CHAPTER VIII.

CHAPTER VIII.Of the Policy of Jesus Christ.I.Is there anything, for example, more dextrous than the manner in which he treated the subject of the woman taken in adultery? (St. John, c. viii.) The Jews having asked if they should stone this unfortunate, instead of replying definitely, yes or no, by which he would fall in the trap set by his enemies: the negative being directly against the law, and the affirmative proving him severe and cruel, which would have alienated the saints. Instead of replying as any ordinary person but him would have done, he said, “whoever is without sin, let him cast the first stone,” a skillful response, which shows us his presence of mind.II.Another time being asked if it was lawful to1pay tribute to Cesar, and seeing the image of the Prince on the coin that they showed him, he evades the difficulty by replying that they should “render unto Cesar what belongs to Cesar, and unto God what belongs to God.” The difficulty consisted in that he would be guilty oflèse majestéif he had said it was not permitted, and by saying that it was, he would reverse the law of Moses which he always protested he would not do, because he felt that he was either too weak, or that he wouldbe worsted in the endeavor. So he made himself more popular, by acting with impunity after the manner of Princes, who allowed the privileges of their subjects to be confirmed while their power was not well established, but who scorned their promises when they were well enthroned.III.He again skillfully avoided a trap that the Pharisees had set for him. They asked him—having in their minds thoughts which would only tend to convict him of lying—by what authority he pretended to instruct and catechise the people. Whether he replied that it was by human authority because he was not of the sacred body of Levites, or whether he boasted of preaching by the express command of God, his doctrine was contrary to the Mosaic law. To relieve this embarrassment, he availed himself of the questioners themselves by asking them in the name of whom they thoughtJohnbaptized? The Pharisees, who for policy opposed the baptism byJohn, would be condemned themselves in avowingthat it was of God. If they hadnotadmitted it they would have been exposed to the rage of the populace, who believed the contrary. To get out of this dilemma, they replied that they knew nothing of it, to which Jesus answered that he was neither obliged to tell them why, nor in the name of whom he preached.IV.Such were the skillful and witty evasions of the destroyer of the ancient law and the founder of the new. Such were the origins of the new religion which was built on the ruins of the old, or to speak disinterestedly, there was nothing more divine in this than in the other sects which preceded it. Its founder, whowas not quite ignorant, seeing the extreme corruption of the Jewish republic, judged it as nearing its end, and believed that another should be revived from its ashes. The fear of being prevented by one more ambitious than himself, made him haste to establish it by methods quite opposed to those of Moses. The latter commenced by making himself formidable to other nations. Jesus, on the contrary, attracted them to him by the hope of the advantages of another life, which he said could be obtained by believing in him, while Moses only promised temporal benefits as a recompense for the observation ofhislaw. Jesus Christ held out a hope which never was realized. The laws of one only regarded the exterior, while those of the other aimed at the inner man, influencing even the thoughts, and entirely the reverse of the law of Moses. Whence it follows that Jesus believed withAristotlethat it is with Religion and States, as with individuals who are begotten and die, and as nothing is made except subject to dissolution, there is no law which can follow which is entirely opposed to it. Now as it is difficult to decide to change from one law to another, and as the great majority is difficult to move in matters of Religion, Jesus, in imitation of the other innovators had recourse tomiracles, which have always been the peril of the ignorant, and the sanctuary of the ambitious.V.Christianity was founded by this method, and Jesus profiting by the faults of the Mosaic policy, never succeeded so happily anywhere, as in the measures which he took to render his law eternal. The Hebrew prophets thought to do honor to Moses by predicting a successor who resembled him. That is to say, aMessiah, grandin virtue, powerful in wealth, and terrible to his enemies; and while their prophecies have produced the contrary effect, many ambitious ones have taken occasion to proclaim themselves the promised Messiah, which has caused revolts that have endured until the entire destruction of their republic.Jesus Christ, more adroit than the Mosaic prophets, to defeat the purpose of those who rose up against him predicted (Matthew xxiv. 4–5–24–25–26.II. Thessalonians ii. 3–10.John ii. 11–18) that such a man would be a great enemy of God, the delight of the Devil, the sink of all iniquity and the desolation of the world. After these fine declarations there was, to my mind, no person who would dare to call himselfAnti-Christ, and I do not think he could have found a better way to perpetuate his law. There was nothing more fabulous than the rumors that were spread concerning this pretendedAnti-Christ.St. Paulsaid (II. Thessalonians xi. 7) of his existence, that “he was already born,” consequently was present on the eve of the coming ofJesus Christwhile more than twelve hundred years have expired since the prediction of this prophet was uttered, and he has not yet appeared.I admit that these words have been credited toCherintusandEbion, two great enemies of Jesus Christ, because they denied his pretended divinity, but it also may be said that if this interpretation conforms to the view of the apostle, which is not credible; these words for all time designate an infinity ofAnti-Christ, there being no reputable scholar who would offend by sayingthat the2history of Jesus Christ is a fable,and that his law is but a tissue of idle fancies that ignorance has put in vogue and that interest preserves.VI.Nevertheless it is pretended that a Religion which rests on such frail foundations is quite divine and supernatural, as if we did not know that there were never persons more convenient to give currency to the most absurd opinions thanwomenandidiots.It is not strange, then, that Jesus did not choose Philosophers and Scholars for his Apostles. He knew that his law and good sense were diametrically opposed.3That is the reason why he declaims in so many places against the wise, and excludes them from his kingdom, where were to be admitted thepoor in spirit, thesillyand thecrazy. Again, rational individuals did not think it unfortunate to have nothing in common withvisionaries.1By this Norman reply he eluded the question. A Norman never says yes, or no.Blason populaire de la Normandie.↑2VideBoniface VIII. (1294) and Leo X. (1513) Boniface said that men had the same souls as beasts, and that these human and bestial souls lived no longer than each other. The Gospel also says that all other laws teach several virtues and several lies; for example, aTrinitywhich is false, thechild-birth of a Virginwhich is impossible, and theincarnationandtransubstantiationwhich are ridiculous. I do not believe, continued he, other than that theVirginwas ashe-ass, and her son the issue of ashe-ass.Leo X. went one day to a room where his treasures were kept, and exclaimed “we must admit that this fable of Jesus Christ has been quite profitable to us.”↑3The belief in the Christian doctrine is strange and wild to reason and human judgment. It is contrary to all Philosophy and discourse of Truth, as may be seen in all the articles of faith which can neither be comprehended nor understood by human intellect, for they appear impossible and quite strange. Mankind, in order to believe and receive them, must control and subject his reason, submitting his understanding to the obedience of the faith.St. Paulsays that if man considers and hears philosophy and measures things by the compass of Truth, he will forsake all, and ridicule it as folly.That is the avowal made byCharronin a book entitled “The Three Truths,” page 180. Edition of Bordeaux, 1593.4↑4This inserted note is written on the back of a portion of a letter addressed to “Prince graaft by deSpiegelstraat. A Amsterdam,” postmarked “Ce 4e. Aout. 1746.”↑

