a certain woman, whose young daughter had an 
 " unclean spirit, heard of him, and caine and fell at his feet. 
 " [The woman was a Greek, a Syrophoeuician by nation.] And 
 " she besought him that he would cast forth the devil out of 
 " her daughter. And Jesus said unto her : Let the children fii*st 
 " be filled ; for it is not meet to take the children's bread and 
 " to cast it unto the dogs " (Mark, vii, 27). A pagan centurion 
 asked him to heal a sick one, and the Jews beseeching him> 
 saying, " that he was worthy for whom he should do this, 
 " for he loveth our nation, and has built us a synagogue. 
 "Then Jesus went with them" (Luke, vii, 4-6). Without 
 this recommendation he would not have healed him. " He 
 " chose twelve disciples for the twelve tribes of Israel. These 
 " twelve disciples Jesus sent forth, and commantkd them, say- 
 " ing : Go not into the way of the gentiles, and into any city 
 " of the Samaritans enter ye not. But go, rather, to the lost 
 " sheep of the house of Israel" (Matt., x, 1-6). 
 
 Jesus said to a man by the name of Zaccheus : " This day is 
 " salvation come to this house, forasmuch as he is also a son of 
 "Abraham" (Luke, xix, 9). 
 
 Jesus said unto the twelve apostles : " And I appoint you a 
 " kingdom, as my Father hath appointed unto me, that ye may 
 " eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones,
 
 — 50 — 
 
 r 
 
 "judging the twelve tribes of Israel " (Luke, xxii, 29, 30). It 
 is impossible to reconcile these words, and others analogical to 
 them, with the order which it is said he had given after his 
 resurrection : " Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations, baptiz- 
 "ing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son^and of 
 "the Holy Ghost" (Matt., xxviii, 19). Analogical passages 
 are to be found (Mark xvr, 15; Luke, xxvi, 47). If Jesus 
 really had given such an order, St. Peter would not have hesi- 
 tated to convert the pagan Cornelius, and a new vision would 
 not have been necessary, through which a voice from heaven 
 authorized him to go to this pagan; he would not have said to 
 Cornelius and other pagans: " God hath made me see that I 
 " should not call any man common or unclean. Therefore 
 " came I nnto you without gainsaying, as soon as I was sent 
 for" (Acts, X, 28, 29). 
 
 If this order in reality had been given by Jesus to all the 
 apostles, we are not able to comprehend how these , apostles 
 could blame St. Peter for having converted a pagan (Acts, xi, 
 1-3), and why St. Peter did not simply remark to his colleagues : 
 " You know well enough that Jesus after his resurrection 
 " ordered us to convert the pagans." In the place of such a 
 simple and clear answer, which at the same time would have 
 been decisive, he has i-ecourse to a long syllogism, which cer- 
 tainly is not at all irrefutable. 
 
 " But Peter rehearsed the matter from the beginning, and 
 " expounded it by order unto them, saying : I was in the city 
 " of Joppa praying ; and in a trance I saw a vision, a certain 
 " vessel descend, as it had beeu a great sheet, let down from 
 " heaven by four corners ; and it came even to me ; upon the 
 " which, wh^i I had fastened mine eyes, I considered, and saw 
 " four-footed beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping 
 " things, and fowls of the air. And I heard a voice saying 
 " unto me : Arise, Peter, slay and eat. But I said, Not so, 
 " Lord ; for nothing common or unclean at any time entered 
 " into my mouth. But the voice answered me again from 
 " heaven : What God has cleansed that call thou not unclean. 
 " And this was done three times ; and all were drawn up 
 " again into heaven. And behold, immediately there were 
 " three men already come unto the house where I was, sent
 
 — 51 — 
 
 " from Csesarea unto me. And the spirit bade me go with 
 " them nothing doubting. Moreover, these six brethren ac- 
 " companied me, and we entered into the man's house. And 
 " he showed us how he had seen an angel in his house, which 
 " stood and said unto him : Send men to Joppa and call for 
 " Simon, whose surname is Peter, who shall tell thee words, 
 " wliereby thou and all thy house shall be saved. And as I 
 " began to speak, the holy ghost fell on them, as on us in the 
 " beainninar. Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how 
 " that he said : John indeed baptized with water, but ye shall 
 " be baptized with the holy ghost" (Acts, xi, 4-17). 
 
 It took him fourteen verses in .order to arrive at the con- 
 clusion that the gentiles may be converted, because the holy 
 ghost had also descended ui)on them. It is herefrom plainly 
 to be conceived, that Jesus had given n > order to go among 
 the pagtns. 
 
 It is here fit to remark, that the expression : panta ta ethne, 
 *' all the peoples" may be applied to the Jews dispersed among 
 all the different nations. In the following may be found the 
 proofs of it. The Jews, who inhabited Greece, were called 
 Greeks, " Hellenes," by John the evangelist (John xii, 20). 
 " Then the Jews said among themselves : Whither will he go 
 " that we shall noi find him. Will he go among the dispersed, 
 " among the gentiles, and teach the gentiles % " (John, vii, 35). 
 Teaching the gentiles means in this passage teaching the Jews 
 who live amongst the gentiles. Accox-ding to St. Mark, Jesus 
 said to the apostles : " But take heed to yourselves, for they 
 " shall deliver you up to councils, ye shall be beaten. But 
 " the gospel must first be published among all nations. This 
 " generation shall not pass till all these things be done " (Mark, 
 XIII, 9, 10, 30). Now then, it is well known that a long time 
 before the gospel was made known among the pagan nations, 
 the Jews had already lost all power over the Christians. The 
 punishments could therefore then not take place. We read in 
 St. Luke that Jesus said to the apostles after his resux'rection, 
 " that the gospel has to be preached among all nations, com- 
 " mencing at Jerusalem " (Luke, xxiv, 47). It is easy to 
 comprehend that the Israelitic communities could be opposed 
 to that of Jerusalem, which was the central seat of Judaism.
 
 — 52 — 
 
 But we can scarcely conceive the city of Jerusalem opposing 
 the foreign population ; the evangelist should then have said, 
 " beginning with the Jews." We I'ead also : " This gosi)el will 
 " be preached in all the world, for a witness unto all nations. 
 " This generation shall not pass till all these things be ful- 
 " filled" (Matt., XXIV, 14-134). Now, all the peoples have 
 not known the gospel during the lifetime of the apostles, but 
 all the- Jews of the world might have been able to know it. 
 The conclusion is that the expression " all the nations " must 
 be applied, according to all the evangelists, " to the Jews dis- 
 " persed among all the nations." 
 
 We read in Acts that Jesus said to the apostles, after his 
 resurrection : " You shall be witnesses unto me, both in Je- 
 " rusalem and in all Judea, and in Samaria, and ynto the 
 " uttermost parts of the earth " (Acts, i, 8) ; that means to the 
 Jews in all the countries of the earth. 
 
 Tlie Greek expression " ghc," which will also signify "land," and 
 can be substituted for land of the Jews. (See later, § 51.) 
 
 He did not speak of the gentiles. The miracle of the 
 tongues took place for the Jews of all countries, called Parthia, 
 Media, Crete, Arabia, etc., and not for the gentiles. "Then 
 " there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out 
 " of every nation on the earth. Now, when this was noised 
 " abroad, the multitude came together and were confounded, 
 " because that every man heard them speak in his own 
 " language. And they were all amazed, and marveled, saying 
 " one to another : Behold, are not all these which speak, 
 " Galileans? And hear we every man in our own tongue 
 " wherein we were born " (Acts, ii, 5-8). 
 
 In all these passages there is no relativeness to gentiles, 
 because, long after the convention, which was effected through 
 the miracle of tongues, Peter believed still that he might detile 
 himself, if he should go to a pagan ; and the apostles did not 
 want to convert one, as we have seen above in the case of 
 Cornelius. 
 
 § 11. 
 
 The order which Jesus gave after his resurrection contains, 
 besides, two words, " baptizing them," which make it still
 
 — 53 — 
 
 Inore suspicious ; because it is impossible that Jesus should 
 have orJered the baptism of any one. It is true that John 
 the Baptist baptized all the Jews which came to him, in order 
 to prepare them for the kingdom of heaven. Jesus baptized, 
 himself. But after Jesus commenced to agitate, he baptized 
 nobody, and he even did not want to be suspected of baptizing 
 anybody. We read in John : " The Pharisees had heard that 
 " Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John,. though 
 " Jesus himself baptized not" (John, iv, 1, 2). 
 
 The passage: "Jesus went away with his disciples . . . and there 
 " baptized " (John, iii, 22), is contradicted by that which I have just 
 cited. This is interpolated in the original text; it should be, "It 
 "was said that he baptized there." That is -what we read in John. 
 Jesus went away with his disciples, and there he tarried with them 
 and baptized, and John also was baptizing. Tlien there arose a 
 question between some of John's disciples and the Jews about purify- 
 ing. "And they came unto John, and said unto him : He that was 
 " with thee beyond Jordan, to whom thou bearest witness, behold the 
 " same baptizes, and all men come to him .... When therefore the 
 " Lord [Jesus] knew how the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and 
 " baptized more disciples than John (though Jesus himself baptized 
 " not, but his disciples), he left Judea and departed again into 
 " Galilee." By all means it was he who baptized (John, iii, 22-26; 
 IV, 1-3). 
 
 Thus Jesus took it so much to heart that people should say that he 
 baptized, that he made up his mind rather to quit Judea, in oi-der to 
 stifle that unlucky rumor, because John should alone baptize with the 
 "baptism of repentance" (Acts, xix, 4). That is to say, that he 
 should exhort to make the act of baptism a symbolism of repentance 
 and of the purifying of sins, without attaching to it any creed of any 
 form in a manner, so that Paul did not consider this act as a christian 
 baptism (Acts, xix, 4-5). There were thus for Paul two baptisms, to 
 wit: one of repentance — that of John the Baptist, which was a Jewish 
 baptism — and the other a chi'istian one, introduced by the apostles. 
 Well, Jesus himself did not want a christian baptism, and nobcdy of 
 his time knew anything of such a baptism. Jesus, as Christ or 
 Messiah, should then not baptize at all. If he had baptized, they 
 would have said that he played the part of John the Baptist, and that 
 he was not the Christ. That is why the disciples of John complained, 
 saying to him : He to whom thou hast given testimony (that he is 
 the Christ), he baptizes exactly like thou. He is then not the Christ, 
 and he himself contradicts thy testimony. And the disciples added: 
 And all go to him in'stead of going to thee, in a manner that he 
 wi-onged thee in still another way. It is easy to comprehend that
 
 — 54 — 
 
 Jesus had reason to be careful not to baptize ; because under the cir- 
 cumstances, and if it once shoukl have happened to him to have done 
 it, it follows to a certainty that*the Pharisees did not know anything 
 about it, for, if they had known, they might have taken advantage of 
 it, in order to prove that he was not the Christ. "Jesus had then 
 " learned that the Pharisees had heard that he baptized; he left Judea" 
 (John, IV, 1-3). 
 
 From all this must be concluded, that Jesus did not know anything 
 of a christian baptism ; that is, the baptism in order to become a 
 Christian. 
 
 John the Baptist neither wanted the christian baptism, because he 
 endeavored to show that Jesus had been calumniated when it was said 
 of him that he [Jesus] baptized, and it was not Jesus who did it. 
 
 The otliei' evangelists said nowhere that Jesus or his dis- 
 ciples had baptized anybody before tlie death of the Master. 
 The apostles themselves had not been received through baptism. 
 During his lifetime Jesus had never given the order to baptize 
 anybody. He said only to the apostles, " Preach, and say that 
 " the kingdom of heaven approaches ; heal the sick, cleanse 
 " the lepers, raise the dead, cast out devils" (Matt., x, 7, 8). 
 Why is it, then, that baptism became necessary after the death 
 of Jesus '? Very likely because, after the death of the Master, 
 the apostles conceived the idea, entirely strange to Jesus, to 
 address themselves to the pagans, to whom the Jews have 
 always recommended baptism when they wanted to be con- 
 verted to Judaism. 
 
 In the meantime, let us suppose for awhile that Jesus had 
 really ordered after his resurrection that wliich he had pro- 
 hibited before his death; that is, that he liad prescribed to 
 announce the kingdom of heaven to the pagans; let us suppose, 
 still, that he it was Avho had introduced baptizing for entering 
 into the church, and not only for the pagan proselytes but also 
 for the Jews. The result wouTd have been that the Jews 
 would have been absolved fi<om observing the laws of Moses, 
 and the pagan proselytes could not have been admitted to 
 Judaism with all its laws. Such a conclusion could never 
 have been possible. Oji the contrary, Jesus remained a Jew 
 during all his lifetime, and left his disciples also remaining 
 Jews, to whom he had recommended all the laws of Moses, 
 even the ai-rival of the kmgdom of heaven ; and it is there-
 
 — 55 — 
 
 fore not at all possible how later tlie whole of the law of Moses 
 could have been abolished, and the single ceremonial of baptism 
 substituted for it, without any authorization of Jesus. 
 
 Baptism was an ancient Jewish ceremonial, wliich by no 
 means excluded the observation of the laws of Moses. The 
 first Christians, born as Jews, were to such a degree convinced 
 that Jesus did not at all intend to abolish the law, that, not- 
 withstanding they fully believed in Jesus Chi'ist, they never- 
 theless scnipulously observed the Jewish ceremonial. They 
 were even zealous for the observation of it. We read : " How 
 " many thousands of Jews there are which believe, and they 
 " are all zealous of the law " (Acts, xxi, 20). They conserved 
 then Judaism pure, which had not in the least been modified 
 by Jesus. Only, instead of believing as before that the Savior 
 of Israel will come, they believed henceforth that that Savior 
 had already come. 
 
 "Vy© said just -now that baptism was an ancient Jewish 
 ceremonial. It consisted in the immersion of the whole of the 
 body in water, in order to wash and be clean. The -word 
 " baptize," applied in the New Testament, means in Greek " to 
 " wash one's self," or, " to take a bath." The same word 
 " baptized," in Greek, is used by the Pharisee, who is astonished 
 that Jesus did not " baptize " his hands before sitting down at 
 table (Luke, ix, .38). 
 
 This shows conclusively that " to baptize " means to wash 
 one's self. It was a traditional custom with the Jews, in pre- 
 paring for a religious action, to clean their bodies, which was 
 the symbol of purification of the soul. When the patriarch 
 Jacob made preparations for constructing an altar, he said to 
 his children, "Be clean and change your garments" (Gen., 
 XXXV, 2). When the Israelites prepared themselves to receive 
 the law at the Mount of Sinai, Moses ordained them to be 
 sanctified and wash their clothes (Exod., xix, 10). When the 
 priests prepared for divine service in*the temple, they bathed 
 previously, and so they did when they had been initiated into 
 their office. 
 
 It was exactly in conformity to that ancient usage that 
 Jesus, at initiating himself into his sacred oSice of teaching, 
 had descended into the Jordan to wash himself, or to take a
 
 — 56 — 
 
 Ijatli. Indeed, if baptism liad been a new ceremonial, we 
 could not comprehend how a great number of Jews had 
 arrived and been baptized by John the Baptist, without in the 
 least being astonished about this innovation. This shows con- 
 clusively that the Jews looked upon baptism as upon an ancient 
 custom of Judaism. 
 
 § 12. 
 
 But it might be said, the baptism of the church has another 
 ' significance. One is not baptized in order to become a Jew, but 
 to be a Christian, and this in the name of the Father, the Son, 
 and the Holy Ghost. To this we reply, that such was exactly 
 the formula mentioned in the order which Jesus gave after his 
 resurrection (Matt., xxviii, 19), which renders the order in its 
 entirety very suspicious. We have already proved that this 
 order was not exact, because he concerns himself with the 
 gentiles, and recommends them to be baptized ;. because Jesus, 
 before his death, baptized nobody, and he had forbidden his 
 apostles to apply to pagans. But the formula in question is a 
 new proof against the authenticity of the posthumous order of 
 Jesus. Because no apostle, baptizing a Jew or a pagan after the 
 death of the Master has ever pronounced the formula, " In the 
 " name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost." St. Paul 
 has even done more. "When he converted the pagan Timothy, 
 he baptized him not at all ; he circumcised him (Acts, xvi, 3). 
 Those who assisted at the great miracle of tongues, during 
 the day of Pentecost, asked Peter and the other apostles, 
 " What shall we do? " and Peter said unto them, "Be converted, 
 " and every one of you baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, 
 "for the remission of sins" (Acts, ii, 37-38). At the at- 
 tendance of the miracles which Philip had performed before 
 the Samaritans, " they have been baptized only in the name of 
 "the Lord Jesus" (Acts, viii, 16). An eunuch a^ed pei-- 
 mission to be baptized, " and Philip said unto him. If thou be- 
 " lievest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered 
 " and said: I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. 
 " And they went down both into the water, and Philip bap- 
 " tized him " (Acts, viii, 37-38). The eunuch had not said 
 that he believed in the Holy Ghost, and still he was bajitized.
 
 • 
 
 — 57 — 
 
 "When Cornelius and other pagans wanted to receive baptism, 
 " St. Peter commanded them to be baptized in the name of 
 " the Lord " (Acts, x, 48). A jailer asked St. Paul, " What 
 " must I do to be saved 1 and the apostle said unto him : Be- 
 " lieve on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved and 
 " thy house ; and straightway he and all his were baptized " 
 (Acts, XVI, 31-33). There was no question about the Holy 
 Ghost. St. Paul met some disciples at Ephesus, and they were 
 baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus (Acts, xix, 5). 
 Ananias said to St. Paul : " And now why tarriest thou 1 
 " Arise and be baptized and wash away thy sins, calling on 
 " the name of the Lord " (Acts, xxii, 16). He did not speak 
 of the holy ghost. We see, then, that the formula is very 
 variable; sometimes "in the name of the Lord Jesus," some- 
 times " in the name of the Lord," etc. ; but we find nowhere 
 that the apostles had pronounced for baptism the formula, " In 
 " the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost." 
 Oftenest not any formula is pronounced. St. Paul said : "I 
 " render grace to God that I have baptized none of you, in 
 " order that none may say that I had baptized in my name " 
 (I Cor., I, 14-15). It is evident, then, if it had been his 
 obligation to pronounce the formula, "In the name of the 
 " Father, the Son," etc., nobody could have said that he had 
 baptized in the name of Paul. Even very often the proselytes 
 were not all baptized. "For Christ sent me not to baptize, but 
 " to preach the gospel " (I Corinth, i, 17). 
 
 It is readily to be seen that this formula of Matthew is an 
 interpolation. It is known that this gospel has been written in 
 Hebrew and translated into Greek ; the original has been lost, 
 the translation is not always exact, and it contains many suspi- 
 cious passages. 
 
 Let us now cite the anonymous author of whom Lessing has 
 published the fragments, and which we mentioned in our intro- 
 duction : 
 
 " Let us even suppose that Jesus had really given this bap- 
 " tismal formula, ' In the name of the Father, the Son, and the 
 " Holy Ghost,' there would be nothing new or strange to the 
 " dogmas of the Jews. Because ' in the name of the Father ' 
 ** would say ' in the name of Jehowa,' who is the father of 
 5
 
 — 58 — 
 
 " every creature; 'in the name of the Son' would say 'in the 
 " name of Jesus,' who is the Son of God, in the sense of Mes- 
 " siah; he is more beloved of God than other men; 'the Holy 
 " Ghost ' at last would say ' the faculties of the soul,' the holy 
 " aspirations and virtuous dispositions which are the object of 
 "baptism. In short, being baptized 'in the name of the 
 " Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost,' will say, to be bap- 
 " tized to become a believer in God, a disciple of the Messiah, 
 " and be full of holy and virtuous aspirations." 
 
 There is, then, in this formula nothing strange to Judaism. 
 
 The same author says again: "The baptism of our day has 
 " nothing in common with that of the New Testament. That 
 " of Jesus, of John the Baptist, and of the apostles, consisted, 
 " like that of the Jews, in immersion, baths, and washings of 
 " the whole body, in order that the corpoi-eal cleaning be the 
 " symbol of the purification of the soul ; while in our days we 
 " pour three drops of water upon the head, without cleaning 
 " the body, and add thereto the declaration of dogmas, as the 
 " trinity, incarnation, etc., all of which were unknown to Jesus 
 " and the apostles. In the primitive church they baptized 
 " adults, who comprehended what they were doing. In our 
 " days we baptize children, who comprehend nothing, and the 
 " parents take the charge to think for them and to cite dogmas 
 " to the child without its knowledge of it. According to the 
 " intention of Jesus, one should be baptized in order to be a 
 " believer in the Messiah, who besides declared himself to have 
 " been sent only to the Jews, and not at all in order to abol- 
 " ish the laws of Moses, but on the contrary to make them 
 " observed in all their details. Jn one word, one should be 
 " baptized to become a real Jew, scrupulously accomplishing 
 " the laws of Judaism, while in our day we baptize a Jew 
 " for his abandonment of Judaism, his abolishing all the laws 
 " of Moses, living and teaching entirely the contrary of what 
 " Jesus had taught." 
 
 These are his ideas about the Lord's Supper : 
 
 " The pretension is made that the institution of the Lord's 
 
 " Supper, as a new ceremonial, implies the abolition of the 
 
 " whole of the laws of Moses and the abandonment of Juda- 
 
 " ism; but this Lord's Supper, instead of constituting anything
 
 — 59 — 
 
 " new, is nothing but the customary ceremonial of the Jews 
 " during the feast of Easter night, and it is nowhere stated 
 " that Jesus had changed or omitted anything customary with 
 " the Jews at that feast. 
 
 " The law of Moses ordained to eat the Easter lamb, the un- 
 " leavened bread, and bitter herbs, in remembrance of the exodus 
 " from Egypt. Other customs of the celebration of Easter 
 " have bee% introduced at a later time. From the time of 
 " Jesus, the established custom among the Jews demanded that 
 " the father or the head of the family should drink some wine, 
 " sing hymns, and break the bread in order to distribute pieces 
 " of it among the partakers of the meal; at^the same time did 
 " he recite the traditional formula: Keha lahavia ania di- 
 " akalanu ahothemt hearea demizraim — ' This is the bread of 
 " misery which our ancestors have eaten in the land of Egypt.' 
 " The law of Moses did not forbid the Jews to establish other 
 " customs which they might see fit in remembrance of the suf- 
 " ferings in Egypt, and Jesus took advantage of that freedom. 
 " Thus, taking the cup of wine, in remembrance of the suffer- 
 " ings in Egypt, he took advantage of it, recommending his 
 " disciples the recollection of his death, saying : ' This is my 
 " blood, which is shed for many' (Mark, xiv, 24). As the 
 " chief of the family, it belonged to his duties to break the 
 " bread in order to distribute it among the guests, exactly ac- 
 " cording to the custom of the Jews, as a commemoration of 
 " the sufierings of their ancestoi-s, in citing the foi-nnila: ^ This 
 " is the bread of misery which our ancestors have eaten in 
 " Egypf ; and this again he took advantage of, by establishing 
 " at the same time a remembrance of his sufferings; saying to 
 " his disciples: ' This is my body which is given unto you; this 
 " do in remembrance of me' (Luke, xxii, 19). Jesus then 
 " thought much of it, that the faitliful should celebrate every 
 " year the Jewish Easter, in order to remember all the events 
 " which had taken place during that feast, and also think of the 
 " death of the Master; because he was well aware that the 
 " death of a great man or of a friend is the surest to celebrate 
 " through an anniversaiy. He has not said, at the future, 
 " always and everywhere, every piece of bread and every drop 
 " of wine should serve as a solemn remembrance of his passion.
 
 — 60 — 
 
 " and still less that they should be transformed into his body 
 " and into his blood." > 
 
 § 13. 
 
 After having settled that Jesus never intended to change or 
 reform the dogmas or ceremonials of Judaism, and that he and 
 his apostles remained perfect Jews up to his death, it remains 
 for us to speak of the Messiah, and of his kingdoi^ of heaven, 
 which should be the end of all of his actions. 
 
 The Messiah Avas in the view of the Jews a king anointed 
 with sacred oil, because that unction was that which in our 
 days is coronation, in a manner that Messiah signifies in Hebrew 
 a coronated king. The word Messiah is therefore a pure 
 political qualification, Tvdth nothing religious at all about it. 
 Not only Saul, David, Solomon, and all Israelitish kings, being 
 anointed with the sacred oil, have been Messiahs, but even a 
 pagan king, anointed with that oil, was likewise a Messiah. 
 
 In this way Isaiah, the greatest prophet after Moses, the 
 same whose prophecies are always invoked in support of 
 christian doctrines, gives to Cyinis, a pagan king, the name of 
 Messiah of Jehovah, because it is Jehovah who establishes and 
 destroys the dynasties of all the nations. " Thus said the 
 " Lord to his anointed, to Cyras, whose right hand I have 
 " holden to subdue nations before him" (Isaiah, XLV, 1). 
 
 The kingdom of heaven, or kingdom of God, was to the Jews 
 a kingdom governed by diAdne laws of justice and morals. 
 The prophets have foretold that the future kingdom will be a 
 kingdom of God par excellence, because it will be governed 
 even with more justice than those of David and Solomon ; and 
 that it will be more powerful and glorious, since monotheism, 
 the basis of the JeAvish kingdom, will henceforth be acknowl- 
 edged by all the nations of the earth. These gi*eat men were 
 convinced that the Jewish principles, the monotheism and the 
 moral laws of Moses, would in the end be acknowledged by all 
 the peoples of the universe. From theii- point of view, and 
 in the circumstances by which they were surrounded, they very 
 naturally concluded that the people of Israel would increase in 
 the same measure as its principles should propagate. It is in 
 this way that, in the prophets, propagation of monotheism
 
 — Gl- 
 and greatness of the nation are always confounded. It is the 
 same as, in our days, all statesmen predict so much more ]wwer 
 and glory for their country as the principles of their govern- 
 ment become more spread in the world. 
 
 We never speak of the greatness of France without fore- 
 telling the triumph of civilization. We find but few passages 
 in the prophets wherein they speak of the future greatness of 
 Israel witht&ut speaking at the same time of the propagation of 
 monotheism. In all the passages, they consider these two great 
 issues strongly allied, the one to the other. And they were 
 perfectly right. Even in our days, in the same proportion as 
 monotheism spreads, Israel is elevated. Certain details of 
 their prophecies will never be accomplished; the unexpected 
 events after the death of the prophets have rendered their 
 realization impossible. Thus there will never be an offspring 
 of David on the throne of" Jerusalem, because already, since 
 the time of Jesus, the dynasty of that king does not exist any 
 more. Moreover, the Jews attached little importance to dynas- 
 tic questions. About two centuries even before Jesus, the 
 Jews had kings of the ancestry of the Maccabees, instead of 
 looking for them among the descendants of David. At that 
 epoch the Jews said : " We hope that God, as he has promised 
 " it in the Bjble, will have compassion on us and will gather 
 " into his holy place all those of us under heaven " (II Macca- 
 bees, II, 17, 18). They do not mention David, because at that 
 time his dynasty had already disappeared. 
 
 The author of Ecclesiastes offers a long prayer, and says : 
 " Reassemble all the tribes of Jacob," but he does not speak 
 of David. Tobias speaks also of the future greatness of the 
 people of Israel and of Jerusalem, but does not say a word of 
 the dynasty of David; though at his time that dynasty "^as 
 still upon the throne. Later, he foretells the destruction of 
 Jerusalem, and afterward the re-establishment of the govern- 
 ment of Israel, and says nothing of the dynasty of David, 
 though always invoking the promises of the prophets. One 
 might say that Tobias was republican, because he never alludes 
 to royalty. About a century after Jesus, the valiant Bar 
 Kochba, who was in no manner of royal descent, was accepted 
 by the Jews as the Messiah. But what is more x-emarkable
 
 — 62 — 
 
 still, are the expressions of the ancient kings of the dynasty of 
 David. " Jechonias, with the chiefs and those of the royal 
 " blood, the elders and all the people," had sent a writing to 
 Baruch, the disciple of Jeremiah, addressed to the Jews of 
 Jerusalem, wherein they extensively speak of the promises of 
 his master and other prophets concerning the future of the 
 nation, without mentioning at all a Messiah of the descent of 
 David (Baruch, ii, 31-35; v, 21-37; and iv, 1-9). Still, at 
 the time when the descendants of David were yet on the throne, 
 and when the fate of that dynasty was still confounded with 
 that of the people of Israel, it was only natural that the 
 prophets of that time predicted the future gi'eatness of that 
 line; it is not their fault that this detail, of the whole, has 
 not been fulfilled, but the basis of their prophecy will always 
 remain true. 
 
 After the exile of Babylon and the oppression of the people 
 under the yoke of the foreigner, the Jews did not hope for 
 anything but for a Messiah or anointed one. That meant a 
 powerful king, who would procure for them their independence. 
 And it is also this expectation of which Jesus and the apostles 
 spoke to them, promising them the prompt realization thereof. 
 The announcement of the approach of this happy event, all 
 terrestrial and political, was called " the gospel," a Greek ex- 
 pression, meaning "the good news." Consequently, "preaching 
 " the gospel," meant simply announcing the good news that 
 the Messiah, meaning the king, would soon appear, affranchising 
 the Jews from the yoke of the Romans and founding a king- 
 dom of heaven, or a kingdom of God ; that is to say, a king- 
 dom governed by the divine laws of justice and good morals. 
 
 § H. 
 
 The gospel, or the good news, contained therefore a purely 
 political innovation, and was not at all religious. It is true, 
 St. John narrates that in consequence of the multiplication of 
 the breads they were going to make him king, "but Jesus de- 
 parted into a mountain himself alone" (St. John, vi, 15). 
 But that was because he had not been prepared yet. Later, 
 when he believed that his time had arrived, he accepted the 
 royal honors, the object of all his public actions. It was there-
 
 — 63— • 
 
 fore that Jesus said unto the apostles, " Go not into the way 
 " of the gentiles, and into any city of tlie Samaritans enter ye 
 " not. But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, 
 " And as you go, preach, saying. The kingdom of heaven is at 
 " hand " (John, x, 5-7). 
 
 When Jesus sent his apostles into the Jewish cities, he said to them, 
 " And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye 
 " depart out of that house, or city, shake off the dust of your feet. 
 ' ' Verily, I say unto you, it shall be more tolerable for the land of 
 " Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment than for that city " 
 (Matt., X, 14, 15). "And whosoever will not receive you, when you 
 " go out of that city, shake off the very dust from your feet for a 
 "testimony against them" (Luke, ix, 5). "That it shall be more 
 " tolerable for Sodom than for that city " (Luke, x, 12). St. Mark 
 tells the same thing: " And whosoever shall not receive you or hear 
 " you, when ye depart thence, shake off the dust under your feet for 
 " a testimony against them. Verily I say unto you, it shall be more 
 " tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment than for 
 " that city" (Mark, vi, 11). He curses all the Jews who would neither 
 hear him nor be charitable to his apostles. But he never acted in that 
 way with the Samaritans. "And it came to pass when the time was 
 " come that he should be received up, he steadfastly set his face to go 
 " up to Jerusalem, and sent messengers before his face, and they went 
 " and entered into a village of the Samaritans to make ready for him. 
 "And they did not receive him, because his face was as though he 
 " would go to Jerusalem. And when his disciples James and John 
 " saw this, they said, Lord, wilt thou that we command fire to come 
 "down from heaven and consume them, even as Elias did? But he 
 " turned and rebuked them, and said: Ye know not what manner of 
 " spirit ye are of. For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's 
 " lives, but to save them. And they went to another village" (Luke, 
 IX, 51-56). Though at another time he wanted to be acknowledged 
 by the Samaritans also, because they had the same faith and the same 
 sympathies as the Jews, only that he there failed. The Samaritan 
 woman said: "I know that Messiah cometh " (St. John, iv, 25). For 
 Jesus himself prophesied that a prophet had no honor in his own 
 country. It appears that he had abandoned them. 
 
 He selected twelve apostles for the twelve tribes of Israel, 
 and not a single one for the gentiles. In order to make him- 
 self popular he made himself more of a Jew than the Jews. 
 While the Jews healed all the pagan sick, imitating the 
 prophet Elisha, who healed the pagan Naaman (II Kings, v, 
 10), Jesus, to the woman of Canaan, who cried unto him, say-
 
 . — 64 — 
 
 ing, " Lord, help me!" answered and said, " I am not sent but 
 " unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel. It is not meet 
 " to take the children's bread and cast it to dogs" (Matt., 
 XV, 24-26). 
 
 He considered, then, all people except the children of Israel 
 as dogs. He said the same to a Greek woman (Mark vii, 24). 
 It is as if he were more catholic than the pope and more royal- 
 ist than the king. We may well say that he never missed an 
 o^jportunity to show his exaggerated national self-love and his 
 estrangement from all other people of the world. Thus he said 
 to his disciples : " If thy brother shall trespass against thee, tell 
 " it unto the church ; but if he neglects to hear the church, let 
 " him be unto thee as a heathen man and a publican" (Matt., 
 xviii, 17). The same sentiment is manifested in the celebrated 
 Sermon on the Mount, in which he says: " But when you pray, 
 use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do, for they think that 
 they shall be heard for much speaking" (Matt., vi, 7). He 
 adds, in the same sermon, that his disciples should not take 
 care for their subsistence: " For all these do the gentiles seek ; 
 " for your heavenly Father knoweth what things you have 
 " need of, before you ask him. But seek ye first the kingdom 
 " of God and his righteousness, and all these things shall be 
 ''added unto you" (Matt., vi, 32, 33; Luke, xii, 30). "If 
 " you salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others. 
 " Do not the publicans the same?" (Matt., v, 47.) " Give not 
 " what is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls be- 
 " fore the swine, lest they tramjile them under their feet and 
 " turn again and rend you" (Matt., vii, 6). It has been shown 
 in the instance of the Canaanite woman who they are who are 
 designated " dogs." He said likewise to his twelve apostles: 
 " Ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve 
 " tribes of Israel" (Matt., xix, 28). There is not a single judge 
 for the gentiles. 
 
 After St. Luke, he said to the apostles: "And I appoint 
 " unto you a kingdom, as my Father has appointed unto me; 
 " that ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit 
 " on thi'ones judging the twelve tribes of Israel " (Luke xxii, 
 29, 30). He said of a Jew by the name of Zaccheus : " This
 
 — 65 — 
 
 " day is salvation come into this hotise, forasmucli as lie is 
 " also a son of Abi-aham " (Luke xix, 9). 
 
 He healed one of the house of the pagan centurion, but the 
 Jews were obliged to ask him urgently to do it (Luke, vil, 
 4-6). The Pharisees on the contrary admitted that the just 
 gentiles would enter into paradise (Traite Si/hedr., chap, xi), 
 and that the seventy sacrifices of the feast of tabernacles, of- 
 fered every year in the temple, are instituted for the salvation 
 of all the pagan nations (Tract. Soukkah, chap. v). As Solomon 
 has pronounced it in his solemn pi-ayer to God : " Moreover, 
 " concerning a stranger that is not of thy people Israel, but 
 " cometh out of a far country for thy name's sake, when he 
 " shall come and pray towai'd this house, do all that the 
 " stranger calleth to thee for" (I Kings, viii, 41-43). From 
 the time of the Maccabees, the Jews made sacrifices and prayers 
 for the Lacedaemonian pagan, according to what is due to the 
 propriety toward brethren (I Mace, xii, 11). We read in 
 the Wisdom of Solomon, that the pagan nations of the world, 
 if they are just, participate in the blessings of a future world. 
 " The fii-st priest ofiered for the salvation of the pagan Heliodore 
 "an oblation" (II Mace. lii, 32). " Jechonias, the prima- 
 " cies, and those of the royal blood, exiled to Babylon, wrote 
 " to Jerusalem that sacrifices should be made for Nebuchodono- 
 " sor" (Baruch, I, 11). 
 
 All the apostles expected an entirely tei'restrial kingdom of 
 Israel. It is for that reason, that the mother of the sons of 
 Zebedee said to Jesus : " Grant that these my two sons may 
 " sit, tlie one on thy right hand and the other on the left, in thy 
 " kingdom. For by the way, they had disputed amongst 
 " themselves who should be the greatest " (Mark, ix, 34 ; Luke, 
 XI, 46 ; XXII, 24). According to St. Mark, John and James 
 said to Jesus : " Grant unto us that we may sit, one on thy 
 " right hand and the other on thy left hand, in thy glory " 
 (Mark, x, 37). 
 
 The numerous prophecies of the New Testament incline all 
 to one purely political and national object ; and these proph- 
 ecies are of high importance, because they are written after 
 the Acts. The angel said to Joseph "Jesus shall save bis
 
 — 66 — 
 
 " people [Israel] from their sins" (Matt., i, 21), and then he will 
 give them their independence. 
 
 The Magians asked : " Where i^ the King of the Jews who 
 " has been born ] "When Herod, the King, heard these things 
 " he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him. And when 
 " he had gathered all the chief priests and scribes of the people 
 '' together, he demanded of them where Christ should be born. 
 " And they s^id unto him. In Bethlehem of Judea, for thus it 
 " is written by the prophet : And thou, Bethlehem, the land 
 " of Judea .... for out of thee shall come a govei'nor 
 
 " that shall rule my people Israel and Herod slew 
 
 " all the children that were in Bethlehem" (Matt., ii, 2-6, 16), 
 in order to save his throne. The Christ should then dethrone 
 Herod in order to become King of Israel, " notwithstanding 
 " Joseph being warned of God in a dream that Archelaus did 
 " reign in Judea in the room of his father, who wanted to kill 
 " Jesus " (Matt., li, 22). 
 
 All the prophets and angels mentioned in Luke speak in the 
 same way of the people of Israel. The angel said to Zacharias, 
 " that his son John the Baptist would make come back 
 " many Israelites to their God, in order to prepare the people. 
 " And he shall go before in the spirit and power of Elias in 
 " order to prepare the people" (Luke, i, 16, 17). The angel 
 said to Mary : " God will give him [thy son] the throne of 
 " David, and he shall reign over the house of Jacob foi'ever" 
 (Luke, I, 32, 33). The Holy Virgin Mary prophesied, saying : 
 " God, giving me Jesus, dethroned the mighty ones [Rome], and 
 " exalted them of low degree ; he hath holpen his servant 
 " Israel in remembrance of his mercy, as he spoke to our 
 " fathers and to his seed forever " (Luke, i, 52-55). "And his 
 " father Zacharias was filled with the holy ghost, and pi'ophe- 
 " sied, saying : Blessed be the Lord God of Israel ; for he has 
 " visited and redeemed his peo})le, and has raised up a horn of 
 " salvation for us in the house of his servant David ; as he 
 ** spake by the mouth of his holy prophets, that we should be 
 " delivered from our enemies, and from the hand of all that 
 " hate us," etc. (Luke, i, 57, 71). The holy ghost did not pro- 
 nounce the name of Rome, in order not to compromise him- 
 self in the presence of the Roman garrison. The same holy
 
 — 67 — 
 
 ghost goes in the same way to gain Simeon in favor of the na- 
 tional revohition. " Simeon was just and devout, waiting for 
 *' the consoh^tion of Isi-ael, and the holy ghost was upon him, 
 " And he came by the spirit into the temple, and said : Lord, 
 " thou hast prepai-ed .... a light to lighten the gen- 
 " tiles and the glory of thy people Israel" (Luke, ii, 25-32). 
 That is to say, the power of the Jews and consequently the 
 spread of monotheism ; because these two events were always 
 considered by the prophets as allied together. Thus, the angel, 
 who does not speak much, confines himself to saying to the 
 shepherds : " Fear not, I bi-ing you good tidings of great joy. 
 " For unto you is born this day the Savior " (Luke, ii, 10, 11). 
 He does not speak of the light which shall enlighten the nations, 
 because that was considered the necessary sequel of the great- 
 ness of the nation, and it was superfluous to speak of it. 
 
 "Anne the prophetess had lived with her husband seventy years 
 " since her virginity ; she was a widow of about four-score and 
 " four years. She gave thanks likewise unto the Lord, and 
 " spake of him to all them that looked for redemption in Jeru- 
 " salem" (Luke li, 36-38). Thus the old prophetess spoke to 
 everybody of nothing else but the deliverance of Israel; for 
 there was nothing else at the time to speak of. The perverse 
 prophecies which Jesus pronounced before his death, relate to 
 the Jews. We might cite biblical passages, with some varia- 
 tions in form, transcribed into the New Testament. Jeremiah, 
 gi'eat patriot as he was, after having predicted all that the 
 Jews should have to suffer by Nebuchodonosor, finishes by say- 
 ing, that Babylon shall be punished when its time comes. 
 Jesus also manifests his Jewish and patriotic sentiments, when, 
 he says, after the example of Jeremiah: "And Jerusalem shall 
 " be trodden down of the gentiles, until the times of the gen- 
 " tiles be fulfilled " (Luke, xxi, 24). Then the gentiles shall be 
 punished on their part for all the evils they had committed 
 upon the Jews. The pi-ophecies of the New Testament ai-e 
 as national as the prophecies of the Bible and Moses. But 
 there is still some difierence between them. 
 
 Thus, Moses, the founder of Jewish nationality, has believed 
 himself, it is true, to be obliged to pronounce terrible maledic- 
 tions against his people if it should become faithless ; he speaks
 
 — 68 — 
 
 of epidemical maladies, of evils inflicted on tlie nation by ene- 
 mies, and even by nature, as dryness, famine, etc. ; but lie does 
 not predict the perversion of all morality, as brutishness, trea- 
 son, and parripide. The passages of Deuteronomy, (liii, 55, 57,) 
 relate to little childi^en starving ; it has not been said that they 
 will be killed. Jesus is the only one and the first who predicts 
 " that several will betray one another and hate one another," 
 . . . . "the abomination of desolation" (Matt., XXIV, 10-15). 
 " A brother will deliver up his brother to death, and the father 
 " the son, and children shall rise up against their parents and 
 " shall accuse them to be put to death. When you shall see 
 " the abomination which causes the desolation, it will be such 
 
 " an afiliction And except that the Lord had 
 
 " shortened those days, no flesh would be saved; but for the 
 " elect's sake, whom he has chosen, he has shortened the days. 
 " . . . . And the stars of heaven shall fall, and the powers 
 " that are in heaven shall be shaken" (Mark, xiii, 12-14, 
 20-25). " And ye shall be betrayed both by parents and 
 " brethren, and kinsfolk and friends, and some of you shall 
 " they cause to be put to death" (Luke, xxi, 16). "And the 
 " brother shall deliver up the brother to death, and the father 
 " the child, and the children shall rise up against their parents 
 " and cause them to be put to death" (Matt., x, 21). These 
 are passages which have not any analogue in the books of 
 Moses. But besides this diflerence, the prophecies of Jesus 
 relate to the people of Israel, ^s those of the Bible. 
 
 Finally, everybody and even the disciples of Jesus thought 
 of nothing but a political deliverance of Israel. " Jesus saw 
 " Nathaniel coming to Mm, and said of him: Behold an Isra- 
 " elite indeed, in whom is no guile. Nathaniel said unto him : 
 " Rabbi, thou art the Son of God" (John, i, 47-49). "Much 
 " people were come to the feast; took branches of palm-trees 
 " and went forth to meet him, and cried, Hosannah ! blessed is 
 " the King of Israel. And when he found a young ass, he sat 
 " thereon; as it is written. Fear not, daughter of Zion, behold 
 " thy king coraeth" (John, xii, 12-15). Pilate was at last 
 con\TJiced that Jesus was going to make himself king. " Pi- 
 " late said to the Jews: Behold your king" (John, xix, 14). 
 " And Pilate wrote a title and put it on the cross, and the
 
 — 69 — 
 
 " writing was: Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews; it 
 " was written in Hebrew, in Greek, and in Latin. Then said 
 " the chief priests of the Jews : Write not the King of the Jews. 
 " . . . . Pilate answered : What I have written I have 
 " written" (John, xix, 19-22). The apostles themselves, after 
 the death of Jesus, cried and said: "But we trusted that it 
 " had been he which should have redeemed Israel" (Luke, xxiv, 
 21). Tliis is a very important avowal, as it shows irreftitably 
 that, till the death of Jesus, everybody was convinced that he 
 intended nothing else but re-establishing a kingdom of the Jews, 
 entirely political and terrestrial. 
 
 § 15. 
 
