Produced by the Freethought Archives (www.ftarchives.net)
and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at
http://www.pgdp.net
[Transcriber's note: archaic spellings such as "desart" for "desert"
have been retained, as have inconsistent spellings such as
"Galilee"--"Gallilee", etc.]
ECCE HOMO!
OR,
A CRITICAL INQUIRY INTO
THE HISTORY OF JESUS OF NAZARETH:
BEING A RATIONAL ANALYSIS OF THE GOSPELS
by BARON d'HOLBACH
(Paul Henri Thiry Holbach)
The Cross was the banner, under which madmen assembled to glut the earth
with blood.--_Vide Chap._ 18.
GORDON PRESS
NEW YORK
1977
GORDON PRESS-Publishers
P.O. Box 459
Bowling Green Station
New York, N.Y. 10004
=Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data=
[Holbach, Paul Henri Thiry, baron d'] 1723-1789.
Ecce homo!
Translation of Histoire critique de Jesus Christ.
Reprint of the 1st American ed., rev. and corr., of
1827, printed for the proprietors of the Philosophical
library, New York, which was issued as no. 1 of the
Philosophical library.
1. Jesus Christ--Biography--Early works to 1800.
I. Title. II. Series: The Philosophical library;
no. 1.
BT30O.H74 1976 232.9'01 73-8281
ISBN 0-87968-077-6
Printed in the United States of America
INTRODUCTION.
Although the writings of the New Testament are in the hands of every
one, nothing is more uncommon than to find the professors of
Christianity acquainted with the history or the founder of their
religion; and even among those who have perused that history, it is
still more rare to find any who have ventured seriously to examine it.
It must, indeed, be acknowledged, that the ignorance of the one, and the
want of reflection in the other, on a subject which they, nevertheless,
regard as of infinite importance, may arise from the dislike naturally
occasioned by the perusal of the New Testament. In that work there is a
confusion, an obscurity and a barbarity of stile, well adapted to
confound the ignorant, and to disgust enlightened minds. Scarcely is
there a history, ancient or modern, which does not possess more method
and clearness than that of Jesus; neither do we perceive that the Holy
Spirit, its reputed author, has surpassed, or even equalled many profane
historians, whose writings are not so important to mankind. The clergy
confess, that the apostles were illiterate men, and of rough manners;
and it does not appear that the Spirit which inspired them, troubled
itself with correcting their defects. On the contrary, it seems to have
adopted them; to have accommodated itself to the weak understandings of
its instruments; and to have inspired them with works in which we do not
find the judgment, order, or precision, that prevail in many human
compositions. Hence, the gospels exhibit a confused assemblage of
prodigies, anachronisms, and contradictions, in which criticism loses
itself, and which would make any other book be rejected with contempt.
It is by _mysteries_ the mind is prepared to respect religion and its
teachers. We are therefore warranted to suspect, that an obscurity was
designedly given to these writings. In matters of religion it is prudent
never to speak very distinctly. Truths simple and easily understood, do
not strike the imagination in so lively a manner as ambiguous oracles,
and impenetrable mysteries. Jesus, although come on purpose to enlighten
the world, was to be a _stumbling block_ to many nations. The small
number of the elect, the difficulty of salvation, and the danger of
exercising reason, are repeatedly announced in the gospels. Every thing
seems indeed to demonstrate, that God sent his Son to the nations, on
purpose to ensnare them, and that they should not comprehend any part of
the religion which he meant to promulgate. In this the Eternal appears
to have intended to throw mortals into darkness, perplexity, a
diffidence of themselves, and a continual embarrassment, obliging them
to have recourse to those infallible luminaries, their priests, and to
remain forever under the tutelage of the church. Her ministers, we know,
claim the exclusive privilege of understanding and explaining the
scriptures; and no mortal can expect to obtain future felicity if he
does not pay due submission to their decisions.
Thus, it belongs not to the laity to examine religion. On mere
inspection of the gospels, every person must be convinced that the book
is divine; that every word contained in it is inspired by the Holy
Spirit; and that the explanations given by the church of that celestial
work, in like manner emanate from the Most High. In the first ages of
Christianity, those who embraced the religion of Jesus were only the
dregs of the people; consequently very simple, unacquainted with
letters, and disposed to believe all the wonders any one chose to
announce. Jesus, in his sermons, addressed himself to the vulgar only;
he would have intercourse with none but persons of that description; he
constantly refused to work miracles in presence of the most
clear-sighted of the nation; he declaimed unceasingly against the
learned, the doctors, and the rich; against all in whom he could not
find the pliability necessary for adopting his maxims. We see him
continually extolling poorness of spirit, simplicity, and faith.
His disciples, and after them the ministers of the church, have
faithfully followed his footsteps; they have always represented faith,
or blind submission, as the first of virtues; as the disposition most
agreeable to God, and most necessary to salvation. This principle serves
for a basis to the Christian religion, and, above all, to the
usurpations of the clergy. The preachers, therefore, who succeeded the
apostles, employed the greatest care in secreting the gospels from the
inspection of all who were not initiated in the mysteries of religion.
They exhibited these books to those only whose faith they had tried, and
whom they found already disposed to regard them as divine. This
mysterious spirit has been transmitted down to our days. In several
countries, the laity are interdicted from perusing the scriptures,
especially in the Romish communion, whose clergy are best acquainted
with governing mankind. The council of Trent has decreed, that "it
belongs to the church alone to decide on the true meaning of the
scriptures, and give their interpretation."
It is true, the _reading_ of the sacred books is permitted, and even
recommended to protestants, who are also enjoined to _examine_ their
religion. But faith must always precede that reading, and follow that
examination; so that before reading, a protestant is bound to believe
the gospel to be divine: and the examination of it is permitted only,
while he finds there what the ministers of his sect have resolved that
he shall find. Beyond this, he is regarded as an ungodly man, and often
punished for the weakness of his intellect.
The salvation of Christians thus depends neither on the reading nor on
the understanding of the sacred books, but on the belief that these
books are divine. If, unfortunately, the reading or examination of any
one, does not coincide with the decisions, interpretations, and
commentaries of the church, he is in danger of being ruined, and of
incurring eternal damnation. To _read_ the gospel, he must commence with
being disposed blindly to believe all which that book contains; to
_examine_ the gospel, he must be previously resolved to find nothing
there but the holy and the adorable; in fine, to _understand_ the
gospel, he must entertain a fixed persuasion, that the priests can never
be themselves deceived, or wish to deceive others in the manner they
explain it. "Believe, (say they,) believe on our words that this book is
the work of God himself; if you dare to doubt it, you shall be damned.
Are you unable to comprehend any thing which God reveals to you there?
Believe evermore: God has revealed himself that he may not be
understood.--"The glory of God is to conceal his word;"--(Prov. xxv. 2.)
or rather, by speaking, in a mysterious manner, does not God intimate
that he wishes every one to refer it to us, to whom he has confided his
important secrets? A truth, of which you must not doubt, seeing that we
persecute in this world, and damn in the other, whoever dares to
question the testimony which we bear to ourselves."
However erroneous this reasoning may appear to those accustomed to
think, it is sufficient for the greater part of believers. Where,
therefore, they do not read the gospel, or where they do read it, they
do not examine it; where they do examine it, it is with prejudiced eyes,
and with a determination to find there only what can be conformable to
these prejudices, and to the interests of their guides.--In consistency
with his fears and prepossessions, a Christian conceives himself lost,
should he find in the sacred books reason to doubt the veracity of his
priests.