I.Is there anything, for example, more dextrous than the manner in which he treated the subject of the woman taken in adultery? (St. John, c. viii.) The Jews having asked if they should stone this unfortunate, instead of replying definitely, yes or no, by which he would fall in the trap set by his enemies: the negative being directly against the law, and the affirmative proving him severe and cruel, which would have alienated the saints. Instead of replying as any ordinary person but him would have done, he said, “whoever is without sin, let him cast the first stone,” a skillful response, which shows us his presence of mind.

Is there anything, for example, more dextrous than the manner in which he treated the subject of the woman taken in adultery? (St. John, c. viii.) The Jews having asked if they should stone this unfortunate, instead of replying definitely, yes or no, by which he would fall in the trap set by his enemies: the negative being directly against the law, and the affirmative proving him severe and cruel, which would have alienated the saints. Instead of replying as any ordinary person but him would have done, he said, “whoever is without sin, let him cast the first stone,” a skillful response, which shows us his presence of mind.

II.Another time being asked if it was lawful to1pay tribute to Cesar, and seeing the image of the Prince on the coin that they showed him, he evades the difficulty by replying that they should “render unto Cesar what belongs to Cesar, and unto God what belongs to God.” The difficulty consisted in that he would be guilty oflèse majestéif he had said it was not permitted, and by saying that it was, he would reverse the law of Moses which he always protested he would not do, because he felt that he was either too weak, or that he wouldbe worsted in the endeavor. So he made himself more popular, by acting with impunity after the manner of Princes, who allowed the privileges of their subjects to be confirmed while their power was not well established, but who scorned their promises when they were well enthroned.

II.

Another time being asked if it was lawful to1pay tribute to Cesar, and seeing the image of the Prince on the coin that they showed him, he evades the difficulty by replying that they should “render unto Cesar what belongs to Cesar, and unto God what belongs to God.” The difficulty consisted in that he would be guilty oflèse majestéif he had said it was not permitted, and by saying that it was, he would reverse the law of Moses which he always protested he would not do, because he felt that he was either too weak, or that he wouldbe worsted in the endeavor. So he made himself more popular, by acting with impunity after the manner of Princes, who allowed the privileges of their subjects to be confirmed while their power was not well established, but who scorned their promises when they were well enthroned.