 It is, therefore, only after the death of Jesus that the apos- 
 tles abandoned the views and the doctrines of the Master, in 
 order to adopt the necessity of the passion and the second ap- 
 pearance. For that reason, they wrote the gospel a long time 
 after the death of Jesus, and after they had conceived their 
 new doctrine; and they have effaced as much as possible of the 
 history which might confirm the reader in the primitive idea, 
 while they took care to put in as much as possible what should 
 conciliate with the new plan. Still, they have left a sufficiency 
 of traces, which clearly demonstrate the political object of Je- 
 sus. If they had committed the gospel to writing before the 
 death of the Master, at the time when they still were in hope 
 of his terrestrial power, the persevering object of Jesus to be- 
 come king of the Jews woiild have been more plainly seen. It 
 is obvious that in following his political career, he has done a 
 great many other things which the evangelists pass in silence. 
 On the other hand, it is impossible that Jesiis predicted his 
 resurrection. Matthew relates, it is true, that on the Sabbath 
 day " the chief priests and Pharisees came together unto Pi- 
 " late, and said : We recollect when Jesus was alive he said, 
 " I shall resuscitate after three days. Order, then, that the 
 " sepulcher be guarded for three days, lest his disciples may 
 " come during the night and carry away his corpse and say to 
 " the people he is risen from the dead. Pilate said unto them, 
 " Ye have a watch, go ye away and make it as sure as ye can.
 
 — 70 — 
 
 " So they went and made the sepulcher sure, sealing the stone 
 " and setting a watch " (Matt., xxvir, 62-66). 
 
 But if this story wei-e authentic, it is not to be compre- 
 hended how the disciples of Jesus could have been able to go 
 there freely ; how women "came to the sepulcher and said 
 " among themselves : Who shall roll away the stone from the 
 *' door of the sepulcher"] (Mark, xvi, 2, 1). They do not ask 
 themselves how they might enter in spite of the Roman soldiers. 
 If the supreme authority of the nation had gone out of the 
 city on the holy Sabbath, and in great procession, escorted by 
 soldiers, all the inhabitants would have known it ; still, the 
 women and St. Peter himself acted as if they knew not at all 
 that the sepulcher was guarded. Lastly, if Jesus had really 
 predicted his resurrection, and had acted accordingly, even his 
 advei'saries must have known of that prediction ; it is not to be 
 comprehended how his disciples, his intimate friends, knew 
 nothing of it. " Mary Magdalen, that had been with him, that 
 ' had mourned and wept, told them. And they, when they 
 ' heard that he was alive, and had been seen of her, believed 
 ' not. After that he appeared in another form unto two of 
 ' them. And they went and told it unto the residue ; neither 
 'believed they them" (Mark, xvi, 10-13). "It was Mary 
 ' Magdalen, and Jeanne, and Mary the mother of James, and 
 ' other women that were with them, which told these things 
 
 * [resuiTection] unto the apostles, and their words seemed to 
 ' them as idle tales, and they beliered them not " (Luke, xxvi, 
 
 10, 11). "Jesus himself stood in the midst of the apostles. 
 ' But they were terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they 
 ' had seen a spirit. And he said unto them : "Why are you 
 ' troubled, and why do thoughts arise in your heads 1 Behold 
 
 * my hands and ray feet ; handle me and see, for a spirit has 
 ' not flesh or bones as ye see me have. But as they believed 
 ' not yet, he said unto them. Have ye here any meat ] And 
 ' they gave him a piece of broiled fish and a honeycomb. And 
 ' he took it and did eat before them " (Luke, xxvi, 37-43). 
 
 If Jesus had not eaten after his resurrection, the apostles would 
 not have believed it. " Thomas, one of the twelve, called 
 " Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came ; he said unto 
 " them : Except I shall see in his hands the prints of the nails
 
 71 — 
 
 and put my finger into the prints of the nails, I will not be- 
 " Ueve " (John, xx, 24, 25). 
 
 § 16. 
 Still, there is no doubt that Jesus had foreseen all the suf- 
 ferings which he had to undergo in case of failure. The pre- 
 diction of the resurrection was only later interpolated. More 
 than that, he not only foresaw his sufferings, but he spoke 
 very often to his disciples of it, to make them acquainted with 
 the danger of the work, in order that they might prepare them- 
 selves and do their best in surmounting all obstacles and defy- 
 ing all perils. This is what we clearly see if we examine all 
 the passages wherein Jesus pi-edicts his passion. Right here 
 let us make a remark of particular importance. We know that 
 the apostles often importuned Jesus, and demanded of him 
 places of honor — to be seated at his right or left hand when he 
 should have mounted the throne — or other formal promises, in 
 exchange for their services and sacrifices. Now, they never 
 made these demands at random ; there was always an cccasion 
 to justify them. Of what character was such an occasion 1 It 
 was always the inauspicious prediction of Jesus that he was 
 going to suffer. 
 
 Still, in a single instance it was an extraordinary exigency of Jesus, 
 when he said to a man eminent in learning, virtues and position : "If 
 
 * thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast and give it to the 
 ' poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven; and come and follow 
 ' me. But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sor- 
 ' rowful, for he had great possessions. Then said Jesus unto his dis- 
 ' ciples. Verily I say unto you, that a rich man shall hardly enter into 
 ' the kingdom of heaven; and again I say unto you, it is easier for a camel 
 ' to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter into the 
 ' kingdom of God. When his disciples heard it they were exceedingly 
 ' amazed, saying. Who, then, can be saved ? But Jesus beheld them, 
 ' and said unto them, With men this is impossible, but with God all 
 ' things are possible. Then answered Peter and said unto him, Be- 
 ' hold, we have forsaken all and followed thee; what shall we have 
 ' therefor ? And Jesus said unto him. Verily I say unto you, that ye 
 ' which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man 
 ' shall sit on the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve 
 
 * thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel, and every one that has 
 
 * forsaken houses shall receive an hundred fold " (Matt., xix, 21-29; 
 Mark, x, 21-30; Luke, xviii, 21-30). We can easily understand the
 
 — 72 — 
 
 exigency of the Master, justifying the demands of his servants who 
 wanted fixed the recompenses which they should receive far their 
 services. 
 
 The result of these predictions was no prophecy, but a means 
 to prepai-e the disciples for the dangers which they might en- 
 counter. 
 
 Here are all the passages of the four evangelists which con- 
 tain the prediction of the passion: 
 
 " Jesus commenced to declare that he must go to Jerusalem, 
 
 " and suffer many things Then said Jesus to his 
 
 " disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny him- 
 
 " self and take up his cross and follow me "Ver- 
 
 " ily I say unto you : There be some standing here which shall 
 " not taste of death till they see the Son of man coming in his 
 "kingdom" (Matt., xvi, 21-24 and 28; Mark, viii, 31-34, 
 and IX, 1 ; Luke, ix, 22-27). 
 
 Thus these three evangelists, called synoptics (because they 
 give a veritable history of Jesus abridged, which cannot be said 
 of St. John), agree that the sinister prediction had been fol- 
 lowed by an impassioned appeal to sacrifice everything in order 
 to succor him in his dangerous work, with the certain pi'omise 
 that his disciples shall receive the reward before their death. 
 Even in St. John we find the prediction of the passion followed 
 by the same appeal to the devotion of the disciples. A.t 
 another time Jesus said: " Behold we go up to Jerusalem, and 
 " the Son of man shall be betrayed, .... and they shall 
 
 " condemn him to death Then came to him the 
 
 " mother of Zebedee's children, and said: Grant that these my 
 " two sons may sit, the one on thy right hand, the other on thy 
 " left, in thy kingdom" (Matt., xx, 18-21). Here, then, is the 
 prediction of the passion, which is an opportunity for the apos- 
 tles, sons of Zebedee, to ask in advance' the i-eward for the part 
 which they take in this dangerous work. Again : " Jesus said 
 " to them [his disciples] : The Son of man will be betrayed into 
 " the hands of men, and they shall kill him. And then they 
 " were come to Capernaum, and they [the disciples] disputed 
 " which one of them will be the greatest" (Mark, ix, 31-34; 
 Luke, IX, 44-46). Once, on the contrary, it was the ambition 
 of the apostles wliicli was followed by the prediction of the
 
 — 73 — 
 
 passion, " but they did not understand what he said to them '' 
 (Luke, XVIII, 28-34). 
 
 The prediction of Jesus that he would be betrayed was like- 
 wise followed by a contest among them (the apostles) in order 
 to decide who " would be considered as the greatest" (Luke, xxii, 
 24-). After St. Matthew, this prediction was followed by a 
 protest of all the apostles of their fidelity in every respect : 
 " Peter said unto him, Though I should die with thee, yet will 
 " I not deny thee " (Matt., xxvi, 35). It was this protest 
 which he wanted to obtain, and which gave him the necessary 
 courage. St. Luke tells this part in the following manner : 
 Jesus said at first that they were going to betray him, because 
 he had not much confidence in the faithfulness of the apostles, 
 because at that occasion he said : " Simon, Simon, behold ! 
 " Satan hath desired to have thee, that he may sift thee like 
 ** wheat ; but I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not, 
 "and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren" 
 (Luke, XXII, 31, 32). All the apostles, not alone Judas, needed 
 to be strengthened in their faithfulness, and St. Peter himself 
 slipped, being tempted by the devil. Having heard the sinister 
 foresight of the Master and his fear of being betrayed, they 
 believed that the opportunity was not unfavorable to obtain 
 promises, and they commenced discussing which among them 
 should be the greatest (Luke, xxii, 24). Jesus, indeed, then 
 tried to gain them by all possible means, and shows them at 
 first an extreme humility. Is he not the Master? and still, " I 
 " am among you as he that serveth " (Luke, xxii, 27). He 
 made them besides magnificent promises, offering them with 
 perfect gracefulness a reward which they had well merited for 
 their remarkable services, and said to them : " You are they, 
 " which have continued with me in my temptations, that ye 
 " may eat and drink at hiy table in my kingdom, and sit on 
 " thrones judging the twelve tribes of Isi-ael." Lastly, he re- 
 calls the benefits which they owe him, asking them : " When I 
 " have sent you without purse and without shoes [in order to 
 " travel in all the cities of the Jews] have you been in need of 
 " anything 1 And they answered : Of nothing " (Luke, xxii, 
 35); because the Pharisees had indeed everywhere received 
 Jesus and the apostles with a hospitality which left nothing 
 6
 
 — 74 — 
 
 more to desire. Thus, aftei* having employed all these means 
 in order to gain them, Jesus said to them : " But now he that 
 " hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip ; and he 
 " that hath no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one " 
 (Luke, XXII, 36), 
 
 The verse, Luke, xxii, 37, is evidently interpolated. How, indeed, 
 admit that Jesus wanted arms, ' ' because the word which is written 
 " must be accomplished " ? How was it necessary for him to procure 
 sabers for his disciples, in order to let himself be crucified ? 
 
 We Bee, then, it was no suspicion of being betrayed ; neither 
 was it a certainty; because he tried to gain the apostles, and 
 engage them to procure arms. During the night when Jesus 
 was arrested in order to be condemned, " there came to him a 
 " woman having an alabaster box of very precious ointment 
 " and poured it on his head, as he sat at meat. Jesus said 
 " For in that she had poured this ointment on my body, she did 
 " it for my burial" (Matt., xxvi, 9-12). 
 
 This prediction had not any effect upon the disciples. Be- 
 sides, it was pronounced at the same time when Jesus s; oke of 
 betrayal, and had consequently the same motives. It is the 
 same with that mentioned in Matt., xvi, 2. 
 
 At the occasion of the transfiguration of Jesus, we find again 
 this prediction of the death of* Jesus (Matt., xvii, 9-12 ; Mark, 
 IX, 9-12; Luke, ix, 31). " But the apostles were overwhelmed 
 " with sleep, and Peter said. Let us make three tents, one for 
 " Moses, one for thee, and one for Elias ; because they knew 
 " not what they said " (Mark, ix, 6 ; Luke, ix, 32-33). We 
 have therefore nothing to do with that prediction. 
 
 We find also in St. Luke three other passages which inclose 
 this prophecy; the one wherein he had it said to Herod : ** Go 
 " ye and tell that fox, Behold, I cast out devils, and I do cures 
 " to-day and to-morrow, and the third day I shall be perfect- 
 " ed" (Luke, xiii, 32). This is a passage which cannot be rec- 
 onciled to history, and the sense of which is diflicult to com- 
 prehend. We have nothing to do any more with passages 
 (Luke, xvii, 25, and xxi) wherein are to be found sinister proph- 
 ecies for all nations, which never will be accomplished, at least 
 if we should not apply them to the times of Attila and the 
 crusaders.
 
 — 75 — 
 
 Once he compares himself to Jonas, and says " that he will 
 " be three days and thi-ee nights in the grave " (Matt., xii, 40). 
 But he was only two nights in the gi-ave, consequently this 
 passage is interpolated by an ignorant copyist. 
 
 As to St. John, he does not speak of prophecies, but of ora- 
 cles, susceptible of being interpreted in different ways (John, ii, 
 20-21; III, 14-16; vi,70; vii,33; viir, 21; xiii,10,18, 33; xiv, 
 2; XVI, 5-16). 
 
 We see that St. John endeavors to repeat as copiously as 
 possible this prophecy of the death of Jesus. He went still 
 farther. He did not confine himself, like the other evangelists, 
 to the predictions of Jesus, but he made also Caiaphas predict 
 the same thing, and he found a very plausible reason in an- 
 swering those who inteiTogated, How the enemy of Jesus could 
 have received the gift of prophecy? Because, St. John re- 
 marked, he was high priest that year, and prophesied that Jesus 
 should die for the nation (John, xi, 51). 
 
 That which should particularly be considered as worthy 
 of remark, in perusing the passages in which Jesus predicts 
 his passion, is that we peruse always at the same time those 
 passages in which the apostles demand, and very often ob- 
 tain, rewards for their participation in this dangerous work, in 
 proportion to the perils to which they are going to expose them- 
 selves.
 
 SECOND PART. 
 
 §17. 
 
 Let us examine, now, the two different system^ contained in 
 the New Testament, to wit : the one conceived by Jesus, of a 
 sino-le appearance of the Messiah for the political deliverance of 
 the Jews; the other of the sufferings of the Messiah, and of his 
 two appearances — a system which was adopted by the apostles 
 after the first plan had failed through the death of the Master. 
 We have seen that, in spite of all that the evangelists have 
 done to conform the history of Jesus to their new sy.^tem, 
 there have been numerous traces left in the gospels which 
 plainly show the end originally aspired after by the apostles. 
 It was impossible for them to extinguish all these traces, be- 
 cause their original object was* too well known by their con- 
 temporaries, who had seen them at work when that object was 
 notbin'^' but political. So much so, that, in order to accredit 
 the new system, they found themselves obliged to declare that 
 they themselves had been in error ; that Jesus had always had 
 the immutable object in view to die on the cross, but they them- 
 selves had misapprehended the sayings of the Master. They 
 accused themselves of ignorance, in order not to confess the 
 error or the failure of Jesus ; though, if the expressions which 
 he uttered at his second appearance, when seen upon the clouds 
 of heaven, may indeed be obscure and difficult to understand, 
 those which concern his political kingdom are so perfectly clear 
 that even the blind may be fascinated by it, as we have proved 
 already, and as we shall continue to show further on. 
 
 § 18. 
 
 John the Baptist, the cousin and foi'erunner of Jesus, had 
 the same political object. He made the people understand,
 
 — 77 — 
 
 through expressions somewhat obscure but sufficiently intelli- 
 gible, that it was Jesus who would realize its political deliver- 
 ance. He acted as if Jesus was unknown to him. He said to 
 the people : "I did not know him [Jesus], but God said to me, 
 " Upon whom thou shalt see the spii-it descending and remain- 
 " ing on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the holy 
 " ghost. And I saw, and I bare record that this is the Son of 
 **God" (John, I, 33, 34). Still, Jesus was his cousin, and 
 nearly of the same age as himself. "The angel answered and said 
 " unto Mary, The holy ghost shall come upon thee, and the 
 " power of the highest shall overshadow thee ; therefore, also, 
 " the holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the 
 " Son of God. And here Elizabeth [the mother of John the 
 " Baptist] thy cousin, has also conceived a son, and she [Eliz- 
 " abeth] is at present in the sixth month of her pregnancy. 
 " Then Mary arose and went into the house, and saluted Eliz- 
 " abeth, and as soon as Elizabeth heard the salutation of Mary, 
 " the little child [John the Baptist] leaped in her womb, and 
 " Elizabeth cried out : The mother of my Lord has just visited 
 " me ; for lo ! as soon as the voice of thy salutation sounded in 
 " mine ears, the babe leaped in my womb for joy " (Luke, i, 
 35_44), John the Baptist was, then, the cousin of Jesus, and 
 only six months older than him. His mother was visited by 
 Mary, and Jesus was about thirty years old when he was bap- 
 tized by John (Luke, iii, 23). John's father and mother w-ent 
 every year to Jerusalem. He had numerous op2:)Oi tunities to 
 see his cousin. What is still more important, even during his 
 life as a foetus he had already recognized Jesus the Messiah. 
 Besides, he went often with his family and with Jesus to Jeru- 
 salem at the feasts. How could he, then, say to the people he 
 did not know him ] 
 
 One might answer that he knew him well personally, but 
 that he did not know him as the Messiah. Still, even during his 
 existence as a foetus he knew him as the Messiah. One could 
 take refuge in an ancient creed, according to which, the foetus 
 knows everything that is going on, and nothing is concealed 
 from it; but after being bom, the babe is knocked upon the 
 mouth by an angel, by which he is made to forget everything, 
 and a furrow is left under the nose, right in the middle of the
 
 - —78 — 
 
 upper lip, wliich is plainly visible in all men's faces. But, 
 according to Matthew, St. John knew perfectly well that Jesus 
 was the Messiah, even before he had seen the spirit descending 
 upon him. This is what Matthew has to say about it: 
 
 " Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan, unto John, to 
 " be baptized of him. But Jolm forbade him, saying: I have 
 " need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me ] And 
 " Jesus, answering, said unto him: Suffer it to be so now; for 
 " thus it becometh us to fulfill all righteousness. Then he 
 " suffered him. And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up 
 "straightway out of the water; and lo! the heavens were 
 " opened unto him, and he saw the spirit of God descending like 
 ' a dove, and lighting upon him. And lo! a voice from heav- 
 " en, saying: This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well 
 pleased" (Matt., in, 13-17). All this shows a secret under- 
 standing between the two cousins. John announces that the 
 kingdom of heaven is approaching ; that the Messiah has already 
 arrived, but that he exi^ects a sign from heaven in order to know 
 him. Jesus comes to John in order that the latter should 
 make him known to the people as the Messiah. Both of them 
 glorify one another publicly. " Jesus said that John is a 
 " prophet, and even greater than all the past and future proph- 
 " ets; among those which are born of women, there has not 
 " risen a greater than John the Baptist — this is Elias, which 
 " was to come" (Matt., ix, 11-14). ''John the Baptist, in his 
 "turn, said: As to me, I baptize you with water unto repent- 
 " ance, but he that comes after me is mightier than I — I am 
 "not worthy to bear his shoes" (Matt., lii, 11); "the latchet of 
 " whose shoes I am not worthy to unloose" (Mark, I, 7; Luke, 
 III, 16). "Upon him thou shalt see the spirit descending and 
 "remaining; it is he . . . " (John, i, 33). 
 
 John the Baptist and Jesus have the same language, the 
 same doctrines, and consequently the same end in view. John 
 says ; " Repent ye, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand " 
 (Matt., Ill, 2), Soon Jesus himself commences to preach and 
 to say : " Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand " 
 (Matt., IV, 17.). As soon as he had found partisans, he sent 
 them into all the cities of the Jews. Neither Jesus nor John 
 the Baptist attempted to teach the Jews what they had to ex-
 
 — 79 — 
 
 pect of the Messiah, nor to convince them how erroneous they 
 were if they hoped of him a political delivery. It follows 
 thei'efrom, that John the Baptist and Jesus both conceived the 
 project to prepare the Jews to shake off the yoke of the Ro- 
 mans, and to rouse in them the desire for national independ- 
 ence. " When he entered into Jerusalem, the whole multitude 
 " of the disciples began to pi-aise God. . . . They said, 
 " Blessed be the king. And some of the Pharisees from 
 " amongst the multitude said unto him, Master, rebuke thy 
 " disciples. And he answered, and said unto them : I tell you 
 " if these should hold their peace, the stones would immediately 
 " cry out" (Luke xix, 37-40). Thus he was received by the 
 people with the cry : " Long live the king!" 
 
 Intelligent persons proposed to him to stop such compromis- 
 ing cries, but he preferred to let them go on, instead of taking 
 advantage of the opportunity and giving the people to under- 
 stand that they were mistaken, and that they misunderstood 
 the mission of the Messiah. His answer, " If they keep silent 
 " the stones would cry," could only confirm the Jews in their 
 traditional ideas, and push them the more on the political road. 
 All the evangelists, even John, speak of this *' Live the king," 
 which was called out before Jesus. " Many people took branches 
 " of palm-trees, and went forth to meet him, and cried, Hosanna, 
 " blessed be the king! And Jesus, when he had found a young 
 " ass, sat thereon ; as it is written : Fear not, daughter of Zion, 
 behold, thy king cometh " (John, xir, 12-15). 
 
 § 19. 
 
 Jesus wanted by all means to captivate the people by his 
 miracles. It is true, he forbids often to make them publicly 
 known, but that is solely done in order to draw so much tlie 
 more the attention of the public to them, because it was only 
 the circumstances which made it impossible to keep secret what 
 he prohibited to reveal. " Behold, there came a leper, .... 
 " and Jesus touched him and he was cleansed. And Jesus 
 " said unto him : See thou tell no man ; but go thy way, show 
 " thyself to the priest, and offer the gift that Moses command- 
 ed " (Matt., VIII, 1-4; Luke, v, 12-14). Thus a great multi- 
 tude had assisted the miracle, and the convalescent had to pre-
 
 — 80 — 
 
 sent himself to the priest ; consequently a secret is impossible. 
 " And when Jesus departed thence, two blind men followed 
 " him, crying and saying : Thou son of David, have mercy on 
 
 "us Then touched he their eyes And 
 
 " their eyes were opened; and Jesus straightly charged them, 
 " See that no man know it. But they, when they were de- 
 " parted, spread abroad his fame in all that country" (Matt., 
 IX, 27-31). Jesus has here obtained all he wanted, because 
 the blind men have cried after him, in a manner that many 
 people have heard them; it did not fail, then, that the prohibi- 
 tion had exactly the contrary effect, and that they narrated it 
 to everybody. "A gx-eat multitude followed him [Jesus], and 
 " he healed them all, and charged them that they should not 
 " make it known" (Matt., xii, 15-16). 
 
 " There came a leper to him; he [Jesus] touched him, and 
 •' said unto him : I will, be thou clean, .... and he was 
 " cleansed. And Jesus said unto him : See thou say nothing 
 " to any man. But go thy way and show thyself to the priest. 
 " But he went out and began to publish it mucli, and to blaze 
 " abroad the matter, insomuch that Jesus could no more openly 
 " enter into the city" (Mark, r, 40-45). 
 
 ' "A great multitude of people followed him from Galilee, 
 " Judea, Idumea, and fi'om the Jordan, and from the neighbor- 
 " hood of Tyre and Sidon they came in great numbers ; and he 
 ".healed many of them, but he forbade them strongly to make 
 " it known" (Mark, iii, 7-12). " Jairus besought him urgently, 
 " saying : IVIy little daughter lieth at the point of death ; I 
 
 " pray thee, come And Jesus went with him, 
 
 " and he was followed by a great crowd of people 
 
 " Having arrived at the house, he saw that they were making 
 " a great noise, and people weeping and ciying [they believed 
 
 " that the girl was dead] He went to the place 
 
 " where she was lying, took her by the hand, and said to her: 
 " Tabitha, cumi ! which is, being interpreted, Damsel, arise ! 
 " and straightway the damsel arose and walked, for she was 
 " of the age of twelve yeai-s. And they were astonished with 
 " a great astonishment. And he charged them straightway 
 " that no man should know it" (Mark, v, 23, 24, 38-43 ; Luke, 
 VIII, 40-56). " And they brought unto him one that was deaf
 
 — 81 — 
 
 " and hacl an impediment in his speech. And he put his fin- 
 " gers into his ears, and he spit and touched his tongue. And 
 " looking up to heaven, he sighed, and said : Uphp/iata / that 
 " is, Be opened. And straightway his ears were opened and 
 " his tongue was loosed ; and Jesus prohibited saying it to any- 
 " body; but the more he prohibited, the more they spoke about 
 "it" (Mark, vii, 32-38). That was what Jesus intended. 
 One day he [Jesus] saw a great crowd, .... and one 
 man amongst them said : "Master, I have brought unto thee 
 " my son, which has a dumb spirit who attacks him by convul- 
 " sions. Jesus said unto him : If thou canst believe, all things 
 " are possible to liim that believeth. And straightway the 
 " father of the child cried out, and said with tears : Lord, I 
 " believe; help thou my unbelief. And when Jesus saw that 
 " the people came running together, he said : Thou dumb and 
 " deaf spirit, I order thee to come out of him [the epileptic]. 
 " . . . . Tlie spirit went out. And Jesus would not that 
 " anyone should know it" (Mark, ix, 14-30). 
 
 " All they that had any sick with divere diseases brought 
 *' them unto him, and he laid liis hands on every one of them 
 " and healed them. And devils also came out of many, cry- 
 " ing out and saying : Thou art Christ, the son of God. And he, 
 " rebuking them, suffered them not to speak ; for they knew 
 *' that he was Christ. He went away and a multitude of peo- 
 " pie were looking for him, and went to the place where he 
 " was " (Luke, iv, 40-42). He healed a man full of leprosy, 
 and Jesus ordered him to speak of it to nobody ; but go, he 
 said, " show thyself to the priest ; and his reputation spread 
 " more and more " (Luke, v, 14-15). Though at other times, on 
 the contrary, he recommended to publish his miracles, but that 
 was only in cases where he had weighty motives to fear that 
 they might remain unknown to the public. " A man was pos- 
 " sessed by a legion of devils. Jesus drove them away, and 
 " all the devils besought him saying : Send us into the swine, 
 " that we may enter into them ; and Jesus permitted it unto 
 " them. And the unclean spirits went out and entered into 
 " the swine, and the herd ran violently down a steep place into 
 " the sea ; of which there wei'e about two thousand. Then 
 " the people went away. They [very likely the proprietors of
 
 — 82 — 
 
 " the swine] began to pray him [Jesus] to depart out of their 
 " coasts. And when he was come into the ship [in order to 
 " leave the country which he had ruined by making perish 
 " two thousand swine], he who had been possessed with the 
 " devils prayed that he might be wdth him ; but Jesus suffered 
 " him not, but said unto him : Go home to thy friends, and tell 
 " them how great things the Lord hath done for thee, and hath 
 " had compassion on thee. And he departed and began to pub- 
 " lish in DecapoHs how great things Jesus had done for him, 
 " and all men did marvel " (Mark, v, 9-20; Luke, viii, 30-39). 
 It may be vmderstood that all those who had lost their swine, 
 and who oi'dered Jesus to quit their country, had not at all 
 been disposed to extol the miracle which had ruined them; he 
 who had been healed might have been intimidated by those 
 men, and have been afraid to speak about it. Far from order- 
 ing him to keep the mu'acle a secret, Jesus on the contrary 
 urged on him to tell it to everybody, and advised him to go to 
 his parents, where he need not be afraid of the proprietors of 
 the swine. Besides, this man, who had not any more a devil 
 in his body, had still much of spirit. Jesus told him: "Speak 
 " of the great things whic?h God hath done unto thee." But 
 he comprehended the true meaning of that, and he related the 
 wonderful things which Jesus had done unto him. "When John 
 had sent, asking Jesus whether he was the Messiah, " Jesus 
 " answered and said unto them : Go and show John agaia those 
 " things which ye do hear and see. The blind receive their 
 " sight, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, 
 " and the dead are raised up " (Matt., xi, 4, 5). It shows that 
 he himself wanted that his miracles in medicine and chirurgy 
 should be made public [he heals the blind and the lame, and 
 resuscitates the dead (people who are in a swoon)] in order to 
 demonstrate that he is the Messiah. One day the seventy 
 disciples came back with joy, saying, " Lord, even the devils are 
 
 " subjected to us through thy name Jesus trem- 
 
 " bled with joy, and said : I thank thee, oh Father, Lord of 
 " heaven and earth," etc. (Luke, x, 17-24). He said again: 
 " If I had not done among them the works which no other 
 *' man did, then they had not had sin ; but now have they both
 
 — 83 — 
 
 " seen and hated both me and my Father " (John, xv, 24^. He 
 coiisiders therefore the mii-acles as sole proof of his mission. 
 
 § 20. 
 It is, then, above all, by his mii-acles he will prove that he 
 is the Messiah. He relies particularly upon the lower classes 
 of people, who are ignorant and credulous. He associates vol- 
 untarily with people of low estate and some of bad character, 
 who are discontented with society. He counts little upon en- 
 lightened and prominent men of the nation, who are generally 
 not easily disposed to be influenced by declaiming and a dubi- 
 ous reputation, but who on the contrary want to examine every- 
 thing. Now nothing in the world has more to fear from 
 examination than a miracle. Surely, intelligent people are not 
 satisfied to see with their own eyes the performance of a mira- 
 cle, or the miraculous healing of a sick pei*son, only ; but they 
 want, besides, to convince themselves of the reality of the sick- 
 ness. When it happened that the adherents of Jesus made a 
 gi-eat bustle about the healing of an individual who had been 
 bom blind, the adversaries of Jesus wanted before everything 
 to know whether this man had been indeed blind before, and 
 the investigation made in the matter led to the punishment of 
 the quasi blind man, which proves that he was accused of con- 
 formity and complaisance. " The Jews did not believe con- 
 " cerning him that he had been blind" (John, ix, 18). The 
 greatest miracle of the New Testament is the resuiTCction of 
 Lazai'us. It was imparted to Jesus that Lazarus was sick. 
 Jesus said : " This malady leads not to death, but to the glory 
 " of God, in order that the Son of God may be glorified by it." 
 And though he had heard that Lazaiiis was sick, " he remained 
 " still at the place where he was" (John, ix, 4-6), in order to 
 give Lazarus time to die. At the end of a few days, he said 
 to his disciples : Lazarus is dead. I am glad for your sake 
 
 that I was not there, to the intent that you may believe 
 
 " Then when Jesus came, he found that he had lain in the 
 " grave four days already. .... Then said Martha 
 " unto Jesus : Loi-d, if thou hadst been here, my brother had 
 
 " not died Jesus cometh to the grave ; it was a 
 
 " cave, and a stone laid upon it. Jesus said ; Take ye away
 
 — 84 — 
 
 " the ston§. Martha, the sister of him that was dead, said 
 " unto him : Lord, by this time he stinketh. For he had been 
 " dead four days. Jesus said unto her : Said I not unto thee 
 " that if thou wouklst believe, thou shouldst see the glory of 
 " God 1 Then they took away the stone, and Jesus lifted up 
 " his eyes and said : Father, I thank thee that thou hast heard 
 " me, and I know that thou hearest me always ; but because 
 " of the people which stand by, I said it, that they may believe 
 " that thou hast sent me. And when he thus had spoken, he 
 " cried with a loud voice : Lazarus, come forth ! and he that 
 " was dead came forth, bound hand and foot with grave-clothes, 
 " and his face was bound about with a napkin. [A triple mii-a- 
 " cle ; he lives again, is able to rise and to walk, in spite of the 
 " bands and his bound-up face.] Jesus said to them : Loose 
 " him and let him go" (John, ix, 14, 15, 17-21, 38-44). In 
 this extraordinary miracle is one mishap : that is, that Lazarus 
 was an old friend, and that he had two sisters, Martha and 
 Mary, whom Jesus loved much. That Mary was the same 
 who anointed the Lord with ointment and wiped his feet with 
 her hair, and Lazai-us was her brother. Therefore his sisters 
 sent unto Jesus, saying : " Lord, behold he whom thou lovest 
 " is sick. Now, Jesus loved Martha and her sister and Laza- 
 " rus " (John, xi, 2, 3, 5). 
 
 It was the same woman of whom was written : " And be- 
 " hold a woman in the city which was a sinner, who -wdped the 
 " feet of Jesus with her hair, and kissed his feet and anointed 
 
 " them with ointment Jesus said unto Simon : 
 
 " Since I entered this house, she has not ceased to kiss my 
 " feet. She has anointed my feet with ointment. Wherefore 
 " I say unto you : Her sins, which are many, are forgiven ; it 
 " is because she has loved much" (Luke, vii, 37, 38, 44-47). 
 It is easy to understand that the mii-acle of Lazanis caused 
 considerable excitement. 
 
 " Then gathered the chief priests and the Pharisees a coun- 
 " oil, and said : What do we ? for this man doth many mira- 
 " cles. If we let him thus alone, all men will believe on him ; 
 " and the Romans will come and take away both our place 
 " and nation. And Caiaphas, the high priest that same year, 
 " said unto them : You know nothing at all, nor consider that
 
 — 85 — 
 
 " it is expedient for us tliat one man should die for the people, 
 " and that the whole nation perish not " (John, xi, 47—50). 
 " But the chief priests consulted that they might put Lazarus 
 " also to death" (John, xii, 10). They looked upon him as an 
 accomplice in the miracle. The condemnation was therefore 
 justifiable ; the security of the nation required it. 
 
 § 21. 
 All those who suppoi't their ideas by miracles, address them- 
 selves to the lower class of people and distrust enlightened 
 men. That is what Jesus did. He was not a scholar, as gen- 
 erally considered. " The Jews were astonished, and said : How 
 "knows this man the scrijjtures ? he has not learned them" 
 (John, VII, 15). 
 
 It was a custom with the Jews to read the Pentateuch and the 
 Prophets every Saturday in the synagogues, and they had these writ- 
 ings translated into the vernacular. Therefore every Jew knew the 
 Bible more or less, according to his intelligence, without having learned 
 it. In this manner it may be explained how Jesus and the apostles 
 sometimes cited passages. 
 
 " Even his brothei'S did not believe in him " (John, vii, 5). 
 " And when his friends lieax-d of it, they went out to take 
 " hold of him; for they said. He is beside himself" (Mark, 
 III, 21). It was said of him: "Have any of the rulers or 
 " Pharisees believed on him ? But tlxis people, who know 
 " nothing, are cursed" (John, vii, 48, 49). " Sts. Peter and 
 " John were unlearned and ignox-ant men " (Acts, iv, 13). "St. 
 " Peter was a fisherman, St. Paul a tentmaker " (Acts, xviii, 3). 
 
 It is well known that the illustrious savant M. Ernest de Bunsen, 
 in his work entitled. The Hidden Wisdom of Christ, and the Key of 
 Knoivledge, or History of the Apocrypha (London, 1865), according to 
 M. Emile Burnouf (Revue des Deux Mondes, December 1st, 1865), has 
 made three great discoveries: 
 
 (a. ) The first discovery, the most unforeseen and the most remark- 
 able, is that Christianity has no relation with the Bible, as has been 
 innocently believed for eighteen hundred years. It issues directly 
 from Zoroaster, and has been imported into Judea by contraband means, 
 in spite of the inspection of the Jewish authorities; that is to say, con- 
 served as a mystery in spite of Mosaic opposition. 
 
 (b.) Adam represents Zoroaster; Abel represents the agriculturists 
 who are converted to monotheism; Cain, the shepherds who conserve
 
 — 86 — 
 
 their gods and retire to the Orient; though it is now more than thirty 
 centuries that it has been believed, with Moses, that Abel was a shep- 
 herd and Cain an agriculturist. 
 
 (c.) St. Paul was a merchant; while for eighteen centuries it has 
 been believed that he practiced the trade of a tentmaker, as is said in 
 Acts, XVIII, 3. 
 
 I make no pretension to criticise these discoveries, without having 
 read the work. But I may remark that I have more confidence in the 
 historical recitals of " Moses" and of the "Acts," than in the hypothe- 
 ses of Mr. Bunsen. 
 
 Many apostles were publicans. The apostle St. Barnabas 
 said in his catholic epistle : '^Apostolus suos, qui prcedicaturi 
 " erant illius Evangelium, elegit homines omni peccato iniqui- 
 " ores ut ostenderet quod non venit vocare justos, sed peccatores 
 " ad pcenitentiam." " Jesus chose the gi'eatest scoundrels of 
 ** all mankind, in order to show that he has come to call not 
 " the just but the sinners to repentance " (St. Bamabe, v). 
 
 That explains the predilection of Jesus for the poor of spirit, 
 and for those of low life. He says in his Sermon on the 
 Mount : " Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theii-s is the king- 
 " dom of heaven " (Matt, v, 3). "A scribe said to him : Mas- 
 " ter, I follow thee whithersoever thou goest ! And Jesus said 
 " unto him : The Son of man has not where to lay his head '' 
 (Matt., VIII, 19, 20). This shows that he did not want any 
 educated apostles, under pretext that he had no place to house 
 them ; but he engaged publicans to follow on his travels, know- 
 ing well that Jewish charity furnished to him and all who 
 followed him sufficient lodgings. 
 
 " Jesus saw a man named Matthew, sitting at the receipt of 
 " custom, and he said unto him, Follow me : and he arose and 
 " followed him. And it came to pass, as Jesus sat at meat in 
 " the house, behold, many publicans and sinners came and sat 
 " down with him and his disciples. And when the Pharisees 
 " saw it, they said unto his disciples : Why eateth your Master 
 " with publicans and sinners 1 " 
 
 The publicans were the dregs of the nation, who put themselves 
 shamelessly at the service of the Komans, in order to extort unjust and 
 arbitrary imposts from the unhappy people. 
 
 "And Jesus said unto them: They that are whole need not 
 " a physician, but they that are sick" (Matt., ix, 9-12; Mark,
 
 _87 — 
 
 II, 14-17; Luke, v, 27-31). Christ engages, therefore, a piib- 
 lican to follow him in order to make the acquaintance of all his 
 colleagues, for the purpose of healing their souls. Neverthe- 
 less, the Jews must have naturally become more suspicious of 
 this new" method of administering medicine to the soul, since 
 Moses and the prophets practiced constantly the custom of ad- 
 dressing themselves to the most prominent persons of the na- 
 tion. "When Moses went to Egypt in order to establish both 
 the religion and the independence of the nation, he commenced 
 by convoking the elders of Israel (Exodus, iv, 29). It is then 
 not at all astonishing that the Jews reproached Jesus as being 
 " a man gluttonous and a wine-bibber; a friend of publicans 
 " and sinners" (Matt., xi, 19; Luke, vil, 34). 
 
 " Then certain of the Scribes and of the Pharisees answered, 
 " saying: Master, we would see a sign from thee. But he 
 " answered and said to them: An evil and adultei'ous genera- 
 " tion seeketh after a sign, and thei-e shall no sign be given to 
 " it but the sign of the prophet Jonas" (Matt., xii, 38-39; 
 Mark, viii, 11-12; Luke, xi, 29). It is evident, then, that 
 men of intellect were not admitted to see and examine his 
 miracles. 
 
 Jesus never missed an opportunity to extol the poor and 
 abase the rich. He says : "It is easier for a camel to go 
 " through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter into 
 " the kingdom of God" (Matt., xix, 24; Mark, x, 25; Luke, 
 XVIII, 25). And here is the occasion: " Behold, one came and 
 " said unto him : Good master, what good thing shall I do that 
 *' I may have eternal life] And he said unto him: "Why call- 
 " est thou me good] There is none good but one, that is God. 
 " But if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. 
 " The young man said unto him: All these things have I kept 
 " from my youth up; what lack I yet] Jesus said unto him: 
 " If thou wilt be pei-fect, go and sell that thou hast and give it 
 " to the poor [pi-obably to the poor disciples of Jesus] ; after 
 " that, come and follow me. But when the young man heard 
 " that saying, he went away sorrowful, for he had gi-eat posses- 
 " sions." Then Jesus said that for a rich man it is difficult to 
 enter into heaven (Matt., xix., 16-23). Thus, a rich man who 
 fulfills all his duties, but who hesitates to bequeath all his
 
 — 88 — 
 
 goods to the cliurcli at the cost of his rightful heirs, will not 
 enter into the kingdom of God, but will yield his place to a 
 poor man who has no other merit than his poverty. He said 
 also: "Blessed be you poor, for yours is the kingdom of 
 
 " God But woe unto you that are -rich, for 
 
 " you have received your consolation (Luke, vi, 20-24). 
 " Blessed are you when men shall hate you, and shall re- 
 
 " proach you and cast out your name as evil "Woe 
 
 " unto you, when all men shall speak well of you " (Luke, vi, 
 22-26). According to this, all virtuous men are cursed, and 
 those whose names are disgraced, and who are despised by ev- 
 erybody, are the blessed. It is true that a man of high con- 
 sideration, who enjoys the esteem and the affection of every- 
 body, may be a hypocrite, and that a man in low esteem may 
 have great merits; but such is and was at all times a rare ex- 
 ception, and was at no time accepted by any moralist as a gen- 
 eral rule. Besides, according to Jesus, it is not at all the ques- 
 tion of a man who enjoys a good reputation and who is a hypo- 
 crite. It is the fortune itself, merited or not, which leads to 
 hell; or the misfoi-tune itself, deserved or not, which leads 
 straight away to paradise. 'Such is palpably shown in the par- 
 able of Lazarus and his rich neighbor. Lazarus has no merit. 
 " Lazarus was full of sores, and desii-ed to be fed with the 
 " crumbs which fell from the rich man's table." In other 
 words, the rich man ate fust, and afterward gave to his poor 
 neighbor to eat. 
 
 The Latin translation adds, *'Et nemo illi dabat," but the Greek text 
 does not say it. 
 
 "And it came to pass that the beggar died and was caiTied 
 " by the angels into Abraham's bosom. The rich man also 
 " died, and was buried. And in hell he lifted up his eyes, 
 " being in torments, and saw Abraham afar off, and he cried . 
 " Father Abi-aham, have mercy on me, for I am tormented in 
 " this flame" (Luke, xvi, 20-2-4). What answers Abraham? 
 He has nothing to reproach him for ; on the contrary, the rich 
 man fed every day his poor neighbor, and, since he was no 
 physician, we cannot reproach him for the sores of Lazarus. 
 Still, Jesus put into the mouth of Abraham the following an-
 
 — 89 — 
 
 swer : " Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst 
 " thy good, things, and likewise Lazarus evil things [the first 
 " ta agatha sou" and the other "ta kaka"\, but now he is com- 
 " forted, and thou art tormented " [Luke, xvi, 25]. Everyone 
 has, then, unfortunately, his amount of good things and his 
 part of evil. The rich one has received the good things during 
 his life ; consequently he must burn in the fire of hell. Lazarus, 
 on the contrary, had nothing but sores; he has already received 
 his part of evil ; consequently he enters into paradise. This 
 doctrine is also clearly expressed in the Pseudo-Esdras, when 
 the author of it says : "They cannot obtain these good things 
 " [paradise] in store for their efforts [they may have been pious, 
 " then], if they do not px'eviously walk in some unfoi'tunate 
 " paths" (lY Esdras, vii, 14). Jesus said, at another time: 
 " Woe unto you that are rich, for ye have received your conso- 
 " lation. "Woe unto you that are full, for ye shall hunger. 
 " Woe unto you that laugh now, for ye shall mourn and weep. 
 " Woe unto you if all men speak well of you, for so did their 
 " fathers to the false prophets " (Luke, vi, 24-26). When 
 Jesus had said that the rich people, though pious, could vsdth 
 difiiculty enter into paradise, " his disciples were very aston- 
 " ished, and said. Who, then, can be saved ? And Jesus looked 
 " upon them and said. With men it is impossible, but not with 
 " God" (Matt., XIX, 25, 26; Mark, x, 26,27; Luke, xviii, 26, 
 27). Merit and good works are, then, of no account. God 
 only, by his grace, can make man enter into paradise. 
 
 Meses and the Pharisees do not admit anything but merit, and not 
 grace. (Deut., xxx; Tract. Ahoth.) 
 
