In a word, he was not a king fit for the, then, ?carnal Jews,? but he was, from his mildness, and compa.s.sionate temper, worthy of their esteem, at least, of their forbearance. The only actions of his life which betray any marks of character deserving of serious reprehension, are his treatment of the woman taken in adultery; and his application of the prophecy of Malachi concerning Elias, to John the Baptist.
As to his conduct to the woman, it was the conduct of a mild, and merciful man, but not that of one who declared, ?that he came to fulfil the law.? For G.o.d commanded concerning such, ?that they should surely be put to death.? Now though Jesus was not her judge, and had no right to p.r.o.nounce her sentence; yet the contrivance by which he deterred the witness from testifying against her, was a contrivence directly calculated totally to frustrate the ends of justice; and which, if acted upon at this day, in Christian countries, would infallibly prevent the execution of the criminal law: For what testimony would be sufficient to prove a fact, if the witnesses were required to be ?without sin?? Instead, therefore, of saying unto them, ?whosoever of you is without sin, let him cast the first stone at her;? he should have said, ?Men! who made me a judge, or a ruler over you? carry the accused to the proper tribunal.?
As to his conduct about the matter of Elias, it was as follows. It is said, in the 17th chapter of Matthew, that at his transfiguration, as it is called, Moses, and Elias appeared to his disciples on the mount, talking with Jesus. Upon coming down from the mount, the disciples asked Jesus, ?how say the scribes that Elias must come first, (that is, before the Messiah.) Jesus answered, Elias truly cometh first, and restoreth all things; but I say unto you, that Elias has come already and they have done unto him what they would;?
meaning John the Baptist, who was beheaded by Herod. (See the parallel place in Mark.) And he says concerning John, (Mat. vi.
14,) ?And if ye will receive it, this is Elias which was for to come.?
Now certainly no one will pretend that John was the Elias prophecied of by Malachi, as to come before ?the great, and terrible day of the Lord,? which has not yet taken place. And besides, that he was not Elias is testified of, and confirmed by, John himself, who in the gospel of John, chapter 1, to the question of the Scribes, asking him, ?if he was Elias?? answers ?I am not.? It is pretty clear that Jesus was embarra.s.sed by the question of the Apostles, ?how say the Scribes, that Elias must come first??
for his answer is confused; for he allows the truth of the observation of the Scribes, and then refers them to John, and insinuates that he was ?the Elias to come.? However, it must be acknowledged, that he does it with an air of hesitation, ?If you will receive it,? &c.
But are these all the accusations you have to bring against him?
may be said by some of my readers. Do you account as nothing, his claiming to forgive sins? his speeches wherein ho claims to be considered as an object of religious homage, if not to be G.o.d himself? Do you consider these impieties as nothing? I answer by asking--the following questions: What would you think of a man who, in our times, should set up those extraordinary claims? and who should a.s.sert, that ?eating his flesh, and drinking his blood?
were necessary to secure eternal life? Who should say, that ?he and G.o.d were one?? and should affirm (as Jesus does in the last chapters of John) that ?G.o.d was inside of him, and dwelt in him; and that ?he who had seen him, had seen G.o.d?? What should we think of this? Should we consider such a man an object of wrath, or of pity? Should we not directly, and without hesitation, attribute such extravagancies to hallucination of mind? Yes, certainly! and therefore the Jews were to blame for crucifying Jesus. If Christians had put to death every unfortunate, who after being frenzied by religious fasting and contemplation, became wild enough to a.s.sert, that he was Christ, or G.o.d the Father, or the Virgin Mary, or even the Holy Trinity, they would have been guilty of more than fifty murders; for I have read of at least as many instances of this nature; and believe that more than two hundred such might be reckoned up from the hospital records of Europe alone. And that the founder of the Christian religion was not always in one coherent consistent mind, I think will appear plain to every intelligent physician who reads his discourses; especially those in the gospel of John. They are a mixture of something that looks like sublimity, strangely disfigured by wild, and incoherent words. So unintelligible indeed, that even the profoundest of Christian divines have never been able to fathom all their mysteries. To prove that I do not say these things rashly, wickedly, or out of any malignity towards the character of Jesus, which I really respect and venerate, I will establish my a.s.sertions by examples. For instance--
--Many instances might be adduced of conduct directly subversive of the very design, to promote which, he said that he was sent into the world. For example, he said that he came to preach glad tidings to the poor, and uninformed; and yet he declares to his disciples, that ho spake to this very mult.i.tude of poor and ignorant people in parables, lest they might understand him, and be converted from their sins, and G.o.d should heal, or pardon them. In the 26th chapter of Matthew, Jesus says to his disciples, in the garden at Gethsemane, these strange words, ?