III.He again skillfully avoided a trap that the Pharisees had set for him. They asked him—having in their minds thoughts which would only tend to convict him of lying—by what authority he pretended to instruct and catechise the people. Whether he replied that it was by human authority because he was not of the sacred body of Levites, or whether he boasted of preaching by the express command of God, his doctrine was contrary to the Mosaic law. To relieve this embarrassment, he availed himself of the questioners themselves by asking them in the name of whom they thoughtJohnbaptized? The Pharisees, who for policy opposed the baptism byJohn, would be condemned themselves in avowingthat it was of God. If they hadnotadmitted it they would have been exposed to the rage of the populace, who believed the contrary. To get out of this dilemma, they replied that they knew nothing of it, to which Jesus answered that he was neither obliged to tell them why, nor in the name of whom he preached.

III.

He again skillfully avoided a trap that the Pharisees had set for him. They asked him—having in their minds thoughts which would only tend to convict him of lying—by what authority he pretended to instruct and catechise the people. Whether he replied that it was by human authority because he was not of the sacred body of Levites, or whether he boasted of preaching by the express command of God, his doctrine was contrary to the Mosaic law. To relieve this embarrassment, he availed himself of the questioners themselves by asking them in the name of whom they thoughtJohnbaptized? The Pharisees, who for policy opposed the baptism byJohn, would be condemned themselves in avowingthat it was of God. If they hadnotadmitted it they would have been exposed to the rage of the populace, who believed the contrary. To get out of this dilemma, they replied that they knew nothing of it, to which Jesus answered that he was neither obliged to tell them why, nor in the name of whom he preached.

IV.Such were the skillful and witty evasions of the destroyer of the ancient law and the founder of the new. Such were the origins of the new religion which was built on the ruins of the old, or to speak disinterestedly, there was nothing more divine in this than in the other sects which preceded it. Its founder, whowas not quite ignorant, seeing the extreme corruption of the Jewish republic, judged it as nearing its end, and believed that another should be revived from its ashes. The fear of being prevented by one more ambitious than himself, made him haste to establish it by methods quite opposed to those of Moses. The latter commenced by making himself formidable to other nations. Jesus, on the contrary, attracted them to him by the hope of the advantages of another life, which he said could be obtained by believing in him, while Moses only promised temporal benefits as a recompense for the observation ofhislaw. Jesus Christ held out a hope which never was realized. The laws of one only regarded the exterior, while those of the other aimed at the inner man, influencing even the thoughts, and entirely the reverse of the law of Moses. Whence it follows that Jesus believed withAristotlethat it is with Religion and States, as with individuals who are begotten and die, and as nothing is made except subject to dissolution, there is no law which can follow which is entirely opposed to it. Now as it is difficult to decide to change from one law to another, and as the great majority is difficult to move in matters of Religion, Jesus, in imitation of the other innovators had recourse tomiracles, which have always been the peril of the ignorant, and the sanctuary of the ambitious.

IV.

Such were the skillful and witty evasions of the destroyer of the ancient law and the founder of the new. Such were the origins of the new religion which was built on the ruins of the old, or to speak disinterestedly, there was nothing more divine in this than in the other sects which preceded it. Its founder, whowas not quite ignorant, seeing the extreme corruption of the Jewish republic, judged it as nearing its end, and believed that another should be revived from its ashes. The fear of being prevented by one more ambitious than himself, made him haste to establish it by methods quite opposed to those of Moses. The latter commenced by making himself formidable to other nations. Jesus, on the contrary, attracted them to him by the hope of the advantages of another life, which he said could be obtained by believing in him, while Moses only promised temporal benefits as a recompense for the observation ofhislaw. Jesus Christ held out a hope which never was realized. The laws of one only regarded the exterior, while those of the other aimed at the inner man, influencing even the thoughts, and entirely the reverse of the law of Moses. Whence it follows that Jesus believed withAristotlethat it is with Religion and States, as with individuals who are begotten and die, and as nothing is made except subject to dissolution, there is no law which can follow which is entirely opposed to it. Now as it is difficult to decide to change from one law to another, and as the great majority is difficult to move in matters of Religion, Jesus, in imitation of the other innovators had recourse tomiracles, which have always been the peril of the ignorant, and the sanctuary of the ambitious.