With such dispositions, it is no way surprising to see men persisting in
their ignorance, and making a merit of rejecting the lights which reason
offers them. It is thus, that error is perpetuated, and that nations, in
concert with those who deceive them, confer on interested cheats an
unbounded confidence in what they regard as of the greatest importance
to their own felicity. But the darkness which for so many ages has
enveloped the human mind, begins to dissipate. In spite of the tyrannic
cares of their jealous guides, mankind seem desirous to burst from the
pupilage, wherein so many causes combine to retain them. The ignorance
in which the priesthood fostered the credulous, has vanished from among
many nations; the despotism of priests is enfeebled in several
flourishing states; science has rendered the mind more liberal; and
mankind begin to blush at the ignominious fetters, under which the
clergy have so long made both kings and people groan. The human mind is
struggling in every country to break in pieces its chains.
Having premised this, we proceed to examine, without any prejudice, the
life of Jesus. We shall deduce our facts from the gospels
only--memorials reverenced and acknowledged by the doctors of the
Christian religion. To illustrate these facts, we shall employ the aid
of criticism. We shall exhibit, in the plainest manner, the conduct,
maxims, and policy of an obscure legislator, who, after his death,
acquired a celebrity to which he had no pretensions while alive. We
shall contemplate in its cradle a religion which, at first, intended for
the vilest populace of a nation, the most abject, the most credulous,
and the most stupid on earth, became, by little and little, mistress of
the Romans, the firebrand of nations, the absolute sovereign of European
monarchs; arbiter of the destiny of kingdoms; the cause of their
friendship, and of their hate; the cement which serves to strengthen
their alliance or their discord; and the leaven always ready to put
minds in fermentation. In fine, we shall behold an artizan, a melancholy
enthusiast and unskilful juggler, abandoning his profession of a
carpenter to preach to men of his own cast; miscarrying in all his
projects; himself punished as a public incendiary; dying on a cross; and
yet after his death becoming the legislator and the god of many nations,
and an object of adoration to beings who pretend to common sense!
If the Holy Spirit had anticipated the transcendant fortune which the
religion of Jesus was one day to attain; if he had foreseen that this
religion would be received by kings, civilized nations, scholars, and
persons in the higher circles of life; if he had suspected that it would
be examined, analyzed, discussed and criticised by logicians; there is
reason to believe that he would have left us memoirs less shapeless,
facts more circumstantial, proofs more authentic, and materials better
digested than those we possess on the life and doctrine of its founder.
He would have chosen writers better qualified than those he has
inspired, to transmit to nations the speeches and actions of the saviour
of the world; he would have made him act and speak on the most trifling
point, in a manner more worthy of a god; he would have put in his mouth
a language more noble, more perspicuous, and more persuasive; and he
would have employed means more certain to convince rebellious reason,
and abash incredulity.
Nothing of all this has occurred: the gospel is merely an eastern
romance, disgusting to men of common sense, and obviously addressed to
the ignorant, the stupid, and the vulgar; the only persons whom it can
mislead. Criticism finds there no connection of facts, no agreement of
circumstances, no illustration of principles, and no uniformity of
relation. Four men, unpolished and unlettered, pass for the faithful
authors of memoirs containing the life of Jesus; and it is on their
testimony that Christians believe themselves bound to receive the
religion they profess; and adopt, without examination, the most
contradictory facts, the most incredible actions, the most amazing
prodigies, the most unconnected system, the most unintelligible
doctrines, and the most revolting mysteries!
Victor of Tunis informs us, that, in the sixth century, the Emperor
Anastasius "caused the gospels to be corrected, as works composed by
_fools_." The Elements of Euclid are intelligible to all who endeavor to
understand them; they excite no dispute among geometricians. Is it so
with the Bible? and do its _revealed_ truths occasion no disputes among
divines? By what fatality have writings revealed by God himself still
need of commentaries? and why do they demand additional lights from on
high, before they can be believed or understood? Is it not astonishing,
that what was intended as a _guide_ to mankind, should be wholly above
their comprehension? Is it not cruel, that what is of most importance to
them, should be least known? All is mystery, darkness, uncertainty, and
matter of dispute, in a religion intended by the Most High to enlighten
the human race. In fact, God is every where represented in the bible as
a _seducer_. He permitted Eve to be _seduced_ by a serpent. He hardened
the heart of Pharaoh; and the prophet Jeremiah distinctly accuses him of
being a deceiver.
Supposing, however, that the gospels were in reality written by apostles
or disciples of apostles, should it not follow from this alone, that
their testimony ought to be suspected? Could not men who are described
as illiterate, and destitute of talents, be themselves deceived? Could
not enthusiasts and credulous fanatics imagine, that they had seen many
things which never existed, and thus become the dupes of deception?
Whoever has perused the ancient historians, particularly Herodotus,
Plutarch, Livy, and Josephus, must admit the force of this reasoning.
These writers, with a pious credulity similar to that of Christians,
relate prodigies pregnant with absurdities, which they themselves
pretended to have witnessed, or were witnessed by others. Among the
wonders that appeared at Rome, some time before the triumvirate, many
statues of the Gods sweat blood and water; and there was an Ox which
spoke. Under the empire of Caligula, the statue of Jupiter Olympus burst
forth into such loud fits of laughter, that those who were taking it
down to carry to Rome, abandoned their work and fled in terror. A crow
prognosticated misfortune to Domitian, and an Owl paid the same
compliment to Herod.
Moreover, could not impostors, strongly attached to a sect by which they
subsisted, and which, therefore, they had an interest to support, attest
miracles, and publish statements with the falsehood of which they were
well acquainted? and could not the first christians, by a _pious fraud_,
afterwards add or retrench things essential to the works ascribed to the
apostles? We know that Origen, so early as the third century, complained
loudly of the corruption of manuscripts. "What shall we say (exclaims
he) of the errors of transcribers, and of the impious temerity with
which they have corrupted the text? What shall we say of the licence of
those, who promiscuously interpolate or erase at their pleasure?" These
questions form warrantable prejudices against the persons to whom the
gospels have been ascribed, and against the purity of their text.
It is also extremely difficult to ascertain whether those books belong
to the authors whose names they bear. In the first ages of Christianity
there was a great number of gospels, different from one another, and
composed for the use of different churches and different sects of
Christians. The truth of this has been confessed by ecclesiastical
historians of the greatest credit. (Tillemont, tom. ii. 47, etc.
Epiphan. Homil. 84. Dodwell's Disser. on Irenaeus, p. 66. Freret's
Examin. Critique. Codex Apocryphus, &c.) There is, therefore, reason to
suspect, that the persons who composed the acknowledged gospels might,
with the view of giving them more weight, have attributed them to
apostles, or disciples, who actually had no share in them. That idea,
once adopted by ignorant and credulous christians, might be transmitted
from age to age, and pass at last for certainty, in times when it was no
longer possible to ascertain the authors or the facts related.