 The same idea is again clearly expressed in the following 
 passage, when Jesus said to his a2:)0stles : " But which of you 
 " having a servant ploAving or feeding cattle will, when he is 
 " come from the field, say unto him instantly. Go and sit down 
 " to meat ? And will he not rather say unto him, Make ready 
 " wherewith I may sup, and gird thyself and serve me till I 
 " have eaten and drunken, and afterward thou shalt eat and 
 " drink ] Doth he thank that servant because he did the things 
 " that wei-e commanded him "? I trow not. So likewise ye, 
 " when ye shall have done these things which are commanded 
 7
 
 — 90 — 
 
 " you, shall say, We are unprofitable servants ; we have done 
 " that which was our duty to do" (Luke, xvii, 7-10). Thus 
 all good people are unprofitable servants ; the Lord owes them 
 nothing, and he does not want to serve them at the table. There 
 is still a class of servants whom the Lord will serve at table 
 with much zeal, even, and Jesus indicates very plainly who 
 these servants are. " Let your loins be girded about, and your 
 " lights burning, and ye yourselves like unto men that wait for 
 " their lord when he will return from the wedding, that when 
 " he cometh and knocketh, they may open unto him immedi- 
 " ately. Blessed are those servants whom the Lord, when he 
 " cometh, shall find watching ; • verily I say unto you, that he 
 " shall gird himself and make them to sit down to meat, and 
 " will come forth and serve them " (Luke, xii, 35-37). Those, 
 then, who wait for the arrival of Jesus, and who keep them- 
 selves always ready to serve him, will be recompensed by the 
 Lord. 
 
 Jesus repeats several times : " The first [in the kingdom of 
 " heaven) will be the last, and the last will be the first." Why] 
 Because God punishes the^ proud and rewards the humble? 
 This is a mistake. Jesus understands it often otherwise, and 
 explains it by a parable, when a laborer said to the Lord : 
 " These have \vrought but one hour, and thou hast made them 
 " equal iinto us, which have borne the burden and the heat of 
 " the day. But he answered one of them, and said : Friend, 
 " I do thee no wrong. Didst thou not agree with me for a 
 " pemiy 1 Take that which is thine, and go thy way ! I will 
 " give unto this last even as unto thee. Is it not lawful for 
 " me to do what I will with my own. Is thine eye evil be- 
 " cause I am good 1 Thus [concludes Jesus] the last shall be 
 " the first, and the first the last ; for many be called, but few 
 "chosen" (Matt., xx, 12-16). Thus, paradise does not be- 
 long to us ; it belongs to God. Man has no kind of right to 
 it. Those who work the whole day (all their lifetime), sufier- 
 ing all trouble and travail in the service of God, will not have 
 the just reward for their labor, but God will make a present to 
 those who have worked only one hour, because paradise be- 
 longs to him, and he can do with it as he pleases. 
 
 It was with such ideas as these that Jesus endeavored to
 
 — 91 — 
 
 gain the lower class of people, who had some reputation or 
 influence through their good works or learning, or some excel- 
 lence. " He said also this parable unto certain wliich trusted 
 " in themselves that they were righteous and despised others: 
 " Two men went up into the temple to pray ; the one a Phari- 
 " see, the other a publican. The Pharisee stood and prayed 
 " thus with himself : God, I thank thee that I am not as other 
 " men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this pub- 
 " lican. I fast twice in the week ; I give tithes of all that I 
 " possess. And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift 
 " up so much as his eyes \into heaven, biit smote upon his 
 " breast, saying : God bg merciful to me, a sinner. I tell you 
 " this man went to his house justified rather than the other : 
 " for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased, and he 
 " that humbleth himself shall be exalted " (Luke, xviii, 9-14). 
 Thus, the Pharisee will be punished and abased, because he 
 feels happy in having the consciousness of being neither a rav- 
 isher nor unjust, etc. 
 
 Jesus reproaches the Pharisee for rendering grace to God on 
 account of being unlike the publican. Still, he himself says to 
 his disciples : "For if you love them which love you, what re- 
 " ward have ye 1 Do not even the publicans the same 1 " 
 (Matt., V, 46). Evidently these words must have inspired 
 contempt toward the publicans, and inspired likewise thanks to 
 God that, according to the exhortation of the Master, they 
 could consider themselves better than those people blamed by 
 Jesus. Besides, his harangues were well suited to inspire the 
 disciples with a pride greater than any which the Pharisees 
 ever could have possessed. He said to them : " Verily I say 
 " unto you, among them that are born of women there hath 
 " not risen a greater than John the Baptist ; notwithstanding, 
 " he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he." 
 (Matt., XI, 11.) Whence it follows that the lowest disciple of 
 Jesus is greater than David, Isaiah, etc., and even greater than 
 Moses. He said also, in his Sermon on the Mount, to his dis- 
 ciples : " Except your righteousness shall exceed that of the 
 " Scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the king- 
 " dom of heaven" (Matt., v, 20). There is the whole nation 
 condemned and calumniated in a lump. '* And if ye salute
 
 — 92 — 
 
 " your bretliren only, what do ye more than others 1 Do not 
 " even the publicans so]" (Matt., v., 47). "Therefore, when 
 " thoii cloest thine alms, do not sound a trumpet before thee, 
 " as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, 
 " that they may have glory of men. Verily I say unto you, 
 " they have their reward. And when thou prayest, thou shalt 
 " not be as the hypocrites are in the synagogues .... nor 
 " like the gentiles .... Therefore take no thought, saying : 
 " What shall we eat, or what shall we drink ] For after all 
 " these things do the gentiles seek" (Matt., vi, 2, 5, 7, 31, 32). 
 Thus Jesus covild not preach morals on the mount, without 
 publicly insulting all the people of th§ earth ; the gentiles, and 
 even the whole nation of the Jews (for almost the whole people 
 were Phai-isees), and the poor Pharisee who prays in the temple 
 silently, within nobody's hearing, shall be blamed because he 
 might have dared to thank God in his heart that he is neither 
 a murderer nor an oppressor of the people. 
 
 If it were permitted to us to propose a parable, we should 
 express ourselves in the following sentences : Two men prayed 
 in the temple. The one was a Pharisee, and the other was a 
 publican and a disciple of Jesus. The disciple prayed in this 
 way : Oh, God, I give grace to Thee that I am greater than all 
 the prophets, Moses included, and that my justice, my prayers, 
 and my charity 'are much better than those of the Pharisees or 
 of all the peoples of the earth. The poor Pharisee, on the 
 contrary, knocks his breast, reciting the traditional prayer, 
 "Pardon us, our Father, because we have sinned" (the daily 
 prayer of the Israelite). Would the language of the publican 
 disciple be irreproachable, because he has actually expressed 
 nothing but the ideas of Jesus himself? 
 
 Jesus said to the priests and senators : "The publicans and 
 " the harlots go into the kingdom of heaven before you. For 
 " John came unto you in the way of righteousness, and ye be- 
 " lieved him not ; but the publicans and the harlots believed 
 " him " (Matt., xxi, 31-32). " Then drew near all the publi- 
 " cans and sinners to hear him " (Luke, xv, 1). " He went 
 " into a house of a publican by the name of Zaccheus. And 
 " when they saw it, they all murmured, saying, that he was 
 " going to be a guest with a man that was a sinner ; and Jesus
 
 — 93 — 
 
 " said : This day is salvation come to this house, for as much 
 " as he is also a son of Abraham " (Luke, xix, 7-9). This is 
 a reason which a sensible Christian would never admit in our 
 days. 
 
 " The Scribes led a woman to Jesus, telling him. This woman 
 " has been surprised in the act. Jesus said to them : He that 
 " is without sin amongst you, let him first cast a stone at her. 
 " And he said to the woman : I do not condemn thee ; go and 
 " sin no more" (John, viii, 4, 7, 11). It is not said that the 
 woman was innocent, or that she repented ; only that the 
 judges by silence confessed that they were not without guilt. 
 How, then, is justice to be practiced 'J Should it be considered 
 necessary, in arresting a murderer, to find policemen and judges 
 without sin and infallible as the Pope ] Is it not Jesus 
 himself who shows himself elsewhere extraordinaiily se- 
 vere, saying, that he who marries a divorced woman com- 
 mits adultery 1 (Matt., xix, 9.) Supposing even it be in 
 relation to a divorce caused by adultery, since Jesus prohibits 
 divorce for any other reason, would it not be a punishment too 
 severe and disgraceful for the poor sinner to be condemned for 
 the whole of her remaining life to celibacy, which celibacy 
 will perpetuate the recollection of her fault ? Is this not an 
 extreme severity, and, besides, a punishment which, instead of 
 correcting the culpable, must always expose him to new tempt- 
 ations 1 Is not such a punishment, which has nothing analo- 
 gous in known legislation, dangerous to morality ? Now, in 
 spite of all these inconveniences, Jesus insists that the divorced 
 woman shall be jierpetually punished and disgraced. But how 
 agrees such an extreme severity with the extraordinary indul- 
 gence toward the woman whom the scribes brought to him '] 
 
 We see, then, that Jesus upon every occasion tried to gain 
 to his side all such individuals as were malcontent with society 
 and repudiated by it, the credulous, and the ignorant. 
 
 In our days a fulsome praise is bestowed on the words, 
 " Give to Csesar what belongs to Caesar, and to God what l)e- 
 longs to God." These words, it is said, prove that Jesus liad 
 no political end in view. But this is an eri'ox-, which results 
 from the habit of repeating that phrase detached from the 
 whole, and thereby neglecting that which precedes and that
 
 — 94 — 
 
 which follows it. I have endeavored to refute that eiTor 
 further on, in speaking of the grievances of the Pharisees 
 against Jesus, according to St. Luke. 
 
 § 22. 
 Jesus knows that he will have to wage war against a for- 
 midable league composed of all classes of society, except publi- 
 cans and people of the lower order, and who at the same time 
 are the most audacious, because they have nothing to lose and 
 everything to gain. He is preparing, then, for a terrible com- 
 bat, and, in order not to be attacked himself, he commences by 
 attacking the other side. Already, in his Sennon on the 
 Mount, he begins, saying : " Blessed are the poor in spirit," 
 " the unfortunate," "they which do hunger," "the oppressed"; 
 " . . . "ye are the salt of the earth"; . . . "the 
 "light of the world"; • • • "except your righteousness 
 " shall exceed that of the Pharisees, you shall not enter into 
 " the kingdom of heaven " (Matt., v, 3-30). He attacks hereby 
 the Pharisees — that is to say, the prominent men of the nation 
 — in the most violent terms ; though all that he says in this 
 Sermon on the Mount, commencing with the very often repeated 
 formula, " I say i;nto you," is borrowed from these same Phari- 
 sees, except the sentence, "whoever mari'ies a divorced woman 
 " commits adultery " (Matt., v, 32), of which Jesus really seems 
 to be the author. This sentence is unknown to Moses. The 
 Pharisees never have admitted it, either. But, supposing that 
 society conforms to the precept of Jesus allowing no divorce 
 from a wife except in case of her adultery, even then it would 
 be a too severe punishment to condemn her forever to celibacy, 
 and would be a punishment which, instead of correcting the 
 culpable, would on the contrary expose her to a relapse, and 
 would ever form a danger to public morality. If we consider 
 that very often the husband could repudiate the wife on simple 
 suspicion, or for other reasons than those indicated by Jesus — 
 particularly in the first centuries, before there existed a Chx'is- 
 tian legislation — the prohibition to marry a divorced woman 
 was not only a great misfortune for such a woman, and a mis- 
 fortune which she did not deserve, but it was a formidable 
 sword of Damocles continually suspended over the head of all
 
 — 95 — 
 
 married women. The caprice of a heartless and brutal husband 
 miglit forever disgrace the most honorable woman. This pos- 
 sibility would inevitably lead on one side to the tyranny of the 
 husband, and on the other to the blind and abject submission 
 of the wife. 
 
 In our days, a pompous admiration is expressed concerning 
 the beautiful words of Jesus : " What therefore God has joined 
 " together, let no man put asunder" (Matt., xix, 6). These 
 words are indeed very beautiful. Unfortunately they are, like 
 many others, sublime in theory, but very bad in practice. I 
 am not going to examine all the reasons stated for and against 
 divorce. But I am going to state a fact, that Jesus and the 
 apostles have admitted none of the motives which modern 
 savants have alleged against divorce. In fact, the apostles said 
 to Jesus : " If such be the condition of husband and wife, it is 
 " not good (^oer sumferee) to marry " (Matt., xix, 6). What 
 answers Jesus 1 He does not say the contrary. He acknowl- 
 edges then that it is necessary that we should have recourse to 
 divorce in case of necessity, otherwise marriage would be a 
 misfortune. There exists still in the eyes of Jesus and of the 
 apostles no other choice than between celibacy and marriage 
 with possibility of divorce. In this alternative only the apos- 
 tles prefer marriage ; while Jesus, placing himself upon a very 
 elevated and mystical point of view — too elevated, even, for 
 poor mankind — said to them : "All men cannot receive this 
 " saying, save those to whom it is given. For there are some 
 " eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb, and 
 " there are some eunuchs which were made eunuchs of men: and 
 " thei-e be eunuchs which have made themselves eunuchs for the 
 " kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let 
 " him receive it" (Matt,, xix, 11, 12). Thus it is agreed that 
 marriage without possibility of divorce is very uidortunate, but 
 we can escape this misfortune by making ourselves eunuchs ad 
 majorem Dei gloriam ; and Jesus appeals to those who can re- 
 ceive this doctrine. Such an appeal was in fact understood by 
 Origen, one of the most renowned fathers of the church, who 
 mutilated himself in order to escape temptation and marriage. 
 Jesus further said to the Jews, on the same occasion : " It is 
 '• on account of the hardness of your hearts, God suffered you
 
 — 96 — 
 
 " to put away your wives ; but from t]ie beginning it was not 
 " so" (Matt., XIX, 8); which is equivalent to saying: Your 
 heart is hardened to such a degree as to be unable to under- 
 stand my words and do as Origen has done. In fact, no Phar- 
 isee has ever followed the example of Origen. 
 
 Other instances may show the superiority of Christian mysticism. 
 The celebrated monk, St. Simeon the Styhte, placed himself upon a 
 veritable hight, where he remained perched during fourteen years, 
 without sturing, for the sake of penance. The Pharisees have never 
 been able to attain such an eminence. 
 
 Another new idea of Jesus is the commandment to present 
 the left cheek if one is struck upon the right cheek (Matt., v, 
 39 ; Luke, vi, 29). It is true, many Pharisees have expressed 
 analogous ideas, but I do not recollect to have ever read the 
 same words anywhere else than in the gospels. Besides, this 
 idea has never been put in practice. No wonder, since Jesus 
 himself did not adhere to it, when he says to his disciples : 
 " He who has no sword, let him sell his coat and buy one " 
 (Luke, XXII, 36). The high priest interrogated Jesus. "Jesus 
 "answered him: Why inteiTogatest thovi mel InteiTOgate 
 " those who heard what I have said to them. When he had 
 " said that, a sergeant gave him a box on the ear, saying to 
 "him: Answerest thou the high priest sol" (John xviii, 
 19-22.) The sergeant was evidently wrong to beat an accused, 
 or to do him any wrong whatsoever, without being authorized 
 by a judicial decision to do it ; but he was a simple sergeant, 
 and in the primitive times judicial proceedings rarely went on 
 without some abuse on the part of sergeants or jailers, who be- 
 longed to the dregs of the people. But Jesus himself had not 
 the right to refuse an answer to his legitimate judge, nor to 
 speak to him in an insolent manner, in a«way to raise the in- 
 dignation of the assistants. Still, instead of conforming him- 
 self to his own precept and presenting to the sergeant the other 
 cheek, he defends himself; averring that he had spoken prop- 
 erly to his judge (John, xviii, 23). 
 
 In that passage of Matthew there are, besides, some inexact- 
 nesses which must be revealed. Jesus spoke to an audience 
 which had gathered to his sermon on account of his miracles, 
 and particularly in order to obtain some marvelous healings of
 
 — 97 — 
 
 maladies (Matt., iv, 24, 25) ; consequently, a credulous, igno- 
 rant audience, aiKl before wliicli lie commenced his oration by 
 enumerating the titles of his hearers, saying : " Blessed be the 
 poor in spirit," unfortunate, oppressed, etc. ; like an orator 
 who should commence his address before a legislative assembly 
 by saying : " Illustrious deputies, you who represent the sci- 
 " ences and all the living forces of the nation," etc. To his 
 audience Jesus said : " You have heard that it has been said : 
 " eye for eye, tooth for tooth ; but I say unto you that ye resist 
 " not evil ; but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, 
 " turn to him the other also " (Matt., v, 38, 39). As St. John 
 the Evangelist relates that Jesus never had learned the scrip- 
 tures (John, VII, 15), he therefore knew them only through the 
 lectures in the synagogues. And that explains how he ap- 
 peared to be ignorant or forgetful of the formal prohibitions of 
 Moses : " Thou shalt not avenge nor bear any grudge " (Levit. 
 XIX, 18) ; while the passage "eye for eye" relates merely to the 
 penal code, because Moses was not only a preacher, but also a 
 legislator. If Jesus had pushed his studies a little further on, 
 lie would have learned that the Pharisees have even changed 
 this part of the penal code, by smoothing down the penalty 
 and making it conform more to the usage of their time (Tract. 
 Bala Kama). In order to be a man of veracity, and not ap- 
 propriate anything for himself which does not belong to him, 
 Jesus ought to have said : You have heard that it has been 
 said : " Thou shalt not avenge nor bear any grudge " (Levit. 
 XIX, 18). "If thou meet thine enemy's ox or his ass going 
 " astray, thou shalt surely bring it back to him again. If thou 
 "■ see the ass of him that hateth thee lying under his burden, 
 " and wouldst forbear to help him, thou shalt surely help with 
 him " (Exodus xxili, 4, 5). " But I say unto you, that ye re- 
 " sist not evil; if one shall smite thee on thy right cheek, 
 " turn to him the other also." 
 
 Jesus said also, in the same Sermon on the Mount, " Ye 
 " have heard it has been said. Thou shalt love thy neighbor 
 " and hate thine enemy" (Matt., v, 43). This is a gratuitous 
 accusation. This singular commandment or permission to hate 
 an enemy is nowhere to be found in the Bible, neither in the 
 writings of any Pharisee ; on the contrary, we have just above
 
 — 98 — 
 
 cited passages in whicli Moses warmly recommends doing good 
 to an enemy. 
 
 Besides, St. Matthew cites often biblical passages which cannot be 
 found. It is thus when he says, Jesus was going to live in a city called 
 Nazareth, that thus might be accomplished that which has been said 
 by the prophets : He shall be called a Nazarene. Now, this is nowhere 
 to be found in the Bible. 
 
 One might argue, perhaps, that Jesus wanted only to say 
 that the precept of Moses, " Love thy neighbor like thyself," 
 might imply the permission to hate an enemy who is not a 
 neighbor. Such an explanation is not admissible, because the 
 woi-d neighbor signifies to Jesus, the same as to Moses, all 
 those to whom one has occasion to render a service — to a fel- 
 low-man or neighbor, whether he be a friend or an enemy. 
 That is what is shown in the following passage. Somebody 
 said to Jesus : " Good master, what good thing shall I do that 
 " I may have eternal life 1 And Jesus said unto him : KeejD 
 " the commandments (of Moses) : thou shalt not kill ; . . . . 
 " love thy neighbor as thyself" (Matt, xix, 16-19). 
 
 Besides, we shall see how the Jews always have understood 
 the love of the neighbor. Solomon, at the inauguration of the 
 temple, prayed for all the pagan nations, saying : " Hear also 
 " the stranger who does not belong to thy people Israel ; grant 
 " all that this stranger may be praying for " (I Kings, viii, 
 41-43). Jeremiah recommends praying for the people of 
 Babylon, though they had destroyed the Jewish nation and 
 conveyed the Jews into exile. He said to the Israelites : 
 " Seek ye the peace of the city [Babylon], whither I have 
 " caused you to be carried away captives " (Jerem., xxix, 7). 
 Zachonias, ancient King of Judah, dethroned and carried into 
 exile by Nebuchodonosor, with the princes and those of royal 
 blood, the elders and all the people, sent money to Jerusalem 
 for the offering of sacrifices, " and praying for the life of Neb- 
 " uchodonosor and that of his son, that their life may last as 
 " long as the heavens " (Baruch, I, 11). The Jews ofiered sacri- 
 fices in the temple for Lacedfemonian pagans, " according to the 
 " duty and propriety of recollecting brothers " (I Mace, xii, 
 11), Lastly, the Pharisees ofiered incessantly sacrifices in the
 
 — 99 — 
 
 temple for all the pagan nations of the earth. (Tract. Soukha, 
 chap. V.) 
 
 At this point we may remark that Jesus said, on the con- 
 trary: " I do not pray for everybody, but for those whom thou 
 " [God] hast given me " (John xvii, 9) ; meaning, only for the 
 Christians, and not for others. 
 
 V 
 
 § 23. 
 In his continual struggle against the better classes of the na- 
 tion, Jesus is expecting combats and interior and exterior wars, 
 and wishes ardently for the explosion, f I am come to set fire 
 " upon the earth, and what have I to wish for if it be ali-eady 
 *' kindled 1 " (Luke, xil, 49). He prepai-es his disciples for 
 these provoked wars, and for the most murderous civil war. 
 He said to them : " The brother shall deliver up the brother 
 " to death, and the father the child, and the children shall rise 
 " up against their parents and cause them to be put to death, 
 " and ye shall be hated by all men. Now, when they perse- 
 " cute you in this city, flee ye into another. For verily I say 
 " unto you, ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel till 
 "the Son of man be come" (Matt., x, 21-23; Luke, xii, 
 51-53). 
 
 Here is the passage complete in Luke : * ' I am come to set fire on the 
 " earth, and what will I, if it be already kindled ? But I have a bap- 
 " tism to be baptized with, and how am I straitened till it be accom- 
 " pUshed ? Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth ? I tell 
 •' you nay, but rather division. .... The father shall be divided 
 " against the son, and the son against the father ; the mother against 
 *• the daughter, etc. (Luke, xii, 49-53). What is this baptism? Is it 
 the death upon the cross for the salvation of the world, after having 
 asked pardon for those who do not know what they are doing ? What 
 has this baptism to do between two verses of an extreme violence ? 
 What sense would a similar passage have : "I am come to set fire on 
 " the earth ; I am in haste to die for the salvation of the world ; I am 
 "not come for bringing peace, but for a division in the families?" 
 Such a passage would not have any sense. Baptism always signifies 
 preparation for a momentous work. The Israelitic priests were indeed 
 inaugurated through the baptism introduced by Moses. In our days 
 even it is said, for instance, of a general, that he has received "the 
 " baptism of fire." That is evidently the sense which the word bap- 
 tism had in a passage of St. Mark, where Jesus said to the apostles, 
 who were asking for places of honor for their services : " Can you be
 
 — 100 — 
 
 "baptized with the baptism with which I shall be baptized? They 
 " said to him : We can do it " (Mark, x, 38, 39). Now the apostles 
 could not die for the salvation of the human race, but they could say, 
 as St. Peter has said to Jesus : ' ' Lord, I am ready to go with thee, 
 " both into prison and to death " (Luke, xxii, 33). 
 
 Such are the instructions which Jesus gives to his apostles, 
 and the prophecies which he made to them; the son will mur- 
 der his father, the brother his brother ; and if the apostles are 
 driven away from one city, they should not lose courage, but go 
 to another, where the same scenes will be repeated ; and before 
 they will have finished traveling over all the cities of Pales- 
 tine, he will come as king of Isi-ael. Fortunately, these sinis- 
 ter prophecies, which much surpass the most terrible maledic- 
 tions by which the nation has ever been overwhelmed, have 
 not been realized ; the son remained in peace with his father, 
 and the brother with his brother. The Pharisees were not so 
 bloodthirsty, and the few partisans of Jesus were not at all 
 disposed to sustain him with similar means ; on the contraiy, 
 they were probably ready to take to flight at the first alarm, as 
 the apostles themselves "abandoned him and fled " (Matt., 
 XXVI, 56), when there was any danger. The Pharisees even 
 tendered everywhere the greatest hospitality to the apostles, as 
 well as to Jesus himself, without believing too much in what 
 they announced, 
 
 Jesus adds to his instructions : " Think not that I am come 
 " to send peace on earth ; I came not to send peace, but the 
 " sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his 
 " father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daugh- 
 " ter-in-law against her mother-in-law. And a man's foes 
 " shall be they of his own household " (Matt., x, 34-36). We 
 may well understand that for such designs resolute men were 
 required — men who had no attachment whatever, neither in 
 the family nor in society; men capable of abandoning every- 
 thing, to play for high stakes, and to risk all against all. It 
 is therefore he adds : " He that loveth father and mother more 
 " than me is not worthy of me ; and he that loveth son and 
 " daughter more than me is not worthy of me " (Matt., x, 37; 
 Luke, XIV, 26). At the same time, he promises rewards to all 
 those who embrace his cause ; rewards graduated in proportion
 
 — 101 — 
 
 to services rendered. Those who only give a glass of water to 
 his disciples shall be rewarded ; still, those who will give more, 
 receiving them as just and respectable men, shall be better 
 rewarded ; but those who will do better still, in receiving the 
 apostles like prophets, will have a prophet's reward (Matt., x, 
 41-42). 
 
 In the meantime the civil war does not break out ; every- 
 body keeps peace. The apostles are well received ; they are 
 not treated to a glass of water only, but the most extensive 
 hospitality is tendered to them. People are curious to see their 
 miracles, wliich become even the news of the day; there is 
 much talk about them, but nobody believes in them. The sick 
 only — those especially who suffer under chronic diseases, and 
 have already consulted all the physicians uselessly, as the woman 
 which was diseased with an issue of blood twelve years (Matt. , 
 IX, 20) — run after the apostles, who healed all maladies. The 
 Pharisees invited Jesus often to dinner (Luke, vii, 36 ; xi, 37; 
 XIV, 1). They were also Pharisees who were running once to 
 save Jesus from a great danger (Luke, xiii, 31). " Then Jesus 
 " began to upbraid the cities wherein most of his mighty works 
 " were done, because they repented not. Wo unto thee, 
 *• Chorazin ; wo unto thee, Bethsaida ; for the mighty works 
 " which were done in you : for if the mighty works which 
 " were done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon long ago 
 " . . . . It is therefore I say to you, it shall be more 
 " tolerable for Tyre and Sidon at the day of judgment than for 
 " you " (Matt., xi, 20-24). He appeals also to the lower 
 classes of people, and to the poor : " Come imto me, all ye that 
 " labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take 
 " my yoke upon you, and learn of me ; for I am meek and 
 " lowly in heart ; my yoke is easy and my burden is light " 
 (Matt., XI, 28-30). Indeed, "Then di-ew near unto him all 
 " the publicans and sinners to hear him, and the Pharisees and 
 " Scribes murmured, saying : This man receiveth sinners and 
 " eateth with them" (Luke, xv, 1, 2). He said once to his 
 disciples ; " The Scribes and the Pharisees are seated upon the 
 " pulpit of Moses ; observe then, and do everything which they 
 " tell you to observe ; but they are hypocrites, ambitious, they 
 " prevent entering into the kingdom of heaven [because they
 
 — 102 — 
 
 ' will not believe in his miracles] ; tliey are insane and blind, 
 " full of robbery and injustice ; they ax-e sei-pents, a race of 
 " vipers; all the blood shed since the time of Abel will fall 
 " upon them " [the Pharisees accused of the blood of Abel ! 
 That is indeed a little strong]. Lastly he curses them, and 
 says to his disciples : " You have only one master, who is the 
 " Christ ; you have only one doctor, who is the Christ " 
 (Matt., xxiii). 
 
 In the passage above mentioned, Jesus says : " I am gentle 
 "and humble; . . . my yoke is easy," Nevertheless, he 
 said once to a man : " Follow me ; and the man replied : Lord, 
 " permit that I first may bury my father, Jesus said to him : 
 " Let the dead bury their dead, but go thou and preach the 
 " kingdom of God. And another also said: Lord, I will fol- 
 " low thee; but let me first go bid them farewell which are at 
 " my house. And Jesus said unto him: No man, having put 
 " his hand to the plough and looking back, is fit for the king- 
 " dom of God" (Luke, ix, 59-62). Not getting permission to 
 bury a father, nor to take leave of parents, appears rather 
 too hard for me. Luke agrees with Matthew, that Jesus 
 accused the Jews of having murdered Abel : " The blood of all 
 " the prophets which has been shed since the creation of the 
 " world, may be required of this generation, from the blood of 
 " Abel unto the blood of Zacharias " (Luke, ix, 50-5). Here 
 he has committed three errors. First, Abel has never been a 
 prophet; next, the Jewish nation begins with Abraham, or 
 rather with Jacob; lastly, Jesiis believed that Zacharias was 
 the last prophet who had been killed ; it seems he forgot that 
 Joachim had killed the prophet Uria, 210yeai-s after the death 
 of Zacharias (Jeremiah, xxvi, 2.3). This proves again that 
 Jesus never studied the Bible, as shown already in the passage 
 mentioned befoi-e (John, vii, 15). 
 
 He had one language for the people, who wei'e not permitted 
 in the beginning to look into his purposes, and another for his 
 disciples, to whom he imparted more. The apostles asked him: 
 " Why speakest thou to the people through parables 1 He 
 " answered and said unto them : Because it is given unto you 
 " to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them 
 " it is not given. . . . All these things spake Jesus unto
 
 — 103 — 
 
 " tlie multitude in parables, and without a parable spake he not 
 " unto them" (Matt., xiii, 10, 11 and 34). " And when they 
 "were alone, he expounded all things to his disciples" (Mark, 
 IV, 34. " But to them that are without, all these things are 
 "done in parables" (Mark iv, 11). Luke relates the same 
 thing: "Unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the 
 " kingdom of God ; but to others in parables, that thus seeing 
 " they might not see, and hearing they might not understand " 
 (Luke, VIII, 10). He prohibited his disciples saying to anybody 
 that he was the Christ (Matt., xvi, 20). But he foretold to 
 them that he would not forever keep the secret; that the time 
 would come when it would be manifest. Then "there is 
 " nothing secreted which shall not be manifest; nothing con- 
 " cealed which shall not be known and come abroad " (Luke, 
 VIII, 17). "Therefore, what ye have spoken in dai'kness shall 
 " be heard in the light, and what ye have spoken to the ear in 
 " closets shall be proclaimed upon the house-tops." 
 
 We find, also, the instructions which Jesus has given to the 
 apostles. Before everything, Jesus never forgets liis favorite 
 theme: "Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, which is hy- 
 " pocrisy " (Luke, xii, 1). Then he encourages them to the 
 combat; telling them at first, they could not die if God will 
 not let them; then, if they should not fight, God would send 
 them to hell, while their enemies have no power over the soul 
 (Luke, xii, 4-9). He said unto them: "Therefore I say unto 
 " you, take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat; neither 
 " for the body, what ye shall put on. Consider the ravens ; for 
 " they neither sov? nor reap; and God feedeth them. Consider 
 " the lilies, how they grow; they toil not, they spin not, still 
 " they are clothed. Sell what you have and give alms; make 
 " yourself a treasure in the heavens [that is to say, in the com- 
 " mon treasury of the faithful]. For where your ti-easure is, 
 "will be your heart also " (Luke, xii, 22-34). These same 
 woi'ds are reported also by Matthew (vi, 21). All the new con- 
 verts have to put their whole fortune into the common treasury, 
 and henceforth live entii*ely upon the distribution out of the 
 treasury of Jesus. This was an excellent means to assure their 
 faithfulness and prevent apostasy, because their hearts were 
 where their money was. " And seek not what ye shall eat, or
 
 — 104 — 
 
 " what ye shall drink But rathei- seek ye the 
 
 " kingdom of God [kingdom of Palestine], and all these shall 
 " be added unto you" (Luke, xii, 29-31). Lastly, they can- 
 not work, because they have no time to lose. " Let your 
 " loins be girded about, and your lights burning, .... 
 " for the Son of man cometh at an hour when ye think not " 
 (Luke, XII, 35-40). He says also: "Suppose ye that I am 
 "come to give peace oneai-th? I tell you, nay; but rather 
 " division. For from henceforth there shall be five in one 
 " house divided, thi-ee against two and two against three. The 
 " father shall be divided against the son, and the son against 
 " the father. The mother against the daughter, and the daugh- 
 " ter against the mother" (Luke, xii, 51—53). 
 
 Jesus becomes enthusiastic for his cause, and for the struggle 
 which he foresees in his imagination, to such a degree that, 
 gi'owing impatient, he says: "I am come to set fire on the 
 " earth, and what will I, if it be already kindled?" (Luke, 
 XII, 49). While he thus was full of enthusiasm for his cause, 
 and full of a warlike ardor against interior and exterior ene- 
 mies, " at the same time some persons told Jesus what had haj)- 
 " pened to Galileans, whose blood Pilate had mingled with that 
 " of their sacrifices. And Jesus said unto them: Suppose ye 
 " that these Galileans were sinners above all Galileans, because 
 " they sufiered such things'? I tell you, nay; but except ye 
 " repent, ye shall all likewise perish " (Luke, xiii, 1-3). They 
 must amend, then, and prepare themselves for the struggle — 
 they must battle for life and independence — if they will not be 
 massacred and murdered by Pilate. 
 
 The gallant Polanders of our days commenced also by amending and 
 church-gomg, and finished with preparing for a war of independence. 
 
 But confidence in Jesus is indispensable. He says : " And 
 " shall not God avenge his own elect 1 I tell you that he will 
 " avenge them speedily. Nevertheless, when the Son of man 
 " cometh, shall he find faith 1 " (Luke, xviii, 7, 8). He tries to 
 inspire courage in his party, though it is only few in numbers. 
 " Fear not, little flock, for it is your Father's good pleasure to 
 " give you the kingdom " (Luke, xii, 32). The following are 
 the words of Judah which he says to his little army : " Do not
 
 — 105 — 
 
 " fear their multitude .... Cry to heaven, and the 
 " Lord will have pity on us" (Maccah., iv, 8-10). Jesus said 
 to his disciples : " Who is the king that, going to give battle 
 " unto another king, would consult before, whether he could 
 " with ten thousand men meet him, who comes with twenty 
 " thousand ] Would he not rather send him an embassy, ask- 
 " ing for peace t Thus whosoever amongst you does not re- 
 " nounce everything he possesses cannot be my disciple " (Luke, 
 XIV, 31, 33). For it is necessary to prepare for fighting ten 
 against twenty : if the courage is lacking to undertake it, it 
 would be better to ask for peace, or not begin the combat at 
 all. " If anybody comes to me, and hates not his father, mother, 
 " mother, wife, children, brothers and sisters, he cannot be my 
 " disciple" (Luke, xiv, 26). 
 
 All oppressed nations, aspiring for liberty, conceal themselves at first 
 under a borrowed name. At the beginning of the second century. 
 Rabbi Akiba, the greatest savant in Israel, looked also for disciples. 
 He succeeded in getting twenty-four thousand. No school could con- 
 tain them. They were dead in six weeks. By what sickness ? It was 
 said by suffocation, but it could never be learned. Later, this same 
 Rabbi Akiba was to be found at the head of the most formidable revolu- 
 tion the Jews ever had undertaken against Rome. 
 
 Jesus preached to his disciples, according to the example given 
 by himself ; for he prosecuted his career in spite of his parents. 
 His mother woiild not that he should stay after the repast at 
 the nuptials at Cana ; she told him that it was time to go away, 
 because they had no more wine ; but Jesus said to her ; 
 "Woman, what have I to do with thee?" (John, ii, 3, 4). 
 
 Once, when his friends heard of it, " They went out to lay 
 " hold on him, for they said : He is beside himself" (Mark, iir, 
 21). " While he yet talked to the people, behold, his mother 
 " and his brethren stood without, desiring to speak with him. 
 " Then one said unto him. Behold, thy mother and thy brethren 
 " stand without, desiring to speak with thee. But he an- 
 " swered, and said unto him that told him : Who is my 
 " mother, and who are my brethren 1 And he stretched forth 
 " his hand unto his disciples, and said : Behold my mother and 
 " my brethren" (Matt., xii, 46, 49 ; Mark, iii, 31, 34). 
 
 St. Peter was to the end ready for the combat, sword in 
 8
 
 — 106 — 
 
 hand, and said unto him : " Lord, I am ready to go with thee, 
 " both into prison and unto death " (Luke, xxii, 33). 
 
 The evening before his death, Jesus himself would have de- 
 fended himself, sword in hand ; but he had little confidence in 
 the courage and faithfulness of his apostles. He tried still to 
 gain them, and to remind them of the happiness which he had 
 procured for them. He said to them : " When I sent you 
 " without purse, and scrip, and shoes, lacked ye anything'? 
 " And they said : Nothing. Then he said unto them : But 
 " now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his 
 *' scrip ; and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment 
 " and buy one " (Luke, xxil, 35-36). St. Peter fought indeed, 
 when, on the eve of his death, they were going to seize Jesus. 
 " Then Peter, having a sword, drew it and struck Malchus, 
 " and cut off his right ear" (John, xviii, 10). But Jesus saw 
 then that everything was lost, and that he could not go into 
 combat with a few discouraged men against the Roman soldiers. 
 " Then said Jesus unto Peter : Put up thy sword into the 
 " sheath ; shall I not drink the cup 1 " (John, xviii, 11). That 
 is to say. Can I escape from the soldiers and the Roman army 1 
 
 §24. 
 
 The apostles also, till the death of Jesus, hoped for the es- 
 tablishment of a kingdom of the Jews ; a kingdom entirely 
 terrestrial and political. " Then answered Peter, and said unto 
 " him : Behold, we have foi^saken all and followed thee ; what 
 " shall we have therefor 1 And Jesus said unto them : Verily 
 " I say unto you, that ye which have followed me, in the re- 
 " generation, when the Son of man shall sit on the throne of 
 " his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the 
 " twelve tribes of Israel [after I have been seated upon the 
 " throne of Jerusalem]; and everyone that hath forsaken houses 
 " or lands shall receive an hundred fold in this time " . . . . 
 (Mark, VIII, 10, 29, 30 ; Luke, xviii, 29-30). 
 
 The two sons of Zebedee were the most active apostles, and 
 their mother said to Jesus : " Order that my two sons may sit, 
 " the one on thy right hand and the other on thy left hand, in 
 " thy kingdom" (Matt., xx, 21). But Jesus would never as- 
 sign his ministers in advance ; he preferred that all his ad-
 
 ^ — 107 — 
 
 herents should be equal in dignity; that he who had the most 
 of merit should not be sure that he would receive the first 
 place, in order to foster emulation. He wanted that everybody 
 should try to do better than his fellows, in order to attain the 
 highest honors. And therefore he said to the apostles: "But 
 " many that are first shall be last, and those that were the last 
 " shall be the first " (Matt., xix, 30; Mark, x, 31; Matt., xix, 
 30). The demands for places in anticipation annoyed him. 
 He was well aware that the assignation of places would create 
 jealousy, and the high dignitaries might render themselves 
 more or less independent of him and dominate the othei-s; and 
 that at last the less favored would become malcontent, and 
 might forsake him altogether. When the sons of Zebedee 
 asked to be seated, the one on the right and the other on the 
 left of Jesus, the other apostles were quite enraged against 
 their ambitious colleagues (Matt., xx, 24). It was from policy, 
 therefore, that Jesus always tried to dissuade them from the 
 anxiety for places, and he prevailed upon them to have full 
 confidence in him. He tried to induce them to treat one 
 another like equals, to aid and serve one another, in order to 
 be of better service to the common cause. " Eather seek you 
 " the kingdom of God, and all these things shall be added unto 
 " you " (Luke, xii, 31). " But be not ye called Rabbi, for one 
 " is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren " (Matt., 
 XXII, 8). "And whosoever will be chief among you, let him 
 " be your servant" (Matt., xx, 27). Like a valiant general, 
 who shares the hardships of a common soldier and exposes him- 
 self to the same dangers, in order to give an example to his 
 subordinates, Jesus said to the apostles: "Take myself as an 
 " example. For whether is greater, he that sitteth at meat or 
 " he that serveth ? Is it not he that sitteth at meat 1 I am 
 " among you as he that serveth" (Luke, xxii, 27). He said 
 to the apostles, who asked for positions: " You know not what 
 " you ask; can ye drink of the cup that I drink of? and be 
 " baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with 1 [braving 
 " the same dangers]. And they said unto him. We can. And 
 " Jesus said unto them : Ye siiall indeed drink of the cup that 
 " I drink of; and with the baptism that I am baptized withal 
 " shall ye be baptized [you are courageous] " (Mark, x, 38-39).
 
 — 108 — r 
 
 Baptism is here synonymous with initiation, as at the present time 
 we say, receiving the "baptism of fire" upon the battle-field. Then, 
 if Jesus here had alluded to his passion, the apostles would not have 
 answered, " We will." 
 
 " But to sit on my right hand and on my left hand is not 
 " mine to give ; but it shall be given to them for whom it is 
 " prepared " (Mark, x, 40). He once asked them : " "What was 
 " it that ye disputed among yourselves by the way? But they 
 " held their peace. For by the way they had disputed among 
 " themselves who should be the gi-eatest. And he sat dowTi, 
 " and said unto them : If any man desire to be the first, he shall 
 " be the last of all and servant of all " (Mark, ix, 33-35 ; Luke, 
 IX, 46). Jesus had much trouble to keep the apostles in the 
 faith. It was Peter upon whom he relied the most. Notwith- 
 standing, he said to Peter : " Satan has demanded to scan you 
 " as the corn is scanned [that is to say, to put his faith on 
 " trial]; but I have prayed for thee, that thy faith may not 
 " fail ; but thou, when thou art converted, fortify thy brethren 
 " [the other apostles had, then, even less faith than Peter]. 
 " And Peter said unto him : Lord, I am ready to go with thee 
 " both into px'ison and to death. But Jesus said unto him : I 
 " tell thee, Peter, the cock shall not ci'ow this day before thou 
 " shalt thrice deny thou knowest me" (Luke, xxii, 31, 34). 
 Indeed, when all hope was lost — when Jesus was seized — " all 
 " the disciples abandoned him and fled " (Matt., xxvi, 56 ; 
 Mark, xiv, 50). 
 
 " And there followed him a certain young man, having a 
 " linen cloth cast about his naked body ; and the young man laid 
 " hold on him. And he left the linen cloak and fled from them 
 " naked" (Mark, xiv, 51-52). 
 
 "And Peter followed him afar off" (Mark, xiv, 54; Matt., 
 XXVI, 58 ; Luke, xxii, 54). " And again he denied, on oath ; 
 " I do not know the man. And after awhile came unto him 
 " one that stood by, and said to Peter : Surely thou also art 
 " one of them; for thy speech betrayeth thee. Then he began 
 " to curse and to swear, saying : I know not the man. John 
 is the sole evangelist who difiers with the others, and "will not 
 let Peter have alone the honor of having followed Jesus. "And 
 " Simon Peter followed Jesus, and so did another disciple ; but
 
 — 109 — 
 
 " Peter stood at the dooi' without, and that other disciple spoke 
 " unto her that kept the door, and brought in Peter " (John, 
 XVIII, 15-16). 
 
 We know that that " other disciple " can only be John himself. He 
 has the merit not only of having accompanied Peter, but of being even 
 greater than he ; because Peter could not enter without the help of the 
 woman. 
 
 John acts in a similar manner in another instance : ' ' Then Peter 
 " turned about, seeth the disciple whom Jesus loved, following, which 
 " also leaned on his breast at supper, and said : Loni, and this one 
 " [John], what will happen to him? And Jesus said unto him : If I 
 " will that he tarry till I come [from heaven upon the clouds], what is 
 "that to thee? .... Then went this saying abroad among the 
 " brethren [Christians] that that disciple [John] should not die. Still 
 ' ' Jesus said not unto him. He shall not die, but. If I will that he tarry 
 " till I come" (John, xxi, 22, 23). John exults also that Jesus loved 
 him more than the other disciples, even than Peter ; that he reclined 
 on the breast of Jesus, and that Jesus had the intention to make him 
 live forever. In order to know well that this disciple is he himself, 
 " this disciple testified of these things and wrote these things, and we 
 " know that this testimony is true " (John, xxi, 24). 
 
 §25. 
 