V.Christianity was founded by this method, and Jesus profiting by the faults of the Mosaic policy, never succeeded so happily anywhere, as in the measures which he took to render his law eternal. The Hebrew prophets thought to do honor to Moses by predicting a successor who resembled him. That is to say, aMessiah, grandin virtue, powerful in wealth, and terrible to his enemies; and while their prophecies have produced the contrary effect, many ambitious ones have taken occasion to proclaim themselves the promised Messiah, which has caused revolts that have endured until the entire destruction of their republic.Jesus Christ, more adroit than the Mosaic prophets, to defeat the purpose of those who rose up against him predicted (Matthew xxiv. 4–5–24–25–26.II. Thessalonians ii. 3–10.John ii. 11–18) that such a man would be a great enemy of God, the delight of the Devil, the sink of all iniquity and the desolation of the world. After these fine declarations there was, to my mind, no person who would dare to call himselfAnti-Christ, and I do not think he could have found a better way to perpetuate his law. There was nothing more fabulous than the rumors that were spread concerning this pretendedAnti-Christ.St. Paulsaid (II. Thessalonians xi. 7) of his existence, that “he was already born,” consequently was present on the eve of the coming ofJesus Christwhile more than twelve hundred years have expired since the prediction of this prophet was uttered, and he has not yet appeared.I admit that these words have been credited toCherintusandEbion, two great enemies of Jesus Christ, because they denied his pretended divinity, but it also may be said that if this interpretation conforms to the view of the apostle, which is not credible; these words for all time designate an infinity ofAnti-Christ, there being no reputable scholar who would offend by sayingthat the2history of Jesus Christ is a fable,and that his law is but a tissue of idle fancies that ignorance has put in vogue and that interest preserves.

Christianity was founded by this method, and Jesus profiting by the faults of the Mosaic policy, never succeeded so happily anywhere, as in the measures which he took to render his law eternal. The Hebrew prophets thought to do honor to Moses by predicting a successor who resembled him. That is to say, aMessiah, grandin virtue, powerful in wealth, and terrible to his enemies; and while their prophecies have produced the contrary effect, many ambitious ones have taken occasion to proclaim themselves the promised Messiah, which has caused revolts that have endured until the entire destruction of their republic.Jesus Christ, more adroit than the Mosaic prophets, to defeat the purpose of those who rose up against him predicted (Matthew xxiv. 4–5–24–25–26.II. Thessalonians ii. 3–10.John ii. 11–18) that such a man would be a great enemy of God, the delight of the Devil, the sink of all iniquity and the desolation of the world. After these fine declarations there was, to my mind, no person who would dare to call himselfAnti-Christ, and I do not think he could have found a better way to perpetuate his law. There was nothing more fabulous than the rumors that were spread concerning this pretendedAnti-Christ.St. Paulsaid (II. Thessalonians xi. 7) of his existence, that “he was already born,” consequently was present on the eve of the coming ofJesus Christwhile more than twelve hundred years have expired since the prediction of this prophet was uttered, and he has not yet appeared.I admit that these words have been credited toCherintusandEbion, two great enemies of Jesus Christ, because they denied his pretended divinity, but it also may be said that if this interpretation conforms to the view of the apostle, which is not credible; these words for all time designate an infinity ofAnti-Christ, there being no reputable scholar who would offend by sayingthat the2history of Jesus Christ is a fable,and that his law is but a tissue of idle fancies that ignorance has put in vogue and that interest preserves.

Jesus Christ, more adroit than the Mosaic prophets, to defeat the purpose of those who rose up against him predicted (Matthew xxiv. 4–5–24–25–26.II. Thessalonians ii. 3–10.John ii. 11–18) that such a man would be a great enemy of God, the delight of the Devil, the sink of all iniquity and the desolation of the world. After these fine declarations there was, to my mind, no person who would dare to call himselfAnti-Christ, and I do not think he could have found a better way to perpetuate his law. There was nothing more fabulous than the rumors that were spread concerning this pretendedAnti-Christ.St. Paulsaid (II. Thessalonians xi. 7) of his existence, that “he was already born,” consequently was present on the eve of the coming ofJesus Christwhile more than twelve hundred years have expired since the prediction of this prophet was uttered, and he has not yet appeared.

I admit that these words have been credited toCherintusandEbion, two great enemies of Jesus Christ, because they denied his pretended divinity, but it also may be said that if this interpretation conforms to the view of the apostle, which is not credible; these words for all time designate an infinity ofAnti-Christ, there being no reputable scholar who would offend by sayingthat the2history of Jesus Christ is a fable,and that his law is but a tissue of idle fancies that ignorance has put in vogue and that interest preserves.