Among some fifty gospels, with which Christianity in its commencement
was inundated, the church, assembled in council at Nice, chose four of
them, and rejected the rest as apocryphal, although the latter had
nothing more ridiculous in them than those which were admitted. Thus, at
the end of three centuries, (_i.e._ in the three hundred and
twenty-fifth year of the Christian era,) some bishops decided, that
these four gospels were the only ones which ought to be adopted, or
which had been inspired by the Holy Spirit. A miracle enabled them to
discover this important truth, so difficult to be discerned at a time
even then not very remote from that of the apostles. They placed, it is
said, promiscuously, books apocryphal and authentic under an altar:--the
Fathers of the Council betook themselves to prayer, in order to induce
the Lord to permit the false or doubtful books to remain _under_ the
altar, whilst those which were truly inspired should place themselves
above it--a circumstance which did not fail to occur. It is then on this
miracle that the faith of Christians depends! It is to it that they owe
the assurance of possessing the true gospels, or faithful memoirs of the
life of Jesus! It is from these only they are, permitted to deduce the
principles of their belief, and the rule of conduct which they ought to
observe in order to obtain eternal salvation!
Thus, the authenticity of the books which are the basis of the Christian
religion, is founded solely on the authority of a council composed of
priests and bishops. But these bishops and priests, judges and parties
in an affair wherein they were obviously interested, could they not be
themselves deceived? Independently of the pretended miracle which
enabled them to distinguish the true gospels from the false, had they
any sign by which they could clearly distinguish the writings they ought
to receive from those which they ought to reject? Some will tell us,
that the church assembled in a general council is _infallible_; that
then the Holy Spirit inspires it, and that its decisions ought to be
regarded as those of God himself. If we demand, where is the proof of
this infallibility? it will be answered, that the gospel assures it, and
that Jesus has promised to assist and enlighten his church until the
consummation of ages. Here the incredulous reply, that the church, or
its ministers, create rights to themselves; for it is their own
authority which establishes the authenticity of books whereby that
authority is established. This is obviously a circle of errors. In
short, an assembly of bishops and priests has decided, that the books
which attribute to themselves an infallible authority, have been
divinely inspired!
Notwithstanding this decision, there still remain some difficulties on
the authenticity of the gospels. In the _first_ place, it may be asked
whether the decision of the Council of Nice, composed of three hundred
and eighteen bishops, ought to be regarded as that of the universal
church? Were all who formed that assembly entirely of the same opinion?
Were, there no disputes among these men inspired by the Holy Spirit? Was
their decision unanimously accepted? Had not the authority of
Constantine a chief share in the adoption of the decrees of that
celebrated council? In this case, was it not the imperial power, rather
than the spiritual authority, which decided the authenticity of the
gospels?
In the _second_ place, many theologists agree, that the universal
church, although infallible in doctrine, may err in _facts_. Now it is
evident, that in the case alluded to, the doctrine depends on fact.
Indeed, before deciding whether the doctrines contained in the gospels
were divine, it was necessary to know, whether the gospels themselves
were written by the inspired authors to whom they are ascribed. This is
obviously a _fact_. It was further necessary to know, whether the
gospels had never been altered, mutilated, augmented, interpolated, or
falsified, by the different hands through which they had passed in the
course of three centuries. This is likewise a _fact_. Can the fathers of
the church guarantee the probity of all the depositaries of those
writings, and the exactness of all the transcribers? Can they decide
definitively, that, during so long a period, none could insert in these
memoirs, marvelous relations or dogmas, unknown to those who are their
supposed authors? Does not ecclesiastical history inform us, that, in
the origin of Christianity, there were schisms, disputes, heresies, and
sects without number; and that each of the disputants founded his
opinion on the gospels? Even in the time of the Council of Nice, do we
not find that the whole church was divided on the fundamental article of
the Christian religion--the divinity of Jesus?
Thus it is seen that the council of Nice was the true founder of
Christianity, which, till then, wandered at random; did not acknowledge
Jesus to be God; had no authentic gospels; was without a fixed law; and
had no code of doctrine whereon to rely. A number of bishops and
priests, very few in comparison of those who composed the whole
Christian church, and these bishops no way unanimous, decided on the
points most essential to the salvation of nations. They decided on the
divinity of Jesus; on the authenticity of the gospels; that, according
to these, their own authority ought to be deemed infallible. In a word,
they decided on the sum total of faith! Nevertheless their decisions
might have remained without force, if they had not been supported by the
authority of Constantine. This prince gave prevalence to the opinion of
the fathers of the council, who knew how to draw him, for a time, to
their own side; and who, amidst this multitude of gospels and writings,
did not fail to declare those divine which they judged most comformable
to their own opinions, or to the ruling faction. In religion as in other
things, the reasoning of the _strongest_ party is always the best.
Behold, then, the authority of an emperor, who determines the chief
points of the Christian religion! This emperor, unsettled in his own
faith, decides that Jesus is consubtantial with the Father, and compels
his subjects to receive, as inspired, the four gospels we have in our
hands.--It is in these memoirs, adopted by a few bishops in the council
of Nice; by them attributed to apostles, or unexceptionable persons
inspired by the Holy Spirit; by them proposed to serve as an
indispensable rule to Christians; that we are to seek for the materials
of our history. We shall state them with fidelity; we shall compare and
connect their discordant relations; we shall see if the facts which they
detail are worthy of God, and calculated to procure to mankind the
advantages which they expect. This inquiry will enable us to judge
rightly of the Christian religion; of the degree of confidence we ought
to place in it; of the esteem we ought to entertain for its lessons and
doctrines; and of the idea we should form of Jesus its founder.
Though, in composing this history, we have laid it down as a rule to
employ the gospels only, we presume not to flatter ourselves that it
will please every body, or that the clergy will adopt our labors. The
connections we shall form; the interpretations we shall give; the
animadversions we shall present to our readers, will not always be
entirely agreeable to the views of our spiritual guides, the greater
part of whom are enemies to all inquiry. To such men we would state,
that criticism gives a lustre to truth; that to reject all examination
is to acknowledge the weakness of their cause; and that not to wish for
discussion is to avow it to be incapable of sustaining a trial.
If they tell us, that our ideas are repugnant to the decisions of
councils, of the fathers, and of the universal church; to this we shall
answer, that, according to their own books, _opposition_ is not always a
crime; we shall plead the example of an apostle, to whom the Christian
religion is under the greatest obligations--what do we say!--to whom
alone, perhaps, it owes its existence. Now this apostle boasts of having
_withstood_ the great St. Peter to his face, that visible head of the
church, appointed by Jesus himself to feed his flock; and whose
infallibility is at least as probable as that of his successors.
If they charge us with _innovation_, we shall plead the example of Jesus
himself, who was regarded as an _innovator_ by the Jews, and who was a
martyr for the reform he intended to introduce. If the opinions be
unacceptable, the author, as he has no pretensions to divine
inspiration, leaves to every one the liberty of rejecting or receiving
his interpretations, and method of investigation. He does not threaten
with eternal torments those who resist his arguments; he has not credit
enough to promise heaven to such as yield to them; he pretends neither
to constrain, nor to seduce those who do not think as he does. He is
desirous only to calm the mind; allay animosity; and sooth the passions
of those zealots, who are ever ready to harass and destroy their fellow
creatures on account of opinions which may not appear equally convincing
to all the world. He promises to point out the ridiculous cruelty of
those men of blood, who persecute for dogmas which they themselves do
not understand. He ventures to flatter himself, that such as peruse this
inquiry with coolness, will acknowledge, that it is very possible to
doubt of the inspiration of the gospels, and of the divine mission of
Jesus, without ceasing to be a rational and honest man.
