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." [45] 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." [46] 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. [47] 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. § 14. Such was the character of the destroyer of the ancient law, and the founder of the new religion that was built upon its ruins; in which religion a disinterested mind can perceive nothing more divine than in any of those which preceded it. Its founder, who was not altogether ignorant, having witnessed extreme corruption in the Jewish republic, judged that its end was near, and thought it a favorable opportunity for forwarding his own designs.