* * **C.
º,...º.º. . .

3'
& •
A# & a ve"
, ºr ºf 2 TAZ & . * * -
/ fi/* A . . . .”
Y. * 㺠ºf f
& - # * …' j Ž jº
; :
erº
Tº
% º-
.." f ; : // 2-y
ſº y !/ it.
* 8 7 *~~
A R T E S
,” P K ( ) [' R | 1 H
C º t
ſºft/ſ
* g & . A “ r - 3. f - ! !
- $ W i º ; J.' 3. ſ/ i. A'
...' Asºº’
* 9 E N T | A v ERTT s
*— TT--—
i


AWAS-I-HIND,
OR
A WOICE FROM THE GANGES;
BEING
A SOLUTION OF THE TRUE SOURCE
OF
CHRISTIANITY.
BY
AN INDIAN OFFICER.
“Reason is the only faculty we have wherewith to judge concerning
anything, even REVELATION itself; for if it contain clear immoralities or
contradictions,—either of these would prove it false.”—(Butler's Analogy.) |
LONDON :
GEO R. G E M A. NW A R IN G,
(SUCCESSOR To JoBIN CHAPMAN,)
8, KING WILLIAM STREET, STRAND.
1861.
[The right of Translation is reserved.]
4//-a. %
ſ
f
TO THE READER.
ON the banks of the Sacred Ganges, the Gunga-Jul
of the Hindoos, and surrounded by millions of people
who never heard of Jesus or the Gospels, but who wor-
shipped other prophets and other gods,-the mono-
tonous tedium of an Indian officer's life has been
passed in a critical examination of the Christian religion.
His inquiries have been chiefly directed to two prin-
cipal questions,—who was this person called Jesus?
and from what source were the doctrines derived which
he promulgated?
In this inquiry, truth has been the only object in
view; and the only means of arriving at the truth, a
careful study of the facts of the subject, in conformity
with the laws of reason and the teachings of expe-
rience.
iv. TO THE READER.
We are told by the Scriptures themselves, that we
should receive no doctrine as true unless it be support l
by substantial evidence ; that we should prove all
things before we believe anything; and be always ready
to give a satisfactory answer of the grounds of our faith,
and a reason of the hope that is in us.
We feel assured, that all that the subject requires is,
a perfect willingness to come to such conclusions only
as the evidence shall require, and to be guided by such
evidence only as would influence us in any other case.
It must be borne in mind, that man is not respon-
sible for his belief, for belief does not depend on voli-
tion, but on evidence. “When, says Lord Brougham,
evidence is presented to the mind, belief is not a volun-
tary, but a necessary consequence; so that it is quite
impossible that the mind should believe otherwise than
as evidence is or is not discerned.” Yet, strange to
say, few people in their religious inquiries act upon
this principle ; their strongest efforts being directed
to the discovery of new grounds for adhering to old
opinions.
It is true, that investigation may awaken doubts
where none before existed; but why should this be
deemed undesirable? If an opinion be false, we ought
not to continue to hold it, if true, it can never suffer in
the end from inquiry.
TO THE READER. W.
A great deal of invective has been levelled at free-
thinking; but all that we have to attend to in thinking
is, to distinguish between what is accurate and inaccu-
rate, true and false; for thinking can never be too free
provided it be just.
Should we have the misfortune to displease any of
our readers by the freedom of our remarks in the fol-
lowing pages, we shall much regret it; but it would be
impossible altogether to avoid it, without sacrificing our
mental independence, and our hopes of being useful.
Taking then as our guide the directions of St Paul,
in proving all things, and holding fast that which is
good, we can have no difficulty in arriving at just con-
clusions, and no reason for distrusting the consequences.
CALCUTTA,
January 25th, 1861.
CONTENTS.
CHAP.
I. ANALYSIS OF THE NIEW TESTAMENT
II. GENEALOGY OF JESUS . . •. •
III. Miraculous CONCEPTION e &
IV. BIRTH OF JESUS .. & 2 tº $
XV. MURDER OF THE INNOCENTS . .
VI. JESUS’ VISIT TO THE TEMPLE ..
VII. JESUS’ INTERREGNUM .. & e
VIII. BAPTISM OF JESUS * @ & ©
Ix. THE TEMPTATION SCENE
X. JESUS THE MESSLAH to º tº º
XI. IRETROSPECT * @ tº e tº tº
xII. DocTRINEs of THE Essenlans
XIII. SERMON ON THE MOUNT e s
XIV. JESUS’ DISCOURSES AND SAYHI:Gs
xv. THE LORD's PRAYER & tº tº e
IXVI. THE LAST JUDGMENT & e * *
XVII. PATRABLES OF JESUS g is tº º
XVIII. ON MIRACULOUS POWERS © º
12
I6
22
25
27
32
35
39
41
50
61
80
87
89
99
viii CONTENTS.
CHAP.
XIX. THE MIRACLES OF JESUS º gº tº gº & g
XX. THE PROPHECIES . . tº wº $ tº tº º tº º
XXI. JESUS IN HIS PROPHETIC CHARACTER, e ſº
XXII. PROPHECIES AND MIRACLES AS TESTS OF A TRUE
RELIGION . . e ſº tº º º e tº e * e
xxIII. PROPHECIES OF JESUS’ DEATH tº º tº º
XXIV.APROPHECIES OF THE RESURRECTION . . tº º
XXV. JUDAS THE BETRAYER tº gº ’s s g is Tº º
XXVI. THE AGONY SCIENIE * = tº º . . . .
XXVII. ARREST OF JESUS . . e tº tº º e Gº tº g
xxviii. PETER’s DENIAL .. e & tº ſº tº e © º
XXIX. JESUS’ TRIAL * * * * e s tº e º e
XXX. CRUCIFIXION * & tº gº & ſº tº º tº e
XXXI. RESURRECTION º º . . . . . © g tº &
xxxi.I. DID JESUS DIE ON THE CROSS P e ſº tº gº
YXXIII. ORIGIN OF CHRISTIANITY tº dº tº tº tº e
XXXIV. PEVIEW OF THE PROGRESS OF CHRISTIANITY
xxxv. REVIEW OF THE PRESENT STATE OF CHRISTIANITY
*.
PAGE
106
131
142
148
15l.
155
158
161
165
167
I69
173
179
I82
185
195
208
INTRODUCTION.
THE strange delusion, in the minds of the Jewish
nation, that their God Jehovah had separated himself
from all the world, and limited His saving grace to a small
section of people living in Palestine; that he had given them
that country as a “perpetual possession,” and had ratified
it by a covenant, that they should be His chosen people FoE
FVER, and he would be their God, this idea seemed never
to have deserted them. In the midst of all their misfortunes
they most pertinaciously clung to these vain, promises of
their priests; and their poets (called by them prophets, and
believed to be divinely inspired) encouraged them by the
most extravagant descriptions of their future prosperity and
greatness. They declared, that Jehovah, whenever his
chosen people suffered oppression, would raise up a Mes-
siah or anointed deliverer, who would restore them to
liberty, independence, and prosperity. Such a Messiah was
Moses, who delivered them from Pharaoh ; such was David,
who vanquished their worst enemy, the Philistines; such
was Elijah, who overthrew the idolatrous worship of Baal;
and such was Ezra, who led them back from captivity.
The Kings of Judah were termed the Lord's Anointed,
and therefore the expected restorer of the throne of David
came to be described as the Anointed or Messiah. But let
X * INTRODUCTION.
it be borne in mind, that the Jewish belief, in a Messiah
never extended beyond a temporal deliverance from the
Roman yoke by a descendant of David. The idea of a
spiritual Messiah was never entertained or thought of till
after the death of Jesus, when it was adopted by his follow-
ers to relieve themselves from the awkward dilemma of re-
conciling their crucified master with the lofty pretensions
of the promised Messiah.
Again, the Messiah was to come of the race of David,
and, as a second David, to take possession of the throne of
Israel; therefore it was expected that he, like David, should
be born in Bethlehem.
In the old national legends, the prophets were made illus-
trious by the most wonderful actions and destiny; less could
not be expected of the Messiah. It was therefore considered
requisite by his followers, that Jesus also should be adorned
with all that was glorious and important in the lives of the
prophets.-In fine, the whole Messianic AEra was expected
to be full of signs and wonders; the eyes of the blind were
to be opened, the ears of the deaf unclosed, the lame should
walk, the lepers be cleansed, and the dead raised. Hence
this state on earth came to be popularly called the “King-
dom of God” and the “Kingdom of Heaven.”
These merely figurative expressions (says Strauss) soon
came to be understood literally; and thus the idea of a
Messiah came to be filled up with new ideas and new details,
even before the time of Jesus. Many of the legends related
of him had now to be newly invented,—they already existed
in the popular idea of a Messiah, having been mostly derived
from the Old Testament, and had merely to be transferred
to Jesus, and accommodated to his character and doctrines.
Such things must have happened to the Messiah, Jesus was
the Messiah, therefore they happened to him.
INTRODUCTION. xi
If we consider the firm conviction of the disciples, that
all which had been prophesied of the Messiah in the Old
Testament must necessarily have been fulfilled in the per-
son of Jesus, we can easily understand, that his followers
would have little hesitation in filling up the meagre outlines
of Jesus' obscure life with the many legends, miracles, and
wonders that were at the time in existence; especially
when we bear in mind that, under the religious excitement
of the times, the line of distinction between facts and
fiction, prose and poetry, was but little understood and
less attended to.
Let us repeat, that the greater part of the legendary
stories, introduced in the Gospels to illustrate the life of
Jesus, did not originate during that period; for the first
foundation was laid in the legends of the Old Testament,
the transference of which to the expected Messiah was easy,
and they were accordingly applied to Jesus after his death.
So that during the period of the formation of the first
Christian community and the writings of the Gospels, it
required but the transference of these legends to Jesus,
with merely some alterations, to adapt them to the peculiar
opinions and circumstances of the times.
The Jews latterly had imbibed many new religious ideas
from the schools of the Pythagorean and Platonic philoso-
phy. The effect of this was to give birth to a variety of
sects, all tinged with the peculiar doctrines of these schools.
The chief of these were the Sadducees, who took the literal
interpretation of Scripture, and, like Moses and the Patri-
archs, did not believe in a future state;* the Pharisees, who
adopted the allegorical sense of Scripture, and believed in the
* See Bishop Warburton's “ Divine Legation of Moses.”
xii INTRODUCTION.
transmigration of souls; and the Essenians, who were of the
Platonic school, and believed in the resurrection of the
soul and a life after death.
These last, the Essenians, were eminent for the simplicity
and moral purity of their lives. Their temperance, their
benevolence, their chastity and piety are highly extolled by
all the writers of the times. They gave all their worldly
goods to feed the poor, lived solely on alms, and occupied
all their time in going about, exhorting and instructing
the people. But we shall have to draw the reader's
attention more particularly to this sect, and their intimate
connexion with the introduction of Christianity, when we
enter on an examination of the doctrines attributed to
Jesus.
It was in the midst of these conflicting sects, that the idea
of the immediate coming of the Messiah arose. Josephus,
the historian and a Pharisee, states, however, “that the belief
of the Jews in the advent of the Messiah was a vulgar error,
which originated in an ambiguous oracle or prophecy found
in their sacred books.” Tacitus, the Roman historian, con-
firms this statement, and the famous Rabbi, Hillel, who
flourished at the end; of the second century, affirms, “that
the belief in a Messiah was no fundamental article of the
Jewish religion, and depended merely on tradition; for that
the prophet Isaiah expressly declares, that “beside God
there is no Saviour.”
“I am the Lord thy God, the Holy One of Israel, THY SAVIOUR :
before Me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after Me.
I, even I, am the Lord; and BESIDE ME THERE IS NO SAVIOUR.”
(Isaiah xliii. 3, 10, 11.)
The progress of events, however, did not correspond
with the flattering prophecies of the Old Testament, and
the dissatisfied and degraded state of the Jewish nation,
INTRODUCTION. xiii
under the Roman yoke, naturally excited in all ranks a de-
sire to regain their liberty and their country. This led
them to seize on every circumstance, however trifling, which
seemed to indicate relief. Hence the number of pretenders
to the Messiahship that appeared about this time, and
hence the reason why they all succeeded in drawing after
them so many ignorant and infatuated followers.”
A passage in the prophecies of Malachi had announced,
that Elijah would appear again on earth, as the forerunner
of the promised Messiah. An enthusiast of the Essenian
Sect, named John, in imitation of Elijah, assumed the dress
and manner of the expected prophet, and appeared in the
desert near Jordan, calling on the people to repent and be
baptized, for the kingdom of heaven was at hand. This
produced much excitement, and crowds came to submit to
this “baptism of repentance for the remission of sins,” and
which was supposed to precede the immediate advent of the
Messiah.
Among others (according to the Gospel narratives) came
one Jesus, the reputed son of Joseph, a poor carpenter of
Nazareth, who, following the example of John, went about
the country, exhorting the people, and warning them to re-
pent. In this course, it is stated, he persevered for nearly
two years, till the authorities, fearing some commotion, had
him seized, summarily tried as a seditious person and blas-
phemer, and executed.
* Among these were Judas, son of Ezekias, Simon Athronges, and
many other aspirants to the throne of David. But the most remark-
able was that of Judas, the Galilean, who was both a political and a
religious reformer, and 'who persuaded the people into the belief of
his Messiahship, and successfully resisted for a long time the Roman
authorities. -
xiv. IºWTRODUCTION.
The history of this person was narrated by four anony-
mous Gospel writers, some forty to eighty years after his
execution, but is not recorded by any of the historians of
the times; it is nowhere mentioned except in these four
Gospels, of which we are about to enter on a careful
analysis.
During the 1st and 2nd centuries there began to appear
a variety of anonymous, narratives regarding this supposed
person, detailing the events of his life with his sayings and
doings, and which were promulgated by a new religious
Sect under the name of Ebionites or Nazarenes, but who
are conjectured to have belonged to the Sect of the Esse-
nians, from the close similarity of their doctrines, manners,
and habits. From these were selected (in the 4th century)
the Epistles and four Gospels, which go by the name of the
New Testament.
“It is an undoubted fact, however (says Bishop Faus-
tus), that the New Testament was not written by Christ
himself, nor by his apostles, but a long while after these
times (longo post tempore) by some unknown persons, who,
lest they should not be credited, when they wrote of affairs
they were little acquainted with, affixed to their works the
names of apostles, or of such as were supposed to have been
their companions—and then said they were written “ac-
cording to them.” (Faust, lib. 2.)
These Gospels, declared to be written by the inspiration
of God, are found, nevertheless, to be in the same doubtful
and unsatisfactory state as the Old Testament. They have
no author's name, no date, and no authentication how, or
by what means, the writers came by the strange and impro-
bable stories they narrate. They are not even written in the
language of the country where these things are said to have
occurred; but in most obscure and corrupt Greek, “a bar-
INTRODUCTION. XV
barous idiom,” as Campbell calls it ; shewing, at least, that
the writers were not inspired with the gift of tongues.”
Nearly 2000 years ago, when it is asserted that these
things occurred, all knowledge was handed down either by
tradition or by the slow and laborious process of writing,
which art was confined to a very few, and in Christendom
exclusively to the monks, who corrected, and altered, and
vitiated their copies of the New Testament according to
their fancies, their faith, or their faction.
It appears that, at the Council of Taodicea (A. D. 363)
there were 200 varied versions of the adopted Evangelists,
and 54 several Gospels, all differing essentially from each
other, and all purporting to be a true account of this person
Jesus; and from these our four Gospels were selected. But
be it remembered, that the present Gospels are not originals,
but taken from copies of the 6th century, from some other
unknown copies ; for there are no copies in existence, nearer
the time of Jesus, than 500 years 1
A careful perusal must lead the reader to hesitate in
ascribing to these Gospels the character of a faithful narrative
of facts; and that impression is confirmed by meeting with
numerous stories, which bear the strongest marks of fiction.
They present no character by which we can distinguish them
from the fictions, which every other religion has exhibited in
its behalf.
When therefore we meet with accounts of certain
* “The Scripture Greek (says Bishop Middleton) is utterly rude and
barbarous, and abounds with every fault that can possibly deform a
language; whereas we should naturally expect to find an “inspired
language' pure, clear, noble, and affecting, even beyond the force of
common speech, since nothing can come from God but what is per-
fect in its kind. In short, we should expect the purity of Plato, and
the eloquence of Cicero.” (Essay on the Gift of Tongues.)
xvi. INTRODUCTION.
phenomena or events, of which it is either expressly stated
or implied, that they were produced immediately by God
himself, as divine apparitions, voices from heaven, angels or
devils in human shape, and the like ; or by human beings
possessed of supernatural powers, as miracles, prophecies,
&c., such accounts are, in so far, to be considered as not
historical. * --
Historical veracity did not seem of much importance to
the Gospel writers in their zeal and anxiety to carry out
their new religion. “He only is a liar ” (says John) “who
denieth Jesus to be the Christ.” (1 Epist. ii. 22.) Nor does
John even pretend that his Gospel was written in order to
give a correct history of Jesus; for he says, “These are
written that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the
Son of God, and that believing ye might have life through
his name.” (xx. 31.) To communicate this his belief to
others was his main object, considering, as all his successors
have done in their efforts to carry out this object, that the
end sanctified the means.
“It greatly affects me, (says the learned Casaubon,) to
see how many there were, in the earliest times of the Church,
who considered it a holy task to lend to heavenly truth the
help of their own inventions, in order that the New Revela-
tion might be more readily admitted by the wise among the
Gentiles. These officious lies, they declared, were devised
for a good end,-from this source sprung up innumerable
books, published under the name of the Lord Jesus Christ.”
There is a difference, however, between the fictions of
these writers and ordinary cases of false testimony, namely,
that they supposed themselves to be writing under the in-
fluence of the Holy Spirit. “But the Comforter,” (says
Jesus,) “which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will
send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all
INTRODUCTION. xvii
things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto
you.” (John xiv. 26.) Now these Gospel writers naturally
considered the offspring of their fancy and imagination as
the dictates of the Holy Ghost; and they accordingly at-
tributed to Jesus their own views and opinions without any
consciousness of fraud. With such an earnest purpose as
the Gospel writers had in view, namely, to prove Jesus to be
the Messiah, they would be led on, not only to mingle truth
with falsehood, but even to fall into the persuasion that the
Boly Ghost permitted such additions, as they could not but
know were the purest fictions.
It is generally supposed, that Matthew’s Gospel was writ-
ten first, and Mark and Luke copied from him, and in some
instances almost verbatim. They have, however, shaken
Matthew’s general credibility, by omitting several important
parts, and rejecting many of his most prominent miracles.
The first three Gospels agree well enough in the style of
the discourses attributed to Jesus, which are parables and
short pithy sayings, and represent him as beginning his
career in Galilee, proceeding to Jerusalem and suffering
there. Their chief topics are, the fall of Jerusalem and the
approach of the kingdom of heaven. But John's Gospel,
supposed to have been written some time in the second cen-
tury, and strongly characterized by the Platonic philosophy,
is of a very different character. The discourses of Jesus
are here long controversial orations, without any parables;
he is made to journey from Galilee to Jerusalem and back
again many times; the kingdom of heaven is nearly lost
sight of; the fall of Jerusalem never alluded to ; and seve-
ral new topics are introduced, as the Incarnation of “the
Word,” or Plato's Logos, applied to Jesus; his coming
down from heaven; his relation to the Father; the promise
of the Comforter; and an entire new set of miracles.
xviii INTRODUCTION.
This Gospel (says Hennell) appears to be the attempt of
a half-educated but zealous follower of Jesus, to engraft his
conceptions of the Platonic philosophy on the original faith
of the disciples, “The Jesus depicted in the 4th Gospel is
wholly and entirely a different sort of character from the
Jesus of Matthew, Mark, and Luke; so that it is utterly
impossible that both descriptions can be true.” (Britschneider
in Ord. arg.)—Bishop Marsh observes, “ that after all his
attempts to reconcile John's account of the resurrection
with that of Mark and Luke, he has not been able to do it
in a manner satisfactory to himself, or to any other impar-
tial inquirer into truth.” (Marsh's Michaelis.)—Indeed many
Christian writers reject John's Gospel altogether, as totally
unworthy of credit.*
The ordinary notion, that the four Gospels were written
by the persons whose names they bear, has no foundation
in truth, and has now been given up by all Christian writers.
And here the previous admission of Bishop Faustus is con-
clusive, and shews, that the Christian world has been all
along kept in most strange and suspicious ignorance on this
subject.
* The chief objections to the authenticity of John's Gospel are the
following;-the unsuitableness of the discourses of Jesus, of the Bap-
tist, and of the Jews, and their extreme difference of character from
those in the other Gospels; fictitious stories, or such an admixture of
facts and fiction as shew, that the writer was neither a companion of
Jesus nor an eye-witness; ignorance of the geography, customs, and
mode of thought of Judea, and to such an extent as to shew, that the
writer was not even a native of Palestine. So that if John even be
admitted to be the author of the Gospel, it becomes inevitable to
charge him with wilful fiction, or at least with indulging in his
imagination, at the expense of his memory, to such an extent as to be
equivalent to it.
INTRODUCTION. xix
§
“Although the Gospels are to be received as the compo-
sitions of Jews, contemporaneous and even witnesses of the
scenes and actions they describe, yet these compositions do
nevertheless betray so great a degree of ignorance of the
geography, statistics, and circumstances of Judea at the
time supposed, as to put it beyond all question, that the
writers were neither witnesses nor contemporaries, neither
Jews nor inhabitants of Judea.” (Rev. E. Evanson.)
We now proceed to examine the work itself in detail,
and on its own merits; and see whether, from internal or
external evidence, it exhibits the mark and seal of truth or
true godliness. w
AWAS-I-HIND,
OR
A WOICE FROM THE GANGES,
CHAPTER I.
ANALysis of THE NEW TESTAMENT.
IN every civilized country, the popular system of theology
has invariably claimed its origin from Divine Revelation.
The priests of antiquity had their augurs and oracles; the
Chinese had their inspired teachers, Confucius and Fohé;
the Hindoos had their sacred books derived from the
supreme god Brahma; the followers of Mahomed had their
FCoran, dictated by the angel Gabriel; and the Jews de-
clared their religion was written by the finger of God him-
self, to be perfected by the advent of a mighty prince or
Messiah, of the race of David, who would sit on the throne
of Jacob, and restore the kingdom to Israel.
Now as Christianity is reformed Judaism, with the as:
sumption, that the person mentioned in the New Testa-
ment, as Jesus of Nazareth, is the promised Messiah, fore-
told by the Jewish Scriptures; so, in entering on an
examination of this work, our first step must necessarily be
1
2 ANALYSIS OF THE INEW TESTAMENT.
to ascertain, whether the prophecies of the Old Testament
have been truly fulfilled in the person of Jesus, and that he
is, in reality, the promised Messiah. For if they have not,
then is our task in vain, and the question at issue falls to
the ground. ---. -
The prophecies announced, that the expected Messiah
should be of the house of David, that he should sit on the
throne of Jacob, and restore the kingdom to Israel. Now
have these prophecies been accomplished in the person of
Jesus?
So well satisfied was Matthew, that a clear and correct
descent, in a direct line from David, was essential to estab-
lish Jesus’ claim to the Messiahship, that he commences
his narrative with an elaborate genealogical table from
Abraham through David to Joseph, the father of Jesus, and
which ends thus: “and Jacob begat Joseph, the husband
of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.”
(Matt. i. 16.)
But in the very next passage, and in direct contradiction
of the above, we find this genealogy is quietly set aside,
with the startling announcement, that Jesus was not the
son of Joseph, but of the Lord Jehovah!
“Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his
mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she
was found with child of the Holy Ghost. Then Joseph her husband,
being a just man, and not willing to make her a publick example, was
minded to put her away privily. But while he thought on these
things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream,
(that is, Joseph dreamt that an angel appeared unto him,) saying,
Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife:
for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost... Then Joseph
being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him,
and took unto him his wife.” (Matt. i. 18–20, 24.)
Now both these accounts cannot be true, and cannot have
ANALYSIS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 3
been written by the same person, as the one account falsifies
the other. It had been foretold, that the Messiah, who was
to redeem Israel, should be a descendant, in a direct line,
from the house of David, and hence the introduction of this
genealogical table. But how then could Jesus be a na-
tural descendant of David, and at the same time be pro-
duced by supernatural agency P. For if Jesus were be-
gotten by Joseph out of Mary, he could not be begotten
by the Holy Ghost; and if he were the legitimate son
of Joseph, he could not be the offspring of the Lord Je-
hovah. \
Moreover, we find that Matthew and Iuke, although
they both exclude Joseph from any participation in the con-
ception of Jesus, yet still great stress is laid upon the
Davidical descent of Joseph (see Matt. i. 20. Lukei. 27. ii. 4.),
and it appears they do not deny that Mary bore her hus-
band Joseph several other children, as mention is made of
the brothers of Jesus. (Matt. xiii. 55.)
To be relieved from this awkward dilemma, some have
assumed that the genealogies were those of Mary, and not
of Joseph. But then we find it established in Luke's Gos-
pel, that Mary was the cousin of Elizabeth “of the daughters
of Aaron” (i. 5.), and therefore was of the Tribe of Levi,
whereas David was of the Tribe of Judah ! Besides both
Matthew and Luke distinctly state their genealogies to be
those of Joseph and not of Maryl
© It is rather unfortunate, that at the very outset of a
work, declared to have been written by the inspiration of
God, and on the truth of which our salvation is declared to
depend, so monstrous a discrepancy (quite sufficient to shake
the credibility of any other work) should, in limine, manifest
itself!
Matthew with much simplicity acknowledges, that “all
1 *
4. ANALYSIS OF THE NIEW TESTAMENT,
this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by
the prophets” (Matt. i. 22), in other words, that all this mi-
raculous conception was invented, for the purpose of bringing
about the fulfilment of a passage in Isaiah, and making
Jesus' birth agree with it. * Grotius, Hammond, and Le
Clerc confirm this by acknowledging, that this prophecy was
not fulfilled by Jesus in the literal sense, but was in reality
fulfilled by the birth of the prophet Isaiah’s son, in the time
of Ahaz, and was afterwards applied to Jesus in a typical or
allegorical sense. -
The whole of this story is so repugnant to common sense,
and so entirely unsupported by any other history, sacred or
profane, that many persons, both of the present and former
ages, have rejected it altogether as a gross forgery, intro-
duced for the purpose of raising the poor carpenter's son to
the rank of a God!
* See this passage of Isaiah explained in Chap. xviii. “on the Pro-
phecies.”
GENE ALOGY OF JESUS.
5
CHLAPTER II.
GENEALOGY OF JESUS.
BEFORE proceeding further, we will examine the preten-
sions of this “genealogy of Jesus,” as given by Matthew
and Luke ; for Mark and John take not the least notice of it,
or of the miraculous conception, or of the flight into Egypt.
It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that they omitted these
stories because they did not believe them, and did not expect
to be believed if they related them.
Here we might expect at least some consistency or some
accuracy; but alas, inspiration does not appear to have en-
lightened the writers much, in making out even a plausible
descent of Joseph, the father of Jesus, from David; for the
two Gospels cannot even agree with each other on the subject.
The genealogy of Matthew neither agrees with the Old
Testament nor with Luke, and the most admired confusion
prevails. Matthew states this genealogy to consist of twenty-
eight generations only, but Luke declares it to consist of forty-
three generations! Insome parts of Luke totally different per-
sons are made the ancestors of Jesus from those in Matthew,
and the whole of the pedigree from David to Joseph is totally
different in the two Gospels, the accounts offering irreconcil-
able contradictions to each other! And yet each is announced
distinctly, as the genealogy, not of Mary, be it observed, but
of Joseph the father of Jesus. --
In fact, neither genealogical table has any advantage over
the other, for they are equally inaccurate and unhistorical.
6 - GENEALOGY OF JESUS,
“I only wonder (says Rev. Mr Evanson) that under such
circumstances, any rational creature can be found, who could
really believe both these contradictory pedigrees to be true,
and, what is still more, the inspired work of God.”
The sole purpose of these two Gospels is to teach, that
Jesus was not the son of Joseph, but, like Bacchus and Her-
cules among the Romans, the offspring of Mary, impregnated
by the supreme deity of heaven. Yet to prove to us, as the
completion of the old prophecies required, that he was the
lineal descendant of David, they give us this pretended ge-
nealogy.—And with such a proof as this the Christian
Church has remained satisfied for 1800 years!
“According to the prophecies (says the learned Strauss)
the Messiah could only spring from David. When therefore
Jesus, a Galilean, whose lineage was utterly unknown, had
acquired the reputation of being the Messiah, what was more
natural than that tradition should, under different forms,
have ascribed to him a Davidical descent; and that genea-
logical tables, to correspond, should have been formed to
support his pretensions. Matthew seems to have adopted the
line of kings of the house, of David, but Luke's genealogy
appears to be altogether a fabrication.”
The object of both writers, by entering so minutely into
the details of these genealogies, was evidently to prove the
fulfilment of the prophecies, that Jesus was lineally sprung
from the house of David; thus fulfilling the first and greatest
act of his Messiahship. But they both, immediately after,
flatly contradict themselves by declaring, that Jesus was be-
gotten of God! that he was not Joseph’s son, was not of the
house of David, did not fulfil the prophecies, and therefore
could not be the promised Messiah!
MIRACULOUS CONCEPTION. 7
CELAPTER III.
MIRACULOUS CONCEPTION.
THE followers of Jesus, who were simple and uneducated
men, never had either the opportunity or the means of ex-
amining the genealogy of Jesus, but received it submissively
as a divine truth. But after the sudden and unexpected
execution of Jesus, they found that all attempts to introduce
this new religion were met by the Greeks and Romans with
taunts and revilings, “for worshiping” (as they said) “a
dead man and crucified Jew; ” which was, as Paul observed,
“to the Jews a stumbling-block and to the Greeks foolish-
ness.” They were therefore forced to the alternative, either
of giving up the cause altogether, or of following the ex-
ample of the Greeks and Romans, and elevating Jesus to the
rank of a God. This they did not hesitate to do, although
causing a discrepancy at variance with their previous nar-
rative.
It was easy to find in the prophetic writings texts that
would answer the purpose; and a passage in Isaiah exactly
suited the fancy of this credulous and wonder-loving people.
So, immediately after the genealogy it was added, that after
Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together,
she was found to be with child, that the husband would have.
put her away, but he dreamt that an angel appeared and told
him that his wife was with child of the Holy Ghost ! (Matt.
i. 18—20.)
In sober seriousness, would any of the defenders of
8 MIRACULOUS CONCEPTION.
Christianity receive, as his wife, a woman in the condition
above described, and be satisfied with such an explanation ?
BIowever preternaturally Jesus is stated to have been be-
gotten, yet it would appear that his mother had to pass
through the natural period of utero-gestation, and at the end
of nine months to be duly delivered; and that Jesus came
into the world like all other children. This conformity, in
result, would lead us to a belief of conformity in the physical
causes which produced the son of Mary; for, from natural
agents result physical effects, and we are taught to expect a
parity in nature between cause and effect.
When the discrepancies are so great, they altogether im-
peach the historical validity of the narrative; and necessarily
lead us to the conclusion that the whole was, in reality, a
dream. But these Jews were always dreaming, always see-
ing visions, they had an angel at their call on all occasions,
at the birth of Isaac, of Samson, of John, and, according to
the Jewish traditions, of Moses!
Matthew accordingly relates, that “the angel of the Lord
appeared unto Joseph in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son
of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that
which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost” (i.29). Now
we submit that this is a very dubious tale, resting solely on the
dream of an obscure artizan. Why did not the angel appear
to Joseph in broad daylight, and before credible witnesses P
How did Joseph know that it was an angel, for it seems he
only dreamt it!
This story of the angel announcing what the Church calls
the immaculate conception, is not so much as mentioned in the
books ascribed to Mark and John; and it is differently re-
lated in Matthew and Luke. The former says the angel ap-
peared to Joseph, the latter says it was to Mary; but where
is their evidence P-and echo answers where £
MIRACULOUS CONCEPTION, 9
The Jews have been dreamers from the time of Joseph
the son of Jacob, to Joseph the father of Jesus. We hear
nothing of angels' visits now-a-days. Man has become so cau-
tious in his belief, and so sceptical in his doubts, that he
looks with distrust on everything that is not amenable to
his reason, or tangible to his senses; and yet, strange to say,
the foundation of the Christian religion rests on a dream, on
the dream of an obscure artizan,—“on the baseless fabric of
a vision l’”
And is it on such testimony, that the most enlightened
people in the world have hitherto submitted to receive it, and
been satisfied ? Would such testimony be listened to, for
one moment, in any Court of Justice; or can we suppose
that Almighty Wisdom would in this obscure and doubtful
manner manifest himself to the world !” t
Luke reports some conversations that occurred between
Zacharias and an angel, and also between Mary and an an-
gel, when he came to announce “her own conception to her.
self.” The angel promised Mary, “God shall give unto
Jesus the throne of his father David: and he shall reign over
the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall
be no end.” (Luke i. 32, 33.) t
Now this promise never has been fulfilled; Jesus never
sat on the throne of David, never reigned over the house of
* During the disturbances in Jamaica, when the case of Mr Avery,
the missionary, supposed to be implicated, was brought before a Jury,
a methodist missionary made his way into court, and said, “he came
to bear testimony to the innocence of brother Avery.” “Well, Sir,”
said the judge, “what can you testify.” “I have had a vision, sir;
two angels appeared unto me in a dream, to bear witness to the inno-
cence of brother Avery.” “Then let them be summoned,” was the re-
joinder.—This is the only legitimate way of treating all cases of dreams,
and visions, and angelic witnesses, let them be summoned
10 IMIRACULOUS CONCEPTION.
Jacob, nor did he ever restore the kingdom to Israel. On
the contrary, the Israelites look on him as an impostor, de-
spise his followers, and denounce his religion; and the coun-
try itself is in the hands of the followers of Mahomed! .
One great object with the advocates of Jesus' miraculous
conception, and of his being begotten by the Holy Ghost,
was to prove his impeccability, or being without sin. But
the reader will perceive that this object is not even gained;
for Jesus was still the offspring of a sinful mother, and there-
fore subject to all the frailties and penalties of a daughter of
Eve.
The history of the conception is entirely omitted not only
by Mark, but also by John, the reputed author of the 4th
Gospel, and an alleged intimate with the mother of Jesus;
and yet the Gospel of John contains not one word of this
monstrous and unnatural story.
* But (says Strauss) a most important consideration here
is, that no retrospective allusion, to the supernatural mode
of conception of Jesus, occurs throughout the four Gospels,
neither in Matthew, Mark, Luke, nor John. Not only does
Mary herself designate Joseph simply as the “father of
Jesus” (Luke ii. 48.), but all his contemporaries in general
regarded him as the son of Joseph; a fact, not unfrequently
alluded to contemptuously and by way of reproach in his
presence, and which he never once attempted to contradict.
(see Matt. xiii. 55; Luke iv. 22; John vi. 42). His own dis-
ciples also, in the fourth Gospel, written a century after the
event, still regarded him as the actual son of Joseph. (John
i. 45.)
But the proneness of the ancients to represent their great
men and benefactors of mankind as the sons of God, was
not lost sight of by the early Christians. Examples are re-
corded, from the Greek and Roman historians, of the divine
MIRACULous concBPTION. 11
origin of many eminent men, especially of Plato and Pytha-
goras, both founders of new religions, and both believed to
be the sons of God by a human mother.
Olshausen and other theologians have urged a strong
objection to the miraculous conception, namely, that it en-
genders unfavourable suspicions of the origin of Jesus; and
of this the Jews took advantage by declaring, “that Jesus
could not be the Messiah, as he came into the world by
unholy means, since, in fact, at the time of her preg-
nancy, Mary was not married,” an opinion destructive of
the belief in a Messiah l—The reader will see from this
analysis of the birth and genealogy of Jesus, the contra-
dictory and fictitious character it betrays, which puts it
quite out of the limits of probability; and whatever Jesus’
advocates have gained by elevating him to the rank of a
God, they most assuredly have lost by depriving him of the
main characteristic of the Messiah.
12, BIRTH OF JESUs.
CHAPTER IV.
IB IIB. T. H. O. E J E S U. S.
“And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree
from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed. (And this
taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.) And
all went to be taxed, every one into his own city. And Joseph also
went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the
city of David, which is called Bethlehem; (because he was of the house
and lineage of David:) to be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being
great with child. And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrap-
ped him in Swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger.” (Luke ii.
1–5, 7.)
Now the above contains many and grave errors,
for at the reputed time of Jesus' birth, Judaea was not a
Roman province, and could not have been taxed; Cyrenius,
at the time, was not governor of Syria, nor till ten years
after the death of Herod; and Joseph could not have taken
a journey to Bethlehem for any such purpose; and as to
the time of Jesus' birth, there is a chronological impos-
sibility. *
Matthew states, that Jesus was born at Bethlehem of
Judaea, but Luke, by repeatedly calling him “Jesus of ~
Nazareth,” assures us he was born at Nazareth in Galilee.
He enters into the circumstances which led Joseph to
Bethlehem, namely, to be present at the census, which he
states was decreed by Augustus Caesar.
Now in regard to this taxation, it is altogether unau-
thenticated by history; and not a word is mentioned of it
IBIRTEI OF JESUS. I3
by Josephus, or any historian of that period. But when
Judaea became a Roman province, twelve years after Jesus
was born, a census was made by Cyrenius (Quirinus). There
is therefore here undeniable contradiction between Scrip-
ture and history, and a difference of twelve years in the date
of Jesus’ birth.
This census never required people to leave their homes,
as it was invariably taken at their own houses. But Luke
wished to introduce here a passage from Micah, by giving
birth to the Messiah in the city of David. The writer, how-
ever, ought to have made himself better acquainted with
history; for to attempt to reconcile the statements of Luke
with chronology, is impossible. He wished to place Mary
in Bethlehem, and did not hesitate to accommodate both
time and circumstances to attain this object.
Now this census did not take place till Jesus was twelve
years old; so that the whole details arising from this mis-
statement, namely, that Jesus was born in a manger at
Bethlehem, saluted by shepherds, with all the embellish-
ment of angels, and magi, and heavenly hosts, so entirely in
accordance, however, with the spirit of the Jewish legends,
falls to the ground.—So that we have neither a fixed period
for the date of the birth of Jesus, nor a plausible reason
for his being born at Bethlehem *
If then (says Strauss) no other reason can be adduced
why Jesus should have been born at Bethlehem than that
given by Luke, we have absolutely no guarantee that it
was the place of his birth; so that both the time and place
of Jesus' birth are disputed
It is also related by Luke, that “the angel of the Lord,”
and “a multitude of the heavenly host,” appeared, at night, to
some shepherds watching over their flocks, and directed them
to the child in the manger. But it may be reasonably asked,
14 •. BIRTH OF JESUS.
to what end was this exhibition, and for what purpose did God
send down a host of angels to some poor ignorant shepherds
(and at night too!) to make known the birth of Jesus? If
so, then the deity failed in his object ' Why did these angels
not appear in broad daylight to the governor and magis-
trates of the place, who would have been credible and satis-
factory witnesses of the truth of this story !
Here it must be remembered that the ancient world
generally ascribed the appearance of angels and divine per-
sons to countrymen and shepherds; and the sons of the gods
and of great men were frequently represented as being
brought up among shepherds; and this has not been lost
sight of by the Gospel writers.
The favourite god of the Hindoos, Crishna, was brought
up among shepherds. (See Bhagavat.) It was in the fields,
by the flocks, that Moses was visited by an angel (Exod. iii.),
and it was from the shepherds of Bethlehem that Jehovah
took David, the reputed forefather of the Messiah, to rule
over Israel. - -
Matthew's narrative of the birth of Jesus differs widely
from that of Luke. In Luke, the birth is announced by an
angel, in Matthew by a star; the angel appears to simple
shepherds, the star to Eastern Magi. The shepherds are
directed to Bethlehem by the angel; the Magi by instruc-
tions obtained at Jerusalem. The shepherds do homage by
singing hymns of praise, the Magi by costly presents, such
is the harmony of the Gospels' .
Matthew states, that when the Magi came to Jerusalem,
they inquired for the child, saying, “We have seen his star
in the east,” and, lo, the star, which they saw in the east,
“went before them.” Now it is curious that this star, after
all, did not direct them accurately; for they came to Jeru-
salem instead of going direct to Bethlehem.
IBIRTH OF JESUS. 15
IIere the fact is admitted, and sanctioned by divine au-
thority too, that the birth of celebrated men can be ascer-
tained by the stars, and that important revelations in human
affairs are indicated by astral phenomenal an opinion now
universally exploded, and consigned to the regions of ignor-
ance and superstition. There is little doubt that all the
errors and mischiefs produced by a belief in this false science
of astrology had their origin and sanction in this legend.
Again, these Magi were heathen Gentiles, who had a
different language and religion, and neither believed in
Jehovah nor a Messiah. What then was their object in
undertaking this long journey P for after offering presents
to the child, they disappear, and we hear no more of them
Only fancy these idolaters taking a journey of many hundred
miles to find out a child, that the stars falsely told them
would be King of the Jews, and for the purpose of worship-
ping him
The reader will at once perceive this legend was intro-
duced for the mere purpose of the glorification of the infant
Jesus. But that such an exhibition ever took place, is not
merely improbable, but bears the marks of fiction in every
line.
16 MURDER OF THE INNoCENTs.
CHAPTER W.
MURDER OF THE INNOCENTs.