Sleep on now, and take your rest--Arise! let us be going,? The commentators endeavour to get rid of the strange contradictoriness of these words, by turning the command into the future; and rendering the Greek word translated ?now? thus--?for the rest of your time,? or ?for the future.? And that he asked them ?whether they slept for the future?? which appears to be just as rational as to have asked, ?how they do to-morrow??!!
Jo. viii. 51, ?Verily, verily.(said Jesus) I say unto you, if a man keep my saying, he shall never see death ?Reader, what dost thou think of this saying? Has believing in the Christian religion, at all prevented men from dying as in afore time? And should we be at all astonished at what the Jews said to him, when they heard this a.s.sertion--?Then said the Jews unto him. Now we know that thou hast a demon [i. e. art mad.] Abraham is dead, and the Prophets, and thou sayest if a man keep my saying, he shall never taste of death?? So said the Jews, and if in our times, a man was to make a similar a.s.sertion, should we not say the same?
Many instances might also be given of strange and inconsequent reasoning; but I shall only adduce the following. He reproaches the Pharisees, Luke xi. 47, 48, for building and adorning the sepulchres of the Prophets, whom their wicked fathers slew; and says to them, ?Your fathers slew them, and ye build their sepulchres,? and he adds, ?that thus they showed that they approved the deeds of their fathers!? Surely this is absurd! Did the Athenians by setting up a statue to Socrates after his unjust death, show to the world that they ?approved? the deed of them who slew him? did it not show the direct contrary? and was it not intended as a testimony of their regret, and repentance?
Again, ?Upon you (says Jesus to the Jews) shall come all the righteous blood that has been shed upon the earth, from the blood of Abel the righteous, to the blood of Zechariah,? &c. Now, herein is a marvellous thing! how could a man really sent from G.o.d, a.s.sert to the Jews, that of them should be required the blood of Abel, and of all the righteous slain upon the earth? Did the Jews kill Abel? or did their fathers kill him? No! he was slain by Cain, whose posterity all perished in the deluge; how then could G.o.d require of the Jews who lived four thousand years after the murder, the guilt of it; nay more, ?of all the righteous blood that had been shed upon the earth,? were they guilty of all that too? If such a.s.sertions, and such reasonings do not prove what I a.s.serted, what can?
It is said, that Jesus, by giving himself up to suffer death, proved the truth of his mission and doctrines, by his readiness to die for them. But this is an argument which will recoil upon those who advance it. Are there no instances upon record of mild, zealous, and amiable men who preached to the savages of America that they ought to worship the Virgin Mary? and did they not cheerfully die by the most excruciating torments to prove it? Yes certainly! and let any Protestant Christian read the accounts of the preaching, sufferings, deaths, aye! and miracles too, of the Roman Catholic missionaries in Asia, and America; and then let him candidly answer whether he is willing to rest the issue of his controversy with the Papists upon the argument of martyrdom? We all know the power of enthusiasm upon a susceptible mind; and we have read of, and perhaps sees, its effects in producing martyrdoms among people of all religions, in all parts of the world. Nay, more, such is the power of this principle, that even now, women in India burn themselves alive on the funeral piles of their husbands, to prove, as they say, their love for them, and their determination to accompany them to the other world; when it is well known, that they burn themselves from the impulse of vanity, and the fear of disgrace, if they should not do so. Nay, more still, so little support does martyrdom yield to truth, that there are more martyrdoms in honour of the false, ridiculous, and abominable idols of Hindostan, than any where else. You may see men hooked through the ribs, and supported, and whirled round in the air in honour of their G.o.ds, clapping their hands, and testifying pleasure, instead of crying out with pain. You may see in that country, the misguided enthusiastic worshippers of misshapen idols prostrate their bodied before the enormous wheels of the car of Seeva, and piously suffering themselves to be crushed in pieces by the rolling ma.s.s. And any man who has been upon the banks of the Ganges, can tell you of the Yoguis, and of their self-inflicted torments, compared to which, even the cross is almost a bed of roses. Indeed the argument of martyrdom will support any religion; and it has, in fact, been cheerfully undergone by enthusiasts and zealots of all religions, in testimony of the firm belief of the sufferers not only in the absurdities of Popery, and Brachinanism, but of every, even the most monstrous system that ever disgraced the human understanding. There have been martyrs for Atheism itself.