 When Jesus was not yet ready for his pai-t, and " perceived 
 " that they would come and take him by force to make him a 
 " king, he retired" (John, vi, 15) ; but when he believed the 
 country sufficiently prepared, at first by John the Baptist, and 
 then by himself and his apostles — that is to say, by their mira- 
 cles ; mainly by the gi-eat miracle performed upon his fi'iend 
 Lazarus, resuscitating him four days after his death — after all 
 these preparations, I say, he believed the time had amved to 
 enter into Jerusalem for the feast of the Passover, at a time 
 when all the Jews were reassembled there. He chose an ass- 
 foal upon which to make his solemn entrance, m order to look 
 like the king of whom it had been written : " Say to the 
 " daughter of Sion : Behold thy king cometh unto thee, sitting 
 " upon an ass, and a colt, the foal of an ass" (Matt., xxi, 5 ; 
 John, XII, 15). His disciples believed then that the reign of 
 Israel would commence. "And a very great multitude spread 
 " their garments in the way ; others cut down branches from 
 "the trees and strewed them in the way" (Matt., xxi, 8;
 
 — 110 — 
 
 Mark, xi, 8). "A great multitude took branches of palm- 
 " trees and went forth to meet him, and cried : Hosannah ! 
 " [which is to say in Hebrew, * triumph ']; Blessed is the King 
 " of Israel" (John, xii, 12, 13). " Blessed be the kingdom of 
 " our father David" (Mark, xi, 10). " Blessed be the King" 
 (Luke, XIX, 38). These kingly honors and this extraordinary 
 display could have no other end in view than the establish- 
 ment of a terrestrial kingdom. Jesus had them knowingly 
 prepared, and he encouraged the people, because some persons 
 said to liim : " Master, I'eprehend thy disciples. Jesus au- 
 " swered and said unto them : I tell you, if these should hold 
 "their peace, the stones would immediately cry out" (Luke, 
 XIX, 39, 40), 
 
 Notwithstanding, Jesus was not at all quite sure of the suc- 
 cess of his enterprise ; he manifested often his fear of failing ; 
 and so he imparted to his disciples, in order to make them un- 
 deretand that he played high, that in case of failure he should 
 undei-go sufferings, and that he was risking his life as a pun- 
 ishment for his insurrection against the Romans. But the 
 disciples were full of hope. They promised him to assist him, 
 and not to forsake him if even they had to die with him. Such 
 words encouraged him. He said then : " Whosoever will come 
 " after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and fol- 
 " low me " (Mark, viii, 34). Besides, we have already men- 
 tioned (§ 16) all the passages which include these sinister fore- 
 bodings, and we have explained them. 
 
 He goes to Jerusalem, accepts kingly honors, and, as at first 
 everything seems to succeed, he does not lose any time ; he 
 resorts immediately to the temple, and plays the sovereign. 
 " And Jesus went into the temple of God and cast out all them 
 " that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables 
 " of the money-changers and the seats of them that sold doves." 
 
 There are in the vestibule of the temple, a respectful distance from 
 the holy places, venders of objects of piety and money-changers, indis- 
 pensable for pilgrims who arrived from all the countries of the inhab- 
 ited world. 
 
 " And he said unto them : It is written, my house shall be 
 " called a house of prayer, but ye have made it a den of 
 " thieves" (Matt, xxi, 12; Mark, xi, 15-17: Luke, xix, 45-
 
 — Ill — 
 
 46; John ii, 14-16). " The chief priests and the elders of the 
 " people came unto him, and said: By what authority doest 
 " thou these things?" (Matt., xxi, 23; Luke, xx, 1-2; Mark, 
 " XI, 28). And Jesus said unto them : I shall not tell you by 
 " what authority I do these things " (Matt., xxi, 27 ; Luke, 
 XX, 8 ; Mark, xi, 33). Some Greek pilgi-ims, Jews of Greece, 
 desired to see him ; the apostles Andrew and Philip said so to 
 Jesus, and Jesus answered them : " The hour is come that the 
 " Son of man should be gloi'itied [to mount upon the throne of 
 " Israel]. If any man serve me, let him follow me, and where 
 " I am, there shall also my servant be " (John, xii, 23-26). 
 " And the blind and the lame came to him in the temple, and 
 " he healed them" (Matt., xxi, 14). He delivered a violent 
 speech, wherein he treated the Scribes and Pharisees (that is 
 to say, all the Jews except the publicans and people of low 
 estate) as hypocrites, ambitious ; he accused them of shutting 
 up the kingdom of heaven against men ; " ye devour widows' 
 " houses, neglect justice, mercy, and faithfulness"; accused 
 them of robbery; he called them "serpents," and a "race of 
 " vipers"; he accused them of the blood of all the prophets, 
 and even that of Abel. He cursed them, and predicted misfor- 
 tune (Matt., xxiii). He concluded : " Ye shall not see me 
 " henceforth, till ye shall say : Blessed is he that comes in the 
 " name of the Lord " (Matt, xxiii, 39). That is to say, they 
 shall not see him before they decide to cry, Kke the disciples, 
 " Long live the King," who comes in the name of the God of 
 Israel in order to establish the kingdom of God, or the king- 
 dom where divine justice and the law of Moses shall reign, as 
 the prophets have announced it. 
 
 Is this not inciting the lower class of the people to revolu- 
 tion against the authorities ] Is it not as if Jesus said to the 
 people : " Down with the Supreme Council, which is entirely 
 " composed of hypocrites, murderers, and serpents 1 These 
 " shut up to the people the kingdom of heaven, and prevent 
 " the arrival of the dominion of the Messiah ; a single man is 
 " your sovereign, that is the Christ ; that I am, and I pro- 
 " hibit you from presenting yourselves before me until you 
 " have proclaimed the Christ, or the anointed king, who is come
 
 — 112 — 
 
 " to you in the name of the Lord in ordex* to re-establish the 
 " divine laws in the kingdom of Israel." 
 
 It is evident that Jesus did not want to die. Several times 
 he hid himself. "Jesus hid himself" (John, viii, 59). "Jesus 
 " conveyed himself away" (John, v, 13). "Therefore they 
 " sought again to take him, but he escaped out of their hands" 
 (John, X, 39). It is true that he once said to his brethren, 
 that he would not expose himself to death, because he says : 
 " My time is not yet come " (John, vii, 6). " But after his 
 " time had come " (John, xiii, 1), he said yet, " My soul is ex- 
 
 " ceeding sorrowful unto death Father, take this 
 
 " cup from me " (Mark, xiv, 34-36). "And his sweat was, as 
 " it were, great drops of blood, falling down to the ground " 
 (Luke, XXII, 44). " He fell on his face, and prayed, saying : 
 Oh, my father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me" 
 (Matt., XXVI, 39). At last he hid himself by the stream of 
 Cedron, "and the supreme authority of Jerusalem felt obliged 
 " to give an order that, if any man knew where he were, he 
 " should show it, that they might take him " (John, xi, 57), 
 " and to send Judas, who was a disciple, and knew that place" 
 (John, XVIII, 1, 2) that was then the spot where Jesus had 
 hidden himself. 
 
 §26. 
 
 It is very probable that Jesus was not contented with the 
 disciples who followed him, but entertained connections with 
 other persons, who were unknown even by the apostles. Here 
 are the proofs : 
 
 It is known that he did not count much upon the faithful- 
 ness of his disciples. " Several of them believed in him when 
 " they saw the miracles which he did. But Jesus did not com- 
 " mit liimself unto them, because he knew all men " (John, ii, 
 23, 24). When he said : " One of you which eateth with me 
 " shall betray me" (Mark, xiv, 18), that was not only Judas 
 whom he suspected, but he distrusted all the apostles, even St. 
 Peter. Because on the same occasion he said, " Simon, Simon 
 " [that was the name of St. Peter], Satan hath asked permia- 
 " sion to sift you [all the apostles — putting them on trial, and
 
 — 113 — 
 
 " seducing them], as the corn is sifted ; but I have prayed for 
 " thee, that thy faith fail not ; and when thou art converted, 
 " strengthen thy brethren. And he said unto him, Loid, I 
 " am ready to go with thee, both into prison and to death. 
 " But Jesus [distrusted St. Peter and] said unto him : I tell 
 " thee, Peter, the cock shall not crow this day, before that thou 
 " shalt thrice deny that thou knowest me" (Luke, xxii, 31-34), 
 All the evangelists agree on that point with St. Luke. Peter 
 said unto him : " Though I should die with thee, I shall not 
 deny thee. Likewise also said all the disciples " (Matt., xxvi, 
 35 ; Mark, xiv, 31), But Jesus did not rely on it. The mul- 
 tiplication of bread, twice repeated, was considered by Jesus a 
 masteri^iece of miracles, because, after accomplishing this mira- 
 cle, he asked, "Whom do men say that I, the Son of man, am?" 
 (Matt., XVI, 13 ; Mark, viii, 27), and when they would make 
 him king] (John, vi, 13). Still, it was also after the accom- 
 plishment of this great deed that Jesus reproached the apostles 
 about their incredulity, saying unto them : " Do ye not yet 
 " understand, neither remember the five loaves of the five 
 " thousand, and how many baskets you took iip]" (Matt., viii, 
 9). " Have ye your hearts yet hardened ] Having eyes, see 
 " ye not ] And having ears, hear ye not ? Do you not re- 
 " member when I brake the five loaves'?" (Mark, viii, 17-19). 
 " For they considered not the miracle of the loaves, for their 
 " hearts were hai^dened " (Mark, vi, 52). Continually occurred 
 the same reproaches by Jesus, the same incredulity of the apos- 
 tles, from the commencement of their career until the end ; 
 "then all the disciples forsook him and fled" (Matt., xxvi, 25; 
 Mark, XIV, 50). It is, therefore, impossible that Jesus should 
 have undertaken such a dangerous work without having had 
 some other auxiliaries than those who continually incurred re- 
 proaches. Indeed, if one looks carefully, one finds that Jesus 
 had numerous auxiliaries, of the existence of which the apostles 
 themselves had no suspicion. There was, first, John the Bap- 
 tist. They were so completely in ignorance that he had an 
 understanding with Jesus, that " they came to John, saying : 
 " Rabbi, he that was with thee beyond 'Jordan, to whom thou 
 '* barest witness, behold, the same baptizeth, and all men come 
 " to him " (John, iii, 25, 26). That shows they supposed that
 
 — 114 — 
 
 Jesus wronged John by taking away partisans from him. 
 There was afterward one whom the apostles persecuted, tak- 
 ing him for an enemy, and of whom they said to Jesus: "Mas- 
 " ter, we saw one casting out devils in thy name, and we for- 
 " bade him, because he followed not with us. And Jesus said, 
 " Forbid him not, for he that is not against us is for us" (Luke, 
 IX, 49, 50 ; Mark, ix, 38, 39). 
 
 So there was also one whom the apostles did not know, and 
 with whom Jesus was going to celebrate the Passover. Jesus 
 did not want to name that mysterious individual, neither to 
 make him known to the apostles. "And he sent forth two of 
 " his disciples, and said unto them, Go into the city, and there 
 " shall meet you a man bearing a pitcher of water ; follow him. 
 " [He did not name that man.] And any place he shall entei", 
 " say ye to the good man of the house [another mysterious per- 
 " son — an anonym] : Our master asks, Where is the guest 
 " chamber, where I shall eat the Passover with my disciples ] 
 " And his disciples went forth, and came into the city, and 
 " found as he had said unto them" (Mark, xiv, 13-16; Luke, 
 XXII, 10-13; Matt., xxvi, 18). 
 
 Thei'e is another one yet, or more than one, who kept ready the 
 she-ass and the young ass. Jesus said to the apostles : " Go 
 " into the village over against you, and straightway ye shall 
 " find an ass tied, and a colt with her ; loose them, and bring 
 *' them unto me. And if any man say aught unto you, ye 
 *' shall say. The Lord hath need of them" (Matt., xxi, 2, 3). 
 " And they went their way, and found the colt tied by the 
 " door without, in a place where two ways met. And certain 
 " of them that stood thei'e said unto them, What do ye, loos- 
 " ing the colt 1 And they said unto them even as Jesus had 
 " commanded. And they let them go" (Mark, ix, 4-6; Luke, 
 XIX, 30-34). 
 
 t^, John the Evangelist narrates that Jesus had many secret par- 
 tisans (John, VII, 13, and xii, 42). He said, besides, in his 
 mystical manner, that Jesus said ; " I am the good shepherd, 
 *' and know my sheep and am known of mine. And other 
 " sheep I have, which are not of this fold ; them also I must 
 " bring, and they shall hear my voice, and there shall be one 
 " fold and one shepherd " (John, x, 14-16). There were, then,
 
 — 115 — 
 
 two herds, which, at the favorable time, should unite into one, 
 or rather two societies, each of which had theii- part, and which 
 should consolidate at a later time into one. 
 
 In short, all the evangelists concur in stating that Jesus, be- 
 fore being seized, strongly recommended to the apostles to be 
 awake, and to take care not to be led away by temptation. 
 "Why be awake 1 What is the temptation by which they might 
 be led astray 1 Why did he, when he went, take along the 
 best of his apostles, those whom he always picked out for mo- 
 mentous occasions 1 It results herefrom that he contemplated 
 an object for which energetic and tried men were required- 
 We ai-e so much the more compelled to this conclusion, if we 
 recollect that he said to his apostles : " He that hath no sword, 
 " let him sell his garment and buy one" (Luke, xxii, 36); and 
 that St. Peter said to him (Jesus): "Lord, I am ready to go 
 " with thee, both into prison and to death " (Luke, xxii, 33). 
 " If I should die with thee, I will not deny thee in any wise. 
 " Likewise, also, said they all" (Mark, xiv, 31; Matt., xxvi, 
 35). As soon as all the apostles in this way had declared their 
 faithfulness, promising him rather to die for him than foi-sake 
 him, " then Jesus went with them to a place called Gethsemane; 
 " and he said unto the disciples. Sit ye here. And he took with 
 '* him Peter and the two sons of Zebedee, and began to be sor- 
 *•' rowful and vei-y heavy, and said to them : Tarry ye here and 
 " watch with me " [why watching 1']. 
 
 These three apostles (Peter and the two sons of Zebedee) were his 
 best auxiliaries, and they upon whom he counted the most. At all 
 great occasions he took them along. It is known that he said to St. 
 Peter : "Thou art Peter, and upon thee I am going to build my church." 
 As to the two sons of Zebedee, "he gave them the name oi Boanerges " — 
 that is to say, "sons of thunder" (Mark, in, 17). The two sons of 
 Zebedee were the same who said unto him: "Grant unto us that we 
 " may sit, one on thy right hand and the other on thy left hand, in thy 
 •' glory" (Mark, x, 37; Matt., xx, 21). They had, then, more merit 
 than the other apostles. " They were the three apostles whom Jesus 
 " took with him upon a high mountain and led them apart by them- 
 " selves, and he was transfigured before them" (Mark, ix, 2; Matt., 
 XVII, 1-2; Luke, ix, 28). In going to resuscitate a dead girl, "he 
 " suffered no man to follow him, save Peter and James, and John the 
 " brother of James " (Mark, v, 37; Luke, viii, 51).
 
 — 116 — 
 
 " And he went a little further and fell on his face, praying : 
 " Oh, my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me 
 " . . . . And he cometh unto his disciples, and findeth 
 " them asleep, and said unto Peter : What, could ye not watch 
 " with me one hour ? Watch and pray, and ye enter not into 
 " temptation. The spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is 
 " weak. He went away again, the second time, and prayed 
 " . ■ . . Coming back again, he found them still asleep, 
 " for their eyes were heavy. And he left them, and prayed 
 " the third time. Then cometh he to his disciples, and said 
 " unto them : Sleep on now, and take your rest. Behold, the 
 " hour is at hand, and the Son of man is betrayed into the 
 "hands of sinners. Rise, let us be going" (Matt., xxvi, 
 36-46). 
 
 We see then that he selected the most energetic and the most 
 faithful apostles; he repeats thrice that they must be awake. 
 He goes away three times, and always comes back in order to 
 see whether they are awake. He exhorts them to take care 
 not to fall into temptation, because the flesh, is iveak, and re- 
 proaches them for having fallen asleep. From all this it follows 
 that Jesus reflected upon and expected something for which the 
 apostles should be prepared, and should show their courage and 
 their faithfulness, and especially should guard themselves well, 
 and not fall into the temptation to abandon their cause in the 
 decisive moment. Indeed, if Jesus intended nothing else but 
 letting himself be crucified, it is impossible to understand the 
 object of so many prepai'ations, so much going and coming, and 
 so many precautions, and why he insisted so strongly that the 
 apostles should not be found asleep when the sergeants should 
 come to lead him away. 
 
 It must be remarked, besides, that even when Judas was 
 come, Jesus, far from expecting to be betrayed, asked rather : 
 Friend, wherefore art thou come? (Matt., xxvi, 50). He be- 
 lieved then that Judas could bring him important intelligence. 
 It follows, indeed, from the recital of St. John, that Jesus had 
 charged him with a secret commission, which Judas abused. 
 " Jesus said to him : That thou doest, do quickly. Now, no 
 " man at the table knew for what intent he spoke this unto 
 " him. For some of them thought because Judas had the bag,
 
 — 117 — 
 
 *• that Jesus bad said unto him : Buy those things that we 
 " have need of ... . He then went out immediately " 
 (John, XXIII, 27-30). Lastly, we must recollect the treason 
 of Judas : " Then Simon Peter, having a sword, drew it 
 " . . . . and cut off his right ear" (John, xviii, 10). But 
 Jesus, seeing that all was lost, had himself led away. 
 
 § 27. 
 
 If Jesus had succeeded, all the inhabitants of Jerusalem 
 would have proclaimed him king of Israel, as his disciples, the 
 publicans, and all the low-life people — the whole nation — 
 would have been on liis side; the Supreme Council and the 
 Sanhedrim would have been dispersed ; there would have been 
 established a senate of twelve apostles (to whom Jesus had al- 
 ready promised courts of justice, for judging the twelve tribes 
 of Israel), and a Sanhedrim of seventy members, which Jesus 
 likewise had nominated in advance (Luke, x, 1). But such a 
 new order of things would have been afterward reversed by the 
 Komans, because the nation was in no way prepared to under- 
 take such her-oic struggles against the Roman colossus, as she 
 was about forty years later in the time of Titus, and fifty years 
 after the destruction of the temple at the time of Hadrian. 
 The entii-e nation would have been destroyed by Roman cruelty, 
 and she would have perished shamefully, for having risked tke 
 liberty and the life of millions of men, women and children 
 upon the faith of pretended miracles operated upon epileptics. 
 There is not a single instance in history of a nation armed only 
 with some miracles and with some badly-interpreted pro])he- 
 cies, having risked its life and liberty against a formidable 
 enemy — an enemy provided with arms strongly superior to its 
 own. The complete success of Jesus would unavoidably have 
 led to the entire destruction of the nation. The Jews had then 
 to defend against Jesus millions of men, women and children. 
 That is why the high priest said: " That it is expedient for us 
 " that one man should die for the people, and that the whole 
 " nation perish not " (John xi, 50). 
 
 But Jesus failed, for the entii-ely simple reason that he trust- 
 ed altogether upon miracles, in which only publicans and low- 
 life people, consequently credulous ones, believed in — people
 
 — 118 — 
 
 witliout any moral force. Jesus avows it himself: " Verily I 
 " say unto you that the publicans and the harlots go into the 
 " kingdom of God before you. For John came unto you in 
 " the way of righteousness, and ye believed him not " (Matt., 
 XXI, 31-32). St. John the Evangelist says also: " But though 
 " he had done so many miracles before them, yet they believed 
 " not on him " (John, xil, 37). 
 
 He had success as a physician, because he operated his mira- 
 cles almost always upon sick people. Not able to heal in his 
 own country, they said unto him : " Heal thou thyself " (Luke, 
 IV, 23). That explains his ephemeral esteem and the charac- 
 ter of his clients, and that is why the most fex-vent and the 
 most firm in her faith was Maxy Magdalen, " out of whom 
 " went seven devUs " (Luke, viii, 2; Mark, xvi, 9). When 
 we recollect how, even in the nineteenth century, and in civilized 
 communities, physicians who heal without operations and with- 
 out medicine have been in vogue, we ought not to be aston- 
 ished at the celebrity of the miracles. The first was not more 
 real than the last. 
 
 Upon the cross he cried : " Eli, Eli, lamah az abthani " — My 
 God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me!" 
 
 This is an avowal that God has forsaken him ; that is to say, 
 that his plan has completely failed. The apostles make the 
 game avowal after the death of Jesus ; lamenting, and saying 
 in their despondency: "We trusted that it had been he which 
 " would have redeemed Israel " (Luke, xxiv, 21). The apos- 
 tles themselves have all forsaken him and fled, and none of 
 them was willing to render the last services to the man to whom 
 they owed their position. It was " Joseph of Arimathea, a 
 " senator of consideration, who went boldly unto Pilate and 
 " craved the body of Christ " (Mark, xv, 43), in order to busy 
 himself with the dead and to inter him honox-ably. Thus did 
 the senators of the Jews put their lives in danger in order to 
 give to Jesus an honorable sepulcher, while the apostles took 
 care of their own persons. 
 
 Among the disciples of Jesus, the apostles distinguished 
 themselves through their want of faith ; while the sick, having 
 been healed by Jesus, distinguished themselves on the contrary 
 by their faith in their healer. When Jesus is put in the sep-
 
 — 119 — 
 
 ulcher, who is it that remains with him 1 It is " Mary Mag- 
 " dalen, out of whom he had cast seven devils " (Mark, xvi, 9). 
 "And they all forsook him and fled" (Mark, xiv, 50). Who 
 first sees Jesus resuscitated] It is again Mary Magdalen. 
 " And they, when they heard that he was alive, did not be- 
 " lieve it" (Mark, xvi, 11 ; Luke, xxiv, 11). 
 
 It is not necessary for me to recall the many passages where- 
 in Jesus reproaches the apostles for their incredulity. The 
 multiplication of bread was considered by Jesus himself a mas- 
 terpiece as a miracle ; because it is only after having accom- 
 plished that miracle that they were going to make him king 
 (John, VI, 15), and he questioned his disciples: "Who do 
 " people say that I am ] And they said : Some say that thou 
 " art John the Baptist ; some Elias ; and others Jeremias or 
 " one of the prophets" (Matt., xvi, 13, 14; Mark, viii, 27, 
 28). The apostles, above all Peter, answering, said unto him : 
 " Thou art the Christ" (Luke, ix, 18, 19). In the meantime, 
 they did not believe in this great miracle, though they had 
 played therein a most active part. " Jesus gave them to the 
 " disciples [the loaves of bread], and the disciples gave them to 
 "the people" (Matt., xv, 36; Mark, viii, 6; Luke, ix, 16). 
 All the evangelists agree about the incredulity of the apostles. 
 St. Matthew narrates that Jesus reproaches them, saying unto 
 them : " Do you not understand, neither remember the five 
 " loaves of the five thousand, and how many baskets you took 
 " upT' (Matt., XVI, 9, 10). St. Mark says: "For they con- 
 " sidered not the miracle of the loaves, because their minds 
 " had grown dull" (Mark, vi, 52). "And when Jesus knew 
 " it, he said iinto them : Why murmur ye, because ye have 
 " no bread ] Perceive ye not yet, neither understand ? Have 
 " you your hearts still hai-dened ] Having eyes, see you not 1 
 " and having ears, hear you not 1 And do ye not remember 1 
 " When I brake the five loaves among five thousand, how many 
 " baskets full of fragments took ye up 1 They say unto him, 
 " Twelve. And when the seven among four thousand, how 
 " many baskets full of fragments took ye up ] And they said, 
 *' Seven. And he said unto them. How is it that ye do not 
 " understand]" (Mark, viii, 17-21).
 
 — 120 — 
 
 The greatest miracle by Jesus was the resurrection of Laza- 
 rus. All the disciples admired it, the apostles alone ridiculed 
 it. " Jesus said unto them : Our friend Lazarus sleepeth ; but 
 " I go that I may awake him out of sleep. Then said his dis- 
 " ciples : Lord, if he sleep he shall do well. They believed 
 " that Jesus had spoken of rest in sleep" (John, ix, 11-13). 
 As if Jesus intended to awake a man who sleeps, in order to 
 feign a miraculous healing. The apostle Thomas, the incredu- 
 lous par excellence, pushed the joke a little further : " He is 
 " dead," said he, " let us go there also, in. order to die with 
 " him" (John, xi, 16). 
 
 Therefore, in spite of all that has been done to accommodate 
 the history to the new doctrine of the Messiah, by adding new 
 sayings and new facts, and extinguishing everything that re- 
 lates to other designs, there have remained in the gospels suffi- 
 cient traces of the real intentions of the Master to put us upon 
 the track, and demonstrate to any unbiased looker-on, by the 
 strongest evidence, that Jesus had constantly, and even up to 
 his death, one sole end in view — to become King of the Jews. 
 It is then only on account of the vanishing of the hope to 
 establish themselves the kingdom of the Jews, after the death 
 of the Master, that the apostles had recourse to the new the- 
 ory, entirely unknown to Jesus. If we should indeed put aside 
 all the proofs before adduced to demonstrate that Jesus had no 
 other end in view than to become during his lifetime King of 
 the Jews, there remain at least the avowals of the apostles that 
 they were mistaken at first, and up to the death of Jesus, in 
 their faith in that terrestrial kingdom, and that only after the 
 death of their Master they became aware of their error : be- 
 cause, the third day after Christ had been crucified, the apos- 
 tles, still lamenting, cried in their despondency : " We had 
 " hoped that it was he who would have redeemed Israel " 
 (Luke, XXIV, 21). Now, men who are liable to make such a 
 gross mistake as to accept the terrestrial kingdom of the Jews 
 for the heavenly empire of entire humanity, can by no means 
 offer guaranties which should be considered satisfactory for the 
 new theory of a Messiah dying for the human race. Indeed, 
 are they not liable a second time to a mistake ?
 
 — 121 — 
 
 §28. 
 
 "We have already said that Jesus relied entirely upon mira- 
 cles. Indeed, St. John the Evangelist says himself : " Though 
 " he, Jesus, accomplished so many miracles before them, they 
 " believed not at all in him" (John, xii, 37), This evangelist 
 does not at all complain that the Jews had not understood the 
 sublime moral nor the excellent religious reforms of Jesus, but 
 solely that they had not believed the miracles of Christ. In 
 fact, his discourses upon good morals could not make a great 
 impression, because they contained nothing new. When he 
 had finished the celebrated Sermon on the Mount, " the people 
 " were astonished, because he taught like one having authority, 
 " and not like the Scribes " (Matt, vii, 28, 29 ; Mark, i, 22 ; 
 Luke, IV, 32). That is to say, he said : " I tell you," or, " ver- 
 " ily I tell you," while the Jewish doctors modestly spoke in 
 the name of the Bible or of their masters. This was all the 
 difference which the people had found between the teaching of 
 Jesus and that of the Pharisees and Jewish priests. In the 
 ensuing section we shall examine the opinion of the audiences 
 of Jesus upon his discourses. 
 
 All the evangelists agree that Jesus always i-elied upon mir- 
 acles. It was said to him that he blasphemed because he per- 
 mitted himself to pardon sins, as if he were God. Instead of 
 any answer, he accomplished a miracle; theieby trying to 
 prove that he had a right to pardon (Matt, ix, 6 ; Mark, ii, 10, 
 11 ; Luke, v, 24). "Jesus went through all the cities and all 
 " the small boroughs of the Jews, .... healing eveiy 
 " sickness ; and seeing the multitudes, [he alone could not suf- 
 " fice for all the demands of miraculous healing], he said : The 
 " harvest truly is plenteous, but the laborers are few. And 
 " when he had called unto him his twelve disciples, he gave 
 " them power against unclean spirits" (Matt., ix, 35-37, and 
 x). John the Baptist asked him, Whether he was the Christ? 
 He answers : " The blind receive their sight, and the lame walk, 
 " and the deaf hear, and the dead are raised up" (Matt., ix, 5 ; 
 Luke, VII, 22). He gives, then, the miracles as the sole proof 
 that he is the Messiah. He curses the cities of Corazin, Beth- 
 saida, and Capernaum, because they have not believed in his 
 9
 
 — 122 — 
 
 miracles (Matt, xi, 21-23 ; Luke, x, 13-15). The fisherman 
 worshijied him on account of a miracle — for his walking upon 
 the sea (Matt., xiv, 25-33). The seventy disciples brought 
 him the news that the demons " were subjected to them" — 
 they can drive them out — and Jesus trembled with joy" (Luke, 
 X, 17-21). The success of this miracle is therefore the greatest 
 triumph for him. Nicodemus said to him : " Rabbi, we know 
 " that thou art a teacher, for no man can do these miracles 
 " that thou doest" (John, in, 2). A man, seeing a miracle, 
 " believed, he and his house " (John, iv, 53). Jesus says : 
 " These works [miracles] render testimony of me, that my Father 
 " has sent me" (John, v, 36 ; x, 25). "And a great multitude 
 " followed him, because they saw the miracles which heaccom- 
 '•■plished" (John, VI, 2). "Then these men, when they had 
 " seen the miracles which Jesus did, said : This is of a truth 
 " that prophet that should come into the world " (John, vi, 14). 
 " And many of the people believed on him, and said : When 
 " Christ Cometh, will he do more miracles than this man has 
 "donel" (John, vii, 31). "And many of them said: He 
 " hath a devil and is mad ; why do ye hear him 1 Others said : 
 " These are not the words of him that hath a devil" (John, x, 
 20, 21). "And as Jesus passed, he saw a man that was blind 
 " from his birth. And liis disciples asked him : Master, who 
 " did sin, this man or his parents, that he was born blind 1 
 " Jesus answered : Neither hath this man sinned, nor his 
 " parents ; but that the words of God should be manifest in 
 " him" (John, ix, 1-3). He is born blind in order that Jesus 
 may do a miracle in healing him. He said again : " Believe 
 " the works [miracles], that ye may know me, and believe that 
 " the Father is in me " (John, x, 38). He said also that Laz- 
 arus was dead, for the glory of God, to the end that the Son 
 of God shall be glorified (in resuscitating him). . . . He 
 said : " Lazarus is dead, and I am rejoiced for your sake, so 
 
 " that you believe Jesus said : Father, I thank 
 
 " thee that thou hast heard me " (John, xi, 41). " The people, 
 " therefore, that were with him when he called Lazarus out of 
 " his gi'ave and raised him from the dead, bare record. For 
 " this cause the people also met him, for that they heard 
 " that he had done this miracle " (Jdhn, xii, 17-19).
 
 — 123 — 
 
 He said again : " The Fathei' who dwelleth in me is he who 
 " doeth these works [miracles] which I do. Believe me, that 
 " I am in the Father and the Father in me; or else believe me 
 " for the very works' sake" (John, xiv, 10-11). He prophe- 
 sies, saying: "Now I tell you befoi-e it comes, that when it 
 " is come to pass, ye may believe that I am he " (John, xni, 
 19). He said, lastly: "If I had not done among them the 
 " works which no other man did, they had not had sin ; but 
 " now have they both seen and hated both me and my father" 
 (John, XV, 24). Only once Jesus refers to John the Baptist, 
 saying: " Ye sent unto John, and he. bare witness unto the 
 " truth" (John, v, 33). Once he invokes the Bible, saying: 
 " Moses wroj;e of me" (John, v, 46). Unfortunately, he has 
 not cited the passage of Moses, and after eighteen centuries of 
 searching in that little book of the Pentateuch, nobody has 
 succeeded in finding that passage. The proofs of the Bible 
 were considered as accessory, and in the main he relied on 
 miracles. 
 
 We find, also, two kinds of testimony which by nature are 
 very opposed one to another. There is at first the voice of 
 heaven, which is heard on the occasion of the baptism of Jesus,' 
 saying: "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased" 
 (Matt., Ill, 17). But since God gave this testimony only once, 
 and since, besides, this voice was heard by John the Baptist 
 only, we may very well understand why all the three evangel- 
 ists insist upon attaching so much importance to the testimony 
 repeated by the devils. Indeed, almost all the devils which 
 Jesus had driven out said very loudly that Jesus was the Son 
 of God. This is a testimony which has been heard by all the 
 assistants. I do not speak of the testimony of Moses and 
 Elias, given on the occasion of the transfiguration of Jesus, be- 
 cause the apostles St. Peter and the two sons of Zebedee, who 
 were the only witnesses, were not in a state of mind to under- 
 stand well. " They did not know what they said, because they 
 were sore afraid" (Matt., xvii, 6). " For they wist not what 
 "to say, for they were sore afraid" (Mark, ix, 6). "But 
 " Peter and they that were with him wei'e heavy with sleep. 
 " . . . , not knowing what he said " (Luke, jx, 32-33). 
 Besides, the Jews did not know of any posthumous prophecies
 
 — 124 — 
 
 like those of Moses and Elias on the occasion of the transfig- 
 uration of Jesus, because the biblical prophets prophesied only 
 during their lifetime. (We cei-tainly will not notice a prophecy 
 of Samuel, invoked by a witch.) This testimony, given at the 
 transfiguration, cannot be of any effect, therefore. 
 
 Lastly, even after the death of Jesus, the apostles relied 
 solely upon the miracles. The biblical passages which they in- 
 voke are nothing but accessory proofs, because Jesus conde- 
 scended not even to speak about them, though after his resur- 
 rection he sent these apostles preaching the gospel. And he 
 said unto them after his resurrection : "Go ye into all the 
 " world, and preach the gospel to every creature. And these 
 " signs shall follow them that believe. In my name shall they 
 " cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; they 
 '' shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, 
 " it shall not hurt them ; they shall lay hands on the sick, and 
 " they shall recover. And they went forth and preached ev- 
 " erywhere, and confirmed the words with signs following" 
 (Mark, xvi, 15-20). According to St. Luke, Jesus opened 
 their (the apostles') spiritual understanding, in order to make 
 them comprehend the scriptures (the biblical passages which 
 speak of Jesus) ; but he does not tell them to confide in and to 
 invoke those passages in order to persuade the people of the 
 truth of the gospel. On the contrary, he said to them: " But 
 " tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem until ye be endowed with 
 "power from on high" (Luke, xxiv, 45-49). That is: Say 
 nothing to anybody till I shall send you the holy ghost. He 
 will invest you with power to do miracles. That is what 
 happened on the day of Pentecost, when the holy ghost came 
 down upon the apostles under the form of a sound from heaven^ 
 and " there appeared unto them cloven tongues as of fire, and 
 " it sat upon each of them. And they were all filled with the 
 " holy ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the 
 '' spirit gave them utterance; .... and the same day 
 " were added unto them about three thousand souls " (Acts, ll, 
 2-4 and 41). According to St. John the Evangelist: "And 
 " many other signs tiiily did Jesus in the presence of his dis- 
 " ciples," after his resurrection (John, xx, 30).
 
 — 125 — 
 
 The fathers of the church continued for a long time the 
 method of the apostles, of accomplishing miracles in order to 
 prove the truth of the gospel. St. Tertullian, one of the most 
 renowned fathers of the church, was irritated, and very aston- 
 ished, even, that Christianity was not spreading more rapidly 
 in his time ; " because we have," said he, a means as simple as 
 " expeditious to persuade one's self of the truth of the gospel. 
 " All that is necessary is to bring before a magisti-ate two men 
 " such as may be' found everywhere. One of them must be a 
 " Christian, and the other a demoniac [a man possessed of a 
 " devil] ; and, in the presence of the magistrate, the Chiistian 
 " shall, in the name of Jesus, order the demon to leave, and he 
 " will depart instantly. As the magisti-ates generally are trust- 
 " worthy men, whole cities would be converted in such a man- 
 " ner, on a given signal, as by enchantment." 
 
 §29. 
 
 It may be questioned, perhaps, whether we count for nothing 
 the influence which the sublime morality of Jesus and the apos- 
 tles must have exercised upon the auditors. We have already 
 demonstrated that there was nothing new ; that the Jews were 
 very well acquainted with that morality; that Jesus himself 
 did not count upon it for the affirmation of the gospels, and 
 that he relied solely upon mii'acles. Howevei-, we must inter- 
 i-ogate eye-witnesses — those who h ive heard the discourses of 
 Jesus — in order to know the impression which had been made 
 upon the auditors. 
 
 When Jesus delivered his celebi-ated Sermon on the Mount, 
 his auditors did not find anything new which should attract 
 them to him. " And it came to pass when Jesus had ended 
 " his sayings, the people wei-e astonished at his doctrine. For 
 " he taught them as one having authority " (exonsiait echoon, 
 protestatem hahens), "and not as the Scribes" (Matt., vii, 28, 
 29). St. Mark likewise says the same (St. Mark, i, 22). St. 
 Luke narrates the same (St. Luke, iv, 32). Thus all the 
 evangelists agrfee that the auditors of Jesus were merely struck 
 by his speaking with authority ; that is, he always said, " / 
 " say unto you," and not like the Scribes, who reported mod- 
 estly their ideas upon the masters and the ancients, and never
 
 — 126 — 
 
 pretended to teach a higher morality than Moses and the 
 ]>rophet8. 
 
 This phrase, ** he spoke with authority," had, besides, another 
 signification in the mouth of the admirers of Jesus. St. Mark 
 relates: "And they were all amazed, insomuch that they ques- 
 " tioned among themselves, saying: What thing is this] What 
 " new doctrine is this 1 For with authority commandeth he 
 " even the unclean spirits, and they do obey him 1 " (Mark, 
 I, 27). 
 
 We read likewise in St. Luke : " And they were all amazed, 
 " and spake among themselves, saying: What a woi'd is this ! 
 " for with authority and power he commandeth the unclean 
 " spirits, and they come out " (Luke, iv, 36). That is what 
 was admired, and which they called teaching or doctrine. 
 Therefore always the miracles were admired. 
 
 When Jesus preached in his own country, " they were as- 
 " tonished, and said: Whence has this man this wisdom, and 
 " these miracles 1 [Always the miracles.] Is not this the car- 
 " penter's son? Is not his mother called Mary, and his breth- 
 " ren James, Joseph, Simon and Judas? And his sisters, are 
 " they not all with usi And they were offended at him" 
 (Matt., XIII, 54-57; Mark, vi, 2-3). 
 
 St. Luke relates this story otherwise. According to him, 
 Jesus entered the synagogue, where the Jews received him very 
 amicably, and presented to him the book of Isaiah. By a 
 providential circumstance, he found, in opening the book, pre- 
 cisely the passage relating to him, " And he began to say unto 
 " them: This day is the scrijiture fulfilled in your ears. And 
 " all bare him witness, and wondered at the gracious words 
 " which pi'oceeded out of his mouth. And they said: Is not 
 " this Joseph's son ] And he said unto them: No prophet is 
 
 " accepted in his own country And he continued 
 
 " to speak, and to compare himself with Elias and Elisha. 
 " . . , . And all they, in the synagogue, when they heard 
 
 " these things, were filled with wrath But he, 
 
 " passing through the midst of them, went his Avay " (Luke, iv, 
 21-30). Thus, as long as he explained the prophet Isaiah, they 
 admired the words of grace (of Isaiah), but as soon as he com-
 
 — 127 — 
 
 nienced to speak in his own name, the effect was entirely dif- 
 ferent. 
 
 Jesus said once, "It is easier for a camel to pass through 
 " the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom 
 " of heaven." His disciples were much irritated about that 
 sentence, saying: " Wlio, then, can be saved?" (Matt., xix, 25 ; 
 Mark, X, 26; Luke, xviii, 26); though the words of Jesus were 
 admired by his auditory, and with good reason. The single 
 objection was, that the saying contained nothing new, and 
 Jesus himself attributed it to Moses. That was when he 
 proved that " Moses taught the immortality of the soul " 
 (Matt., XXII, 32-33; Mark, xii, 26-28; Luke, xx, 37-39). 
 
 St. Mark relates, also, that when Jesus said, " Is it not writ- 
 " ten : My house will be called by all the nations a house of 
 
 " prayer? but ye have made it a den of thieves 
 
 *' they [the Scribes] feared him, because all the people were as- 
 " tonished at his doctrine" (Mark, xi, 17, 18). We have al- 
 ready seen that it was the doctrine which commanded the 
 demons that the disciples admii-ed. St. Luke said only, on this 
 occasion, that he was listened to with great attention (Luke, 
 XIX, 48). 
 
 Lastly, once he put this grave question to the Jews : " Be- 
 " cause David calls the Messiah his Lord, how is he; his son ? 
 " And the multitude took pleasure in listening to him " (Mark, 
 XII, 37). That question was solved long ago. It was answered 
 that David did not speak at all of the Messiah. St. Luke said, 
 also, that " they went to the temple in order to hear him " 
 (Luke, XXI, 38). But on that occasion he did not speak of the 
 effect of his discourse. 
 
 According to St. John the Evangelist, the discourses of Jesus 
 produced always a deplorable effect. He declares that "several 
 " of his disciples, when they had heard this, said : This is a 
 " hard saying ; who can hear it ? . . . . From that time 
 " many of his disciples went back, and went no more witli 
 " him " (John, vi, 60-C6). " The Jews then murmured at him 
 " because he said, I am the bread which came down from 
 
 " heaven The Jews therefore strove amongst 
 
 " themselves, saying. How can this man give us his flesh to 
 " eat?" (John, vi, 41-52).
 
 — 128 — 
 
 At another question dnring a discourse, the Jews answered 
 him : "Are we not perfectly right to say that thou ai-t a Sa- 
 " maritan and hast a devil? " (John, viii, 48-52) ; [that is to 
 say, That thou art a fool 1] " And they became so much irri- 
 " tated that Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple " 
 (John, VIII, 59). In the course of another speech, several who 
 listened to it said : " He hath a devil, and is mad ; why do ye 
 " hear him 1 But he escaped out of their hands " (John, x, 
 20-40). Another time he delivered a long speech, and was 
 even seconded by a voice from heaven, which said : " I have 
 " glorified him, and shall glorify him again." In spite of this 
 help from heaven, he was obliged to go and hide himself (John, 
 XII, 28-36). A single time we find that the officers said : 
 " Never man spake like this man " (John, ix, 46). Others said 
 that he was a prophet or tlie Christ (John, vii, 40, 41), because 
 he had said : " He that belie veth on me, as the scripture hath 
 " said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water" (John, 
 IX, 38). Lastly, Jesus was not understood when he said, 
 " Whither I go you cannot come. The Jews said, Will he kill 
 " himself r' (John, viii, 21, 22). 
 
 § 30. 
 
 At present, let us examine the grievances which Jesus had 
 against the Phai'isees, according to the evangelists. We leave 
 aside the epithets which Jesus constantly applies to the Phari- 
 sees, such as " hypocrites," " whited sepulchers," " ambitious," 
 " senseless," " blind," " full of robbery and injustice," " ser- 
 pents," " race of vipers," " murderers of prophets, since Abel 
 up to Zacharias," (the Pharisees accused of the blood of Abel !) 
 " who devour the houses of the widows." 
 
