MY BRETHREN:

There are in the New Testament, as there are in the Old, depths that

we cannot sound, and sublimities that our poor reason can never

attain. I do not propose here either to reconcile the gospels,

which seem to contradict each other at times, or to explain

mysteries which, by the very fact that they are mysteries, must be

inexplicable. Let those who are more learned than I discuss whether

the Holy Family betook itself to Egypt after the massacre of the

children at Bethlehem, as Matthew says, or remained in Judæa, as Luke

says; let them seek if the father of Joseph was named Jacob, his

grandfather Matthan, and his great-grandfather Eleazar, or if his

great-grandfather was Levi, his grandfather Matthat, and his father

Heli. Let them settle this genealogical tree according to their

light; it is a study that I respect. I know not if it would enlighten

my mind, but I do know that it cannot speak to my heart. Paul the

Apostle tells us himself, in his first epistle to Timothy, that we

must not trouble ourselves about genealogies. We will not be any

the better for knowing precisely who were the ancestors of Joseph,

in what year Jesus was born, and whether James was his brother or

his cousin. What will it profit us to consult what remains of the

Roman annals to see if Augustus really did order a census of all the

peoples of the earth when Mary was pregnant with Jesus, Quirinus

governor of Syria, and Herod king of Judæa? Quirinus, whom Luke calls

Cyrenius, was (the learned say) not governor in the time of Herod,

but of Archelaus, ten years later; and Augustus never ordered a

census of the Roman Empire.

We are told that the _Epistle to the Hebrews_, attributed to Paul,

was not written by Paul; that neither _Revelation_ nor the _Gospel

of John_ was written by John; that the first chapter of this gospel

was evidently written by a Greek Platonist; that the book could not

possibly come from a Jew; and that no Jew could ever have made Jesus

say: “I give you a new commandment: that you love each other.” This

commandment, they say, was certainly not new. It is given expressly,

and in even stronger terms, in the laws of _Leviticus_: “Thou shalt

love thy God above all things, and thy neighbour as thyself.” Such

a man as Jesus Christ--a man learned in the law, who confounded the

doctors at the age of twelve, and was ever speaking of the law--could

not be ignorant of the law; and his beloved disciple could not

possibly have charged him with so palpable a mistake.

Let us not be troubled, my brethren. Let us remember that Jesus

spoke a dialect, half Syrian and half Phœnician, that was hardly

intelligible to Greeks; that we have the _Gospel of John_ only in

Greek; that this gospel was written more than fifty years after

the death of Jesus; that the copyists may easily have altered the

text; and that it is more probable that the text ran, “I give you a

commandment that is not new,” than that it said: “I give you a new

commandment.” Let us return to our great principle. The precept is

good; it is our duty to fulfil it as well as we may, whether or no

Zoroaster was the first to announce it, and Moses copied it, and

Jesus renewed it.

Shall we penetrate into the thickest darkness of antiquity to learn

whether the darkness which covered the whole earth at the death

of Jesus was due to an eclipse of the sun at a time of full moon,

whether an astronomer named Phlegon, whom we have no longer, spoke

of this phenomenon, or if any one ever saw the star of the three

wise men? These are difficulties that may very well interest an

antiquarian; but he will not have spent in good works the precious

time he devotes to the clearing-up of this chaos; and he will end

with more doubt than piety. My brethren, the man who shares his bread

with the poor is better than he who has compared the Hebrew text with

the Greek, and both of them with the Samaritan.

All that relates to history only gives rise to a thousand disputes;

what concerns our duties gives rise to none. You will never

understand how the devil took God into the desert; how he tempted

him for forty days; or how he carried him to the top of a hill from

which he could see all the kingdoms of the world. The devil offering

all these things to God will greatly shock you. You will seek the

mystery that is hidden in these things, and so many others, and your

mind will be fatigued in vain. Every word will plunge you into

uncertainty, and the anguish of a restless curiosity which can never

be satisfied. But if you confine your attention to morals the storm

will pass, and you will rest in the bosom of virtue.

I venture to flatter myself, my brethren, that if the greatest

enemies of the Christian religion were to listen to us in this

secluded temple, in which the love of virtue brings us together; if

Lord Herbert, Lord Shaftesbury, Lord Bolingbroke, Tindal, Toland,

Collins, Whiston, Trenchard, Gordon, and Swift were to witness our

gentle and innocent simplicity, they would have less disdain and

repugnance for us. They cease not to reproach us with an absurd

fanaticism. We are not fanatical in belonging to the religion of

Jesus. He worshipped one God, as we do; he despised empty ceremonies,

as we do. No gospel has said that his mother was the mother of God,

or that he was consubstantial with God. In no gospel will you find

that the disciples of Jesus should arrogate the title of “Holy

Father,” or “My Lord,” or that a priest who lives at Lambeth should

have an income of two thousand a year while so many useful tillers

of the soil have hardly the seed for the three or four acres they

water with their tears. The gospel did not say to the bishops of

Rome: Forge a donation of Constantine in order to seize the city of

the Scipios and Cæsars and become sovereigns of Naples. It did not

urge the bishops of Germany to profit by a time of anarchy to invade

half of Germany. Jesus was a poor man preaching to the poor. What

should we say of the followers of Penn and Fox, those enemies of

pomp and friends of peace, if they bore golden mitres on their heads

and were surrounded by soldiers; if they grasped the substance of the

peoples; if they would give orders to kings; if their satellites,

with executioners in their train, were to cry out at the top of their

voices, “Foolish nations, believe in Fox and Penn, or you will die in

torment”?