Such as are exasperated against this work are entreated to remember,
that faith is a gift of heaven; that the want of it is not a vice; that
if the Jews, who were eye witnesses of the wonders of Jesus, did not
believe them, it is very pardonable to doubt them at the beginning of
the nineteenth century, especially on finding that the accounts of these
marvels, though said to have been inspired by the Holy Spirit, are not
uniform nor in harmony with each other. In fine, fiery devotees are
earnestly entreated to moderate their holy rage, and suffer the
meekness, so often recommended by their "divine Saviour" to occupy the
place of that bitter zeal, and persecuting spirit which creates so many
enemies to the Christian religion. Let them remember, that if it was to
patience and forbearance Jesus promised the possession of the earth, it
is much to be feared that pride, intolerance and inhumanity, will render
the ministers of the church detestable, and make them lose that empire
over minds, which to them is so agreeable. If they wish to reign over
rational men, they must display reason, knowledge, and, above all,
virtues more useful than those wherewith the teachers of the gospel have
so long infested society. Jesus has said, "_Happy are the meek, for they
shall inherit the earth_;" unless indeed interpreters should pretend,
that this only signifies the necessity of persecuting, exterminating,
and cutting the throats of those whose affections they wish to gain.
If it were permitted to cite the maxims of a profane person by that of
the Son of God, we would quote here the apophthegm of the profound
Machiavel, that "empires are preserved by the same means whereby they
are established." It was by meekness, patience, and precaution, that the
disciples of Jesus are said to have at first established Christianity.
Their successors employed violence; but not until they found themselves
supported by devout tyrants. Since then, the gospel of peace has been
the signal of war; the pacific disciples of Jesus have become implacable
warriors; have treated each other as ferocious beasts; and the church
has been perpetually torn by dissentions, schisms, and factions. If the
primitive spirit of patience and meekness does not quickly return to the
aid of religion, it will soon become the object of the hatred of
nations, who begin to feel that morality is preferable to obscure
dogmas, and that peace is of greater value than the holy frenzy of the
ministers of the gospel.
We cannot, therefore, with too much earnestness exhort them, for their
own sakes, to moderation. Let them imitate their divine Master, who
never employed his Father's power to exterminate the Jews, of whom he
had so much to complain. He did not make the armies of heaven descend,
in order to establish his doctrine. He chose rather to surrender to the
secular power than give up the infidels, whom his prodigies and
transcendent reasoning could not convince. Though he is represented as
being the depositary of the power of the Most High; though he was
inspired by the Holy Spirit; though he had at his command all the angels
of paradise, we do not find that he performed any miracles on the
understandings of his auditory. He suffered them to remain in their
blindness, though he had come on purpose to enlighten them. We cannot
doubt, that a conduct, so wise, was intended to make the pastors of his
church (who are not possessed of more persuasive powers than their
master) sensible that it is not by violence they can reconcile the mind
to incredible things; and that it would be unjust to force others to
comprehend what, without favor from above; it would be impossible for
themselves to comprehend; or what, even with such favor, they but very
imperfectly understand.
But it is time to conclude an introduction, perhaps, already too long to
a work which, even without preamble, may be tiresome to the clergy, and
irritate the temper of the devout. The author does himself the justice
to believe, that he has written enough to be attacked by a host of
writers, obliged, by situation to repel his blows, and to defend, right
or wrong, a cause wherein they are so deeply interested. He calculates
that, on his death, his book will be calumniated, as well as his
reputation, and his arguments misrepresented, or mutilated. He expects
to be treated as impious--a blasphemer--an atheist, and to be loaded
with all the epithets which the pious are in use to lavish on those who
disquiet them. He will not, however, sleep the less tranquil for that;
but as his sleep may prevent him from replying, he thinks it his duty to
inform his antagonists before hand, that _injuries are not reasons_. He
does more--he bequeaths them charitable advice, to which the defenders
of religion do not usually pay sufficient attention. They are then
apprised, that if, in their learned refutations, they do not resolve
completely _all_ the objections brought against them, they will have
done nothing for their cause. The defenders of a religion, in which it
is affirmed that every thing is divinely inspired, are bound not to
leave a single argument behind, and ought to be convinced that
_answering_ to an argument is not always refuting it. They should please
also to keep in remembrance, that a single falsehood, a single
absurdity, a single contradiction, or a single blunder, fairly pointed
out in the gospels, is sufficient to render suspected, and even to
overturn the authority of a book which ought to be perfect in all its
parts, if it be true that it is the work of an infinitely perfect Being.
An incredulous person, being but a man, may reason wrong; but it is
never permitted to a God, or his instruments, either to contradict
themselves, or to talk nonsense.
ECCE HOMO!
CHAP. I.
ACCOUNT OF THE JEWISH PEOPLE AND THEIR PROPHETS.--INQUIRY INTO THE
PROPHECIES RELATING TO JESUS.
However slightly we cast our eyes over the history of the Jews, as
contained in their sacred books, we are forced to acknowledge, that
these people were at all times the blindest, the most stupid, the most
credulous, the most superstitious, and the silliest that ever appeared
on earth. Moses, by dint of miracles, or delusions, succeeded in
subjugating the Israelites. After having liberated them from the iron
rod of the Egyptians, he put them under his own. This celebrated
legislator had evidently the intention to subject the Hebrews for ever
to his purposes, and, after himself, to render them the slaves of his
family and tribe. It is obvious, that the mosaical economy had no other
object than to deliver up the people of Israel to the tyranny and
extortions of priests and Levites. These the law, which was promulgated
in name of the Eternal, authorised to devour the rest of the nation, and
to crush them under an insupportable yoke. The chosen people of God were
destined solely to be the prey of the priesthood; to satiate their
avarice and ambition; and to become the instrument and victim of their
passions.
Hence, by the law, and by the policy of the priests, the people of God
were kept in a profound ignorance, in an abject superstition, in an
unsocial and savage aversion for the rest of mankind; in an inveterate
hatred of other forms of worship, and in a barbarous and sanguinary
intolerance towards every foreign religion. All the neighbors of the
Hebrews, were, therefore, their enemies. If the holy nation was the
object of the love of the most high, it was an object of contempt and
horror to all who had occasion to know it--a fact admitted by their own
historian, Josephus. For this it was indebted to its religious
institutions, to the labors of its priests, to its diviners, and its
prophets, who continually profitted by its credulity, in displaying
wonders and kindling its delirium.
Under the guidance of Moses, and of generals or judges who governed them
afterwards, the Jewish people distinguished themselves only by
massacres, unjust wars, cruelties, usurpations, and infamies, which were
enjoined them in the name of the Eternal. Weary of the government of
their priests, which drew on them misfortunes and bloody defeats, the
descendants of Abraham demanded kings; but, under these, the state was
perpetually torn with disputes between the priesthood and the
government. Superstition aimed at ruling over policy. Prophets and
priests pretended to reign over kings, of whom such as were not
sufficiently submissive to the interpreters of heaven, were renounced by
the Lord, and, from that moment, unacknowledged and opposed by their own
subjects. Fanatics and impostors, absolute masters of the understandings
of the nation, were continually ready to rouse it, and excite in its
bosom the most terrible revolutions. It was the intrigues of the
prophets that deprived Saul of his crown, and bestowed it on David, _the
man according to God's own heart_--that is to say, devoted to the will
of the priests. It was the prophets, who, to punish the defection of
Solomon in the person of his son, occasioned the separation of the
kingdoms of Judea and Israel. It was the prophets who kept these two
kingdoms continually at variance; weakened them by means of each other,
desolated them by religious and fatal wars, conducted them to complete
ruin, a total dispersion of their inhabitants, and a long captivity
among the Assyrians.