This argument of martyrdom has been more particularly applied to the Apostles and first Christians. ?How can it be imagined, (say Christian Divines,) that simple men like the Apostles could be induced to leave their employment, and wander up and down, to teach the doctrines, and testify to the facts of the New Testament, and expose themselves to persecution, imprisonment, scourging, and untimely and violent death: unless they certainly knew, that both the doctrines, and the facts were true? Besides, what honours, what riches, could they expect to get by supporting false doctrine, and false testimony??
To this argument 1 might reply as in the preceding pages, for I would ask, have we not seen simple and honest men quit their employments, and wander up and down to preach doctrines which they not only had no means of certainly knowing to be true, but which they did not even understand? Have we not seen such men submit to deprivations of every kind, and exposed to imprisonment, and the whipping post? And do we not certainly know that some such have cheerfully suffered a most cruel death?
Is it possible that any sensible man, after reading the History of the Roman Catholic Missionaries, the Baptists, the Quakers, and the Methodists, can be convinced of the certain truth of the Christian religion, or seriously endeavour to convince another of it, by such an argument as the above?
But, much more than this can be said upon this topic; for it can be shown, that the Apostles in preaching Christianity, did not suffer near so much as some well meaning enthusiasts in modern times have suffered, to propagate religious tenets, notoriously false and absurd. And that the Apostles could expect to get neither fame, nor honour, nor riches by their preaching is doubtful. This is certain that they could not lose much. For they were confessedly men of the lowest rank in society, and of great poverty--poor fishermen, who could not feel a very great regard for their own dignity, or respectability. And it was by no means a small thing for such men to be considered as divine Apostles, and ?in exchange for heavenly things,? to have the earthly possessions of their converts laid at their feet. Peter left his nets, his boat, and boorish companions, and after persuading his disciples to receive his words for oracles, go where he would, he found ample hospitality from them. This, at least, was an advantageous change, and though they did not acquire fame, or respect from the higher ranks of society, they were at least had in great respect by their followers. Neither George Fox, nor Whitfield, nor Westley were honoured by the n.o.bility, or gentry, or scholars of England; nor Ann Lee, by the most respectable citizens of the United States. Yet among their disciples, the Quakers, the Methodists, and the Shakers they were held by the most implicit veneration and can any man believe that they did not think themselves thus well payed for the trouble of making converts?
It is true that the Apostles did not acquire riches, for they were conversant only with the poor. But neither had they any to lose, by taking up the profession of Apostles, and Preachers. At least by preaching the gospel, they obtained food, and clothing, and contributions; as is evident from many places in the Epistles, where they write to their converts, ?It is written, ?thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out the corn;?? and Paul tells them, that they must not think from this place, that G.o.d takes care for oxen, ?for, (says he,) it was undoubtedly written for our sakes.?
Thus we see that the gospel was by no means altogether unprofitable, and many men daily risk their lives for less gain than the Apostles did.
As to the dangers to which it is said they exposed themselves, they had none to fear, except in Judea, which they quickly quitted, finding the Jews too stubborn, and went to the Greeks. From the Greeks, and likewise from the Romans, they had not much to fear, who were not very difficult or scrupulous in admitting new G.o.ds, and new modes of worship. Besides this, the Romans for a great while seem to have considered the Christians merely as a Jewish sect who differed from the rest of the Jews in matters not worth notice; as is to be gathered from Tacitus and Suetonius. And if the Apostles did speak against the Pagan G.o.ds, it was no more than what the Roman poets and philosophers did; and the magistrates were not then very severe about it. And it is evident from the Acts of the Apostles, that the Roman praetors considered the accusations against Paul and his companions, as mere trifles. But in Judea, where the danger was evident, it was otherwise. When Paul was in peril there, on account of his transgressions against the law, after being delivered from the Jews by the Roman garrison at Jerusalem, he pleaded before Festus and Agrippa, that he was falsely accused by the Jews; and he a.s.serted that he had taught nothing against the Law of Moses, and his country, but that he only preached about the resurrection of the dead; and that it was for this that the Jews persecuted him; and ended by appealing to Caesar.