 There was a treasury in the temple serving for the subsistence of 
 orphans and widows " jw pecuiiiam eleemosynarum pvpillis et viduls" 
 (IV Mace., i, 1 ). Jesus reproaches then the Jews for administering badly 
 the distribution of the alimony to the widows. "You devour the 
 " houses of the widows, affecting to make long prayers." You neglect 
 the widows, under pretext of being busy with prayers. But that is a 
 reproach which is almost always made against those whose office it is 
 to distribute money or favors. You cannot satisfy everybody, and 
 there are almost always innocent sufferers. Besides, we have seen that
 
 — 129 — 
 
 it was the plan of Jesus always to justify the poor and to accuse the 
 rich. • 
 
 All these reproaclies are vague; and they could never form 
 a foundation for a real prosecution. They would need to be 
 accompanied by some facts. Once he said to the Jews: "You 
 " nullify God's commandment: Honor thy father and thy 
 "mother. If somebody says to his father: All that of wMcli 
 " I could assist thee is a gift, sanctified to God, you do not 
 " permit him to do anything for his father" (Mark, vii, 9, 12). 
 Now, I shall try to explain this particulai' case. The Jews had 
 a law, dating from the time of Moses, according to which a 
 •rift consecrated to God or to a benevolent institution was ir- 
 revocable. That is the law of all countries, and without it 
 public institutions would be jeopardized every instant. It is 
 evident that, if anybody is so poor in foresight as to give away 
 all that he possesses, so that he is entirely disabled to assist his 
 parents, it is liis own fault, not the fault of the law. Besides, 
 this is not a reproach of a serious character. Jesus him- 
 self has said : " He who hates not liis father, 
 " his mother, . . his wife, . . cannot be my dis- 
 "ciple" (Luke, xiv, 26). Once, when a disciple wanted 
 to bury his father, Jesus prevented him, saying: " Let the dead 
 " bury their dead, but thou follow me, and preach the kingdom 
 " of God " (Luke, ix, 60). Some persons of the lower class 
 said that Jesus drove out devils by Beelzebub, the prince of 
 devils. Jesus at first opposed this accusation with an irrefuta- 
 ble proof, that it is impossible that Beelzebub would consent to 
 drive out devils, his faithful subjects; at least, he would have to 
 expect anarchy and a considei-able disorganization in his king- 
 dom. Now, said Jesus, "if Satan drives Satan, he is divided 
 " against himself; how, then, shall his kingdom stand ] But if 
 " I cast out devils by the spirit of God, then the kingdom of 
 " God is come unto you" (Matt., xii, 26-28; Luke, xi, 19- 
 20; Mark, in, 22-30). That is to say, I am the Christ. In 
 order to understand the last phrase, which completes the divine 
 mission of Jesus, we must admit that there are only two ways 
 to drive out devils, either through Beelzebub or through the 
 Holy Ghost. Now Jesus has demonstrated that Beelzebub is 
 nothing in this case; consequently it is the Holy Ghost who
 
 — 130 — 
 
 does all. Nevertheless, the question is not entirely solved yet, 
 and we may well understand that the -people, particularly the 
 lower classes, must feel much embarrassed; because, in order 
 that the Holy Ghost should consent to drive out devils upon 
 the word of the apostles, it follows that Jesus himself must 
 give them the power (Matt., x, 1; Luke, ix; Mark, in, 15, and 
 VI, 7). This power given by Jesus himself is not always suffi- 
 cient. It happened that a man asked the apostles to drive out 
 a devil, hit they were not able to do it (Matt., xvii, 16 ; Mark, 
 IX, 18; Luke, ix, 40). Then Jesus, embarrassed, gave to a 
 numerous auditory a general explanation, and to the apostles a 
 particular one. Thus, before the people he attributed this want 
 of success to little faith, saying: " Oh, incredulous race, how 
 " long shall I be with you? Bring him hither to me " (Matt., 
 XVII, 17; Mark, ix, 19; Luke, ix, 41). But when Jesus had 
 entered the house, his disciples interrogated him privately: 
 "■ Why have we not been able to drive out the devil 1 And he 
 " answered them: This kind of demons cannot be driven out 
 " except by prayer and fasting" (Mark, ix, 28-29). Still, most 
 of the time the apostles succeeded completely because they had 
 the power from Jesus to drive out devils. Up to the present 
 time all this is well enough explained. 
 
 But here^comes the difficulty. An apostle said once to Jesus : 
 " Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name, and he 
 " followeth not us ; and we forbade him because he followeth 
 " not us. But Jesus said : Forbid him not ; for there is no 
 " man which shall do a miracle in my name, that can lightly 
 " speak evil of me " (Mark, ix, 38, 39 ; Luke, ix, 49, 50). 
 He does not say that he has given him the power. How then 
 could he drive out devils ? Did he do it through Beelzebub ] 
 Here exists a difficulty which indeed excuses the poor Jews, 
 who did not know how the devils had been driven out. 
 
 Jesus was throughovit very irritated against those who ac- 
 cused him of driving out devils tbrough Beelzebub, and he said 
 at such an occasion ; "AU sins and all blasphemy shall be for- 
 " given to men, but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost 
 " shall not be forgiven to them. And if anybody speaks 
 " against the Son of man, it could be forgiven to him ; but he 
 " who shall have spoken against the Holy Ghost [saying that
 
 — 131 — 
 
 " he drove out devils through Beelzebub and not through the 
 " Holy Ghost] will not obtain pardon, neither in this world nor 
 " in the world to come" (Matt., xii, 31, 32). This is then a 
 sin greater than murder and theft. Meanwhile this irritation 
 of Jesus had no consequence, because it was only the lower 
 class of people who could have spoken of Beelzebub. The en- 
 lightened men did not believe in devils. It is indeed remai-k- 
 able that the greatest work of the disciples of Jesus, the New 
 Testament, speaks of devils on every page, whilst the greatest 
 work of the Pharisees of that epoch, the Mishua, nowhere 
 mentions devils. 
 
 The single reproach which may be of a real and well-founded 
 value, is that which he pronounced before the people : " Wo 
 " unto you. Scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, for ye shut up 
 " the kingdom of heaven against men : for ye neither go in 
 " yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in " 
 (Matt., XXIII, 13). That means, you do not believe in my 
 miracles, and you prevent others from believing in them. In- 
 deed, all the evangelists agree about the incredulity of the 
 Pharisees in respect to miracles. That is a fact which cannot 
 be denied. 
 
 " Then drew near unto him all the publicans and sinners to 
 " hear him. And the Pharisees and the Scribes murmured " 
 (Luke, XV, 1, 2). " But though he had done so many miracles 
 " before them [the Jews], yet they believed not on him " (John, 
 XII, 37). This is the only serious reproach which Jesus has been 
 able to make to the Pharisees. He says so himself : " If I had 
 " not done among them the works [miracles] which none other 
 " man did, they had not had sin " (John, xv, 24). In that case 
 they would have been neither hypocrites nor serpents, nor full 
 of rapine and injustice ; they would not have devoured the 
 houses of the widows; they would not have been a race of 
 vipers; in one word, they would have found themselves with- 
 out sin, like Jesus himself. 
 
 Josephus, the historian, gives indeed a magnificent picture 
 of the Pharisees. They observe conscientiously their duties. 
 They honor old age to such a degree that they do not dare to 
 contradict the aged. They believe in immortality of the soul. 
 They have acquired such a great authority among the people
 
 — 132 — 
 
 that the latter follow their judgment. Whole cities render the 
 most favorable testimony about their virtues, their manner of 
 living, and their discourses {Antlq. Jud., lib. 18, chap. ii). 
 
 He saidalso: " The Pharisees love one another among them- 
 selves. They live in concord for the welfare of the people ; 
 in communem utilitatem concordiam colusit. ( De hello Jiidaica, 
 lib. 2, chap. viii). He says in his biography: "I wished to 
 " learn the diverse opinions of the Pharisees, Sadducees, and 
 " Essenes, in order, after knowing them all, that I could attach 
 " myself to those who should appear to me the best. . . 
 " I joined the sect of the Phai'isees, which approaches more 
 " than any other that of Stoics among the Greeks." {Life of 
 Josephns, written by himself.) 
 
 St. Paul himself said : " I have lived as a Pharisee according 
 " to their manner, which is the most exact of our religion." 
 (Acts, XXVI, 5.) 
 
 Lastly, Jesus reproaches the Pharisees with proselytism. 
 He says: " Wo unto you, Scribes and Pharisees, for you com- 
 " pass sea and land to make one proselyte; and when he is 
 " made, you make him two-fold more the child of hell than 
 "yourselves" (Matt., xxiii, 15). Here Jesus himself gives 
 the lie, in the most formal manner, to all savants, ancient and 
 modern, who pretend that the Pharisees wanted monotheism 
 for themselves only, and that the propagation of it is due to 
 Christianity alone. 
 
 M. Havet says in Revue des Deux Mondes, Aug. 1st, 1863: 
 " Jesus has for the first time pronounced the sublime words, 
 " ' You -will not any more worship upon this mountain, neither 
 " at Jerusalem ; Greek spii-it, the breadth of which Judaism 
 " would never have attained.' " Between Jesus Christ and M. 
 Havet the choice is not doubtful. I have more confidence in 
 the words of Jesus Christ. In the fourth part of this work, 
 which I shall entitle Origin of Christianity, I shall give all the 
 proofs in order to confirm the words of Jesus Christ, to wit : 
 that the Jews always tried to make proselytes to their re- 
 ligion, and that Christ, on the conti-ary, severely prohibited his 
 disciples from addressing the gentiles, from motives already de- 
 veloped. 
 
 It is also well to remark that the Pharisees had largely sue-
 
 — 133 — 
 
 cored Jesus and the apostles during their continual voyages in 
 Judea, and that they often invited Jesus and the apostles to din- 
 ner (Luke, VII, 36; xi, 37; xiv, 1). Again, there were also 
 Pharisees who once saved Jesus from a great danger, saying 
 to him, " Save thyself, because Herod will have thee killed " 
 (Luke, XIII, 31). 
 
 §31. 
 
 Let us now consider the grievances of the Phai-isees against 
 Jesus. 
 
 Let us begin with St. Matthew. Jesus heals a paralytic, and 
 said unto him: " Thy sins are forgiven thee. And, behold, cer- 
 " tain of the Scribes said within themselves, This man blas- 
 " phemeth" (Matt., ix, 2-3). Because, according to Judaism, 
 no one but God can pardon sins. Still, the Scribes attached 
 little importance to it, because they did not say anything to 
 Jesus; they thought so, merely. 
 
 They reproached him for associating preferably with a bad 
 class of people. They said : " Behold, a friend of publicans 
 " and sinners " (Matt., xi, 19). This reproach does not amount 
 to much. One cannot always choose friends as one likes. Per- 
 haps, the Pharisees were not satistied with the answer of Jesus : 
 " These men suffer from a malady of the soul, and they are in 
 " need of a physician. The Pharisees said unto his disciples, 
 " Why eateth your master with publicans and sinners] But when 
 '■ Jesus heard that, he said unto them : They that be whole need 
 " not a physician, but they that are sick" (Matt., ix, 11-12). 
 The Scribes said to Jesus : "Why do thy disciples transgress the 
 " traditions of the elders, for they wash not their hands when 
 " they e;it bi-ead ?" (Matt., xv, 2). This is. again, of little ini 
 portance. The Scribes themselves said that this was a tradi- 
 tion of the ancients, and not a law of Moses. Besides, Jesus 
 and his disciples were continually traveling. Now the travelers 
 dispensed themselves from that usage. (See the same, ante, 
 
 §9.) 
 
 "One day the disciples were an hungered, and began to pluck 
 
 " the ears of corn and to eat" (Matt., xii, 1). The Pharisees 
 
 reproached them for dishonoi-ing the Sabbath. " But Jesus 
 
 " said unto them : Have you not read what David did when
 
 — 134 — 
 
 " he was an hungered"? (Matt., xii, 3). This motive was suf- 
 ficient, and the remainder of the discourse of Jesus was super- 
 fluous. The Pharisees seem to have believed that the disciples 
 did it only under the necessity of hunger, and acquitted them. 
 
 Jesus preferred the Sabbath for the doing of his miracles, 
 because on that day everybody was at the synagogue; there 
 was no business, the people paying visits among themselves, 
 and, consequently, there was time to talk about the news of the 
 day. A miracle done on that day was therefore easily known 
 among the people. The Pharisees, who did not want any mira- 
 cles, were so much more opposed to the practice when done in the 
 synagogue in public on the Sabbath (Matt., xii, 10-14), though 
 the Sabbath was a secondaiy consideration. Then, the Phari- 
 sees themselves looked upon it as a duty to heal the sick, even 
 on the Sabbath (see ante, § 9). The mii'acles themselves were 
 the objects of their grievance. St, Matthew himself relates 
 that the Pharisees said : " Whence has this man these miracles? 
 "... And they were indignant about him .... 
 " and he did not many mighty works [miracles] there, because 
 " of theii- unbelief" (Matt., xiii, 54, 57, 59). St. Mark also 
 relates that the Pharisees said: " How are such mighty works 
 " [miracles] wrought by his hands ? And they were indignant 
 " at him " (Mark, vi, 2, 3). Nevertheless, the evangelists seem 
 preferably to have insisted upon the accusation of the violation of 
 the Sabbath. Though being apostles, they remain always men. 
 Now, men in general prefer not to take up the most serious re- 
 proaches; they dwell rather l n such as are accessory. We see in 
 the following passage : "Jesus answered them, Many good works 
 " have I shown youfi-om my Father; for which of those works 
 " do you stone me? The Jews answered him, saying: For a 
 " good work we stone thee not, but for blasphemy, and because 
 " that thou, being a man, makest thyself God " (John, x, 32, 
 33). 
 
 Finally comes the last grievance, related by St. Matthew, 
 and that is the principal : " And when the chief priests and 
 " Scribes saw the wonderful things he did [miracles], and the 
 " children crying in the temple and saying, Hosannah to the 
 " house of David ! they were sore displeased " (Matt., xxr, 15) ; 
 for they were afraid of the vengeance of the Romans,
 
 — 135 — 
 
 § 32. 
 Here ai-e the gi'ievances against Jesus, according to St. 
 Mark. Like St. Matthew, he reports the grievance of the 
 Scribes, who reason thus among themselves: "Why does this 
 " man thus speak blasphemies 1 Who can forgive sin but God 
 " onlyl" (Mark, ii, 6-7). Still, thej' confined themselves 
 thus among themselves, without saying it to Jesus. They did 
 not attach any great importance to it. 
 
 St. Mark says, also, that the Sci-ibes and Pharisees said: 
 " How is it that he [Jesus] eateth and drinketh with publicans 
 "and sinners'?" (Mark, ii, 16); and that Jesus answered: 
 " They that are whole have no need of a physician, but they 
 " that ai-e sick " (Mark, ii, 17). This reproach was not of any 
 consequence. 
 
 He reports another reproach, even less serious, concerning the 
 usage of washing of hands. Here is what we yead : "And whith- 
 " ersoever he entered, into villages, or cities, or countries, they 
 " laid the sick in the streets, and besought him that they might 
 " touch, if it were but by the border of his garment;, and as 
 " many as touched him were made whole. Then came together 
 " unto him the Pharisees and certain of the Scribes [already 
 " discontented about this healing by contact]. And when they 
 " saw some of his disciples eat bread with unwashed hands, 
 " they found fault. For the Pharisees and all the Jews, except 
 " they wash their hands, eat not, holding the traditions of the 
 " elders" (Mark, vi, 56; and vii, 1-3). I refer here to the 
 remarks which I have made above, § 31. 
 
 But, according to Mark, a serious hostility had been created 
 through a miracle. " Jesus entered into the synagogue, and 
 
 " there was a man there which had a withered hand 
 
 " He [Jesus] said unto the Jews: Is it lawful to do good on 
 " the Sabbath day, or to do evil 1 — to save life or to kill ? But 
 " they held their peace. Then he said to that man : Stretch 
 " forth thine hand; and he sti-etched it out, and his hand was 
 " restored whole as the other. And the Pharisees went forth, 
 " and straightway took counsel with the Herodians against 
 " him, how they might destroy him. But Jesus withdrew with 
 " his disciples to the sea, and a great multitude from Galilee 
 ** followed him, having heard of the great things which he had
 
 — 136 — 
 
 " done" (Mark, iir, ]-8). We have here to remark that thLs 
 story differs from tliat of Matthew. According to Matt., xil, 
 10, the Jews questioned on tliis occasion whether it be permit- 
 ted to heal on the Sabbath, while, according to St. Mark, it 
 was Jesus who questioned, and the Jews kept their peace. In 
 fact, there was hardly anything to reply to this badly-put ques- 
 tion. The Jews knew well that it is not merely permitted, but 
 that it is even the duty of every Israelite to heal a sick person 
 on the Sabbath, and not to let human beings perish. (See § 
 9.) But was this man sick 1 Was he in danger of dying, if 
 attended to on ""Sunday ? Has it been well authenticated that 
 he was paralyzed and incapable of stretching forth his hand, 
 before Jesus said to him: " Stretch out thy hand V They pun- 
 ished the blind healed by Jesus, and suspected of connivance 
 (John, IX, 3-1). They suspected also Lazarus, resuscitated 
 through Jesus (John, xii, 10). It is then pi'obable that they 
 suspected the paralytic; so much more, since it is very easy to 
 simulate paralysis. 
 
 Finally, the last grievance : "Jesus, liaving entered into the 
 " temple, began to cast out them that sold and bought in the 
 *' temple, and overthrew the tables of tlie money-changers, 
 " . . . saying : Ye have made the house a den of thieves. 
 " They said unto him, By what authority doest thou these 
 " things ] . . . . Jesus said unto them, I shall not tell 
 " you by what authority I do these things" (Mark, xi, 15-18, 
 28 and 33). 
 
 § 33. 
 
 St. Luke speaks likewise of the grievance of the Pharisees, 
 who began to reason : " Who is this which speaketh blasphe- 
 " mies 1 Who can forgive sins but God alone 1 But when 
 " Jesus perceived their thoughts, he said unto them : '• What 
 " reason ye in your hearts 1 " (Luke, v, 21, 22). This gi'ievance 
 was of no consequence, because the Jews did nothing but reason 
 in their hearts. 
 
 When the disciples plucked ears of com on the Sabbath, 
 Jesus gave a sufficient excuse, saying that they were pressed 
 by hunger (Luke, vi, 3). 
 
 But hostilities had commenced on the proposition of miracles.
 
 — 137 — 
 
 After having done many miracles at Capernaum, Jesus went to 
 Nazareth, where he had been raised, and where he was not able 
 to do anything on account of the incredulity of his countrjTnen. 
 " He then said to the people : Ye will surely sa}^ unto me, 
 " Physician, heal thyself. Whatsoever we have heard done in 
 " Capernaum, do also here in thy country. And he said: Ver- 
 " ily I say unto you, no prophet is accepted in his owm country. 
 " But I tell you, of a truth, many widows were in Israel in the 
 " days of Elias. But unto none of them was Elias sent, except 
 
 " unto a widow of Sidon And all those present 
 
 " were filled w^ith wrath, and rose up and thrust him out of 
 "the city" (Luke, iv, 16-29). We cannot let this passage 
 pass without the remark that the example of Elias was not well 
 chosen, because this propliet accomplished wonders in his coun- 
 try; he abolished the worship of Baal. 
 
 St. Luke reports also, like St. Mark, the miraculous healing 
 of the man who had a withered hand, which caused a serious 
 hostility (Luke, vi, 6-11). 
 
 Finally, St. Luke relates that Jesus had said : " The Lord of 
 " the vineyard [God] shall come and destroy these husbandmen, 
 
 " and shall give the vineyard to others Then the 
 
 " chief priests and the Scribes the same hour sought to lay 
 " hands on him, for they perceived that he had spoken that 
 " parable against them" (Luke, xx, 16-19). 
 
 § 34. 
 
 The evangelist St. John, in the most perspicuous manner, 
 expresses the grievances of the Pharisees, and he repeats them 
 several ' times. He makes Jesus say, it is true, the following 
 words : " They [the Jews] have seen them [the miracles], and 
 " they have hated me and my Father. It is thus that the 
 " words [of the prophets] have been fulfilled. They have hated 
 " me without any reason" (John, xv, 24, 25). But he relates 
 that the Jews became hostile, not only because he had violated 
 the Sabbath, but also because he said that God was liis jirojier 
 father (idiou), making himself equal to God (John, v, 18). It 
 concerns here a paralytic who had the patience to wait thirty- 
 eight years in the same place (a veritable Stylite) at Jenisalem, 
 where was a water-tank, and an angel went down at a certain 
 10
 
 — 138 — 
 
 season into the pond and troubled the watei* ; whosoevei- then 
 first, after the troubling of the water, stepped in, was made 
 whole of whatsoever disease he had. " Jesus sa^d unto him, 
 " Wilt thou be made whole 1 The impotent man answered 
 " him : Sir, I have no man, wlien the water is troubled, to put 
 " me into the pond, because whilst I am coming another steps 
 " down before me" (John, v, 2-7). That man, who waited 
 thirty-eight years, could well wait another day, till Sunday. 
 There was no urgency to be healed on the Sabbath. 
 
 One day Jesus interrogated : " Why go ye about to kill me 1 
 " The people answered and said : Thou hast a devil [thou art a 
 '• fool]; who is going to kill youl .... Then cried Jesus 
 " in the temple as he taught, saying : I am not come of myself, 
 
 " but he that sent me is true. I am from him 
 
 " And many of the people believed on him, and said : Wlien 
 " Christ Cometh, will he do more miracles than these which 
 " this man hath done? .... The Pharisees heard that 
 " the people murmured such things concerning him, and the 
 " Pharisees and the chief priests sent officers to take him " 
 (John, VII, 19,20; 28-32). 
 
 Nicodemus, who was one among them (a Phai'isee), recom- 
 mended to his colleagues to let him go away (John, vii, 50-53). 
 This hostility was, then, easily appeased. 
 
 Jesus healed a man born blind, which produced a great agi- 
 tation, because the Jews believed not that this man was born 
 blind (John, ix, 14). They made an investigation, and they 
 said to the pretended blind man : " Give glory to God [that is 
 " to say, according to thy conscience], because we know that 
 " this man is a sinner" (John, ix, 24). Finally, they cast him 
 out of the synagogue, suspecting him of connivance. 
 
 But the most serious reproaches are those which were di- 
 rected against him when the Jews said of him, " He deceive th 
 " the people" (John, vii, 12). '' One day the Jews said unto 
 " him. Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen 
 " Abraham ] Jesus said unto them : Verily, verily, I say unto 
 *• you, before Abraham was, I am. Then took they up stones 
 " to cast at him, but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the 
 " temple" (John, viii, 57-59). "Another day Jesus said unto 
 " them : The works [miracles] which I do give testimony of
 
 — 139 — 
 
 " me. . ' . . . And I give unto them eternal life ; me and 
 " my Father are but one. Then the Jews took stones again. 
 " Jesus said unto them : I have done several good works before 
 " you [miraculous healings] ; for what are you stoning me 1 
 " The Jews answered him : For a good work we stone thee not, 
 " but for blasphemy, and because that thou, being a man, mak 
 " est thyself a god " (John, x, 25-33). But he escaped again 
 from their hands. 
 
 Finally, when he had resuscitated his friend Lazarus, which 
 produced a great agitation, " tlien gathered the chief priests 
 " and Pharisees a council, and said: What do we? for this 
 " man does many miracles'! If we let him thus alone, all men 
 " will believe on him, and the Romans shall come and take 
 " away both our place and nation. And one of them, named 
 " Caiaphas, said unto them : Ye do not consider that it is expe- 
 " dient for us that one man should die for the people, aid that 
 
 " the whole nation perish not Jesus therefore 
 
 " walked no more openly among the Jews, but went thence 
 " unto a country near to the wilderness " (John, xi, 47-50 and 
 54). "But the chief priests consulted that they might put 
 "Lazarus also to death" (John xii, 10), to punish him for 
 complicity. 
 
 Thus the evangelists, and especially St. John, explain the 
 grievances of the Jews better than all. 
 
 § 35. 
 
 It is not thus with the histoiy of the death of Jesus. Here 
 we find contradictions and numerous interpolations. I have 
 not the intention of searching the account to the bottom, espe- 
 cially after the labors of the illustrious M. Salvador. I will 
 merely examine the divers recitals of the four evangelists, each 
 of them separately. 
 
 Let us see first the recital of St. Matthew: "Now the chief 
 " priests and elders and all the councils sought false witness 
 " against Jesus . . . but found none; yea, though many 
 " false witnesses came, yet found they none " (Matt., xxvi, 59, 
 60). We have before reported (§ 31) the passages from St. 
 Matthew wherein Jesus is accused of having publicly pro- 
 claimed himself as king of Israel; now, consequently, there
 
 — 140 — 
 
 was no necessity for false witnesses. "The liigli priest said 
 " unto him : I adjure thee by the living God, to say whether 
 " thou be the Christ, the Son of God. Jesus said unto him : 
 " Thou hast said; nevei-theless, I say unto you, hereafter shall 
 " ye see the Son of man, sitting on the right hand of power, 
 " and coming in the clouds of heaven. Then the high priest 
 " rent his clothes and said: He hath spoken blasphemy; what 
 " fux'ther need have we of witnesses 1 ... he is guilty 
 " unto death !" Jesus had then made a confessii n which the law 
 punished with death. It follows, therefore, that there never 
 were false witnesses sought, because the confession of the ac- 
 cused was sufficient. 
 
 We read further on in St. Matthew : " Judas repented him- 
 " self, and brought again the thirty pieces of silver to the chief 
 " priests, saying: 1 have sinned in that I have betrayed the 
 " innocent blood. But they said : What is that to us 1 See 
 " thou to that. And he cast down the pieces of silver in the 
 " temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself" (Matt., 
 XXVII, 3-5). What did St. Peter during that timel "He de- 
 " nied him [Jesus] with oaths, saying : I do not know this man 
 - [Jesus] at all. And a little while after came unto him they 
 " that stood by, and said to Peter: Surely thou also art one 
 " of them, for thy speech betrayeth thee. Then began he to 
 " curse and to swear: I know not the man" (Matt., xxvi, 72- 
 74). Is it possible that Judas betrayed Jesus, and had had 
 more faithfulness and devotion than St. Peter, the prince of 
 the apostles 1 Judas, the traitor, exposes himself heroically to 
 the most serious dangers in speaking of innocent blood before 
 the priests, who had declared Jesus guilty of a crime; this 
 same Judas is overwhelmed by remorse to such a degree, that 
 he ends by committing suicide; while St. Peter, upon whom 
 Jesus has built the church, makes false oaths in order to save 
 himself! Perhaps we may explain this contradiction, by ad- 
 mitting that Judas, as much traitor as he was, under the gi-ave 
 reproaches against himself was by remorse pushed to this act 
 of heroism, while St. Peter had nothing to reproach himself 
 about. But we should never keep out of view that it con- 
 cerned here a gi'ave accusation of resolution against established 
 authority, and especially against the Eoman government. In
 
 — Ul -^ 
 
 similar accusations, the employment of arms against the agents 
 of authority is always an aggravating circumstance of the high- 
 est importance. Now St. Peter was the only one who, against 
 the will of the Master, " di-ew his sword and struck a servant 
 " of the high priest, and smote off his ear" (Matt., xxvi, 51). 
 This act alone would suffice to reveal to the authorities the de- 
 pot of arms (because Jesus had bought swords in order to de- 
 fend himself — Luke, xxii, 26), and thus aggravate the position 
 of the chief of the accused party. 
 
 There is another impossibility in the history of Judas. 
 When he says to the chief priests, " I have sinned in betraying 
 " innocent blood," these could not have answered him, " What 
 " is that to us? You must look to that yourself." That would 
 be equivalent to making the confession that Jesus was inno- 
 cent, while they delivered him over to Pilate as guilty. 
 
 We read, also, in St. Matthew : " The governor [Pilate] in- 
 " terrogated him, saying: Art thou the king of the Jews'? 
 " And Jesus said unto him: Thou sayest " (Matt., xxvii, 11). 
 St. Matthew did not say that Jesus had spoken of a kingdom 
 not of this world. According to him, Jesus had simply an- 
 swered, " Thou sayest ; that is to say, / am the king of the 
 Jews. The pagan Pilate, who understood nothing of Jewish 
 and Christian messianic questions, could not but believe he saw 
 before him a man who had intended to become king, braving 
 the Romans, and who was in possession of sufficient courage 
 to prefer the sincere confession of a brave pati'iot upon the scaf- 
 fold, to a disgraceful and cowardly lie in order to save himself. 
 They were then habituated to such courage among the Jews. 
 There were at that epoch thousands of Jews, who, with most 
 admirable courage, had undergone all the tortures of the Ro- 
 mans, in preference to acknowledging the sovereignty of their 
 tyrants. When all the people wex-e assembled unarmed before 
 the governor, in order to petition him not to introduce a statue 
 into the temple, he had them hemmed in by soldiers, threaten- 
 ing to massacre them all if they would not go away. They 
 threw themselves upon the ground, men, women and children, at 
 the same instant, saying, " We are ready to die rather than to 
 let the temple be profaned." 
 
 Unfortunately, such gi-eat virtue, the courage of a patriot
 
 — 142 — 
 
 martyi', receives no consideration from a subaltern tyrant, who 
 has been charged to suppi-ess every patriotic desire and every 
 civic virtue.. The moi'e courageous the accused is, the more 
 dangerous is he to the tyi'ant. 
 
 The conclusion herefrom is, that this answer of Jesus of 
 itself made all the accusations of the Jews superfluous; that 
 after this confession of Jesus, Pilate could not give to the Jews 
 the choice between him and Barabbas (Matt., xxvii, 12); that 
 he could not interrogate the Jews, " What evil hatH he done 1 " 
 (Matt., XXVII, 23); and, finally, that it is impossible that the 
 same Pilate " washed his hands befoi-e the multitude, saying, 
 " I am innocent of the blood of this just person" (Matt., 
 XXVII, 24); because Pilate was charged by the government of 
 E.ome not to defend those who confessed themselves as being 
 King of the Jews, but to crucify them, in order that Judea 
 should remain a Roman province. 
 
 The following of the recital shows, besides, that Pilate was 
 much more irritated against Jesus than the Jews, because these 
 demanded only one thing — "that he be crucified" (Matt., 
 xxvii). 
 
 It is well known that this was a kind of execution introduced by 
 the Romans in spite of the Jews. 
 
 Pilate not only had him crucified, but even whipped, and 
 delivered him to the Roman soldiers ; who, having stripped him, 
 clothed him again with a scarlet cloak ; " then, having made a 
 " ci'own of thorns, put it upon his head, and a reed in his light 
 " hand, and they bowed the knee before him, and mocked him, 
 " saying : Hail, King of the Jews ! And they spit upon him, 
 " and took the reed and smote him on the head ; then they led 
 " him away to crucify him. . . . They gave him vinegar 
 " to drink, mixed with gall. . . . They set ofver his head 
 " his accusation, wi-itten — 17iis is Jesus, the King of the Jews" 
 (Matt., xxvii, 26-37). All these atrocious i)leasantries were 
 aifronts to the nation, more even than to Jesus ; and certainly 
 the Jews could not have demanded them ; they had to sufier 
 them, because they knew the barbarity of Rome. If, then, 
 Pilate had done all this in spite of the Jews, it is impossible 
 that he could have washed his hands, saying, " I am innocent of 
 the blood of this just man."
 
 — 143 — 
 
 I could give still more proofs, if I should invoke the recitals 
 of the other evangelists, or other historical documents ; but 1 
 shall keejj on examining these recitals separately. 
 
 § 36. 
 
 Let us see, noAv, the recital of St. Mark. He relates: " The 
 " high priests were seeking t stimony against Jesus, and they 
 " found none ; because some gave false testimony, and their 
 " depositions did not agree" (Mark, xiv, 55, 56). St. Mark 
 says, then, not like St. Matthew, that they were looking for 
 false witnesses ; on the contrary, the Jews had repulsed them. 
 
 He relates, further on : " The chief priest interrogated him, 
 " and said unto him, Art thou the Christ, the Son of God I 
 " And Jesus said unto him: I am, and ye shall see the Son of 
 " man sitting on the right hand of power and coming in the 
 " clouds of heaven. Then the high priest said : What need 
 " we any further witnesses 1 Ye have heard the blasphemy " 
 (Mark, xiv, 61-64). "And Pilate interrogated him, and said: 
 " Art thou the King of the Jews 1 Jesus answered : Thou say- 
 " est it" (Mark, xv, 2). The same remarks may be made as 
 with regard to St. Matthew. From the instant tliat Jesus 
 made the bold confession before Pilate, "Thou sayest it," all 
 the rest is superfluous, and Pilate could not have questioned, 
 " What evil has he done?" (Mark, xv, 14), nor give the Jews 
 the choice between him and Barabbas. 
 
 St. Mark relates, besides, that Pilate caused him to be 
 scourged, which the Jews had not demanded. He relates, also, 
 that Pilate delivered him to the soldiers, who dressed him with 
 a cloak of scarlet, and plaited a crown of thorns and put it 
 upon his head, and began to salute him, " Hail, King of the 
 " Jews. And they smote him on the head with a reed, and 
 " did spit upon him, and bowing ther. knees, worshiped him. 
 " • • • . And the superscription of his accusation was 
 " written over. The King of the Jews!" All this was done in 
 order to put the nation to shame, and certainly the Jews could 
 not have asked for it. Pilate would have done it in spite of 
 them. 
 
 However, the recital of St. Mark differs from that of St. 
 Matthew in some points which may well deserve to be noticed.
 
 — U4 — 
 
 First, St. Mark does not say that Pilate washed his hands, say- 
 ing: "I am innocent of this just one." He relates that Ba- 
 rabbas was in prison, with other mutinous people, who had com- 
 mitted murder in the insurrection (Mark, xv, 7); in other 
 words, the insurgents had killed a man, probably a Roman sol- 
 dier, during an insurrection. Barabbas was, then, not a simple 
 robber, as St. John has it (St, John, xviii, 40). He might 
 have been, perhaps, on the contrary a great patriot and very 
 popular; so much the more, because, according to St. Mark, 
 the Jews were those who reminded Pilate of the custom to re- 
 lease a prisoner, and that they had in prison several revolution- 
 ists, from whom they chose Barabbas. St. Matthew says, also : 
 " Thei'e was there a noted [episemos, distinguished, ilkistrious] 
 " prisoner called Barabbas" (Matt., xxvii, 16). It is evident 
 that St. Matthew would not give to a common robber the 
 epithet " illustrious." 
 
 The contradiction of the evangelists in respect to Barabbas finds an 
 analogy in their recitals concerning Herod the Tetrarch. St. Mark says: 
 •' For Herod feared John, knowing that he was a just man and an holy, 
 " and observed him; and when he heard him, he did many things and 
 "heard him gladly" (Mark, vi, 20); whilst St. Luke said of him, 
 ' ' That he had been reproved by John for Herodias his brother, and ^ 
 " for all the evils which Herod had done" (Luke, in, 19). 
 
 According to St. Mark, Pilate said to the Jews : " Will you 
 " that I release unto you the king of the Jews ]" (Mark, xv, 
 9). This question the Jews could not answer in the affirma- 
 tive without the risk of being suspected of rebellion. Pilate 
 repeated the question in still more implicating terms. He says, 
 always according to St. Mark : " What will ye, then, that I 
 " shall do unto him whom ye call the king of the Jews ]" 
 (Mark, XV, 12). Putting the question in these terms, evi- 
 dently Pilate wanted to test the fidelity of the Jews to Caesar. 
 
 Lastly, St. Mark says that Joseph of Arimathea, who z-en- 
 dered so nobly the last duties to Jesus, while the apostles had 
 all abandoned him, was a " senator of distinction " (Mark, xv, 
 43). He also relates, " that this Joseph of Arimathea went 
 " in boldly unto Pilate, and craved the body of Jesus. Pilate 
 " marveled if he were already dead, and calling unto him the 
 " centurion, he asked him whether he had been any time dead,
 
 — 145 — 
 
 " and when he knew it of the centurion, he gave the body to 
 " Joseph " {Mark, xv, 43-45). It follows therefrom that Pilate 
 stispected the Jews of detaching Jesus from the cross living, in 
 order to save him. He had no confidence in anybody but in 
 the Romans, and it was only after the centurion had assui-ed 
 him that Christ was really dead, thatJie decided to permit the 
 Jews to detach the corpse of Jesus, in order to render him the 
 last honors. 
 
 ' § 37. 
 
 According to St. Luke, " the Jews did not look at all for 
 " witnesses ; they questioned Jesus : Art thou^the Son of God ] 
 " And he said unto them, Ye say that I am. Then they said : 
 " What need we for any further witness. And the whole 
 " multitude of them arose, and led him unto Pilate ; and they 
 " began to accuse him, saying : We found this fellow pervert- 
 " ing the nation and forbidding to give tribxite to Csesar, say- 
 " ing that he himself is Christ, a king. And Pilate asked him, 
 " saying : Art thou the king of the Jews ] And he answered 
 " him and said: Thou sayest it" (Luke, xxii, 70, 71, andxxiii, 
 1-3). Here are three very serious accusations, to wit : that he 
 had been perverting the nation ; that he forbade paying tribute 
 to Csesar, and that he called himself king. These thi-ee accu- 
 sations merge, besides, into a s'ngle one, to wit : that he arro- 
 gated to himself the title of king, because upon that accusation 
 alone Pilate interrogates him. In fact, it is solely because he 
 arrogated to himself the title of king, that he permitted himself 
 to forbid the payment of tribute to Csesar ; and it is also the 
 recognition of royalty wherein consisted the sedition of the 
 people. Were these three accusations founded on truth 1 
 
 We have seen that the question by Pilate : "Art thou the 
 "king of the Jews'?" unites all tlu-ee accusations. It is upon 
 this question, thus understood, that Jesus makes a complete 
 avowal, and without any reserve whatever, in answering : 
 *' Tliou sayest so"; that is to say, Thy words, as they are un- 
 derstood by thee, are exact. For Jesus did not say, " I am 
 " king, but I forbid not to pay tribute to Csesar"; he said, on 
 the contrary, " Thou sayest it." That means, I am king, and 
 consequently I have done everything that a king should do.
 
 — 146 — 
 
 It is evident that all those who were going to make themselves 
 kings of Israel, could not but commence by refusing the tribute 
 to Cajsar. So at least Pilate must have understood it. But it 
 will be objected that Jesus had said : " Give to Ctesar what 
 " belongs to Csesar" (Luke xx, 25 ; Matt., xxii, 21 ; Mark, 
 XII, 17). We reply that all the evangelists, far from admitting 
 the sincere submission of Jesus to Cajsar, try to excuse Christ, 
 on the contrary, for having pronounced such words, and they 
 invoke extenuating circumstances, which are, indeed, of great 
 importance. St. Matthew relates : " They consulted in order to 
 
 " surprise him in his discourses ; they sent Herodians 
 
 " Jesus percei\'ed their wickedness, and said : Why tempt ye 
 " me, ye hypocrites ; render unto Cajsar the things which are 
 " Cfesar's" (Matt., xxii, 15-21). St. Mark says: ''And they 
 " sent unto him certain of the Herodians, to catch him in his 
 " words. But he, knoAving their hypocrisy, said unto them, 
 " Why tempt ye me ] Render to Cajsar the things that are 
 " Cajsar's" (Mark, xii, 13-17). St. Luke relates : "And they 
 " watched him, and sent forth spies, which should feign them- 
 " selves just men, that they might take hold of his words, 
 " that so they might deliver him unto the power and authoi'ity 
 " of the governor. Jesus perceived their craftiness, and said : 
 " Wliy tempt ye me 1- Render to Caesar what belongs to 
 " Caisar. And they could not take hold of his woi-ds be/are 
 " the people " (Luke, xx, 20-26). When Jesus was among his 
 intimate friends, he used different language, and he believed 
 then that he was not at all obliged to pay the tribute. " One 
 
 " day they went with Jesus privately And when 
 
 " they came to .Capernaum, they that received tribute-money 
 " came to Peter and said : Doth not your Master pay tribute ? 
 
 " [The question is significant.] He said, Yes Jesus 
 
 " said : What thinkest thou, Simon? Of whom do the kings 
 " of the earth take custom or tribute 1 — of their own children 
 " or of strangers? Peter said unto him : Of strangers. Jesus 
 "answered him: Then are the children free" (Matt., xvii, 
 19-26). Besides, we have the testimony from Jesus himself. 
 He did not repel the accusation of refusing tribute to C^sar, 
 
 The end of the recital of St. Luke is difficult to comprehend. 
 This is what he relates : " Pilate interrogated him and said :
 
 — 147 — 
 
 " Art thou the king of the Jews? And Jesus answered him, 
 " and said : Thou say est it. And Pilate said to the people and to 
 " the chief priests, I find no fault with this man " (Luke, xxili, 
 3-4). That is exactly as if one should read in a public print 
 that a French general asked an Arab accused of conspiracy, "Is 
 it true that thou art going to become th« Sultan of Algiei-s 1 " 
 [revolutionizing the tribes against France]; the Arab answers, 
 " It is true ; " and the general says, " I do not find anything 
 wrong in that; let the man be released." It is evident that, 
 from the moment Jesus had made the confession that he was 
 king, Pilate could not release him, nor say there was nothing 
 bad in him, nor make to the Jews the proposal of a choice be- 
 tween him and Barabbas — that is to say, between a man who 
 has the courage to confess his title as a king, and a Barabbas, 
 who, in the eyes of Pilate, was much less dangerous to Rome, 
 though this Barabbas was in prison on account of a sedition 
 (Luke, XXIII, 19). 
 
 St. Luke introduces Herod, who plays no part ; and he re- 
 lates : "And there followed him a great company of people, and 
 " of women, which also bewailed and lamented him. And 
 " Jesus, turning unto them, said : Daughtei-s of Jerusalem, 
 " weep not for me, but weep for yourselves and your children " 
 (Luke, XXIII, 27, 28). He pi-edicts misfortune for them ; he 
 curses them. They believe not in him ; they are not of his 
 partisans. Still, they wept over him, and they had pity on 
 him. In spite of this, Jesus finds not a single word of con- 
 solation or acknowledgment for these women who wept for 
 him. 
 
 "When, then, the adversaries of Jesus, out of compassion, 
 wept for him, while he curses them, it is evident that all these 
 passages in which it is said that the Jews jeered Christ, must 
 be interpolated. 
 
 St. Luke finally relates : " There was above his head this 
 " inscription, in Greek, in Latin and in Hebrew : This is the 
 " Kinff of the Jews " (Luke, xxiii, 38). This pi'oves what was 
 the principal accusation. 
 
 St. Luke is the only one who relates the sublime trait of 
 Jesus having said, upon the cross: " My Father, forgive them, 
 " because they do not know what they do" (Luke, xxxiii, 34).-.
 
 — 148 — 
 
 How was the most sublime trait of the life of Jesus forgotten 
 by all the other evangelists ? — while they all relate that Jesus 
 curses whole cities, Chorazin, etc., which did not believe in his 
 miracles ; that he told the apostles to curse all those who 
 should not receive them with hospitality ; that Jesus would 
 not pardon Judas, though the latter did nothing but conform 
 to the decree of legitimate authority (John, xi. 57); and that 
 he was besides unfortunately destined to accomplish the proph- 
 ecies written in the Bible. On the contrary, Jesus curses 
 Judas, saying : " The Son of man goeth, as is written of him, 
 " but wo unto that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed" 
 (Matt., XXVI, 24; Mark, xiv, 21; Luke, xxii, 21). Pardon is 
 implored always for the Roman soldiers only. "They [the 
 " Romans] crucified him there, and the malefactoi's [probably 
 " insurgent patriots]. But Jesus said : Forgive them, because 
 
 " they [the Romans] know not what they are doing 
 
 " The soldiers insulted him, and offered him vinegar " (Luke, 
 xxiii, 33, 34, 36). If this passage of the pardon is not inter- 
 polated, it explains itself through another passage, where we 
 read, that some Jews having doubt about the value of the 
 miracles of Jesus, he answers them : "And whosoever speaketh 
 " a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him; but 
 " whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be 
 " forgiven him, neither in tliis world nor in the world to come" 
 (Matt., XII, 32; Mark, iii, 28, 29; Luke, xii, 10). Now, the 
 Romans, who maltreated and insulted Jesus, did intend the mis- 
 chief only upon his person ; they did not and could not under- 
 stand the mission of Christ, because he was sent only to the 
 lost sheep of Israel (Matt., xv, 24). But the Jews who had 
 pity on Jesus and wept for him, manifested also that they did 
 not believe in the Holy Ghost. All prayers for them would 
 'then be useless. God himself would not pardon them, neither 
 in this world nor in the world to come. 
 
 §39. 
 
 While the first three evangelists represent Jesus as a man 
 who is afraid — sometimes answering with monosyllables, some- 
 times giving no answer at all — St. John is the only one who 
 represents him as a courageous man, sure of himself, and brav-
 
 — 149 — 
 
 ing death and corporal punishment. Upon the inteiTogation 
 of the high priest (which after all was nothing but a judicial 
 formality, because everybody knew about what it concei-ned), 
 he answers bravely: "I have openly spoken to eveiybody, 1 
 *' have always taught in the synagogue; why questionesfc thou 
 " me?" (John, xviii, 20, 21). . 
 