VI.Nevertheless it is pretended that a Religion which rests on such frail foundations is quite divine and supernatural, as if we did not know that there were never persons more convenient to give currency to the most absurd opinions thanwomenandidiots.It is not strange, then, that Jesus did not choose Philosophers and Scholars for his Apostles. He knew that his law and good sense were diametrically opposed.3That is the reason why he declaims in so many places against the wise, and excludes them from his kingdom, where were to be admitted thepoor in spirit, thesillyand thecrazy. Again, rational individuals did not think it unfortunate to have nothing in common withvisionaries.

VI.

Nevertheless it is pretended that a Religion which rests on such frail foundations is quite divine and supernatural, as if we did not know that there were never persons more convenient to give currency to the most absurd opinions thanwomenandidiots.It is not strange, then, that Jesus did not choose Philosophers and Scholars for his Apostles. He knew that his law and good sense were diametrically opposed.3That is the reason why he declaims in so many places against the wise, and excludes them from his kingdom, where were to be admitted thepoor in spirit, thesillyand thecrazy. Again, rational individuals did not think it unfortunate to have nothing in common withvisionaries.

It is not strange, then, that Jesus did not choose Philosophers and Scholars for his Apostles. He knew that his law and good sense were diametrically opposed.3That is the reason why he declaims in so many places against the wise, and excludes them from his kingdom, where were to be admitted thepoor in spirit, thesillyand thecrazy. Again, rational individuals did not think it unfortunate to have nothing in common withvisionaries.

1By this Norman reply he eluded the question. A Norman never says yes, or no.Blason populaire de la Normandie.↑2VideBoniface VIII. (1294) and Leo X. (1513) Boniface said that men had the same souls as beasts, and that these human and bestial souls lived no longer than each other. The Gospel also says that all other laws teach several virtues and several lies; for example, aTrinitywhich is false, thechild-birth of a Virginwhich is impossible, and theincarnationandtransubstantiationwhich are ridiculous. I do not believe, continued he, other than that theVirginwas ashe-ass, and her son the issue of ashe-ass.Leo X. went one day to a room where his treasures were kept, and exclaimed “we must admit that this fable of Jesus Christ has been quite profitable to us.”↑3The belief in the Christian doctrine is strange and wild to reason and human judgment. It is contrary to all Philosophy and discourse of Truth, as may be seen in all the articles of faith which can neither be comprehended nor understood by human intellect, for they appear impossible and quite strange. Mankind, in order to believe and receive them, must control and subject his reason, submitting his understanding to the obedience of the faith.St. Paulsays that if man considers and hears philosophy and measures things by the compass of Truth, he will forsake all, and ridicule it as folly.That is the avowal made byCharronin a book entitled “The Three Truths,” page 180. Edition of Bordeaux, 1593.4↑4This inserted note is written on the back of a portion of a letter addressed to “Prince graaft by deSpiegelstraat. A Amsterdam,” postmarked “Ce 4e. Aout. 1746.”↑

1By this Norman reply he eluded the question. A Norman never says yes, or no.Blason populaire de la Normandie.↑

2VideBoniface VIII. (1294) and Leo X. (1513) Boniface said that men had the same souls as beasts, and that these human and bestial souls lived no longer than each other. The Gospel also says that all other laws teach several virtues and several lies; for example, aTrinitywhich is false, thechild-birth of a Virginwhich is impossible, and theincarnationandtransubstantiationwhich are ridiculous. I do not believe, continued he, other than that theVirginwas ashe-ass, and her son the issue of ashe-ass.

Leo X. went one day to a room where his treasures were kept, and exclaimed “we must admit that this fable of Jesus Christ has been quite profitable to us.”↑

3The belief in the Christian doctrine is strange and wild to reason and human judgment. It is contrary to all Philosophy and discourse of Truth, as may be seen in all the articles of faith which can neither be comprehended nor understood by human intellect, for they appear impossible and quite strange. Mankind, in order to believe and receive them, must control and subject his reason, submitting his understanding to the obedience of the faith.St. Paulsays that if man considers and hears philosophy and measures things by the compass of Truth, he will forsake all, and ridicule it as folly.

That is the avowal made byCharronin a book entitled “The Three Truths,” page 180. Edition of Bordeaux, 1593.4↑

4This inserted note is written on the back of a portion of a letter addressed to “Prince graaft by deSpiegelstraat. A Amsterdam,” postmarked “Ce 4e. Aout. 1746.”↑

Back to Index Next