So many calamities did not open the eyes of the Jews, who continued
obstinate in refusing to acknowledge the true source of their
misfortunes. Restored to their homes by the bounty of Cyrus, they were
again governed by priests and prophets, whose maxims rendered them
turbulent, and drew on them the hatred of sovereigns who subdued them.
The Greek princes treated with the greatest severity a people whom the
oracles and promises of their prophets rendered always rebellious, and
ungovernable. The Jews, in fine, became the prey of the Romans, whose
yoke they bore with fear, against whom impostors often incited them to
revolt, and who, at last, tired of their frequent rebellions, entirely
destroyed them as a nation.
Such, in a few words, is the history of the Jewish people. It presents
the most memorable examples of the evils which fanaticism and
superstition produce; for it is evident that the continual revolutions,
bloody wars, and total destruction of that nation, had no other cause
than its unwearied credulity, its submission to priests, its enthusiasm,
and its furious zeal, excited by the inspired. On reading the Old
Testament, we are forced to confess, that the people of God (thanks to
the roguery of their spiritual guides) were, beyond contradiction, the
most unfortunate people that ever existed. Yet the most solemn promises
of Jehovah seemed to assure to that people a flourishing and puissant
empire. God had made an eternal alliance with Abraham and his posterity;
but the Jews, far from reaping the fruits of this alliance, and far from
enjoying the prosperity they had been led to expect, lived continually
in the midst of calamities, and were, more than all other nations, the
sport of frightful revolutions. So many disasters, however, were
incapable of rendering them more considerate; the experience of so many
ages did not hinder them from relying on oracles so often contradicted;
and the more unfortunate they found themselves, the more rooted were
they in their credulity. The destruction of their nation could not bring
them to doubt of the excellence of their law, of the wisdom of their
institutions, or of the veracity of their prophets, who successively
relieved each other, either in menacing them in the name of the Lord, or
in re-animating their frivolous hopes.
Strongly convinced that they were the sacred and chosen people of the
Most High, alone worthy of his favors, the Jews, in spite of all their
miseries, were continually persuaded that their God could not have
abandoned them.--They, therefore, constantly looked for an end to their
afflictions, and promised themselves a deliverance, which obscure
oracles had led them to expect. Building on these fanatical notions,
they were at all times disposed to listen with avidity to every man who
announced himself as inspired by heaven; they eagerly ran after every
singular personage who could feed their expectations; they followed
whoever had the secret of astonishing them by impostures, which their
stupidity made them consider supernatural works, and unquestionable
signs of divine power. Disposed to see the marvellous in the most
trifling events, every adroit impostor was on the watch to deceive them,
and was certain of making more or less adherents, especially among the
populace, who are every where destitute of experience and knowledge.
It was in the midst of a people of this disposition that the personage
appeared whose history we write. He very soon found followers in the
most despicable of the rabble. Seconded by these, he preached, as usual,
_reformation_ to his fellow citizens, he wrought wonders; he styled
himself the envoy of the Divinity. He particularly founded his mission
on vague, obscure, and ambiguous predictions, contained in the sacred
books of the Jews, which he applied to himself. He announced himself as
the messiah or messenger, the deliverer of Israel, who for so many ages
was the object of the nation's hope. His disciples, his apostles, and
afterwards their successors, found means to apply to their master the
ancient prophecies, wherein he seemed the least perceptibly designed.
The Christians, docile and full of faith, have had the good fortune to
see the founder of their religion predicted in the clearest manner
throughout the whole Old Testament. By dint of allegories, figures,
interpretations, and commentaries, their doctors have brought them to
see, in this shapeless compilation, all that they had an interest in
pointing out to them. When passages taken literally did not countenance
deceit agreeably to their views, they contrived for them a two-fold
sense: they pretended that it was not necessary to understand them
literally, but to give them a mystical, allegorical, and spiritual
meaning. To explain these pretended predictions, they continually
substituted one name for another; they rejected the literal meaning, in
order to adopt a figurative one; they changed the most natural
signification of words they applied the same passages to events quite
opposite; they retrenched the names of some personages plainly designed,
in order to introduce that of Jesus; and, in all this, they did not
blush to make the most crying abuse of the principles of language.
The third chapter of Genesis furnishes a striking example of the manner
in which the doctors of the Christian religion have allegorized passages
of scripture, in order to apply then to Jesus. In this chapter, God says
to the serpent, convicted of having seduced the woman, _the seed of the
woman shall bruise thy head_. This prophesy appears with so much the
more difficulty to apply to Jesus, that these words follow--_and thou
shalt bruise his heel_. We do not comprehend, why the _seed of the
woman_ must be understood of Jesus. If he was the Son of God, or God
himself, he could not be produced from the _seed of the woman_. If he
was man, he is not pointed out in a particular manner by these words,
for all men, without exception, are produced from the _seed of women_.
According to our interpreters, the serpent is sin, and the seed of the
woman that bruises it is Jesus incarnate in the womb of Mary. Since the
coming of Jesus, however, sin, typified by the serpent, has at all times
existed; from which we are led to conclude, that Jesus has not destroyed
it, and that the prediction is neither literally nor allegorically
accomplished.
In the twenty-second chapter of Genesis, God promises to Abraham, that
in his seed _all the nations of the earth shall be blessed_. What we
style prosperity, the Hebrews termed blessings. If Abraham and his race
enjoyed prosperity, it was only for a short period; the Hebrews became
afterwards the slaves of the Egyptians, and were, as has been seen, the
most unfortunate people on earth. Christians have also given a mystic
sense to this prophecy:--they substitute the name of Jesus for that of
Abraham, and it is in him that all the nations shall be blessed. The
advantages they shall enjoy will be persecutions, calamities, and
misfortunes of every kind; and his disciples, like himself, shall
undergo the most painful punishments. Hence we see, that, following our
interpreters, the word _blessing_ has changed its meaning; it no longer
implies prosperity; it signifies what, in ordinary language, is termed
curses, disasters, afflictions, troubles, divisions, and religious
wars--calamities with which the Christian nations have been continually
_blessed_ since the establishment of the church.
Christians believe that they see Jesus announced in the 49th chapter of
Genesis. The patriarch Jacob there promises sovereign power to Judah.
"The sceptre (says he) shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from
between his feet, until Shiloh come, and unto him shall the gathering of
the people be." It is thus that several interpreters translate the tenth
verse of the 49th chapter of Genesis. Others have translated it thus,
"the authority shall forever be in Judah, when the Messiah shall have
come." Others read, "the authority shall be in Judah, till the messenger
receive in Shiloh the sovereign power." Others again render the passage
in this manner, "the people of Judah shall be in affliction, till the
messenger of the Lord comes to put an end to it;" and according to
others, "till the city of Shiloh be destroyed."
This diversity in the translation of the same passage ought,
unquestionably, to render the prophecy very suspicious. First, we see
that it is impossible to determine the signification of the word
_Shiloh_, or to ascertain, whether it be the name of a man or a city?
Secondly, it is proved by the sacred books, received equally by Jew and
Christians, that the sovereign power is gone from Judah; was wholly
annihilated during the Babylonish captivity, and has not been
re-established since. If it is pretended, that Jesus came to restore the
power of Judah, we assert, on the contrary, that, in the time of Jesus,
Judah was without authority, for Judah had submitted to the Romans. But
our doctors have again recourse to allegory:--according to them, the
power of Judah was the spiritual power of Jesus over Christians,
designated by Judah.
