Jesus Christ, who was acquainted with the maxims and the science of the Egyptians, gave currency to the belief alluded to above, because he thought it suitable to his purposes. Reflecting how Moses had become renowned by his command of an ignorant people, he undertook to build on this foundation, and got some few imbecile people to follow him, whom he persuaded that the Holy Ghost was his father, and that his mother was a virgin. These simple folks, accustomed to give themselves over to dreams and reveries, adopted his opinions, and believed whatever he wished: indeed, something considerably beyond this miraculous birth would by no means have been too miraculous for them. A beautiful dove overshadowed a virgin: there is nothing surprising in that. It happened frequently in Lydia; and the swan of Leda is the counterpart of the dove of Mary.[11] That a man should be born of a virgin, by the operation of the Holy Spirit, is neither more extraordinary nor more miraculous that that Genghis Khan should be born of a virgin, as the Tartars assert; or that Foh, according to the Chinese belief, derived his origin from a virgin rendered pregnant by the rays of the sun.
This prodigy appeared at a time when the Jews, wearied with their God as they had formerly been with their Judges,[12] were desirous to have some visible ruler among them, as was the case with other nations. As the number of fools is infinite, Jesus Christ in a short time had many followers; but as his extreme poverty was an invincible obstacle to his elevation, the Pharisees—at one time his admirers, and at another time startled at his boldness—forwarded or thwarted his interests, according to the inconstant humour of the populace. The report of his divine origin was spread about; but without forces, as he was, it was impossible that he could succeed, although some cures which he performed, and some resurrections from the dead to which he pretended, brought him somewhat into repute. Without money or arms he could not fail to perish: if he had been in possession of these, he would have been no less successful than Moses or Mahomet, and all those who, with like advantages, have elevated themselves above their fellow-men. If he had been more unfortunate, he would not have been less adroit; and several traits in his history prove that the principal defect in his policy was his carelessness in not sufficiently providing for his own security. Otherwise, I do not find that his plans were less skilfully devised than those of the other two: at all events his law has become the rule of faith to people who flatter themselves that they are the wisest in the world.
§ 13.
On the Politics of Jesus Christ.
Can anything be more subtle than the answer of Jesus concerning the woman taken in adultery? The Jews having demanded of him if they should stone her, instead of answering the question directly—a negative answer being directly contrary to the law, and an affirmative convicting him of severity and cruelty, which would have alienated their minds from him—instead, therefore, of replying as an ordinary individual would have done on the occasion—“Let him,” said he, “who is without sin amongst you cast the first stone at her.”[13] A shrewd reply, and one evincing great presence of mind. On another occasion, being shown a piece of money with the emperor’s image and superscription upon it, and asked if it were lawful to pay tribute money unto Cæsar, he eluded the difficulty of answering: “Render unto Cæsar the things which are Cæsar’s.”[14] The false position in which they wished to place him was this: that if he denied that it was lawful, he was guilty of high treason; and if he said that it was, he went directly against the law of Moses, which he always protested that he never intended to do—knowing no doubt that he was too helpless to do so with impunity at that time. Afterwards, when he became more celebrated, he endeavoured to abrogate it almost totally: acting in this way not unlike those princes, who, until their power is thoroughly established, always promise to confirm the privileges of their subjects, but who, after that has been secured, care little for their promises.
When the Pharisees asked him by what authority he taught the people and preached to them, he penetrated their intention—which was to convict him of falsehood; whether he answered that it was by human authority—he not being of the order of the priesthood, who alone were charged with the instruction of the people; or whether he preached by the express orders of God—his own doctrine being opposed to the law of Moses; he avoided their snare, and embarrassed themselves, by asking them in what name John baptised.[15]
The Pharisees, who from political motives, rejected the baptism of John, would have condemned themselves if they had said that it was in the name of God; and if they had not said so, they would have exposed themselves to the rage of the populace, who maintained the opposite opinion. To get out of this dilemma, they answered that they could not tell: on which Jesus Christ replied, that neither was he obliged to tell them by what name or authority he taught the people.