THE story of Hérod destroying all the children under two
years old, belongs altogether to the Gospel of Matthew; not
one of the rest mention anything about it. Had such a cir-
cumstance been true, the universality of it must have made
it known to all the writers of the times, and would have
been too striking to have been omitted by any.
Luke relates that all proceeded happily with the in-
fant Jesus; the shepherds returned with gladness in
their hearts; the child grew apace in peace and tran-
quillity, and was presented in due time at the temple.
But Matthew, on the contrary, makes all the child’s affairs
to take a tragical turn; Herod issues a murderous decree
against all the young children of Bethlehem and neighbour-
hood; and Jesus, with his parents, is forced to flee into
Egypt, and does not return till after Herod’s death.--This is
another instance of the discrepancies and want of harmony
of these Gospels' As to Mark and John, they seem never
to have heard anything about these strange events, or if
they did, treated them with prudent silence.
But this is not the worst feature in this statement; for
Jesus, who, as the Messiah, was expected to bring peace
and good-will upon earth, is here represented as the cause
of an awful effusion of innocent blood; which might have
been easily avoided, had the heavenly star done its duty,
and directed the wise men correctly.
IMUIRIDER OF THE INNOCENTS. 17
Herod is now represented to have sent for the chief.
priests and scribes, and inquired of them the birth-place of
the expected Messiah; and they are stated as giving an in-
terpretation of a passage in Micah, that the Messiah
should be born “in Bethlehem.” He accordingly sends the
wise men to ascertain where the child was to be found !
But they, “being warned of God in a dream,” did not re-
turn to him again.
It would appear from this episode, that the heathen Magi
had their dreams and warnings from God, as well as the
chosen people. Now had God warned them, in the first in-
stance, not to go to Jerusalem at all, but to proceed to Bethle.
hem direct, this dreadful massacre of the children would
have been avoided altogether. For “Herod, when he saw
that he was mocked of the wise men, was exceedingly wroth,
and sent forth, and slew all the children that were in Beth-
lehem, and in all the coasts thereof.” (Matt. ii. 16.)
Bere the conduct attributed to Herod is, in itself, most
absurd; he makes no search after the one dangerous child,
but slays all the children of a whole town and adjoining
country, indiscriminately. It is quite inconceivable, that
any fit of fear or zeal could lead a politic old king like
Herod to indulge in such useless and costly cruelty; or
that the people would quietly have submitted to it.
Now Josephus, who has filled thirty-seven chapters with
the history of Herod, and entered minutely into the de-
•tails of his barbarities, omits all allusion to such wholesale
slaughter. Lardner supposes that Josephus wilfully sup-
pressed this; but we find that Matthew, Luke, and John,
and all the historians of those times, have suppressed it
also, and are altogether silent on the subject.
It is a curious coincidence, that in the sacred writings
of the Hindoos there is a similar story related of the tyrant
f
7
./
r
\.
º 2
18 MURDER OF THE INNOCENTS.
We
Ranza, at the birth of the Hindoo god Crishna; the extra-
ordinary similarity of whose life and acts to that of Jesus,
Sir William Jones bears testimony, and which he declares
it is impossible to deny.—He thus writes:
“That the name of Crishna and the general features of
“his history were long anterior to the birth of our Saviour,
“and probably to the time of Homer, we know very certainly.
“The celebrated poem Bhagavat, which contains an account
“of his life, is filled with a narrative of a most extraordinary
“kind. The incarnate deity was cradled among herdsmen
“or shepherds; a tyrant, at the time of his birth, ordered all
“new-born males to be slain; yet this new-born babe was
“preserved in a wonderful manner. He performed amazing
“miracles in his infancy, and at the age of seven years held
“up a mountain on the tip of his finger; he saved multitudes
“by his miraculous powers; he raised the dead, and was the
“meekest and mildest of created beings; he washed the feet
“of the Brahmins, and preached very nobly and sublimely;
“he was pure and chaste in reality, and benevolent and ten-
“der.” (Sir W. Jones’ Works.)
Luke never mentions one word of this horrid massacre, nor
Mark, nor John, so that it rests on the testimony of Matthew
alone. Now this absurd and revolting act must be well au-
thenticated, before any credit can be attached to it, and
therefore we should expect to see it noticed by some of the
historians of the times. But neither Josephus nor Philo,
who lived at the time, nor the Rabbins, who were assiduous-
to blacken Herod's character, give us the slightest hint of
such a monstrous decree.
This story will not stand the test of criticism, as it places
the Almighty, in regard of his Omniscience, in a very anom-
alous position, for if God specially interposed to blind the
mind of Herod and suggest to the Magi that they should not
TMIUIRDER OF THE INNOCENTS. 19 °
return to Jerusalem to give notice to him, why did he not
inspire them to proceed, in the first instance, direct to Beth-
lehem P whereby Herod would have been in ignorance of the
child’s existence, and this cruel and unnecessary massacre
have been altogether avoided. But the truth is, the writer
of this legend. wished to introduce the infant Jesus at his
birth, like other heroes of the times, with extraordinary
proofs of his value and power; and that he could not come
into the world in the usual way, without creating a mighty
sensation, alarming even kings on their thrones'
The first act recorded of Moses was the murder of an
Egyptian ; the first act of Hercules was the strangling of a
serpent in his cradle; the first act of Samson was the slay-
ing of a lion.—Now it was considered necessary, that
the birth of Jesus should be accompanied by some event
equally astounding; and what suited the blood-thirsty cha-
racter of the Jews more than the indiscriminate slaughter of
some hundred innocent and helpless children'
To represent a murderous decree (says Strauss) as having
been directed by Herod against Jesus, was the interest of the
primitive Christian legend. In allages, Legend has glorified
the infancy of great men by persecutions and attempts on
their life. The greater the danger, the higher was their
value; the more unexpectedly their deliverance was wrought,
the more evident is the esteem in which they are supposed
to be held by Heaven. We find this in the childhood of
Cyrus, of Romulus, and even later of Augustus.-Why not
then of Jesus, whose destiny was so much higher ?
Matthew relates, that after the departure of the wise men,
Joseph is admonished by an angel “in a dream,” to flee
with the child into Egypt. “When he arose he took the
young child and his mother by night, and fled into Egypt, and
remained there until the death ºf Herod.” But neither Mark,
20 . MURDER OF THE INNOCENTS.
Luke, nor John take any notice of these flights and dreams.
On the contrary, Luke tells us, that Joseph remained at
Bethlehem, until after the child was circumcised, and his
mother purified;, after which, instead of fleeing into Egypt,
he states, that they went up to Jerusalem, to present the
child Jesus at the Altar, -the most public place in the king-
dom, almost into Herod's presence l—So much for Gospel
harmony. . º -
When Jesus and his parents are in Egypt (according to
Matthew) an angel again appears to Joseph “in a dream,”
and instructs him to return to the Land of Israel; but when
he arrived there, he was again warned by God “in a dream,”
and directed to turn aside to Nazareth; “that it might be
fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be call-
ed a Nazarene.” (Matt. ii. 23.)—Now there is no such pro-
phecy in existence 1 -
Here, in the compass of a single chapter, we have five
extraordinary interpositions of God; one anomalous star and
four angelic visions ! Now for the star and first vision, a
single miracle might, with great advantage, have been sub-
stituted, as either the star or the vision singly might have pre-
vented the wise men from going to Jerusalem, and thus
have averted the dreadful massacre said to have been per-
petrated by Herod —The last two visions, directing Joseph
to proceed to Nazareth, might, for consistency sake, have been
included in one, as they make God appear to have no fore-
thought, and to be ignorant of the course of human events.
But the object of this legend was to preserve the resem-
blance in Jesus to his great prototypes Abraham and Moses.
Abraham was forced to make a journey to Egypt and return
again to the land of Israel; and Moses was in Egypt and
left it to convey the chosen people to the Land of Israel,—
thus establishing Jesus' identity with “the redeemers of
Israel.”
MURDER of THE INNoCENTs. 21
The whole account of the birth of Jesus is such (says
Mr Hennell), that if found by itself, it would be considered
as a wild Eastern tale, or an imitation of some similar fables
relating to the births of preceding heroes, philosophers, and
divinities. (See Origin of Christianity.)
From this time, for twelve years, we hear nothing
farther of Jesus, and the Gospels are altogether silent re-
garding him till his twelfth year, when he is again intro-
duced to our notice; to record, in a scene that is related to
have occurred in the temple, the precocity of his genius, and
his anxiety to begin the great work of reformation. He
then disappears, and is not again heard of for eighteen
years 1 /
|
22 JESUS’ VISIT To THE TEMPLE.
CHAPTER WI.
JESUS’ VISIT TO THE TEMPLE.
Now the parents of Jesus “went to Jerusalem every year at the
feast of the Passover. And when he was twelve years old, they went
up to Jerusalem after the custom of the feast.” (Luke ii. 41, 42.)
IT would appear that the parents of Jesus had carefully
brought him up in the Jewish religion, caused him to
fulfil all its rites and ceremonies, and at his twelfth year
brought him to Jerusalem to be present at the Feast of the
Passover. They had accomplished a day's journey on their
return home, when they found that their son Jesus was
missing; and on going back to Jerusalem in search of him,
“it came to pass, that after three days they found him in
the temple, sitting in the midst of the doctors, both hearing
them, and asking them questions.” (Luke ii. 46.)
Now this careless and negligent conduct in the parents of
Jesus, well knowing his high destination, from the announce-
ment of angels, and visions, and dreams, is most unaccount-
able and most unlikely –Again, when we consider the
careful manner in which Jewish children were educated, and
taught to honour and obey their parents, we are equally
surprised at this undutiful conduct of Jesus, in leaving his
parents in this surreptitious manner, regardless of their
anguish and anxiety, “for they were seeking him three days ,
sorrowing.” His conduct seems unnatural and undutiful,
being a positive breach of the third commandment, and
shows anything but a sinless development of his nature
JESUS’ VISIT TO THE TEMPLE. 23
Jesus is described as “sitting in the midst of the doctors,
both hearing them and asking them questions.” Now it
appears from the Jewish records, that no youth or pupil was
permitted to sit in the presence of the Rabbins or doctors,
much less to put questions to them; and if Jesus did either,
he must indeed have excited the surprise and astonishment
of all !
The mother of Jesus naturally reproved her son for all
the anxiety and affliction he had caused them by his unduti-
ful conduct; when he retorted on her by asking, “Why she
sought him; did she not know that he was about his Father's
business; and that he was to be sought nowhere else than
in his Father's house ?”—Now how can we be expected to
give credit to this story P. That the boy Jesus, in his twelfth
year, should talk in this manner to his parents, and declare
the necessity of attending to his Father's work; and yet,
that we should hear no more of the prosecution of this work
for the next twenty years of his lifel This account is highly
inconsistent and improbable.
- Again, the parents of Jesus are said “not to have under-
stood his words.” But if we are to believe the previous
announcement of the angels both to Mary and Joseph, and
the other visions and prophecies declared in behalf of their
son Jesus; and, moreover, when it is stated, that “Mary
kept all these things and pondered them in her heart,”
(Lukeii. 19.)—she assuredly ought not to have been in doubt
for one moment as to the meaning of his words. And yet
the narrative declares that the parents of Jesus “under-
stood not the saying which he spake unto them l’’ (Luke
ii. 50.)
Now if this be a true statement, then we must conclude
that the previous announcement of Jesus' future destiny
24 JESUS’ VISIT TO THE TEMPLE.
could not have taken place,—and either one or other account
must be a fabrication! - wº
But even at the presentation in the Temple, we are told
that the parents of Jesus “marvelled” at the discourse of
Simeon regarding Jesus, which means, that they did not
understand it ! We must therefore come to the conclusion
and repeat, that if the parents of Jesus did not understand
these sayings, then those earlier communications could not
possibly have happened.
It is the character, not of an historical record (says
Dr Strauss), but of a marvellous legend, to represent its
characters as so permanently in a state of wonder, that
they not only, at the first appearance of any extraordinary
event, express their astonishment, but even at the tenth
repetition of it, when it might be expected that they would
have become familiar with it; obviously with the view of
exacting more highly the divine impartition by this con-
tinuous incomprehensibility! -
In the latter period of Jesus' life, it will be seen that
the account of his sufferings and death is set forth by the
circumstance, that the repeated disclosures of Jesus on the
subject remain throughout quite incomprehensible to his
disciples, although repeatedly and explicitly announced to
them in clear and definite terms. As here also, the mystery
of the Messiahship of Jesus is tried to be exalted, by ex-
hibiting his parents, at every fresh announcement, declaring
their utter ignorance and amazement.—But all these are
beacons, pointing out the mythical and legendary character
of this narrative.
, JESUS’ INTERREGNUM. * 25
CHAPTER VII.
JESUS’ INTERREGNUM.
FROM this period, till the time when Jesus is said to have
entered on his assumed mission, a period of eighteen years,
these gospel narratives are altogether silent regarding him.
Now the question naturally arises, What could Jesus
have been doing all this time 2 That he was not occupied
“about his Father's business” is clear, otherwise we should
have had some account of it.
But here the apocryphal gospels, which have been hand-
ed down to us, come to our aid, and throw some light on
this obscure subject. We are told that Jesus followed the
same occupation as his father Joseph; and that he was en-
abled, by his miraculous powers, greatly to advance his
father's reputation as a carpenter! This is farther confirmed
by the question in Mark vi. 3,-4 Is not this the carpenter,
the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of
Juda, and Simon?”
Here the question naturally suggests itself—if the re-
puted Son of God and promised Messiah, at his twelfth
• year exhibited such precocity of wisdom and ardour of
spirit, and boasted of the necessity of “being about his
Father's business,” and actually eloped from his parents in
his eagerness to begin the great work of redemption, is
there not here an evident contradiction, that his followers
are unable to show a single act that he performed for the
next eighteen years of his life, in furtherance of this great
26 JESUS’ INTERREGNUM.
object? Surely he might have been more profitably occupied,
up to his thirtieth year, had he really been the Messiah,
than in assisting his father Joseph in the daily employment
of a mechanical occupation.
If he really came on earth to work out the salvation of
mankind, why were so many years of valuable time suffered
to elapse, without any attempt to carry out the great object
of his mission, “to which end (as he himself is made to de-
clare) he was born, and for which cause he came into the
world?” (John xviii. 37.) Was this following out assidu-
ously his Father's business, in thus spending eighteen years
of his life in so unprofitable a manner, allowing the chosen
people of God to continue so much longer in a state of re-
probation without applying the remedy ?—If he were the
Son of God or the promised Messiah, these are mysteries
beyond our humble comprehension
BAPTISMI OF JESUS. 27
CHAPTER VIII.
IBAPTISMI OF JESUS.
AFTER this long silent interval of eighteen years, Jesus
at length, in his thirtieth year, again makes his appearance
at the waters of Jordan, to receive baptism of John.
So utterly unknown was Jesus hitherto, and so ignor-
ant were the Jewish people, that they had possessed
jor thirty years, within themselves, in a poor carpenter's
son, the promised Messiah, although expecting and anxiously
looking out for his coming, that many of Jesus’ followers,
unable to get over this difficulty, would not allow that,
before this time, he had any existence on earth. And
this may account for the discrepancy in Mark and John's
Gospels beginning the narrative of his life from this time,
his thirtieth year. “And it was publicly taught (says the
Rev. Mr. Taylor) that Jesus, instead of having passed through
the impatience of infancy, boyhood, and adolescence, had
descended on the banks of the Jordan, in the form of perfect
manhood.” (Taylor's Syntagma.)
Baptism for the first time is here introduced, but it was
• long known among the Jews; and the purification by water
is frequently spoken of by their prophets, as the means
which Jehovah would employ to cleanse the people from
their sins. Even at the present day, ablution in the sacred
water of the Ganges is believed by the Hindoos to possess
spiritual efficacy in purifying the soul; and to die on the
banks of the Ganges is supposed to give the sufferer a legi-
28 IRAPTISM OF JESUS.
timate passport to the other world, as baptism is with Chris-
tians.” º
It appears that John, in imitation of Elijah, had been
going about, dressed in clothes of camel's hair, &c., and ex-
horting the people to “repent, for the kingdom of heaven
was at hand.” He confessed them, and administered the
baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.f Jesus,
attracted by John's celebrity, also became a candidate for
his baptism, and by his submission to it, virtually declared
himself one of his disciples; and thereby tacitly acknow-
ledged his own sinful nature. “Thus it becometh us (he
said) to fulfil all righteousness.” (Matt. iii. 15.)
Now with what propriety could Jesus, “who knew no
sin,” receive baptism of John for the remission of his sins,
or the destined Messiah attend to the preaching of his own
precursor, to be prepared by him for the coming of himself?
And again, if the remission of sins was granted on con-
dition of repentance and confession of their sins, what be-
comes of the doctrine of the atonement; or that the sup-
posed sacrifice of Jesus' death could be required by the
Deity to the pardoning the sins of mankind?
* Hurdwar is a place of prodigious resort once a year for the Brah-
mins, who sell the blessings of superstition to the myriads of Hindoo
sinners, who collect on the banks of the Ganges for purification, and
to be absolved, by abſution, from their sins. To see the crowds of
people of all ranks there assembled, recalls forcibly to the mind the
Scripture account of John on the banks of the Jordan; met for the O
self-same purpose, namely, the purification by water for the remission
of sins.—The Indian rite, however, according to history, is the more
ancient of the two.
f Here John establishes that monstrous doctrine of “confession for
the remission of sins,” of which the Roman Catholics have made so
profitable a use. -
EAPTISMI OF JESUS. 29
“Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the
water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the
Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him.” (Matt.
iii. 16.)
Matthew and Mark relate that the Spirit was like a
dove; Luke says that it descended, in a bodily shape, like a
dove, and John adds, that this descent of the dove was fore-
told by John the Baptist; and by the time of Justin Martyr
there was the addition of a fire kindled in the river, to glo-
rify the scene !—In this way, a simple tale acquires additions,
and is at length magnified into the marvellous.
John hearing afterwards, when in prison, of the acts of
Jesus, is reported (Matt. xi. 3) to have sent to him to in-
quire, “Art thou he that should come, or do we look for an-
other ?” Now after the above wonderful miracle manifested
at Jesus’ baptism, and God's open declaration before John,
for the Baptist to send such a message to Jesus, throws a
grave suspicion and doubt on the truthfulness of this legend-
ary tale. -
But what are we to say of John's own declaration, in the
4th Gospel, regarding Jesus:—
“The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold
the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sins of the world. This is he
of whom I said, After me cometh a man which is preferred before me:
for he was before me. And I knew him not : but that he should be
made manifest to Israel, therefore am I come baptizing with water.
And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven
like a dove, and it abode upon him. And I knew him not: but he that
sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom
thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same
is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost. And I saw, and bare re-
cord that this is the Son of God.” (John i. 29–34.)
30 BAPTISM OF JESUS.
Now after this open and public testimony of John at the
baptism of Jesus, that he was the Messiah and Son of God,
to exhibit such gross ignorance, by sending to inquire
if he were the Messiah, or if they were to look for another,
clearly exposes the fictitious character of this tale; and
leads us to suppose that these Gospels were made up of tra-
ditionary fragments and stories, so carelessly put together
as to exhibit in every page the most awkward contradic-
tions. -
It is such rude and careless manufacture as this, meeting
us at every step, that shakes our belief in the truthfulness
of this narrative, and induces us to agree with the author of
Theology Displayed, “that, in the whole life of Jesus, there
is but a thread of truth in a web of fiction.”—This thread
of truth we shall presently unravel, we hope, to our readers'
satisfaction.
“At that time Herod the tetrarch heard of the fame of Jesus, and said
unto his servants, This is John the Baptist; he is risen from the dead;
and therefore mighty works do show forth themselves in him.” (Matt.
xiv. 1, 2.)
It appears from history, that Herod the tetrarch, fearful
of some commotion from the crowds which John had collect-
ed together, had him seized and put into prison, and ulti-
mately to death. Here Matthew puts into Herod’s mouth a
speech very consistent with the ideas of a Christian, but en-
tirely out of character as regards a heathen. It is evidently
inserted here for the glorification of Jesus at the expense of
truth.
Moreover the account of John's death and its cause, as
related in the succeeding verses (Matt. xiv), is not con-
firmed by history. Josephus the historian, who, from his
IBA:PTISMI OF JESTJS. 31
rank and intimate acquaintance with the politics and leading
men of Judaea at that time, must have had better means of
knowing the truth, and is assuredly more worthy of credit
than the anonymous writer of the first Gospel, distinctly
states “that Herod Antipas put John to death deliberately
for political motives.” (Jos. Jewish War.)
32 THE TEMPTATION SCENE.
CHAPTER IX.
THE TEMPTATION SCENE.
“Then was Jesus led up of the spirit into the wilderness to be
tempted of the devil. And when he had fasted forty days and forty
nights, he was afterward an hungred. And when the tempter came to
him, he said, If thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be
made bread. Then the devil taketh him up into the holy city, and
setteth him on a pinnacle of the temple. And saith unto him, If thou
be the Son of God, cast thyself down: for it is written, He shall give his
angels charge concerning thee: and in their hands they shall bear thee
up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone. Again, the
devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and showeth him
all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them; and saith unto
him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship
me.” (Matt. iv. 1–3, 5, 6, 8, 9.)
THE Gospel writers state, that after Jesus' baptism he
was taken up into the wilderness, where after fasting forty
days, till he was an hungered God submitted him to the
ordeal of temptation.
Now if Jesus was of divine origin, and possessed of “a
sinless nature,” what possible use or object could there be
in submitting him to this test ? The simple fact of its be-
ing applied to him, only shows the opinion the Deity had of
him, namely, that he was as liable to err as any of those to
whom it is said he had previously applied this test. But his
great prototypes, Adam and Abraham, were submitted to this
ordeal,—why then should not Jesus also pass through it?
This would have been a vain and foolish exhibition of the
THE TEMPTATION SCIENIE. * 33
Deity's power, had he believed Jesus to be pure and sinless,
and who could not err; and equally so, if he had made this
trial for the vain-glorious purpose “ of manifesting his glory,”
—as there was no one present to witness or record it.
The devil is here represented as performing the most
wonderful miracles: He transports Jesus into the city of
Jerusalem, and places him on a pinnacle of the temple;
he carries him to the top of “an exceeding high moun-
tain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world,
and the glory of them,” and offers them all, if he will fall
down and worship him.
That which is the veritable stumbling-block in the life of
Jesus (says Strauss) is the personal appearance of the devil,
with his temptations. The three temptations are operated
on in three different places and far apart. It is asked how
Jesus passed from one place to another in such company ?
Luke tells us that the devil shewed Jesus “all the kingdoms
of the world in a moment,” and carried him to the pinnacle of
the temple. This trait indicates something magical. Where
is the mountain from which one may view all the kingdoms
of the earth P. It places both Jesus and the devil in rather an
unpleasant category, that they were so ignorant of the geo-
graphy of the earth, as to suppose that the world could be
viewed from the top of a high mountain
Now we would ask, Who is this being called “the devil,”
whence did he derive all this power of working miracles, and
"why was he permitted to thwart the Almighty and molest
mankind? We ask these questions in sober seriousness, to
point out to our readers the utter impossibility of any such
creation, if the Deity is, in reality, omnipotent or all-power-
ful.
The truth is, that the Jews knew nothing of such a crea-
tion as the devil till their captivity, when this personage was
3
34 * TELE TEMPTATION SCIENE.,
first introduced by the Persians to their notice, “as the god
who presided over the evil actions of man.” The Jews had
previously believed their God Jehovah to possess the two
principles of good and evil within himself, but they readily
adopted these higher views of the godhead.
The Christian priests have, unfortunately for mankind,
adhered to this absurd idea; and even in this enlightened age
continue to teach the anomaly,–that the Almighty created a
spiritual and angelic being, whom he endowed with power
sufficient to thwart him in his benevolent intentions to-
wards man.
“The story of Christ's temptation (says Burder) is one
of the most anomalous in the New Testament. For it speaks
of a personage, equal in power to God, whom it represents
under the name of the devil. People cannot but abhor an
hypothesis, which admits of an eternal uncreated being, dis-
tinct from God, an enemy to God, and essentially wicked.
The devil is believed to be a man, with the legs and horns of
a beast; but men of sense and reflection consider this being
as nothing more than the evil dispositions of human nature
personified.”
JESUS THE MESSIAH., 35
CELAPTER X.
JESUS THE MESSIAH.
THE idea of a Messiah grew up and was nourished
among the Jews in a soil half religious and half political.
It was nurtured by national adversity; and in the time of
Jesus was embodied in the expectation, derived from their
prophets, that the Messiah would ascend the throne of Da-
vid, free the people from a foreign yoke, and found a king-
dom that would last for ever. But, that he was to be the
Saviour of his people in any other sense than from the Roman
yoke, is directly contradicted by the Prophet Isaiah, who
expressly declares, that BESIDE THE LORD THY GOD THERE
Is No SAVIOUR. (See Isaiah xliii. 3, 10, 11, also the Intro-
duction to this work.)
It was only in the latter part of his career that Jesus
was led away by these ambitious views, and believed himself
to be the promised Messiah. We find the watchword on his
first appearance and his instructions to the disciples differed
not from those of John, who professed himself only as the
forerunner of the Messiah, namely, “Repent, for the king-
dom of heaven is at hand.” It indicates in neither an as-
sumption of the character of the Messiah, but merely that
of a teacher who points out the way.
Jesus, no doubt, at the more advanced period of his ca-
reer, did indulge in these delusive hopes; and his followers
entertained but one idea—the immediate restoration of the
kingdom to Israel. They even disputed among themselves
3 *
36 JESUS THE MESSIAH.
which would be greatest in the kingdom of their master,
and petitioned for seats on his right hand and on his left;
and in reply to Peter, “We have left all and followed thee,
what shall we have therefore ?” Jesus tells them, “When
the Son of Man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also
shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes
of Israel.” (Matt. xix. 28.) - w
There is no doubt then, that Jesus and his followers lat-
terly believed in the literal import of his promise; and the
disciples must have understood it literally, when, even after
his crucifixion, they still harboured anticipations of worldly
greatness.
Among the reputed actions of Jesus, his last entry into Je-
rusalem (Matt. xxi.) is given as a proof of his temporal views
of sitting on the throne of David. They appear in the time
which he chose, the Passover ; the animal on which he rode,
by which he fulfilled the prophecy of Zacharias; the violent
procedure he is stated to have hazarded in the Temple; his
severe philippic denounced on the higher classes, and part-
ing threat, that they should not see him again, except as the
Messiah (Matt. xxiii.); and the application to himself of the
terms “Son of Man,” &c., which were specially referable, by
the Jews, to the promised Messiah.
The terms—“Son of Man,” “Son of God,” “the Lord,”
“the Christ or anointed,” employed in the Gospels, are all
convertible terms, and were applied to Jesus in reference to
his supposed Messiahship; but had no reference to his reputed
divine origin; and what was originally employed in a figura-
tive sense afterwards came to be interpreted in the literal
signification. For it was of daily occurrence among the
early Christians to attach a literal signification to that which
originally bore a figurative meaning.
The Gospels tell us, that during his life, Jesus adhered -
JESUS THE MESSIAH. * 37
most strictly to the Jewish Laws. He attended the syna-
gogue on the sabbath, journeyed to Jerusalem at the time of
the Feasts, and eat of the Paschallamb with his disciples. He
even threatened with the lowest rank in the kingdom of
heaven those who infringed on the Laws of Moses in the
smallest degree; and in accordance with this command, the
apostles adhered to the Mosaic law strictly, long after his
crucifixion. It is even related that the first fifteen bishops
of Jerusalem adhered so closely to the Mosaic law, as to
undergo the rite of circumcision.
There is little doubt, that Jesus never contemplated ex-
tending his mission beyond the children of Israel; the
chosen people of God, “the Elect,” as he termed them; and
firmly believed that its object was limited exclusively to
them. The prophecies naturally led him to this belief, and
that the sole object of a Messiah was the restoration of
the kingdom to Israel. He therefore laid down to his dis-
ciples a rule of national exclusiveness; and when he sent
there out on their mission, he commanded them, “Go not
into the way of the Gentiles, ... go rather to the lost sheep of
the house of Israel.” (Matt. x. 5, 6.)
That these were the views of Jesus may be seen from
the many deliberations and contentions among the apostles,
after his death, as to the propriety of admitting the Gentiles
to a participation in the kingdom of Jesus.
Although Jesus firmly expected latterly to restore the
throne of David, yet he rested his hopes less on human as-
sistance than on the legion of Angels, which he believed his
heavenly Father would send him. (Matt. xxvi.) He is repre-
sented as a peaceable, quiet, timid man, averse to acts
of violence, but zealous for the success of his mission.
When he found he could not realize his object by his own
will, he patiently waited for the expected signal from his
38 * JESUS THE MESSIAH.
heavenly Father, who, he felt sure, would, at the appointed
time, come forward to his assistance.
This faith and assurance of ultimate aid did not desert
him till the last moment, when he was nailed to the cross,
and became weak and faint and exhausted; when he made
that memorable renunciation of his claim, reproaching God
for so cruelly deserting him in the memorable words: “My
God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?”—thus virtually
renouncing his claims to the Messiahship.
RETROSPECT. 39
CHAPTER XI.
RETROSPECT.
WE have now shewn that, even allowing the Jews the
full benefit of a knowledge of the true God (which we
believe they never possessed), yet that the Messiah had
not been perfected in the person of Jesus, nor were the pro-
phecies fulfilled in any one essential in him;-He was not
of the house of David; he did not restore the kingdom to
Israel; nor did he ever sit on the throne of Tavid.
We shall however now enter on an analysis of the reli-
gious views attributed to him, irrespective of his claims as
the Messiah. These are comprised in the exhortations and
sayings, discourses and parables, which it is stated, in the
Gospel narratives, that he delivered at sundry times and
places to his followers. **
Before however we enter on this examination, we wish
briefly to draw the attention of the reader to the state of the
Jewish nation at this period, to enable him clearly to com-
prehend the meaning of many of the sayings attributed to Je-
sus, and the source whence they were evidently derived.
The Jews were at this time (2000 years ago) in a state
of national servitude, and their country was in the hands of
the Romans. Their God, Jehovah, after all his promises,
and the “perpetual covenant” he had sworn in their favour,
seemed to have quite deserted them, and they were in de-
spair. Their spirit was only upheld by the repeated promises
of their prophets, that as soon as they had repented, Jehovah
40 BETROSPECT.
would send them an anointed prince, who would relieve
them from the Roman yoke, and restore the kingdom to
Israel. This state of things was called the Kingdom of
THeaven, and the anointed prince the Messiah.
This seems to have become an absorbing topic among the
people, and the prophecy of the 70 weeks of Daniel (ix. 24)
led the Jews to look out most earnestly for the advent of the
Messiah, and during the Roman encroachments it revived in
full force. Josephus states (Wars vi. 6): “What did most
to elevate their minds, was an ambiguous oracle, found in
their sacred writings, how that, about this time, one of their
country should become governor of the habitable world.”
Fanatics were daily running about the streets of Jeru-
salem, calling on the people to lose no time in preparing
for this crisis, and urging them to “repent, for the kingdom
of heaven was at hand.” Worldly goods and worldly vanities
were declared to be of no value in comparison of this New
Jerusalem, where Jehovah, in the person of his Messiah,
would come to reign over them. Among others appeared
John, and a Galilean named Jesus; and it required all the
activity of the government to keep the people quiet, and
prevent them running after the various fanatics and pretend-
ers to the Messiahship.
The Jews were, at this time, divided into three great
sects, the Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenians; which
last sect had specially distinguished themselves by their au-
sterity, moral purity, and primitive sanctity of manners; all
their lives being occupied in prayer and reading the Scrip-
tures, and in educating and instructing the people,_*They
rejected pleasure as evil, and looked on temperance and a
conquest over their passions as the greatest of virtues.”
(Joseph. Wars.)
DOCTRINES OF THE ESSENIANS, 41
CHAPTER, XII.
DOCTRINES OF THE ESSENIANS:
To this sect we wish specially to draw the attention of
the reader, from the extraordinary similarity of its doctrines
to those said to have been delivered by Jesus; and evidently
directing us to the source whence these Gospel narratives
sprung. Josephus and Philo, contemporaneous Jewish his-
torians, thus describe them :-
“The third sect of Jews is the Essenes, or Essenians;
they cherish mutual love beyond other men; they reject all
pleasures as sinful, and look on temperance, and a conquest
over their passions, as the greatest virtue. There prevails
among them a contempt of matrimony, but they receive the
children of others, and educate them as their own, while yet
tender and susceptible of instruction.
“They despise riches, and are so liberal as to excite our
admiration. Nor can any be found among" them who is
more wealthy than the rest. Every one gives what he hath
to him that wanteth.
“As for their piety towards God, it is very extraordi-
•nary. Before sunrise they speak not a word till they have
offered up their prayers, and purified themselves with water.
“Their food is of the plainest kind; and both before
and after meals they return thanks to God, as the bestower
of all good; the cause of which is that perpetual sobriety
they exercise, and the same settled measure of meat and
drink that is allotted to them, and sufficient for them.
42 I}OCTRINES OF THE ESSENIANS.
“Two rules they observe, to assist those who want it,
and to shew mercy. They carefully curb their anger and
restrain their passions. They are eminent for fidelity, and
are the ministers of peace. They avoid all swearing, which
they look on as worse than perjury, and consider their word
the same as an oath. They study what is good for body
and soul, and those herbs that may cure distempers.
“If any one wishes to join their sect, he must undergo
a year's probation, and when he has proved himself, is made
a partaker of the waters of purification (baptism). He is
required to take a solemn pledge to exercise piety towards
God, justice towards man, harm no one, avoid the wicked,
assist the righteous, and be faithful to all men; be a lover
of truth, and a hater of lies, keep his hands clear of theft,
and his soul of unlawful gains, and ascribe all things to
God.
“They are long-lived, from the simplicity of their diet,
and by means of the regular course of life they observe.
They contemn the miseries of life, and despise all pain and
suffering; and as for death, if for the glory of God, they
prefer it to living. They smile at pain, and laugh to scorn
the infliction of torment on them. -
“They believe that their bodies are corruptible, but
‘their souls immoral, and that the good are rewarded and
the wicked punished after death. These are the divine doc-
trines of the Essenians about the soul.
“There are also those among them who foretell things.
to come; and it is but seldom they fail ºn their predic-
tions. It also deserves our admiration, how much they
excel all other men in virtue and righteousness, to such a
degree as hath never appeared among other men, but hath
endured a long while among them.
“There are about four thousand men who live in this
DOCTRINES OF THE ESSENIANS. 43
way, and neither marry nor keep servants, thinking the
latter tempts men to be unjust, and the former gives a
handle to domestic quarrels.” (Antiq. xviii. c. 1.)
Philo, in his work on Contemplative Life, thus speaks of
the Essenians as an old-established sect :—
“Palestine and Syria are not unproductive of good and
honourable men. There are above 4000 people called Es-
senians, which means holy, who have attained the highest
holiness in the worship of God, and that not by sacrificing
animals, but by purity of heart.
“As to learning, they leave logic to fierce disputants
about words, contenting themselves with the acquisition of
virtue and the knowledge of God and the creation. Other
parts of knowledge they leave to vain and subtle meta-
physicians; but moral philosophy they eagerly cultivate.
“The laws they study at all times, especially on the
Sabbath; and, regarding it as holy, they abstain from all
work, and, assembling in the synagogues, read and expound
the Scriptures. Their subjects of instruction are piety,
holiness, and righteousness; and the knowledge of good
and evil. •
“The rules which guide them, are the love of God, the
love of virtue, and the love of man. Of their love to God,
they prove by leading a life of continual purity, regarding
Him as the author of all good, and cause of no evil. This
they evince by their freedom from avarice, ambition, and
"sensual pleasures; by their temperance, patience, frugality,
humility, and contentment, and exercise of every virtue.
“They all live in common, and their doors are never
shut to the stranger or the afflicted. The sick are care-
fully attended, and the aged are loved and revered. Such
are these champions of Virtue.” *
Philo thus describes the Essenians who embraced the
44 IDOCTRINES OF THE ESSENIANS.
contemplative life, called Therapeutae, or healers, as they
professed to cure men's minds of vices, and bodies of dis-
orders:—
“They are seized with an enthusiastic love of heaven;
consider themselves dead to the world, and only desire a
blessed immortality. They separate themselves from society
to avoid the evil intercourse of the world.
“In each house is a sanctuary or monastery, where they
bring the laws, and prophets, and psalms to perfect their
piety. The idea of God and the beauty of his attributes
are ever present to their minds; and many deliver mag-
nificent visions suggested by their sacred philosophy.
“They spend the whole interval from morning till even-
ing in religious exercises, reading the holy scriptures, and
unfolding their meaning. Their food is coarse bread seasoned
with salt, and their drink water. Their chief object is the
practice of humility; being convinced that as falsehood is
the root of pride, so freedom from pride is the offspring of
truth.
“From their peculiar principles and sentiments, they
have many persecutors, yet have they never been able to
substantiate any accusation against this band of holy men.
On the other hand, men, captivated by their integrity
and honour, unite with them in admiring their communion
and liberality as the earnest pledge of a perfect and happy
life.” (Jos. Wars.)
Philo was an elderly man, and of established reputation"
for learning, at the time when he was sent at the head of
the embassy from the Alexandrian Jews to Caligula (A. D.
39), and his book was most likely written before that time.
It is therefore not impossible that he was describing the
followers of Jesus, under the title of Essenians. His de-
scription certainly cannot be limited to them, for he speaks
DOCTRINES OF THE ESSENIANS. 45
of the Essenians as an old-established sect. Josephus says
distinctly, that the sect existed above two centuries before
Christ. Pliny speaks of the Essenians as of a sect which
renewed its numbers without marriage, by the reception of
converts; “and thus for several thousand years this people
is perpetually propagated, without any being born among
them.” (Lib. 5. c. 17.)
Now it appears that this extraordinary sect of the Jews
was in existence, residing in Judaea, long before the time of
Jesus, and its members had spread themselves and their doc-
trines over Palestine, Syria, and Egypt, and exercised all
these, as Josephus calls them, “divine doctrines.” The reader
cannot but observe the striking similarity between them and
the precepts, sayings, and doings, attributed to Jesus, and
handed down to us by the Gospel writers. They had set the
example of societies living in voluntary union, having all their
property in common, and acting, in a remarkable degree, on
the principles of universal benevolence and moral purity.
Josephus not only mentions the superior skill of this sect
in the interpretation of the prophets, but allows them pre-
eminence in the gift of prophecy inself, and adds, “We have
thought proper to relate these facts, how strange soever they
be, because many of these Essenians have, by their excellent
virtues, been thought worthy of this knowledge of Divine
revelations.” (Wars, i. 3, 5.) This quite agrees with the
stress laid upon the fulfilment of prophecy and pretensions
...to prophecy in the New Testament. And yet, strange to
say, this sect is not once mentioned in the Gospels, nor is
their name once introduced in the New Testament.
Eusebius, Bishop of Caesarea, in his Ecclesiastical His-
tory, written in the third century, thus speaks of the Esse-
nians; “These things are reported by a man (Philo) who
listened to the holy Scriptures, as they (Essenians) ex-
46 DocTRINES OF THE ESSENIANs.
pounded them; and in short, it is very likely, that those
Scriptures of the ancients, of which he speaks, were the
Gospels and writings of the apostles; and that certain digests
of the ancient prophets interpreted,—such as is contained in
the Epistles to the Hebrews and many others, these were the
Fpistles. But that Philo (in speaking of the Essenians)
wrote these things with reference to those who were the
first preachers of the discipline, which is according to the
Gospels, and to the manners first handed down from the
apostles, must be manifest to every man.”
It is impossible to read the account of these people,
coupled with the above facts, without being impresssd with
the conviction that their acts and doctrines are the veri-
table acts and doctrines described in the Gospels, and attri-
buted to this person Jesus; and that the Gospels must have
emanated from this sect, giving a detailed account of their
proceedings, and wanderings, and efforts to propagate their
doctrines. -
The disciples mentioned in the Gospels, there is good
ground to believe, were of this sect of Essenians, for the fol-
lowing reasons:– first, they were neither Pharisees nor
Sadducees, secondly, they were chiefly of the lower orders,
ihirdly, the society formed by them, as described in the Acts,
resembles closely the societies of the Essenians, as described
by Josephus, and lastly, the name of Essenians never occurs
once in the New Testament, whilst the Sadducees and Pha-
risees are frequently alluded to, and as frequently abused.
This is singular, except on the supposition that the disciples
were Essenians themselves; and tends to the belief that
they were the originators and propagators of the new reli-
gion, under the name of Ebionites and Nazarenes, and the
writers of the Gospels, in which they had introduced all their
own religious views, and teachings, and movements, and acts.
I)OCTRINES OF THE ESSENIANS. 47
Now to carry out the idea of a Messiah, which was so
essential to their success in the propagation of their doc-
trines among the people, who were at that time in daily ex-
pectation of his coming, and anxiously looking out for him,
they chose, from among the numerous aspirants to the office,
one Jesus, most likely of their own sect, who (as related by
Josephus) went about Jerusalem “endued with a divine
furor,” denouncing the state of the people, and calling on
them to repent, with the constant cry of “Woe, woe to
Jerusalem.” (Jos. 6. v. 3. vi.)
Christianity is therefore only another name for Judaism,
,with the addition of the above distinguishing doctrines of
“ these good and holy men,” the Essenian Jews, whom Philo
has held up “as exceeding all others in virtue, wisdom, and
piety, and to be revered and imitated on that account.”