They, in like manner, see Jesus foretold by Balaam, who, by the bye, was
a false prophet. He thus expresses himself: (Numbers xxiv. 16,)--"He
hath said, who heard the words of God, and knew the knowledge of the
Most High, who saw the vision of the Almighty, falling into a trance,
but having his eyes open: I shall see him but not now; I shall behold
him but not nigh; there shall come a star out of Jacob, and a sceptre
shall rise out of Israel," &c. In this unintelligible jargon, they
pretend to shew Christians a clear prediction of the founder of their
religion. It is he who is the star, because his luminous doctrine
enlightens all minds. _This sceptre, which shall rise out of Israel_, is
the cross of Jesus, by the aid of which he has triumphed over the Devil,
who, in spite of this victory, ceases not to reign on earth, and to
render useless the triumph of the Son of God.
But of all the prophecies contained in the Old Testament, there is not
one to which the Christian doctors have attached more importance than
that found in Isaiah, chap. vii. 14 A young woman _shall conceive, and
bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel_. To find out Jesus in this
prediction, it is, first of all, necessary to be convinced, that this
woman is _Mary_; next, it is necessary to ascertain that _Immanuel_ is
the same with Jesus. It will always be objected against this pretended
prophecy, that it is sufficient to read the chapter of Isaiah whence the
passage is taken, to be satisfied that the prophet had in view Ahaz king
of Judah. This prince is there represented as in consternation, on
account of the arrival of Rezin and Pekah, kings of Syria and Israel,
who, with their united armies, threatened his dominions. Isaiah
encouraged him, by representing that he still had forces sufficient, and
promised him the assistance of the Lord, whom every prophet made to be
of his own party. To guarantee his promises, Isaiah told his sovereign,
that he had only to ask of him a sign. The dispirited prince replied,
that he did not wish to tempt the Lord. The prophet, however, wishing to
convince him, announced a sign--"A young woman shall conceive, and bring
forth a son, who shall be called Immanuel." Now the following chapter
informs us who this young woman was: she was the wife of Isaiah
himself.--"I took unto me (says he) faithful witnesses; and I went unto
the _prophetess_, and she conceived and bare a son." The simple
inspection of this text, evidently shows that it is in no respect
applicable to Jesus. If what is recorded in 2d Chron. c. v. be true, the
prophecy was not even accomplished, but the reverse of its fulfilment
took place. Instead of Ahaz defeating his enemies, as Isaiah promised he
would, his whole army was routed, 120,000 killed, and 200,000 carried
into captivity by the kings of Syria and Israel. It is evident, then,
that this famous sign of "a young woman shall conceive," &c. served only
in the first instance to _deceive_ the king of Judah, and has since been
employed to _mislead_ those who, like that king, relied on the
professions of priests and prophets.
Proceeding forward in the perusal of Isaiah (chap. ix. 6,) we find the
following passage:--"Unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given:
and the government shall be upon his shoulder." If the child foretold by
Isaiah was born in his time, it can no longer be said, that the prophet
meant to speak of Jesus, who was born several centuries after him; for
the birth of that person being so distant, could not be a sign of
deliverance to Ahaz, as his enemies pressed so closely upon him. To this
it is answered, that the prophets spoke of future events as if they were
past or present; but this answer requires to be established by proof. It
is likewise said, that the birth of Isaiah's son was only a type of that
of Jesus; for to him, it is affirmed, is applicable "the government on
the shoulder," in which our doctors perceive distinctly pointed out the
cross that Jesus carried on his shoulders when going to Calvary. Our
interpreters have thus the happiness of seeing the sign of dominion, or
empire, in what appears to eyes less enlightened, the sign of
punishment, weakness, and slavery.
It is proper also to inquire why it is said, in the Christian system,
that it is not necessary a prophecy have relation, in all its parts, to
the subject or fact to which it is applied. The sacred writers do not
mean to cite a whole prophecy, but only a passage, a detached phrase, or
often a single word, apposite to the subject they treat of, without
troubling themselves whether what precedes, or what follows their
quotation has connexion or not with what they are speaking of. In the
example under discussion, Matthew, wishing to quote Isaiah and apply a
prophecy to Jesus, takes of this prophecy these detached words only, _A
young woman shall conceive_, &c.--he stood in need of no more of it.
According to that Evangelist, Mary had conceived:--Isaiah had said, that
a girl, or woman, should conceive. Matthew therefore concluded, that the
conception of Jesus was foretold by Isaiah. This vague connection is
sufficient for all Christians, who, like Matthew, believe they see their
founder pointed out in prophecy.
Following this strange method, they have referred to Isaiah to prove
that Jesus was the messiah promised to the Jews. In the 53d chapter,
this prophet describes in a very pathetic manner the misfortunes and
sufferings of his brother Jeremiah. The clergy have long labored to
apply that prophecy to Jesus: they have distinctly seen him pointed out
in the "man of sorrows;" so that it is regarded rather as a faithful and
circumstantial narrative of the passion of Jesus, than as a prediction.
But, agreeably to sound criticism, this history relates only to
Jeremiah. Not to deprive themselves, however, of the resources so useful
a passage might furnish, they have decided, that, in the case of
prophecies, the indirect relation should have place. By this means, in
admitting that the narrative of Isaiah had Jeremiah for its object, they
maintained that Jeremiah was a figure or type of Jesus. It is not that
their lives were strictly consentaneous; but, in the Christian religion,
conformity followed by affinities, is not absolutely requisite to the
justice of the comparison.
This manner of reasoning, peculiar to the Christian religion, has been
very convenient for it. Paul especially, like most of the first
preachers of Christianity, and after them the fathers and doctors of the
church, employed this curious method of proving their system. According
to them, all under the ancient law was the image of the new; and the
most celebrated personages in the Old Testament, typified Jesus and his
church. Abel, assassinated by his brother, was a prophetic figure of
Jesus put to death by the Jews. The sacrifice of Isaac, which was not
accomplished, was the image of that accomplished on the cross. The
relations or predictions which had for their object Abraham, Isaac,
Jacob, Moses, Joshua, Samuel, David, Solomon, Jeremiah, Zorobabel, or
other ancient personages, were applied to Jesus. His death was
represented by the blood of he-goats and of bulls. By aid of these
allegories, the books of the Jews served only to announce the events in
the life of Jesus, and the history of the establishment of his religion.
In this manner it is easy to find in the scriptures whatever we desire.
It would be useless to investigate the famous prophecy of the seventy
weeks of Daniel, in which the Christian doctors believe they see the
coming of Jesus clearly announced. It is true, that if Daniel, or his
editors, had specified the nature of these _weeks_, they would have
prevented much trouble to interpreters: this prediction might then have
been a great resource to Christianity. The ablest critics, however,
declare that they are greatly embarrassed when attempting to fix the
commencement and the end of these weeks. On this they are never
unanimous, nor can they agree on a precise date, which hitherto is
wanting to the great event of the coming of the messiah. We know the
Jews made use of weeks of days, weeks of weeks, and weeks of years. It
is by a conjecture, merely hazarded, they advance in the bible of
Louvain, that the weeks mentioned in Daniel are weeks of years. Yet that
supposition throws light on nothing, for the chronological table, which
the doctors of Louvain have published, gives only three hundred and
forty-three years intervening between the time when they make the weeks
to commence and the death of Jesus. Many have believed that this
prediction was subsequently added to the text of Daniel, in favor of
Jonathan Maccabeus. We may judge of the little credit that can be given
to this prophecy, from the prodigious number of commentaries that have
been made on it.