When yet he knew that this was not the reason of the hatred of the Jew against him; but that it was because he taught that circ.u.mcision, and the Law of Moses were abolished, and no longer binding: which is evident to any one who will read the Acts, and the Epistle to the Galatians. So you see by what manoeuvre he got out of the difficulty: first, by at least equivocating, and then by refusing to be tried by his own countrymen, and appealing to Caesar; thus securing himself a safe conduct out of Judea, which was too dangerous for him. Among the Gentiles, their doctrine had a better chance of success, for they taught them marvellous doctrines, such as they had been accustomed to listen to, viz. how the Son of G.o.d was born of a virgin, and was cruelly put to death; and that his Divine Father raised him from the dead. The idea of G.o.d?s having a son of a woman did not shock them, for all their demiG.o.ds they believed had been so begotten; and a great part of their poems are filled with the exploits and the sufferings of these heroes, who are at length rewarded by being raised from earth to heaven, as Jesus is said to have been. These doctrines were not disrelished by the common people, but were rejected by the wise and learned. Accordingly we see that Paul could make nothing of the philosophers of Athens, who derided him, and considered him as telling them a story similar to those of their own mythology, when he preached to them Jesus and the resurrection. And in revenge, we see Paul railing against both the stubborn Jews, and the incorrigible philosophers, as being unworthy of knowing ?the hidden wisdom,? which was to the one ?a stumbling block,? and to the other, ?foolishness,? and which he thought fit only for ?the babes,? and ?the devout women,? with whom he princ.i.p.ally dealt.
That the New Testament inculcates an excellent morality, cannot be denied; for its best moral precepts were taken from the Old Testament. And if the Apostles had not preached good morals, how could they have expected to be considered by the Gentiles as messengers from G.o.d? For if they had inculcated any immoralities, such as rebellion, murder, adultery, robbery, revenge, their mission would not only have been disbelieved, but they would have undergone capital punishment by the sentence of the judge, which it was their business to avoid. Mahomet, throughout the Koran, inculcates all the virtues, and pointedly reprobates vice of all kinds. His morality is merely the precepts of the Old and New Testaments, modified a little, and expressed in Arabic. They are good precepts, and always to be listened to with respect, wherever, and by whomsoever, inculcated. But surely that will not prove Islamism to be from G.o.d, nor that Mahomet was his prophet!
That the Apostles suffered death on account of their preaching the gospel, if allowed to be fact, as said before, proves nothing. Many have suffered death for false and absurd doctrines. ?But whether any of the Apostles, (besides James who was slain by Herod,) died a natural, or a violent death, the learned Christians do not certainly know. For there is extant no authentic history of the Apostles, besides the Acts. There are indeed many fabulous narrations published by the Papists, called Martyrologies, stuffed with the most extravagant lies, which no learned man now regards; and who therefore will credit what such books say of the Apostles? Peter is said in them to have been put to death at Rome by Nero, nevertheless most of the learned men of the Protestants a.s.sert, that Peter never was in Rome, and as for Paul, no one certainly knows where, when, or how ho finished his days. So that if we were even to allow the feeble argument of Martyrdom, all the influence and weight given to it, it would not apply to the Apostles, who, we are sure, derived some benefit, by preaching the gospel, and are not sure that they came to any harm by it.
I will conclude this long chapter, by laying before my reader some extracts from the book written by Celsus, a heathen philosopher, against Christianity, preserved by Origen in his work against Celsus. That the entire work of Celsus is lost, is to be regretted; as he appears to have been a man of observation, though too sarcastic to please a fair inquirer; and from the picture given by him of the first Christians, their maxims, and their modes of teaching, and the subjects they chose for converts, it appears, that they were the exact prototypes of the Methodists and Shakers of the present day, both sects which contain excellent people, with hardly any fault but credulity.
?If they (i. e. the teachers of Christianity,) say ?do not examine,?
and the like: it is however inc.u.mbent on them to teach what those things are which they a.s.sert, and whence they are derived.?