It is impossible not to be surprised and delighted with
the character of the people here delineated; nor ean any un-
prejudiced reader, who reflects that they flourished in Judaea
many years before the invroduction of Christianity, help
considering them as the originators and promulgators of
these new doctrines, under the name of Nazarenes or Ebion-
ites, which name was given them as a term of reproach for
their poverty. For that the Essenians were the same, under
a different name, with Ebionites or Nazarenes, Eusebius has
not only asserted as a fact, but has taken some pains to
prove; and his opinion has been confirmed by the united
testimony of St Jerome and Epiphanius, who lived in the
third century. (See Jones' Ecclesiastical Researches.)
The virtues which the Essenians practised and taught are
the great and practical virtues of the Gospels; and the reader
will observe, that the object of their lives was to enforce
and illustrate them by precept and example. “The Esse-
nians (says Josephus) suffered much furious persecution in
48 DOCTRINES OF THE ESSENIANS,
propagating their religious views, many powerful men rising
up against them, in consequence of differing from them.”
The same is stated in Acts, of the early Christians.
Josephus and Philo both state that the Essenians wor-
shipped God with peculiar holiness, and that, not by sacri-
ficing animals, but by cultivating purity of heart:—the very
features which distinguish the Gospel from Judaism.
The following is another characteristic of the Essenians
and first believers :— -
“And all that believed were together, and had all things com-
mon; and sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all
men, as every man had need. And they, continuing daily with one
accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat
their meat with gladness and singleness of heart.” (Acts ii. 44–46.)
We have authentic evidence that the first Christians in
Palestine maintained a community of goods and had all things
in common; the same is here stated of the Essenians, “that
in opposition to every selfish consideration, they make their
goods common property, whence the rich have not greater
command than the poqr,” and “thinking themselves dead to
the world, they desired only a blessed immortal existence.”
Now no other description of people at that time shewed
similar communion and holiness; for this practice had not
obtained among the Greeks or barbarians, though it had been
long established among the Essenians. (Jos. lib. i. 5)
Josephus and Philo both state, that they separated them-
selves from the world and lived in Mona: or Monasteries,
and John (xiv. 2) eauses Jesus to say, “In my Father's
house are many mansions" (Monai), which word should be
rendered “monasteries” or solitary abodes, that were in use
annong the Essenians long before the Christian era, and
shows again the identity of this sect with the Scriptures.
Here let us remark, that the sect of Essenians is no-
DocTRINEs of THE ESSENIANs. 49
where mentioned in the New Testament; for the obvious
reason, that the writers of the Scriptures were themselves
of that sect, and could not therefore speak of themselves in
a work written by themselves.
The term Christian was first used by the enemies of
Christianity at Antioch by way of reproach; and it was
only after a time that the converts assumed this name hated
and derided by Jews and Gentiles.
But we refer the reader to the Chapter “Origin of
Christianity,” at the latter end of the work, for the further
examination of this subject; and we now proceed to examine
the Sermon on the Mount, and the doctrines promulgated
in the Gospels, as put into the mouth of Jesus, and the
reader will at once perceive the extraordinary similarity, nay
even identity, between them and the doctrines of the Es-
senians, as above quoted.
50 SERMON ON THE MOUNT.
CHAPTER XIII.
SERMON ON THE MOUNT.
THIS discourse is supposed to comprise the essence of the
religion of Jesus, as it was also that of the Essenians just
described; and, with his other exhortations and sayings, to
include all that was supposed essential in genuine Chris-
tianity. We should therefore expect to find here a clear
exposition of all those doctrines and duties that are stated
to be really necessary for man's salvation.
This discourse consists of a series of exhortations, max-
ims, and commands, of which some are excellent and useful,
but the greater number extravagant and impracticable.
They might suit a people like the Essenians, who had given
all their goods to feed the poor, took no thought of the mor-
row, and were in hourly expectation of the end of the
world and the advent of the Messiah; but they are totally
unfit for men busily engaged in carrying on the daily concerns
and active pursuits of life.
Matthew and Luke's Gospels are the only two which give
this discourse; in the one, it is made to occupy above 100-
verses, in the other but 30: while Matthew represents
Jesus as ascending a mountain, and seated thereon during
the discourse; Luke in contradiction to this says, that Jesus
came down and stood on the plain
It is quite impossible to reconcile the instructions con-
tained in this sermon (as it is called) with the circumstances
©
SERMON ON THE MOUNT. 51
and duties of real life; for the virtues by which heaven is to
be gained, according to Jesus and the Essenians, are not at all
calculated for the sphere of this world. It will be seen
that, of the many precepts inculcated, there are few of any
practical utility to man. Mortification, poverty of spirit,
mourning, meekness, grief, Sorrow, poverty, hunger, and the
love of persecution, are by no means adapted to the common
intercourse of life, or fitted to promote the general happiness
of mankind. They might suit the austere Essenians, and
monks and friars, who resolve to separate themselves from
the world; but they are not at all calculated for men
who wish to enjoy life with even moderation and temper-
ance. And yet we are told that to those who suffer these
things, great will be their reward in heaven.
The love of mortification, of suffering, and of mourning,
is by no means a temper of mind likely to foster
rational happiness. Suffering, in many instances, may be
the lot of man, and when it comes upon us we should bear
it like men; but any system of religion or morality which
teaches us to consider it a mark of divine favour, or as the
sum of earthly happiness, must first require the subjection
of those rational faculties by which, in all other cases, we
are enabled to judge of good and evil, of pleasure and pain,
of happiness and misery.
The same may be said of that passive submission to ill-
treatment which is here recommended. It is not calculated
..for any state of society in which reasonable men would wish
to live, for it tends to destroy the best part of our nature,
namely, the spirit of resistance to tyranny and oppression.
The forgiveness of injuries is a refined virtue, but submis-
sion to them is weakness and folly; the one calculated to
promote the peace of the world, the other to provoke injury
and insult.
4 #
52 SERMON on THE MOUNT.
“Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a
tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil : but
whosoever shall Smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other
also. And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy
coat, let him have thy cloke also. And whosoever shall compel thee
to go a mile, go with him twain.” (Matt. v. 38–41.)
This passive and unresisting obedience, which bows down
under the yoke of authority and oppression, this duty of
unconditional submission, would altogether destroy the
best qualities of man, and abolish the inalienable rights
of human nature. It is impossible to be carried out, and
impracticable to any man in his sober senses.
“And he lifted up his eyes on his disciples, and said, Blessed be
!ſe poor: for yours is the kingdom of God. Blessed are ye that hunger
now: for ye shall be filled. Blessed are ye that weep now : for ye
shall laugh, Blessed are ye, when men shall hate you, and when they
shall separate you from their company, and shall reproach you, and
cast out your name as evil, for the Son of man's sake. Rejoice ye in
that day, and leap for joy: for, behold, your reward is great in heaven.
But woe unto you that are rich l for ye have received your consolation.
Woe unto you that are full! for ye shall hunger. Woe unto you that
laugh now ! for ye shall mourn and weep. Woe unto you, when all
men shall speak well of you! for so did their fathers to the false
prophets.” (Luke vi. 20–26.)
PIere we have the overstrained devoteeism, the asceticism,
and incipient monachism of the Essenians above described.
Poverty and hunger, weeping and suffering, are represented
as giving a claim to compensation in heaven, and in such
terms, that the merit of voluntary privation, and fasting,
and penance, may naturally be inferred from them as sacred
duties. The religious views of the Essenians generally
tended to this extreme, but here it appears exaggerated to a
form at variance with the ordinary feelings and necessities
of mankind. § --
SERMON ON THE MOUNT. ,53
The religion of Jesus is the religion of the poor, the
afflicted, and the diseased, but, from the denunciations
against the rich, is not calculated for the wealthy, the
prosperous, or the powerful, because it forbids so many of
the enjoyments which nature and art have provided.
Our salvation, according to the Gospels, should occupy
the whole time of our existence; and a regard for it is in-
compatible with the indulgence of any of those pursuits
which attach men to the world. The love of fame, of
wealth, or power, however much directed by reason and
humanity, are forbidden in the Christian code. The elegant
refinements of nature and art, the pleasures of taste, the
beauties of poetry, and the innocent sallies of wit and
humour, are all to be repressed, lest they should withdraw
us from that continual meditation on heavenly subjects
which is required of the candidates for eternal felicity.
Thus “it is (says Burder) that there are so few Chris-
tians among the professors of Christianity; for the direct
tendency of all religion is to make men either hypocrites or
enthusiasts.”
“Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye
shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on. Is not the life
more than meat, and the body than raiment? Behold the fowls of the
air; for they sow not, neither do they reap. And why take ye thought
for raiment? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they toil
not, neither do they spin: wherefore, if God so clothe the grass of the
field, which to-day is, and to-morrow is cast into the oven, shall he not
much more clothe you, O ye of little faith? Take therefore no thought
for the morrow: for the morrow shall take thought for the things of
itself. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof.” (Matt. vi. 25, &c.)
Does not this clearly recommend a trust in God for our
daily bread, independent of our own exertions, and a sub-
missive prostration to the will of Providence? The argument
54 SERMON on THE MOUNT.
from the birds of the air and the flowers of the field puts the
matter beyond all doubt; for “they toil not neither do they
spin; if God so clothe the grass of the field, shall he not
much more clothe you?” The inference here is pointed
and impossible to be misunderstood; but the reasoning may
be questionable, and disappointment would most assuredly
follow the trial! -
“Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and
rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal.”
(Matt. vi. 19.) “It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a
needle, than for arich man to enter into the kingdom of God.” (xix. 24.)
- These are the commands of Jesus regarding worldly
wealth, but who obeys them P They have been set at nought
by all the world; and even his own vicegerents on earth, the
high priests of his Church, are those most assiduous in the
accumulation of wealth. They are the lilies of the valley,
they toil not, neither do they spin'
The above sentiments, attributed to Jesus, are in reality
the sentiments of the poor Essenian Jews, above quoted, who
placed the sum of human virtue in passive meekness and
rigid self-denial, in poverty, bodily and mental suffering, and
a total dereliction of all worldly concerns. The essence of re-
ligion they believed to consist in peace, quietness, and tran-
quillity; and they were so negligent of all earthly affairs,
that if the world had been peopled with Essenians, it would
soon have come to an end.
“But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you,
do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully
use you, and persecute you,” (Matt. v. 44.)
Now this exaggerated sentiment, to love our enemies,
and to do good to them that persecute us and despitefully
use us, were it even practicable, would neither be a duty nor
sERMON on THE MoUNT. 55
a virtue. For those who would despitefully use us must be
evil-disposed and bad-hearted men, who may claim our pity,
but never can command our love or esteem; it requires of
us an impossibility—of virtue, to love vice But the above
is not a sentiment peculiar to the Gospels; for Pythagoras,
long before the Christian era, said, “Let men revenge them-
selves on their enemies only by labouring to convert them
into friends; ” and Socrates taught “that it was not lawful
for a man who had received an injury to revenge it by in-
flicting another injury.” (Socrat. Memorabilia.)
“Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to
you, do ye even so to them: for this is the Law and the Prophets.”
(Matt. vii. 12.)
The reader may remark, that this passage, from its na-
turality and the universality of its application, has been put
into the mouth of Jesus, and declared to be part of the
Jewish Law and Prophets. But it is one of those apothegms
well known all over the East, and which the Jews learned of
the Persians during their captivity. “It may be seen in the
Persian Fables of Bilpay (Bedpáé), and in the poems of Ha-
fiz, written (says Sir W. Jones) at least three centuries be-
fore our era; and known to the Chinese for ages in the
works of their celebrated moralist Confucius.” -
“No man can serve two masters: ye cannot serve God and Mam-
mon.” (Matt. vi. 24.) “And again I say unto you, It is easier for a
camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter
into the kingdom of God. When his disciples heard it, they were ex-
ceedingly amazed, saying, Who then can be saved 7” (xix. 24, 25.)
And truly we can re-echo the question,-since every day
shews this to be totally contrary to experience; for the
world contains men of the greatest wealth, and of the
strictest morality and piety. But Jesus was no political
;
56 SERMON ON THE MOUNT.
economist; and all his views were absorbed in the ideas—
a community of property, and the approach of the end of
the world—which the Essenians so strictly carried out.
“Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your
pearls before swine.” (Matt. vii. 6.)
What is meant by this command P Did not Jesus him-
self go among publicans and sinners? Who then are the dogs
and swine,—the Gentiles P Surely he would not speak thus
abusively of his own countrymen, the Jews, to whom he be-
lieved his mission to be solely directed; nor do we think this
the language by which the Gentiles were to be won.
There is no doubt that Jesus here referred to the
Gentiles; and this view is confirmed in his charge to
the twelve, in commanding them to limit their call to the
house of Israel, and not to go into the way of the Gentiles.
This is strange language for the Saviour of the world; and
is another instance of the narrow and contracted views enter-
tained by him, so entirely at variance with the idea of a di-
wine mission.* - -
Jesus’ words are in direct opposition to the Mosaical Code,
although he is made to say, “I came not to destroy, but to
* Paul however, when he had charge of the Church, took a very dif-
ferent view of this subject, and did not consider the Gentiles as either
“dogs” or “swine.” When he examined into this new religion, he saw
the great mistake that had been made by Jesus in thus limiting sal-
vation to the small section of mankind living in Judaea, and he at once, in
opposition to the command of Jesus and the wishes of the early Chris-
tians, insisted on extending its benefits to the Gentiles also, and success-
fully carried out the measure; although, by doing so, he placed Jesus
the Messiah in an anomalous position, shewing his utter want of fore-
sight or foreknowledge, and how ill-qualified he was for carrying out
a universal religion.
SERMON ON THE MOUNT. 57
fulfil” the law. The Laws of Moses were founded on the
principles of retaliation and self-defence; but Jesus com-
mands that we submit to violence and fraud.
“Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a
tooth for a tooth : but I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but
whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other
also. And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat,
let him have thy cloke also. And whosoever shall compel thee to go a
mile, go with him twain. Give to him that asketh thee, and from him
that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.” (Matt. v. 38–42.)
Now this is plain and intelligible, and requires no inter-
preter; but is it practicable, or consistent with the usages
of the world? or agreeable to common sense P. On the con-
trary, so little is it the design of Jesus to inculcate a disre-
gard of the Law of Moses, that he imposes on his followers
the strictest observance of it, and declares, “Till heaven and
earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in nowise pass from
the law.” Moreover in his observance of the Sabbath,
and in many of his sayings and doings, he displays an utter
disregard of the law.—Such contradictions as these, such
vacillation of mind and change of opinion, veering about
by every wind of doctrine, show anything but an inspired or
well-regulated mind!
Jesus confirms the law, in respect to Fasting, which is
now disregarded by all the innumerable sects into which
Christianity is split, with the exception of the Catholics.
..On this subject he is most particular, and gives special di-
rections to his followers for its due observance. “When
thou fastest, anoint thine head and wash thy face; that thou
appear not unto men to fast, but unto thy Father.” (Matt. vi.
17, 18.)—This confirms the Oriental notion that the Deity
was to be propitiated by mortifying the body, and is carried
out to its utmost limits by the Hindoos all over India.
58 SERMON ON THE MOUNT.
The threat which Jesus pronounces, that “whosoever
shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire,” (Matt. v.
22,) is very unworthy of his other mild precepts, more espe-
cially as he so repeatedly contradicts himself, by using the
self-same and other abusive epithets.
“O fools, and slow of heart to believe.” (Luke xxiv. 25.)
Here Jesus does not hesitate to employ the same ex-
pression, which he so awfully denounces and condemns
in the above passage. He abuses two poor deluded
followers, because they had not been able to trace out, in
their own Jewish records, a spiritual and suffering Messiah,
in direct opposition to the opinions of their prophets and
high priests.—Can we believe that God would make a de-
fective intellect a cause of reproach to any of his creatures!
Of the same character is that barbarous command, “If
thine eye offend thee, pluck it out and cast it from thee,”
and also, “If thy right hand offend thee, cut it off,” which
no one in his senses would think of obeying. ‘For although
it is stated that some fanatics have made themselves eunuchs
for heaven's sake (Matt. xix. 12), a custom not condemned
by Jesus himself, yet we have never heard of any of his dis-
ciples following the example, not even the enthusiastic Paul,
although he complains so grievously of “the thornin the flesh.”
We are told, “Let your light so shine before men, that
they may see your good works;” and yet this is afterwards
contradicted, and we are commanded, “Let not thy left hand
know what thy right hand doeth, that thine alms may be.
in secret: and thy Father which seeth in secret himself
shall reward thee openly.” Which rule are we to follow P
“Thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are ; but thou, when thou
prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door,
pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth
in Secret shall reward thee openly.”
SERMON ON THE MOUNT. 59
IFrom this positive command of Jesus, if any one truly
believe in its divine authority, he ought not to sanction
the meeting in crowds in churches and chapels, like the
Pharisees; but, on the contrary, look on this weekly exhi-
bition of public worship as an act of public hypocrisy, de-
nounced by Jesus himself. “But this (says Rev. R. Taylor)
would spoil religion as a trade altogether; and therefore,
like Christ's professed indifference to the observance of the
Sabbath, and his most solemn forbiddance of oath-taking, it
becomes a dead letter, which every one reads, but no one
respects.”
“And now also the ax is laid unto the root of the trees: therefore
every tree which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast
into the fire.” (Matt. iii. 10; Luke iii. 9.)
This unlucky passage put into the mouths of both John
and Jesus has been,alas,thecause of the slaughter of thousands
of innocent human beings. It was seized on, and given out by
the Inquisition, as the authority for all its diabolical acts;
and applied, as a divine command, to sanction the burning
of unfortunate heretics, or those who ventured in Catholic
countries to exercise the right of private judgment. Jesus
surely could not have been aware, when he indulged in this
loose and mystifying style, of the awful effects that would
in after-ages result from it—This is one among many in-
stances in this book of the want of prescience or foreknow-
ledge in the reputed author of Christianity.
Luke states (vii. 36) that Jesus was invited by a Pha-
risee to dine with him, and whilst he sat at meat, a sinful
woman of the town came in, washed his feet with her tears,
rubbed them with ointment, and wiped them with her hair.
The Pharisee was surprised at the liberty Jesus permitted
this abandoned woman to take. But Jesus, in despite of his
courtesy and hospitality, turned on him, and made this fol-
60 SERMON ON THE MOUNT.
lowing most ungracious comparison between his host and
the woman, saying:—
“I entered into thine house, thou gavest me no water for my feet:
but she hath washed my feet with tears, and wiped them with the hairs
of her head. Thou gavest me no kiss: but this woman since the time
I came in hath not ceased to kiss my feet. My head with oil
thou didst not anoint: but this woman hath anointed my feet with
ointment. Wherefore I say unto thee, Her sins, which are many, are
forgiven; for she loved much: but to whom little is forgiven the same
loveth little.—And he said unto her, Thy sins are forgiven.” (44–48.)
Truly this was strange and most uncourteous language
for Jesus to use after the hospitable reception he obtained
from the Pharisee; and a curious reason for the remission
of this abandoned woman’s sins ! We cannot wonder then
at the contempt which the Pharisees always exhibited towards
Jesus, through his displaying such want of temper as shewn
in this and many other instances regarding them. .
The morality of Jesus is very limited and imperfect, and
by no means remarkable for that comprehensive wisdom
which embraces all the various relations of life, or which is
calculated for the great theatre of the world. The religious
views inculcated are very defective in the active virtues, and
in not leaving room for that degree of exertion, firmness,
and intrepidity, which is daily required for overcoming
strong difficulties. Even if they could be carried out, they
would leave the weak a prey to the strong.
“Christianity (says Burder) contains things that were new-
to the world at the time they were promulgated; but those
which are new are not practicable, and those which are practi-
cable are not new. The general state of the world from the
time of Jesus to the present day, has never in any degree been
conformable to the precepts inculcated, which so far proves
that his religion is impracticable as a general system l’”
JESUS’ DISCOURSES AND SAYINGS. ..f 61:
CHAPTER XIV.
JESUS’ DISCOURSES AND SAYINGs.
MATTHEw relates a second discourse delivered by Jesus
to the twelve; and yet among their number we find Judas
who betrayed, and Peier who forswore his master. It is
strange that he should single them out for the purpose of
diffusing his religion through the world, if he had any fore-
knowledge of their faithlessness, and that they should prove
traitors to his cause. And yet John declares that “Jesus
knew from the beginning who they were that believed not,
and who should betray him.” (John vi. 64.)
“These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go
not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans
enter ye not : but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.”
(Matt. x. 5, 6.)
The command to these twelve “not to go into the way of
the Gentiles, nor to enter into any city of the Samaritans,”
seems a most extraordinary way of declaring his mission to
the world at large, and exposes the narrow views Jesus
entertained in confining salvation to the lost sheep of the
house of Israel. But Jesus was a Jew himself, had been
brought up in all the prejudices of his countrymen, and had
imbibed all their exclusive ideas of God and his providence;
and he firmly believed that the Messiah was promised to
them alone, and to be limited to the “chosen people of
Israel.”
This spirit is again displayed, when the woman of
62 JESUS’ DISCOURSES AND SAYINGS.
Canaan beseeches him to cure her daughter, and he refuses,
saying, “I am not sent, but unto the lost sheep of the house
of Israel. It is not meet to take the children's bread and
to cast it to dogs.” (Matt. xv.) Strange language this in
the mouth of the Saviour, calling every one but the Jews by
the abusive term of dogs and swine, and limiting salvation to
a small section of people living in Judea.
After these positive declarations of Jesus that his saving
grace was to be limited to the house of Israel (a mere frac-
tion of mankind), and which were afterwards confirmed by
the apostles themselves, in their strong opposition to Paul
when he proposed to extend his preaching to the Gentiles;
the early Christians felt themselves in a dilemma, whose
orders to obey—Paul or Jesus. But a less scrupulous
follower soon settled this point, by surreptitiously inserting
a few passages at the end of Mark’s Gospel, whereby Jesus
is made directly to contradict himself, by commanding them,
“Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every
creature!” (Mark xvi. 15.)
This order was never questioned, and the discrepancy
was easily got rid of, by explaining it as “an after-thought
of Jesus!” But the critical acumen and research of the
present age have discovered that this passage is a grave
forgery of the early Christians; for that the twelve last
verses of Mark are wanting altogether in the early Greek
copies, as proved by Jerome and Gregory, Bishop of Nyssa,
A. D. 371. Gregory states that in the most exact copies of.
Mark’s Gospel, it concludes with the words “for they were
afraid,” (In. Chr. Res, or. ii. t. 3); and Jerome says, “that
in all the Greek copies, the last twelve verses of Mark were
wanting.” (Ad Hered. Qu. iii. 4.)
Jesus moreover told his disciples to “preach, saying, The
kingdom of heaven is at hand,” (Matt. x. 7), exactly what
JESUS’ DISCOURSES AND SAYINGS. 63
John the Baptist had announced. And Jesus therefore was
literally following in his steps. Why did henot announce him-
self at once as the Messiah, if he really believed himself to be
so P. The truth is, that he did not at this time indulge in
these lofty views or aspire to the Messiahship. He there-
fore ventured no farther than John, to prepare the way for
the Messiah’s expected coming. This is clearly shewn in
verse 23. “For verily I say unto you, Ye shall not have gone
over the cities of Israel, till the Son of Man be come,”
virtually saying, the Son of Man has not yet come, but
that before they had completed their mission he would
appear.
“And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when
ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet.
Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for the land of So-
dom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city.”
(Matt. x. 14, 15.) *
Jesus, in dismissing the twelve, sends them on their
mission unprovided with any of the necessaries of life,
agreeably to his previous saying, “Take no thought for your
life, what ye shall eat or what ye shall drink,” but at
the same time he denounces terrible vengeance on all those
who refuse to receive or entertain them; in other words,
because they would not receive a number of idle, mendicant
strangers into their houses! This is very contradictory to
his previous assertion, that we should forgive our brother,
even if he offended against us seventy times seven.
“Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to
Send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance
against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the
daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law.” (Matt. X. 34.)
; Was this then the object of Jesus' mission on earth, to
64 JESUS’ DISCOURSES AND SAYINGS.
set mankind at enmity with each other ? If so, then alas,
it has been too truly accomplished; for the Christian religion
has been a bone of contention and strife in the world for
nearly 2000 years. It has, we regret to add, been the cause
of more persecution, cruelty, and bloodshed, than any religion
ever promulgated. Jesus’ words have been indeed truly
verified, “he came not to send peace but a sword.” +
“And whosoever shall give to drink unto one of these little ones a
cup of cold water only in the name of a disciple, verily I say unto you,
He shall in no wise lose his reward.” (42.)
In this meagre charge, as in the Sermon on the Mount, .
all Jesus’ views are limited to the Jewish system of rewards
and punishments, a means of morally improving mankind of
very doubtful acceptation. He urges strongly the necessity
of good works, declaring that “the tree is known by his
fruits,” so directly opposing the mystical doctrines pro-
mulgated by Paul, who discarded good works altogether, de-
claring they were dead, “for by the works of the law shall.
no flesh be justified.” (Gal. ii. 16.)
Jesus, in his exhortations, is ever holding out rewards
for believing one way, and punishment for believing another;
in other words, holding out an inducement to resist the
force of evidence on the one side, and lending a weight,
which does not belong to it, on the other.
* It has been calculated that religious wars among Christians, for
differences of opinion, have cost the lives of above two millions of
people. The wars to establish Christianity, and those waged against
the Turks about the Holy Land, have cost many millions more. The
wars of Charlemagne to Christianize the Saxons, and of the Spaniards to
convert the Moors and Americans, have deluged the earth with inno-
cent blood. And the Inquisition alone, since its foundation in the 14th
century, has burnt above one hundred thousand persons of both sexes,
besides destroying twice that number by torture and the dungeon.
JESUS’ DIscourses AND SAYINGs. 65
“He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved, but he that
believeth not, shall be damned.” (Mark xvi. 16.)
“He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that
believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth
on him.” (John iii. 36.)
What can we think of such withering influence, where
the fear of consequences is a stronger principle than love of
truth; where speculation is paralyzed by the belief that con-
clusions, honestly arrived at, will be punished by a just and
good God, by eternal damnation, or by seeing in every text
of Scripture aforegone conclusion, with which the results of
inquiry must, at any expense of sophistry and self-deception,
be made to squareſ
“I thank thee, O Father (says Jesus), because thou hast hid these
things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes.”
(Matt. xi.)
This exclamation of Jesus was caused by his utter want
of success with the wise and prudent, i. e. the respectable
and educated men of the country, and his success with the
babes or the poor, simple, credulous people who followed
him. Here God is exhibited in the partial and unworthy
point of view, of opening the eyes of some and blinding
those of others; for which Jesus is here represented as re-
turning thanks! In our humble opinion, it would have
shewn a better spirit to have prayed to God to open the
eyes of the wise and prudent also. But the wise and pru-
dent did not find favour in the Christian dispensation; for
reason and philosophy are what seem the least approved in
the economy of the Gospel.
The first thing that Jesus required was faith and sub-
mission; his first precept was, “believe, and thou shalt be
saved;” and this salvation was stated to be obtained, not by
wisdom and prudence—the only sure way in the nineteenth
66 JESUS’ DISCOURSES AND SAYINGs.
century to arrive at true knowledge—but declared to be
imparted by some mystical gift of the Holy Ghost; that is,
provided the aspirant submitted implicitly to the terms,
without inquiry. This gift, it seems, was withheld from
the wise and prudent, but imparted most freely to the simple
and ignorant, the pliancy of whose belief seemed to have
so pleased Jesus, that he is made to utter the above strange
apostrophe
In our finite view of the subject, we should expect Al-
mighty wisdom to have proposed to mankind a faith, free
from all difficulties, and open to all understandings; that
the proofs should be so clear, as to overcome the incre-
dulity and reluctance of all classes, however prejudiced.
This would have been the very perfection of a miracle, this
would have been the real seal of true godliness, requiring
no second miracle to support it.
“Moreover, if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell
him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou
hast gained thy brother. But if he will not hear thee, then take with
thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses
every word may be established. And if he shall neglect to hear them,
tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him
be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.” (Matt. xviii. 15–17.)
This is not the language of Jesus, or he is made to con-
tradict himself in the succeeding verses, where he says we
should forgive our brother, even if he offend against us
seventy times seven. Besides, there were no such things
as churches till many years after l—Again, Jesus is made to
say :
“Werily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be
bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be
loosed in heaven.” (Matt. xvi. 19.)
JESUS’ DISCOURSES AND SAYINGs. 67
The reader will at once perceive that these passages are
gross fabrications of the priesthood in after times, for their
own aggrandizement, and to give divine authority to their
arbitrary acts; many of which certainly required the au-
thority of God himself to palliate.
“Whose sins soever ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and
whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.” (John xx. 23.)
We are taught that God alone can forgive sins, and yet
here this tremendous power of retaining and remitting sins
is given over by Jesus to weak and fallible men; a power
most unfit to be intrusted to human hands, and which has
been so shamefully abused by the priesthood in all ages.
An appeal to the understanding is never made in the
Gospels; belief is insisted on peremptorily. Jesus expressly
assured his followers that he looked on a seeker of evidence
as “antichrist profest; ” and “that he that was not with
him, was against him.” He never proposed his doctrines
for examination; and a ready acquiescence was always held
up for imitation, and as subject of approbation. Conviction
was expected to precede the evidence,—“Believest thou that
I am able to do this f *
“The Pharisees, tempting him, desired a sign,” that is,
very naturally asked for some testimonial of the truth of his
declared mission. And what did this produce P Why, “he
sighed deeply at their perverseness, who were so hard to be
convinced,” and abusively called them for their presumption
“a wicked and adulterous generation.” Now this desire of
a rational evidence for their belief, this seeking after a sign,
so far from being criminal or blameworthy, was, in our
opinion, their indispensable duty.
The priesthood, the successors in the ministry, we find
still continue this same preciº, treading carefully in their
68 JESUS’ DISCOURSES AND SAYINGs.
Master's steps, and insisting on the ready acknowledgment
of the truths of their doctrines, without concession, or time
for doubt or deliberation. Now we can easily conceive the
propriety of desiring men to believe rationally, to have their
reason satisfied, and be able to give an answer of the faith
that is in them; but when threatened imputations of guilt
and infliction of punishment are denounced against the indi-
vidual, if the terms be not accepted, this is such a scheme,
as no pretence of authority, human or divine, can sanction.
This peremptory method had, however, the best effect
on the ignorant and credulous people that followed Jesus.
His disciples were poor fishermen, artless and illiterate, who
knew nothing of reasoning, and were ill qualified to manage
a controversy; they knew how to mend a net, but would
only have entangled themselves in the meshes of a syllogism.
Even Paul, the only one among them possessing the advan-
tages of education, saw the doubtful result of reasoning with
the people; and resolved to lay it aside altogether; and to
make no use of the “wisdom of words, lest the cross of
Christ should be made of none effect.”
Jesus in the three first Gospels never ventures to reason,
but John (iii. 9.), in his anxiety to bring out his ideal cha-
racter, causes Jesus to venture on this doubtful ground
with Nicodemus, and on being questioned “how a man can
be born again,” Jesus reproves Nicodemus' ignorance, asserts
the value of his own testimony, asks how he would believe if
he tells him of heavenly things, says the Son of Man must
be lifted up like the serpent, that believing in the Son
brings eternal life, and finally leaves the question where
he began, unanswered 1 Is this like the Son of God, or one
divinely inspired? * - --
Jesus reproached one of his disciples for his scepticism,
“Thomas, because thou hast seen, thou hast believed,” in-
JESUS’ DISCOURSES AND SAYINGs. 69
timating strongly that his pretensions to his master's favour
diminished greatly in proportion to the degree of evidence
he had required of him; and that there was no merit in being
convinced, when he could no longer avoid the force of evi-
dence. We must confess that to us this would appear to
be the best proof of a well-regulated mind.* &
It is also recorded that many, who it seems had never
heard of Jesus before, believed on him readily “for the say-
ing of the woman,” a curious foundation truly for confidence
and conviction. “Blessed are they (said Jesus) that have
not seen, and yet have believed.” These were the followers
and believers that suited best for his purpose, and were
most encouraged: an intimation to assent, and a dislike to
all hesitation and doubt, this is the temper which Chris-
tianity has ever required from its followers, and which has
been always graced with marks of its highest approbation.
With what severity did Jesus reprove the doubts of his
disciples, for fearing they were going to be drowned, when
their vessel was almost sinking; and when it would have
been, to all appearance, a sin against common sense to have
thought otherwise.—In like manner, Zacharias is said to
have been struck dumb, for only hesitating upon what car-
ried, according to the common course of events, the highest
face of improbability. (Luke i. 20.)
* Yet, strange to say, only a few years ago, the late Bishop of Cal-
cutta, Daniel Wilson, in one of his discourses in the Cathedral of
Calcutta urged this self-same doctrine on his hearers; “that there was
“no merit in believing on things seen, and that were perceptible to
“ the senses; that the great merit •lay in believing on things unseen,
“ and that were beyond our comprehensions. This was the faith that
“would be acceptable at the throne of grace, to be able to say with the
“ pious and orthodox Tertullian,—“I believe this, because it is impos-
“sible.’”—Credo, qui impossibile est.
70 JESUS’ DISCOURSES AND SAYINGs.
The Scripture test of a true believer was this: “Hereby
ye shall know them; every one that confesseth that Christ
is come in the flesh, is of God.” (1 John v. 2.) Now this is
what is called arguing in a circle, or begging the question;
but in matters of faith it is a most proper and necessary pre-
liminary. “A Christian (says Luther) cannot, if he will,
lose his salvation by any multitude or magnitude of sins,
wnless he cease to believe ; for no sins condemn him but unbe-
lief alone. Everything else, provided his faith return, or
stand fast in the Divine promise given 'in baptism, is ab-
sorbed in a moment by that faith.” (Luther de Captivitate,
b. ii. 264)—Here there is no mistake in this exposition of
the great Protestant reformer.
According to the Gospels, belief in Jesus as the Mes-
siah seems to be the Alpha and Omega of the Christian reli-
gion. It blots out all sins, and cures all maladies, and will
even save the vilest malefactor when expiating his crime on
the scaffold.
When an apostle was sent forth, he was to receive
him that is weak in the faith, to instruct him better,
but not to argue with him, “not to doubtful disputations.”
Should the candidate be refractory, he was told that he
would be denied before the holy angels, who denied his
judge before men. (See Luke xii. 9.) What then can we
think of such a faith, propounded under the restraint of threats
and authority; to be talked to of danger in the decision, and
have the rod held out with the lesson; to have propositions
tendered to our reason with penalties annexed] Yet such,
according to the Gospels, is presented as the pleasure and
ordinance of God on this subject.
But religion and science, belief and reason, are very re-
mote and opposite qualities, and never can agree. The found-
ation of philosophy is to reason and doubt, that of religion
JESUS’ DISCOURSES AND SAYINGs. 71.
to acquiesce and believe. But Jesus on all occasions set his
face against science and philosophy. The wisdom of man
was declared “to be foolishness with God,” and philosophy
was denounced by the apostles as “earthly, sensual, and
devilish.”
The laws of nature and moral relations were, with the
philosophers of that age, the general test of all truths that
came in their way; and with them revelation was to stand
or fall, only so far as it agreed with this standard. On the
contrary, people were warned by Jesus and the apostles to
beware lest any man spoil them through philosophy and vain
deceit. They were told that no man can receive the gos-
pel, except he receive it as a little child; in other words, in
the impatience of a childish understanding, in all the simpli-
city of unpractised reason, and with all the subservience and
humble acquiescence of a babe, who has its lesson to learn.
“Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall
be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall
not be forgiven unto men. And whosoever speaketh a word against
the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him : but whosoever speaketh
against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this
world, neither in the norld to come.” (Matt. xii. 31, 32.)
What is the meaning of this mysterious and contradic-,
tory passage; and what is this unknown sin, on which such
awful denunciations are passed; or what is this Holy Ghost
that is exalted even above God himself, and is so implacable
in its resentment P This passage is so out of character here
that we do not hesitate to pronounce it an after fabrication,
and introduced for the glorification of this attribute of the
Deity, His Holy Spirit, when it was first deified by Paul,
and made a distinct person in the Mystical Trinity.
“Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and
the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto
.72 JESUS’ DISCOURSES AND SAYINGS.
thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt
bind on earth shall be bound in heaven : and whatsoever thou shalt
loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” (Matt. xvi. 8, 9.)
On the above passage is founded that immense mass of
deceit, fraud, and folly, which has governed the world for so
many ages, under the name of Pop ERY; and which is still
retained and enforced by the Catholic clergy at the present
day.
It seems that Jesus, when at Caesarea, inquired of his
disciples, Whom do the people say that I am? They
answered, That some said he was John, some Elias, and
others one of the prophets. Jesus, disappointed at this
result of his mission, now put the question to themselves,
“But whom say ye that I am?” Peter, rather wiser than
the rest, boldly replied, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the
living God.” So gratified was Jesus, at this recognition of
his claims, that he is reported to have blessed Peter, and
added, “Thou art Peter, and on this rock (Petros) I will
build my Church.” Words more fatal to the peace and
happiness of mankind never were uttered; and had they
never been spoken, the world would have had cause to rejoice.
Here Jesus is represented in a most unworthy point of
view, as a vain, weak-minded man, without foreknowledge,and
therefore eager to find out what was said of him; and so
elated at Peter's prompt acknowledgment of his claims, as to
sacrifice the dignity of his character and the peace of the
world to a paltry pun l Now either Jesus was inspired of
God or he was a misled fanatic. If he were the former,
he never would have given utterance to an expression that,
he must have known, would have involved the world, for
eleven hundred years, in torrents of blood; enslaved mankind
in the bonds of mental darkness, idolatry, and superstition;
JESUS’ DISCOURSES AND SAYINGs. 73
and almost swamped the religion he is said to have sacrificed
his life to establish.
Jesus is reported to have urged the people to search the
Scriptures, for they are they which testify of me. In those
times of ignorance there were few who could either read or
write, most men had to trust entirely to the bold assertions
of their leaders. Copies of the Old Testament were con-
fined to their priests and the Tabernacle, and were not so
common as Tracts and Testaments of the present day. It is
questionable if any of the apostles could either read or write,
except Luke. Jesus, it is expressly stated in Luke vii. 15,
never learned his letters l and yet it is from such imperfect
sources that the Christian religion has been handed down to
us!
“For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me
he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should
speak. And I know that his commandment is life everlasting: what-
soever I speak therefore, even as the Father said unto me, so Ispeak.”
(John xii. 49, 50.)
The Gospel writers evidently looked on Jesus as an err-
ing mortal like themselves, that could do nothing of himself.
This is often displayed, where he says, “the Son can do
nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do.”
(John v. 19, xii. 49.) When a ruler accosts him as “Good
Master,” he rejects the appellation; “Why callest thou me
good P none is good, save one, that is God.” (Luke xviii. 19.)
Bere Jesus so tenaciously maintains the distinction between
himself and God, that he renounces the title of goodness, and
insists on its appropriation to God alone.—Again in the 4th
Gospel he declares, “My Father is greater than I.”
Jesus is made to say (Matt. xi. 27), “All things are de-
livered unto me of my Father,” implying that he believed he
74 JESUS’ DISCOURSES AND SAYINGs.
had an intimate communion of thought and will with the
Deity, but under limitation, namely, that the attributes of
perfect goodness as well as of absolute knowledge (Mark
xiii. 32) belonged exclusively to God; and hence the bound-
ary line between divine and human was strictly preserved.
“I and my Father are one. Then the Jews took up stones again to
stone him. Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you
from my Father: for which of those works do ye stone me ! The
Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not ; but
for blasphemy ; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself
God. Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye
are gods? If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came,
and the scripture cannot be broken; say ye of him, whom the Father
hath Sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I
said, I am the Son of God? If I do not the works of my Father, believe
me not. But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works; that
ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him.”
(John x. 30—38.)
Here John, as if conscious that the extent to which he
carried the notion of Jesus' incarnation and divinity sound-
ed at variance with the received opinions, and with Hebrew
ideas of a Messiah, labours to apologize, to explain, and re-
concile; and after some quibbling, ends his vague attempt at
reasoning, without proving anything, saying, “all those are
gods to whom the Word of God came !”
y
There is no doubt that Moses and the Jews, up to the
time of the Captivity, were totally unacquainted with the
doctrines of the immortality of the soul, or of a life after
death, as clearly shown by Bishop Warburton in his work,
“The Divine Legation of Moses.” It was only during their
exile among the Gentiles, that they acquired some knowledge
of it, but very imperfectly. For Josephus states that, in the
first century, “the Sadducees held with Moses and the Patri-
JESUS’ DISCOURSES AND SAYINGs. 75
archs that the soul perished with the body, the Pharisees
believed in the transmigration of souls, and the Essenians
were the only sect of Jews that had any correct views on
the subject. There is therefore something very like the
metempsychosis or transmigration of souls in Jesus’ mystify-
ing remarks,—“Before Abraham was, I am.” And again,
“O Father, glorify thou me with the glory I had with thee
before the world was.” (John xvii. 5.) These dreamy notions
are extensively spread over the East even at the present day,
especially among the Brahmins, who talk of their prehuman
and premundane existence, with as much unction and seri-
ousness as if there was no doubt of the fact. In their occa-
sional states of abstraction with the Deity, they will detail,
with apparent earnestness, the various forms of previous ex-
istence they have already passed through, and those which
are yet in the womb of time.