CHAPTER II.
THE BIRTH OF JESUS
All the prophecies contained in the sacred books of the Jews, coincide
in making them hope for the return of the favor of the Almighty. God had
promised them a deliverer, a messenger, a messiah, who should restore
the power of Israel. That deliverer was to be of the seed of David, the
prince _according to God's own heart_; so submissive to the priests, and
so zealous for religion. It was to recompense the devotion and docility
of this holy usurper, that the prophets and the priests, loaded with
kindness, promised him in the name of heaven, that his family should
reign forever. If that famous prediction was belied during the
Babylonish captivity, and at subsequent periods, the Jews, at this time
no less credulous than their ancestors, persuaded themselves that it was
impossible for their prophets and diviners to deceive them. They
imagined that their oracles sooner or later would be accomplished, and
that they should see a descendant of David restore the honor of their
nation.
It was in conformity to these predictions and popular notions, that the
writers of the Gospels gave Jesus a genealogy; by which they pretended
to prove that he was descended in a direct line from David, and
consequently, had a right to arrogate the character of messiah.
Nevertheless, criticism has exhausted itself on this genealogy. Such as
are not possessed of faith, have been surprised to find, that the Holy
Spirit has dictated it differently to the two evangelists who have
detailed it: for, as has been frequently remarked, the genealogy given
by Matthew is not the same with that of Luke: a disparity which has
thrown Christian interpreters into embarrassments, from which all their
subtilty has hitherto been unable to rescue them. They tell us, that one
of these genealogies is that of Joseph; but, supposing Joseph to be of
the race of David, a Christian cannot believe that he was the real
father of Jesus, because his religion enjoins him to believe
steadfastly, that he is the Son of God. Supposing the two genealogies to
be Mary's, in that case the Holy Spirit has blundered in one of them.
Even Matthew's account is contradictory of itself. He says (c. i. v. 17)
"To all the generations from Abraham to David are _fourteen_
generations; and from David until the carrying away into Babylon are
_fourteen_ generations; and from the carrying away into Babylon unto
Christ are _fourteen_ generations." On enumerating the names given in
the last division of time, we find only _twelve_ generations, even
including Joseph. In whatever way we consider them, one of the
genealogies will always appear faulty and incomplete, and the extraction
of Jesus very weakly established.
Let us now examine the occurrences which preceded and accompanied the
birth of Jesus. Only one evangelist has particularly narrated them; all
the others have superficially passed over circumstances as marvellous as
they are important. Matthew, content with his genealogy, speaks but in
few words of the preternatural manner wherein Jesus was formed in the
womb of his mother. The speech of an angel, seen in a dream, suffices to
convince Joseph of the virtue of his wife, and he adopts her child
without hesitation. Mark makes no mention of this memorable incident.
John, who, by the assistance of his mystic and Platonic theology, could
embellish the story, or rather confound it, has not said one word on the
subject. We are, therefore, constrained to satisfy ourselves with the
materials Luke has transmitted us.
According to this evangelist, Elizabeth, kinswoman of Mary, and wife of
a priest named Zachariah, was in the sixth month of her pregnancy, "when
the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city called Nazareth, to a
virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David,
and the virgin's name was Mary. And the angel came in unto her, and
said, Hail thou that art highly favored, the Lord is with thee; blessed
art thou among women. And when she saw him, she was troubled at his
saying, and cast in her mind what manner of salutation this should be.
And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary; for thou hast found favor
with God. And behold thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a
son, and shalt call his name Jesus. Then said Mary to the angel, How
shall this be, for I know not a man? And the angel answered and said
unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the
Highest shall overshadow thee; therefore, also that holy thing which
shall be born of thee, shall be called the Son of God. And Mary said,
Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word.
Thereafter (adds the text) the angel departed from her."
Now what is there in all this that is any way marvellous? Nothing indeed
is more simple than this narrative. If the least reflection is employed
on it, the wonderful will vanish; and we shall find the greatest care
has been taken to spare the modesty of the young persons who might read
the story. An angel entered the house of Mary, _whose husband was
absent_. He salutes her; that is, pays her a compliment, which may be
translated as follows:--"Good day, my dear Mary! you are indeed
adorable--What attractions! what graces! of all women, you are the most
lovely in my eyes. Your charms are pledges to you of my sincerity. Crown
then my passion. Fear not the consequences of your complaisance; your
husband is a simpleton; by visions and dreams we can make him believe
whatever we desire. The good man will regard your pregnancy as the
effect of a miracle of the Most High; he will adopt your child with joy,
and all will go on in the best manner possible." Mary, charmed with
these words, and little accustomed to receive the like compliments from
her husband, replied, "Well!--I yield--I rely on your word and address;
do with me as you please."
Nothing is more easy than to separate the relation of Luke from the
marvellous. The event of Mary's pregnancy follows in the order of
nature; and if we substitute a young man in the place of the angel, the
passage of the evangelist will have nothing incredible in it. In fact,
many have thought that the angel Gabriel was no other than a gallant,
who, profiting by the absence of Joseph, found the secret to declare and
gratify his passion.
We shall not stop to form conjectures on the true name and station of
Mary's lover. The Jews, whose testimony on this subject may appear
suspicious, assert, as we shall afterwards relate, that this favorite
lover was a soldier:--the military have always claims on the hearts of
the ladies. They add, that from his commerce with the wife of Joseph,
the messiah of the Christians sprung; that the discontented husband left
his faithless wife, in order to retire to Babylon, and that Jesus with
his mother went to Egypt, where he learned the trade of a conjurer, and
afterwards returned to practise in Judea.
The _proto-gospel_, ascribed to James, relates some curious and
ridiculous circumstances, altogether omitted in the four canonical
evangelists; yet they have nothing revolting to persons who possess
faith. This gospel informs us of the ill humor of Joseph on seeing his
wife pregnant, and the reproaches he loaded her with on account of her
lewdness, unworthy of a virgin reared under the eyes of priests. Mary
excuses herself with tears; she protests her innocence, and "swears in
the name of the living God, that she is ignorant whence the child has
come to her." It appears, that in her distress she had forgot the
adventure of Gabriel:--that angel came the night following to encourage
poor Joseph, then on the point of having an affair with the priests, who
accused him of having begot this child to the prejudice of Mary's vow of
virginity. On this the priests made the two spouses drink _of the waters
of jealousy_; that is, of a potion, which, by a miracle, did them no
injury; the high priest, therefore, declared them innocent. It is
related in the same gospel, that after Mary had been delivered,
_Salome_, refusing to credit the midwife who assured her that the
delivered was still a virgin, laid her hand on Mary in order to satisfy
herself of the fact. Immediately this rash hand felt itself on fire; but
she was cured on taking the little Jesus in her arms.