?Wisdom in life is a bad thing, but folly is good.?
?Why should Jesus, when an infant, be carried into Egypt, lest he should be murdered? G.o.d should not fear being put to death.?
?You say that G.o.d was sent to sinners: but why not to those who are free from sin? What harm is it not to have sinned?
?You encourage sinners, because you are not able to persuade any really good men: therefore you open the doors to the most wicked and abandoned.?
?Some of them say ?do not examine, but believe, and thy faith shall gave thee.??
?These are our inst.i.tutions, say they, let not any man of learning come here, nor any wise man, nor any man of prudence: for these things are reckoned evil by us. But whoever is unlearned, ignorant, and silly, let him come without fear! Thus they own that they can gain only the foolish, the vulgar, the stupid slaves, women, and children.?
?At first, when they were but few, they agreed. But when they became a mult.i.tude, they were rent, again and again, and each will have their own factions: for factious spirits they had from the beginning.?
?All wise men are excluded from the doctrine of their faith; they call to it only fools, and men of a servile spirit.?
?The preachers of their divine word only attempt to persuade silly, mean, senseless persons, slaves, women, and children. What harm is there in being well-informed; and both in being, and appearing a man of knowledge? What obstacle can this be to the knowledge of G.o.d? Must it not be an advantage??
?We see these Itinerants shewing readily their tricks to the vulgar, but not approaching the a.s.semblies of wise men, nor daring there to show themselves. But wherever they see boys, a crowd of slaves, and ignorant men, there they thrust in themselves, and show off their doctrine.?
?You may see weavers, tailors, and fullers, illiterate and rustic men, not daring to utter a word before persons of age, experience, and respectability; but when they get hold of boys privately, and silly women, they recount wonderful things; that they must not mind their fathers, or their tutors, but obey them; as their fathers, or guardians are quite ignorant, and in the dark; but themselves alone have the true wisdom. And if the children obey them, they p.r.o.nounce them happy, and direct them to leave their fathers, and tutors, and go with the women, and their play-fellows, into the chambers of the females, or into a tailor?s, or fuller?s shop, that they may learn perfection.?
Celsus compares a Christian teacher to a quack--?who promises to heal the sick, on condition that they keep from intelligent pract.i.tioners, lest his ignorance be detected.?
?If one sort of them introduces one doctrine, another another, and all join in saying, ?Believe if you would be saved, or depart:? what are they to do, who desire really to be saved? Are they to determine by the throw of a die, where they are to turn themselves, or which of these demanders of implicit faith they are to believe.?
Omitting what Celsus says reproachfully of the moral characters of the Apostles, and the first teachers of Christianity, for which we certainly shall not take his word; it is easy to perceive from the above quotations, that they had more success among simple, and credulous people, than among the intelligent, and well-informed.
Their introductory lesson to their pupils, was, ?Believe, but do not examine;? and their succeeding instructions seem to have been a continued repet.i.tion, and practice of the dogma of implicit faith*.
CHAPTER X.
MISCELLANEOUS
In Matthew, ch. v. Jesus says, ?ye have heard that it was said, that shalt love thy neighbour and hate thine enemy."? But this is no where said in the Law, or the Prophets; but, on the contrary, we read directly the reverse. For it is written, Ex. xxiii. ?If thou find the ox of thine enemy or his a.s.s going astray, thou shalt certainly bring him back to him.? ?If thou meet the a.s.s of him that hateth thee, lying under his burden, and wouldest forbear to help him, thou shalt surely help him.? Again, Levit. xix. ?Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine heart; rebuke thy neighbour, nor suffer sin upon him. Thou shalt not revenge, nor keep anger, (or bear any grudge,) against the children of thy people; but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself; I am the Lord.? So also in Prov. x.x.xiv. ?
When thine enemy falleth, do not triumph, and when he stumbleth, let not thine heart exult.? So also in ch. xxv. ?If thy enemy hunger, give him food; if he thirst, give him to drink.? These precepts are to the purpose, and are practicable; but this command of Jesus, ?