 On the conti'ary, Pilate is represented as a candid man, who 
 has never killed a fly ; who does not know his own power or 
 authority; who scarcely knows his functions, and for what he 
 has been sent to Jerusalem ; as if he was there solely for his 
 amusement, looking on the palace of Herod or on the tomb of 
 Ezekiel or the patriarchs. He is quite astonished that they 
 bring him a man to be judged ; so that they are obliged to tell 
 him, " If he were not a malefactor, we would not have deliv- 
 ered him up to thee" (John, xvin, 30). Biit Pilate forgets 
 altogether that he is governor, and that he is the only one to 
 whom belongs the judgment and the execution of the sentence. 
 He said, therefore, to the Jews : " Take ye him and judge him 
 according to your law" (John, xviii, 31). Then are the Jews 
 very obliging in helping his memory, saying : " It is not lawful 
 
 " for us to pvit any man to death Then Pilate 
 
 " called Jesus and said unto him : Art thou the king of the 
 "Jews'?" (John, xviii, 31-33). Jesus, instead of answei-ing 
 the question, prefers to satisfy his own curiosity, and he asks: 
 " Say est thou this thing of thyself, or did others tell it thee of 
 " mel" (John, xviii, 34). Pilate might not have been accus- 
 tomed to such indiscreet questions on the part of an accused. 
 Besides, it was completely useless. Jesus knew well enough 
 that the Jews had brought him there, and that he had come 
 with them. He had not forgotten that he had been proclaimed 
 at Jerusalem, with loud voices. King of Israel (John, xii, 13- 
 15). But Pilate is always what we may be permitted to call a 
 good fellow. He finds that question natural enough. He re- 
 lates, then, to Jesus that the chief priests were those who 
 accused him, and, with a delicacy characteristic of a noble Ro- 
 man, he will not embarrass him by repeating the first question, 
 ^'■Art thou the king of the Jews 1 " He asks him now, quite 
 simply: " What hast thou done 'I " Then Jesus takes advantage 
 of the excellent disposition of Pilate to teach liim the catechism.
 
 — 150 — 
 
 He answei-s him : " My kingdom is not of this world ; if my 
 " kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, 
 " that I should not be delivered to the Jews ; but now is my 
 " kingdom not from hence " (John, xviii, 36). Pilate does 
 not understand the lesson. " He said unto him : Thou ax't, 
 "then, king? Jesus answered: Thou sayest that I am a 
 " king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into 
 " the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every- 
 " one that is of the truth heareth my voice. Pilate said unto 
 " him: What is truth? " (John, xviii, 37, 38). What a candid 
 man ! Evidently, also, he does not know what is a lie. There 
 interrogation stops, and Pilate went out and said : "I find in 
 him no fault at all." Is it necessary for me to prove that all 
 of this dialogue is interpolated 1 
 
 But here is where Pilate becomes deceitful. He shows the 
 fox's ear ; he asks : " Will ye therefore that I release unto you 
 " the king of the Jews ] " He had then not understood the 
 lesson, because Jesus himself had just explained to him the 
 character of his royalty, and that he was not the king of the 
 Jews, but the spiritual sovereign of humanity. Besides, he 
 knew well that the question, put in these terms, could not well 
 be answei'ed in the affirmative by the Jews, without taking the 
 risk of being all massacred as rebels. Pilate did more : " He 
 " had him scourged " (John, xix, 1), which the Jews did not 
 ask for ; he delivered him over to the soldiers, who " plaited a 
 " crown of thorns and put it on his head, and put on him a 
 " purple robe, and said : Hail, King of the Jews ; and they 
 " smote him with their hands " ; and, all this done, Jesus then 
 went out, carrying the crown of thorns and the purple robe, 
 and Pilate said unto them : " Behold, I bring him foi-tli to 
 
 " you, that ye may know that I find no fault with him 
 
 " There is the man " (John, xix, 4-6). Thus Pilate had him 
 scourged, smitten by soldiers' hands, and, having insulted him 
 by calling him ironically " king," put on his head a crown of 
 thorns and declared him innocent ! 
 
 But the Jews said then to Pilate, that Jesus Imd made him- 
 self the Son of God. " When Pilate had heard these words, 
 " he was the more afraid ; and went again into the judgment- 
 " hall. And he said unto Jesus : Whence art thou 1 But
 
 — 151 — 
 
 " Jesus gave him no answer. Then said Pilate unto him : 
 " Speak est thou not unto me 1 Knowest thou not, that I have 
 " j)0wer to crucify thee ! and have power to release thee 1 "• 
 (John, XVIII, 8-10.) 
 
 This is the first time that Pilate speaks like a true Roman 
 governor. Indeed, he could crucify or release Jesus in spite of 
 the Jews, while the latter could do neither the one nor the 
 other without his consent. " Still, Pilate tried to release him, 
 " but the Jews cried : If thou releasest this man, thou art not 
 " Caesar's friend. Whosoever makes himself a king, speaketh 
 "against Caesar " (John, xix, 11). This Pilate did not know 
 before. But when the Roman governor learned at last that a 
 kingdom of the Jews was revolution against Rome, we should 
 say that then he would decide to execute Jesus. Mistaken, 
 again. He insisted upon declaring innocent him whom he had 
 caused to be scourged, and in a shameful manner insulted, and 
 he employs all possible means to release him. He is only un- 
 fortunate that he behaves himself a little awkwardly in calling 
 him always " king" and he said to the Jews : " Here is your 
 " king. But they cried, away with him_ " (John, xix, 14, 15). 
 The gallant Pilate is not discouraged; he makes a last trial, 
 asking the Jews : "Shall I crucify your king ?" (John, xix, 15). 
 To this the Jews could not answer otherwise than, " We have 
 " no other king but Caesar." All these passages are evidently 
 interpolated. 
 
 Finally, Pilate had Jesus crucified, and he placed above the 
 ci'oss the inscription : " Jesus of Nazareth, King of the 
 " Jews" (John, xix, 19). 
 
 § 39. 
 
 Thus all the evangelists agree : 
 
 (a.) That Jesus made a triumphal entrance into Jerusalem, 
 amidst the cries of: " Long live the King of Israel !" 
 
 (6.) That Pilate made Jesus suffer insulting tortures, in 
 order to put the nation to shame, and to violate their feelings, 
 and that they would have done anything to escape that humil- 
 iation. 
 
 (c.) That lastly, Pilate caused to be made an inscription, 
 containing these words, ^^ King of the, Jews" in order to mark
 
 — 152 — 
 
 the subject of condemnation, which was revolution against 
 Rome. 
 
 If it was so, Pilate condemned him, rightly or wrongly, as a 
 rebel. Probably the Jews had nothing to do with it. The 
 solemn entrance of Jesus into Jerusalem, amidst the shouting : 
 " Long live the King!" uttered by the crowd, could not have 
 been ignored by Pilate, and that circumstance was sufficient. 
 To suppose that Pilate listened to an opinion of the Jews about 
 this event is an absurdity, If we still should admit that the 
 Jews had done it — to wit, delivering Jesus to Pilate — it was 
 evidently for the purpose of anticipating the initiative of this 
 sanguinaiy governor, whom Jesus himself considered a mur- 
 derer (Luke, XIII, 1-3), for he was capable of crucifying thou- 
 sands of persons — all those who shouted, "Long live the king!" 
 — and even the dignitaries of the nation, accusing them of con- 
 nivance with him who was acclaimed King of the Jews. 
 
 A very curious tale was lately read before me, which was 
 said to have happened in Wilna. 
 
 A heroic Pole, who for some time was the subject of much 
 talk, made one day his solemn entrance into the capital of 
 Lithuania, and the whole of the people received him amidst the 
 shoutings of " Long live the son of Sobieski, King of Poland, 
 " who comes in the name of the Lord, in order to re-estaV>lish 
 " justice and take vengeance iipon iniquities." He entered 
 the national palace, and he drove out the unfaithful employes 
 who made traffic with the public treasury, saying: " You make 
 " this sacred edifice a cavern of thieves." And the nobility 
 and the senators were surprised, took hold of him, and led him 
 to Mouravieffi And MouraviefF said unto them: "What ac- 
 " cusation do you bear against this man?" They answered 
 him: "If that man were not a malefactor, we should not have 
 " brought him here." But MouraviefF said unto them: " Take 
 " him yourselves, and judge him according to your own law." 
 And they said unto him : " It is not permitted us to put any- 
 " body to death." Then Mouravieff had this man come before 
 him, and said to him: " Art thou the King of Poland 1" And 
 the man replied to him : " Canst thou say this thing from thine 
 " own inclination, or have others said something to thee of 
 "me?" Then Mouravieff said unto the man: "Thy nation
 
 — 153 — 
 
 " and the principals of the nobility delivered thee over unto 
 " me. What hast thou done I Art thou tlie King of Po- 
 " land '2" And the man said unto Mouravieff: " Tliou sayest 
 " it. I am he." Then Mouravieff said to the principals of the 
 nobility and to the people: " I do not find anything bad in this 
 " man." He had him scourged, put a crown of thoi-ns upon 
 his head, had him boxed on the ear, and said to the people: 
 " Here he is; I lead him unto you, in order that you know 
 " that I do not find anything bad in him." But the people 
 shouted : " Hang him ! Hang him ! " Then Mouravieff, seeing 
 that he did not gain anything, and the riot increased more 
 and more, took water and washed his hands, saying: "I 
 " am innocent of the blood of this just man. It is on you to 
 " think about it." And the whole of the people answered : 
 " May his blood come upon us and our children." But the 
 wife of the governor sent him word : " Have nothing 
 " done to this good man." And the governor said to 
 the pi'incipals and to the senators : " Here is your king ! " 
 But they shouted, " Hang him! Hang him!" And Moura- 
 vieff said unto them : " Shall I take your kingl" And they 
 answered : " We have no other king but the Czar." One 
 Herodinski was a just man, and he hoped for the consolation 
 of his country. That is why Mouravieff sent the accused to 
 Herodinski, in order that he might judge the accused accord- 
 ing to the laws of his country. Herodinski asked him several 
 questions, and the head men and the senators accused him with 
 gi'eat vehemence. But Herodinski, together with the guards- 
 men, treated him with contempt. And in order to ridicule 
 him, they had him clothed with a shining robe, and sent him 
 back to Mouravieff. On the same day Herodinski and 
 Mouravieff became friends, though they had been enemies be- 
 fore. Then Mouravieff said : " I have not found anything 
 " bad in that man ; Herodinski, neither. After having had 
 " Mm scourged, I shall i-elease him." But the principals, the 
 senators, and the whole of the people, shouted : " Punish him ! 
 " Punish him ! " And he delivered him over unto them, and 
 they led him away. 
 
 Hardly had I finished reading the foregoing story, when I 
 exclaimed : I will not believe it. It has never taken place, 
 11
 
 — 154 — 
 
 and it is nothing else than a pui-e and simple copy of the inter- 
 polations of the gospels. But the reader will be astonished 
 that it is possible to believe a history of what has taken place 
 in one country to be true, wliile a similar history in another 
 country should be considered impossible to be true. I answer 
 him, that I should not make any difference between divers 
 peoples ; all that I require proof of is, the truth of the history, 
 and I shall instantly admit it ; both the above episode in Polish 
 history, and that by me considered interpolation of the gospels. 
 I am still waiting for proofs.
 
 PART III. 
 
 §40. 
 
 We are now going to examine the value of the new theory 
 of the apostles. Here is this new system : The Christ shall 
 make two appearances. At iirst he shall come humble and 
 poor, and die; afterward, he shall resuscitate, the third day, in 
 order to ascend to heaven; and iinally he shall come again, upon 
 the clouds of heaven, with a great majesty, to accomplish the 
 promises which God has made to the pati-iarchs and the 
 prophets. 
 
 It is necessary, then, before everything, to prove that Jesus 
 has really been resuscitated. The apostles have well under- 
 stood the importance of this iaet, as a base, an indispensable 
 foundation, for the system of the apostles, which we have just 
 now described. St. Paul himself, the gi-eatest of the apostles, 
 says to the Christians of Corinth : " If Christ has not been re- 
 " suscitated, our assertion is vain and your faith is vain " (1 
 Corinth., xv, 14-17). For the support of this resurrection, 
 the apostles have invoked their own testimony and the prophe- 
 cies of the Old Testament. Let us examine first these proofs; 
 afterward we shall examine the promises of the return of Je- 
 sus upon the clouds of heaven, and at a stipulated time, which 
 is already gone by without Christ having returned. 
 
 The testimony of the apostles about the resurrection ofier 
 numerous contradictions; besides, they confess that they are 
 the only witnesses of the fact, and that other persons have not 
 seen anything unnatural. " St. Peter says himself: God re- 
 " suscitated him the third day, and it was his will that he 
 " should be seen not by all the people, but by witnesses which 
 " had been previously chosen by God, who did eat and drink 
 *' with him after he rose from the dead " (Acts, x, 40-41).
 
 — 156 — 
 
 It now remains to examine the biblical prophecies. St. 
 Stephen is the first who died on account of his faith in the 
 resurrection of Jesus (Acts, vii, 58), though he had seen noth- 
 ing but that Christ "made great miracles" (Acts, vi, 8), and 
 he invoked the Old Testament. His demonstration is strange. 
 He speaks at fii'st about a thousand things about which nobody 
 questioned him, and which have no connection with the resur- 
 rection of Jesus. He relates that Abraham was called to so 
 to Palestine ; that he had been circumcised ; that Isaac, Jacob, 
 and Joseph were his descendants ; that Jacob and his children 
 were interred after their death ; that the Jews suffered in 
 Egypt ; that Moses went into the land of Midian ; that he 
 gave the law upo^ the mount of Sinai, etc. After having 
 related all these things, completely useless for his cause, he 
 apostrophizes brusquely the Supreme Council in these terms : 
 " Stiff-necked people, your hearts and ears are uncircumcised ; 
 " you always oppose the holy ghost ; you are the same as your 
 " fathers. Who is the prophet whom your fathers did not per- 
 " secute 1 They have killed even those who predicted the ad- 
 " vent of the just [Jesus] whom you have delivered over ; you, 
 " who have received the law, but you have never observed it " 
 (Acts, VII, 51-53). Here he finishes his demonstration, which 
 proves nothing at all concerning the resurrection of Jesus ; 
 which demonstration he nevertheless gives as irrefutable. But 
 the Supreme Council, which is stiff-necked, of uncircumcised 
 hearts and ears, murderers of prophets, and above all incredu- 
 lous, will not believe yet. " Then, St. Stephen, full of the 
 " holy ghost, having his eyes directed to heaven, saw [all at 
 " once] the glory of God, and Jesus who was at the right hand 
 " of God ; and he said : Here, I see the heavens open, and the 
 " Son of man on the right hand of God " (Acts, vii, 55, 56). 
 Alas ! there is not a single man to be found who has such a 
 good sight as St. Stephen, who remains the only witness of the 
 appearance of Jesus, and such a witness as, ajiparently, could 
 not prove anything. 
 
 But he has proved that he does not know the Bible. He 
 has committed three mistakes : 
 
 (a.) He relates that Moses has fled from Egypt, and he prob- 
 ably believes that the Jews pursued him, because he says :
 
 — 157 — 
 
 " Moses, whom they [the Israelites] have rejected, saying, Who 
 " has established thee prince and judge 1 " (Acts, vii, 35). He 
 finds in this an analogy with Jesus ; but he is mistaken. 
 Moses had never been condemned ; " Moses fled befoi^e Pha- 
 " raoh" (Exodus, ii, 15). Moses, at that time, had not con- 
 ceived any plan for Israel, and it was a simple individual of the 
 lower class of people who addressed Mm thus, and for whom 
 the nation was not at all responsible. 
 
 (6.) He says that they pei-secuted all the prophets. Now, 
 among the thousands of prophets who appeared during a period 
 of about six centuries, two only have been killed, both of them 
 without any participation of the Jewish authorities, and only 
 through the order of a tyrant. The one is Zacharias (II 
 Chron., XXVI, 21), and the other Uri (Jerem., xxvi, 23). 
 There exist no writings of these two prophets; St. Stephen 
 confounds Zachai-ias with his homonym, who has left fourteen 
 chapters. 
 
 (c.) He says that Jacob arrived in Egypt with a family 
 which consisted of seventy-five persons, while the Bible counts 
 only seventy. 
 
 § 41. 
 
 St. Paul and some friends entered the synagogue of Antioch, 
 on the Sabbath day. After the lecture of the law and the 
 prophets, the principals of the synagogue sent vmto him, say- 
 ing : If ye have any word of exhortation for the people, say 
 on. Then Paul stood up and said : " Men of Israel, and ye 
 " that fear Grod, give audience" (Acts, xiii, 15, 16). He de- 
 livered a long lecture, in oi'der to pi-ove the resurrection of 
 Jesus. We are going to cite his words, but intei-polating occa- 
 sionally the objections which the Jews of Antioch might have 
 made. Here is his lecture : " The God of this people of Israel 
 " chose our ftithei^ and exalted this people when they dwelt as 
 " strangers in the land of Egypt, and with a high arm brought 
 " he thena out of it. And about the time of forty years suffered 
 " he their ways in the wilderness. And when he had destroyed 
 " seven nations in the land of Canaan, he divided their land 
 " [Palestine] to them by lot. And after that, he gave unto 
 *' them judges, about the space of four hundred and fifty 
 " years, until Samuel the prophet" (Acts, xiii, 17-21).
 
 — 158- — 
 
 All this proves only one thing : that is, that St. Paul did 
 not know sacred history. The Bible says that the sojourn in 
 the desert lasted forty years, and not about, which St. Paul 
 seems to add for fear of making a mistake. More still, the 
 Bible counts, from the exodus from Egypt to the construction 
 of the temple, four hundred and fifty years, the fourth year of 
 the reign of Solomon (I Kings, vi, 1). "We have to deduct 
 from it forty years of wandering in the desert, forty-three years 
 of the reigns of David and Solomon, and forty years which St. 
 Paul gives to Saul. There remains, from the possession of 
 Palestine up to the time of Samuel, about (I say about, in 
 ox'der to imitate the foresight of St. Paul) three hundred and 
 sixty years. He commits likewise a mistake in giving Saul 
 forty years, without even adding the favorite about, which 
 serves so often to cover slight mistakes. 
 
 " He raised to them Da^•id as king It is from 
 
 " his posterity that Jesus has been raised ; according to his 
 " promise to be the savior of Isi-ael " (Acts, xiii, 22, 23). 
 
 But in order to prove the mission of Jesus, it would be bet- 
 ter to leave aside the history of the Israelites, which we know, 
 and cite that promise — demonstrate the sense which we should 
 attach to it — than to prove fibove all that it can only be ap- 
 plied to Jesus. 
 
 " Before he had appeared, John had preached." .... 
 '* He said: .... I am not the Christ; but thei-e comes 
 " one after me, whose shoes off his feet I am not worthy to 
 " loose" (Acts, XIII, 24, 25). Thus did John the Baptist declare 
 that Jesus is the Messiah; but that does not prove that the 
 biblical prophecies apply to him. The testimony of John is 
 sufficient, because that man never proved his competency as a 
 prophet. All that we know of him is, that he is the cousin of 
 Jesus (Luke, i, 36). What more good we know of him is, 
 that "Many people said that Jolm did no miracle" (John, 
 X, 41). 
 
 " Men and brethren, children of the stock of Abraham, and 
 " whosoever among you feareth God, to you is the word of 
 " this salvation sent. For they that dwell at Jerusalem and 
 " their rulers, because they knew him not, nor yet the voices
 
 — 159 — 
 
 " of the prophets which are read every Sabbath-day, they have 
 " fulfilled them in condemning him" (Acts, xiii, 26, 27). 
 
 It is exactly becaxise the magistrates of Jerusalem had no 
 other proofs than those which Paul here gives that it was im- 
 possible to them to recognize Jesus as the Messiah. For we 
 find not in the prophets the name of Jesus; neither any indi- 
 cation by which he could be made known, if it be not the ass 
 whiqh he mounted to enter Jerusalem. Besides, for want of 
 any proof to the contrary, we mrist naturally have less confi- 
 dence in Jesus and in John the Baptist, whom we do not know, 
 than in the high council of Jerusalem, who have never con- 
 demned an innocent person; less also than in the Sanhedrim, 
 composetl of seventy members, who were the wisest men in 
 Israel, and who from all evidence did not find in Jesus the 
 characteristics of a Messiah, as given by the prophets. 
 Finally, we mnst have less confidence in Jesus and in John 
 the Baptist than in the respectable fathers of the synagogue, 
 who had serious reasons to fear disorders, threatening great 
 dangers to the nation, from the conduct of Jesus. 
 
 " But God raised him from the dead, and he was seen of 
 " them which came up with him from Galilee to Jerusalem, 
 " who are his witnesses unto the people" (Acts, xiii, 30, 31). 
 
 These witnesses are, as Paul says, Christ's disciples and his 
 partisans. They are belied by those who accuse them, saying: 
 " His disciples came by night and stole him away while we 
 " slept; . . . and this saying is commonly reported amongst 
 " the Jews until this day" (Matt., xxviii, 13 and 15). 
 
 As these disciples are unknown to us, we cannot have any 
 faith in their testimony, and above all cannot prefer it to that 
 of their adversai^ies. 
 
 " And we declare unto you how that promise was made unto 
 " the fathers. God had fulfilled the same unto us, their chil- 
 " dren, in that he raised up Jesus again, as it is also written 
 " in the second psalm, 'Thou art my son; this day I have be- 
 " gotten thee' " (Acts, xiii, 32, 33). 
 
 This verse does not apply to Jesus, but to David. " I will 
 " declare the decree. The Lord has said unto me, Thou art 
 '* my son; this day I have begotten thee. Be wise now, there- 
 " fore, oh, ye kings; be instructed ye judges of the earth-
 
 — 160 — 
 
 " Kiss the son, lest he be angiy when his wrath is kindled but 
 " a little" (Psalm xxvii, 10, 12). That is to say, render homage 
 to King David, who is the well-beloved by God. You, St. Paul^ 
 yourself have written in your epistle to Philemon : "I beseech 
 " thee for my son Onesimus, whom I have begotten in my 
 " bonds" (Philemon, i, 10). You have said to the Corinth- 
 ians: "I have begotten you through the gospel" (1 Corinth., 
 IV, 5). See § 5 for many passages, which prove that such were 
 biblical expressions to show amity. 
 
 "And in order to show that he raised him up from the dead, 
 " no more to return to corruption, he said on this wise : I will 
 " give you the holy mercies of David " (Acts, xm, 34). 
 
 First, St. Paul has badly translated the Hebrew text; then, 
 he has added the word holy, which is not to be found there. 
 Here is the translation by Osterwald, Strasbourg, 1863, which 
 is much nearer to the Hebrew text : " I will make an everlasting 
 " covenant with you, in order to make permanent the mercy 
 " promised to David" (Isaiah, LV, 3). That is to say, your 
 land will be mighty as at the time of David; because the 
 prophet Isaiah adds in the following verse : " I have made him 
 prince and commander of nations." 
 
 That is why he also says in another psalm : " Thou shalt 
 " not suffer thine holy one to see coi-ruption. For David, after 
 '* he had served his own genei-ation, by the will of God fell 
 " asleep and was laid unto his fathers, and saw corruption. 
 " But he whom God raiseth again saw no corruption" (Acts, 
 XIII, 35-37). 
 
 If we have well understood the argument of St. Paul, this 
 is what he intends to say: Psalm xvi, 10, speaks of somebody 
 who shall not feel coiTuption. Consequently, it is not of him 
 of whom the psalm speaks ; it is, therefore, Jesus. But St. 
 Paul has again badly translated, and he has added the word 
 *'holy," which is not to be found in the Hebi-ew text. The 
 word hassid, in Hebrew, means "pious," "faithful," "religious," 
 but never has it been a synonym of holy. The word scah'ath 
 means "hole," "sepulcher," and not "corruption. The word 
 raah, finally, means "to see," and not "to feel." (The Greek 
 shows indeed idein, "to see"). Rectifying these three mis- 
 takes, we arrive at the translation: "Thou wilt never permit
 
 — 161 — 
 
 " thy faithful to see the sepulcher;" that is to say, to die 
 through the hands of enemies. 
 
 Mr. Osterwald translates well, "feeling the corruption ; " but he is 
 here mistaken. He himself translates the words in question in another 
 place, "that they may not see the sepulcher" (Psalms, lix, 10). 
 
 The same phrase is found in another psalm, where David 
 blames the pride of him who does not fear death, and who 
 imagines that he will live forever and never see the sepulclier 
 (Psalms, XLix, 10). 
 
 Tlie same objections apply to the arguments of St. Peter 
 (Acts II, 30-35), who committed the same error as St. Paul. 
 
 § 42. 
 
 We have then established that the demonstrations of St. Paul, 
 of St. Peter, and of St. Stephen do not prove anything at all. 
 They show only that these holy men do not know the Bible. 
 They are not learned men, as generally understood, but their 
 demonstrations ai-e the principal ones to be found in the New 
 Testament. All the biblical passages cited by the apostles are 
 applicable to quite other persons, and not a single one to Jesus. 
 There are entirely false citations, which are nowhere to be 
 found in the Bible. For instance, " He will inhabit a city 
 " called Nazareth, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken 
 " by the prophets. He shall be called a Nazarene" (Matt., ll, 
 23). Now, that passage is altogether invented. In the Sermon 
 on the Mount, Matthew puts these words into the mouth of 
 Jesus, as from the Bible : "Thou shalt love thy neighbor and less 
 " thou shalt hate thine enemy" (Matt., v, 43). This is another 
 passage not to be found in the Bible. On the contrary, Moses 
 expressly commands to do good to the enemy and to bear no 
 gi'udge. (See § 22, ante). 
 
 Other passages are not to be found at the indicated place. 
 Thus the passage: "They have taken three pieces of silver," 
 which is found in Zacharias (xi, 12), is cited by Matthew 
 (xxvii, 9), as if these words had been said by Jeremiah. 
 
 See the other biblical passages cited by St. Paul, in the fourth part, 
 entitled Oriyin of Christianity. 
 
 Finally, the apostles cite passages of books which the church
 
 162 — 
 
 has looked upon as false. Thus, the church in the council at 
 Rome, held in the year 494, under the pope, Gelase, has de- 
 clared false and of no value whatever the book of Henoch^ the 
 book of The Ascent of Moses, the book of Eldad and Medad, 
 the book of Jannes and Mambres. Nevertheless, all these 
 books are cited by the apostles (Jude, i, 9 and 14; Timothy, 
 III, 8; Hermas, vol. i, vision 2, line 3). St. Peter, the first of 
 the apostles, did not even know the fii-st chapter of Genesis. 
 He has heard it said that the sci-iptures speak in some place 
 (which 1) touching the seventh day: "God did rest on tliis day 
 from all his works" (Hebrews, iv, 4). Now, that passage is to 
 be found in Genesis (il, 2), and is repeated in verse 3 of the 
 same chapter. He did not know any more of sacred history. 
 (See ante, § 41.) Other passages have been interpreted by the 
 apostles in a manner altogether contrary to their true sense. 
 
 God said to Elias: I have in Israel seven thousand, all the 
 knees which have not bent before the idol Baal (I Kings, xix, 
 18). We have herefrom to conclude that God will reward the 
 merits and the works of those who have rejected the idol. St. 
 Paul translates badly that passage, in order to establish his 
 theory, grace. Here is his translation : "I have reserved unto 
 " me seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to 
 " the image of Baal. Even so then at this present time also 
 " there is a remnant according to the election of grace. And 
 " if by grace, then it is no moreof works ; otherwise gi-ace is no 
 " more gi-ace. But if it be of woi-ks, then it is no more grace ; 
 " otherwise work is no more work " (Romans, xi, 4-6). Evi- 
 dently it is not possible to give to a text an interpretation more 
 false and more contrary to the sense of the phrase. All the 
 biblical passages cited in the New Testeraent have that in com- 
 mon among them, that they contain nothing that one expects 
 to find in them. In order that they may be applied to Jesus, 
 and to the events which concern him, two operations are indis- 
 pensable. 
 
 The first consists in selecting passages from the mass, and 
 leaving out entirely that which precedes and follows. 
 
 The second consists in interpreting them by a forced alle- 
 gox-y or by a kind of word-play, and to reject completely the 
 habitual sense of words and phrases.
 
 — 163 — 
 
 Facts and events fai'e no better than passages. Jesiis and 
 tlie apostles have as a favorite theme the reproach which they 
 made to the Jews, for having persecuted all the proi)hets. 
 Now they had been sufficiently instructed to know that they 
 had had one prophet, by the name of Moses, and that this 
 Moses had never been persecuted. Fortunately, St. Stephen 
 had heard read in the synagogue the following history: " Be- 
 " hold, two men of the Hebrews strove together; and he 
 " [Moses] said to him that did the wrong: "Wherefore smitest 
 " thou thy fellow] [The two were very likely good-for-nothings.] 
 " And he said : Who made thee a prince and a judge over us?' 
 And the gallant St. Stephen seizes upon this history, in order 
 to say to the Jews: "This Moses, whom they [the people of 
 " Israel, mentioned in the above history] have rejected, saying : 
 " Who has established thee prince and judge] (Acts, vii, 35). 
 He is compelled to find an analogy between Moses rejected by 
 a miserable denunciator, making him a i-epresentative of the 
 whole people, and Jesus, rejected by the whole people and ac- 
 cepted by St. Stephen, St. Peter, etc. 
 
 Finally, it may be to the purpose to cite a remarkable in- 
 stance of the interpretation of a biblical passage which has been 
 cited by the apostle St. Barnabas. Here is what we read : "The 
 " scripture says that Abraham circumcised three hundred and 
 " eighteen persons of his house. Consider here what light 
 " there is about it. First there are eighteen, and then thi'ee 
 " hundred. Now, ten is marked by an iota, eight by an eta — 
 " and these two letters form the commencement of the name of 
 " Jesus (spelled in Greek, lesous) ; and because his cross has 
 " the figure of a ta^l (T), which serves to express the number 
 " of three hundred. It is for that reason that Abraham em- 
 " ployed this number of 318, These mysteries are known by 
 " him who has charged us with spreading his words among 
 " men. I have instructed nobody with such attention as I have 
 " you. I know, also, that you are worthy of it " (St. Barna- 
 bas, IX ). Such an argument is given by one of the greatest 
 apostles, as a mystery which God himself has communicated to 
 him, to make it known only to persons who are worthy to 
 comprehend it. He recalls the argument of St. Jerome, one of 
 the greatest fathei*s in the church. Of fifty-four evangelists.
 
 — 164 — 
 
 be says, the church has adopted only four, because the name of 
 Adam, written in Latin, has four letters. St. Jerome thought 
 that Jesus did not know this name but in Hebrew, wherein it 
 has only three letters. 
 
 If it should be pennitted to make objections against the ar- 
 gument of the apostle Barnabas communicated by God himself, 
 the following is what those might have to say who are not 
 worthy to comprehend it : 
 
 (a.) The Bible says not at all that Abraham circumcised 
 three hundred and eighteen persons. On the contraiy, he cir- 
 cumcised many more ; because the same Bible relates, at an- 
 other place, that " he went to war with three hundred and 
 eighteen persons born in his house" (Genesis, xiv, 14), because 
 he had little confidence in individuals lately received into his 
 service. It goes without saying that he took with him neither 
 children nor old men for war-making. Now, these children 
 and old men were all circumcised, like the three hundred and 
 eighteen warriors born in his house. 
 
 (b.) When Abraham went to war with three hundred and 
 eighteen persons, Ismael was not yet born. Then, "after these 
 " things [this war] Abraham said : Thou [God] hast not given 
 " me children, and the servant who is born in my house shall 
 '* be my heir" (Genes., xv, 1-3). "Now, Abraham took his 
 " son Ismael, and all those who were born in his house, and all 
 " those whom he had acquired, and circumcised them" (Genes., 
 XVII, 23). Consequently, he circumcised more than three 
 hundred and eighteen persons, because we have to add his son 
 Ismael. 
 
 (c.) Abraham spoke Hebrew ; he did not know a word of 
 Greek. Now, in Hebi-ew, the second letter of Jesus is not an 
 eta, bu^ a he, which marks the numbei of five ; so that, instead 
 of three hundred and eighteen, Abraham must have had to 
 circumcise three hundred and fifteen pei-sons. 
 
 (d.) Nothing indicates that Abraham had ah-eady known 
 the employment of the alphabet for marking numbers. 
 
 §43. 
 We have established that the resuiTCction of Jesus has not 
 been proved. Let us now examine the other other essential
 
 — 165 — 
 
 part of the new system which has been adopted by the apostles, 
 to wit, that Jesus would come again soon upon the clouds, for 
 the inauguration of his mighty kingdom. We must know, 
 first, whether there are among the Jews themselves two sys- 
 tems about the Messiah. The immense majority of the nation, 
 and, above all, the enlightened men, the members of the high 
 council, the Sciibes and the doctors in Israel, adopted the first 
 system — which was also that of Jesus himself — to wit : that 
 the Messiah should be a temporal sovereign of gi-eat power, 
 which should make the Jews independent and the kingdom of 
 Israel powei-ful and glorious. In this system there was nothing 
 but greatness and glory; there was no suffering, no resurrec- 
 tion of the Messiah, no return from heaven ; but it was under- 
 stood that the kingdom of Israel, called kingdom of heaven on 
 account of its monotheism, of its justice, and of the divine 
 laws of Moses which shoidd reign there, should immediately 
 begin after the first appearance of the Messiah. 
 
 A small number of the Jews, notwithstanding, through a 
 propensity to mysticism, which seems to be, with certain per- 
 sons and in the most civilized countries, the predominating 
 faculty, had conceived another system about the coming of the 
 Messiah. 
 
 According to that system he would make two appearances. 
 First he would be poor and would suffer; then he would come 
 back again majestic and powerful, in order to establish the 
 kingdom of heaven ; that is to say, the kingdom of Israel, based 
 upon monotheism and the divine laws of Moses — an independ- 
 ent and glorious kingdom. This small body of Jews also, at 
 the time of Jesus, impressed by the impossibility of a radical 
 revolution against the Ronian colossus, which could not be 
 effected without enormous sacrifices and unheard-of sufferings, 
 had resolved to adhere to the second system. This system ex- 
 presses well in some phrases the very humble beginnings of a 
 revolution : the sacrifices and extreme sufferings ; then the final 
 victory, the power and the glory, as the supreme reward — a re- 
 ward which, commensurate to divine justice, should be so much 
 greater as the suffering was intolerable. 
 
 St. Justiuian has left us a work entitled Dialogue cum Tryphone, 
 wherein he puts into the mouth of the Jew Trj^hon the adoption of
 
 — 166 — 
 
 the second system. We can understand, then, that the apostles, de- 
 ceived in their hope through the death of Jesus, had recourse to the 
 second system, and adopted it with zeal in announcing the return of 
 Jesus upon the clouds in order to establish his kingdom at Jerusalem. 
 
 It was indispensable that the second appearance of Jesus 
 should take place during the lifetime of the apostles and of 
 their contemporaries, because it was on account of that hope 
 that the proselytes had made many sacrifices, and had subjected 
 themselves to many sufferings. It was in the hope of being 
 rewarded an hundred fold when the kingdom should be estab- 
 lished, that they had sold all their possessions and given the 
 money to the church, and had enriched the apostles in order to 
 permit them both to provide for their wants and to impart to 
 the poor, who were being gained for their cause. It is evident 
 that nobody would have made the least sacrifice, and would not 
 even have given a denier, if the kingdom so ardently looked for 
 could be expected to be established only after the death of 
 Jesus. The apostles would then have had nothing to live upon 
 themselves, and still less anything to distribute in abundant 
 aluis to the numerous poor, whose faith had to be propped by 
 matei'ial and palpable proofs. The apostles put therefore in 
 the mouth of Jesus the promise that he would come to them 
 again during their lifetime. John the Baptist said : " The 
 " kingdom of heaven is near" (Matt., iv, 17). There are some 
 " of those wliich are here pi'esent who will not die without 
 " having seen the Son of man coming in his kingdom " (Matt., 
 XVI, 28 ; Mark, ix, 1 ; Luke, ix, 27). " Verily I say unto you, 
 " this generation shall not pass, till all these things be ful- 
 " filled" (Matt., xxiv, 34); that is to say, the appearance of 
 the Messiah upon the clouds of heaven " with a great power 
 " and a great glory " (Matt., xxiv, 30). Christ also said to 
 the high priests : " Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sit- 
 " ting on the right hand of power and coming in the clouds 
 of heaven" (Matt., xxvi, 64). "Watch ye, therefore, for ye 
 " know not when the master of the house cometh ; at even, or 
 " at midnight, or at the cock-crowing, or in the morning : lest 
 " coming suddenly, he might find you sleejiing" (Mark, xill, 
 35, 36). "And then shall they see the Son of man coming in 
 '•' a cloud with power and great glory. And when these things
 
 — 167 — 
 
 " begin to come to pass, then look up and lift your heads ; for 
 "your redemption draweth nigh" (Luke, xxi, 27, 28). "We 
 see that Jesus and the apostles strongly insisted upon the ap- 
 proach of the new kingdom ; this they often repeated ; and it 
 explains why Jesus wanted to throw aside all labor, that no- 
 body should take care upon what to live, because the appear- 
 ance of his reign was so very near. It is evident, if it should 
 have been necessaiy to wait a long time for the reign of the 
 Messiah, it would have been necessary to work in order to 
 make a living ; but since the waiting would not last long, all 
 labor became useless. " Therefore I say unto you : Take no 
 " thought for your life, what ye shall eat ; neither for the body, 
 " what ye shall put on. The life is more than meat, and the 
 " body more than raiment. Consider the ravens, for they 
 " neither sow nor reaj), which neither have store nor bai'n, and 
 ". God feedeth them. Consider the lilies how they gi'ow ; they 
 " toil not, they spin not, and yet I say unto you that Solomon 
 
 " in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these 
 
 " But rather seek ye the kingdom of God, and all these things 
 " shall be added unto you " (Luke, xil, 22-31). We read the 
 same in St. Matthew (vi, 24-34). There was then no need 
 for occupying one's self with labor for a living ; every day and 
 every hour had to be spent in waiting for the arrival of the 
 Messiah. 
 
 After the death of Jesus, the apostles continued to urge all 
 to wait every day and eveiy hour for the return of the Christ. 
 All the apostles, without exception, repeated this promise, and 
 insisted upon it, that they would not die before the retui'n of 
 the Messiah. When several of the first Christians had died, 
 the apostles continued to promise the same thing to the sur- 
 vivors. St. John the Evangelist hoped he would not die. 
 There was " a report amongst the brethren that this disciple 
 " [John] should not die " (John, xxi, 23). All this is to be 
 deduced from the following passage. St. Paul engages the 
 Romans to exex'cise charity: " Now it is high time to awaka 
 " out of sleep, for now is our salvation nearer than we be- 
 " lieved " (Romans, xiii, 11). "We shall not all be dead, 
 " . . . . for the trumpet shall sound [announcing the re- 
 " turn of Jesus]" (I Corinth., xv, 51, 52). "Rejoice in the
 
 — 168 — 
 
 " Lord The Lord is at hand " (Philippians, iv, 
 
 4, 5). " You have been converted .... to wait for his 
 " Son from heaven" (I Thessal., i, 9, 10). St. Paul says again: 
 " For this we say unto you by the woi'd of the Lord, that we 
 " which ai*e alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord 
 " shall not prevent them which are asleep [he thinks, then, 
 " that he and his correspondents will never die]. For the 
 " Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with 
 " the voice of the archangel and with the trump of God; and 
 *' the dead in Christ shall rise first. Then we, which ai'e alive 
 " and shall remain [how knows he that he will not die like the 
 " otliersl Uut he must flatter and console his friends], we shall 
 " be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the 
 " Lord in the air. Wherefore comfort one another with these 
 " words" (I Thessal., iv, 15-18). Thus, Jesus was to return 
 upon the clouds in the lifetime of St. Paul. Some, though, 
 found the time long, and they began to lose patience. St. Paul 
 exhorts them, and recommends patience, saying : " And the 
 " Lord direct your hearts into the love of God and into the 
 " patient waiting for Christ " (II Thessal., in, 5). " 
 
 The recommendation of Jesus (which we have before cited) 
 not to work, on account of his approaching kingdom, and the 
 persisting in urging this promise by the apostles, that the 
 Christ would return during their lifetime, had produced its 
 effect. They did not want to labor any more, and wanted to 
 live upon the common chest. But St. Paul, seeing that Jesus 
 was in no hurry to come, and that, in waiting, the idleness of 
 the faithful would produce disastrous effects, found himself 
 obliged to recommend to the Christians to work like any other 
 common mortal. 
 
 He says then : " For even when we were with you, this we 
 *' commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should 
 " he eat. [He should not have anything from the common 
 " chest.] For we hear that there are some which walk among 
 c- you [Christians] disorderly, working not at all, but are busy- 
 « bodies" [II Thessal., in, 10, 11). 
 
 St. Paul recommends to Timothy : " That thou keep this 
 " commandment without spot, unrebukable, until the appear- 
 " ance of our Lord Jesus Christ " (I Timothy, vi, 14, 15). The
 
 — 169 — 
 
 Christ was to return, therefore, during the lifetime of Tim- 
 othy. Paul was so much persuaded that Jesus would soon 
 return, that he was unwilling that people should marry, and he 
 gives other advice besides: "But this I say, brethren, the 
 " time is short. It remaineth, that both they that have wives 
 " be as though they had none " (I Corinth., vii, 29). He says, 
 also, there is no shame in promising the return of Jesus, be- 
 cause he is sure that this return will take place during his 
 lifetime, and then he will triumph over his mockers. He writes 
 to Timothy : " Be not therefore ashamed of the testimony of 
 " our Lord, nor of me his prisoner. Be thou partaker of the af- 
 " flictions of the gospel, according to the power of God. . . . 
 " For the which cause I also suffer these things ; nevertheless, 
 " I am not ashamed, for I know whom I have believed, and I 
 " am persuaded that he is able to keep that which I have com- 
 " mitted unto him against that day " (II Timothy, i, 8 and 12), 
 (against the return of Jesus upon the clouds). He recom- 
 mends also to Titus to renoi;nce the covetousness of the world, 
 " and look for that blessed hope and the gloi-ious appearance of 
 " the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ" (Titus, ii, 13), 
 " For yet a little while, and he that shall come will come, and 
 " will not tarry" (Hebrews, x, 37). Thus, St. Paul says, in 
 almost all of his epistles, that Jesus will come again before his 
 death, and he insists much upon this prophecy as the base of 
 the religion. The other apostles do as much. St. James writes 
 to the twelve tribes of Israel : 
 
 How has he found their address ? Up to this hour we do not know 
 yet where these twelve tribes are to be found. 
 
 " Be ye also patient, establish your hearts, for the coming of 
 " the Lord draweth nigh " (James, v, 8). St. Peter says the 
 same thing: " For the end of all things is at hand ; be ye 
 " therefore sober, and watch unto prayer" (I Peter, iv, 7). St. 
 John expresses the same idea. He writes, in his first epistle : 
 " It is the last time, and as ye have heai-d that Antichrist shall 
 " come, even now there are many antichrists, wherefoi'e we 
 " know that it is the last time" (I John, ii, 18). The proof 
 of John is irrefutable : " From the moment the precursor of 
 " Christ has come, Christ himself must necessarily follow, oth- 
 12
 
 -170 — 
 
 " erwise lie would not be tlie precursor of Jesus." He says, 
 again: "The time is near" (Apocal., i, 3; xxii, 10). "Keep 
 " what you have till I come " (Apocal., ii, 2.")). " I come 
 " soon " (Apocal., Ill, 11; xxii, 7, 12 and 20). The apostle 
 St. Jude finally consoles the faithful about the contempt to 
 which they are exposed by the mockers, because Jesus has pre- 
 dicted, " that there should be mockers in the last time " (Jude, 
 I, 18). He believes, therefox'e, that he has arrived at the last 
 time. 
 
 §44. 
 
 The first Christians, then, hoped and preached that Jesus 
 would come back from heaven in their time. In the meantime 
 people commenced to lose patience, when they saw the Chi'is- 
 tians die, one after the other, their natural death, without bav- 
 ins seen the return of Jesus. Thus St. Peter, who has said in 
 his first epistle, " But the end of all things is at hand " (I Pe- 
 ter, IV, 7), uses in his second epistle quite a different hanguage. 
 He tries to retire from business, because people commenced to 
 doubt the return of Jesus. Here is what he says, and how he 
 interprets his first promise : " Knowing this first, that there 
 " shall come in the last days scoffers, saying, Where is the 
 " promise of his coming ? for, since the fathers fell asleep, all 
 " things continue as they were from the beginning of the cre- 
 
 " ation But, beloved, be not ignorant of 
 
 " this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand 
 " years, and a thousand years as one day. The Lord is not 
 " slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness, 
 " but is long-suff'ering to us-ward, not willing that any should 
 " perish, but that all should come to repentance ; but the day 
 " of the Lord will come as a thief in the night, in which the 
 " heavens will pass away with a great noise ; the earth shall 
 " be burnt up" (II Peter, iii, 3-4, 8-10). People mocked al- 
 ready the apostles, it would seem. If, in our days, somebody 
 should mockingly say that more than eighteen hundred years 
 have passed without the return of Jesus, St. Peter has answered 
 beforehand : That makes little more than one day and a half 
 for the Lord, and this delay is nothing but patience, to give 
 the poor sinners time for repentance. But Jesus has not spoken
 
 — 171 — 
 
 of days, and St. Peter himself said, in his firet epistle, " the 
 end of all things is near." Besides, if Jesus had spoken of 
 days, evidently they would have been days such as men count, 
 and not days according to the counting of God. 
 