You know better than I what a fatal contrast the ages have witnessed

between the humility of Jesus and the pride of those who have assumed

his name; between their avarice and his poverty, their debauches and

his chastity, his submissiveness and their bloody tyranny.

I confess, my brethren, that no word of his has made such an

impression on me as that which he spoke to those who were so brutal

as to strike him before he was led to execution: “If I have spoken

well, why do you strike me?” That is what ought to be said to all

persecutors. If my opinion differs from yours on things that it is

impossible to understand; if I see the mercy of God where you would

see only his power; if I have said that all the disciples of Jesus

were equal, while you have thought it your duty to trample on them;

if I have worshipped God alone while you have given him associates;

if I have spoken ill in differing from you, bear witness of the evil;

and if I have spoken well, why do you heap on me your insults and

epithets? Why do you persecute me, cast me in irons, deliver me to

torture and flames, and insult me even after my death? If, indeed, I

had spoken ill, it was yours only to pity and instruct me. You are

confident that you are infallible, that your opinion is divine, that

the gates of hell will never prevail against it, that the whole world

will one day embrace your opinion, that the world will be subject to

you, and that you will rule from Mount Atlas to the islands of Japan.

How, then, can my opinion hurt you? You do not fear me, and you

persecute me! You despise me, and do away with me!

What reply can we make, my brethren, to these modest and forceful

reproaches? Only the reply of the wolf to the lamb, “You have

disturbed the water that I drink.” Thus have men treated each

other--the gospel in one hand and sword in the other; preaching

disinterestedness and accumulating treasures, praising humility and

walking on the heads of prostrate princes, recommending mercy and

shedding human blood.

If these barbarians find in the gospel any parable that may be

distorted in their favour by fraudulent interpretation, they fasten

upon it as an anvil on which they may forge their murderous weapons.

Is there a word about two swords hung above a wall? They arm

themselves at once with a hundred swords. It is said that a king has

killed his fatted beasts, compelled the blind and the lame to come

to his feast, and cast into outer darkness him who had no wedding

garment; is that, my brethren, a reason that justifies them in

putting you in prison like this guest, tearing your limbs asunder on

the rack, plucking out your eyes to make you blind like those who

were dragged to the feast, or slaying you as the king slew his fatted

beasts? Yet it is to such equivocal passages that men have so often

appealed for the right to desolate a large part of the earth.

Those terrible words, “Not peace, but a sword, I bring unto you,”

have caused more Christians to perish than ambition has ever

sacrificed.

The scattered and unhappy Jews are consoled in their wretchedness

when they see us always fighting each other from the earliest days

of Christianity, always at war in public or in secret, persecuted or

persecuting, oppressed or oppressing. They are united, and they laugh

at our interminable quarrels. It seems that we have been concerned

only in avenging them.

Wretches that we are, we insult the pagans, yet they never knew our

theological quarrels; they have never shed a drop of blood for the

interpretation of a dogma, and we have flooded the earth with it.

In the bitterness of my heart I say to you: Jesus was persecuted,

and whoever shares his thoughts will be persecuted. What was Jesus

in the eyes of men, who could assuredly have no suspicion of his

divinity? A good man who, having been born in poverty, spoke to the

poor in opposition to the superstitions of the rich Pharisees and the

insolent priests--the Socrates of Galilee. You know how he said to

these Pharisees, “Woe unto you, ye blind guides, which strain at a

gnat and swallow a camel! Woe unto you, for ye make clean the outside

of the cup and of the platter, but within you are full of extortion

and excess” (_Matthew_ xxiii.).

He often calls them “whitened sepulchres” and “race of vipers.” They

were, nevertheless, men of some dignity, and they avenged themselves

by his death. Arnold of Brescia, John Huss, and Jerome of Prague

said much less than this to the pontiffs of their time, and they,

too, were put to death. Never tilt against the ruling superstition,

unless you be powerful enough to withstand it, or clever enough

to escape its pursuit. The fable of Our Lady of Loretto is more

extravagant than all Ovid’s metamorphoses, it is true; the miracle

of St. Januarius at Naples is more ridiculous than the miracle of

Egnatia, mentioned by Horace, I agree. But say aloud at Naples or

Loretto what you think of these absurdities, and it will cost you

your life. It is not so among certain enlightened nations. There the

people have their errors, though they are less gross; and the least

superstitious people are always the most tolerant.

Cast off all superstition, and be more humane. But when you speak

against fanaticism, anger not the fanatics; they are delirious

invalids, who would assault their physicians. Let us make their ways

more gentle, not aggravate them. And let us instil, drop by drop,

into their souls that divine balm of tolerance which they would

reject with horror if offered to them in full.

Toleration and other essays · 第 38 / 107 题