The Pharisees, in the time of Jesus, were believers in
this doctrine, that when they died, their souls passed into
another body, and thus were BoRN ANEw, or as Jesus termed
it, “were born again; ”—and from them it is likely the
above views were derived. *
Jesus himself is represented in the Gospels to have had
very imperfect views regarding the immortality of the soul.
Indeed his knowledge does not appear to have extended be-
yond the confused opinions entertained by his countrymen,
especially the Essenians, namely, that the body and soul
both rose together to be reunited at the millennium, when
the Messiah came to reign over them; and from the above
quotations, Jesus must have imbibed some of the transmigra-
tory opinions held by the Pharisees.
In the Lord's Prayer, given as the model of his views,
there is not once an allusion to the soul, or a life after death;
and on the cross he is made to express himself strictly in the
76 JESUS’ DISCOURSES AND SAYINGs.
Jewish belief, “This day thou shalt be with me in Paradise,
(not heaven, be it observed;) thereby again denying his Mes-
siahship and divinity, by declaring that he had to pass
through the same ordeal after death as the rest of the Elect;
For Josephus states “that Paradise or Hades was that part
of the nether world which, in the interval, was to harbour
the souls of the Elect or chosen people, till the coming of the
Messiah 1” *
We have now gone over and carefully examined the mea-
gre doctrines of the Gospels, and must confess that we
cannot discover any Revelation, which it is assumed that Je-
sus announced to the world, that was not known before.
By a Revelation we understand any rational moral truth,
that when fairly proposed, under proper evidence, should ap-
pear so to the mind or understanding of man; and this
truth must depend on either reason or testimony.
Now the doctrine of the resurrection, and a future state of
happiness or misery, was not a principle peculiar to the Chris-
tian revelation; on the contrary, it was known among the Jews,
and believed and taught among the sect of Essenians for
many years previously. Zoroaster, the great Persian Moral-
ist, had taught it 400 years before, and the Persian Magi
had received and taught the same doctrines, of the unity of
God, a resurrection from the dead, and a future state of re-
wards and punishments, for centuries before Zoroaster.
(Hyde de Religione Veterum Persarum.) -
In the Christian dispensation, that which had not been
taught before was salvation through Jesus, as the Christ or
Messiah who was to restore the kingdom to Israel and sit
on the throne of David. But Jesus never took on himself
this character, as the Messiah or restorer of the kingdom of
Israel. On the contrary, when the question was put to him
ſº
JESUS’ DISCOURSES AND SAYINGs. 77
by Pilate, he unequivocally renounced it, by declaring that
“his kingdom was not of this world,” and that he had no
such worldly or ambitious views, as he had been charged
with by the priesthood.
As to the Christian system of faith, it would appear to
be a sort of denial of the Almighty, it professes to believe in
a Man rather than in God—a species of anthropomorphism.
It introduces between man and his God an intermediate
person, called a Redeemer, a belief in whom is all that is re-
quired in the Christian dispensation for the salvation of
mankind. -
A message from the Supreme Being ought surely to be
conveyed in the clearest and most unambiguous language;
and never could give rise to the innumerable contradictory
doctrines that the Gospels contain. All is uncertain, and ob-
scure, and contradictory ; and the precepts are delivered in so
loose and undefined a manner as to be incapable of convey-
ing clear and definite directions to any one. Nor have we
seen anything in the exhortations or sayings attributed to
Jesus that would indicate a man of a superior mind, or one
inspired of God.
Now if a knowledge of the pure and unadulterated Scrip-
tures, be of such serious importance to mankind, it seems
most unaccountable, that so many spurious Gospels should
have been permitted in the very times of the apostles, and
such contradictory opinions prevail regarding Jesus' person
and doctrines; and that the apostles, if inspired, should
have so sadly neglected their duty, as not to furnish their
followers with an attested copy of the exclusively divine
Scriptures.—This is very unlike what we should be led to
expect from Almighty Wisdom! : - r
So far from being of use as a rule of conduct whereby
to guide men in faith and practice, the Scriptures would seem
78 JESUS’ DISCOURSES AND SAYINGs.
to have been written, not to settle a long vexed question, but
to distract and perplex men's minds. This is fully displayed
in the present confused state of what is called the “Christian
Church,” split into innumerable sects and factions, all war-
ring the one with the other! This of itself would prove its
human origin, and that it could not be a revelation of the
all-wise Creator, whose dicta could only convey one meaning.
Moreover, even if any revelation could be the means of
knowing the Deity and his laws, such means could only be
temporary and successful for a time. All that passes from
hand to hand in human society is subjected to successive al-
terations by the different means of relating it, by vicissitudes
of languages, by the love of the marvellous, by the disposi-
tion to deception and exaggeration; by the different views
taken of the same thing, by the varieties of thought and un-
derstanding, of interest or prejudice; so that, to insure any
stability to a revelation, the nature of man should first be
completely changed.
But, taking man as he is, every revelation must in-
evitably become, in time, a compound of fable and dreams,
diversely modified by the different minds which announce it,
which interpret it, or receive it. What difficulties do we not
meet with to obtain a correct statement of the mere facts,
which daily take place, in our own time, among the society in
which we live? Do we not find that whatever takes place
in the morning, in any part of town or country, is differently
related by different people, and often becomes a mass of con-
tradiction and falsehood before it comes to us in the evening.
How few men are there even now who can give a faithful or
intelligible account of what they have seen, or what they
have heard others relate. How, then, can a revelation pre-
Serve any permanency, in the course of centuries, passing
through nations of ignorant people or enthusiastic fools, be-
JESUS’ DISCOURSES AND SAYINGs. 79
fore it comes down to us? Thus, even admitting that there
could have been, once upon a time, a divine and true reve-
lation, that revelation would soon become corrupted, inevit-
ably disfigured, and must become by degrees such a mixture
of contradiction, as would make it impossible to re-establish
the original truth; and consequently could only be an ab-
surd, ridiculous medium, incompatible with the nature of
man, or with the immutable decrees of an all-powerful Deity.*
“It is indisputable (says Bishop Gleig) that no doctrines
which clearly contradict any truth which has been demon-
strated by the light of nature can have been revealed by the
Father of all Lights.” (Study of Theology.)
* “Revelation (says Burder) is so contradictory to reason, that had
it not been first promulgated and received in an age of ignorance and
credulity, it never would have obtained credit in more enlightened
times. It is somewhat singular that all revelations have originated
among nations most remarkable for their gross ignorance. How comes
it that we hear of no revelations among the Greeks and Romans? be-
cause the imposture would soon have been detected and exposed l’”
80 * THE LORD's PRAYER.
CHAPTER, XW.
THE LORD’s PRAYER.
JESUs is stated to have prescribed a form of prayer for
his followers, which has been upheld by all Christians as the
model of a prayer, and named for its excellence “the Lord's
Prayer.” Matthew introduces it in the Sermon on the
Mount, but Luke states it to have been delivered by Jesus
on his last journey to Jerusalem. The other two Gospels
take no notice of it whatever.
On examination, it will be found that this prayer is a
purely Jewish emanation, and does not contain a single ex-
pression that would lead us to conclude, that the individual
who is reported to have uttered it, had an idea beyond the
crude and human notions of God and his attributes, enter-
tained by the Hebrews. But as it is stated to have been
spoken by Jesus, it enables us to see further the views of
God and of religion entertained at the time of the promul-
gation of Christianity.
“Our Father which art in heaven.”—This is the primitive
and ancient notion, reiterated throughout the Old Testament,
of the abode in which Jehovah was said to reside. It gives
a very unworthy idea of the omnipresence of the Deity, by
thus limiting him to a certain locality, but one quite in accord-
ance with the human views of the Lord Jehovah entertained
by the Jews; namely, that he was an Almighty being, in-
fluenced by human feelings and human passions, who resided
in a place called heaven, which, from their ignorance of sci-
THE LORD’s PRAYER. - 81.
ence, they placed in the firmament; and where he was at-
tended by a host of minor deities, called angels.
“Hallowed be thy Name.”—This is also a purely Jewish
conception, which the Israelites carried to an extreme in
their exclusive worship of Jehovah. They believed that there
was some peculiar virtue in the very letters that composed
his name, and that this name was not to be uttered except
on the most solemn occasions. Indeed the whole of the
Jewish worship consisted in idle ceremonials of their taber-
nacle, where it was believed that the Priest was in constant
private communion with his God, and the only one that was
permitted to communicate with him or call on his name.
The building of altars, the slaughtering of cattle, the keeping
Jehovah's name sacred (secret), was the sum and substance
of their religion; and this last idea Jesus adhered to and in-
troduced into his prayer. * -
Now among the Hindoos, Mahomedans, and other Ori-
ental nations, they are taught, as the greatest merit, to have
God's name constantly on their lips, to do everything in his
name, and even to sanctify their children by giving his name
to them in baptism.—But after all, what is in a name? it
matters little whether we call on God as Jehovah, Jove, or
Lord, Gwadma, Ram, or Allah, provided we act in obedience
to what we conscientiously believe to be his will.
“Thy kingdom come.”—This supplication the Jews had
been using in their tabernacles for years, calling on the Lord
to establish his kingdom on earth; and refers to the coming
of the Messiah to sit on the throne of David. It clearly
shews, that Jesus did not, at this period, look on himself as
the promised Messiah, or he never would have so committed
himself, as to teach his followers to pray for his coming, if
6
82 THE LORD's PRAYER.
he had believed that the Messiah had already appeared in
his own person!
The Jews had most narrow views of the Almighty. Crea-
tor; they believed that he had really limited his saving
grace to “his chosen people”—a paltry fraction of man-
kind,-that they were the only people he cared for; and
that the whole world was comprised in the “Orbus Judai-
cus;” that a great prince or Messiah was to restore their
kingdom, sit on the throne of David, and judge—the world?
No! only the twelve tribes of Israel.—Now these were the
views, be it remembered, of Jesus himself. -
“Thy will be done on earth, as it is in heaven.”—Here
again is the Jewish human idea of God and his abode; that
he had a distinct place of residence, and was attended by
a number of spiritual beings, called angels, whose conduct
in heaven, it would seem, had been anything but satisfac-
tory.
Is it not surprising then, that Jesus should have ven-
tured on so very doubtful a comparison, in praying, “that
God’s will should be done on earth, as it is in heaven,”
when he must have known that the very angels, the reputed
inmates of heaven, had carried out the will of God so im-
perfectly, as to rebel against his authority, and be driven out
of heaven? Had Jesus already forgotten the temptation
scene with the rebellious prince of darkness?
Does it not appear strange then, that Jesus, in the face
of all these divine truths, should have boasted of the perfect
submission of the inhabitants of heaven to the will of God,
and offered it, in his prayer, as an example to man?
“Give us this day our daily bread.”—It has been shewn,
that the Jews never had an aspiration beyond the pursuit
THE LORD's PRAYER. 83
of worldly objects, nor a wish beyond the acquirement of
“daily bread,” the propagation of their species, and the ex-
tension of their temporal power.
Here this prayer, instead of raising man's thoughts to
spiritual blessings, to “that bread which giveth life, and to
that spirit which illumines the soul,” simply limits itself to
daily bread to support the perishable body. What an op-
portunity was here lost of directing their minds to the true
wants of man, the true object of all prayer, the elevation
of the soul above all earthly objects, the utter worthlessness
of all transitory enjoyments, and the raising the thoughts
from nature up to nature's God!
But, alas! Jesus' auditors were Jews, poor half-starved
creatures, to whom a loaf of bread was the greatest blessing,
and who would have been scarcely satisfied (without a
miracle) with spiritual food. For, as we have shewn, the
immortality of the soul, at this time, was little believed, and
less understood, by the Jewish people. The Pharisees knew
but little about it, and the Sadducees totally disbelieved it;
nor had their God Jehovah thought proper to enlighten
them much on that mysterious subject.
“And forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive them that
trespass against us.”—Here an offer is made to enter into a
compromise with the Deity, and quite in the Jewish spirit,
—a “quid pro quo,”—if we forgive other people their tres-
passes, on this condition we expect you will forgive ours!
The prayer does not acknowledge man’s entire unworthiness,
and that he cannot, of himself, do any good thing; on the
contrary, it assumes that we can do something good, and
offers it in return for God's forgiveness.
Jesus, immediately after, confirms this by saying, “For
if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will
6 *
84. THE LORD's PRAYER.
also forgive you; but if ye forgive not men their trespasses,
neither will your Father forgive your trespasses. For with
what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged, and with what
measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again; ”
(Matt. vi. 14; vii. 2.) thus clearly shewing, according to
Jesus' moral views, that man was to be judged by the Deity
according to his works. (Matt. vi. 14; vii. 2.) -
Where then was original sin P−where the necessity of
a Saviour —where of an atonement? Is not this strange
language, if Jesus really looked on himself as a propitiatory
sacrifice for the sins of man?
“Lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil.”—
It was one of the earliest ideas of the Hebrew people, that
God was the author of evil, as well as of good, and possessed
within himself both these opposite qualities; and Jesus here
confirms the belief in this doctrine. The Persians were the
only people, in those primitive times, who had any just
views on this subject, and who separated these two prin-
ciples, declaring God to be the author of good, and Shytan
(Satan), a new god whom they created, the author of evil.
Is it not strange, then, that Jesus should still adhere to
this old Jewish doctrine, and believe that God was the
author of evil, and often inflicted evil on his people, or led
them into temptation of evil, to see how the opposite quali-
ties of the human mind would be influenced? as if God
were not omniscient, to read the hearts of all. Now
this was placing the Deity in a very anomalous position,
and causing him to act from apparently unworthy motives;
for he knew well the work he had created; he also knew
how far it would act in accordance with his wishes; and
therefore the application of a test would seem to be a cruel
and unnecessary act.
THE LORD's PRAYER. 85
We find it accordingly reported in Genesis, that when
God created man, he resolved to lead him into the tempta-
tion of doing evil, that is, to test him, and see how far the
work, which had just come out of his hands, was trust-
worthy; although he had previously declared himself well
satisfied with the excellence of it. But it seems that man
could not stand the trial; and God had the mortification
to find that he had entirely failed in the work he had
created. Again, he resolved to try Abraham, and ordered
him to murder his only son. But in this instance, it seems
he was not disappointed, for Abraham would most willingly
have complied had he not been prevented. Lastly, the
test was applied to Jesus, and he was specially taken into
the wilderness by God, and given into the hands of the
devil himself—But mankind have now acquired more just
views of the Deity than people had in those days; for to
suppose that God would lead mankind into the temptation
of committing evil, destroys the very essence of the God-
head, omniscience, and fore-knowledge.
“IFor thine is the kingdom, the power, and the glory,” &c.
This truly is a primitive production. It is a prayer indeed
of universal applicability; for it might have been used by
Plato, Pythagoras, or Socrates; by Jew, Gentile, or Deist,
without compromising any of their principles. It deals
exclusively in temporal things, but avoids spiritual things
altogether. It simply asks for the advent of the Messiah,
food for the body, and a conditional forgiveness of sins. It
is, as Pope truly designates it, “an universal prayer,” and
contains not one particle of spiritual Christianity in its com-
position.
The Rev. Joseph Mendham, in alluding to the striking
similarity between this prayer and certain portions of the
-
86 THE LORD's PRAYER.
ancient Jewish prayers, says, that if the corresponding pas-
sages in the latter were collected together, they would nearly
produce the Lord's Prayer. They are as follows, with the
authorities annexed.
“Our father which art in heaven; (Maimonides, in Te-
phillot.)—Thy name be sanctified; (Capellus, ex Euchologiis
Judaeorum.)—Thy kingdom reign; (Drusius, ex libro Musar.)
Lo thy will in heaven; (Bab. Berachoth.)—Forgive us our
sins ; (In almost all their prayers.)—Lead us not into the
hand of temptation ; (In Libro Musar. apud Drusium.)—
Deliver us from Satan ; (In precibus Judaeorum.)—For thine
is the kingdom, and thou shalt reign gloriously, for ever and
ever; (In their Liturgies).”
“Prayers, strictly formed on the above model, would be
considered by all orthodox Christians, as extremely deficient,
and by no means an adequate exhibition of the principles of
Christian devotion. It does not contain one recognition of
the medium of acceptance, nor in short of any doctrine pecu-
liarly Christian. It is materially deficient, as a Christian
prayer, on the doctrine of the Spirit's influence, which is
one of the distinguishing tenets of the Gospel dispensation.
—Strictly speaking it is a Jewish prayer.” (Redford on Ex-
tempore Prayer.)
THE LAST JUDGEMENT. 87
CHAPTER XVI.
THE LAST JUDGEMENT.
JESUs, in describing the Tast Judgment, explains to his
disciples the qualifications requisite for admission into
heaven; and we find them all of a practical nature, all de-
pending on good works, and not a word of Original Sin, or .
the necessity of an Atonement. So that we have here again
a confirmation of his former declaration, of what was re-
quired of man to be an inheritor of life eternal.
“Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye
blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the
foundation of the world: for I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat:
I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me
in: naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in
prison, and ye came unto me.
“Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from
me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his
angels: for I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty,
and ye gave me no drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me not in :
naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me
not. And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the
righteous into life eternal.” (Matt. xxv. 34–46.)
Here, according to the Gospel reporters, we have the
sum and substance of Jesus’ religious views, and all that is
required to be an inheritor of life eternal; and the reader
will observe that not one of those doctrines, that have be-
wildered mankind for the last 2000 years, is touched on, or
even remotely alluded to. \ $º
88 THE LAST JUDGMENT.
We are therefore forced to the conclusion, that all those
doctrines of which modern Christianity consist, and which
are not found in the exhortations, sayings, and prayers at-
tributed to Jesus, but were introduced by Paul and other
innovators afterwards, may be called Christianity, but are
not the religion of Jesus.
We take his religion, not from the fancies of Paul or
Apollos, but from the instructions found in the Gospels, and
attributed to Jesus. If we do not find it there, then we
may fairly conclude that the religion of the present day is
not the religion “taught by Jesus.” It is, as the philo-
sophic Bentham truly designates it, “ of Paul, not Jesus.”
Let the reader but compare the instructions in the
Gospels, as to the requisites in a seeker after the kingdom of
heaven, with the mystical and incomprehensible doctrines
laid down by Paul and others in the Epistles, and taught by
modern Christians, and he will see that Paul has erected
quite a new religion (under the name of Christ), on the
basis of the simple precepts of the Gospels; and that mo-
dern Christians have no pretensions to be considered the
followers of Jesus, but are the promulgators of doctrines
that never emanated from him, and are not to be found in
the Gospels.
. PARABLES OF JESUS. 89
p
CHAPTER XVII.
IPARABLES OF JESUS.
FROM the remotest ages, the strenuous exertions of the
priesthood have ever been, to veil religion from the prying
curiosity of the people, in parables, and allegories, and
fables. -
It has been the invariable custom of priests to deliver
their opinions and responses in obscure, mysterious, and
oracular language, so as to astonish and at the same time
mystify the mind. This display of learning, in the exclusive
hands of the priesthood, was naturally regarded by the people,
under the influence of ignorance and superstition, as an evi-
dence of supernatural power.
There were two languages among the sacerdotal tribe,
the one that which the priests explained to the initiated or
disciples, the other, that which they gave to the vulgar or
people, wrapped up in allegories and parables and fables;
that, as Jesus explains it to his initiated followers, “seeing,
they may see and not perceive, and hearing, they may hear
and not understand.” (Mark iv. 12.)
“All these things spake Jesus unto the multitude in parables; and
without a parable spake he not unto them : that it might be fulfilled
which was spoken by the prophet, saying, I will open my mouth in pa-
rables; I will utter things which have been kept secret from the found-
ation of the world.” (Matt. xiii. 34, 35.)
And when the disciples asked him, why he spake to them
in this obscure way, he answered, “Because it is given unto
90 PARABLES OF JESTU.S.,
you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to
them (the multitude) it is not given.” (Matt. xiii. 11.)
Now it is quite amazing that Jesus, merely to fulfil a
prophecy, should have followed this truly absurd custom,
defeating the very object he professed to have in view,
namely, that of clearly explaining his doctrines to the people,
so as to convince them of the truth of his mission; or that
the Deity should not have prompted him to give his instruc-
tions in plain, simple, and intelligible language | The conse-
quence was, as might be expected, that by thus mystifying
his audience, and speaking to them literally “in an unknown
tongue,” it is stated, they always “went away amazed and
wondering at his words; ”—and truly we ourselves do not
marvel at it ! i
Mark relates (chap. iv.) that a great multitude was as-
sembled, and Jesus taught them many things by parables;
and he concludes with this sage remark,+“He that hath
ears to hear, let him hear.” The multitude certainly might
have ears to hear, but so long as he spake in parables, they
could not understand; so that all this teaching was in vain,
for even his disciples could not comprehend him \
When he was alone, his disciples asked him for an explan-
ation of the parables he had just delivered; when Jesus re-
plied, “Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the
kingdom of God: but unto them that are without (the mul-
titude), all these things are done in parables: that seeing
they may see, and not perceive; and hearing, they may hear,
and not understand; lest at any time they should be con-
verted, and their sins forgiven them.” (Mark iv. 11, 12.)
Verily this principle of deceiving the vulgar is a lan-
guage quite incomprehensible to our minds; and had such
a passage, as the above, been found in any other work, we
should not have hesitated to conclude with Festus, on nearly
IPARAIBLES OF JESUS. 91
a similar occasion, that the person reported to have uttered
it, was “beside himself.”
What then did Jesus consider the object of his mission?
why did he call on the people to repent, if he did not wish
that they should be converted and their sins forgiven them?
Jesus assumed that he was explaining the mysteries of the
kingdom of God. We would put the question, in sober serious-
ness, to our readers, if from the many parables on that sub-
ject any new light has been elicited f—But we proceed to
examine these parables.
Parable of the Lost Sheep. “Then drew near unto him all the
publicans and sinners for to hear him. And the Pharisees and scribes
murmured, saying, This man receiveth sinners, and eateth with them.
And he spake this parable unto them, saying, What man of you, having
an hundred sheep, if he lose one of them, doth not leave the ninety and
nine in the wilderness, and go after that which is lost, until he find it?
And when he hath found it, he layeth it on his shoulders, rejoicing.
And when he cometh home, he calleth together his friends and neigh-
bours, saying unto them, Rejoice with me; for I have found my sheep
which was lost. I say unto you, that likewise joy shall be in heaven
over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just
persons, which need no repentance.” (Luke xv.)
It would appear from this, that God is better pleased
with a reprobate sinner who is penitent, than with the
good and upright man, who has always held the even tenor
of his ways in righteousness and peace. -
Here the doctrine of forgiveness, upon repentance, is
urged in such a manner, as to countenance rather than guard
against the dangerous exaggeration, that the repentant sin-
ner is in a more desirable condition than the just man
who needs no repentance; and that there is some truth in
the old adage, the greater the sinner the greater the saint.
This would scarcely be the decision of a just and upright
92 IPARAIBIES OF JESUS.
judge, nor would it meet the approval of the strict moralist
of modern times. The only doctrine which Jesus here pro-
mulgates is simply repentance, and he even acknowledges
that there are many “which need no repentance; ” shewing
that that fantastic doctrine of Original Sin is an after-fabri-
cation of Paul; but by no means belongs to the religion as
said to be taught by Jesus.
Parable of the Prodigal Son (Luke xv.).--This parable is
a continuation of the erroneous reasoning of the Lost Sheep,
and is intended as a comparison between the sinful publican
and the Pharisee; but we must confess it does not much im-
prove matters.-The parable is briefly thus:
A certain man had two sons, between whom he divided
his property. The elder remained at home, and the younger
went abroad, where he wasted all his substance in riotous
living. In hunger and want he returned to his father, say-
Ing-
“Father, I have sinned against heaven, and in thy sight, and am
no more worthy to be called thy son.” (Luke xv. 21.)
“But the father said to his servants, Bring forth the best robe, and put
a ring on his hand, and shoes on his feet: and bring hither the fatted calf,
and kill it; and let us eat, and be merry. Now his elder son was in the
field: and ... he heard musick and dancing. And he called one of the Serv-
ants, and asked what these things meant. And he said, Thy brother is
come; and thy father hathkilled the fatted calf, because he hath received
him safe and sound. And he was angry, and would not go in : therefore
came his father out, and intreated him. And he answering said to his
father, Lo, these many years do I serve thee, neither transgressed I at
any time thy commandment: and yet thou never gavest me a kid, that
I might make merry with my friends: but as soon as this thy son was
come, which hath devoured thy living with harlots, thou hast killed for
him the fatted calf.” (Luke xv. 21—23; 25–30.)
The encouragement here given to the virtuous elder
IPARABLES OF JESUS. 93
brother seems in reality too limited, in comparison with the
festive welcome of the prodigal, whose repentance arose
merely from distress and hunger; and as yet had not proved
his sincerity by any reformation.
The grovelling humility of the sinful Publican which the
prodigal represents, unaccompanied by any approved change
of conduct, leaves us in doubt whether to prefer it to the
assumed righteousness of the Pharisee, with whom the elder
brother is compared. This estimation of repentance, with-
out regard to its fruits, shews the leaning of Jesus to the
asceticism of the Essenians, who considered the abasement
of man, both in body and mind, as the best preparative for
the favours of heaven!
Parable of the Unjust Steward.—In the following parable
of the unjust steward and in that the unjust judge we have
an exposition, on gospel principles, of what the character of
God was considered to be by Jesus; and the reader will per-
ceive the very imperfect views here entertained of God and
his attributes.
A certain rich man, having suspicion of the honesty of
his steward, desires him to give an account of his steward-
ship, that he may be discharged. The steward, to make
friends for himself, sends for all his master’s debtors, and
gives them receipts for the one half of the sums due, thereby
defrauding his master to a large amount. (Luke xvi.)
Our modern ideas of justice would pronounce this to be
a grossly fraudulent act; but what is Jesus made to say to
this transaction, or what decision does he pronounce on this
unjust act of the steward? Why “The lord commended
the unjust steward, because he had done wisely: for the
children of this world are in their generation wiser than the
children of light.”
94 PARABLES OF JESUS.
Now we do acknowledge that this confounds all our ideas
of right and wrong. In the above parable the Master is
meant to be a representation of God, and the Steward of
man; and the attempt of Jesus to give a rational explana-
tion defies all criticism. For when he adds, “Make to your-
selves friends of the mammon of unrighteousness; that, when
ye fail, they may receive you into everlasting habitations.
BHe that is faithful in that which is least is faithful also in
much,” it would appear as if the steward was set forth as a
model, deserving, in some way or other, the praise of faith-
fulness. And when Jesus adds, “that no servant can serve
two masters,” the intended inference seems to be that this
steward had attached himself to the rightful one, and was to
loe held up to the admiration of mankind.
Parable of the Unjust Judge.—Now the above parable, to
be properly understood, must be followed by that of the un-
just judge, which is delivered to us by Jesus with the solemn
command, “Hear what the unjust judge saith.” The parable
is briefly thus: *
There was in a certain city a judge, who feared neither
God nor man; and a widow came to him, saying, “Avenge
me of mine adversary.” But he put her off till she wearied
him out by her entreaties; and the judge at length said,
“Though I fear not God nor regard man, yet because this
widow troubleth me I will avenge her, lest by her continual
coming she weary me.” And the Lord said, “Hear what the
unjust judge saith.” (Luke xviii.)
These are truly strange exhibitions of the divine cha-
racter; and the morality of both the above parables is very
doubtful indeed. The “unjust judge” teaches those in au-
thority over us to be indifferent to the petitions of the
people, and to act from no consideration of right and wrong,
PARABLES OF JESUS. 95
but their own personal ease and convenience; and to yield
to a petitioner only to relieve themselves from the annoyance
of his suit.
For those in humble and dependent situations, the ex-
ample of the unjust steward, whose conduct is so highly ap-
proved, is this: that we may cheat and defraud our masters
as we please, if done so cleverly and so “wisely,” as Jesus
expresses it, as to elicit the admiration of our employers'
This Spartan principle is the rule of conduct too common,
alas! all over the East; but which, although recommended
here by so high an authority, cannot be too strongly depre-
cated by every well-regulated mind.
Jesus’ explanation of the parable of the “Unjust Judge”
is equally unintelligible and ambiguous as that of the “Un-
just Steward.” It is this: “And shall not God avenge
his own elect, which cry day and night unto him, though he
bear long with them P I tell you he will avenge them
speedily.” (Luke xviii. 7.)
Here we have an exposition of that strange Calvinistic
doctrine of Election and Reprobation which distinguishes
the writings of Paul; since its whole argument is, that God
would avenge his own elect or chosen people, not with any
reference to the justice of their cause, but merely because
they were the elect.*
God is here represented as acting in a capricious and ar-
bitrary manner, and exhibiting the human passions of re-
* “According to the Calvinists, Christ died only for the elect, and
one of the fundamental doctrines of the Calvinistic school is, that none
are redeemed by Christ, effectually called, justified, adopted, sanctified,
and saved, but the elect only; and that the doctrine of universal re-
demption reflects on the wisdom, justice, and power of God, and robs
him of his glory !” (Gill's Body of Divinity.)
96 PARABLES OF JESUS.
venge and injustice, as depicted in the Old Testament, both
opposed to the tests of true godliness.
Parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus.—A certain rich
man who fared sumptuously, and a beggar who lay at his
gate full of sores, and who desired to be fed from the rem-
nants of the rich man's table, both died. The beggar was
conveyed by angels into heaven, and the rich man taken into
hell. And when the rich man remonstrated at this appar-
ently arbitrary decision, what was the reply P “Son, remem-
ber that thou in thy life-time, receivedst thy good things,
and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted,
and thou art tormented.” (Luke xvi.)
This is another instance displaying the Gospel writer's
imperfect acquaintance with the attributes of the Deity, and
shews also his ignorance of the true nature of man. Here
the guilt of the one would appear to be in his wealth, and
the merit of the other in his poverty. Here the measure of
future recompense is not the amount of good done or wicked-
ness perpetrated, but of evil endured and fortune enjoyed.
This, however, quite agrees with the views of the Essenian
Jews, and of Jesus in his previous discourse, where he says,
“Blessed be ye poor, for yours is the kingdom of God: But
woe unto you that are rich, for ye have received your conso-
lation.” (Luke vi. 20–24.) -
These are strange lessons of morality, stated as coming
from Jesus, who is by some believed to have been inspired
by God, and by others looked on to be an emanation of the
Deity; and he here declares the law, that according to our
comforts in this world so will be our punishment in the next.
In the doctrines of the Essenians also, poverty and suffering
were the greatest of virtues, wealth and luxury the worst of
crimes. Hence the rule carried out by the early Christians,
IPARABLES OF JESUS. 97
and the Catholics in all times, that there was merit in tor-
turing their bodies and mortifying the flesh, as it materially
assisted in purifying the soul.
Jesus concludes the parable thus: The rich man en-
treats that one may be sent from the dead, to give warning
to his brethren of his unhappy fate; for “if one went to
them from the dead they will repent.” The reply is curious:
“If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they
be persuaded though one rose from the dead.” What then
was the object of Jesus, leaving the bosom of his father, and
taking all this trouble of preaching, and exhorting, and per-
forming mighty works, when they already had Moses and the
prophets?
When a certain ruler asked Jesus “what he must do to
inherit eternal life,” his reply was to this effect : “If
thou wilt be perfect, go, sell all thou hast and give it to the
poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and
follow me. For verily I say unto you, A rich man shall
hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven.” (Matt. xix.
16. 23.)
And again,_*It is easier for a camel to go through the
eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of
God.” When his disciples heard this they were exceed-
ingly amazed, saying, “Who then can be saved P” and truly
mankind may echo the questionſ (Matt. xix. 24, 25.)
Now the reader will observe again, that the doctrines
here promulgated are the doctrines of the Essenian Jews,
formerly alluded to, who separated themselves from all
worldly pursuits, gave all their money to feed the poor, and
occupied all their time in praying and instructing the people;
depending altogether on alms for their support. They were
therefore violent against the rich and wealthy, and kind and
7
98 PARABLES OF JESUs.
considerate towards the poor, denouncing the one and
flattering the other. (See Matt. v.; Luke vi. 20.)
This sect is described by Philo and Josephus as going
about and spreading themselves and their doctrines all over
Judaea, even to Egypt, at the very time when the Gospel
narratives were written; and there is no reason to doubt,
that the person called Jesus was one of their order, whom
they ultimately elevated to the Messiahship. This gave a
strength and weight to their doctrines among the Jews, in
being able to announce the advent of the Messiah of their
prophets, who was to deliver Israel and reign over them.
But when, before Pilate, they found that Jesus disclaimed
this high honour, and declared “My kingdom is not
of this world,” they all turned in a moment against him and
cried out, “Crucify him! crucify him!” and left him to his
fate, even Peter denied all knowledge of him.
ON MIRACULOUS BOWERS. 99
CHAPTER XVIII.
ON MIRACULOUS POWERS.
IF the founders of Christianity did not appeal to men's
reasoning faculties, but spoke under the obscure veil of para-
bles, it may be said, that they were endowed with a readier
and more decisive mode of conviction, and one more suited
to the capacities of their audience, namely, by an imme-
diate appeal to their senses; and by performing works be-
fore their eyes, beyond the reach of human power to produce.
But let it be remembered that miracles, time out of
mind, are stated to have been performed, as well in favour
of false doctrines as of true, by Pharaoh's magicians as well
as by Moses, by the Jews as well as by Jesus; and it would
be hard to say wherein the specific difference lies between
the miracles of Moses and those of Pharaoh’s magicians, or
ſhetween those of Jesus and the miracles wrought by Simon
Magus and Apollonius of Tyana.
The devil himself is exhibited in Scripture as having the
power to perform miracles, as shewn in the temptation scene
in the wilderness; and in the appearance of Samuel after his
decease to Saul. So that miracles are never, of themselves, any
certain marks of a true religion! Scripture itself confesses
this, when it warns us of “lying wonders and false Christs;”
tells us to take the utmost care and caution what we give
credit to ; and recommends to us the farther and more
secure trial of them by what it calls “their fruits.”
7 *
100 - ON MIRACULous PowRs.
It allows us plainly, by sending us thus to trace analogies
and consult more known relations for the experiment, that
we have no proper grounds whereby to ascertain any truth
from the miracles themselves, without having recourse to a
surer standard, and calling in the aid of moral considerations
to confirm their authority.
It seems strange, that if Jesus wished to convince the
people by his miracles, he should be so remarkably on
the reserve, whenever he happened among sceptical and un-
believing company (Matt. xiii.; Mark viii.), and that he
should be so sparing of these proofs of his Divine missión
amongst the very persons who seemed most to require it.
IHe often industriously avoided, and took particular care
to prevent these “mighty works” from even coming to pub-
lic notice, by dismissing most of the company before proceed-
ing to the operation. And so far from retaining the patients
as witnesses, their mouths were, by special command, closed
against proclaiming the benefits they had received, and the
strictest silence enjoined—“See thou tell no man,”—“See
that no man know it.” And when the expelled spirits were
anxious to proclaim their knowledge of his divine character
to the world, their tongues also were immediately restrained,
(Matt. viii. 4.) -
When Jesus appeared before Herod, the Roman procura-
tor, and a desire was manifested to behold some miracle; and
which, if complied with, might have set all doubts at rest for
ever,and have proclaimed his Messiahship to the world through
creditable witnesses, we find him shrinking from such a test
of his mission.
And again, when applied to for an instance of his power,
in favour of the nobleman's child, he again excused himself,
—“Except ye see signs and wonders, ye will not believe,”
(Johm iv. 48.) Now if belief would have been the happy
ON MIRACULOUS POWERS. 101
result of his signs and wonders, why did he object or decline
to give them? *
A certain degree of previous confidence and persuasion
appears to have been stipulated beforehand, to entitle these
applications to be listened to or regarded at all. When-
ever we find them confirmed, it was still “first perceiving
that the patient had faith to be healed.” And whenever
there was the least room to distrust this preparatory pro-
vision, the patient was dismissed with a conditional remedy,
which was to take effect only in proportion to the extent of
his belief: “according to thy faith be it unto you.” And
in another instance, Jesus himself attributes the entire
efficacy of the miracle to the patient's belief and confidence,
—“thy faith hath made thee whole,” (Mark v. 34. ;
Luke viii. 48.)
We find in modern times, that all pretenders to
miracles adopted this gospel plan; and that great miracle-
worker, Prince Hohenlohe, who performed so many well-
attested miracles throughout Europe in 1821, invariably
sheltered himself in his failures, under the pretext of a want
of faith in the patient.—Now we ourselyes have the most
profound contempt for these miracles of Hohenlohe, and
yet we are expected to have the most perfect belief in those
related in the Gospels on no better foundation.
We are told (Matt. xiii. 58) that Jesus “did not many
mighty works there, because of their unbelief.” Here
again we have the acknowledgment, that belief was essential
to the success of a miracle. But we do confess that the
excuse here made, “because of their unbelief,” appears to
be the strongest possible reason for Jesus increasing and
multiplying his works, if he really thought these poor be-
nighted people in the least deserving of his farther care and
consideration.
102 ON MIRACULOUS POWERS.
We might not unreasonably expect to see something more
of the long-suffering character of the Saviour displayed in
their behalf. We may well presume that he who left the
bosom of the Father, purely to give us this important infor-
mation, would never have so capriciously neglected an
errand that cost him so dear to undertake; or have desist-
ed from it on account of their unworthiness or unbelief.
“Except ye see signs and wonders, ye will not believe,”
(John iv. 48.) Now as this saying is put into the mouth of
Jesus, we may infer that the Gospel writers found it neces-
sary to supply their hearers with a plentiful share of such
signs and wonders.
In proportion to the distance of time and place, this
species of imposition became more easy. Accordingly, we
find that there are but few allusions to miracles in the
Epistles, which were written first ; abundant accounts of
them in the three first Gospels, written some fifty prisixty
years after; but in John's Gospel, written above a hundred
years after, bolder and more gross stories of miracles appear,
as well as more confident appeals to them. The authors
had been, for many years, accustomed to have exaggerated
and fictitious accounts of the acts of Jesus, and could not
but observe their efficacy in promoting the faith of the
Church. Hence the temptation to adopt and invent fresh
stories of miracles; and in proportion to the distance of time
and place this became the more easy.
Historical veracity did not seem of much importance to
the writers of the Gospels; for John had declared in
Epistle ii. 22, “He only is a liar, who denieth Jesus to be
the Christ,” evidently shewing, that he considered the end
would sanctify the means.
It is a curious fact that, with the exception of that
anomalous one of the fig-tree, the Gospel writers give us no
ON MIRACULOUS POWERS. 103
specific account of any one miracle from the period of Jesus’
arrival in Jerusalem till his death, as any attempt to impose
on the citizens of the holy city would have been easily de-
tected, and as easily exposed. The miracles attributed to
Jesus, therefore, agree with the assumed miracles of all
others in one remarkable circumstance: they were per-
formed among classes least capable of distinguishing the
natural from the supernatural—facts from fiction.
But after all, even supposing that such anomalies as
miracles had been performed, to what do they amount P
They were merely conviction at that instant of time, and on
the spot when and where they were exhibited. But when
either time or place are wanting, all the force of evidence
must fail. “Sufficient unto the day is the evidence there-
of; ” but no more. “A miracle (says Lord Brougham) is
no miracle at second hand, and is no proof of divine power,
but merely that one man can do what another cannot do.”
Look at the modern necromancers, why, they would deceive
the very Elect.
These miracles, if performed, could be no demonstration
to any that were not actually and personally present at the
time. All that we can possibly know, at this remote period,
may be tested by the miracles of modern times, namely,
that many persons afflicted with nervous and other diseases,
who were powerfully acted on through the medium of their
nervous system, by their faith, or belief, or confidence in
the operation, were often relieved; and that others, through
ignorance or credulity, were deceived by false appearances.
The testimony of sight therefore is, by its nature, not
to be communicated. The light of conviction, thus received,
can extend no farther than to the eye-witness; and if
miracles were necessary in the infancy of Christianity, they
are equally so still, and will be so to the end of time.
104 ON MIRACULOUS IPOWERS.
Whenever they cease, the authority of the evidence, which
depends on them, ceases also. Now the Church of Rome
seems to have been well satisfied on this point, and to have
been fully aware, that if miracles ever cease, the same cause
still continuing, it would tend to shew that they never
existed, and cannot be produced as substantial and conclu-
sive testimony of the truth of a religion.
The circumstance of continuance, then, is essential to the
truth and force of the previously asserted miracle. The
Bomish Church, seeing this, pretends to the constant and
uninterrupted succession of miracles to the present day;
and if multitudes of well-educated people can be deceived
now, how much more easily could they have been misled in
times of ignorance, bigotry, and superstition' The proba-
bility is always far greater, as Hume has shewn, that the
witness was deceived or imposed on, than that the laws of
nature were suspended or altered.
“There is not (says Dr Middleton) a single historian of
antiquity, whether Greek or Latin, who has not recorded
oracles, prodigies, prophecies, and miracles on the occasion
of some memorable events, many of these are attested in the
gravest manner, and by the gravest writers; and were firmly
believed at the time by the populace. Yet it is certain, that
there is not one of them which we can reasonably take to
be genuine; not one, but what was either wholly forged, or
improved and magnified into something supernatural.” (Mid-
dleton's Free Inquiry.)
This admission seriously affects the credit of all miracles
in all ages; for although we may admit the genuineness of
natural events or occurrences, yet we can only laugh at the
fictitious miracles in history, which are merely superadded
to advance or strengthen some doubtful statement or mon-
strous hypothesis.