 We have seen that St. Paul affirmed, on several occasions, 
 that he should not die before the return of Jesus. St. John, 
 ■who outlived all the apostles, expressed the same hope (John, 
 XIX, 23, 24). (See ante, § 43.) The first fathers of the church, 
 the successors of the apostles, hoped all of them to see before 
 their death Jesus coming back from heaven and establishing 
 his kingdom upon earth. They continued to hope in the fol- 
 lowing centuries, but they finished by forgetting the near ap- 
 proach of the return of Jesus, or by giving it an interpretation 
 altogether contrary to the ideas of the apostles. In our days 
 there are few persons who know that the time fixed by Jesus 
 for his return from heaven has long since elapsed. Neverthe- 
 less, they mock the Jews who wait for a Messiah, and forget 
 they are not entitled to do it, because no prophet in the Bible 
 has fixed the epoch of his arrival. Jesus and the apostles, on 
 the contrary, have affirmed on several occasions that Christ 
 would come back from heaven in their time. 
 
 It was impossible, then, to prove two facts: the resui-rection 
 of Jesus, and his return from heaven, which were evidently 
 the two essential bases of the new doctrine of the apostles. 
 Because, as St. Paul says himself: " If Christ has not been re- 
 " suscitated, your faith is vain, and you are yet in your sins " 
 (I Corinth., xv, 17); and he repeats again: "If Christ has not 
 " been resuscitated, our preaching is in vain, and your faith is 
 "vain also" (I Corinth., xv, 14). And if Christ does not 
 come from heaven to reward the faithful in his kingdom, as 
 they have received the promise, then they are deceived in their 
 expectation. 
 
 These two facts they are seeking to prove by miracles ; but 
 it was not until a long time after the death of Jesus that per- 
 sons appeared, who wi-ote the mii-acles of the Master in a for- 
 eign tongue; a tongue which the Jews of Palestine did not 
 understand. They wrote them at an epoch of the greatest 
 political and social troubles, resulting from the war with the 
 Romans, and at a time when almost all those who had known
 
 — 172 — 
 
 Jesus were dead. Under such circumstances, people could 
 write what they pleased, without any fear of being contra- 
 dicted. 
 
 On the converts it was imposed, as a condition of salvation, 
 to believe without questioning, and submit reason to faith. St, 
 Paul says : " God has established in the church, first, the 
 " apostles; secondly, the prophets; in the third place, the doc- 
 " toi"s " (I Corinth., xii, 28). Thus the doctors and the savants 
 are beneath the apostles of the faith. He says again; "My 
 " sermons have not at all consisted of discourses of human 
 " wisdom, but in the demonstration of the spii'it and the 
 " power, that your faith"should not stand in the wisdom of men, 
 " but in the power of God " (I Corinth., ii, 4-5). " Let no 
 " man deceive himself ; if any man amongst you seems to be 
 " wise in this woi-ld, let him become a fool that he may be 
 " wise. For the wisdom of this world is foolishness w|th God " 
 (I Corinth., iii, 18-19). He says again: " For the weapons of 
 " our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the 
 " pulling down of strongholds, casting down imaginations and 
 " eveyy high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of 
 " God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedi- 
 " ence of Christ" (II Corinth., x, 4-5). One cannot more 
 clearly repulse science and human reason. 
 
 In all the epistles, St. Paul and the other apostles insist upon 
 faith as a condition of salvation. St. Paul maintains even that 
 faith is more important than good works. He says so in all 
 his epistles, but particularly in those to the Hebrews. On that 
 basis, nobody would ever dare submit the miracles and the doc- 
 trines to an enlightened critic. 
 
 We have, besides, to consider that the miracles have here no 
 value whatever. Though Jesus and the apostles have driven 
 out legions of demons, still there remains not less their own 
 contradiction, that there are demons which cannot be driven 
 out. All the miracles in the world are not able to demonstrate 
 that Jesus returned from heaven upon the clouds for establish- 
 ing his kingdom, or that any prophet had said that which Mat- 
 thew quotes, saying : " What has been said by the prophets : 
 " He [the Messiah] will be called a Nazarene " (Matt., ii, 23). 
 This passage is nowhere to be found in the Bible, and no mira-
 
 — 173 — 
 
 cle could make us believe that the biblical prophets have any- 
 where spoken of Jesus. 
 
 » 
 Let us now examine to what end the apostles have adopted 
 
 their new doctrine, and how, little by little, they have executed 
 
 their design. 
 
 The apostles at first were poor and without consideration. 
 They could only, through great effort, gain a living by fishing 
 or other hard work. When St. Peter and St. John pi-eached, 
 the people were astonished, "perceived that they were ignor- 
 " ant men." St. Matthew was a publican, and all his friends 
 were men of character (St. Matt., ix, 9-11), and it is the same 
 with the disciple Levi (Mark, ii, 14, 15; Luke, v, 27-30), 
 whom Jesus had engaged to follow him. Others wei-e fisher- 
 men, as St. Peter. St. Paul himself was a simple laborer; he 
 was a tent-maker (Acts xviii, 3). And it was said of him, 
 " his bodily presence is weak and his speech contemptible " 
 (2 Corinth., x, 10). This is what he says of himself: "We 
 " dare not make ourselves with the number, or compare our- 
 " selves with some that commend themselves " (2 Corinth., 
 X, 12). He says at another place, of himself and other apos- 
 tles, that they are looked upon " as unknown, and yet well 
 " known; as chastened and not killed; as sorrowful, yet always 
 *' rejoicing; as poor, yet making many rich ; as haying nothing, 
 " yet possessing everything" (2 Corinth., vi, 9, 10). He says 
 again: "Who in presence, am base among you, but being 
 " absent, am bold toward you" (2 Corinth., x, 1). 
 
 When the apostles had resolved to follow Jesus, they aban- 
 doned their trades and left their tools. Then the poor apostles 
 said to Jesus: "We have left everything and have followed 
 " thee" (Matt., xix, 27). They followed their Master every- 
 where, or they were sent to all the cities and villages of the 
 Jews, in order to announce the approach of the kingdom of 
 heaven. We know very well what induced the disciples to 
 abandon their ti-ades to follow Jesus; because the evangelist 
 tell us expressly that they hoped that their Master was going 
 to establish a terrestrial kingdom, mounting the throne of 
 David. Jesus himself said that they would have twelve
 
 — 174 — 
 
 tribes of Israel, and he- said to them: "He who shall have 
 " quitted houses .... he shall receive for it an hundred 
 " times as much" (Matt., xix, 28, 29). The apostles, sons of 
 Zebedee, demanded to be seated, one on the right and one on 
 the left side, in his kingdom (Matt., xx, 21 ; Mark, x, 37). 
 All the apostles disputed on the road which of them should 
 be the greatest (Mark, ix, 34; Luke, ix, 46, and xxii, 24). 
 Mark tells also what the apostles said to Jesus : " We have 
 " left everything and have followed thee. And he said unto 
 " them : Yerily I say unto you, there is no man that has left 
 " house .... for my sake .... but he shall 
 " receive an hundred fold now, in this time houses and land, 
 " and in the world to come eternal life " (Mark, x, 28-30). 
 Luke naiTates the same demand of the apostles, and the same 
 answer of Jesus: "There is no man who has left houses, 
 " lands, .... who shall not receive many fold in 
 " this time, and in the world to come" (Luke, xviii, 28-30). 
 Jesus said to the apostles : " Ye are they which continued 
 " with me in my temptations, and I appoint unto you a king- 
 " dom as my Father has appointed unto me, that ye may eat 
 " and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones, 
 '' judging the twelve tribes of Israel " (Luke, xxii, 28-30). The 
 apostles said in their desperation, after the death of the Master : 
 " Jesus, who was a prophet, powerful in works and in words; 
 " we hoped that he it should be who should deliver Israel " 
 (Luke, XXIV, 19-21). 
 
 It may be seen hereby that the apostles, up to the death of 
 Jesus, had nothing but an entirely terrestrial end in view. In 
 their imagination they were already so solidly seated upon 
 their respective thrones that they disputed in advance about 
 the chief part and the presidency; that they wanted to sit on 
 the right and left hand of the Master. Jesus had promised 
 them one hundred houses and one hundred acres of land for 
 each one they had left. The scheme which they would pursue 
 in order to arrive at that end was to make Jesus mount the 
 throne of Jerusalem. But then, when Jesus died, the apostles 
 were obliged to change their system. Had the end in view 
 changed also] Evidently not, because they had not operated 
 this change before the fii'st plan failed, and, as we have dem-
 
 — 175 — 
 
 onstrated previously, the new system had no foundation what 
 ever. 
 
 § 47. 
 
 After the death of Jesus, the apostles were full of fear. 
 "When he was seized, "all the apostles abandoned him and 
 " fled" (Matt., xxvi, 56; Mark, xvi, 50). Peter denied him 
 three times, and even made false oaths. " He began te curse 
 " and to swear, saying: I know not this man" (Mark, xiv, 71). 
 According to Matthew, he took false oaths several times. 
 " And again he denied with an oath, I do not know the man. 
 " And after awhile came ujito him they that stood by and said 
 " to Peter: Surely, thou art also one of them, for thy speech 
 " betrayed thee. Then began he to curse and to swear, saying: 
 " I know not the man" (Matt., xxvi, 72-74). "The apostles 
 " had now no desire for the right nor for the left of Jesus. 
 They did not even offer the last honors to Jesus. " Joseph 
 " of Arimathea, who was a senator of distinction, went boldly 
 
 " unto Pilate, and demanded the corpse of Jesus 
 
 " And he brought fine linen, and took him down and wrapped 
 " him in the linen, and laid him in a sepulcher" (Mark, xv, 
 43-46) ; because the Jews had a law of Moses : " His body shall 
 " not remain all night upon the tree, but thou shalt in any 
 " wise bury him that day (Deuteron., xxi, 23). 
 
 By degrees the apostles took courage. They saw that no- 
 body intended to persecute them, and they commenced think- 
 ing about their future. What should be done 1 Could they 
 take up again their trades 1 They possessed nothing any more ; 
 they had abandoned everything — aV)Ove all, their tools, their 
 ships and their nets — and besides, they had lost the habit of 
 labor. They were also known by everybody, particularly in 
 their native place, to be the disciples of Jesus; and it was 
 known that they were already, in their imagination, all of 
 them, judges and prime ministers in Israel. What should have 
 been said of these high functionaries, if they should become 
 again poor fishermen and simple publicans'? It was almost im- 
 possible for them to bear such humiliation. 
 
 On the other side, they had learned by expei-ience that teach- 
 ing procures profit and honors. It was said of Jesus: "Is 
 " this not the cai'penter 1 " (Mark, vi, 3). At the age of thirty
 
 — 176 — 
 
 he abandons his trade, and begins teaching (Luke, in, 23). 
 Teaching does not, it is true, procure a fixed payment; such 
 ■was not the custom, because the doctoi's in Israel had to teach 
 gratuitously; still, they never had been permitted to want any- 
 thing. The Jews were in the habit of succoring largely the 
 doctors and the preachers. When Jesus made his sojourn at 
 Jerusalem, or in any other large city, everybody was zealous to 
 invite him to table and to give him lodging. The Pharisees 
 invited Jesus very often to table (Luke, vii, 30 ; xi, 37 ; xiv, 
 1). He was treated as were all the preachers; thus JesuB 
 himself said: "The Son of man came eating and drinking, and 
 " they said : Behold a man gluttonous and a wine-bibber " 
 (Matt., XI, 19). That proves that the Jews gave hira every- 
 thing in abundance — all that he was in need of. He had even 
 devoted persons, who, like Martha, took much trouble to pre- 
 pare for him gratuitously succulent dishes. " When he trav- 
 " eled from city to city and from village to village, he had 
 " women with him, as Mary Magdalen, Joanna wife of Chuzas, 
 " Susanna, and several others, which ministered unto him of 
 " their substance " (Luke, viii, 1-3). Everything he wanted 
 was given unto him, even money. Judas the treasurer could 
 buy everything necessary during the voyages. Everywhere, 
 where Jesus took a meal, were the disciples eating at the same 
 table. Wherever he traveled the disciples were supported from 
 the common treasury. The alimony which the Jews constantly 
 spent for the support of Jesus, the same as they did for all 
 other preachers, amply sufficed for the entertainment of at least 
 thirteen pei'sons. 
 
 The apostles, upon the order of the Master, undertook a 
 voyage into all the cities of the Jews, in oi-der to announce the 
 approach of the kingdom of heaven. They traveled over all 
 the cities without Jesus, taking with them neither provisions 
 nor money. Jesus himself so commanded them : " Take nei- 
 " ther gold, nor silver, nor money, nor bag, for the voyage; no 
 " diiferent clothes, no shoes ; because the laborer is worthy of 
 " his meat. And into whatsoever city or town ye shall enter, 
 " inquire who in it is worthy, and there abide till you go hence" 
 (Matt. X, 9-11). "And he commanded them that they should 
 " take nothing for their journey, save a stafi" only ; no scrip,
 
 — 177 — 
 
 " no bread, no money in their pui^e; but be shod with sandals, 
 " and not put on two coats." And he said unto them : " In 
 " what place soever ye enter into an house, there abide till ye 
 " depart from that place" (Mark, vi, 8-10). St. Luke relates 
 also : " He [Jesus] told them [the apostles] : Take nothing for 
 " your journey; neither staves nor scrip, neither bi-ead, neither 
 " money, neither have two coats apiece. And whatsoever 
 " house ye enter into, abide, and thence depart " (Luke, ix, 
 3,4). 
 
 The second recital of Luke is curious. " Go your ways : behold, I 
 " send you forth as lambs amongst wolves. Carry neither purse, nor 
 " scrip, nor shoes, and salute no man by the way; and into whatsoever 
 " house ye enter .... remain in that house, eating and drinking 
 " such things as they give" (Luke, x, .3-7). Matthew says the same 
 thing (x, 16). I know well that the wolves eat the lambs, but I have 
 never seen that they give them to eat, gratuitously and largely. 
 
 Thus went the apostles everywhere, without any provisions, 
 and without a denier in pocket ; and everywhere the Pharisees 
 received them, gave them everything they wanted, and in any 
 Jewish house where the apostles entered they could remain as 
 long as they pleased. At the end of his career, Jesus repeats 
 his promises to the apostles ; he tries to encourage them. In 
 order to recall the joyful life which they led ti^veling through 
 the. cities of the Jews, in order to preach and to teach, and to 
 remind them that they owe everything to him, he asks them : 
 " When I have sent you without purse, without bag and with- 
 " out shoes, have you been in want of anything 'i And they 
 " answered : Of nothing. But now he said unto them : He 
 " who has no sword, let him sell his coat and buy one " (Luke, 
 XXII, 35, 36). Thus have the Pharisees exercised the largest 
 charity, not only toward Jesus, but also toward the apostles, in 
 such a way that Jesus recalls to them their agreeable and well- 
 provided travels as a favor for which they are obliged to him, 
 because he it was who counseled the undertaking ; and the 
 apostles are obliged to confess that they never have been in 
 want of anything, and that the charity of the Jews, or of the 
 Pharisees, has left nothing more to desire. 
 
 Before Christian charity, already there existed, as it appears, Jewish 
 charity. It is, then, to this charity of the Jews — or of the Pharisees,
 
 — 178 — 
 
 because almost all the Jews were Pharisees, the most exact sect, ac- 
 cording to St. Paul (Acts, XXVI, 5) — that Christianity owes its birth. 
 Without Jewish or Pharisaical charity, there would be no Christianity. 
 
 They knew, therefore, by experience, that the career of teach- 
 ing procured amply all the necessaries of life. Such a career 
 was, besides, much honored. They had seen how the people 
 ran up to listen to the teachings of Jesus. They themselves 
 already enjoyed some consideration, because Jesus had distin- 
 guished them as intimate friends and first disciples, who had 
 better understood the Master than the other auditoi-s. They 
 received the title "Lord" (" kurios"— John, xu, 21). They 
 knew also that all the Pharisees, the doctoi's in Israel, and all 
 those who taught the people had been loaded with honors and 
 with presents. More than that, they could count upon still 
 moi-e honors and profits than the Pharisees and the Jewish doc- 
 tors. First, those doctors, those Phai-isees, and the most en- 
 lightened men of the nation, as the Scribes, the members of 
 the Supreme Council, and the high priests, all of them had 
 never known how to do a single miracle, nor to heal deaf mutes 
 or the born blind, nor to resuscitate the dead. Now, the apos- 
 tles knew how to do all this, and all this attracts the poor of 
 spirit and the meek (Matt., v, 3—5), who are numerous in all 
 counti'ies and in all centuries — above all, when miraculous 
 healings of chronic and incurable maladies are concerned. • 
 
 The apostles had another considerable advantage over the 
 Scribes and Pharisees. They spoke to the nation of its most 
 precious hopes. They promised and announced its near deliv- 
 erance from the odious yoke of the Romans. 
 
 Finally, the Christian communism, introduced already by 
 Jesus him-self, must have procured to the apostles, as adminis- 
 trators of the common property, supreme honoi's and an almost 
 unlimited power over all the new converts. 
 
 §48. 
 Jesus had inaugurated communism. One of the prominent 
 men of the place presented himself, and Jesus said unto him : 
 " Sell everything thou hast and give it to the poor, and thou 
 " shalt have treasure in heaven ; and come and follow me " 
 (Matt., XIX, 21; Mark, x, 21; Luke, xviii, 18, 22).
 
 — 179 — 
 
 It is evident that for a man who should present himself to 
 Jesus and follow him, there could be no poor worthier of sup- 
 port than the disciples of Christ. At first people i^efused such 
 abandoning of their property. " Tliat man, having heard that, 
 " became very sori'owful; for he had gi-eat possessions." But 
 Jesus said, that "it is difficult for rich men to enter the king- 
 " dom of heaven." The assistants ai'e stax-tled to hear that God 
 demands communism, and they cry in their despondency- 
 " Who can then be saved]" But Jesus answered: '" Verily, I 
 " say unto you, every one that has forsaken houses or lands 
 " and followed me, shall receive an hundred fold in this life, 
 " and shall inherit everlasting life." 
 
 However tint may be, after the death of Jesus, the apostles 
 prosecuted that idea, and they realized it with perfect success, 
 in consequence, by the great mii-acle of cloven tongues, on the 
 day of Pentecost ; " and they were all amazed, and many won- 
 " ders and signs were done by the apostles. And all that be- 
 " lieved were together and had all things common, and sold 
 " their possessions and goods and parted them to all men, as 
 " every man had need " (Acts, ii, 43-45). " Neither said any 
 " of them that aught of the things which he possessed was his 
 '' own, but that they had all things common. . . . For as 
 " many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and 
 " brought the prices of the things that were sold. They laid 
 " all at the apostles' feet" (Acts, iv, 32-35). They sent succor 
 from Antioch to the Cliristians of Judea, " through the hands 
 " of Bax-nabas and of Saul " (Acts, xi, 30) ; which last means 
 St Paul. In the epistle to the Pomans, St. Paul said, " I go 
 " to Jerusalem to carry thither the alms to the pious " (Ro- 
 mans, XV, 25). 
 
 The apostles had become very powerful, on account of all the 
 possessions of the faithful, which they had to distribute accord- 
 ing to their j udgment. Thus St. Paul thi-eatens the Chi-istians 
 of Corinth, and asks them : "Which do you like better? Shall 
 " I come unto you with a rod, or in love and in the spirit of 
 " meekness" (I Corinth., iv, 21). When the Christians had 
 law-suits among themselves, they had to address themselves to 
 the apostles. It was unpardonable temerity and a shame for a 
 Christian to summon a A)religionist before the tribunals of the
 
 — 180 — 
 
 country. " Dare any of you, having a matter against another, 
 " go to law before the unjust and not before the saints 1 [The 
 " unjust were at that time everybody except the few faithful.] 
 " Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world ] and if 
 " the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge 
 "the smallest matters] Know ye not that we shall judge 
 " angels ? how much more things that pertain to this life ] I 
 " speak to your shame " (I Corinth., vi, 1-5). Jesus had al- 
 ready said : " If thy brother shall trespass against thee, .... 
 " tell it unto the church ; but if he neglect to hear the church, 
 " then let him be to thee as an heathen man and a publican " 
 (Matt., xvrii, 15-17). 
 
 St. Paul dissuades from marriage, and adds : " But this I 
 " say, bi'ethren, the time is short. It remaineth, that both 
 " they that have wives be as though they had none ; and they 
 " that weep, as though they wept not ; and they that rejoice, 
 " as though they rejoiced not ; and they that buy, as though 
 *' they possessed not ; and they that use this world, as not 
 " abusing it, for the fashion of this world passeth away " (I 
 Corinth., vii, 29-31]. It is easy to understand that this assur- 
 ance of the return of Jesus considerably facilitated commun- 
 ism, and enriched the common treasury of the church. 
 
 St. Paul asked, and exacted even, that people give to the 
 church, and they must give much. " But this I say : He which 
 " soweth sparingly, shall reap also sparingly ; and he which 
 " soweth bountifully, shall reap also bountifully" (II Corinth., 
 IX, 6). Wherever he finds it preferable to ask nothing from 
 the faithful, he takes care to make it understood that he has 
 full right to demand it ; that they had only to thank his kind- 
 ness if he dispensed them from it. He writes to the Corinthi- 
 ans : " Have we not power to eat and to drink ] Have we not 
 " power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, 
 " and as the brethren of the Lord and as Cephas 1 [And have 
 *' ourselves and our wives supported by the faithful ?] Now, 
 " I only and Barnabas, have not we power to forbear working] 
 " Who goeth to warfare any time at his own charges] .... 
 "If we have sown unto you spii'itual things, is it a great 
 " thing if we shall reap your carnal things ] If others are 
 " partakers of this power over you, ate not we rather ] Nev-
 
 — 181 — 
 
 " ertheless we have not used this power, but suffer all things, 
 
 " lest we should hinder the gospel of Christ The 
 
 " Lord has ordained that those who announce the gospel should 
 " live off the gospel, but I have used none of these things " 
 (I Corinth., ix, 4-15). 
 
 He holds himself to be the chief of the church, and he estab- 
 lishes hierarchy. He says : " God has established in the church, 
 " first, the apostles ; secondly, the prophets ; in the third place, 
 " the doctors ; after them, those that have the power of mira- 
 " cles ; then those who have the gift to heal and divei-sities of 
 " tongues " (I Corinth., xii, 28). 
 
 The prophets were those who " knew all the mysteries and the sci- 
 " ence of all things " (I Corinth., xiii, 2). St. Paul places them below 
 the apostles. 
 
 There are therefore five degrees : the apostles are the su- 
 preme chiefs, the doctors and linguists are in the last degree, 
 the doers of miracles only one degree above the physicians. 
 What a progress ! It was not long previously that the apostles 
 themselves were very happy to do a miracle, and did not suc- 
 ceed always. 
 
 The administration of the alms was confined to the apostles 
 (2 Corinth., viii, 20). 
 
 St. Paul declared also, in the consciousness of his power and 
 of his immense influence: "For the weapons of our warfare 
 " are not carnal, but mighty through God, to the pulling down 
 " of strongholds, casting down imaginations and every high 
 " thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and 
 " bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of 
 " Christ, and having a readiness to revenge all disobedience, 
 " when your disobedience is fulfilled " (2 Corinth., x, 4-6). 
 He says also to the Corinthians : " If I come again, I will not 
 " spare anybody" (2 Corinth., xiii, 2). "I write these things 
 " being absent, lest, being present, I should use sharpness, 
 " according to the power which the Lord hath given me to 
 " edification" (2 Corinth., xiii, 10). At fii'st it was attempted 
 to operate through miracles, and people were then still at lib- 
 erty not to believe in them; at present the miracles are acces- 
 sories. The workers of miracles are fixed at the fourth degree. 
 Only the apostles are the chiefs and ready to punish any
 
 — 182 — 
 
 disobedience. Evidently, communism is what has given them 
 that power. 
 
 St. Paul says at first: "I have desired neither silver, nor- 
 " gold, nor apparel. Yea, ye yourselves know that these hands 
 " have ministered linto necessities, and to them that were with 
 " me. I have showed you all things, how that so laboring 
 "... ." (Acts XX, 33-35). It was his trade to make tents 
 (Acts, XVIII, 3). At present he does not work any more. He 
 says to the Coiinthians, whose apostasy he fears (2 Corinth., 
 XI, 3) : " I have robbed other chui»ches, taking wages of theiji 
 " to do your service [he worked then no more at his trade of 
 " making tents]. And when I was present with you and 
 " wanted, I was chargeable to no man, for that which was 
 " lacking to me the brethren which came from Macedonia 
 " supplied. And in all things I have kept myself from being 
 " burdensome- unto you, and so will T keep myself" (2 Corinth., 
 XI, 8-12). " I did not burden you. Nevertheless, being crafty, 
 " I caught you with guile" (2 Corinth., 12-16). They sus- 
 pected, then, that he wanted to obtain money by slyness. He 
 said to the Galatians: "That he to whom the word of God 
 " is taught, gives part of all his goods to him who teaches 
 " him [to the apostle j. Do not abuse yourself; God is not 
 " mocked; for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also 
 " reap. For he that soweth to his flesh, shall of the flesh reap 
 " corruption; but he that soweth to the spirit [giving to the apos- 
 " tie or to the church], shall of the spirit reap life everlasting" 
 (Galat., VI, 6-8). Here he claims and demands a part of all 
 possessions. The Galatians are not like the Corinthians. He 
 adds: "We do not tire in doing the good work, because we 
 " shall reap in time [at the return of Jesus upon the clouds], 
 " if we do not slacken. It is, therefore, whilst we have the 
 " opportunity [before Jesus returns], doing good to all, but 
 " particularly to them who are of the household of faith '' 
 (Gal., VI, 9, 10). 
 
 He writes to the Philippians: "I rejoiced in the Lord 
 " greatly, that noAv at the last your care of me had flourished 
 
 " a^ain Not that I speak in resjject of want, 
 
 " because I have learned to be content Notwith- 
 
 " standing, you have well done that ye did not communicate
 
 — 183 — 
 
 ** with my affliction When I began to preach the 
 
 " gospel, no church communicated with me, as concerning 
 
 " giving and receiving, but ye only Not because 
 
 " I desire a gift, bvit I desire fruit that may abound to your 
 " account. But I have all, and abound. I have been filled 
 " with goods, having received what you have sent me as a 
 " sacrifice well pleasing to God [he should have said, to the 
 " servant of God], which he will accept and be agreeable to 
 "him" (Philip., IV, 10-18). St. Paul tries then to obtain 
 much, and he gives as a motive that the more the faithful give, 
 the more God will reward them; because what he (Paul) re- 
 ceives, is a sacrifice that God will accept 
 
 The Thessalonians were not very firm in the faith (1 Thessal., 
 Ill, 2, 3). St. Paul does not ask anything of them either. He 
 says unto them that he prefers laboring to receiving anything; 
 but he does not forget to obserVe that he has fully the right to 
 demand something for his support. "Though we could as 
 " apostles of Jesus Christ, we would not be chargeable unto 
 
 " any of you For you remember how we have 
 
 " preached unto you the gospel of God, laboring night and 
 " day, and not being chargeable to any of you" (1 Thessal., 
 
 II, 6-9). 
 
 He repeats it to the same Thessalonians : " Neither did we 
 " eat any man's bread for naught ; but wa-ought with labor and 
 " travail night and day, that we might not be chargeable to 
 " any of you ; not because we have not the power " (II Thessal., 
 
 III, 8-9). "Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy 
 " of double honor" (Timothy, v, 17). 
 
 The power of the apostles is already so great, that they order 
 excommunication. " If any one does not obey that which we 
 " have said in this letter, mark him and have no communica- 
 " tion with him " (II Thessal., iii, 14). "Avoid the heretic, 
 " being condemned " (Titus, in, 10, 11). They go even further 
 than that : " This charge I commit unto thee, son Timothy, 
 " according to the prophecies which went on before thee, that 
 " thou by them mightst war a good warfare ; holding faith and 
 " a good conscience, which some having put away, concerning 
 " faith have made shipwi-eck. Of whom is Hymeneus and 
 " Alexander, whom I have delivered unto Satan, that they
 
 — 184 — 
 
 " may learn not to blaspheme" (I Timothy, i, 18-20). That 
 is evidently a Satm in flesh and bone, because if one is deliv- 
 ered to Satan personally, one learns, on the contrary, to blas- 
 pheme so much more. Paul ordains to the Corinthians : "To 
 " deliver such an one unto Satan, for the destruction of the 
 " flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord 
 " Jesus" (I Corinth., v, 5). He charges the pastors to occupy 
 themselves with instruction, and he wants these doubly paid. 
 " Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double 
 " honor, especially they who laJ)or in the word and doctrine. 
 " For the scripture saith : Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that 
 " treadeth out the corn. And the labox-er is worthy of his 
 "reward" (I Timothy, v, 17, 18). There is already charity 
 and instruction under direction and command of the church. 
 
 St. Paul writes to Timothy : " Them that sin, rebuke before 
 " all, that others also may fear" (I Timothy, v, 20). St. Paul 
 besides likes to humiliate his adversaries, as the pagan magis- 
 trates of Philippi (Acts, xvi, 37). He gives Titus the power 
 to nominate the pastors according to his rules. " For this 
 " cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldst set in order the 
 " things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I 
 " had appointed thee " (Titus, i, 5). He wi'ites to the Hebrews: 
 " Obey them that have rule over you, and submit yourselves ; 
 " for they watch for your souls, as they that must give ac- 
 " count " (Hebrews, xiii, 17). We have to remark the extent 
 of this new theory : the priest is responsible for the souls of 
 the faithful, they have to render account for them ; conse- 
 quently he must meddle with and superintend everything. 
 
 We see, then, the immense power which the apostles have 
 over the faithful. Because, on account of communism, all the 
 faithful lived upon the common chest, which was in the hands 
 of the apostles. They took hold in season, as we have seen, 
 of the administration" of charity and instruction. 
 
 Finally, St. Paul himself speaks of another circumstance, 
 favoi-able to their cause: " But I would ye should understand, 
 " brethren, that the things which happened unto me have 
 " fallen out rather unto the furtherance of the gospel. So 
 " that my bonds in Christ are manifest, in all the palace and 
 " in all other places. And many of the brethren in the Lord
 
 — 185 — 
 
 " waxing confident in my bonds, are much more bold to speak 
 " the word without fear" (Philip., i, 12-14). 
 
 Thus also he speaks on many occasions of his sufferings and 
 his persecutions. In order to have full scojie in enumerating 
 them, he presents as sufferings of martyrdom the most common 
 occurrences in life: " I have been often traveling. I have 
 ** been in danger on the livers, in danger from I'obbers, in the 
 " deserts, in danger on high seas, in perils among false brethren" 
 (2 Corinth., xi, 26, 27). As if nobody else had labored or 
 traveled, " I have passed one day and one night in the depth 
 *" of the sea; I have been shipwrecked twice" (2 Corinth., 
 XI, 25). As if that could not happen to anybody. And he 
 said, on that occasion, that if he were going to boast, he could 
 relate " how that he was caught up into paradise and heard 
 " unspeakable words; .... but I will not glory but in 
 " mine infirmities" (2 Corinth., xii, 4, 5). "Therefore, I take 
 " pleasui'e in infirmities, in persecutions, in distresses for 
 "Christ's sake; for when I am weak then I am strong" 
 (2 Corintli., xii, 10). That is a profound and far-reaching ex- 
 pression. 
 
 §49. 
 
 After all we have just now said, and all the passages which 
 we have cited, it is easy to understand how the apostles must 
 have clung to and not abandoned the career of teaching. But 
 they could not do it except by the adoption of a new theory, 
 which permitted them to continue to announce the new arrival 
 of the Messiah, because the first plan had failed through the 
 death of Jesus. 
 
 That which favored considerably the work of the apostles 
 was, that the Jews did not abandon the hope of being deliv- 
 ered from the Romans. Such is sufficiently proved by the 
 wars against Titus and Hadrian in the second century. It was 
 indispensably necessary for them to teach only that the Mes- 
 siah would appear at first poor; that he had to suffer and to 
 die; that he must be resuscitated and make his second appear- 
 ance, and return as a sovereign powerful and victorious. We 
 have already explained how this second theory had some parti- 
 sans among the Jews, though the immense majority of the Jews 
 13
 
 — 186 — 
 
 bad rejected it. The apostles must have counted besides upon a 
 great number of ancient partisans of Jesus, who, moved by 
 the same motives as themselves, would be eager to accept the 
 new plan. 
 
 But to that end, before everything the corpse of Jesus had 
 to be carried off. It had to be announced that he had been 
 resuscitated, and that he had ascended to heaven, in order to 
 return as a powerful and victorious king. 
 
 The apostles had been accused of having taken the corpse 
 clandestinely. " This report has been divulged amongst the 
 " Jews XL]) to this day" (Matt., xxviii, 15). This proves that 
 the carrying off was possible. It appears that they did it the 
 second day after tlie death of their Master before the puti-efac- 
 tion of the corpse, on a Sabbath-day, when everybody had left 
 the tomb (Luke, xxiii, 56). On Sunday they repaired per- 
 sonally to the empty tomb, in order to feign astonishment at 
 this extraordinary event. In the meantime the announcement 
 of the resurrection had already been prematurely reported. 
 Strict inquiries might be made and the corpse found. Besides, 
 the iiTitation was still great among the disciples of the cruci- 
 fied. They waited, therefore, fifty days (between Passover and 
 Pentecost), in oi'der to announce that he had been resuscitated, 
 that he had made some appearances, and that he had finally 
 ascended to heaven, to return soon as a king in glory, powerful 
 and rich. At this moment everything was possible to them. 
 They had, as we have already proved, powerful auxiliaries. 
 First, miracles, which they did so well, and then their prom- 
 ises, which could not fail to attract a great many people. 
 
 § 50. 
 It is known, besides, that the fii-st Christians of the time of 
 the apostles believed not at all in a heavenly kingdom, afford- 
 ing spiritual treasures ; but these Christians all hopi. d that 
 Jesus would come soon, during their lifetime, to establish a 
 teri'estrial kingdom, which should last a thousand years, in 
 which mei> could eat and drink, and exercise all physiological 
 functions ; and finally, where men should live as before ; eating 
 more juicy dishes, drinking more delicious wines, having more
 
 — 187 — 
 
 enjoyments, every tMng in abundance, and being victorious 
 against all enemies. 
 
 Ireneus, bishop of Lyon (a. d. 177-202), cites a passage of 
 the apostolic father Papias (bishop of Hieropolis and disciple 
 of St. John the Evangelist), according to whom, the elected of 
 the reign of a thousand years (that reign which should com- 
 mence when Jesus returned from heaven upon the clouds) shall 
 pass their time in paradise in inexpressible feastings ; reaping 
 grain a thousand times as much as befoi-e ; quenching one's 
 thii'st with grapes, each berry of which would give twenty-five 
 measui'es of wine. Ireneus reproduces this description of the 
 disciple of St. John the Evangelist very seriously, and is wait- 
 ing to see mankind soon becoming herbivorous (Revue des 
 JDeux Mondes, February 15tli, 1865, p. 1008, by Albert Re- 
 ville). St. Ireneus, who lived at the end of the second century, 
 and St. Papias, bishop and disciple of St. John the Evangelist, 
 belong to the most celebrated fathers of the church, and their 
 ideas were evidently shared by the Christians of their epoch. 
 These ideas are found in fact several times expressed in the 
 New Testament. "We read in St, Matthew and St. Luke that 
 Jesus said: " There will be sitting at table with Abraham, 
 "Isaac, and Jacob" (Matt., viii, 11; Luke, xiii, 29). St. 
 Mark and St. Matthew relate that Jesus said : "I shall drink 
 " it new in the kingdom of my father " (Matt., xxvi, 29 ; 
 Mark, XIV, 25). According to St. Luke, Jesus says : "I shall 
 " not drink any more of the fruit of the vine, till the kingdom 
 " of God shall come" (Luke, xxil, 18). Jesus said once : "If 
 " thou makest a feast, call the poor, the maimed, the lame, the 
 " blind ; for thou shalt be recompensed at the resurrection of 
 " the just. And when one of them that sat at meat heard 
 " these things, he said unto him ; Blessed is he that shall eat 
 " bread in the kingdom of God " (Luke, xiv, 13-15). He said 
 also to his disciples : "I ajipoint .... that ye may eat 
 " and di'ink at my table in my kingdom " (Liike, xxii, 29, 30). 
 Now, up to the end of the second century, the fathers of the 
 church took these words of Jesus literally, and they believed 
 firmly that there would be eating in paradise, and that good 
 wine would be drank there.
 
 — 188 — 
 
 It might be objected, perhaps, that Jesus says at another 
 place: "After the resurrection, the men will not take any 
 " women nor the women any men in marriage, but are as the 
 " angels" (Matt., xxii, 30). But there are two resurrections 
 (1 Corinth., xv, 24-26; Apocalypse, xx, 5), The fathers of 
 the church have applied the passage which I have just now 
 cited, to the second resurrection, in order not to be put in con- 
 tradiction with the numerous other passages in the New Testa- 
 ment which relate, all of tUem, to the first resurrection. That of 
 Jesus, which took place the third day, represents the first resur- 
 rection; explains how he ate and drank after that resun-ection. 
 St. Peter says: " God has resuscitated him; he let him be seen 
 " by us, who have eaten and drank with him " (Acts x, 40, 41). 
 " He was then endowed with his body as before his death. 
 " He said to the disciples: See my hands and my feet, that it 
 
 " is I myself And while they yet believed him 
 
 " not, he said unto them: Have ye here any meaf? And they 
 " presented to him a piece of a broiled fish, and of an honey- 
 " comb, and he took it, and did eat before them " (Luke, xxiv, 
 39-43). 
 
 After the Pseudo-Esdras, cited as authority by Ireneus and 
 the principal fathers of the church, the interval between the 
 two resurrections is only four hundred years. It is God himself 
 who said to this Esdras: " My Son will appear in his gloiy 
 " [in returning from heaven] with those who belong to him 
 " [first resurrection], and men will live [in paradise] full of 
 " joy the intei'val of four hundred years. At the end of that 
 " time the Christ my Son will die, and all those which will 
 " then be upon the earth will also die; consequently, they will 
 " eat in paradise during four hundred years before they die. 
 " . . , . Finally, the dead will leave the dust [second resur- 
 " rection], the Vert/ High will appear and enter into judg- 
 " ment, justice and truth will reign, and faith will be affirmed 
 " more and more" (4 Esdi^as, vii, 28). Though I must con- 
 fess to not understanding the last phrase, " Faith will be 
 " affirmed more and more," How, indeed, after two successive 
 " resurrections, should faith be in need of being affirmed more 
 and more 1 Who could be that Pharaoh or Nebuchodonosor
 
 — 189 — 
 
 capable of remaining incredulous or feeble in the faith after 
 havina: seen two resurrections 1 
 
 The same author says: "Paradise is a place of delight, the 
 " fruits of which are incorruptible; it is the sojourn of health 
 " and rest " (4 Esdras, vii, 53). That is to say, people will be 
 there exempt from maladies, and will have there anything they 
 may wish for. 
 
 §51. 
 
 If we are going to compare at present the pai-t of the apostles 
 with that of Jesus, we must first divide the history of the 
 apostles into two periods, the first of which extends from the 
 death of the Master up to the famine which occurred in the 
 second year of the Emperor Claudius and lasted nine years. 
 During that period the apostles avoided the gentiles, like Jesus, 
 and addressed themselves only to the Jews. 
 
 During the first period, which lasted nine years, the national 
 aim remained the same. We must remark that the Holy 
 Virgin Mary, with her four sons, named James, Joseph, Jude 
 and Simon, at first incredulous (John, vii, 5), have now united 
 with the apostles. Besides, the means which thej' employed 
 to succeed, were always the same; only henceforth they had to 
 wait for the signal from heaven — that is to say, the return of 
 Jesus upon the clouds. Thus, during nine entire years, the 
 apostles conformed strictly to the words of Jesus, who had 
 forbidden addressing the gentiles. When Jesus showed him- 
 solf after his resurrection, they asked him : " Lord, will it be 
 " in this time to restore again the kingdom to Israel 1 But he 
 " said unto them: It is not for you to know the tini' s or the 
 " seasons; you will serve as witnesses, as much at Jerusalem 
 " as in Judea and Samaria, and to the extremities of the 
 " earth " (Acts i, 6-8). 
 
 The Greek ghe, which very often means land (compare Acts 
 VII, 3, 4, 6, 11, 29, 33, 36, 40, xiii, 17, 19: John, m, 22; 
 Matt., II, 6, 29, 21, IV, 15, ix, 26, 31, x, 15, xi, 24, xii, 42, 
 XIV, 34; Mark, vi, 53; Luke, iv, 25, 11, 31), may also relate 
 to the land of Israel. The author of the Acts employs, there- 
 fore, the word ghe in a restricted sense. 
 
 This expression means: "All the Jews of Judea, and all
 
 — 190 — 
 
 " those who are dispersed as far as the extremities of the 
 " earth ; " as the expression panta ta ethne (" all the nations ") 
 means, "all the Jews dispersed amongst the nations;" (see 
 ante, p. 52, in the original); and tas poleis pasas ("all the 
 cities") means the Jews who lived there. 
 
 St. Mark reports that Jesus has employed the expression, 
 j)ase te ktisei ("all the creatures"). But this form of speech 
 may be considered as an emphatic expression, which implies 
 by no means the gentiles.^ St. Peter also employs emphatic 
 expressions ; for instance, in order to explain the miracle of the 
 tongues, he says : " This is what has been predicted. God says : 
 '•' I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh, and your sons and 
 " daughters shall prophesy" (Acts ii, 16, 17); though later 
 " they wei"e astonished that the holy ghost had also spread 
 upon the gentiles " (Acts x, 45). St. John the Evangelist 
 likewise is fond of emphatic expressions. He relates that the 
 Pharisees said among themselves: "Behold the world (cosmos) 
 is gone after him [Jesus] (John, xii, 19). 
 
 It is thus that the apostles and all the disciples understood 
 it. The great miracle at the feast of Pentecost, where the 
 a])Ostles spoke in all tongues, took place because " there were 
 " then at Jerusalem Jews of all the nations which are under 
 " heaven" (Acts, ii, 5). St. Paul said to the Jews : " For the 
 " promise [the Messiah] is unto you " (Acts, ii, 39). So it 
 was when he says to the Jews, after the death of Jesus : "Pe- 
 " pent ye, therefore, that your sins may be blotted ovit. And 
 " he shall send Jesus Ohrist, which before was preached unto 
 " you. . . . You are the children of the prophets. . . . 
 " Unto you first, God having raised up his son Jesus, sent him 
 " to bless you" (Acts, in, 19, 20, 25, 26). St. Peter and the 
 other apostles answered (to the Jews) : " It is him [Jesus] 
 " whom the God of our fathers raised, to give repentance to 
 " Israel" (Acts, v, 29-31). St. Peter says, also: "It is not 
 " permitted to a Jew to have any connection with one of 
 " another nation" (Acts, x, 28). Is he more orthodox than 
 Solomon, who was the intimate friend of Hiram 1 than David, 
 who lived a long time among the Philistines? and than all 
 the Jews who endeavored at all times to gain the friendship of 
 the pagans? It is the same St. Peter, with an orthodoxy
 
 — 191 — 
 
 driven to the extreme, who says to the other apostles in full 
 council : " Now, therefore, why tempt you God, to put a yoke 
 " upon the neck of the disciples [the laws of Moses], which 
 " neither our fathers nor we ourselves have been able to bearl" 
 (Acts, XV, 10). That proves that neither he nor his fathers 
 had observed the laws of Moses, even before the advent of 
 Jesus. It was therefore not his orthodoxy, but his national 
 aim, which prevented him from going to the house of a pagan. 
 We see, besides, that there is here an affected exaggeration. 
 " The friends of St. Peter wei-e astonished that the gift of the 
 " holy ghost was also poured out on the Gentiles " (Acts, x, 
 45)." Now they traveled as far as Phoenicia, and Cyprus, and 
 " Antioch, preaching the word to none but to the Jews only " 
 (Acts, XI, 19). St. Paul addressed himself only to the Jews : 
 " The Holy Ghost said unto them : Separate me Barnabas and 
 " Saul for the work whex-eunto I have called them. They 
 " [St. Paul and Barnabas] preached the words of God in the 
 " synagogues of the Jews. . . . Then Paul stood up, and 
 " beckoning with his hand, said : Men of Israel, and ye that 
 " fear God, give audience. . . . God hath raised up Jesus 
 " again to be the Saviour of Israel. . . . It is to you who 
 " are of the race of Abraham, to whom this word [the gospel] 
 " is addressed. ... In regard to the promise [the Messiah] 
 " which had been made to our fathei-s : God has accomplished 
 " it for us who are their children, when he has liaised up again 
 " fesus" (Acts, XIII, 2-5, 16-33). 
 