Love your enemies,? if by loving he means, ?do them good,? it is commanded in the above pa.s.sages in the Hebrew Law. But if by ?
love,? he means to look upon them with the same affection that we feel for those who love us, and with whom we are connected by the tenderest ties of mature, and friendship, the command is impracticable; and the fulfillment of it contrary to nature, and those very instincts given us by our Creator. And therefore, whoever thinks he fulfills, really fulfills this command, does in fact play the hypocrite unknown to himself; for though we can, and ought to do good to our enemy, yet to love him is as unnatural as to hate our friends.
In Mark ch. ii. 25, Jesus says to the Pharisees, ?Have ye not read what David did when he hungered, and those that were with him.
How that he entered into the house of the Lord, in the time of Abiathar the High Priest, and did eat of the shew-bread, &c.? See the same also in Matthew, ch. xii. 3. Luke vi. 3. Now here is a great blunder; for this thing happened in the time of Achimelech, not in the time of Abiathar; for so it is written, 1 Sam. xxi. ?And David came to n.o.b, to Achimelech the Priest, &c.? And in the 22d chapter it is said that Abiathar was his son.
In Luke ch. i. 26, The angel Gabriel is said to have come from G.o.d to Mary, when she was yet a virgin, espoused to Joseph, who was of the house of David, and announced to her that she should conceive, and bear a son, and should call his name Jesus; that her holy offspring should be called the Son of G.o.d, and that G.o.d should give unto him ?the throne of David his father, and that he should rule the house of Jacob for ever, and that to his kingdom there should be no end.? Now this story is enc.u.mbered with many difficulties, which I shall not consider; but confine myself to asking wherefore, if these things were true, did not the Mother of Jesus? and his brethren, knowing these extraordinary things, obey his teachings. For it is certain, that they did not at first believe him, but, as appears from the 7th chap. of John, derided him. Besides, neither did his mother nor his brethren, when they came to the house where he was preaching to simple and credulous men, come for the purpose of being edified, but ?to lay hold of him,? to carry him home, for said they he is mad, or ?beside himself [Mark iii.
24] which certainly they would not have dared to do, if this story of Luke?s were true. For their mother would have taught them of his miraculous conception, and extraordinary character. Moreover, how was it that G.o.d did not give him the throne of David, as was promised by the Angel to his Mother? For he did not sit upon the throne of David, nor exercise any authority in Israel. Moreover, how comes it that David is called the Father of Jesus, since Jesus was not the son of Joseph, who, according to the Evangelists drew his origin from that king. Finally, the saying ?that to his kingdom there should be no end,? is directly contradicted by Paul in the 1st Epis. to the Cor. ch. xv: for he says therein, that ?Jesus shall render up his kingdom unto the Father, and be himself subject unto him.? Here you see, that the kingdom of Jesus is to have an end; for when he renders up his kingdom to the Father, he certainly must divest himself of his authority. How then can it be said, that ?
to his kingdom there shall be no end?
Jesus says, John v. 39, ?And the Father himself which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me; ye have neither heard his voice at any time,? &c. But how does this agree with Moses, who says, Deut. iv. 33, ?Did ever people hear the voice of G.o.d speaking out of the midst of fire, as thou hast heard??--?And we heard his voice out of the midst of the fire; we have seen this day, that G.o.d doth talk with man, and he liveth.? Deut. v. 24.
Luke, ch. 4, 17, ?And they gave to Jesus the Book of Isaiah the Prophet, and he opened the Book, and found this place, where it was written, ?The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, therefore hath he anointed me to preach the Gospel; to the poor hath he sent me, that I should bind up the broken in heart, proclaim liberty to the captives, and sight to the blind; that I should preach the acceptable year of the Lord.? And shutting the Book, he gave it to the minister, and afterwards addressed them, saying ?This day is this Scripture fulfilled in your ears.? Here you see the words which gave offence; and by turning to Is. in loco. ch. lxi. you may see the reason why the inhabitants of Nazareth arose up in wrath against him. For these words alledged in Luke, are somewhat perverted from the original in Isaiah; for these words, ?and sight to the blind,? are not in Isaiah, but are inserted in Luke for purposes very obvious. And 2. he neglects the words following, ?and the day of vengeance of our G.o.d, and of consolation to all who mourn. To give consolation to the mourners of Zion; to give them beauty instead of ashes, and the oil of joy instead of grief; a garment of praise instead of a broken heart,? &c. to the end of the chapter.