ON IMIRACTUILOTUS POWERS. 105
“We should therefore exercise an unremitting caution in
receiving improbable relations, whether supported by the
authority of particular historians, or vouched by the general
belief of mankind. Here our sagacity should never fail us;
here our scepticism is never hurtful, -to exercise extreme
caution in receiving all startling narratives, to which our
assent is so frequently asked, and which hitherto has been
as unthinkingly yielded.” (Brougham's Nat. Theology.)
106 THE MIRACLES OF JESUS.
CHAPTER, XIX.
THE MIRACLES OF JESUS.
WE now proceed to examine, in detail, these “marks and
seals of Christianity,” as its advocates call the miracles, and
see whether the marvellous tales related are so clearly divine
and so well authenticated, as to be self-evident without the
aid of reason.
“The authority (says Dr Middleton) of a writer who
affirms any questionable fact, must depend on the character
of his veracity and his judgment. As far as we are assured
of the one, so far are we assured that he does not willingly
deceive us; and from our good opinion of the other, we per-
suade ourselves that he was not deceived himself. But in
proportion as there is reason to doubt of either, there will
always be reason to doubt of the truth of what he delivers.
Nay, in many cases, the want of judgment alone has all
the same effect as the want of veracity towards invalid-
ating the testimony of a witness, especially in cases of an
extraordinary or miraculous notion, where the weakness of
men is the most liable to be imposed upon; and the more
so, as it happens to be joined to the greater piety and sim-
plicity of manners.” (See Middleton's Miraculous Powers.)
We shall now apply this rule to the cases before us, and
examine what proofs of a sound judgment and strict veracity
are to be found in the miraculous statements contained in
the Gospels.
THE MIRACLES OF JESUS. 107
Among the miracles detailed are many instances shew-
ing the manner in which ordinary events are converted into
extraordinary or miraculous; in which, whatever conclusion
we may come to regarding the judgment of the writers, we
can have no hesitation in deciding on the question of their
veracity. Indeed, Middleton candidly acknowledges, that
the early Christian writers looked on it to be a praise-
worthy act, to invent and countenance the most palpable
falsehoods in support of Scripture.
The first example we present is the account of Herod's
death, as detailed in the Acts of the Apostles, compared
with the same account as related in the Jewish War, by that
accredited historian Josephus:
IHerod's Death.-Josephus relates that Herod, when at
Caesarea, attended a festival given in honour of Caesar, where
he was suddenly taken ill with inflammation of his bowels;
and seeing an owl, a bird of ill omen, sitting on a rope above
his head, he looked on it to be a messenger of evil tidings;
and declared to those about him, that he knew his illness
would prove fatal.—He left the theatre, retired to his house,
and died five days after.
In the Acts (xii. 23) this same story is related with the
usual embellishments. The owl is changed into an angel of
the Lord, and Herod is made to appear to die on the spot,
eaten up with worms —“And immediately the angel of the
Lord Smote him, because he gave not God the glory: and he
was eaten of worms, and gave up the ghost.”
Here we have genuine history to disprove the assertions
of these anonymous Gospel writers, and expose the unfair
way in which they dealt with facts; not hesitating, when it
answered their own purpose, to convert a simple historical
occurrence into a supernatural divine miracle. It is not
108 THE MIRACLES OF JESUS.
on such testimony as this, that we can yield our belief, in
contradiction to our own experience of natural events; and
all the miracles detailed in the Acts rest exclusively on such
testimony, not one being confirmed by either the Epistles
or Gospels.
Descent of the Spirit.—Matthew and Mark relate, that
Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist, and that he saw the
Spirit descending upon himself like a dove.—Luke says that
the Spirit descended in a bodily shape, like a dove.—John
adds, that this descent of the Spirit had been foretold to
John the Baptist.—By the time of Justin, there was also
a fire kindled in the Jordan.—(Dial. with Trypho.)
Angel in the Sepulchre.—The progress of exaggeration
and invention are also well exposed in the following state-
ment.
“And entering into the sepulchre, they saw a young man sitting on
the right side, clothed in a long white garment; and they were
affrighted. And he saith unto them, Be not affrighted: ye seek Jesus
of Nazareth, which was crucified: he is risen; he is not here: behold
the place where they laid him. But go your way, tell his disciples and
Peter that he goeth before you into Galilee: there shall ye see him, as
he said unto you. And they went out quickly, and fled from the
sepulchre; for they trembled and were amazed: neither said they any
thing to any man; for they were afraid. (Mark xvi. 5–8.)
Here Mark states that one young man was seen in the
sepulchre, Luke says there were two men, and Matthew
adds to this an earthquake to embellish the scene. This
occurrence was at length converted into the appearance of
an angel by Mark, then of two angels by Luke, and finally
of Jesus himself by John. *:
THE MIRACLES OF JESUS. 109
Here the Gospels themselves expose the fictitious cha-
racter of their own narrative; and the progress from the
credible to the incredible, the natural to the supernatural,
is well displayed; the men being converted into angels, and
an earthquake and Jesus himself introduced, to glorify the
scene. So anxious was John to exceed them all in the imagin-
ative faculty, as to introduce Jesus himself, although thereby
falsifying the statements of all the others.
Faising the Dead.—Here again a natural event is con-
verted into the supernatural.
A certain ruler, Jairus, came to Jesus, saying, “My
daughter is even now dead, but come and lay thy hand on
her and she shall live.” And Jesus suffered no man to
follow him, but his three confidential followers, Peter, James,
and John; and when he came into the house and saw the
people making a noise, he said, “Why make ye this ado
and weep P the damsel is not dead, but sleepeth.” He then
turned all the people out and took her by the hand, and the
maid arose. (Mark v. 22—42.)
Here we have Jesus' own declaration that the maid was
not dead, but sleeping, and who will gainsay his words P
Pſe tells them plainly “not to be alarmed, for the damseh
was not dead,” which speech is quite inconsistent with the
belief on his part that she was really dead; for if this were
the case, why say in so pointed a manner, what was not
only incorrect, but threw so much doubt on the miracle?
IIe accordingly went and roused the maiden out of her
trance, and she awoke.—This simple incident is seized on
by the Gospel writers, and with some embellishment is con-
verted into a miracle. Alas, how many miracles of a similar
kind could not the physicians of all ages record!
110 THE MIRACLES OF JESUS.
Miraculous Draught of Fishes.—“And Jesus, walking by the sea of
Galilee, saw two brethren, Simon called Peter, and Andrew his brother,
casting a net into the sea: for they were fishers. And he saith unto
them, Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men. And they
straightway left their nets, and followed him.” (Matt. iv. 18–20.)
Luke embellishes this simple narrative, by adding “a
miraculous draught of fishes” (Luke V.), and to this John
adds a miraculous fire of coals to broil the fish; and makes
the whole take place after the resurrection of Jesus! (John
xxi. 9.) Here we again see the natural progress of a story,
after many years, from a simple occurrence to a wonderful
miracle. The reader will particularly notice the lively
imagination of John, in kindling a fire to broil the fish !
Casting out Demons.—Matthew relates, that “when even
was come, they brought unto him many that were possessed
with devils, and he cast out the spirits with his word.”
(Matt. viii. 16.) This is Matthew’s version—It comes into
Mark’s hands, and he embellishes it by adding, “and he
suffered not the devils to speak, because they knew him.”
(Mark i. 34.) Luke improves on this by adding, “ and de-
mons also came out of many, crying out, and saying, Thou
art Christ the Son of God. And he rebuking them, suffered
them not to speak: for they knew that he was Christ.”
(Luke iv. 41.)
In these statements the reader will see again the pro-
gress of exaggeration, in the additions made in turn by the
Gospel writers, although bordering closely on a contradic-
tion, Luke falsifying Mark's statement, who had declared
“that the demons' mouths were closed, and they were not
suffered to speak,” by affirming “that they proclaimed
Jesus to be the Messiah.”
THE MIRACLES OF JESUS. 111
Now it would appear to us, that so far from preventing
these poor devils from speaking, Jesus ought rather to have
encouraged them, to proclaim his glory to the multitude,-
to shew to the world, that even the very inhabitants of the
lower regions opened their mouths to declare his Messiah-
ship. It might, however, be a question, how these demons
found out that Jesus was the Messiah, or for what purpose
God gave them power to take possession of the bodies of
these poor people, and even to occupy the body of Mary
Magdalene, out of whom Jesus is reported to have cast
seven devils. (Mark xvi. 9.)
It might be curious to ascertain what has become of these
demons now, for it would appear that the present inhabit-
ants of the world laugh at such creations, as the figments
of ignorance and of a bewildered imagination: and defy the
devil and all his works |
Driving out devils.-Again we have an account of Jesus
driving the devils out of two men, that were possessed, into
a “herd of many swine feeding; and the whole herd of swine
ran violently down a steep place into the sea, and perished
in the waters.” (Luke viii. 32.)
In this transaction a great injustice is perpetrated
against the owners of these animals, in depriving them in
this arbitrary manner of their property; and of cruelty
against the animals themselves in thus wantonly destroying
them.
It is further stated, that the people of the place were so
alarmed, that they besought Jesus to depart out of their coast.
Nothing could be more natural; for what man or community
would not apprehend serious injury from the existence of
a person among them, exhibiting his powers by destroying
their flocks and herds? But why did they not exact compens-
112 THE MIRACLES OF JESUS.
ation from Jesus for the injury sustained P. This is truly a
most apochryphal story, and places Jesus in a most unenviable
position; and the reader will perceive that herds of swine are
here introduced as grazing in a country, where the animal was
prohibited and declared to be uncleanſ The writer of this
we pronounce could neither have been a Jew nor an inhabit-
ant of the country.
Curing a lunatic.—(Matt. xvii. 15) “There came to him
a man saying, Lord, have mercy on my son: for he is lunatick,
and sore vexed: for ofttimes he falleth into the fire, and oft
into the water. And Jesus rebuked the devil; and he departed
out of him.” (Mat. xvii.15, 18.) Now Mark (ix.25) improves
on the story and says—that Jesus “rebuked the foul spirit,
saying unto him, Thou dumb and deaf spirit, I charge thee
come out of him, and enter no more into him. And the spirit
cried, and rent him sore, and came out of him : and he was
as one dead; insomuch that many said, He is dead. But Jesus
took him by the hand, and lifted him up; and he arose.”
EIere again the reader may observe the progress of em-
bellishment among these veracious Gospel writers; and we
need scarcely enter into a refutation of these justly exploded
notions of “people being possessed of devils,” they are now
so universally derided and disbelieved.
The fact is, this miracle was a simple case of Epilepsy,
and not of Lunacy, with which the poor boy was afflicted, and
of which we see many instances at the present day, under
the designation of Falling Sickness. The reader will ob-
serve that the fit, which had lasted sometime, did not cease
immediately at Jesus’ command, disproving his miraculous
power; but continued so violently, that the falling down from
exhaustion was the natural termination of the paroxysm. .
Here the simple fact that is related of Jesus, that he fell
THE MIRACLES OF JESUS. 113
into the popular error of attributing a disease, which he did
not understand, to the possession of evil spirits or devils in
the human body, shews that he was not only an uninspired
man himself, but that he abounded in all the silly prejudices
and notions of his too credulous countrymen!
It is truly surprising, that there ever should have been a
question, among persons of common sense, about the reality
of these “possessions; ” and when we consider the vulgar
notions about evil spirits and devils, we cannot account for
their prevalence by any other means than the overwhelming.
influence of priest-craft acting on the ignorance and credulity
of mankind, who were led to attribute all unmanageable dis-
eases to the actual residence of devils in the human body.
“We do not deny (says Athenagoras, of the apostolic age)
that in different places, cities, and countries, there are some
extraordinary works performed in the name of idols.” (See
Middleton’s Miraculous Powers.)
It is not a century ago that the laying of ghosts, driv-
ing out spirits, and adjuring witches, continued a most
profitable employment to the clergy of all denominations,
founded on a belief in these Gospel miracles. Dunatics,
hypochondriacal and epileptic people, and women labouring
under hysterical and other nervous affections, were declared
by the priests to be the victims of evilspirits, malignant de-
mons, and Divine wrath. This was called the Sacred Disease,
and only to be cured through the instrumentality of the
priests.”
* It is curious, that the belief of the possession of devils, in the human
body, is as prevalent in the East at the present day as in the time of
the Apostles; and the Brahmins are believed to possess the power of
expelling them by incantations and prayer, The surgeon of a Sepoy
Corps, in illustration, related to me, that one day his native assistant
8
114 * THE MIRACLES OF JESUS.
This belief was strengthened in the minds of the people by
the saying of Jesus, who is made to declare to his disciples,
on his failure in curing them, that these devils were only to
be cast out by fasting and prayer.
“Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting.”
(Matt. xvii. 21.)
Miracle of loaves and fishes.—Matthew and Mark relate
that Jesus fed 5000 men with five loaves and two fishes;
and after they were all filled, they collected the fragments,
amounting to twelve baskets full. They also relate a second
story of the feeding of 4000 men with seven loaves and a
few fishes; and seven baskets of fragments were taken up
when the men were satisfied. They do not state the size of
the loaves and fishes, or where the nineteen baskets of frag-
ments came from Neither Luke nor John take any notice
of this latter miracle. (Matt. xiv. 15.)
reported, that a Sepoy was seriously ill, possessed of the devil, “Sheitan
ooske budwm pukra.” On visiting him, the surgeon found him seated
on the ground, foaming, raving, and talking incoherently with great ex-
citement. He was surrounded by a crowd of Brahmins and others, re-
peating their Munturs or incantations to drive out the evil spirit. They
begged the surgeon not to interfere at present, promising to hand the
patient over to him if they failed. In a short time, the native assistant
came to say, that they agreed to leave the case in his hands. The Dr
accordingly went to the man, called for his Cutora or drinking cup fill-
ed with water, and passing his hand over it, sprinkled a pinch of tar-
tar emetic into the cup, repeating three times the name of the Hin-
doo god, Ram, The man drank off the whole at a draught, the surgeon
commanding the devil to come out of him. Presently his raving and
violence ceased, he became quiet, and silent, and sick, and copious
vomiting ensued ; the Brahmins declaring that each time a devil was
expelled. Shortly after the man quietly gathered himself up, quite
restored, and returned to his friends,-And the multitude ºvent anay
amazed and wondering / -
THE MIRACLES OF JESUS. 115
The reader will not fail to remark here, that in the
second miracle, the disciples have not the slightest remem-
brance of the first miraculous feeding; but most innocently
ask of Jesus, “Whence should we have bread to satisfy so
great a multitude P” and Jesus in his reply shews the same
unconsciousness of any similar previous occurrence. (Matt.
xv. 33.)
But even laying aside these suspicious circumstances of
the second feeding, and the disciples’ utter forgetfulness of
the first miracle, would any evidence in the world entitle
this story to our serious consideration ? Surely human
credence has its limits, as well as human reason! We
ourselves are not deficient in our powers of deglutition, and
can swallow, we believe, as much as our neighbours; but we
honestly confess our inability to swallow the five loaves and
two fishes, especially the fragments that remained'
Shortly after the disciples had witnessed these two mi-
raculous supplies of food, they appear quite distressed in
having forgotten to bring with them a supply of bread.
(Matt. xvi.) And, strange to say, not one of them thinks
of applying to Jesus for the remedy; nor does one of them
seem cognizant of the previous miraculous supply with
which he had just fed the multitude.
John's relation confirms this; for immediately after this
reputed miracle, Jesus says to the people, “Ye seek me not
because ye saw the miracles, but because ye did eat of the
loaves and were filled.” (John vi. 26.) And yet immedi-
ately after, the people, quite ignorant and unaware of there
being any miracle in his previous feeding, naturally ask
him, when he urges them to believe, -
* “What sign shewest thou then, that we may see, and believe thee ?
what dost thou work? Our fathers did eat manna in the desert; as
8 *
116 THE MIRACLES OF JESUS.
it is written, He gave them bread from heaven to eat.” (John vi.
30, 31.)
Thus it seems the people had forgotten the sign of the
miraculous feeding, “his giving them bread in the desert,”
as entirely and completely as the disciples. Jesus in his
answer totally evades the question put to him, and instead
of appealing to his previous miracle, merely tells them that
he himself is the true bread from heaven. Now can any
one imagine, if the miraculous feeding had really taken
place, that the people would have made such an absurd
demand, to require a sign, as the condition of believing, after
a sign had just oeen given; or that Jesus would have put
them off with such a mystifying and evasive answer?
But these discrepancies unfold the fictitious character of
these reputed miracles; and the narrators, from their want
of harmony and keeping in their statements, betray their
untruthfulness.—This is not the testimony we should ex-
pect from inspired writings, as the mark and seal of true
godliness. -
The blind man of Jericho.—The blind man prays to
Jesus that he might receive his sight. “And Jesus said
unto him, Gothy way; thy faith hath made thee whole. And
âmmediately he received his sight.” (Mark x.) Now John
contradicts this statement, and says, he did not immediately
receive his sight; for that Jesus anointed his eyes with
clay, and told him to go and bathe in the pool of Siloam.
(John ix.)
Blind man of Bethsaida.-(Mark viii. 22.) In this mi-
racle, Jesus is stated to have tried twice before he appears
to have succeeded once, which would be altogether incon-
sistent with divine power.
THE MIRACLES OF JESUS. 117
Nothing is more obvious (says the Rev. Robert Taylor)
than that persons diseased in body must labour under a
, corresponding weakness of mind. There is no delusion of
such obvious practicability on a weak mind, in a diseased
body, as that which holds out hopes of cure beyond the
promise of nature. A miracle of healing is therefore of all
miracles, in its nature, most suspicious and least capable of
evidence; and accordingly still continues to be practised, on
the credulous, by the Catholic clergy, even at the present day.
The barren fig-tree.—Jesus comes to a fig-tree, to eat of
the fruit, and finding nothing on it but leaves, it not being
the season for fruit, he is made to display a capricious and
fretful spirit, by cursing the tree for not bearing fruit out
of season. Matthew states (xxi. 19) that the tree withered
away immediately; but Mark gives us another version of
the story (Mark xi. 13), and says that no change took place
at the time, but that in passing that way the following day
they found the fig-tree dried up. Here Mark destroys the
principal feature of Matthew's version, as the appearance on
the following day might have been produced from natural
CallSéS.
Transfiguration—Metamorphose of Jesus is the original
expression.—Matthew (xvii.) relates, that Jesus ascends a
mountain with his three confidential disciples, who, as Luke
states, “were heavy with sleep; ” that his countenance and
clothes became illuminated; that two old men (declared to be
Moses and Elias) appear talking with him; and lastly, as
the winding up of the scene, a voice, out of a cloud, pro-
claimed him to be Jesus the Son of God. “And Jesus charged
them, saying, Tell the vision to no man, until the Son of
Man be risen again.”
118 THE MIRACLES OF JESUS.
This strange and improbable vision, as Jesus terms it,
is related by Matthew, Mark, and Luke, who were not pre-
sent; and John, who was said to be present, does not men-
tion it, or even allude to it. This is suspicious in a miracle,
so important and which so well accorded with John's.
views and sentiments. Besides, it exactly realizes his
declaration in his first chapter; “We beheld his glory, the
glory of the only begotten of the Father; ” and of the truth
of which (had it occurred) he could have so fully attested.
Now this miracle has no testimony whatever to support
it, as none of those present came forward to bear witness to
it. But it may be asked, Why was not Jesus transfigured
before the whole of his disciples, and in the presence of the
multitude P Why were these eye-witnesses prohibited
from communicating the event at the time P To what end
was this vain-glorious exhibition, or the appearance of two
dead men? And why, as Paul expresses it, was all this.
“done in a corner,” before three men only, whose mouths
were closed, and who are declared to have been heavy with
sleep 2–What a human idea of the divine being is here
displayed, which admits the possibility of real audible
speech, uttered by some one out of a cloud, and in the He-
brew language too !
“This legend (says Mr Hennell) has all the appearance
of a poetic tale, invented after the death of Jesus, for the pur-
pose of putting him on an equality with Moses and Elias;
for the face of Moses shone when he came down from the
Mount; both he and Elias heard the Divine voice speaking
directly to them; and both were supposed by many of the
Jews to have ascended into heaven. The account states
that Peter, who was present, immediately knew these two
persons to be Moses and Elias, although he had never seen.
f
THE MIRACLES OF JESUS. 119
them before; and Luke declares that during the vision
“they were all heavy with sleep!”—It must of a surety have
been all a dream, the baseless fabric of a vision.
Water turned into wine.—(John ii.) This miracle is
not noticed by Matthew, Mark, or Luke, but is introduced
many years after into the fourth Gospel, as the first miracle
performed by Jesus; and the reader will at once see that
the whole bears a fictitious and apochryphal character;
and shews that the writer of it, at least, was not an advocate
of the Temperance Society.
It seems Jesus, his mother, and the disciples, were at a
marriage feast, and all the wine being expended, Jesus is
here represented as turning eighteen firkins or 130 gallons
of water into wine.
“And when they wanted wine, the mother of Jesus saith unto him,
They have no wine. Jesus saith unto her, Woman, what have I to do
with thee? mine hour is not yet come.”
Now we submit that this was a most unnatural reply of
Jesus to his mother, partaking both of harshness and Osten-
tation, more especially as he immediately after complied with
her request. But why should one of the guests be applied
to, when the governor of the feast was present P After this
rebuke, the order given by Jesus' mother, “Whatsoever
he saith unto you, do it,” is very improbable, as it implied
that, although this was his first miracle, she had the same
foresight of what was to happen as the writer,
Jesus “saith unto them, Draw out now, and bear unto the governor
of the feast. And they bare it. When the ruler of the feast had tasted
the water that was made wine, and knew not whence it was: (but the
servants which drew the water knew;) the governor of the feast called
120 THE MIRACLES OF JESUS.
the bridegroom, and saith unto him, Every man at the beginning
doth set forth good wine; and ovhen men have ovell drunk, then that
which is worse: but thou hast kept the good wine until now.”—
John ii. 9, 10.
We would here ask, What object could there be in Jesus
producing this enormous quantity of wine (about 130
gallons), “after the company had well drunk?” To manifest
forth his glory P-this was certainly a strange time and
place to chose. Was this a fitting opportunity to manifest
forth his glory, after the men had well drunk?
What an opportunity was here lost for Jesus to have
exhorted the company to moderation, and to have impressed
on their minds the importance of temperance in all things.
It would have been of more value to his hearers, and have
redounded more to his own credit, than all these un-
meaning and silly miracles. For as far as relates to the
company, the whole must have been a failure; and we learn
elsewhere after all, that the kinsmen of Jesus, who were
there, did not believe on him " (John vii. 5.)
Neander, in his Life of Christ, is evidently ashamed of
this miracle, and tries to relieve the text by allegorizing !
And the early Fathers of the Church, in their anxiety to
prop up this fiction, solemnly assert, that in their days
several fountains and rivers (in proof of this miracle) were
annually turned into wine. “I myself,” says Epiphanius,
A. D. 368, “have drunk out of the fountain of Cibyra, and my
brethren out of another at Gerasa; and many testify the
same thing of the river Nile, proving the truth of this mira-
cle.” (Adv. Haer. l. 2. c. 30.)*
sº
* In the first ages of Christianity, the early Christians looked on
it to be a praise-worthy act to invent and countenance the most palpa-
THE MIRACLES OF JESUSe 121
Purging the Temple.—(John ii.) Jesus is here described
as proceeding to the temple, and violently driving out of the
court of the temple, the changers of money, &c.
“And the Jews' passover was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jeru-
salem, and found in the Temple those that sold oxen and sheep and
doves, and the changers of money sitting: and when he had made a
scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the
sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers' money, and over-
threw the tables.”
It is inconceivable how any man, in his sober senses,
should enter into the courts of the temple, and drive out
the people that were always collected there, for the purpose
of supplying the sacrifices with sheep, and oxen, and doves;
or that they should for a moment have submitted to such
an outrage.
These people, according to custom, had the sanction of
the high priest to bring cattle for sale to the outer courts of
the temple for the sacrifices, and doves for the offerings of
the poorer classes, and money to exchange for the foreign
coin which those from distant parts brought with them;
for every Jew had to pay a half shekel for the service of the
tabernacle. So that there was nothing unusual in the buyers
and sellers being congregated there.
Besides, if any one had dared to commit such an outrage
within the precincts of the Sacred Temple, interfering with
the arrangements of the high priest, by flogging the men,
overturning the money stands, and driving away the cattle,
-º-
ble falsehoods in support of the Scriptures. But for farther evidence of
the credulity and want of veracity of the early Fathers of the Church,
we refer the reader to Middleton's “Inquiry into the Miraculous Powers
of the Early Church.”
122 • THE MIRACLES OF JESUS.
he would have been seized as a mad man, and summarily
punished, if not stoned to death.
Had such an attempt been really made by Jesus, and he
had escaped with his life, it would have formed the principal
charge against him on his trial; whereas this act, that would
have been considered one of desecratien, is not even noticed
in any of the accusations against him, thereby confirming
our opinion, that it is one of the many fictions added to the
meagre outlines of this man's obscure life, for the purpose
of giving him a name and enabling the compiler to introduce
a supposed prophecy of Malachi, iii. 1, and applying it to
him.
The only way in which the Gospel advocates endeavour
to reconcile this story to the reader, is by declaring it to be
all a miracle!—See Blount's Lect. on Christianity. The
account is altogether apochryphal, and never could have
taken place as represented; except in a fit of “divine
furor,” altogether at variance with the passive and timid
character given to Jesus.
Raising of Lazarus.-John is the only one who mentions
this miracle; neither Matthew, Mark, nor Luke appear
to have had any knowledge of the affair. John did not
write his Gospel till some sixty years after the others, and
he is so given to indulge in revelations and the invention of
his imaginations, that little dependence can be placed on him
or his Gospel.
Eſe says, the people bare record to the raising of Lazarus;
where then is their record? Let it be produced, for these
vague remarks cannot be received as evidence. None of the
other Evangelists, who wrote so much nearer the time of
Jesus, mention one word of it, and neither the Acts nor
THE MIRACLES OF JESUs. 123
Epistles allude to it; although had there been any truth in
it, it would have been eagerly seized on by Paul, as affording
one of the best illustrations of the resurrection of the dead,
his favourite topic.
Matthew and Mark seem quite ignorant of that which
John says attracted the Jews, namely, the presence of the
revived Lazarus at the supper at Bethany; although they
both give an account of the supper. Besides, this episode of
Lazarus, if it did occur, would seem to be forced on the
attention of the first three Evangelists, when they relate the
entry of Jesus into Jerusalem, and the conduct of the mul-
titude; for John says, that the people then bare record of
his having raised Lazarus. But here the three first Gospels
make not the slightest allusion to it.
It is remarkable that the raising of Jairus's daughter,
which was said to have been performed in secret, is related
by three Evangelists; whilst the other two resurrections,
which were said to be public, rest each on the testimony of
one. The omission of an incident by one writer does not
always invalidate the narration of it by another; but con-
sidering the extreme importance of the last two miracles to
the Christian cause, as well as their impressive nature, it
does seem an insuperable objection, that three out of the four
Gospels should have neglected or forgotten to mention them
altogether. -
Now it is certain that if such an act, as that of raising a
dead man to life, had really been performed in the above in-
stances, it must have made a great noise in the world, and
been celebrated by all the historians of the times. But even
in that very apostolic age, when an eminent heathen, Anto-
lycus, challenged his friend Theophilus, bishop of Antioch,
a convert and champion of the Gospel, “to shew him but
124 THE MIRACLES OF JESUS.
one person who had been raised from the dead, and he would
become a Christian,” Theophilus acknowledged, that he could
not respond to it.—(See Middleton's Inquiry, p. 73.)
Centurion's servant or child (Matt. viii. 5–8.)—“And when Jesus
was entered into Capernaum, there came unto him a centurion, beseech-
ing him, saying, Lord, my servant lieth at home sick of the palsy,
grievously tormented. And Jesus saith unto him, I will come and heal
him. The centurion answered and said, Lord, I am not worthy that
thou shouldest come under my roof: but speak the word only, and
my servant shall be healed.”
t seems Jesus was so pleased at this compliment to his
healing powers and acknowledgment of his divine faission,
that the story concludes thus:
“And Jesus said unto the centurion, Gothy way; and as thou hast
believed, so be it done unto thee. And his servant was healed in the
self-same hour.”
Luke ends his version of the story thus:
, “And they that were sent, returning to the house, found the servant
whole that had been sick.” (vii. 10.)
It comes into John's hands, and he concludes thus:
“And as he was now going down, his servants met him, and told
him, saying, Thy son liveth. Then inquired he of them the hour when
he began to amend. And they said unto him, Yesterday at the seventh
hour the fever left him. So the father knew that it was at the same
hour, in the which Jesus said unto him, Thy son liveth; and himself be-
lieved, and his whole house.” (John iv. 51—53.)
Here the vague assertion of Matthew, which gives no
particulars, is amply filled up in the later narratives; nor
THE MIRACLES OF JESUS. 125
can we understand how the details of the story should be-
come better known the further we recede from the original
source. In John's account some sixty years after we find a
circumstantially related miracle; if we go back some forty
years to Luke's account, the miraculous portion is reduced
to a few words; and if we approach still nearer to its source
in Matthew, the addition has the appearance of being as
much a matter of inference as of knowledge, and seems added
to complete the story.
The Voice from Heaven.—John, who, it is conjectured by
many, wrote some time in the second century, and indulged
freely his imagination, relates that Jesus uttered a prayer,
ending thus:
“‘Father, glorify thy name.’—Then came there avoice from heaven,
saying, I have both glorified it, and will glorify it again. The people
therefore, that stood by, and heard it, said that it thundered: others
said, An angel spake to him.” Af
Here the people that stood by said it thundered, others
that it was the voice of an angel; and John completes the
miracle by translating the voice of the thunder into the
Greek language, making it a response to Jesus' prayer!
Taking into consideration John's creative propensity, it is
more reasonable to conjecture that the whole was merely an
embellishment to glorify Jesus.
Stilling the Tempest.—“And when he was entered into a ship, his
disciples followed him. And, behold, there arose a great tempest in the
sea, insomuch that the ship was covered with the waves: but he was
asleep. And his disciples came to him, and awoke him, saying, Lord,
save us: we perish. And he saith unto them, Why are ye fearful, Oye
of little faith? Then he arose, and rebuked the winds and the sea; and
there was a great calm.” (Matt, viii. 23–26.)
126 THE MIRACLES OF JESUS.
The reader will be rather surprised to hear, that this sea
was the lake of Tiberias, an inland lake or basin, as Bucking-
ham the eastern traveller terms it; the ship one of the fish-
ing boats; the great tempest a sudden gust of wind; and the
great calm its subsidence! -
In describing the lake of Tiberias, Buckingham says: “Its
local features render it occasionally sibject to whirlwinds,
squalls, and sudden gusts, from the hollow of the mountains,
which, as in any other similar basins, are of short duration;
and the most furious gust is succeeded by a perfect calm.”
TWalking on the Sea (Matt. xiv.)—“And when he had sent the mul-
titudes away, he went up into a mountain apart to pray: and when the
evening was come, he was there alone. But the ship was now in the
midst of the sea, tossed with waves; for the wind was contrary. And in
the fourth watch of the night Jesus went unto them, walking on the sea.
And when the disciples saw him walking on the Sea, they were troubled,
saying, It is a spirit; and they cried out for fear.”
Here it seems that the disciples had got into a boat to
cross the lake, and Jesus had retired to the mountain to
pray, and during the night in order to reach the boat he had
to wade through the shallow water. The credulous followers
of Jesus looked on this apparition, in the obscure gloom of
the night, to be a spirit walking on the surface of the waters.
Malchus’s ear.—Matthew, Mark, and John relate that
one of the disciples cut off the high priest's servant's ear, on
the apprehension of Jesus. So it seems Jesus’ followers
carried swords! Luke alone adds, “And he (Jesus) touched
his ear, (after it was cut off!) and healed him” (Luke xii. 51).
The silence of those, both before and after Luke, concerning
such an important result ; of John supposed to have been
an eye-witness, and Mark, who was acquainted with Peter,
THE MIRACLES OF JESUS. 127
an eye-witness, and especially the omission of this fact by
John after it had been once promulgated,—allis nearly equi-
valent to a denial of the miracle.
The reader will perceive how easy it is, even at this re-
mote period, by a little careful analysis, to expose the naked-
ness of these reputed miracles, which had no effect, it seems,
on many of those who lived in the very time of Jesus, and
were most capable of appreciating them. “Eor neither did
his brethren believe in him.” (John vii. 5) “Then began he
to upbraid the cities wherein most of his mighty works were
done, because they repented not.” (Matt. xi.) “For they
.considered not the miracle of the loaves, for their hearts
were hardened,” that is, they would not believe in the mi-
racles' (Mark vi. 52.) “And he could there do no mighty
works, save that he laid his hands on a few sick and healed
them ; and he marvelled because of their unbelief.”
(Mark vi. 5.) -
We do not find that any of those on whom miracles were
said to have been performed came forward themselves, in the
subsequent part of the history, to attest their truth; nor,
judging from the Acts or Epistles, do they play any con-
spicuous part afterwards in the affairs of the Church.
Jesus never seemed to have a high opinion of his own
powers as a miracle-worker; for he admits that there was
more difficulty in the performance of some miracles than of
others (Matt. xvii. 21), and in his failures pleaded a want of
faith or belief in the applicant; and when he was asked to
do a public miracle in attestation of his divine mission, he
not only refused, but did not even appeal to his previous
miracles. (Matt. xxi.)
A story is related of Jesus rebuking a devil, who kept
his hold so obstinately of a boy, that his disciples, with all
the miraculous powers with which he had invested them, were
128 THE MIRACLES OF JESUS.
unable to cast him out. And Jesus is represented as excus-
ing himself for the failure by saying, “Howbeit this kind
goeth not out but by prayer and fasting.” (Matt. xvii.)
“Now we know,” says Michaelis, “that the Jews ascribed
almost all diseases to the influence of evil spirits. To cure
a disease was, according to their notion, to expel an evil
spirit. This they pretended to do by charms and herbs; and
we have seen the extraordinary efficacy and virtue the Es-
senian Jews ascribed to fasting and prayer.”
Again, on his visit to Jerusalem, when, in the temple, he
was pressed for a sign of his claims to the Messiahship, he
told them to destroy the temple and he would build it up
again in three days. But the people looked on this as an
idle boast, and replied that if it took forty years to build the
temple, it was not likely that he could rebuild it in three
days. John, long after Jesus' death, tried to explain away
this vain boast by allegorizing, saying, that Jesus spake of
the temple of his own body
Jesus in another place puts his own miracles of healing
and casting out devils on a level with those of the Jewish
exorcists, and at the same time acknowledging their success
in working miracles, and making no distinction between
them and his own. “And if I by Beelzebub cast out devils,
by whom do your children cast them out P therefore they
shall be your judges.” (Matt. xii. 27.) And John says also,
“Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name, and he
followeth not us” (Mark ix. 38), clearly shewing, that the
practice was a very common one in those credulous times,
especially among the Essenian Jews, and no more questioned
than the miracles of Jesus himself.
The reader will here observe, that there is not one of
these miracles and mighty works brought forward in an au-
thenticated form; neither do the patients, nor any of the mul-
THE MIRACLES OF JESUS. 129
titude who witnessed them, come forward before the consti-
tuted or competent authorities to attest their truth; nor do.
any of the historians of those times mention one word about
them,-so that we have, in reality, no testimony to support
them.
The “earthquakes, and darkness, and convulsions of na-
ture; the rending of rocks, the opening of graves, and the re-,
surrection of many bodies of Saints,” leave not the slightest
vestiges in history. None of the miracles produce any effect.
upon indisputable historical facts; but events go on in their
natural course without the slightest symptoms of superna-
tural disturbance, and in despite of the legions of angels
that were vainly declared to be at Jesus' disposal. They
have therefore been handed down to us under the most
doubtful and suspicious circumstances in these four anony-
mous Gospel narratives, which we have shewn are worthless,
from the many discrepancies and contradictions in which
they abound. If then these miracles were intended as the
marks and seal of true godliness, they would most assuredly
have been more carefully preserved, better authenticated,
and have been surrounded with such a halo of evidence and
truth, as would have defied all cavil and all criticism.
The improved science of modern times shews, that disease
and premature death are natural penalties annexed to the
abuse of man's powers. To remove these penalties by super-
natural means, if it were possible, would be a cancelling of
the laws of nature; and if the different parts of the divine
plan be considered to harmonize with each other, surely the
credentials of the Deity would not consist in the infringe-
ment of his own immutable laws.
Most of the miracles attributed to Jesus are of the same
kind, viz. the removal of natural penalties. Now, instead of
these stories of doubtful verification, if Jesus had explained
9
130 . THE MIRACLEs or 'JEst’s.
to the multitude the causes of blindness, fever, and palsy,
and warned them to abstain from those causes which lead to
such evils; if, instead of mystifying their weak minds by en-
couraging such absurdities, he had opened their eyes to the
true cause of disease and explained its prevention and cure,
this would have shewn him superior to other men, and been
evidence to the end of time.
The possession of such knowledge by a person in the age,
country, and circumstances of Jesus, would have been more
miraculous than all these silly trifling tales, which no unpre-
judiced person can peruse, without regretting such a mis-
application of time and talent.
THE PROPHECIES. 131
CHAPTER XX.
THE PROPHECIES.
MAN's aspirations are always towards the future, and he
eagerly desires and seeks to discover the probable result of
his undertakings. The prediction of future events has
therefore ever been a fertile source of profit and power,
which the crafty have exercised over the credulous. It was
therefore always a mighty engine in the hands of the priests,
and the responses were delivered in such obscure language,
that whichever way the event terminated, the credit of the
prophet was safe.
Divine inspiration, or the gift of prophecy, so far from
being a guarantee that truth would be spoken under its
immediate influence, is, in scripture itself, declared to be no
criterion whereby we may conclude that what is handed
down to us as prophetic is always true. For God is made
to declare, “If the prophet be deceived when he hath
spoken a thing, I the Lord have deceived that prophet.”
(Ezek. xiv. 9.)
Again, when it is intended that King Ahab should be
urged to his own destruction, God is represented as causing
his prophets to prophesy falsely, as the means of his over-
throw. “Now therefore the Lord hath put a lying spirit in
the mouth of all” his prophets. (1 Kings.xxii. 23.)
So doubtful and so deceitful is this gift of prophecy, that
God is made, by the mouth of the Apostle Paul, to declare,
“For this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that
\ 9 #
132 THE PROPHECIES.
they should believe a lie: that they all might be damned.”
(2 Thess. ii. 11.) What guarantee have we, then, that this
may not be the case in regard to these prophecies, and that
a lying spirit has not been put into the mouths of the
prophets, and that we may not be labouring under strong
delusions?
The Old Testament writings are supposed to make many
allusions to future events, and especially to the coming of a
mighty prince or Messiah of the house of David, who would
sit on the throne of David, and reign over Israel. Every
passage which, in the most remote degree, was thought to
bear any allusion to the life or acts attributed to Jesus, has
been eagerly seized on by the Gospel writers, assimilated
to this person, and exhibited as proof of his Messiahship.
Even many of Jesus’ reputed acts have been so related,
as to bear some faint resemblance to obscure passages of the
Old Testament. And frequently, trusting to the ignorance
of their headers, and their inability to examine for them-
selves, the writers have even ventured to quote supposed
passages which had no real existence.
The opinion, that the prophecies of the Old Testament
contained a secondary or mystical meaning, is unsupported
by evidence. The writers themselves do not pretend to
have more than one meaning, which in most cases is very
intelligible, and relates to events of or near the times in
which they wrote. But to suppose that they were making
allusions to events that had no existence till 500 years after,
or that the Almighty Creator would manifest himself to the
world in this obscure and doubtful manner, is the extreme
of improbability. w -
The fifty-third chapter of Isaiah is often quoted as re-
ferring to the Messiah, but it is considered by all impartial
readers, to be a poetical exhortation to the Jewish people
THE PROPHIECIES. : 133
(under the name of Jacob or Israel), describing their
sufferings during the captivity; and which sufferings, Isaiah
announces, will be accepted by Jehovah, as a propitiation or
atonement for their sins. The whole is evidently intended
as an encouragement to the broken and wounded spirit of
that wretchéd people on their return from captivity, and
to inspire them with zeal and courage to restore their nation
to its former glory. They are therefore appealed to under
the venerated names of “Jacob and Israel.” This is the view
taken by the most learned Jews, who state, “that in Isaiah, .
Jacob or Israel does not mean one man, but one people, who
are described, as smitten of God, and dispersed among the
Gentiles for their conversion.”
Origen, who lived in the 4th century; tells us “that the
Jews of his time were accustomed to deride the Christians,
as not understanding the sense of scripture on which they
pretended to build so much.” (Orig. C. Cels.) Now the
early Christians, in their eagerness to convert this chapter
to their own purpose, have not hesitated to tear it rudely
from its context, and so explain it as to stultify the writer,
Isaiah, who is made to introduce abruptly a new subject
(Jesus as the Christ) and to return again to his usual one
(Jacob or Israel) without any explanation —To such shifts
have they had to resort to prop up their new religion.
In the Gospel narratives, some of the incidents appear to
agree with detached sentences in the Jewish scriptures.