 Jesus said to the apostles : " Enter in no city of the Samari- 
 " tans " (Matt., x, 5), though he was going once to make 
 himself acknowledged by this people, who had the same 
 creed as the Jews. After the death of St. Stephen, "all the 
 " faithful, except the apostles, were scattered abroad through- 
 " out the regions of Judea and Samaria" (Acts, viii, 1). This 
 " country was, besides, prepared by Simon the magician. It 
 " was therefore only after the Samaritans had been prepared 
 " by the faithful who had been dispersed amongst them and 
 " by Simon, that Philip baptized them" (Acts, viii, 4, 5, 12). 
 The Samaritans passed, besides, for a narrow-spirited and con- 
 sequently credulous people. " They answered him : Thou art 
 " a Samaritan " (John, viii, 48).
 
 — 192 — 
 
 As to the Jewish ceremonials, the apostles continued to de- 
 clare them obligatory. St. Peter said to the angel: "Lord, 
 " never anything impui'e nor soiled [which is forbidden by 
 " Judaism], entered into my mouth " (Acts xi, 8). However, 
 they were orthodox only in theory; in practice they were not 
 very scrupulous. It is again St. Peter who renders testimony 
 of all the disciples in saying, when the apostles and 
 elders came together for considering this matter : " Why 
 " tempt ye God, to put"a yoke upon the neck of the disciples 
 " [the laws of Moses] which neither our fathers nor we are able 
 " to bear" (Acts xv, 6-10). It would seem that the fathers of 
 the disciples, even before the birth of Jesus, did not observe 
 the law of their religion. 
 
 The means of persuasion were always the mii*acles, and above 
 all the miraculous healings; the first converts were, therefore, 
 ignorant, credulous men, and of the lower chiss of people. If 
 by accident the apostles succeeded in converting a rich person, 
 or one of elevated state, they never failed to make it 
 known, or to i*egister it as a very remarkable fact. Thus the 
 author of the Acts relates " that some of the prophets of the 
 " church, Barnabas and Simeon, had been brought up with 
 " Herod the Tetrarch, and Saul. Herod was converted by 
 " St. Paul at Thessalonia, and of the chief women not a few " 
 (Acts XIII, 1, and xvii, 4). "At Beree, he [St. Paul] also con- 
 " verted honorable women which were Greeks " (Acts xvii, 12). 
 " At Athens, he converted some, among whom were Denis' a 
 " judge, and a woman named Damaris " (Acts xvii, 34). "One 
 " day it happened that a pro-consul was converted, and a sim- 
 " pie Jew named Barjesu dared to prevent it. Then Paul, 
 " full of the holy ghost, his eyes fixed upon him [the Jew], said: 
 " Man full of subtility and all mischief, thou child of the devil, 
 " thou enemy of all righteousness, wilt thou not cease to per- 
 " vert the right ways of the Lord 1 The hand of the Lord is 
 " upon thee; thou shalt be blind. And immediately there fell 
 " on him a mist and a darkness. Then the deputy, when he 
 " saw what was done, believed, being astonished at the doctrine 
 " of the Lord" (Acts xiii, 9-12). And the pro-consul went 
 to the church instead of the synagogue.
 
 — 193 — 
 
 At another time the matter was to convert an Ethiopian. This 
 was a Jewish proselyte, and had to be made a Christian. But 
 the same was a high personality, though poor in spirit, because 
 he read the prophet Isaiah without understanding him. " He 
 " was eunuch and a mighty lord at the court of Candace, 
 " queen of Ethiopia, superintendent of all the treasuries " 
 (Acts VIII, 27). For the convei-sion of that eunuch, four 
 miracles were required. First, the angel of the Lord sent him 
 Philip (Acts VIII, 26) ; then the spirit said unto Philip: " Go 
 " near and join thyself unto this chariot " (Acts viii, 29) ; 
 " Then the passage of the scripture which he [the eunuch] 
 "read was this: He was led as a sheep to the slaughter", 
 (Acts viii, 32). "Finally, when they wei-e come out of the 
 " water, the spii'it of the Lord caught away Philip, that the 
 " eunuch saw him no more, and he went on his way rejoicing" 
 (Acts VIII, 39). 
 
 It requu'ed four miracles, angels, and the holy ghost for con- 
 verting a single eunuch, while thousands of poor Clmstians 
 were converted without angels and without any ceremonials ! 
 
 We know that Jesus drove out devils tlu^ough the holy 
 ghost, and that the apostles drove them out because they had 
 received the power from the Master to do it. Nevertheless, 
 Jesus approved a man who drove out demons without his per- 
 mission, provided he did so for the good of the cause (Mark, 
 IX, 39 ; Luke, ix, 50). After the death of the Master, the 
 apostles did not refuse any more the assistance of the magians. 
 " Simon exercised enchantment and filled with astonishment 
 " all the people of Samaria ; they said : This is the great 
 
 " power of God Philip preached Christ, and the 
 
 " people were attentive, .... seeing the miracles which 
 " he did " (Acts, viii, 5—10). Simon was, therefore, able to make 
 himself pass for the great power of God; he could become a 
 dangerous rival. Fortunately, he considered it more prudent 
 to associate himself with Philip (Acts, viii, 13). It goes with- 
 out saying that he continued exercising his noble calling as a 
 magian, because he offered them [the apostles] money, and said 
 unto them: "Give me also this power, that on whomsoever I 
 " lay hands the holy ghost shall be given" (Acts, viii, 18, 19). 
 "In order to speak with strange tongues" (Acts, x, 46,
 
 — 194 — 
 
 19, 6). "A female servant who had a spirit of divination, 
 " which brought her masters much gain by soothsaying. The 
 " same followed Paul and us, saying : These men are the ser- 
 " vants of the most high God, which show unto us the way of 
 " salvation " (Acts, xvi, 16, 17). St. Paul profited by it; only, 
 when she became disagreeable, " St. Paul, being grieved, 
 " turned and said to the spirit : I command thee in the name 
 " of Jesus Christ to come out of her, and he came out " (Acts, 
 xvr, 18). 
 
 Still, the apostles did not accept all the auxiliaries; they re- 
 fused them oftentimes. Thus the seven sons of fteeva under- 
 took to invoke the name of the Lord Jesus upon those who 
 were possessed of devils, saying: We adjure by Jesus whom 
 
 " Paul preacheth But the evil spirit answered 
 
 " them : I know Jesus and I know Paul ; but you, who are 
 " you 1 And the man who was possessed of the evil spirit 
 " [it was not the spirit himself] thi*ew himself on them and 
 " prevailed against them, so that they fled out of that house 
 
 " naked and wounded and the name of the Lord 
 
 " Jesus was glorified" (Acts, xix, 13-17). " Li fact, at that 
 " epoch, St. Paul needed auxiliaries no more, because he was 
 " already since two years in that city, and God wrought special 
 " miracles by the hands of Paul, so that from his body were 
 " brought unto the sick, handkerchiefs or aprons which had 
 *' touched his body, and the evil spirits went out of them " 
 (XIX, 10-12). 
 
 What a progress ! Jesus himself could not heal otherwise 
 than by the contact of his hands or the clothes which he wore, 
 " or he lost always a virtue which went of him " (Mark, v, 30 ; 
 Luke, VI, 19, and viii, 46). St. Peter did more; "he healed 
 by his shadow" (Acts, 5, 15). But St. Paul healed by his 
 handkerchiefs also, which he could have sent by railroad to the 
 extremities of the earth. 
 
 § 52. 
 
 As to religious tolerance, we have seen that Jesus curses all 
 those who do not believe in his miracles and in his mission. 
 He says : " I do not pray for everybody, but I pray for those 
 " which thou hast given me" (John xvii, 9). That is to say
 
 — 195 — 
 
 for those who believe in Jesus. " He who does not believe in 
 " the Son, will not see the life, but the anger of God will abide 
 " on him " (John, iii, 36). After his death the apostles also 
 " were exclusive. St. Peter says : "Anyone who will not hear 
 " this prophet [Jesus] will be exterminated in the midst of 
 " his people " (Acts, iii, 26). He says again : " There is no 
 " salvation in any other, because there is not under heaven 
 *' any other name by which we shall be saved" (Acts, iv, 12). 
 St. Paul threatens the incredulous Jews, saying unto them : 
 " And by him all that believe are justified from all things, from 
 " which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses. Be- 
 " ware, therefoi-e, lest that come upon you which is spoken 
 " of in the prophets : Behold, you despisers, and wonder, and 
 " perish ; for I work a work in your days, a woi'k which ye 
 " shall in nowise believe, though a man declare it unto you " 
 (Acts, XIII, 39-41). That is to say, a misfortune unheard of, 
 incredible, will happen to you, if you do not believe in Jesus 
 Christ. Once, St. Paul rendered testimony to the Jews that 
 Jesus was the Christ ; but when they opposed him, he said 
 unto them : " Your blood be upon your heads " (Acts, xviil, 
 5,6). 
 
 The Jews, on the contrary, observed a perfect tolerance 
 toward the Christians. It was a long time already that the 
 Pharisees and the Sadducees had lived in peace with one another. 
 The Pharisees lived also in harmony with the Christians. 
 " The churches lived in peace throughout the whole of Judea, 
 " in Galilee, and in Samaria, and were multiplied " (Acts, ix, 
 31). " The Christians went always into the temple " (Luke, 
 XXIV, 53 ; Acts, ii, 46 ; in, 1 ; v, 12-42). The hostilities were 
 always the sequel of some provocation on the part of the Chris- 
 tians, and the highest punishment which they incurred was to 
 be expelled from the synagogue. That is what St, John the 
 Evangelist teaches us, who wi-ote his gospel about sixty-three 
 years after the death of Jesus. He relates : " That there were 
 " several who believed in him ; but because of the Pharisees 
 " they did not confess him, lest they should be put out of the 
 " synagogue. For they loved the pi'aise of men more than the 
 praise of God " (John, xii, 42, 43).
 
 — 196 — 
 
 St. Paul says, it is true, that before his conversion he per- 
 secuted the Christians. " Saul made havoc of the church " 
 (Acts, VIII, 3). " Saul, not breathing but threatenings and 
 " slaughter against the disciples of the Lord, went unto the 
 " high priest, and desired of him letters to Damascus to the 
 " synagogues, that if he found any of this way, whether they 
 " were men or women, he might bring them bound unto Jeru- 
 " salem" (Acts, ix, 1, 2). After his conversion, he said to the 
 Jews : " And I persecuted this sect unto the death, binding 
 " and delivering them into prisons. . . . And it came to 
 " pass, as I made my journey, and was come nigh unto Damas- 
 " cus, ... I heard a voice ... I put in prison 
 " [before my conversion]. I consented to his death (the death 
 " of St. Stephen), and I kept the raiment of them that slew 
 " him " (Acts, xxii, 4-20). He repeats the same thing before 
 Agrippa (Acts, xxvi, 9-19). But this is an exaggeration 
 which he affects in order to make apparent the sincerity of his 
 conversion, because he, so zealous and so hostile, has finished 
 by rendering himself to the Christian truth ; as St. Peter affects 
 an exaggerated orthodoxy, saying to Cornelius, " that it be not 
 " permitted to a Jew to keep company with a stranger, but 
 " God hath showed me " (Acts, x, 28). He exaggerates his 
 Jewish sentiments, to insure belief in the vision which God 
 has let him see. 
 
 St. Paul, before his conversion, has killed nobody. He boasts 
 of having consented to the death of St. Stephen. But the 
 question is, Who asked for his consent 1 There was no judg- 
 ment nor vote. St. Stephen has been killed in a popular riot, 
 such as occurs in all countries, even in the nineteenth century, 
 when public opinion is overexcited by any question whatever. 
 
 Nevertheless, as we have seen previously, as Jesus himself 
 incurred the hostility of the Pharisees by his miracles, so did 
 the apostles after the death of the Master. The Christians 
 were quiet, without being disturbed by anybody. " They con- 
 
 " tinning daily with one accord in the temple 
 
 " There was a man lame from his mother's womb 
 
 " Peter and John looked upon him. . . . Peter said unto 
 " him : Rise up and walk. And he, leaping up, stood and 
 " walked. .... They [the high priests] put them in
 
 197 
 
 prison Tlieii Peter said unto tliem : Rulers of 
 
 the people, we are tried for having done good [miraculously] 
 
 to an impotent man They [the high })riests] 
 
 " consulted among themselves, saying : "What shall we do with 
 " these men] they have made a miracle" (Acts, ii, 46; iii, 
 and IV, 1-16). "Nevertheless, they let them go, finding noth- 
 " ing how they might punish them." But after they were 
 made free, " thei-e were many miracles done by the apostles. 
 " Then the high priest and all those who were with him seized 
 "the apostles and put them in prison" (Acts, v, 12-18). 
 " Stephen, full of faith and power, did great wonders and mir- 
 
 " acles among the people Then they brought him 
 
 " to the council And Stephen said : You have 
 
 " been the murderers [of Jesus] ; you have received the law, 
 
 " and you have never observed it Here I see the 
 
 " heavens open, and the Son of man at the right hand of God. 
 "Then the people fell upon him" (Acts, vi, 8; vii, 1-57). 
 " At that time [in consequence of the agitation caused by St. 
 Stephen] there arose a great persecution against the church 
 " of Jerusalem, and all the faithful, except the apostles, fled and 
 dispersed abroad throughout the regions of Judea" (Acts,viii, 
 1). Thus, in this great persecution the faithful emigrated from 
 Jerusalem, and could remain unmolested in Judea, while the 
 apostles could even stay at Jerusalem without being harmed 
 by anybody. This shows that there was no enmity of the 
 people against the disciples, who were the provokers, and none 
 against the apostles, who knew how to wait till the popular 
 irritation was calmed again. The apostles were evidently those 
 who had provoked this pretended great persecution. 
 
 " Herod killed James with the sword " (Acts, xil, 2). The 
 Jews had then no hand in the death of James. These are all 
 the persecutions related in the Acts to show the intolerance of 
 the Pharisees. 
 
 But St. Paul made an exception. He has undergone seri- 
 ous dangers. " In the city of Lystre he attracted to himself 
 " pursuits from the populace through a miracle " (Acts, xiv, 9- 
 19). They accused him that he troubled everybody; " that he 
 "wanted to abolish the law " (Acts, xviii, 13); "that he 
 " preacheth against the nation, against the law and against the 
 
 (( 
 
 ii
 
 — 198 — 
 
 " temple " (Acts, xxi, 28). " "We have found tliis man a pes- 
 " tilent fellow, and a mover of sedition amongst all the peo- 
 " pie " (Acts, XXIV, 5). We may well remark here that St. 
 Paul was a severe and implacable man. " He had quarrels 
 " with St. Peter" (Galat., ii, 11); with John and Barnabas, 
 that is to say, with the greatest apostles (Acts, xv, 38, 39). 
 We read in the Acts that St. Paul, " yet breathing but threaten- 
 ** ings and slaughter against the disciples, went unto the high 
 ** priest and desired of him letters to Damascus, that if he 
 " found any of this way, whether men or women, that he might 
 " bring them to Jerusalem [that was at the time of the popu- 
 " lar irritation against the miracles of St. Stephen], . . . 
 " and arriving at Damascus, he preached immediately in the 
 " synagogues that Jesus was the son of God" (Acts, ix, 1, 2, 
 and 20). This sudden change is explained by the vision which 
 he has had upon the way to Damascus. But the Jews did not 
 believe in this vision ; they believed that the zeal which St. 
 Paul showed at first was nothing but a means to gain the con- 
 fidence of the high priest, as the kiss of Judas was a means to 
 betray Jesus. 
 
 The Jews admitted so much easier this treason of St. Paul, 
 because the high priest was already before betrayed by St. 
 John the Evangelist, "the disciple whom Jesus loved, who 
 " during the supper [Loi-d's Supper] had reclined upon the 
 " bi-east of Jesus " (John, xxi, 20) ; who had known at the 
 same time how to gain the confidence of the Jews. " He was 
 " known by the high priest. But Peter remained outside of 
 " the door. And this other disciple [St. John], who was 
 " known by the high priest, went out and spoke to her that 
 kept the door. Then said the damsel that kept the door unto 
 " Peter: Art thou not also one of this man's disciples ] He 
 
 " said, I am not He denied him again another 
 
 " time " (John, xviii, 15-27). 
 
 When there was danger for St. Peter in confessing that he 
 was a disciple of Jesus, how could St. John enter unharmed? — 
 he who was more beloved by Jesus than St. Peter. It was be- 
 cause he understood how to dissemble that he was not suspected ; 
 even so much confidence was accorded to him that, upon his 
 recommendation, suspicious men like St. Peter were permitted 
 
 i
 
 — 199 — 
 
 to enter. This is, nevertheless, the same St. John who com- 
 plains of those " who believe in him [Jesus], but will not at all 
 " confess it on account of the Pharisees, because they love more 
 " the glory which comes of men than that of God " (John, xii, 
 42-43). St. John has forgotten the Avords of Jesus, which 
 say: " Hypocrite, first pull out the beam of thine own eye, be- 
 " fore thou seest how to remove the mote from the eye of thy 
 " brother" (Luke, vi, 42). 
 
 Thus, with the exception of St. Paiil and those who made 
 mii-acles, the Pharisees molested nobody. The Pharisee called 
 Gamaliel, doctor of law, honored by the whole of the people, 
 said : " Theudas arose, and four hundred men joined with him, 
 " and he was killed. After him arose Judas, the Galilean, 
 " and he gathered around himself a great many people, but 
 " they perished also." (He compares, therefore, the part played 
 by the apostles with the political agitations of Theudas and 
 Judas the Galilean.) " Ye men of Israel, take heed to yoixr- 
 " selves, what you intend to do touching these men ; for if this 
 " counsel or this work be of men, it will come to naught. But 
 " if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it, lest, haply, ye be 
 " found even to fight against God " (Acts, v, 34-39). That is 
 to say, if the acts of the apostles shall culminate in a jiolitical 
 action (according to men), it will be destroyed without you, like 
 that of Theudas and Judas the Galilean; but as long as the 
 apostles do not speak but of chimerical creeds and prophecies, 
 you cannot combat it, even less, if you want to make a religious 
 war out of it. Indeed, Gamaliel and all the Pharisees, who 
 had no idea of combating the Sadducees — though they denied 
 their principal dogmas — how could they make war against the 
 Christians, who admitted then, on the contrary, all the Jewish 
 ci-eeds 1 
 
 The passage by Gamaliel is generally translated thus : ' ' When it 
 " comes from God you cannot destroy it; it will be found out finally 
 " that you cannot make war against God." But this translation is not 
 admissible ; because, if Gamaliel admitted the possibility of a divine 
 mission of Jesus and the apostles, how could he allow them to be pun- 
 ished and humiliated on account of their miracles ? Would not this 
 also be making war against God ? 
 
 The Pharisees acted with strict logic. They combated only
 
 — 200 — 
 
 miracles and seditions, but tUey did not combat conscience. 
 They admitted the Sadducees in their Supreme Council, in the 
 Sanhedrim (Acts, xxiii, 6), and with the same perfect toler- 
 ance they admitted the Christians in the temple (Acts, in, 1, 
 and V, 12); even those who did not cease every day to teach 
 and to announce Jesus Christ in the temple. Thus, the toler- 
 ance of the Pharisees toward the Christians was as complete as 
 could be desired, in a manner that "the churches lived in peace 
 " throughout the whole of Judea and Galilee, and were mul- 
 <' tiplied" (Acts, IX, 31). 
 
 § 53. 
 
 About nine years after the death of Jesus the disciples be- 
 gan to preach the gospel to the pagans. "We have seen that 
 Jesus had forbidden them to address the Gentiles ; that even 
 after the death of the Master, the apostles addiessed exclu- 
 sively the Jews. Who originated the idea of addressing the 
 Gentiles 1 It was neither Peter nor Paul. "There were at first 
 " some [Jewish disciples] who were of Cyprus and Cyrene, and 
 " had entered into Antioch, who spoke to the Greeks, had 
 " announced to them the Lord Jesus. Now, the report went 
 " up to Jerusalem ; that is the reason why they sent Barnabas 
 " to Antioch, .... because it was at Antioch that it 
 " was at first commenced to call the disciples Christians " 
 " (Acts, XI, 20, 22, and 26). The apostles, thei-efore, did not 
 take the initiative, but they sent Barnabas to preach to the 
 converted. 
 
 It was afterward Cornelius, a Roman centurion, religious 
 and fearing God (that is to say, converted by the Jews to 
 monotheism), giving much alms to the people (Acts, x, 2), who 
 sent for St. Peter. 
 
 He was what is called "proselyte portce, " (gher thoschab) ; that is to 
 say, converted to monotheism, without being engaged to observe the 
 national ceremonials of the .Tews. He could eat pork and everything 
 that was prohibited by Moses, which certainly must have prevented an 
 orthodox Jew from entering into the house of Cornelius in order to eat 
 at his table. 
 
 It was not the apostle going to find a Gentile ; it was, on 
 the contrary, Cornelius, already a Jewish proselyte, who sent
 
 — 201 — 
 
 for St. Peter in the city of Joppa, at the sequel of a miracle 
 which this apostle had clone there. A female disciple (Christian), 
 by the name of Tabitha and Dorcas (she had two names) died at 
 Joppa; they sent for St. Peter to resuscitate her. In order to 
 show him that she deserves a miracle, "all the widows appeared 
 " before him, weeping, and showing him how many robes and 
 " dresses Dorcas had made when she was with them. And Pe- 
 " ter, after having made them all step out, prayed and said : 
 " Tabitha, arise. And she opened her eyes, and when she saw 
 " Peter she sat up. And Peter, when he had called the wid- 
 " ows, presented her alive. And it was known throughout all 
 " Joppa, and many believed in the Lord. . . . There was 
 " a man named Cornelius " (Acts, ix, 39-42; and x, 1). With- 
 out this great miracle Coi-nelius would have remained in the 
 synagogue instead of going to the church. 
 
 It was finally the absolute refusal of the Jews to receive 
 l)aptism which pushed the apostles to the gentiles. St. Paul 
 said to the Jews: " Because you reject it, we turn to the gen- 
 " tiles" (Acts, XIII, 4:6; xviii, 6; xxviii, 28). Thus it is 
 shown that it depended only on the Jews to leave the gentiles 
 perpetually in paganism. If the Jews had accepted baptivsm, 
 St. Paul and the other apostles would never have pi-eached to 
 the gentiles. 
 
 We know that St. Paul had a vision upon the road to Da- 
 mascus, where he heard the voice of Jesus. His traveliiiir 
 companions, said he, " heard the voice, but they saw nobody " 
 (Acts, IX, 7). Later on, St. Paul told the Jews his compan- 
 ions " saw the light, but did not hear the voice " (Acts, xxii, 9). 
 
 There are still other variations to notice. St. Paul said at 
 first that Jesus had appeared to him in oixler to say to him, "I 
 
 " am Jesus, whom thou persecutest Arise and go 
 
 " into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do " 
 (Acts, IX, 5-6). And in the city he met Ananias, who said 
 unto him : "Jesus has sent me, in order that thou mightst re- 
 
 " ceive thy sight, and be filled with the holy ghost 
 
 " And he arose, and was bajjtized, and he preached in the syn- 
 " agogues" (Acts, ix, 17-20). Thus, after this vision, St. Paul 
 preached only to the Jews, and he had no idea at all of a mis- 
 sion to the gentiles. Later, he told the Jews that Jesus had 
 14
 
 — 202 — 
 
 appeared to him twice — first upon the road to Damascus, and 
 afterward at Jex'usalem, where Christ said unto him: "Go away 
 " from Jerusalem, because the Jews will not receive thy testi- 
 
 " mony I send thee to the Gentiles " (Acts, xxii, 
 
 6-21). That is saying to the Jews : If you will not listen to 
 me, I go to the gentiles ; if you hear me, I will remain with 
 you, and Jesus will not save anybody except the Israelites. 
 Choose ; will you keep Jesus for yourselves, or will you that he 
 should be given to the gentiles ] Later still, St. Paul was led 
 before the governor, Festus, whom he was going to convert. 
 He understood, then, that he could not say to the pagans that 
 he announced Jesus only because the Jews had rejected him ; 
 considering that the Romans were too proud to accept what 
 the Jews had refused. He spoke, therefore, of one vision only 
 — upon the road of Damascus, where Jesus had told him, quite 
 simply, to address the gentiles (Acts, xxvi, 17-29). 
 
 But Festus was not converted, and sent St. Paul to Rome. 
 Having arrived there, he forgot completely the words of Jesus 
 and tlie gentiles, and addressed the Jews of Rome, saying unto 
 them: " I called for you and to speak with you, because that 
 " for the hope of Israel I am bound with this chain " (Acts, 
 xxviii, 20). But the Jews did not believe at all; then St. 
 Paul said unto them : " You hear and you do not understand ; 
 
 '' for the heart of this people is waxed gross Be 
 
 " it known, therefore, unto you that the salvation of God is 
 " sent unto the gentiles, and that they will hear it " (Acts, 
 XXVIII, 26-28). Thus are all the words spoken by Jesus after 
 his resui-rection forgotten; of the vision of Damascus not a 
 word ; and if the Jews of Rome had listened to the words of 
 the apostle, St. Paul would never have gone to the gentiles, 
 and all the peoples of the earth would have remained in pagan- 
 ism to the present time. But the truth needs neither Paul nor 
 Peter for its triumph in the end. Monotheism had as many 
 apostles as there were Jews upon the face of the earth. 
 
 What a difference between the repugnance of Jesus and all 
 the apostles toward the gentiles, to which the latter only turn 
 in the desperation of their cause — what a difference, we say, 
 between them and the Jews, " who compass sea and land to make 
 " one proselyte" (Matt., xxiii, 15). The propaganda of the
 
 — 203 — 
 
 Pharisees is also attested in several passages of Acts. (See 
 Acts, II, 11; VI, 5; x, 2-7; xiii, 7, 43.) 
 
 This idea will be developed in the fourth part of this work, 
 entitled, Origin of Christianity. In the meantime, we shall 
 say a few words for a brief explanation of this difference. 
 
 Judaism has a double character: religipus and national. To 
 this double character correspond two different categories of du- 
 ties, one religious (monotheism and morals), and one national 
 (feasts, circumcision, etc.) To this double chai-acter and to 
 these categories correspond two kinds of proselytes, to wit: a 
 proselyte called "justicice" (gher tzedek), whom I shall call a 
 national proselyte, a naturalized Jew, who engages himself to 
 observe both categories of duties presci'ibed by Judaism; and 
 a proselyte named ghei' thoshah, whom I shall call a proselyte 
 of religion, who is exempt fi'om all national prescriptions of re- 
 ligion, and who adopts only religious maxims, considered com- 
 mon to all men, and to all general principles of morals; he is 
 taught seven commandments, called " commandments of the 
 " children of Noah " — that is to say of all the peoples, de- 
 scendants of Noah or Adam. These seven commandments are : 
 to abstain from idolatry, from mvirder, from adultery, from 
 blaspheming against God, from injustice; not eating a piece of 
 meat torn from a living animal ; finally, observing moral prin- 
 ciples. 
 
 The Pharisees considered it a duty to make proselytes and 
 to propagate the maxims of religion and morals. It goes with- 
 out saying that they would prefer much more the first class of 
 proselytes. We often read, therefore, that the Jews wanted 
 to circumcise the proselytes. All patriots are happy to see 
 their country aggrandized ; that the number of their citizens 
 increases ; all societies desire that the number of their members 
 should become as considerable as possible. At the same time, 
 a little people cannot annex all the world, and the Pharisees 
 were contented with the second class of proselytes, who adopted 
 the general maxims without engaging themselves to appertain 
 to the Jewish nation. It is for that class of proselytes that 
 " they compassed sea and land " to realize the accomplishment 
 of the prophecy: " On that day there will not be more than 
 one God for all the people." But for that piirpose it is not
 
 — 204 — 
 
 needful to impose upon others what is only proper to the Jews. 
 The Jews celebrate, for instance, the feast of Easter, in remem- 
 brance of the exodus from Egypt ; it might be difficult to ob- 
 tain an Egyptian proselyte to celebrate the anniversary of the 
 disasters of his ancestors. An uncircumcised proselyte shall 
 not eat from the Easter lamb (Exodus, xii, 48), because the 
 national duties do not concern him. Now, the Messiah, pre- 
 dicted by the prophets, and impatiently waited for by the Jews 
 for many centuries, was evidently the most national tradition 
 which there was among the Israelitic traditions. How pro- 
 pose it to the gentiles'? I know well that the whole of the 
 Bible has been allegorized. The prophets have been, before 
 everything, Israelites and patriots. They thought above all 
 of their contem}>orary compatriots; yet people have imagined 
 that Isaiah had no other aspiration than to mind Christian 
 Eui-ope, and to speak to the kings of Israel of their epoch, not 
 to be wholesome to them and their country, but that their 
 prophetic words should serve to relate to distant events and a 
 teaching for populations the existence of which the prophet 
 had no idea, or for Rome, which had no being in the world at 
 the time of the prophets. Before arriving at this complete 
 metamorphosis, by which interpretation has made the text 
 unrecognizable, it requires considerable time and extraordinary 
 events. Now, the apostles were not then in existence. Besides, 
 they cared very little for propagating general moral maxims. 
 They knew only their Messiah. All religious and moral prin- 
 ciples were as nothing without the creed in their Messiah. 
 Such was their constant doctrine. If the Jews had accepted 
 the Messiah, so much the better would it have been for the 
 apostles; they would have better agreed with the prophets. 
 But the Jews rejected him, and the apostles submitted and 
 undertook the very laborious work of allegorizing the whole of 
 the Bible, and to make it express quite the contrary from what 
 it says. 
 
 § 54. 
 
 Let us consider now whether, at least at the beginning, the 
 
 apostles had not to fear failure and condemnation, like their 
 
 Master. Such a failure was by no means probable. Their 
 
 precautions had been well taken. They expected that a corpse
 
 — 205 — 
 
 would not be recognized fifty days after death. Besides, tlie 
 judicial investigations at that epoch, even with the Romans, 
 though the masters of jurisprudence, were very defective. 
 Moreover, the Jews themselves could not effect a gi-eat deal 
 They had not the power to execute a sentence of death ; they 
 had to deliver the culprit to Pilate, and his consent was i-e- 
 quired to the sentence rendered. All that they were able to 
 do, was to prohibit entrance into the synagogue or to condemn 
 the evil-doer to be beaten. That was the only martyrdom to 
 which the apostles or their partisans could be exjwsed. The 
 Eomans had, besides, employed all possible means for lowering 
 the authority of the Jewish magistrates and diminishing their 
 consideration, in order to keep them more surely under the 
 yoke of Rome. 
 
 Pilate had Jesus executed with all imaginable signs of hu- 
 miliation — signs directed less to Jesus than to the King of the 
 Jews, which title this governor had caused to be written in 
 three languages, in order to humiliate the nation. The high 
 priests said to Pilate : " Write not The King of tJie Jews " 
 (John, XIX, 21). Pilate remained inflexible. He maintained 
 the sign-board in order to humiliate the Jews. They had to 
 yield, to avoid exposing themselves to new humiliations. Be- 
 sides, Pi ate was very eager to have a man executed who had 
 become suspected, and dangerous to the Roman dominion ; but 
 he would have had no interest at all in the execution of the 
 apostles ; that is to say, people who did nothing but engage 
 their partisans to wait for a king coming upon the clouds. 
 The incredulous Roman would not be much afraid of such an 
 idle fancy. Instead of having them executed, Pilate had no 
 better interest than acquitting them, and thereby by a new 
 means enfeeble the authority of the Jewish tnagistrates, and 
 divide the people by disorders and agitation of parties. The 
 governor, Festus, said indeed to St. Paul, who s}X)ke of the 
 resurrection : "Paul, thou art li>eside thyself" (Act, xxvi, 24), 
 and he was going to acquit him. 
 
 But here are irrefutable proofs of the weakness of the Jew- 
 ish authorities under the Roman dominion. The apostles can 
 introduce with impunity an institution of communism very 
 dangerous to the state. Rich citizens, adherents of the apos-
 
 — 206 — 
 
 ties, " all those who possessed real estate or houses, sold them 
 " and brought the money received therefor and put it at the 
 '* feet of the apostles, and it was then divided amongst all " 
 (Acts, IV, 34, 35). The rich men became then poor; they could 
 contribute nothing more to the expenses of the state, nor could 
 they work any more for its prosperity. Private persons be- 
 came masters and possessors of the property of a great number 
 of citizens, which put them in position to exercise a great influ- 
 ence upon thousands of persons among those citizens who have 
 been reduced to live upon their benevolence, and obliged to 
 obey them in all imaginable matters and things. The apostles 
 could in this way withdraw them from the influence of the 
 state, and even oppose it, under the pretext, " we ought to obey 
 " God rather than men " (Acts, v, 29), and form in this way a 
 state in the state. It is evident that a government in an inde- 
 pendent and well-organized state should never have permitted 
 this dangerous communism. 
 
 Another proof of the weakness of the Jewish authorities of 
 that epoch, under Roman dominion. " Ananias, with Sapphira 
 " his wife, sold a possession, and he kept a part of the money, 
 " with the consent of his wife, and he took the rest and put it 
 " at the feet of the apostles. But Peter said unto him : Ana- 
 " nias, why had Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy 
 " Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land 1 Thou 
 " hast not lied unto men, but unto God. Ananias, hearing 
 " those words, fell down and gave up the ghost. And great 
 " fear came on all them that heard these things. And some 
 " young men arose, wrapped him up, and carried him out and 
 " buried him. And it was about the space of three hours after, 
 " when his wife, not knowing what was done, came in. And 
 " Peter asked of her. Whether you sold the land for so much 1 
 " And she said : Yea, for so much. Then Peter said unto her: 
 " How is it that you have agreed together to tempt the spirit 
 " of the Lord 1 Behold, the feet of them which have buried 
 " thy husband are at the door, and shall carry thee out. Then 
 " fell she down straightway at his feet and yielded up the 
 " ghost. And the young men came in and found her dead, and 
 " carrying her forth, buried her by her husband. And great 
 " fear came upon all the church and upon as many as heax'd
 
 — 207 — 
 
 " these things. And by the hands of the apostles were many 
 " signs and wonders wrought among the people. And of the 
 " rest durst no man join himself to them ; but the people 
 " [Christian] magnified them" (Acts, v, 1-13). 
 
 The Greek word is laos, "peoi^le." The Christian community called 
 themselves people, because they represented the people of Israel. We 
 read in Acts : "They [the disciples] took their meals with joy, praising 
 " God, and were agreeable to all the people" (laos) (Acts, ii, 47). That 
 is, probably, to the whole of the community, of which is said further 
 on : " There was none amongst them [the disciples] who were indigent, 
 " because distribution was made to every man according as he had 
 " need" (Acts, iv, 34, 35). "They sent them because of the people, 
 " for all men glorified God for that which was done" (Acts, iv, 20). 
 ' ' [That is to say, because St. Peter made a miracle]. And by the hands 
 " of the apostles were many wonders and signs wrought amongst the 
 " people " (Acts, v, 12). " For they feared the people, lest they should 
 "have been stoned" (Acts, v, 26) We read also: "Paul came to 
 
 "Corinth When they [the Jews] opposed him, he said: 
 
 ' ' Your blood be on your heads ; from henceforth, I will go unto the 
 
 " gentiles Then spake the Lord to Paul in the night by a 
 
 "vision: "Be not afraid and speak, .... for I have much 
 "people in this city" (Acts, xviii, 1-10). Here "people" evidently 
 signifies the Christian community. Lastly, we read "that Simon 
 " [Peter] had declared how God at first visited the gentiles, to take out 
 " of them a people for his name" (Acts, xv, 14). Besides, any sect 
 calls itself people (laos), as thajt of Judas the Galilean (Acts, v, 37). 
 Generally our passage is translated, "And any of the others did not 
 " dare to join them [the apostles], but the people praised them»much." 
 This translation, it seems to me, contains a contradiction. 
 
 Here is a miracle which is worse than the cholera. All 
 those who heard of it had a great fear, and there was reason 
 for it; indeed, it was terrible. Two persons, proprietors, a 
 •man and his wife, pious and charitable, were found thunder- 
 stricken in the rooms of the apostles. Eveiyone hears it 
 spoken of, and is full of fear, without a single man of author- 
 ity to make the least inquest. Ananias and his wife are pious 
 to such a degree that they sell all that they possess, in order 
 to put the pi'oceeds at the feet of the apostles, and to live 
 henceforth on the alms which the apostles would be kind 
 enough to give them. But they keep a part of the money 
 which they have realized, to be prepared for meeting contin- 
 gencies or leaving it to their legal heirs. St. Peter considers
 
 — 208 — 
 
 such action abominable. He exclaims that they had belied 
 God and the Holy Ghost. The man falls thuuderstricken, never 
 to rise more. The woman enters, and St. Peter threatens her 
 that she will die as her husband died, and in the same moment 
 she dies also. These two corpses are carried away and interred, 
 without any authority interfering and looking for a reason for 
 these sudden demises. It is not said whether the money was 
 given to the legal heirs of this poor mari'ied couple; it seems, 
 to have been kept for the commui;ity. 
 
 i
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 TWO LEGENDARY SAYINGS. 
 
 THE OLD AND THE NEW. 
 
 A contrast of almost nineteen hundred years standing. 
 
 A BLESSING 
 
 in the disguise of a commandment, a curse, and a punishment. 
 
 " In the sweat of thy brow thalt thou eat thy bread " 
 (Genesis, in, 19). 
 
 Accepted and followed by virtuous and honest people 
 amongst Jews and Gentiles, Christians, Mohammedans and_ 
 heathens. 
 
 A CURSE 
 
 in the garb of an encouragement and a blessing. 
 
 "Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat or drink, 
 '' nor what ye shall put on. Behold, the fowls of the air; for 
 " they sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into bai-ns; 
 " yet, your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are ye not much 
 " better than theyf (Matt., vi, 25, 26). 
 
 Accepted and followed by monks, professional beggars, har- 
 lots, and all such who are going to live upon the industry and 
 labor of others amongst all nations and creeds. 
 
 From " Reflections on the Old and New Testament, suggested by the 
 preceding work by Dr. R. Translator.
 
 INDEX. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Dedication of Translation iii 
 
 Translator's Preface v 
 
 Introduction 9 
 
 PART I. 
 
 § 1. Object of Jesus 25 
 
 § 2. Kingdom of heaven 26 
 
 § 3. Doctrine of Jesus 27 
 
 § 4. The faith 29 
 
 § 5. Son of God 32 
 
 § 6. The sequel 35 
 
 § 7. Holy Ghost 37 
 
 § 8. The trinity. " I and my Father are only one" 40 
 
 § 9. Jewish ceremonials. St. Paul 42 
 
 § 10. The gentiles 48 
 
 § 11. Baptism 52 
 
 § 12. The sequel; the formula. The Lord's Supper 56 
 
 §13. The Messiah 60 
 
 ~^ 14. National political object 62 
 
 § 15. The prediction of the resurrection 69 
 
 „ 16. The prediction of the passion 71 
 
 PART II. 
 
 § 17. The two systems 76 
 
 § 18. John the Baptist 76 
 
 § 19. Prohibition of divulging miracles 79 
 
 § 20. The born blind 83 
 
 § 21. Character of the Disciples. Parable of Lazarus; the rich 
 enter with difficulty into paradise. Grace. The good
 
 — 212 — 
 
 PAGE 
 
 works. Parable of the Pharisee and the publican. The 
 Pharisees and the gentiles. The publicans and the 
 women of low life; may he who is without sin cast the 
 
 first stone 85 
 
 § 22. Divorce. If any one smites thee on the right cheek, pre- 
 sent to him the left also. Love of neighbor. Religious 
 
 tolerance 94 
 
 § 23. Instructions to the Apostles. The incredulous are cursed. 
 The murderers of prophets; the similitudes. Commun- 
 ism. Be prepared. Enthusiasm for his case. Jews 
 declare the Jews innocent which were killed by Pilate. 
 
 Jesus promises vengeance " Be not afraid, 
 
 little flock." Jesus preaches after somebody else 99 
 
 § 24. Ambition of the Apostles. "If any one will be the first he 
 
 shall be the last." " The Son of man is come to serve." 106 
 § 25. Entrance into Jerusalem. If any one knows how he stand 
 
 he should declare it 109 
 
 Secret partisans 112 
 
 Incredulity of the Apostles 117. 
 
 Proofs of the mission of Jesus 121 
 
 The auditory of Jesus 125 
 
 Grievances of Jesus against the Pharisees 128 
 
 Grievances, the Pharisees against Jesus, according to St. 
 
 Matthew 133 
 
 Grievances, according to St. Mark 1.35 
 
 Same, St. Luke 136 
 
 Same, St. John 137 
 
 The death of Jesus, according to St. Matthew 139 
 
 Same, St. Mark 143 
 
 Same, St. Luke. " Render to Csesar what belongs to Csesar. " 145 
 
 The death of Jesus, according to St. John 148 
 
 The recitals of the four Evangelists : resumed 151 
 
 PART III. 
 
 § 40. The new system: St. Stephen 155 
 
 § 41. Arguments of St. Paul and St. Stephen 157 
 
 § 42. Biblical passages 161 
 
 § 43. Retuni of Jesus upon the clouds 164 
 
 § 
 
 26. 
 
 § 
 
 27. 
 
 § 
 
 28. 
 
 § 
 
 29. 
 
 § 
 
 30. 
 
 § 
 
 31. 
 
 § 
 
 32. 
 
 § 
 
 33. 
 
 § 
 
 34. 
 
 § 
 
 35. 
 
 § 
 
 36. 
 
 § 37. 
 
 § 
 
 38. 
 
 ^ 
 
 39.
 
 — 213 — 
 
 PAGE 
 
 § 44. One day like a thousand years 170 
 
 § 45. The two bases of the new doctrine 171 
 
 § 46. Object of the Apostles 17.3 
 
 § 47. Charity of the Pharisees 175 
 
 § 48. Communism, power of the Apostles; Jurisprudence; Char- 
 ity; Instruction; Hierarchy, excommunication, punish- 
 
 ments_ 178 
 
 § 49. Report spread at the time of the Apostles 185 
 
 § 50. Paradise ; two resurrections 186 
 
 § 51. The first nine years after the death of Jesus 189 
 
 § 52. Seligious tolerance ; St. Paul ; St. John 194 
 
 § 53. Propaganda among the Gentiles '200 
 
 § 54. Ananias and Sapphira "204 
 
 Appendix
 
 11
 
 '
 
 \
 
 University of California 
 
 SOUTHERN REGIONAL LIBRARY FACILITY 
 
 305 De Neve Drive - Parking Lot 17 • Box 951388 
 
 LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90095-1388 
 
 Return this material to the library from which it was borrowed. 
 
 , -^al 
 
 
 Form L-9-15»n-2,'36 
 
 UJTIVERSITY 07 CAIJFORNIA
 
 UC SOUTHERN REGIONAL LIBRARY FACILITY 
 
 AA 000 606 070 1 
 
 3 1158 01009 4265
 
 ^(KJIIillli^ 
 
 till 
 
 ilii^ 
 
 > ' ■ V .- - i^ 
 
 Uni\ 
 
 i