Whether these histories, or Rabbinical narratives be true or false, it
is certain that the narrative of Luke, if not divested of the
marvellous, will always present difficulties to the minds of the
incredulous. They will ask, how God, being a pure spirit, could
_overshadow a woman_, and excite in her the movements necessary to the
production of a child? They will ask, how the divine nature could unite
with the nature of a woman? They will maintain, that the narrative is
unworthy of the power and majesty of the Supreme Being, who did not
stand in need of employing ridiculous and indecent instruments to
operate the salvation of mankind. It will be thought, that the Almighty
should have employed other means for conveying Jesus into the womb of
his mother; he might have made him appear on the earth without being
incarnate in the belly of a woman; but there must be wonders in
romances, especially if they are religious. It was in all ages supposed
that great men were born in an extraordinary manner. Among the Heathen,
Minerva sprung out of the brain of Jupiter; Bacchus was preserved in the
thigh of the same god. Among the Chinese, the god Fo was generated by a
virgin rendered prolific by a ray of the sun. With Christians, Jesus is
born of a virgin, impregnated by the operation of the Holy Spirit, and
she remains a virgin after that operation! Incapable of elevating
themselves to God, men have made him descend to their own nature. Such
is the origin of all incarnations, the belief of which is spread
throughout the world.
Theologists have agitated the question, whether in the conception of
Jesus, the Virgin Mary _emiserit semen_? According to _Tillemont_, the
Gnostics, who lived in the time of the apostles, denied that the Word
was incarnate in the womb of the woman, and averred that it had taken a
body only _in appearance_--a circumstance which must destroy the miracle
of the resurrection. Basilides also maintains that Jesus was not
incarnate. Lactantius, in order to establish that the spirit of God
could impregnate a virgin, cites the example of the Thracian Mares, and
other females, rendered prolific by the wind. Nothing is more indecent
and ridiculous than the theological questions to which the birth of
Jesus has given rise. Some doctors, to preserve Mary's virginity, have
maintained, that Jesus did not come into the world, like other men,
_aperta vulva_, but rather _per vulvam clausam_. The celebrated John
Scotus regarded that opinion as very dangerous, as it would follow, that
"Jesus could not be born of the virgin, but merely had come out of her."
A monk of Citeaux, called Ptolemy de Luques, affirmed that Jesus was
engendered near the virgin's heart, from three drops of her blood. The
great St. Thomas Aquinas has examined, whether Jesus could not have been
an _hermaphrodite_? and whether he could not have been of the _feminine
gender_? Others have agitated the question, "Whether Jesus could have
been incarnate in a cow?" We may therefore see, how one absurdity may
engender others, in the prolific minds of theologists.
All the wonders which precede the birth of Jesus, are terminated by a
very natural occurrence. At the end of nine months his mother is
delivered like other women; and after so many incredible and
supernatural events, the Son of God comes into the world like all others
people's children. This conformity in birth, will ever occasion the
surmise of a conformity in the physical causes which produced the son of
Mary. Indeed, the supernatural only can produce the supernatural; from
material agents result physical effects; and they maintain in the
schools, that there must always be a parity of nature between cause and
effect.
Though, according to Christians, Jesus was at the same time man and god,
some will say, it was necessary that the divine germ brought from heaven
to be deposited in the womb of Mary, should contain at the same time
divinity and humanity to become Son of God. To use the language of
theologists, the _hypostatic union_ of the two natures must have taken
place before his birth, and immixed in the womb of his mother. In that
case, we cannot conceive how it could happen, that the divine nature
should continue torpid during the whole of Mary's pregnancy, in so much
that she herself was ignorant of the time of her in-lying. The proof of
this we find in Luke, chap. ii.--"In those days (says he) there went out
a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed. And
as all went to be taxed, every one out of his own city, Joseph also went
out of Nazareth and came to Bethlehem, to be taxed with Mary, who was
great with child. And so it was, that while they were there, the days
were accomplished that she should be delivered, and she brought forth
her first born son, and wrapt him in swadling clothes and laid him in a
manger, because there was no room for them in the inn."
This narrative proves that Mary was taken unprovided, and that the Holy
Spirit, who had done so many things for her, had neglected to warn her
of an event so likely to interest him, and so important to all mankind.
The humanity of Jesus, being subject to every casuality in our nature,
might have perished in this journey, undertaken at a time very critical
to his mother. Nor do we understand how the mother could remain in
complete ignorance of the proximity of her time, or how the Eternal
could so abandon the precious child he had deposited in her womb.
Some other circumstances of the relation of Luke presents new
difficulties. He speaks of a _taxing_ (enumeration) by order of Caesar
Augustus:--a fact of which no mention is made by any historian, Jewish
or profane. We are also astonished to find the son of God born in
poverty, having no other asylum than a stable, and no other cradle than
a manger; and at the tenderest age, in a rigorous season, exposed to
miseries without number.
It is true, our theologists have found a way to answer all these
difficulties. They maintain, that a just God wishing to appease himself,
destined his innocent son to afflictions, in order to have a motive for
pardoning the guilty human race, which had become hateful to him through
Adam's transgression, in which, however, his decendants had no share. By
an act of justice, whereof the mind of man can form no idea, a God whose
essence renders him incapable of committing sin, is loaded with the
iniquities of man, and must expiate them in order to disarm the
indignation of a father he has not offended! Such are the inconceivable
principles which serve for the basis of the Christian theology.
Our doctors add--It was the will of God that the birth of his son should
be accompanied with the same accidents as that of other men, to console
the latter for the misfortunes attendent on their existence. Man, say
they, is guilty before he is born, because all children are bound to pay
the debts of their fathers: thus man suffers justly as a sinner himself,
and as charged with the sin of his first father.--Granting this, what
more consolatory than seeing a God, innocence and holiness itself,
suffering in a stable all the evils attached to indigence! That
consolation would have been wanting, if God had ordained that his son
should be born in splendor, and with an abundance of the comforts of
life. If the innocent Jesus had not suffered, mankind, incapable of
extinguishing a debt contracted by Adam, would have been forever
excluded from paradise. The painful journey Mary was obliged to
undertake in such critical circumstances, had been foreseen by Eternal
wisdom, which had resolved that Jesus should be born at Bethlehem and
not at Nazareth. It was necessary--having been foretold, it behoved to
be accomplished.
However solid these answers may appear to the faithful, they are not
capable of convincing the incredulous, who exclaim against the injustice
of making an innocent God suffer, and loading him with the iniquities of
the earth. Neither can they conceive by what principle of equity the
Supreme Being could make the human race responsible for a fault
committed by their first parents, without their knowledge and
participation. Finally, they contend that it would have been wiser to
have prevented man from committing sin, than to permit him to sin, and
make his own son die to expiate man's iniquity.
With respect to the journey to Bethlehem, we cannot discover the
necessity of it. The place where the saviour of the world was to be
born, seems a circumstance perfectly indifferent to the salvation of
mankind.
As for the prophecy announcing the glory of Bethlehem, in having given
existence to the "Leader of Israel"--it does not appear to agree with
Jesus, who was born in a stable, and who was rejected by the people
whose leader he was to be. It is only a pious straining that can make
this prediction apply to Jesus. We are assured, that it had been
foretold Jesus was to be born in poverty; while, on the other hand the
messiah of the Jews is generally announced by the prophets as a prince,
a hero, and a conqueror.--It is necessary to know then which of these
prophecies we ought to adopt. Our doctors tell us "the predictions
announcing that Jesus would be born and live in indigence and meanness,
ought to be taken _literally_, and those which announce his power and
glory ought to be taken _allegorically_." But this solution will not
satisfy the incredulous; they will affirm, that by this manner of
explanation, we may always find in the sacred writings whatever we may
think we stand in need of. They will conclude that the scripture is to
Christians, what the clouds are to the man who imagines he perceives in
them whatever figures he pleases.