This confirmed the belief of the disciples that Jesus had
claims to the Messiahship; and they were able, by straining
the facts a little one way, and the meaning of scripture
another, so to find in almost every page some fresh coinci-
dence. Words and sentences, falling through lapse of time
into dry forms, were vivified by the discovery of some Sup-
posed mysterious connexion with present things. Coinci-
134 THE PROPHECTIES.
dences the most doubtful were magnified into fulfilled
prophecies; and imagination found abundance of connexion,
which common sense alone could never have discovered.
(See Hennell's Christianity). -
From the confidence and frequency with which Jesus
and the apostles directed inquirers to “search the scriptures,”
for evidence of his Messiahship, it seems clear, that they
trusted to the evidence of prophecy and its fulfilment chiefly,
as the strongest arguments in its favour. The comparative
infrequency of their appeal to miracles shews that they
were less relied on. - e
We now proceed to try Jesus’ pretensions by the above
test, and examine some of those passages that have been
chiefly relied on and quoted by the Gospel writers.
Jesus' supposed divine origin is founded on the following
passage from Isaiah,
“Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin
shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. Butter
and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose
the good. For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose
the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her
kings.” (Isa. vii. 14—16.)
Here Isaiah tells us plainly, that a child would be born,
not by one who was a mother, but by a virgin, who never
bore a child, i. e. it would be a first-born child; for the He-
brew word, translated virgin, means a marriageable young
woman, and not an “immaculate virgin.” The confirmation
of this is made in the next chapter, from which it is obvious
that the writer is speaking of his own wife and child.
“And I went unto the prophetess; and she conceived, and bare a.
son. Then said the Lord to me, Call his name Maher-shalal-hash-baz.
Tor before the child shall have knowledge to cry, My father, and my
mother, the riches of Damascus and the spoil of Samaria shall be taken,
away before the king of Assyria.” (viii. 3, 4.)
THE PROPHECIES. 135
Here then is the prophecy in the one chapter, and its comple-
tion or fulfilment in the next, and almost in the same words!
It being the custom among both the Greeks and Romans
to deify their great men, the early Christians, in their anxiety
to exalt the reputed author of their religion, and to relieve
themselves from the opprobrium of “worshipping a dead man
and crucified Jew,” eagerly seized on this passage, in the first,
chapter, without observing its fulfilment in the next, declar-
ing that it referred specially to Jesus; and as Emmanuel signi-
fies “God with us,” he must be divinely begotten I that his
mother Mary was consequently a pure virgin intact, that she
was impregnated by the Holy Ghost, and that it was here
foretold, 500 years before, by the prophet Isaiah
Previously to this, the Gospel writers, to support Jesus’
pretensions as a lineal descendant of David, had drawn out
an elaborate genealogy of his descent from David ; but by
thus declaring him to be begotten of God, they destroyed
the only fair title he had to the Messiahship. So from one
difficulty they only involved themselves in a greater; and
the Christian religion has ever since remained on the horns
of a dilemma; and which has been a bone of contention to
the different conflicting sects of Christians now for nearly
2000 years! -
As a further and conclusive proof that Isaiah could not
have referred, in this or any other part of his work, to a Mes-
siah or Saviour, or to the Son of God or offspring of the
Deity, we refer the reader to his celebrated 43rd chapter,
where it expressly states that besides the Lord God there is
no Saviour. -
“I am the Lord thy God, the Holy One of Israel, thy Saviour: be-
fore me there was no Godformed, neither shall there be after me. I, even.
I, am the Lord, and BESIDE ME there is No SAVIOUR.” (Isa. xliii.
3, 10, 11.)
136 THE PROPHECIES.
Erom the following passage it may be seen, that even at
the end of the first century, when John wrote, the people
objected to Jesus being the Messiah, because he was not of
the seed of David; and they even questioned his being born
at Bethlehem, David's birthplace.
“Some said, Shall Christ come out of Galilee ? Hath not the scrip-
ture said, That Christcometh of the seed of David, and out of the town
of Bethlehem, where David was ? So there was a division among the
people because of him.” (John vii. 41–43.)
Nor does John venture to contradict either of these objec-
tions; yet if he knew that Jesus was really born at Bethlehem,
he could scarcely have avoided mentioning it here.
The following passage has been brought forward, as re-
ferring to the person of Jesus and his divinity. Grotius,
the learned commentator, says, that instead of “Counsellor,
the Mighty God,” we should read “consulter of the Mighty
God.”
“For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given : and the
government shall be upon his shoulder: and his náme shall be called
Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The
Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and peace there
shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to
order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from hence-
forth even for ever.” (Isaiah ix. 6, 7.) -
Here Isaiah tells the people, that unto them a child is
born, and the government shall be upon his shoulder, &c.
Josiah, the king, was only eight years old when he began to
reign, a pious and excellent king, and to him this eulogium
is evidently applied. The passage refers to the throne of
David, on which Jesus never sat, and to a peaceful settle-
ment of the government and kingdom of Israel, whereas, in
the time of Jesus, it was in the hands of the Romans, and
ultimately got into utter confusionſ
THE PROPHECIES. 137
“This is he, of whom it is written, Behold, I send my
messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way
before thee.” (Luke vii. 27.) This is one of those pas-
sages that produced the popular idea of a Messiah in the
Jewish mind. But here the reader will observe the dishonest
advantage taken by Mark and Luke, so that, in order to ac-
commodate the passage to Jesus, they have not hesitated to
alter the original.
“Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way
before me.” (Malachi iii. 1.)
IHere “before me,” referring to the Lord of Hosts, is
altered into “before thee,” or Jesus; and to strengthen the
inference, the passage is interpolated with the additions of
thy way, and before thy face 1
What can we think of such moral dishonesty! Is this
like the mark and seal of true godliness? Lightfoot in his
commentary on Mark says, “This quotation from Malachi
agrees neither with the original Hebrew nor the Greek
version; the Septuagint has it, “he shall prepare the way
before my face.’”
“Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of
the great and dreadful day of the Lord.” (Malachi iv. 5.)
Malachi here foretells the coming of the messenger of
the Lord, and a day of vengeance on the wicked, evidently
referring to the last judgment. Now Elijah never has ap-
peared; and when John the Baptist appeared at Jordan,
Jesus declared that “he was Elijah,” (Matt. xi. 14) but
when the question was put to John, he positively denied it.
“And he was there (in Egypt) until the death of Herod: that it
might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying,
“Out of Egypt I have called my son.” (Matt. ii. 15.)
138 THE PROPHECIES.
The passage in Hosea xi. 1, from which the above mis-
quotation is made, is thus: “When Israel was a child, then I
loved him, and called my son out of Egypt,” evidently re-
ferring to the children of Israel being called out of Egypt,
as related in Exodus. -
“And he cast out the spirits with his word, and healed all that were
sick: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the pro-
phet, saying, Himself took our infirmities, and bare our sicknesses.”
(Matt. viii. 17.) *
Here Matthew has again quoted most incorrectly, and
given quite a different sense to that of Isaiah liii. 4. For
Isaiah speaks of the sorrows undergone by the person him-
self; Matthew, on the contrary, of the infirmities and sick-
ness which Jesus removed from others!
“And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might
be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a
Nazarene.” (Matt. ii. 23.)
There is no such prophecy as this in the Bible !
“He saith unto them, How then doth David in spirit call him Lord,
saying, The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I
make thine enemies thy footstool?” (Matt. xxii. 43, 44.)
So much for Hebrew quotations, and the facility with
which they can be misapplied. Now the true meaning of
this fragment from Psalm cy. seems to be a compli-
mentary address to some person, to whom it gives the com-
mon title of “my Lord.” (See Kings xviii. 7, 13; Judges vi.
13.) It speaks of his warlike greatness, but has nothing appli-
cable to Jesus, and has been put most injudiciously into his
mouth. -
“Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet,
saying, And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him that
was valued, whom they of the children of Israel did value; and gave
them for the potter's field, as the Lord appointed me.” (Matt. xxvii.9)
THE PROPHECIES. 139
The coincidence of the thirty pieces of silver and the
potter's field, would be remarkable, were there not strong
reason to suspect Matthew of having accommodated his.
narrative to this verse; for, strange to say, none of the other
Gospels mention one word of the thirty pieces of silver or
of the potter's field ! Mark and Luke merely say that
Judas bargained for money, and in the Acts i. 18, it is said,
that Judas, not the priests, bought “a field” with the
money.—Indeed the whole account of the betrayal of Judas
bears a fictitious character, abounding in contradictions,
which however will be shown in the chapter on “Judas the
Betrayer.” -
“Philip findeth Nathanael, and saith unto him, We have found
him, of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, did write, Jesus of
Nazareth, the Son of Joseph.” (John i. 45.) -
Now the only passage in the Pentateuch bearing on
the above quotation is Deut. xviii. 15, “The Lord thy God
will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, of
thy brethren, like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken.”
Here Moses evidently referred to those leaders that would
succeed him. Grotius, Stillingfleet, and others, understood
Moses here to refer to a succession of prophets, like himself,
who, we are told, formed the legal and authorised medium of
communication with Jehovah, but assuredly not to Jesus.
Here John's Gospel, written at the end of the first
century, gives Jesus (in the above passage) his true appel-
lation “the Son of Joseph,” without any reference to his
miraculous birth or divine parentage 1
“But thou, Beth-lehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the
thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that
£8 to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from
everlasting.” (Micah v. 2.)
140 THE PROPHECIES.
This is another of those passages from Micah, that misled .
the Jewish people into the delusive hope, that a mighty
prince shall arise and restore the kingdom of Israel. This
was eagerly seized on by Matthew, and applied to Jesus, and,
for consistency sake, his birth-place was fixed at Bethlehem.
But the description does not agree with Jesus, who never
ruled over Israel; nor is there any proof that he was born
at Bethlehem.
At the crucifixion, Mark (xv.) says, “They gave him to
drink wine mingled with myrrh;” Matthew says it was
“vinegarmingled with gall,” purposely to accommodate it to
Psalm lxix. 21: “They gave me also gall for my meat, and
in my thirst they gave me vinegar to drink.” Here the per-
version of facts, in order to fit them to the prophecies, in-
dicates historical dishonesty.
“And they crucified him, and parted his garments, casting lots:
that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, They parted
my garments among them, and upon my vesture did they cast lots.”
(Matt. xxvii. 35.)
It was the custom then, as now, that the condemned per-
son’s clothes should become the property of the executioners,
so that there was nothing propheticor extraordinaryin parting
the garments or casting lots for his vesture. But it shews
the eagerness of the Gospel writers, to seize on every text
that would, in the most remote degree, apply in any way to
the life of Jesus. ~ *
“But when they came to Jesus, and saw that he was dead already,
they brake not his legs: for these things were done, that the scripture
should be fulfilled, A bone of him shall not be broken.” (John xix.
33, 36.)
Here the reader will smile when he hears, that, the
prophecy alluded to is the direction given by Moses, in
Bxodus, about the cooking and eating of the Passover !
THE PROPHIECIES. .* 141
“And the Lord said unto Moses and Aaron, This is the ordinance
of the passover: In one house shall it be eaten; thou shalt not carry
forth ought of the flesh abroad out of the house; neithershall ye break
a bone thereof.”—(Exod. xii. 43, 46.)
Need we proceed further, in our examination of these
doubtful, and obscure, and often frivolous quotations from
the Jewish scriptures, which the Gospel writers have en-
deavoured to apply to a person who did not come into
existence till some 500 years after; and which, even at the
present day, still continue to distract and perplex men's
minds as to their true meaning and import P
The reader must perceive the manifest absurdity of
supposing that the above-quoted passages could have any
reference to Jesus or his times. To us it seems impossible
that any one, who impartially examines the context, can
seriously represent them as prophecies fulfilled by Jesus!
The probability is, that the Gospel writers never calculated
on this kind of searching inquiry, but thought that their
writings would be received by people, in after ages, with the
same humble submissiveness as they were by their credulous
followers. 4.
142 JESUS IN HIS PROPHETIC CHARACTER.
CHAPTER XXI.
JESTUS IN HIS PROPHETIC CHARACTER.
As it was considered, that the expected Messiah would
be endowed with a prophetic spirit, Jesus evidently aimed
at this object, namely, to be looked on by his followers as a
prophet himself. He is therefore frequently introduced to
us as speaking in the prophetic style. But the specimens,
handed down to us by the Gospel writers, are rather unfa-
vourable to his pretensions,—we will, however, proceed to
lay them before the reader. -
“And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto
him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be 2 and what
shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world P’’
Here the disciples are represented as putting a most unlike-
ly question to Jesus, and one which could have no meaning at
the time, for Jesus was already with them; and, from their
subsequent conduct and language, the reader will see, that
the disciples then expected—not the end of the world—but .
the restoration of the throne of Israel; and that Jesus would,
during his actual stay on earth, redeem Israel. It was only
after his unexpected death that the disciples adopted the
novel idea of his second coming. Nor was it until about the
time the first Gospel was written that the early Christians.
had become familiar with these new views, and that the con-
nexion between the coming of the Son of Man, the fall of
Jerusalem, and the end of the world, could have been under-
JESUS IN HIS PROPHETIC CHARACTER. 143
stood. The conclusion is therefore forced on us, that the
Gospel writer has put into the mouth of the disciples a
question, which was no doubt most interesting to, and often
asked by the 'Christians of his own time, but never could
have been uttered by the disciples before Jesus’ unexpected
death.
Jesus, in his reply, after enumerating wars and rumours
of wars, and false Christs, and famines, and persecutions,—
thus proceeds:
“Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be
darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall
from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken: and then
shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the
tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in
the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. And he shall send his
angels with a great Sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together
his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other. Now
learn a parable of the fig tree; When his branchis yet tender, and putteth
forth leaves, ye know that summer is nigh: so likewise ye, when ye
shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors. Verily
I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be
fulfilled.” (Matt. xxiv. 29–34.)
Now this prediction never has been fulfilled; for these
things did not happen, and many generations have since pass-
ed away! Here Jesus announces, that “shortly after that ca-
lamity” (the expected destruction of Jerusalem), and within
the term of that generation, all these things would be fulfill-
ed; he would make his advent in clouds of glory, and ter-
minate the existing dispensation. This promise never has
been accomplished Eighteen hundred years have now
passed away, in the vain hope and expectation of his follow-
ers that this promise would be fulfilled.
“No promise (says Reimarus) throughout the whole
Scriptures is, on the one hand, more definitively expressed,
*
144 JESUS IN HIS PROPHETIC CHARACTER.
and, on the other, has turned out more egregiously false
than this prophecy, which yet forms one of the main props
of Christianity.” * 4
That the immediate fulfilment of this prophecy was ex-
pected to take place during the lives of those present, is evi-
dent, for in the first ages of Christianity, when the promised
return of Jesus was delayed longer than had been antici-
pated by his followers, there arose among them (according to
Peter) “scoffers, saying, Where is the promise of his coming?
for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they
were from the beginning of the creation.” (2 Pet. iii. 3, 4.)
And Peter in his reply resorts to the preposterous subter-
fuge, “that in the eyes of God one day is equal to a thousand
years, and a thousand years as one day.” And Paul, in re-
ferring to the non-fulfilment of this promise, shelters him-
self in obscure phrases. (2 Thess. ii.)
From all this it would appear that, in the early period,
this prophecy was often appealed to by the disciples; and
the frequent inquiries of the early converts, and their disap-
pointment at its non-fulfilment, must have tested their faith
and patience no little; more especially, when they saw year
after year passing away, and no appearance of the Messiah
to redeem his pledge.
John, whose Gospel did not appear till the end of the
first century, finding that this prophecy and promise con-
tinued unfulfilled, very wisely takes no notice of it whatever.
“Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall
not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.”
(Matt. xvi. 28.) -
Here again the above prediction of Jesus never has been
fulfilled, for all that generation has passed away, and hun-
dreds of generations have succeeded; and the Son of Man,
JESUS IN HIS PROPHETIC CHARACTEE. 145
has never yet come to his kingdom | What conclusion should
we draw from this?—need we pause for a reply P
“Jesus answered and said, Because I said unto thee, I saw thee
under the fig-tree, believest thou ? thou shalt see greater things than
these.” (John i. 50.) “Verily, verily, I say unto you, Hereafter ye
shall see heaven open, and the angels of God ascending and descending
upon the Son of man.” (i. 51.)
Although Jesus no doubt believed, that this miracle would
have been wrought in his favour, yet, alas ! the only thing
that Nathanael ever witnessed, was Jesus being conveyed as
a malefactor to be publicly executed, and ascending and de-
scending from the cross amidst the scoffings of the people.
“Verily I say unto you, If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed,
ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and
it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you.” (Matt.
xvii. 20.) “Verily I say unto you, If ye have faith, and doubt not, ye
shall not only do this nhich is done to the fig-tree, but also if ye shall
say unto this mountain, Be thou removed, and be thou cast into the
sea; it shall be done, And all things, whatsoever ye shall ask in
prayer, believing, ye shall receive.” (Matt. xxi. 22.)
How many sincere and true believers have seen the fal-
lacy of this promise! How many, wrih faith the most pure
and abounding, and prayer the most ardent and sincere, have
seen the utter inefficacy of both faith and prayer in the ac-
complishment of their wishes, even in the removal of small
evils; and as to the removal of mountains, either the above
is a vain boast, or no man has ever had faith or belief as a
grain of mustard seed. - -
Jesus is reported to have more than once predicted his
own sufferings and death. Matthew relates, that certain
scribes and Pharisees asked for a sign, that is, that Jesus
would, as evidence of his divine mission, perform a miracle.
But he declined the challenge as usual, and abusively termed
10 -
146 JESUS IN HIS PROPHETIC CHARACTER.
them “an evil and adulterous generation,” adding, “there
shall no sign be given but the sign of the prophet Jonah,”—
“For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly:
so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of
the earth.”
Now Jesus never was in the heart of the earth; and after
his crucifixion lay only one day and two nights in the chamber
or sepulchre, before he disappeared. An inspired writer
could not have made such a mistake; but we suspect that
Matthew, in his eagerness to exhibit Jonah as a good type
of Jesus, did not hesitate to apply this passage without
troubling himself about the correctness of the simile. -
Mark, probably perceiving the inaccuracy, has omitted
the allusion to Jonah altogether. Luke has preserved it,
but altered the text so as to avoid the awkward inconsistency
of Matthew's version, and thus expresses it: -
“For as Jonas was a sign to the Ninevites, so also shall the Son of
man be to this generation.” (Luke xi. 30.)
Here again is a sad want of agreement in the inspired
writings! Now which of these accounts is true? The one
writer shews Jesus to be a false prophet; the other alters
the passage, so as to relieve Jesus from his error: and the
third, as the wisest course, omits the allusion to Jonah alto-
gether!—These surely are not the marks or seals of inspira-
tion. -
Jesus, according to Luke xxiv., expounds to his disciples
“all the passages of Scripture relating to himself, beginning
at Moses and all the Prophets,” and “then he opened their
understandings, that they might understand the Scriptures.”
Now we greatly wish, that Luke had extended to us the de-
tails of this exposition, and opened our understandings also;
but, alas! he limits himself to the mere assertion, and does
not give us a single passage as having been interpreted by
JESUS IN HIS PROPHETIC CHARACTER. 147
Jesus regarding himself or his resurrection! The sentence
concludes thus:
“And he said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved
Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day.”
Now there is no passage in the Old Testament which
seems at all to point out Christ's death or resurrection on
the third day. Indeed, the Jews never expected that the
Messiah was to rise from the dead, but that his posterity
would reign after his death. “Messiam ex morte in vitam
rediturum esse Judaei nunquam expectarunt. Morietur au-
tem. Messias, regnabuntgue post ipsum filius et nepotes.”
(Rosenmüller, Schol. in Essiam.)
Although Jesus expressly appeals to the prophecies of
the Old Testament, as testifying of him, yet in none of them
is there any allusion to his sufferings. Instead of this, Isaiah
(i. 6) speaks of the ill-usage which the prophets were to ex-
perience; Isaiah iii. of the calamities of the prophetic race,
or of the Israelitish people; Psalm exviii. of the unexpected
deliverance and exaltation of that people, or of their princes;
while Psalm xxii. is the complaint of an oppressed exile, and
verse 17 has some reference to a person torn by wild beasts
in a combat or in the chase.
10 *
148 PROPHECIES AND MIRACLES
CHAPTER XXII.
PROPELECIES AND MIRACLES AS TESTS OF A TRUE
IRELIGION. *
IT has been now shewn, that not only the prophecies of
the Old Testament cannot have any reference to Jesus as
the Messiah, but that any attempts of Jesus to prophecy of
himself, or foretell future events, have proved utter failures.
The reader will perceive, then, how very unsatisfactory the
prophecies are as seals or marks of a true religion, or a test
of the truth of these Gospel narratives. -
Now let us suppose, that the prophets foresaw and fore-
told all that is related in these Gospel narratives; this would
only shew that these men had some fore-knowledge of such
matters, but it could not possibly have proved the truth of
any doctrines, or the righteousness of any persons,—and
therefore could have been no rational foundation of true re-
ligion; and here all prophecy must terminate and can go no
farther, The prophets were altogether mistaken in their
guesses and conjectures about the Messiah; and as to the
establishment of their kingdom in peace and righteousness,
they were equally wrong—in all which their national preju-
dices and gross ignorance of the nature of true religion were
displayed.
Now miracles and prophecies are no proofs of revelation;
for we would ask what proof miracles and prophecies can
give us of moral truth or the truth of any doctrine, as com-
ing from God and necessary for our salvation? And as to
AS TESTS OF A TRUE RELIGION. 149
the life and immortality said to be brought to light by the
Gospel, it was nothing new among the Jews in Judaea, since
the greater part of the nation had received it before.
Although the early Christians rested the proofs of the
Messiahship of Jesus mainly on the agreement of his life
with the prophecies, yet we have seen that, in many of those
quoted, there appears to be no agreement, and in others the
writers did not hesitate to alter them, for the purpose of ac-
commodating them to Jesus’ reputed life and acts.
There is also strong reason to suspect that they did not
hesitate, when it answered their purpose, even to alter parts
in the life of Jesus, so as to correspond with passages in the
Old Testament. We have seen also that they selected sen-
tences from all parts of the Old Testament, tearing them
from their context, and applying them to Jesus without any
regard to their original meaning.
Many of the actions of Jesus were adapted intentionally
to the prophecies to support his assumed claims, and this put
his followers upon seeking out for more evidences. Thus
biassed, they imagined they had discovered abundant coinci-
dences in every page; and acquiring thus the habit of mak-
ing out coincidences, they insensibly altered also their nar-
rative of facts.-(Hennell's Christianity.)
Indeed, to suppose that Almighty Wisdom would adapt
this obscure, unsatisfactory, and in many instances dishonest
mode of manifesting himself to the world, or of explaining
in this mystifying way his wishes and intentions to man, is
to believe that he literally intended to confound the wisdom
of the wise with the foolishness of prophecy. “For it is
monstrous to conceive (says Coleridge) that the Father of
all Lights could require, or would accept from the only one
of his creatures, whom he hath endowed with reason, the
sacrifice of fools l’”
150 PROPHECIES AND MIRACLES.
The Jews themselves, the chosen people of God, in whose
religious code these prophecies are contained, and for whose
benefit they were specially written, declare, even to this day,
that the true Messiah has not yet appeared, and that few of
the passages, quoted by Christians, have any reference to a
Messiah, and none whatever to Jesus the son of Joseph.
“How (says a learned Jew) can any man in his senses.
see in the ‘Immanuel,' announced by Isaiah, the Messiah.
whose name is Jesus, -how discover in an obscure and cru-
cified Jew ‘a leader who shall govern Israel,”—how see “a
royal deliverer and restorer of the Jews’ in one who, far
from delivering his nation, came only to destroy their laws,
and after whose coming their land was desolated by the Ro-
mans! A man must needs be gifted with second light in-
deed, who can find the Messiah of our holy records in such
a personage.”—(Israel Vindicated.)
PROPHECIES OF JESUS’ DEATH. 151
CHAPTER XXIII.
PROPHECIES OF JESUS’ DEATH.
JESUs, according to the Gospel writers, evidently saw
that he could not realize his own wishes, or the fulfilment
of the prophecies, unless he went up boldly to Jerusalem.
But from the sad example made of John the Baptist, un-
der nearly similar circumstances, and from the danger
attending the attempt, he was deterred, for a long time,
from venturing on the experiment. His hopes and fears
alternately acted on his mind, and his sayings to his dis-,
ciples shew, that the latter presentiment greatly predomi-
nated. He foresaw, either that there would be a simul-
taneous movement, human or divine, exhibited in his favour;
or that, like John, he would be seized on by the authorities,
and put to death. r
Enthusiasm cannot blind men to the most obvious con-
sequences of their own actions; and Jesus had already ex-
perienced, that his imaginary character of Messiah did not
secure him from human infirmities and human dangers.
(Matt. viii. 20.)
“From that timeforth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how
that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders
and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the
third day.” (Matt. xvi. 21; xvii. 22; xxvi. 2, 32.)
“Then he took unto him the twelve, and said unto them, Behold,
we go up to Jerusalem, and all things that are written by the prophets
concerning the Son of man shall be accomplished. For he shall be
152 PROPHECIES of JESUS’ DEATH.
delivered unto the Gentiles, and shall be mocked, and spitefully en-
treated, and spitted on: and they shall scourge him, and put him to
death: and the third day he shall rise again.” (Luke xviii. 31, 33;
xi. 22, 44.) s
Now none of these prophecies can be found in the Old
Testament —Jesus, it may be seen from the tenor of the
Gospel narratives, was naturally of a quiet, peaceable, and
timid disposition, running away from the least appearance
of danger. (See the four Gospels passim.) He might
naturally look to the result of his mission as very problem-
atical, and express his doubts and fears to his disciples; but
farther than this, the testimony is most unsatisfactory, and
the sequel not at all reconcileable with a previous know-
ledge and disclosure of his death.
In regard to the above predictions, it is repeatedly
stated “that the disciples did not understand that saying ”
(Mark ix. 32), “ That they understood none of these
things; and this saying was hid from them: neither knew
they the things which were spoken” (Luke xviii. 34), Lim-
plying that they did not understand the words of Jesus,
although spoken so clearly and distinctly; thereby throwing
a grave suspicion on the truthfulness of the narrative; and
that these predictions never had been made, but were after
interpolations. -
In confirmation of this, immediately after these confi-
dential predictions of Jesus to the twelve, of his sufferings,
death, and resurrection, two of these very twelve, entirely
oblivious of his previous words, most innocently ask him for
seats on the right and left of his throne, and dispute with
each other who should be greatest. (Matt. xx. ; Luke ix.
46.) When nigh to Jerusalem they positively expected, in
the face of these predictions, that the temporal kingdom of
PROPHECIES OF JESUS’ DEATH. 153
the Messiah should appear immediately; and when at last
Jesus is taken and put to death, exactly according to his
previous words, they all seemed astonished, and forsook’
him. º
Jesus’ condemnation and execution fell on his followers
as a blow, for which they were totally unprepared, and
which at once annihilated all their hopes. “The chief
priests and our rulers have crucified him (said they), but
we trusted that it had been he which should have redeemed
Israel.” (Luke xxiv. 20.) This proves the untruthfulness
of the above predictions, and that a crucified Messiah was
no part of their previous creed. For had Jesus spoken of
his death to his disciples, with such perfect openness and
plainness as the Gospel writers express, and so clearly shewn
them that his death was foreshadowed in the prophecies of
the Old Testament, they never could have lost all recollec-
tion of his sayings, or all belief in his Messiahship.
It is impossible to avoid the conclusion, that Jesus could
not have made any previous announcement or disclosure of
his death to his followers. On the contrary, they appear
from their own words, up to the end of his career, to have
held the common opinion on the subject, that he was about
to ascend the throne of David, and restore the kingdom to
Israel; and they seem to have adopted the idea of his death
only after that event had so unexpectedly come upon them.
It never was the opinion of the Jews, that the expected
Messiah should die a violent death. Indeed a suffering and
dying Messiah was utterly unthought and unheard of among
the Jewish nation, “for they had heard out of the law that
Christ abideth for ever.” (John xii. 34.) A crucified
Messiah therefore was a scandalon, a scandal, a reproach, a
stumbling-block to the orthodox Jews, and the extreme of
folly to the enlightened Greeks.
154 PROPHECIEs of JESUS’ DEATH.
The Rabbi Orobio declares, “It was impossible that the
Jews should have crucified the true Messiah, since the pro-
phets expressly say, ‘That the Messiah should come to
cleanse Israel from all sin, and that he will not leave a single
stain in Israel.” Now it would be the most horrible sin,
the most abominable pollution, as well as the most palpable
contradiction, that God should send his Messiah to be cru-
cified.” (Israel Wind.)—Even many of the early Christian
sects were of the same opinion, and did not believe in the
death of Jesus; a crucified Messiah was so contrary to their
own expectations, and the prophecies of Scripture. The
Basilideans affirmed, that Jesus did not suffer, but Simon
who bore his cross; and others, that Judas suffered in his
stead. The Cerinthians, contemporary with the apostles,
and the Capocratians in like manner denied that Jesus could
have been crucified.
IPROPHECIES OF THE RESURRECTION. 155.
CHAPTER XXIV.
PROPHECIES OF THE RESURRECTION.
IT is reported also that Jesus predicted his own resur-
rection as clearly as that of his death; for as often as he
said to his disciples, “The Son of man shall be crucified,”
he added, “and the third day he shall rise again.” But,
strange to say, here also his disciples “could not under-
stand him.” So that they even debated among themselves
“what the rising from the dead could mean.” (Mark x. 10.)
Even after his death, the disciples exhibited no traces
of any recollection that his resurrection had been foretold;
and no expectation that the prediction would be fulfilled;
from which we are forced to conclude, that these predictions
never were uttered, and never were conceived till after the
unexpected event. C
John, in the fourth Gospel, makes no mention of these
predictions of Jesus; on the contrary, he positively asserts,
and expressly declares, that “the disciples knew not that
he must rise again from the dead.” (John xx. 9.)—So that
we may conclude, that all these references of “rising from
* Christians of the present day ask, If such an act as that of falsi-
fying the Scriptures had been perpetrated, were there not many at the
time who would have detected and exposed so vile an attempt? We
answer, No, For in those times printing was unknown, and written
copies of the Gospels were few and far between. Each little church
156 BROPHECIES OF THE RESURRECTION.
the dead” are interpolations, added by some dishonest .
transcriber in support of the new religion of Jesus.*
The friends of Jesus, when they laid his body in the
sepulchre, commenced the task of embalming it, which they
never would have done, had they known, or even expected,
that he would rise again on the third day. And on the
morning when the women went to the sepulchre to continue
the process, so far from thinking of a resurrection, they
only shewed themselves anxious about removing the stone
from the mouth of the sepulchre. And when Mary, and
afterwards Peter, found the seal broken and the stone re-
moved, and the grave empty,the one conjectured that the body
was stolen, and the other wondered what had become of it!
We may here remark, that the narrators have made
rather an unlucky oversight in the relation of this reputed
miracle. For if it had been in reality a resurrection, and
Jesus had ascended into heaven, what occasion was there in
giving an angel the trouble of coming to break the seal and
remove the stone P The reality of the miracle would have
been manifested in finding the seal and stone intact, closing
the mouth of the tomb, and yet the body gone!—The very
fact of its being necessary to break the seal, and remove the
stone before liberating the body, shews that human means
were employed in its removal.
º
had its own copy, and each copy differed materially from its neigh-,
bour's; and as all these were merely copies of copies, there were no
means of proving which was the true copy. In such a wretched state
had the founder of Christianity left his work! But even at the pre-
Sent day, what have we gained with all the advantages of printing;
when we see that passages of Scripture (acknowledged interpolations),
and the gross forgeries surreptitiously inserted into Josephus and Taci-
tus, continue to be retained, and are still referred to by Christian
zealots, as evidences in favour of Christianity l
PROPHECIES OF THE RESURRECTION. 157
*
We generally find, that all these supposed miracles and
prophecies, and divinations from nature, exhibit their fic-
titious character by some oversight or inconsistency, and
which discovers itself on a closer examination.
When the other women declared to the disciples, that
they had met two men, who told them that Jesus had risen,
“their words seemed to them as idle tales, and they believed
them not.” (Luke xxiv. 21.) When Mary, and subsequently
the disciples going to Emmaus, assured the eleven that they
had seen Jesus risen, “they believed them not,” (Mark xvi.)
and Thomas, still later, did not believe even the assurance of
his brother apostles.
If then, after all these predictions, the disciples did not
believe in the resurrection, at the time and place it is stated
to have occurred, although declared to them by eye-wit-
nesses, how is it possible that we, eighteen hundred years
after the supposed event, can be expected to give any cre-
dence to so unnatural and improbable a tale!
And if the Gospels are faithful narratives, and the dis-
ciples, after the death of Jesus, acted in the contradictory
manner above related, then we submit, that the death of
Jesus could not have been foretold, and the resurrection
must have been a fabrication of the disciples for the glorifi.
cation of Jesus after his crucifixion.
158 JUDAS THE BETRAYER.
CHAPTER XXV.
JUIDAS THE BETRAYER.
IT is stated, that Jesus knew from the beginning who
should betray him, or, in other words, that he knew from
the commencement of his acquaintance with Judas that he
would prove a traitor to his cause. Now if Jesus knew this,
he must also have been aware of the motives that would lead
Judas to commit this act, namely, covetousness and love of
money. And yet with all this foreknowledge, knowing that
Judas was not trustworthy, and declaring him to be a
“devil” (John vi. 70), yet, it seems, he appointed him to
the responsible situation of purse-bearer to the party, virtu-
ally leading him into temptation.
This is all very improbable and very unlikely, for if
Jesus intrusted Judas with the property of his party, or
even entertained him in the sacred character of an apostle,
knowing him to be an unworthy and ungodly man, then he
never could have had any such foreknowledge And yet
John says, “Jesus knew from the beginning who they were
that believed not, and who should betray him.”
Again, when Peter asks Jesus, saying, “Behold, we have
forsaken all and followed thee, what reward shall we have P”
Jesus without any exception replies, “That when he shall sit
on his throne, they shall sit on twelve thrones, judging the
twelve tribes of Israel.” So that, at this time, Jesus could
bave no presentiment that one of the twelve would prove a
JUDAS THE BETRAYER. 159
traitor, and be lost to him, or in this promise he would have
made an exception of Judas.
Besides, it is most unlikely that one of Jesus' own spe-
cial companions, who had been an eye-witness of all his
miracles and mighty works, and was promised such extraor-
dinary rewards when Jesus came to his throne, should be-
tray him for paltry thirty pieces of silver! This would
tend to prove that Judas had no faith or belief in Jesus’
promises or mighty works, and must have looked on him as
a mere pretender to the Messiahship.
Matthew relates, that when Judas saw that Jesus was
condemned, he was seized with such remorse, that he hast-
ened to the chief priests, “cast down the money in the temple,
and went and hanged himself.” (Matt. xxvii.) But Peter
(Acts i.) relates a very different story; that Judas did not
cast down the money in the temple, but went and purchased
a field with it; that he did not hang himself, but fell down,
as if by accident, and died of rupture. Peter states, that
the field “purchased by Judas” was called the field of blood;
but, according to Matthew, it was the priests who purchased
the field “to bury strangers in.”
The account of the last catastrophe of Judas (says Rev.
B. Taylor) in the Gospels and in the Acts, is utterly irre-
concileable; and may be thus appositely stated. The Judas
of the Gospels repented; of the Acts, did not repent ; of the
Gospels, despaired; of the Acts, triumphed in his iniquity; of
the Gospels, returned the money; of the Acts, kept the
money; of the Gospels, bore testimony to the innocence of
Jesus; of the Acts, bore no such testimony; of the Gospels,
gave back the money to the priests, who put it in the trea-
sury; of the Acts, bought a field with it; of the Gospels,
banged himself; of the Acts, died by accident.—Such is the
harmony of the Gospels
160 JUDAS THE BETRAYER.
This story, whichever way we examine it, bears a fic-
titious character, surrounded as it is with difficulties and con-
tradictions. This evidently was the opinion of the early
Jews; for Celsus, who had carefully examined the grounds
of Christianity, and written many works on the subject, re-
proached the early Christians by insinuating, that Jesus was
betrayed by one of those whom he called his apostles, which
shewed that he was less capable of attaching his followers
to himself than a common robber chief! (Cels. c. Orig.)
Among the Gnostic Sects, they looked favourably on Judas,
and declared, that if he did betray Jesus, he was altogether
blameless, as he was merely an instrument of God, and co-
operator in the redemption of mankind.
THE A.GONY SCENE. 161
CELAPTER, XXVI.
THE A.GONY SCENE.
IT has been already explained that Jesus was in daily
fear of his life, and saw that the danger was much increased
by coming to Jerusalem. He accordingly, it is told, lived
retired in the suburbs of Bethany; and although he occa-
sionally visited the temple, &c., yet he prudently left in
the evenings. Accordingly we find, that although he came
into the city to eat the passover, yet immediately after
he retired hastily with his disciples to a distant garden,
called Gethsemane. Here he is described as being in low
spirits, and sorrowful, even unto death; probably from
having heard, when at supper, that the authorities were in
pursuit of him.
The manner in which it is stated that Jesus was appre-
hended, shews that he was not much known, and that the
meetings with his followers were held in secret. As for
Judas’s betrayal, it was simply giving information where he
was ; and the paying Judas could only arise from the above
cause, that of Jesus being so little known, and living so con-
cealed. This timidity and fear of Jesus, approaching almost
to pusillanimity, agrees very ill with his reputed divinity;
and his being betrayed—or in other words apprehended, on
the information of one of his followers, shews that he did
not intend to be apprehended, and consequently did not
anticipate being crucified.
11
162 THE A.GONY SCENIE.
John's Gospel, which was written long after the others,
relates, that Jesus. was arrested immediately on his arrival
in the garden; the other Gospels however insert a scene,
said to have taken place in the garden previous to the ar-
rest, and which has been designated, “the Agony of Jesus.”
The details of this scene, in the three Gospels, differ much,
and are but little in keeping with each other.
Jesus, it appears, retires to a distant part of the garden,
taking with him his three confidential disciples, and is there
seized with great fear and trembling. He declares “that he
is sorrowful even unto death,”—and begs of them to remain
on the watch, whilst he retires and prays “that this cup of
suffering might pass from him,” alluding to his arrest and
probable death. He returns to his disciples three several
times, and finding them asleep, upbraids them with negli-
gence. Luke omits this last act of Jesus, but introduces an
“angel” to support him in his mortal struggle; for he re-
lates that Jesus’ fears had so overcome him, and his agony
was so great, that “he sweated great drops of blood, falling
to the ground.”
Ełere the reader will observe that Matthew, who was,
not present, relates in detail, and in an earnest and pathetic
manner, the prayers and movements of Jesus; whilst his
only companions and witnesses of the scene were asleep !
He must have gained this knowledge by inspiration.
Erom the earliest times this “agony scene and sweating
drops of blood” have been a sad stumbling-block to be-
lievers in Jesus' divinity; as it must be allowed that he
betrayed a weakness of mind and fear of death, most unbe-
coming as a man, and most unworthy as the reputed Mes-
siah. Celsus and Julian both express their contempt at the
imbecility of character and fear of death displayed by Jesus
in this garden scene, and give it as a proof that he was a
THE A.GONY SCENE. 163
poor weak mortal and not superior to other men, who
preached faith to others but shewed a deficiency in himself.
What occasion was there for all this fear and terror in Jesus,
or for the assistance of an angel to support him in his agony,
when, from his own declaration, he had at his command my-
riads of ministering angels to protect him from his enemies?
Luke is the only one who introduces the angel in this
scene, which it is conjectured was by way of glorification, as
none of the other Gospels take any notice of this angelic
apparition. And Luke also is the only one who speaks of
the bloody sweat, declared in the 19th century to be a phy-
siological impossibility | g
Jesus himself seems to have had no idea that his death
was necessary, else why pray so earnestly that he should not
be put to such a trial; and that the cup of sorrow might
pass from him? It can scarcely be imagined, that he would
have spent a whole night in such passionate prayers and
supplications to God, to prevent an occurrence which he
knew must happen, to which he had previously consented,
and for which purpose alone he came into the world.
We put it to the impartial reader, would the Saviour and
friend of mankind have exhibited such reluctance, and have
thus declined a few hours of bodily suffering, in a way that
many thousands have endured both before and since, if he
had been satisfied that, by that suffering, he would destroy
the power of Satan, and open the gates of heaven to a world
of lost creatures 2
It is difficult to explain away this awful fright of Jesus
at the bare idea of the approach of death, which every well-
regulated mind can support with firmness and equanimity;
and of which so many men, in those times set such noble
examples. But this only confirms our previous remark,
that Jesus was a timid, nervous man.
& 11 *
164 THE A.GONY SCIENIE.
It is strange that John, who was one of the three that
accompanied Jesus, should not come forward with his testi-
mony, but passes over the whole in utter silence, without
taking any notice of it; for, apparently to do away with the
evil effects of this strange scene, he previously introduces .
Jesus, at the last supper, as addressing the disciples in the
cheerful tone of one, who had already triumphed over all
approaching sufferings and all fear of death.
But even supposing John's version to be true, how is it
to be accounted for, that immediately after the supper, this
tranquil and cheerful tone should give place to violent men-
tal anguish, and this peace of mind to sorrow bordering on
death; and that he should sink into such a state of despond-
ency, as to require the assistance of a ministering angel to
support him P -
The other three Gospels mention not a word of these
farewell discourses of Jesus, as described by John. Now in
this dilemma there is but one alternative, the agony scene
and the discourses both cannot have taken place,—one
must be A FABRICATION.
