Jesus, in fact, was not able to receive opposition with the coolness of the philosopher, who, understanding the reason of the various opinions which divide the world, finds it quite natural that all should not agree with him.  One of the principal defects of the Jewish race is its harshness in controversy, and the abusive tone which it almost always infuses into it.  There never were in the world such bitter quarrels as those of the Jews among themselves.  It is the faculty of nice discernment which makes the polished and moderate man.  Now, the lack of this faculty is one of the most constant features of the Semitic mind.  Subtle and refined works, the dialogues of Plato, for example, are altogether unknown to these nations.  Jesus, who was exempt from almost all the defects of his race, and whose leading quality was precisely an infinite delicacy, was led in spite of himself to make use of the general style in polemics.[1] Like John the Baptist,[2] he employed very harsh terms against his adversaries.  Of an exquisite gentleness with the simple, he was irritated at incredulity, however little aggressive.[3] He was no longer the mild teacher who delivered the “Sermon on the Mount,” who had met with neither resistance nor difficulty.  The passion that underlay his character led him to make use of the keenest invectives.  This singular mixture ought not to surprise us.  M. de Lamennais, a man of our own times, has strikingly presented the same contrast.  In his beautiful book, the “Words of a Believer,” the most immoderate anger and the sweetest relentings alternate, as in a mirage.  This man, who was extremely kind in the intercourse of life, became madly intractable toward those who did not agree with him.  Jesus, in like manner, applied to himself, not without reason, the passage from Isaiah:[4] “He shall not strive, nor cry; neither shall any man hear his voice in the streets.  A bruised reed shall he not break, and smoking flax shall he not quench."[5] And yet many of the recommendations which he addressed to his disciples contain the germs of a true fanaticism,[6] germs which the Middle Ages were to develop in a cruel manner.  Must we reproach him for this?  No revolution is effected without some harshness.  If Luther, or the actors in the French Revolution, had been compelled to observe the rules of politeness, neither the Reformation nor the Revolution would have taken place.  Let us congratulate ourselves in like manner that Jesus encountered no law which punished the invectives he uttered against one class of citizens.  Had such a law existed, the Pharisees would have been inviolate.  All the great things of humanity have been accomplished in the name of absolute principles.  A critical philosopher would have said to his disciples:  Respect the opinion of others; and believe that no one is so completely right that his adversary is completely wrong.  But the action of Jesus has nothing in common with the disinterested speculation of the philosopher.  To know that we have touched the ideal for a moment, and have been deterred by the wickedness of a few, is a thought insupportable to an ardent soul.  What must it have been for the founder of a new world?