AIRREST OF JESTJS. 165
CHAPTER XXVII.
ARREST OF JESUS.
JESUS is now arrested, and according to Matthew, Judas
steps forth and kisses him; but according to John, he does
not salute him at all, for Jesus himself steps forward to the
guard, and declares, “I am he ;” which John declares so
alarmed the people present, that “from the spirit of his
mouth, they went back and fell to the ground.” (John
xviii. 6.) *
The reader may see, from these exaggerations, that John
is not to be depended on in his narrative, he is so fond of
embellishment, and of giving his fancies to the world as
facts; and differs in his relation so widely from the other
Gospel writers. Strauss says, that John wished to make it
appear, that Jesus thus voluntarily gave himself up, to do
away with the assertions of the early opponents of Chris-
tianity, who imputed the hasty retirement of Jesus from the
supper, into the distant garden, “as an ignominious flight
from his enemies; ” and which view was confirmed by his
placing a watch, and his subsequent fear and agony.
Matthew and Mark both relate that all Jesus' disciples
fled away and left him. This is another proof of the little
faith and confidence they had in his promises, or in his
power to deliver them or himself from his enemies. For
if Jesus had impressed, on the minds of his followers, that
he was the Messiah, and if he had in reality performed
the mighty works imputed to him by the Gospel writers, is
166 ARREST OF JESUS.
it likely that this disgraceful flight and fear could have taken
place P Even his three favourite disciples deserted him; and
not one remained to take his part, or come forward during
his trial, as witnesses in his behalf.
Peter indeed, whom Jesus had expressly told to “feed
his sheep,” and which has been interpreted by the Catholic
portion of the Christian Church as being appointed to the
head of his Church, from his previously declared conviction
that he was the Messiah, even he, when brought forward
and confronted with Jesus, swore and stoutly denied “that
he had ever seen or known him.” (Matt. xxvi. 70.)
We regret to acknowledge that every step we take in
our inquiry into this Gospel story, only shakes our belief
the more as to its truthfulness, for it is not narrated like
truth. -
PETER’s DENIAL. 167
º
CHAPTER XXVIII.
PETER’s DENIAL.
WHEN Jesus was arrested and all the disciples had for-
saken him and fled, it appears that Peter had followed at a
distance, and entered with the guard into the court of the
palace. He is here recognised, and repeatedly taxed as one
of Jesus’ followers, but as repeatedly denied all knowledge
of him. On this is founded a prediction of Jesus, said
to be fulfilled by the crowing of a cock! *
We should scarcely think this incident worthy of notice,
were it not to point out, even in this trifling instance, un-
worthy of prophecy, the many discrepancies of the Gospel
writers; and again to draw attention to the small faith and
belief in Jesus, manifested by Peter, after his solemn de-
claration, “Thou art Jesus, son of the living God.” After
this scene, can we really think that Peter was serious, when
he made this declaration, and really believed what he averred;
or may we not fairly conclude, that he was playing on the
simplicity and vanity of his credulous master P
In regard to Peter's denial of Jesus, the Gospels all agree
in stating that there were three acts of denial, in accordance
with the prediction of Jesus; but in the statement of the
instances, both as regards the place where, the person to
whom, and the manner in which Peter made the denial,
they are all at variance. Jesus speaks of a threefold denial,
whereas it would appear from the Gospels that Peter denied
168 PETER’s DENIAL.
all knowledge of Jesus from six to nine times | But what
happened repeatedly, is represented as having been, agree-
ably to the prediction, precisely three times, in order to
form the closest approximation to its fulfilment.
The completion of this prophecy was “the crowing of a
cock,” after the third denial; but Mark, in his anxiety to
fulfil the prophecy, blunders, and makes the cock crow after
the first denial (Markxiv. 68.) Matthew and Mark proceed
to tell us, that on hearing the cock crow, Peter remembered
the words of Jesus, and wept; but Luke adds, by way of
embellishment, that Jesus turned and looked at Peter, who
broke out into bitter weeping.—Now, according to Matthew
and Mark, Peter was not in the same locality as Jesus when
the denial took place; so that this event could not have
occurred as related. Matthew and Mark state that Jesus
was led into the palace before Caiaphas the high priest,-
now Peter sat in the porch without the palace, and where
the denial took place. (Mark xiv. 71.)
JESUS’ TRIAL. 169
CHAPTER XXIX.
JESUS’ TRIAL.
THE first three Gospels relate, that Jesus was brought
before Pilate, the procurator; and, after the people had made
their complaint against him, Pilate asked him, “Answerest
thou nothing; hearest thou not how many things they wit-
ness against thee?” “But he answered him never a word.”
(Matt. xxvii.)
Here Matthew alone introduces the following episode,
that when Pilate had sat on the judgment seat, his wife sent
to him saying, Have nothing to do with that Just man, for
I have suffered many things this day, in a dream, because of
him; and when Pilate saw that he could prevail nothing
with his accusers, he took water and washed his hands be-
fore the multitude, saying, “I am innocent of the blood of
this just person: see ye to it.” (Matt. xxvii.)
Now we affirm, that this is a most unlikely act for a
Roman judge to commit, and derogatory to his high position,
in the discharge of his official duty, to yield to the people
contrary to his own judgment. In regard to the dream of
Pilate's wife, this is the sixth instance, in this Gospel, where
dreams are introduced as the medium of divine communica-
tion. The story is apparently brought forward as a testi-
mony to the righteousness of Jesus; for if it was intended
as an effective warning, it would have been addressed to Pi-
late himself, as it appears he disregarded his wife's dream.
170 JESUS’ TRIAL.
Neither Mark, Luke, nor John take any notice of this
dream or declaration, shewing, either that they discredited
Matthew’s account and omitted it altogether, or that it was
introduced afterwards by some over-zealous transcriber; for
there is little doubt of its being a fabrication.
Luke, in his version, differs somewhat from Matthew by
adding, that Pilate, out of courtesy, first sent Jesus to Herod
for examination, who, gratified at this, hoped to see some
miracle done by him; and certainly there could not have
been a better opportunity for Jesus to have manifested, by
his signs and wonders, the truth of his mission. Had he
made a convert of Herod, it would have been a great step to
the conversion of the whole nation, who, anxiously looking
out for the expected Messiah, only required respectable and
satisfactory evidence of the truth of his mission.
In these Gospel narratives, Jesus is represented as exhi-
biting his miracles daily to the ignorant multitude who
could not understand him, but went away “amazed and
wondering,” whilst before men of rank and education he is
stated to have been silent. Such men could have appreciated
his miracles, and would have been held up to future genera-
tions as good and unexceptionable testimony.
John's Gospel, supposed by many to have been written
in the second century, and the writer of which had the bene-
fit of hearing the subject canvassed, has written a very dif-
ferent account of Jesus. Instead of harmonising with the
other Gospels in their account of this trial, sand in the
silence which Jesus persevered in, he causes him to give full
and copious answers to all the questions put to him.
Pilate accordingly is made to ask Jesus, “Art thou king
of the Jews?” and Jesus' answer is given in a petulant and
unbecoming spirit: “Sayest thou this thing of thyself, or
did others tell it thee of me?” (John xviii. 34.) Now in an
JESUS’ TRIAL. 171
accused person, however conscious of innocence, such an
evasive and indecorous answer was unwarrantable, and un-
like the language usually put into the mouth of Jesus.
“Pilate again asks Jesus, Art thou a king then P” and
Jesus answers: “Thou Sayest that I am a king. To this end
was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I
should bear witness unto the truth ; every one that is of
the truth heareth my voice.” Pilate at once put an end to
these irrelevant remarks of Jesus, by asking one simple
question: “What is truth?” and Jesus, unable to answer this
home question, remained silent ; and Pilate, receiving no
reply, left the court.
“What is truth?”—This is a question more easily asked
than answered—that every one reads but few understand;
and we can easily imagine, that however freely Jesus might
talk of “the truth,” yet he would find himself quite unable
to reply to this searching question; and it was accordingly
left unanswered.
But another point creates great suspicion of the truth-
fulness of this narrative. John informs us, that the trial
went on in the interior of the Praetorium, which no Jew
would venture to enter. Who then heard this conversation
of Jesus? who was the informant? and who communicated it
to the writer of John's Gospel?—We can only come to the
conclusion that this reported conversation is the inspiration
of the writer's imagination, in which we submit he has done
Jesus' character much injustice.
Jesus' supposed answers to Pilate deservé some considera-
tion, as conveying the mystical and peculiar notions of the
Platonic Christians of the second century. Jesus says to
Pilate: “Thou couldest have no power at all against me,
except it were given thee from above: therefore he that de-
livered me unto thee hath the greater sin.”
172 JESUS’ TRIAL.
Now for a divine revelation, this appears to us strange
reasoning, for if he that delivered up Jesus had his power
to do so from God, his sin most assuredly would be less
rather than greater.
Peter confirms the above, when he says: “Him being
delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of
God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and
slain.” (Acts ii. 23.) But if Jesus were put to death by
the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, there
surely could be no blame attaching to any one, as they were
only instruments in God’s hands to execute his decrees.
But we can readily conceive, that a religion carried out by a
number of ignorant and fanatical men, putting their crude
ideas into the mouth of Jesus, must necessarily contain a
large mass of incomprehensible and incongruous matter,
—which has certainly kept the world alive for the last
two thousand years.
CRUCIFIXION. 173
CHAPTER XXX.
CRUCIFIXION.
JESUs, at length, is condemned to be crucified; and even
in the account of his progress to the place of execution,
there is a divergency between John and the other Gospels;
for John causes Jesus to carry the cross himself, whilst the
others state that one Simon of Cyrene bore it in his stead.
Two malefactors, it seems, were crucified with Jesus, one on
his right hand and the other on his left.
Now regarding the demeanour of these fellow-sufferers,
John is totally silent, Matthew and Mark merely represent
them as reviling Jesus; but Luke introduces a legendary
story of very doubtful character, but which has done more
mischief to the morals of mankind than almost any other of
Jesus' reputed sayings. He narrates, that when one of the
thieves derided Jesus, calling on him, “If thou be the Christ,
save thyself and us,” the other rebuked him, and turning to
Jesus said, “Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy
kingdom,” and that Jesus answered, “Verily Isay unto thee,
to-day thou shalt be with me in paradise.”
Here the answer of Jesus to the thief is conceived quite
in the Jewish spirit and belief, and he here again disproves
his divine nature by declaring, that he and the thief had to
pass through the same ordeal after death, and were to meet
together in Paradise or Hades, which, according to the pre-
Valent idea of the Jews, was that place that was to harbour
174 CRUCIFIXION.
the souls of the “chosen people,” in the interval between
death and the advent of the Messiah. Now Jesus promises
that the thief should accompany him, not to heaven, but to
this intermediate place called Hades or Paradise.
That the thief on the cross should address Jesus as the
Messiah is most improbable, as it presupposes a knowledge
of Jesus’ Messiahship, which even the apostles themselves,
with all his explanations, did not comprehend at the time.
It is so improbable (says Strauss) that it cannot excite sur-
prise to find, that many, to relieve themselves of the difficulty,
insist on its being a miracle !
This unfortunate saying, put into the mouth of Jesus,
that all the crimes of the thief on the cross were forgiven,
merely for affirming his belief in him, is the origin of all
those scenes of death-bed conversions, and repentance of
robbers and murderers on the scaffold, which daily outrage
the better feelings of mankindl -
From this promise of Jesus has originated two monstrous
doctrines, namely, that simple belief in him is sufficient in
itself to save the vilest sinner, and that the worst criminal
on the scaffold, if he express his contrition and declare his
belief in Jesus (not God), is sure of salvation.—This doctrine
is eagerly embraced by the worst of characters, as an apology
for persisting in their career of wickedness.
But all these tales tended to the glorification of Jesus,
which at the time was an important object, as it required
them all to lessen the opprobrium of his obscure birth and
ignominious death; and enabled the disciples to shew all
these sayings and doings as testimony in his favour. If
Pilate had borne witness in favour of Jesus; if shortly after
a Roman centurion, may even all nature, by its miraculous
convulsions, had attested his exalted character; so his
CRUCIFIXION. 175
fellow-sufferer could not remain impervious to the con-
viction of his divine nature, and he also displayed faith in
Jesus at the eleventh hour, even on the cross'
There is no doubt that Jesus, up to the last moment,
entertained the fond but delusive hope that God would
exhibit a miracle in his favour, and prove to the world the
divinity of his mission. He evidently trusted to this, in
preference to any futile attempt on the part of himself or
his followers. He therefore told Peter to put up his sword,
and confidently declared that he needed no human aid;
“thinkest thou that I cannot pray to my Father, and he
shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels?”
Jesus, therefore, had every confidence that heaven would not
desert him in his utmost need, but, at the appointed time,
would come to his aid and deliver him out of the hands of
his enemies.
Before Pilate, he still clung to the same hope, and re-
mained silent in the midst of accusations and revilings. He
even permitted himself to be nailed to the cross, without a
murmur ; and patiently and confidently waited for the mani-
festation of God’s promise in his behalf. But the faith
which had been able to expel demons, and which it was
hoped might be able, when fully relied on, to cast moun-
tains into the sea, was now found insufficient to triumph
over the formidable realities with which Jesus had to con-
tend; the last resource had failed; and when his spirit
began to flag, and he became weak, and thirsty, and faint,
he then began to suspect that he had been deceived in his
long-cherished hopes of succour from on high, and at length
resigning all hope, he passionately upbraided God for so
cruelly deserting him, in those memorable words: “My
God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” (Matt.
xxvii. 46.)
176 CRUCIFIXION.
As in the agony scene, so here also, poor human nature
got the better of Jesus. It is impossible to resist the con-
viction that his corporal sufferings, united to the bitter
prostration of all his hopes, overwhelmed him to such a
degree, that he felt himself utterly abandoned by God, and
exhibited in both these instances a weakness of mind and
want of fortitude quite inconsistent with the character he
had assumed.
We agree with Strauss, that if Jesus, as the Gospels
narrate, had predicted his own sufferings and death, and had
included them in his idea of the Messiah, and hence had
regarded them as part of the divine arrangement, he would
scarcely have complained of them, when they actually
arrived, as an abandonment by God. We should rather
think, says Reimarus, that he found himself deceived in the
expectations he had formed and previously cherished, and
thus believed himself forsaken of God. John and Luke
have prudently suppressed in their Gospels this unlucky
exclamation
“The behaviour of Jesus (says Burder) in the last scene
of his life fully disproves his claims to kingship and divinity,
and shows that he was a weak-minded man, who had been
deceiving himself and deceived others. Fully impressed
with the idea of his divine mission, when first apprehended
he surrendered himself without a struggle, because, as he
said, ‘the Scriptures must be fulfilled.” On his trial, he
stood mute, because he refused to acknowledge any earthly
jurisdiction. But at last, overcome by the sufferings of
human nature, and finding that God did not come to his
relief, he cried out in the agony of pain and despair, “My
God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” thus giving up
the belief in the divinity of his mission 1"
Concerning the last words of Jesus, there is no manner
CRUCIFIXION. 177
of agreement among the Gospel writers. Matthew and
Mark relate, that Jesus “cried with a loud voice, and gave
up the ghost;” Luke states that he said, “Father, into thy
hands I commend my spirit,” and according to John, that
he merely said, “It is finished.” These are most unlikely
expressions for Jesus to make, after his previous exclama-
tion of abandonment by God; but their discrepancy shews
their fabrication.
The accounts that are given of the circumstances that
the Evangelists tell us attended the crucifixion, are dif.
ferently related by them. Matthew says:
“Now from the sixth hour there was darkness over all the land
unto the ninth hour. And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in
twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the
rocks rent; and the graves were opened; and many bodies of the
saints which slept arose, and came out of the graves after his resur-
rection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.” (Matt.
xxvii. 45, 51—53.)
Mark, on the contrary, makes no mention of any earth-
quake, nor of the rocks rending, nor of the graves opening,
nor of the dead men walking about the city. Luke and
John are also equally silent on the subject. Now if it had
been true that those things had really happened, it was not
possible for them as true historians, even without the aid of
inspiration, not to have recorded them. Such things were
of too much notoriety not to have been known, and of too
much importance not to have been recorded.
The Gospels differ widely as to the time of the day
when Jesus was crucified, one making it the third hour, an-
other the sixth hour, and another the ninth hour of the day.
There is also as much uncertainty about the epoch of the
death of Jesus as about his birth, and whether he was cruci-
12
178 CRUCIFIXION.
fied in the 15th, 16th, or 19th year of Tiberius, or whether
he was crucified at all !
The early fathers, moreover, differ as to the length of his
public ministry; some assign but one year, others two years,
and Eusebius makes it three years before his crucifixion.
In fact, there is no certainty in anything connected with
the life, acts, sayings, or death of this personage. The only
records handed down to us are the four contradictory anony-
mous Gospels; for none of the historians of that period
take any notice of him, or seem to have been aware that
such a person as “the Jesus of the Gospels” ever existed i
JESUS’ BESTERECTION. 179
CHAPTER, XXXI.
JESUS’ RESURRECTION.
DID Jesus rise from the dead? On this important
question hangs the whole of the Christian's hopes; for, as
Paul declares, “if Christ be not risen, then is our preach-
ing vain, and your faith is also vain.”
Although the account of the resurrection in the Gospels
is very unsatisfactory, the writers contradicting each other
in many particulars, yet they chiefly agree in this—that
Mary and others went early to the sepulchre, and discovered
that the seal was broken, the stone removed from the mouth
of the tomb, and the body of Jesus gone. (John xx.) On
reporting this to Peter and others, they also went and con-
firmed the statement. After this there arose other reports
that Jesus was seen in different places, and that some per-
sons had told Mary “that Jesus was risen and gone into
Galilee.” The body had however disappeared; and the
common report was that it had been stolen. Jesus' follow-
ers therefore assumed and gave out that, “as he had disap-
peared, he was risen from the dead and had ascended into
heaven.” *
It was the habit of the Jews at all times, when any
one had disappeared and no one knew what had become of
him, to conclude “that God had taken him.” Enoch was
missing, and he was declared to be translated into heaven,
and that God took him. (Gen. v.) Elijah disappeared,
and it was given out that he went up into heaven in a
- I2 is
180 JESUS’ RESURRECTION.
whirlwind. (2 Kings ii.) Jesus was missing; he also, it
was conjectured, had risen from the dead and ascended into
heaven,_and from such data the friends of Jesus arrived at
this foregone conclusion.
Matthew says, “Behold, there was a great earthquake:
for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came
and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it.”
The other Gospels say nothing about any earthquake, nor
about the angel rolling back the stone and sitting upon it;
for, according to their account, there was no angel sitting
there. Mark says, the angel was within the sepulchre sit-
ting on the right side,-Luke says, that there were two
angels, both standing up, and John says, they were both
sitting down, one at the head and the other at the feet !
We have already shown, that the Gospel writers fell
into a sad error in narrating this event, by acknowledging
that the seal was broken, and the stone which covered the
mouth of the sepulchre removed; for if they had intended
a real miracle and a true resurrection, they ought to have
left the seal and the stone untouched, and yet the body
gone; therein would have consisted the real miracle. The
very fact of it being necessary to break the seal and remove
the stone for the purpose of liberating the body of Jesus
would show, that human and not divine means had been em-
ployed in effecting this object, —and thus they have exposed
its fictitious character.
Now on the above obscure and unauthenticated report
of four anonymous writers is founded the resurrection of
Jesus—the corner-stone of Christianity, and the only proof
there is of the resurrection of the dead! The reader will
perceive that there is not a particle of evidence to support
it, as no one saw it, nor were there any eye-witnesses pre-
sent when it is assumed that it occurred. . So this legend
JESUS’ RESURRECTION. 181
of “the resurrection of the dead” is founded on mere
assumption.
Joseph and Nicodemus, we find, were the last persons in
charge of the body, and we should naturally expect to have
had some account of it from them. Their silence here,
where their testimony would have been so useful, is very
suspicious; and would lead us to suppose that the whole
affair was contrived by them, to relieve themselves from the
presence of his followers and avoid the suspicion of the
authorities.
The account given in the Gospels supplies us with the
remaining statement, viz. –that the women came to the
tomb early, and found that the body was gone. On a
subsequent visit, they found a young man there, no doubt
placed in charge by Joseph, the owner of the garden; and
he told them that Jesus was risen and gone into Galilee.
From the earnestness with which John dwells on the
last events of Jesus' life, and the strong asseverations where-
with he declares himself to have witnessed the piercing,
more properly pricking his side (John xix.), it would
appear, that already in his time this important event had
been called in question.
The Basilidians affirmed, that Jesus did not suffer, but
Simon who bore his cross; and others again that Judas
suffered in his stead. The Corinthians, contemporary with
the apostles, and the Capocratians in like manner denied
that Jesus had been crucified.
182 DID JESUS DIE ON THE CRoss P
CHAPTER XXXII.
DID JESUS DIE on THE CROSS P
IN the first two centuries, the professors of Christianity
were divided into many sects, which may be resolved into
two divisions. One consisting of Nazarenes, Ebionites, &c.,
the other of Gnostics, under which the remaining sects
arranged themselves. The former believed in Jesus cruci-
fied in the literal sense, the latter admitted the crucifixion,
but only in a spiritual or mystical sense, and not to have
literally taken place. They denied that Christ did re-
ally die on the cross. This is the view taken by Paulus,
and other commentators, who think that Jesus did not die
on the cross, but was taken down in a state of asphyxia or
syncope. According to Josephus, other persons crucified
lived from three to nine days; and hence the two thieves
were not dead at evening, and Jesus was only sia hours on
the cross. t
Many believed that Jesus’ crucifixion was intended
merely as an exposure, to frighten him out of what they
considered an insane delusion, as there were so many im-
postors going about, at that time, all aspirants to the
Messiahship. This view is corroborated by Pilate declaring
that he found no fault in him, and his desire to liberate
him; by the gentleness with which he was treated, his cross.
being borne by another; by the giving him vinegar to quench
his thirst; by the alarm of the guards when he fainted, and
their pricking his side to see if he were dead, and their run-
DID JESUS DIE ON THE CROSS P 183
ning off to report the matter to the Procurator. And finally,
by their not proceeding to the death-blow by breaking his
legs and arms, and taking him down after being only a few
hours on the cross. -
Nothing is more probable than that fatigue, loss of
blood, and mental anguish, should have produced extreme
exhaustion and syncope, Lin which state Jesus was placed
at the disposal of his friends, who, after rubbing the body
with aromatics (the very best means of restoring animation),
had left him to his repose in the quiet of the sepulchre. On
his recovering from this state of suspended animation, he
was privately removed by his friends during the night; and
as he left word to his disciples “After that I am risen, I will
go before you into Galilee,” he most probably returned
thither. -,
Mark corroborates this view (in chap. xvi. 6, 11), where
describing the visit of the two Marys to the sepulchre, the
young man in charge says to them: - l
“Ye seek Jesus of Nazareth, which was crucified: he is risen ; he
is not here: behold the place where they laid him. But go your way,
tell his disciples and Peter that he goeth before you into Galilee: there
shall ye see him, as he said unto you. -
“Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he ap-
peared first to Mary Magdalene, out of mºhom he cast seven devils. And
she went and told them that had been with him, as they mourned and
wept. And they, when they had heard that he was alive, and had been
seen of her, believed not.” (Mark xvi. 6, 7, 9–11.)
Here Mark, the Evangelist, declares that Jesus had risen
out of the sepulchre, and gone into Galilee, whither the
disciples were to follow him; and “that he was alive.” Now
this view of the case, thus confirmed by Jesus afterwards
showing himself to his disciples, eating and drinking, and
talking to them as formerly, is certainly the most natural
I84 find JESUS DIE ON THE CRoss?
explanation; but very unlike a spirit, or being of the other
world, for he was particularly cautious in offering himself to
public view, when his taking one turn in the public market-
place, or in the temple, would have been the greatest of all
miracles; and would have spared the painful labours and
lives of so many vouchers who perished, merely by these
things being “done in a corner.”
Again, if Jesus had died on the cross, how could he have
exhibited himself to his disciples, as a living man, and espe-
cially directed their attention to his being, in reality, flesh
and blood?
“Reach hither thy finger,” (said Jesus,) “and behold my hands; and
reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side, and be not faith-
less, but believing.” (John xx. 27.)
Here is Jesus presenting himself for the express purpose
of demonstrating to the senses of his friends that he was no
phantom, no spirit, no shadow; but a solid and living body,
that might be seen, and touched, and felt. Now if the body
were solid, and could be seen and felt, and required nourish-
ment to support it, then is the account that Jesus had
really been “crucified, dead, and buried,” a fiction, by evi-
dence as strong as ever was adduced, namely, the evidence
of Jesus himself!
ORIGINT OF CHRISTIANITY. 185
CHLAPTER, XXXIII.
ORIGIN OF CHRISTIANITY.
HERE the question arises—Who was this person called
JESUs, as described in the four Gospels, thus surrounded by
a halo of wonders and miracles P
We have no proof from history of the existence of such
a person; and the titles of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John,
at the head of each Gospel, are admitted to be fabrications.
In the books themselves there is not the least intimation
respecting their authors, nor when, nor where they were
written. The historians of the first century take no notice of
him whatever, nor do they seem to have been aware that
such a person as the Jesus of the Gospels ever existed.
Now if three kings came from the East guided by a star,
—if Herod and all Jerusalem were so troubled as to order the
massacre of all the infant children in Bethlehem,--if Jesus
so openly restored sight to the blind, and raised people from
the dead, if, at the time of his execution, the sun was totally
eclipsed, the earth quaked, and the dead arose out of their
graves and appeared unto many; if all these and many more
wonders really took place in open day, and in the sight of
thousands of Jews as well as Romans, surely the historians
of the times would have placed on record events so notorious
and so wonderful! And yet, strange to say, Josephus and
Philo, both Jewish historians, and Tacitus, and Pliny, and
Seneca, Roman historians, who all lived about that time,
mention not one word of these events.
186 ORIGIN OF CHRISTIANITY.
Josephus does specially mention one Jesus, who went
about the streets, crying, “Woe to Jerusalem, woe to Jeru-
salem,” and was believed by the people to be under the
influence of a divine furor, that he was scourged till his
bones were bare, but without murmuring; that he then dis-
appeared (after the crucifixion) for four years, but again he
appeared at the passover before the siege, A. D. 70, where
he was killed by a stone thrown by the Roman engines.
Irenaeus, bishop of Lyons, A. D. 120, tells us, in distinct
words, and on the authority of his master, St. Polycarp, who
had it from St John himself, that Jesus was fifty years old
at least at the time of his death, for which statement he
alleges the unanimous testimony of all the old men (omnes
seniores) of Asia. º
Now Josephus was the celebrated Jewish historian, who
lived in Jerusalem in the time of Herod, and at the time
Jesus is related to have exhibited his wonders and miracles.
It seems strange, then, that he should detail the particulars
of John the Baptist's history, who ran almost the same
career as the Gospel writers assert Jesus to have done, and
yet have omitted to mention Jesus and his acts altogether;
more especially as he introduces Judas Galileus and the
other aspirants to the Messiahship, and gives detailed ac-
counts of them. '•
It is almost impossible and quite improbable, that Jose-
phus should have.omitted some mention of Jesus, if all that
is related in the Gospels, or any part, be true. We must
therefore conclude, that the above account, referred to by
Josephus, related to the Jesus of the Gospels; but that he
did not perform the wonderful works attributed to him.
For although Josephus enters minutely into all the details
of Herod's reign, and writes in most laudatory terms of
ORIGIN OF CHRISTIANITY. , 187
John the Baptist (Jos. viii. c. 5), and speaks of a Jesus
apparently with the same honesty of purpose, yet he does
not seem to have been aware, nor does he mention one word
of his mighty works, or of his miracles, or of his preten-
sions.
Now there is little doubt, that the Jesus of Josephus
and the Jesus of the Gospels are one and the same person,
that he went about, as related by Josephus and Matthew,
exhorting the people, and calling on them to repent; that
he had attached to him a number of poor followers of
the Essenian Sect; but that he remained so obscure, so in-
significant, and so harmless, during the short period of his
mission, as to have escaped the notice of historians; and
that the short account of him as given by Josephus, highly
embellished by different rude hands, some forty or fifty
years after, is the origin of the Gospels. The following is
the account as given by Josephus in detail. -
“But what is still more terrible, there was one JESUS
“the son of Ananas, a plebeian and husbandman, who four
“ years before the war began, and at a time when the city
“was in very great peace and prosperity, came to that feast,
“whereon it is our custom for every one to make taber-
“nacles to God in the temple, began suddenly to cry aloud
“‘A voice from the east, a voice from the west, a voice from
“the four winds, a voice against Jerusalem and the holy
“house, a voice against the bridegrooms and the brides, and
“a voice against this whole people.” This was his cry, as
“he went about by day and by night, in all the lanes of the
“city. -
“However, certain of the most eminent among the people
“had great indignation at this dire cry of his, and took up
“the man and gave him a great number of severe stripes;
188 oRIGIN of CHRISTIANITY.
*
“yet did he not either say anything for himself, or anything
“ peculiar to those who chastised him, but still went on
“with the same words which he cried before.
“Hereupon, our rulers supposing, as the case proved to
“be, that this was a sort of divine furor in the man, brought
“him to the Roman Procurator, where he was whipped
“till his bones were laid bare; yet did not he make any
“supplication for himself, nor shed any tears; but tuning
“his voice to the most lamentable tone possible, at every
“stroke of the whip, his answer was, ‘Woe, woe to Jerusa-
“lem.’ And when Albinus, for he was then Procurator,
“asked him, ‘Who he was, and whence he came, and why
“he uttered such words?’ he made no manner of reply to
“what he said, but still did not leave off his melancholy
“ditty, till Albinus took him to be a madman, and dismiss-
“ed him.
“Now during all the time that passed before the war
“began, this man did not go near any of the citizens, nor
“was seen by them while he had said so; but he every day
“uttered these lamentable words, as if it were his premedi-
“tated vow, ‘Woe, woe to Jerusalem.” Nor did he give ill
“words to any of those that beat him every day, nor good
“words to those that gave him food; but this was his reply
“to all men, and indeed no other than a melancholy presage
“of what was to come.
“This cry of his was the loudest at the festivals; and he
“continued this ditty for seven years and five months with-
“out growing hoarse, or being tired therewith, until the
“very time that he saw his presage in earnest fulfilled in
“our siege, when it ceased. For as he was going round
“upon the wall, he cried out with his utmost force, ‘Woe,
“woe to the city again, and to the people, and to the holy
oRIGIN of CHRISTIANITY. 189
“house; ' and just as he added, at the last, ‘Woe, woe to
“myself also, there came a stone out of one of the engines,
“ and smote him, and killed him instantly; and as he was
“uttering the very same presages, he gave up the ghost.”
(Jos. Wars, 6, v. 3, vi.)
The reader will observe here the striking similarity be-
tween this account by Josephus, and that in the Gospels;–
his name Jesus; his obscure origin and humble occupation;
his repeated exclamations against Jerusalem and the temple;
his prophesying their downfall, and almost in the very
words of Matthew ; his denunciations against the people;
his gentleness, and meekness, and resignation; his being
beaten with many stripes without a murmur; his being
seized and brought before the Roman Procurator; his an-
swering never a word to his questioners; the Procurator's
declaration of finding no fault in him; his being whipped
. till his bones were bare; his attending the Passover and
festivals; and his visit to the temple,_all show, a coinci-
dence that could scarcely arise from chance.
We need not be surprised to find a discrepancy in the
names and dates in the narratives of Jesus, as given by Mat-
thew and Josephus; for the obscurity of his parentage, and
his equivocal birth, left him without any family name or
designation, but simply that of Jesus, “being, as was sup-
posed, the son of Joseph.” (Luke iii. 23.)
It has been already shewn that Matthew, in his narra-
tive, makes a mistake of twelve years in the time of the
birth of Jesus; but there is no agreement in Scripture as
to the place of his birth, and no certainty whatever either
as to the length of his mission, or the year in which he was
crucified; so that, from the great obscurity of the indivi-
dual,and “from the respectablepeople (accordingto Josephus)
190 ORIGIN OF CHRISTIANITY.
looking on him to be a madman, under the influence of a
divine furor,” he evidently excited but little attention at
the time.
Josephus, who wrote some thirty years after, might be
easily led into a mistake, in names and dates, as well as the
anonymous Gospel writers; and we see that they, in de-
tailing his history, gave themselves little trouble, either
about dates or names, in the relation. For, in those times,
there were the most contradictory accounts regarding this
person Jesus, so as almost to lead many to the conclusion
that no such person ever existed; some believing that he
had no corporeal existence; others that his first appearance
on earth was at John's baptism; and Apollos and others,
even of John's followers, some twenty years after, had never
heard either of Jesus or of the Holy Ghost. (Acts xviii.
25; xix. 2.) *
The most prevalent opinion was that of the Gnostics of
the three first centuries, who believed that Jesus had existed
in appearance only, and not in reality; and this opinion pre-
vailed largely among the better educated, till Popery was
finally established. His crucifixion even was much disputed
in the first century by his professed followers. In fact, no
one appeared to know, for a certainty, anything about him
as regarded either his birth, his education, his life, for
death; and the most improbable legends and tales were cir-
culated.
Philo Judeus, the historian, who lived and wrote in the
first century, and who is stated by Eusebius to have met
and conversed with the Apostle Peter at Rome, has never
thrown out the most remote hint, that he had ever heard of
Jesus, his acts, or miracles. And yet he wrote largely of
the Essenians, who held precisely the doctrinal belief
described in the Gospels, and which is there attributed to
ORIGIN OF CHRISTIANITY. 191
Jesus; and who are believed by many to be the same that
introduced this new religion, under the name of Ebionites
or Nazarenes.—This is another proof of the obscurity of Jesus,
and that he never could have performed the mighty works
or uttered the wise sayings put to his credit, or he never
could have been so entirely unnoticed and unknown.
“It is impossible (says Müller in reply to Lessing) that
there should have been a Christ seventeen hundred years
ago, who literally wrought such wonders as these. Had
any man, by his mere word, caused the blind to see, and the
lame to walk, given health to the leper, and strength to the
palsied, fed thousands with a few loaves, and even raised the
dead, all men must have esteemed him divine, all men
must have followed him. Only imagine what you yourself
would, have thought of such a man; and human nature is
the same in all ages; and with so many followers, the scribes
and Pharisees never could have put him to death.-(Ilgen's
Zeitschrift.)
Neander, the last champion of the Church, in his Life of
Christ, 1848, appears to be so fully aware of the entire
want of any historical evidence regarding Jesus, his acts, or
his miracles, that he is constrained to admit, that he cannot
enter on a defence of Jesus and the Gospels, unless permitted
to take many things for granted 1 He accordingly pre-sup-
poses “as a great truth, that Jesus is a God-man; ” and on
this assumption has, of course, no difficulty in arriving at
any and every conclusion he wishes, however miraculous or
improbable.—His own words are: º
“It has been often said, that in order to true inquiry,
we must take nothing for granted. At the outset of our
work, we refuse to meet such a demand. To comply with
it is impracticable; the very attempt contradicts the sacred
laws of our being. We cannot entirely free ourselves from
192 n ORIGIN OF CHRISTIANITY.
<
pre-suppositions. What then is the special pre-supposition
with which we must approach the life of Christ P It is, in
a word, the belief that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, in a
sense that cannot be predicated of any human being-the
truth, that Christ is God-man being pre-supposed.”
This truly is a candid, but most unfortunate admission,
as it at once acknowledges, that these things are not and
cannot be proved either from internal or external evidence,
and that they must therefore be assumed. Now Neander
may lay down what premises he pleases, and may assume
what pre-suppositions he likes, but he must first prove his
premises to be sound, and his pre-suppositions true, before
they can be received as matters of fact. -
The simple fact, of the Jesus of the Gospels never being
once mentioned by any writers of the age, shews one of two
things:–either that they had never heard or known any-
thing about him, or that he had never spoken or done any-
thing worthy of record. And the fact of a solitary sentence,
proved to have been a forgery of the early Christians, being
surreptitiously inserted into Josephus, strengthens the
opinion of his utter obscurity, and the necessity that was
forced on these people of propping up the unauthenticated
and uncorroborated Gospel narratives, by such dishonest
and disreputable artifices.* “These compositions (the
Gospels) says the Rev. Mr Evanson, do nevertheless betray
So great a degree of ignorance of the geography, statistics,
*, Jos. Antiq. XVIII. iii.3.−"Those who are best acquainted (says
Rev. Dr Giles) with the character of Josephus and the style of his
writings, have no hesitation in condemning this passage as a forgery;
interpolated in the text, during the third century, by some pious Christ-
ian, who was scandalized, that so famous a writer as Josephus should
have taken no notice of the Gospels or of Christ their subject.” (Giles’
Beathen Records.)—See also Gibbon's Rome. . *
ORIGIN OF CHRISTIANITY. 193
and circumstances of Judea at the time supposed, as to put
it beyond all question that the writers were neither wit-
nesses nor contemporaries of the scenes or actions they
relate.” (Dissonance of the Gospels.)
Taking then Josephus to be a better testimony regarding
a point of history, and more to be depended on than the
anonymous Gospel writers, we have no difficulty in explain-
ing, on natural principles, the preternatural statement of
the Gospel narratives—namely, that Jesus was merely
punished by being nailed to the cross, and taken down after
a few hours in a state of asphyxia or suspended animation;
that he was recovered from this state in the privacy of the
sepulchre; and quietly removed by his friends during the
night. His frequent visits to his disciples afterwards are
then easily explained, and also his ultimate disappearance
through dread of the authorities, until the excitement, pro-
duced by the siege of Jerusalem, overcame his natural timid-
ity, and brought him again to his former scene of action,
where he was killed, as related by Josephus.
From all the above considerations, and from the close
agreement between the accounts of Josephus and the
Gospels, we cannot but repeat our conviction that we con-
sider them identical, and to refer to one and the same indi-
vidual; and that the Jesus of Josephus is the very Jesus of
the Gospel history, in its simple naturality, freed from its
romance, and divested of all the false embellishments of
miracles and prophecies, of angels and devils, of visions and
dreams, with which it has been so cruelly disfigured.
The precepts, exhortations, and doctrines attributed to
Jesus, we have already shewn to be all of Essenian origin,
and were in existence in the writings and teachings of that
austere people long before the time of Jesus; and circulated
13 -
194 ORIGIN OF CHRISTIANITY.
all over Judea by their missionaries, who no doubt were the
disciples and apostles mentioned in the Gospels.
But among people looking out daily for the advent of
their Messiah, who, like Moses, was to restore them to liberty
and prosperity, and deliver them from their enemies, this
one thing was essential to establish, in order to ensure the
reception of their doctrines among the Jewish nation, and
give full force to their teachings among the people, namely,
a recognition and acknowledgment of a MESSIAH, from
whom all their doctrines were to emanate. To carry out
this object, so essential to the extension of their doctrines
and the success of their mission, they chose among the vari-
ous aspirants to the Messiahship, one Jesus, who, as Jose-
phus relates, was looked on by the respectable classes to be
insane, but by the poorer people, among whom were in-
cluded the Essenians, was considered to be endued with a
divine spirit and a prophetic character; his patience, his
meekness, and humility were so consonant to the doctrines
the Essenians taught. -
The original account of this obscure individual, seized
on by enthusiasts of the Essenian Seet, as a type of the
Messiah, was worked up into a religious system, and em-
bodied in all the severe discipline, self-mortification, fastings,
prayers, contemplations, and visions of these ascetics; and
variations of this work, written many years after, appeared,
under the designation of Gospels according to Matthew,
Mark, Luke, and John. -
REVIEW OF THE PROGRESS OF CHRISTIANITY. 195
CHAPTER, XXXIV.
REVIEW OF THE PROGRESS OF CHRISTIANITY.
THE followers of Jesus were dismayed by the catastro-
phe which terminated his career, after all his lofty promises
of redeeming Israel. But their hopes were not extinguished
by this unforeseen event; for having abandoned all for his
cause, they still comforted themselves with the hopes of his
re-appearance, from what he had obscurely stated about his
“second coming,” which he had expressly limited to the pre-
sent generation. (Matt. xvi. 28.) Many flattered themselves
that they would yet see him coming in the clouds, with
great glory, to restore their, oppressed nation, and sit on the
throne of David. They resolved therefore to persevere, and
agreed to teach that Jesus had risen from the dead. (Acts
ii. 22–40.) A
Accordingly they spread reports of his having appeared
to them in different places. Their object for so anxiously
urging this was obvious, as without it their cause must have
been given up. A crucified malefactor was not the Messiah
of the prophets; but, that he had risen from the dead, had
appeared unto many, and was soon again to come in glory
was a very different matter, he might still be the Messiah.
Even this very stumbling-block of Jesus' ignominious
death was afterwards made use of by Paul and others; and,
on this was raised that extraordinary doctrine that the death
of Jesus was an atonement for the original sin of Adam,
13 *
196 REVIEW OF THE PROGREss OF CHRISTIANITY.
which had perpetuated on all his posterity an indelible
offence against the Almighty Creator.
All that was required of the converts, at this time, was
merely a belief in Christ, and an immersion in water with
promise of repentance. It does not appear that a belief in
a Trinity, or the Godhead of Jesus, or Original Sin, or an
Atonement, was required of them. Jesus was merely an-
nounced to them “as a man” (Acts ii. 22), and this was
the Jewish belief of their expected Messiah. They looked
for a man of sufficient power and influence to deliver them
from the Roman yoke; and it is clear, that the first disciples
adhered to Jesus only, because they believed that he was
soon to come as a victorious prince, under whom they ex-
pected, according to his promise, places and preferment in
the kingdom he was about to establish.
The Essenians, and other Jewish converts, were of the
lowest and mostilliterate class, and the peculiar attention paid
to their temporal wants and necessities, operated materially
in procuring accession to this new religion. A community
of goods, “paradise for the poor, hell for the rich,” and the
announcement of a kingdom about to commence, where
peace, and plenty, and happiness would reign for ever; these
were powerful attractions for the indigent and poverty-
stricken. It consoled the wretched, and was announced as
peculiarly destined for the poor, the afflicted, and diseased.
Every one who embraced it was sure of a subsistence; and
the belief of the end of the world being at hand made the
opulent indifferent to wealth, which they were not long to
enjoy, powerfully united the minds of men, and detached
them from the concerns of the world. -
Besides, their own Mythology disposed the Gentiles to
adopt this new religion. It admitted of a heaven and a hell,
miraculous conceptions, gods incarnate, trinities, resurrec-
REVIEW OF THE PROGRESS OF CHRISTIANITY. 197
tions, descents into hell, ascents into heaven, diabolical pos-
sessions,—with angels, demons, Oracles, miracles, and legends
analogous to the Christians.
On the other hand, their rash and indiscreet announce-
ment of the approaching overthrow of the Roman power,
caused them to be regarded as ill-disposed to the govern-
ment. Hence one great cause of the persecutions with
which they were visited by the Romans, and which they
bore with so much fortitude. But the merit of these
martyrs has been absurdly extolled, as proofs of the truth
of Christianity. For, as we have shewn, miracles as well as
martyrs have been distinguished, all over the world, in favour
of false as of true religions, and are therefore no proofs of
the truth of any religion, but merely of the faith and fana-
ticism of its votaries. *
The success of Peter and his followers in making con-
verts, even with the powerful aid of Paul, was by no means
equal to their expectations; and it was at Antioch that
Paul first resolved to give up the attempt as fruitless. Being
violently opposed by the rich and respectable Jews, he shook
off the dust of his feet against them, and resolved in future
to attempt the conversion of the Gentiles. (Acts xiii.
46—51.) U.
It is very doubtful whether, without the co-operation
of Paul, Christianity ever would have extended beyond the
limits of Judaea. He had, at an early period, advanced him-
self to be the leader of the party, and looked with great con-
'tempt on his poor ignorant coadjutors, who possessed no one
qualification to carry out the new religion except their fana-
tic zeal and enthusiasm. He accordingly assumed the name
and character of an apostle, and compelled the others silently
to acquiesce in the admission of the heathen or Gentiles to
198 REVIEW OF THE PROGRESS OF CHRISTIANITY.
{
the new religion; a measure which all the immediate fol-
lowers of Jesus strongly condemned, as directly opposed to
the instructions and commands of Jesus himself. -
Paul soon perceived, that the religious views of Jesus
were ill adapted to the conventional habits of society, and
impracticable as a general system. He therefore set about
their reform, which, however, ended in his creating an en-
tirely new system of religion. He felt the impossibility of
persuading the people into a belief that a crucified Jew
could be the promised Messiah, which proved, as he himself
acknowledged, “unto the Jews a stumbling-block, and unto
the Greeks foolishness.” (1 Cor. i. 23). He did not hesitate
to lay aside the genealogical descent of Jesus from David,
and to give out, agreeably to the exampl; of the times, that
Jesus was divinely begotten of God, as was Plato and Py-
thagoras, and other founders of new religions; and his
announcement, that Jesus’ death was an atonement or satis-
faction to God for all the sins of man, who was “justified by
the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law; for
by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified,” (Gal.
ii. 16.)—these were most satisfactory and acceptable doc-
trines, both to Jew and Gentile, rich and poor.
The precepts and example of Jesus inculcated the most
rigid self-denial, the utmost contempt for the things of this
world, and an abhorrence of all wealth, power, and dignities.
Paul, on the contrary, for the purpose of bringing over the
wealthy and opulent, modified all these extreme views. In
opposition to Jesus’ commands to offer no resistance, but if
a man was struck on the one cheek, to turn the other also, i-
Paul taught, that resistance and anger were allowable. “Be
ye angry and sin not; let not the sun go down upon your
wrath.” (Ephes. iv. 26.) For all the wrongs he suffered at
REVIEW OF THE PROGRESS OF CHRISTIANITY. 199
the hands of Alexander the coppersmith, he prayed “the
Lord to reward him according to his works / " (2Tim. iv. 14.)
Paul soon found, that he had to deviate considerably
from the quiet and passive submission inculcated by Jesus,
who, in his anxiety to provide for the spirit, had lost sight.
of the things of the flesh; he saw that the world would soon
be at an end, if Jesus’ commands were implicitly followed, and
had to acknowledge, in opposition to his command, “to take
no thought for the morrow,” that however sedulous pro-
vidence might be, a proper attention to the concerns of this
world was our bounden duty; for if we took no thought for
the morrow, the morrow would take little thought for us, and
that however abounding in faith we might be, mountains
were not to be moved by the mere volition of the faithful.
Jesus taught the belief in one God; but Paul, with
John who was a Platonist, despoiled his religion of all its
unity and simplicity, by the introduction of the Incompre-
hensible Trinity of Plato, or Triad of the East; and by
deifying two of God's attributes, namely, His Holy Spirit,
or the Agion. Pneuma of Plato, and his Divine Intelligence,
called by Plato the Logos, or Word, and applied under this
form to Jesus.* (John i.) -
It is now universally acknowledged that the Epistles
were written before the Gospels; and that, at the time the
Epistles were written, the Gospels were not in existence.
* The doctrines of Plato must ever be viewed with a degree of in-
terest and curiosity, as containing the origin of the Christian theology;
for there is no doubt that the Platonic philosophy was the parent
stock of the Trinitarian belief, and may be pursued regularly from
Plato, through the schools of Alexandria, to the Gospel of John.
(See the Timaeus of Plato.)
200 REVIEW OF THE PROGRESS OF CHRISTIANITY.
Modern Christianity is therefore the religion of the Epistles,
and contains very few of the religious views of the Gospels.
Eor the sum and substance of the religion of the Gospels is
simply a belief in the Messiahship of Jesus, with a change
of heart and baptism.
The Epistles of Paul and others are therefore only de-
serving of notice, as containing the principal doctrines of
Modern Christianity; and in these are to be found the origin
of all the strange and anti-christian doctrines that have
mystified and disturbed the world for nearly the last two
thousand years, under the names of the innumerable and
conflicting sects that have sprung up amongst us—all pro-
fessing to be followers of Jesus, and all differing widely,
both from his doctrines and from each other. To Paul the
world is indebted for the doctrines of the Divinity of Jesus,
the Trinity, Original Sin, the Atonement, Justification by
Eaith, Predestination, Reprobation, Free Will, and Election,
—all of which, with perhaps the exception of the last, were
unknown in the time of Jesus.
Belsham, in his work on Paul’s Epistles, pronounces
him to be “an inaccurate reasoner, an incorrect writer, and
a superficial metaphysician; and his insincerity often too
apparent.” Paul himself acknowledges, may glories in it,
that he did not hesitate to adopt dissimulation, and other un-
worthy means, to attain his object, and to gain over converts.
“ Unto the Jews, I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews;
to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain
them that are under the law; to them that are without law, as with-
out law, that I might gain them that are without law. To the weak,
became I as weak, that I might gain the weak. I am made all things
to all men.” (1 Cor. ix. 20–22.)
Many of the early Christian sects looked on Paul as an
i
REVIEW OF THE PROGRESS OF CHRISTIANITY. 201
impostor, and the Acts and Epistles “as idle tales and un-
inspired reveries.” They were rejected, as of no authority,
by the Nazarenes and Ebionites (Jesus' first followers), who
looked on Paul as an usurper, who had made use of Christ
to carry out his own fanatic projects and ambitious
views. They were also rejected by the Cerdonites, Marci-
onites, Encratites, and other Christian societies of the second
century, and by the Manicheans in the third century.
(Theology displayed.)
Two great and influential principles characterized the
progress of Christianity, to which it owed much of its suc-
cess, namely, the necessity of deceiving the vulgar, and the
duty of perpetuating ignorance. The early Christians had the
authority of Jesus himself for carrying out these principles,
who taught the people in obscure parables, that, as he ex-
plainedit: “Seeing they may see, and not perceive, and hear-
ing they may hear, and not understand.” Paul, whose fourteen
Epistles make up nearly the sum of Christianity, repeatedly
inculcates and avows this principle of deceiving the people,
and talks of being upbraided by his converts “with being
crafty, and catching them with guile” (2 Cor. xii. 16); of
his known and wilful lies abounding to the glory of God
(Rom. iii.); and, in the most explicit language, maintains
the necessity of extreme ignorance in order to attain celes-
tial wisdom. He glories in the power of the Almighty, in
destroying the wisdom of the wise, and bringing to nothing
the understanding of the prudent (1 Cor. i. 19); and warns
them to beware, lest any man spoil them through philosophy
and vain deceit. (Col. ii. 8.)
Peter also inculcates the necessity of the most absolute
prostration of the understanding, as necessary to the re-
ception of Divine knowledge. And the pious and orthodox
202 REVIEW OF THE PROGRESS OF CHRISTIANITY.
Tertullian, glorying in the principles of the Christian faith,
enthusiastically exclaims: “I reverence it, because it is
contemptible; I adore it, because it is absurd ; I believe it,
because it is impossible.” (Tertul. de Carne Christi.)
In the FIRST CENTURY, so obscure had Jesus’ life been,
and so little known were his views, even among his imme-
3iate followers, that feuds commenced in the Christian
Church, even during the time of the apostles themselves,
regarding the nature of Jesus and the admission of the
Gentiles.
Among the early Christians, some sects (the Docetae)
believed that Jesus had no actual existence,—“existed in
appearance, but not in reality.” Others (Cotelerius) that
the body of Jesus was “a mere phantom ; ” and many
(Cerdon) believed that Jesus appeared as a man, without
passing through birth, childhood, or youth; but shewed
himself for the first time at Galilee, ready prepared for his
mission; others (Faustus) maintained that Jesus was not born
of the Virgin Mary; and the Arians altogether denied his
divinity; the Basilidians denied his crucifixion, but that
Judas was really crucified, and Jesus taken up into heaven
by four angels. In fact, the early Christians appear to have
known nothing certain about Jesus, the fancy of each indi-
vidual supplying the place of reality, and ultimately be-
came the reality.—On such foundation did Christianity re-
pose. - -
In short, so numérous were heretics (Christians of different.
opinions) in the first and second centuries, and so obscurely
had this assumed Revelation been given to man, that Bishop
Marsh observes, “All the primitive Christians seem to have
been included under one or other denomination of heresy.” "
And Bishop Stillingfleet declares, “That there was not a
REVIEW OF THE PROGRESS OF CHRISTIANITY. 203
book of our New Testament, whose authority was not called
in question by some heretics of the first ages.”
At first the early Christians regarded Jesus simply as a
man inspired of God; then as a being more perfect than
others; they then gave him a place above the angels, as
Paul tells us; every day added to his greatness, until in
time he became an “Emanation from the Deity.” But
this was not enough, they at last acknowledged him to be
born before time, to have existed before the creation of the
world, and at length he was elevated to the Godhead, and
declared to be “God consubstantiate with God.” But as
Eusebius, Bishop of Caesarea, remarks, “it took three entire
ages to form the Apotheosis of Jesus, evidently following
the examples of the pagans.”
In the SECOND CENTURY new contentions arose on the
subject of the divinity, co-divinity, and humanity of Jesus,
which created sharp contentions and noisy controversies.
Of the early churches, the most remarkable were the
Ebionites and the Nazarenes (Essenian Jews), the followers
of Paul, and the Cerinthians, the Nicolaitans, the Basilid-
ians, &c. The Ebionites and Nazarenes formed a numerous
body among the professors of Christianity, and denied the
miraculous conception of Jesus. They both considered
Jesus to be a mere man, and maintained the perpetual ob-
ligation of the law of Moses. Now these two sects were
Jesus' own converts, and this fact goes far to prove what
Jesus' own opinion of himself was, that he was a mere man ;
and that his miraculous conception and divinity were after-
fabrications. They not only rejected the four Gospels re-
ceived by the Paulites, but had a Gospel of their own, to
which Paul alludes with such horror in his Epistle to the
Galatians. (Jones' Eccl. Researches.)
204 REVIEW OF THE PROGRESS OF CHRISTIANITY.
In the THIRD CENTURY, we find the Christian world in a
very different aspect from what is represented; for what
with the worldly ambition of the priests, the absurd sub-
tilties of controversy, and endless schisms and contentions,
all peace, love, and charity were withdrawn from the world.
After the Council of Nice, the Eastern Churches were en-
gaged in perpetual disputes. In the Western Churches
contests for the Episcopal seat at Rome were carried to
such a height, that they came to open violence and murder.
—The Collyridians introduced the Virgin Mary as a God,
and worshipped her as such, declaring her to be the Queen
of Heaven and Mother of God. This notion of the divinity
of the Virgin Mary was also believed by many at the Coun-
cil of Nice, who declared there were two Gods besides the
Tather and Holy Ghost, viz. Jesus and the Virgin; and
were thence termed Marianites. Others declared her to be
exempt from humanity, and deified. (Sales Quoran.)
In the FourTH CENTURY, numerous proscriptions and
assassinations occurred, particularly at Alexandria, where
the zeal of Athanasius, in behalf of the Trinity, became fu-
rious against Arius, Eusebius, and all that party, who
denied that doctrine—a doctrine that has cost the world
thousands of lives, and which may be said to have been
written in blood. (Mosheim’s Eccl. Hist.) At this period
it was an almost universally-adopted maxim, that it was an
act of virtue to deceive and lie, when, by such means, the
interest of the church might be promoted. They looked on
the attainment of these objects to be sanctified by any
means, declaring “that the end sanctified the means.”
In the FIFTH CENTURY, the ignorance and simplicity of
the generality of men furnished the most favourable oc-
casions for the exercise of fraud; and the impudence of
REVIEW OF THE PROGRESS OF CHRISTIANITY. 205
impostors, in contriving false miracles, was artfully propor-
tioned to the credulity of the vulgar.
“It is certain (says Mosheim) that the greatest part, both
of the bishops and presbyters in the Early Church, were
men entirely destitute of learning and education. Besides,
that savage and illiterate party, who looked upon all sort of
erudition, particularly that of a philosophic kind, as per-
nicious and destructive of true piety and religion, increased
both in numbers and authority. The ascetics, monks, and
hermits augmented the strength of this barbarous faction;
and not only the women, but also all who mistook solemn
looks, sordid garments, and a love of solitude for real piety
(and in this number were comprised the generality of man-
kind), were vehemently prepossessed in their favour.”
(Eccl. Hist.) -
Thus, entering on the FIFTH CENTURY, we have the surest
and most unequivocal demonstrations, that Christianity, as a
religion distinct from paganism, had gained no extensive foot-
ing in the world; and its progress was attained by the most
unjust and unworthy means. After that period, all that there
was of religion merged in the palpable obscure of the dark
ages. The pretence of an argument, that there was anything
either miraculous or extraordinary, in the propagation or
progress of Christianity, is in defiance of all evidence and
reason whatever. (Taylor's Diegesis.)
During the succeeding eight hundred years, even till the
time of the Reformation, there was no safety for the people
but in the bosom of the Roman Church, and no alternative
but to be born, and educated, and die in its holy commu-
nion. As all in the ark were saved, and all out of it were
drowned, so was it proclaimed in regard to the church; and
all out of its pale were denounced as reprobates and out-
206 REVIEW OF THE PROGRESS OF CHRISTIANITY.
casts. During this long and dreary period, generation
after generation passed away, and mankind were born and
baptized, and confessed, and anointed; and starved, and
whipped, and tortured, and burned,—till the most perfect
uniformity prevailed throughout Christendom.—And thus
was Christianity permanently established 1
During all this period, when Popery and the Inquisition
reigned triumphant, the people were forced to be satisfied
with Christianity without inquiry and without examina-
tion; and were bound to receive any explanation of Scrip-
ture from their priests without hesitation or a murmur.
But, notwithstanding all the restrictions imposed, there
were many men who still ventured to brave the fire and the
rack, and to express their distrust and suspicion of the
existing religion.
But even this liberty was not long tolerated; for the
strong arm of the Roman Church—at that period rapidly
consolidating—soon established a complete uniformity, by
rendering the Scriptures a sealed book, prohibiting the
reading of them to the laity altogether, and limiting their
interpretation to the priests alone. They declared that the
Bible was an obscure and dangerous work, unintelligible
without the aid of an infallible guide—the clergy /*
* It is curious that Christians are indebted to the despotic acts of
the Romish Church for the preservation and universal adoption of the
received Protestant Bible of the present day ! The reader may fancy
the innumerable alterations and interpolations it must have under-
gone, in the exclusive hands of the monks for above one thousand
Years; and how doubtful of acceptation it must now be, after having
passed through such impure, unworthy, and dishonest hands.--To the
same power is attributed the notorious interpolations in the ancient
MSS. of the New Testaments, of several remarkable passages, viz.
Matt. xvi. 17, 19; xxvi. 32; Mark xiv. 28; xvi. 15, 20. John xxi.
&
REVIEW OF THE PROGREss OF CHRISTIANITY. 207
For nearly two hundred years after the Reformation
the leaven of priestcraft still continued fermenting; and it
was considered, by the Protestant churches, a crime worse
than sacrilege, to dispute the divinity of any of the books
of the New Testament.” Full two centuries elapsed before
Protestants ventured to return to the same liberty of think-
ing as the primitive Christians, and, up to the present
time, a searching and conscientious inquiry has gone on,
steadily progressing, in the investigation of the truth and
genuineness of Scripture; and, through the liberality of the
present age, liberty of conscience and right of private judg-
ment are in general respected. -
Nothing displays more clearly the human origin and
structure of the Christian religion, than a careful survey of
its past history. The continual and repeated transitions
and changes it has been forced to undergo, to accommodate
itself to times and circumstances, display its human struc-
ture, and show, that it possesses within itself the seeds of
dissolution and decay, exhibiting in these various throes,
mere efforts of the system to preserve itself in existence.
1 John v. 7 ; 1 Tim. iii. 16 ; Rev. i. 11; all of which (says Zach.
Jackson) are abominable forgeries to deceive mankind, and diabolical
inventions perverting the Christian religion.
* The introduction of printing, in 1474, caused such alarm among
the clergy, that the then Bishop of London, in a convocation of his
clergy, declared, “If we do not destroy this dangerous invention, it
will one day destroy us.”—The bishop seemed to have been endued
with the gift of prophecy!
208 REVIEW OF THE PRESENT STATE OF CHRISTIANITY.
CHAPTER XXXV.
REVIEW OF THE PRESENT STATE OF CHRISTIANITY.
“How EVER pleasing the task to describe religion as
“she descended from heaven, arrayed in all her native
“purity, yet, alas, a more melancholy duty is imposed on
“the historian. He must discover the inevitable mixture of
“ error and corruption which she contracted, in a long re-
“sidence on earth, among a weak and degenerate race.”—
(Gibbon's Rome.) -
The New Testament is declared to be a Revelation from
the all-wise Creator, on the belief of which the salvation of
man depends. Now if it be of such vast importance, we
should naturally expect to find it in harmony and keeping
in all its parts, and to be so distinctly expressed, that there
could be but one meaning extracted from it, and no mis-
taking that meaning. But what do we in truth find? Why,
that since it has been first promulgated, it has been a bone
of contention among the whole Christian world for nearly
two thousand years, and no appearance of any amicable
adjustment; and so obscurely has it been written, that
scarcely two can agree on the meaning or interpretation of
any important passage.
It would be endless to enumerate the various and con-
tradictory opinions respecting God and his attributes, all
equally deduced from this work, and which distract and con-
REVIEW OF THE PRESENT STATE OF CHRISTIANITY. 209
found so many sincere and well-meaning persons, Dr
Lardner candidly acknowledges, that when John, in his first
JEpistle, taught that Christ was the Son of God, and that
he came in the flesh, he meant to oppose those who denied
his divinity, as well as those who affirmed that Jesus' body
was only a body in appearance,—acknowledging the dubiety
and uncertainty of the subject, even in the time of the apos-
tles, and how little his very disciples knew of him.
In a revelation thus professing to emanate from God
himself, his own nature ought surely to be stated so clearly
as to leave no room for doubt or uncertainty. On this im-
portant point, however, awful differences of opinion prevail.
The TRINITARIAN's find in the Bible that there is One
God in three persons, each of whom is God, hence there
are three Gods in one. These three persons, Father, Son,
and Holy Ghost, they call the Holy Trinity.—The UNITA-
RIANs, on the other hand, find in the Bible, that the Father
alone is God; and as for the Son, they unite in denying his
Godhead, and also the Godhead of the Holy Ghost.
Now this difference of opinion involves the most serious
consequences; for, if Trinitarianism be true, “Unitarians
must be guilty of blasphemy, as being rebels to their God, in
degrading the Lord that bought them.” (Le Mesurier's
Bampt. Lectures.)—And if Unitarianism be true, then “we
who offer him (Jesus) that homage which is due to God
alone, are, without doubt, as really guilty of idolatry as the
worshippers of the deified heroes of Greece and Rome.”—
(Wardlaw's Disc.)
These two sects, therefore, regard each other with deadly
horror. TXr South, in his sermons, calls the Unitarians “im-
pious blasphemers, whose infamous pedigree runs back from
wretch to wretch in a direct line to the devil himself; and
14
210 BEVIEW OF THE PRESENT STATE OF CHRISTIANITY.
who are fitter to be crushed by the civil magistrate, as de-
structive to government and society, than to be confuted as
merely heretics in religion.”—The Unitarians, on the other
hand, contend “that the doctrine of a Trinity is absolutely
inconsistent with the principles of reason; and that it is
just as reasonable, and less mischievous, to believe in Tran-
substantiation, as to believe that three distinct persons are
but one individual being, that a son can be as old as his
father, and that a being who was born and died, is the un-
created and immortal God. (Lindsey's Christian Idolatry.)
On this ground, says Dean Swift, the Unitarians must reject
the miracles also, for there is not one of them which, if
strictly examined, is not as much contrary to common rea-
son as this doctrine of the Trinity.* -
But further, the Unitarians insist “that if the Bible
really maintained this absurd and corrupt doctrine of three
co-equal Gods in one substance,—it would be an unanswer-
able argument that it never came from God; and that Uni-
tarianism is the only form of worship that could preserve
Christianity alive in the world.” (Lindsey.)—On the other
side, the Trinity is declared by its advocates to be “the very
foundation of Christianity, and that without the belief of it,
* Origen advanced the opinion, “that the Holy Spirit was created
by the Son—by the Word; ”—Eusebius taught, “that the Spirit was
neither of Father nor Son.” Origen argued, “that the Son is as much
below the Father as he and the Holy Ghost are above the most noble
creatures.” The fact was that nobody knew anything about it. All
talked of it, but no one understood it. The solution, however, was
simple—it was a mystery, and that solved all doubts and satisfied
all scruples. Metaphysics have this great advantage over all other
Sciences, they require no previous study, and no troublesome prelimi-
IlarløS. -
REVIEW OF THE PRESENT STATE OF CHRISTIANITY. 21]:
a man can no more be a Christian than he can be a man
without a rational soul; and that if Christ be only a man,
the Scriptures must be false, and Christ and his disciples and
apostles be ranked among the greatest hypocrites and im-
postors that ever appeared on earth.” (Dean Tucker's
Wiew.) * -
Each party is no less positive as to the clearness of its
own system in the Bible. “So unanswerably evident is the
Unitarian scheme, that the man who will not believe it does
not believe the Scriptures, and is a real infidel.” (Bible
Christ.) “The Trinity (says Lindsey) is expressly contrary
to above 2000 texts in the Old, and above 1000 in the New
Testament.” t - *
The Trinitarians, on the other hand, say “that the
Trinity is one of the clearest, as well as one of the most
decisively Scripture doctrines in the world; and the famous
Postal observed, that there were 11,000 proofs of the Trinity
in the Old Testament, interpreted rightly.” (Jortin, iii.)—
The Unitarians, however, say that they cannot discover a
single trace of it from Genesis to Revelations!
The celebrated Dr Channing is of opinion, “that if the
doctrine of a Triune God be true, undoubtedly from its diffi-
culty, its singularity, and its importance, it would be stated
with great clearness, defined with the utmost precision, and
guarded with all possible care from the objections to which
it is so freely open, and from the misconceptions to which it
is obviously liable.” Now if this argument be valid, in dis-
proof of the Trinity, it surely is still more valid in disproof of
the divine authority of the Bible itself, from which all these
obscure doctrines emanate. -
“The idea of a God-man (says Eusebius, Bishop of Ce-
sarea) is monstrous; for the distance from God to man is
14 #
212 REVIEW OF THE PRESENT STATE of CHRISTIANITY.
infinite, and it is impossible for a perishable body to be in-
finite or eternal.” “It is, however, most certain (says
Tindsey) that when men of sceptical minds see that the
learned professors of the Gospel cannot agree whether one
person be God or three persons, they are rendered averse to
the whole system of revelation,-they look on it to be all
a riddle and uncertainty, and turn away from it.”
The MIRACULous CoNCEPTION of Christ is rejected by
the Unitarians, “as a fiction equally absurd with that of
Jupiter and Danaë.” (Belsham's Ing.) His INCARNATION,
“when a virgin daughter produced her father, and a crea-
ture her Creator,” is denounced also as “a blasphemous
impiety.” (Evanson's Reply.) “No sooner was Christ's
Incarnation preached, but it was almost as quickly denied,
even by those who pretended to be his disciples,”—and SIR
TsAAC NEWToN has predicted, “that the time will come
when this doctrine shall be exploded as an absurdity equal
to Transubstantiation.” (Letters to Calvinists.) “This pre-
diction has long since been verified; for in every view of
the subject, the incarnation of God is not less absurd and
ridiculous than the impanation of God, or God in a bit of
‘bread! Nay, the Scripture proofs are incomparably stronger
for the latter than the former.” (Theol. Doubts.)
The existence of GOD THE HOLY GHOST, the Lord and
giver of life, has been vehemently contested. “They say
(exclaim the opponents of this doctrine) the SPIRIT is a
person and God. Did God then assume the shape of a
dove, that is, of a brute? What hinders them from believing .
all the transformations in Ovid's Metamorphoses?” (Leslie.)
“All manner of sin and blasphemy (says Jesus) shall be
'forgiven unto men” (very encouraging indeed!), “but the
sin against the Holy Ghost shall never be forgiven.” (Matt.
REVIEW OF THE PRESENT STATE OF CHRISTIANITY. 213
xii. 31.) What is this unexplained and undefined crime
that is never to be forgiven P Twenty different opinions on
this awful offence, so carefully concealed from us, could be
produced; but they are all mere conjectures; and we are
left, on this astounding subject, to grope our way in the
dark 1 ---
The next heavenly personage is the BLEssED WIRGIN
MARY, who is fervently worshipped by the Catholics as “the
Mother of God, and Queen of Heaven!” Yet the Protest-
ants denounce this worship as “the grossest idolatry that
perhaps was ever committed in the world; such as no Chris-
tian can think of without horror, nor any partake of without
the hazard of his salvation. (Abp. Wakes' Ch. Catechism.)
The worship of SAINTs in the Catholic Church is regarded
by all Protestants “as idolatrous, destroying the intent of
religion, and silently bringing back to Christianity the hea-
then multitude of deities.” (Porteus's Confut.) Precisely
similar language is retorted on Bishop Porteus and the
Trinitarians for worshipping Christ and the Holy Ghost.
“Their worship is idolatrous, it is a deviation from the
Gospels of the most criminal kind.” (Serious Address.)
ORIGINAL SIN.—Horne maintains the reality of the
FALL OF MAN, and the introduction of sin into the world
loy Adam, and says, “that the whole scheme of Redemption
by Christ is founded upon it, and must stand or fall with it.”
Eellowes and Wright call it “an impious, absurd, and un-
scriptural fiction; which impugns the perfectibility of the
Deity in creating an imperfect work; ” and after declaring
it to be very good, that this very good work began at once
to sin against its Maker!
An ATONEMENT for the sin of Adam by the blood of
Christ, is so clear (says Bishop Magee) and so intimately
214 REVIEw of THE PRESENT STATE of cHRISTIANITY.
blended with the general tenor of divinity, that they who
object to it must go one step further, and discard at once
the whole evidence of Scripture. Its opponents, however,
say that “it is an impious and antichristian doctrine, highly
injurious to the glory of the divine attributes, and absolutely
irreconcilable to the most obvious dictates of that reason
which God himself has given us; that not a word is advanced
on the subject from the beginning to the end of the New
Testament; and that, if it could be proved to be contained
in the Gospels, it would prove that Revelation is a cheat, and
Christianity a forgery.” (Belsham's Christ. Reform.)
TRANSUBSTANTIATION.—The Mass of the Catholics is
founded on this doctrine, “which,” says Daniel O’Connell,
“as there is no sweeter tenet of Christianity, so there is none
founded on more clear, convincing, and indeed demonstrative
arguments.” Now, by the word of the priest, the bread and
wine are said to be instantaneously changed into the real
and substantial body and blood of Christ, and then become
an object of worship; and, when offered up by the priest, .
they are a propitiatory sacrifice for the living and the dead.
“These are all,” according to the Articles, “blasphemous
fables, and dangerous deceits; ” and “downright idolatry”
according to all Protestants; while the Quaker obstinately
contends, “that neither Mass nor the Lord's Supper were
ever instituted by Christ or his "apostles.” (Theology Dis-
played.)
“Should J (says Dr Trapp) find in the Bible such a
proposition as this, that a piece of bread is really and
truly a human body, or that the same body can be in ten
, thousand places at once, I could not believe it, God could
not affirm this. Nay, should I see a man raise the dead
and declare the above proposition to be true, I could not
REVIEW OF THE PRESENT STATE OF CHRISTIANITY. 215
believe him, because I know the thing to be impossible in
reason and nature.” In yain does the Catholic remind the
Protestant that he is rejecting the testimony and authority
of millions in favour of this doctrine; that he must believe,
if he be a Christian, that God was carried in procession by
the Jews in a box; that the Bible miracles are contrary to
reason, nature, and 'the senses ; and that he believes in such
anti-rational doctrines as the Conception, Incarnation, &c.
From these enormous discrepancies among Christians, all
founded on the Bible, Scripture authority is abundantly
produced by their votaries.
BAPTISM is renounced by the Quakers and some other
Sects; who thus deprive themselves of that absolving and
regenerating power which the Church of England attributes
to the Sacraments. To the ExTREME UNCTION of the Ca-
tholics great importance is attached, as also to the worship
of IMAGEs; but these are rejected by all Protestants “as
idolatrous and unscriptural.” The entire abandonment of
PUBLIC WoRSHIP was ably vindicated by the late learned
and conscientious Gilbert Wakefield, on Scriptural prin-
ciples. This recalls to the mind the prophecy of the cele-
brated Sir Thomas More, “that the time would come, when
men will account no more of PRAYER than they do of their
old shoes.”
Thus, with respect to the object as well as the mode of
worship of God, Christians labour under total uncertainty.
What appears to some essential to acceptable worship, is
rejected by others as pregnant with destructive superstition,
and hostile to all genuine devotion.
The various opinions “on the nature of the person of
Jesus,” are few in comparison with those which relate to
the “means and measures of God's favour.” These (says
216 REVIEw of THE PRESENT STATE or CHRISTIANITY.
the Rev. J. Evans), have been the source of endless con-
tentions and controversies; and which, however contra-
dictory, may all be supported by Scripture texts of the most
plausible aspect. That this is the case is evident from the
innumerable sects and parties into which Christianity is di-
vided—each laying claim to exclusive Sanction and author-
ity from the Bible—each declaring his own views right,
and all who differ from him wrong.
The Trinitarian denounces the Unitarian, and the Uni-
tarian the Trinitarian; and both unite in condemning the
Roman Catholic.
The Arminians denounce the Calvinist's views, “as a
system consisting of human creatures without liberty, doc-
trine without sense, faith without reason, and a God with-
out mercy.” (Archd. Jortin.)
The Calvinists on the other hand, represent Arminianism
as “delusive, dangerous, and ruinous to immortal souls”
(Close's Sermons), and the Unitarians declare them both
“to be a mischievous compound of impiety and idolatry.”
(Disc. on Priestly.) *
Again, Archbishop Magee denounces the Unitarian sys-
tem as “embracing the most daring impieties that ever
disgraced the name of Christianity;” and declares, that “if
TJnitarianism be well-founded, Christianity must be animpo-
sition.” -
All sects join in denouncing the Methodists “as misled
fanatics, alienated from all knowledge of the true God.”
(Divine Truth.)
The Church of England denounces the whole body of
dissenters, “as accursed, devoted to the devil, and separated
from Christ,” (Canon v. vii.), and the Bishop of London
(Letters on Dissent) denounced the dissenters “to be actu-
REVIEW OF THE PRESENT STATE OF CHRISTIANITY. 217
ated by the devil, with the curse of God resting heavily on
them all.”
The dissenters are not slow in retaliating on the Church
of England, declaring it to be “an obstacle to the progress
of truth and holiness in the land, that it destroys more
souls than it saves, and that its end is most devoutly to be
wished for by every lover of God and man!” (Christian
Observer.)
The Roman Catholics declare their Church to be “the
only true one,” and all the other sects join in denouncing
her to be “the scarlet whore of Babylon,” and a combina-
tion of idolatry, blasphemy, and devilism. (Cuns. Apostasy.)
Whilst the Roman Catholics retort on the whole body of
Protestants of every sect and description, consign them to
eternal damnation as heretics and schismatics, and their
clergy desecrated “as thieves and ministers of the devil.”
(Rheims Test.)
It would be endless to enumerate the names and tenets
of the various sects which constitute that “chaos of con-
fusion” denominated “the Christian Church,” all derived
from this one book, the Bible, which is declared to be an
emanation from the Almighty, and a revelation of his will
to man. e g
From the rapid advancement of civilization, and the in-
crease in the wealth and luxuries of life, the clergy of mo-
dern times have found it necessary to make further changes
and modifications in the religion of Jesus, so as to accom-
modate it to their own views and the peculiarities of the
times. The name of Jesus Christ is still assumed as the
foundation of their religion; but little attention is paid
either to his precepts or example. The legend of modern
Christianity might with great truth and justice be written
218 REVIEW OF THE PRESENT STATE OF CHRISTIANITY.
STAT. NoMINIs UMBRA, for, in reality, only the shadow of
the name of Jesus’ religion now remains ! -
After reading the above can the reader hesitate to ac-
knowledge, that a religion so divided against itself cannot
be a true religion, or be of divine origin; or imagine how
amidst such an infinite mass of obscure texts, contradictory
opinions, and glaring discrepancies, all seriously derived from
the pages of this book, a correct and useful system of re-
ligion can be formed. -
Truth belongs to all times and all men. That the truth
is not evident in Scripture is proved by the innumerable
sects into which Christianity has split; for when truth is .
clear and evident it is impossible to divide people into par-
ties or factions. What would be the true religion if Chris-
tianity did not exist. That in which there would be no sects,
—that in which all minds must necessarily agree,_secta-
rianism and error are but synonymous terms; for “the word
of God” can convey but one meaning. We would only ask
how many meanings have the Scriptures, the assumed word
of God, conveyed,—count the different sects'
People in all ages, from the inborn delight which man
derives from the wonderful and mysterious, have, at all
times and in all places, been readily persuaded to lend their
belief to the supernatural and the invisible. Hence one
great cause of the enormous superstructure in the Christian
religion, of prophecies and miracles, of dreams and visions,
of angels and devils, and other supernatural and invisible
agents, which have been worked up into the few simple pre-
cepts of the mild and retiring Jesus.
But what will most of all astonish posterity is, that in
this enlightened age, and in England too, an ignorant old
REVIEW OF THE PRESENT STATE OF CHRISTIANITY. 219
woman (Johanna Southcott) should have collected 50,000 be-
lievers in her new doctrine of Christian salvation; of having
had intercourse with invisible and superior powers, and of
being impregnated miraculously, as a virgin, with a second
Shiloh—an incarnation and type of Jesus. Who then, after
this outrage on common sense, can be surprised at the cre-
dulity of people 2000 years ago.
“But we all,” says the author of Popular Delusions,
“pay an involuntary homage to antiquity, “a blind homage,’
as Bacon calls it,” which tends greatly to the obstruction of
truth. To the great majority of mortal eyes, time sanctifies
everything it does not destroy. To call a prejudice ‘time-
hallowed' is to open a way for it into hearts where it never
before penetrated. Thus it is with human belief; and thus
it is we bring shame upon our intellects, in lending our be-
lief to the marvellously false, and withholding our credit from
the philosophically'true.” d
When the sailor, on being questioned by his mother as
to the wonders he had seen abroad, declared “that he had
seen fish flying in the air,” and confirmed it by the most
serious attestations, the old lady turned a deaf ear to him.
But when he added that in the Red Sea they had fished up
a large wheel, made of gold, and covered with jewels, sup-
posed to be one of the wheels of Pharaoh’s chariot, as de-
scribed in Exodus, she at once gave her willing assent to the
truth of it, because it was written in Scripture.
Such old women are, alas! by no means rare in the
world. Every age and country abound in them. They have
been found in high places, and have sat down amongst the
learned of the earth. Instances must be familiar to every
reader in which the same person was willing, with eager
credulity, to swallow the most extravagant fictions and yet
220 REVIEW OF THE PRESENT STATE OF CHRISTIANITY.
refused credence to a philosophic fact. The same Greeks
who believed readily that their God, “Almighty Jove,”
wooed Leda in the form of a swan, denied that there were
any physical causes for storms of thunder and lightning;
and treated as impious those who attempted to explain the
phenomena of nature on other than religious grounds.
Who does not remember the outcry against the science
of geology (it has hardly yet subsided), because it militated
against the early Scripture narratives. Its professors were
- impiously and absurdly accused of designing to hurl the
Creator from his throne; they were charged with sapping
the foundation of religion, and of propping up atheism by
the aid of science. •.
Misdirected zeal in matters of religion induce many to
decry a newly discovered truth, either because the Bible
contains no allusion to it, or because it appears to militate
against some preconceived religious dºctrine. The old
woman could not believe in flying fish, because her Bible
did not tell her so, but readily believed that her son had
fished up in the Red Sea the chariot-wheel of Pharaoh, be-
cause her Bible had taught her that Pharaoh and all his
host were drowned there. And our over-righteous old
women obstinately refuse their assent to the important and
scientific discoveries of the present day, because they hap-
pen to jar against some fondly-cherished and time-hallowed
delusion of their forefathers. •
Upon similar principles, Christians believed that the
devil appeared visibly among men, and tempted them from
their allegiance to heaven, that any man could command
his presence by writing his name backwards in his own
blood, and that such virtue resided in the relics of depart-
ed saints, that the most wonderful miracles were wrought,
REVIEW OF THE PRESENT STATE OF CHRISTIANITY. 221
simply by the touch. Yet the same people would not be-
lieve Galileo, when he proved that the earth turned round
the sun, because the contrary was declared in Scripture.
And Kepler too, when he asserted the same fact, could gain
no credence; but when he prophesied future events, told
fortunes by the stars, and cast nativities, the whole town
flocked around him.
When Harvey first promulgated his discovery of the
circulation of the blood, every tongue was let loose against
him. Yet the same people firmly believed in witches riding
on broomsticks, that a dead man's hand would cure a burn,
and the royal touch, the scrofula.
Who has not heard of the insane outrage against com-
mon sense and humanity perpetrated by the orthodox clergy,
when that invaluable blessing, chloroform, was first intro-
duced to the world, for the alleviation of pain in surgical
operations and in parturition. It was denounced from the
pulpit as an invention of Satan, and a thwarting of the de-
crees of the Almighty, who had expressly declared in Genesis
to our first parents, that in pain and sorrow they should bring
forth children, and which curse was to be perpetuated on all
their posterity.
Who has not heard of the philosophic Brahmin, who
believed it a deadly sin to eat anything that possessed
life; and on beholding, through a microscope, a drop of the
Ganges water, that he used daily with his food, swarming
with insects, suddenly seized the instrument and dashed it
to pieces. When called on for an explanation of this strange
conduct, he said, “as my knowledge increased so did my
pleasure, until I beheld this last wonder of the microscope.
Now my mind is tormented with doubts and fears, in the
midst of millions all happy in their ignorance. But thank
222 REVIEW OF THE PRESENT STATE OF CHRISTIANITY.
God I have destroyed the instrument, and the secret shall
perish with me. Oh that I had remained in that happy
state of ignorance you found me.” * .
Alas, alas, there are too many in the world, not in India
alone, but in England, not among Hindoos, but among
Christians, too anxious to remain in their happy state of
ignorance, and to exclaim with the poet,
“If ignorance is bliss, 'tis folly to be wise.”
THE END.
JOHN CHILDS AND SON, PRINTERS.

ſº，9 ±
ºſì ºſſºſº.
****…*; ***
， ！ , ！
n.， ， ， ）
sº： «ſ'ae
§§
Wyſ
）
º
· · · ·
ſºrrº, №.
· ·aº -
،} · · · · · · · · · ·* * -
·§§§，，,，，，，sae;
|-' ? * * ,• •№
ſº: ， , , ， ， ， ，
»...º. þae.