At the time Jesus is said to have lived among the Jews, the casting out of devils was a common occurrence; for Jesus, in reply to the charge that he cast out devils by Beelzebub, the prince or chief of devils, says, "_If I by Beelzebub cast out devils, by whom do your sons cast them out? therefore they shall be the judges,_" So that, after all, it follows, that what so many could do without the authority of Jesus, was no miracle at all. It was nothing short of imposition, and failed of being any proof of his divine mission. The truth is, that casting out devils was a heathen practice, among many other things, of heathenish origin; and Jesus, according to the New Testament, fell in with it, as he did with many doctrines which the Jews brought into the land of Israel when they returned from their long captivity. The Jews brought back with them the belief of a future state of rewards and punishments, the existence of the soul, a heaven for the virtuous and good, and a h.e.l.l for the wicked; also good and bad angels, and a future judgment, over which Jesus said to the Jews he was appointed to be the judge.

Notwithstanding the silence of the Old Testament as to the tenets above noticed, yet Jesus fell in with them, and he also threatened the Jews that they were in danger of that very h.e.l.l and d.a.m.nation which they gathered from their heathen conquerors. Ye Christian priests! your heaven and h.e.l.l, and also your devil, belong to and originated in a heathen mythology, the beginning of which is lost in a remote antiquity.

Yes, Christian doctors! your heaven and h.e.l.l, which, from the hope of the first, and the fear of the last, you teach as divine truths, and, by so doing, live in splendor,-these very doctrines have nothing divine about them, and you ought to know it.

Leaving, then, the miracles of casting out devils, which were no proof of the divine mission of Jesus, because others, it is said, could, without his aid, do the same, we must refer to the other miracles said to have been performed and intended to establish his claim as being the true Messiah, _the sent of G.o.d_. If the miracles that Jesus performed, had been intended to remove all doubts that the Jewish nation had as to his being an impostor, such miracles ought to have been sufficiently convincing for that purpose; for, on such test, his reception or rejection entirely depended. Now, from the accounts of his appealing to his countrymen, and reproaching them for their unbelief, he does not, to all appearance, wish nor try to convince them; for, it is said of his, miracles, that "he did not many mighty works because of their unbelief."

Their incredulity as to his being the true Christ, is a reason why he should have followed up miracle after miracle, until unbelief would have been impossible on the part of the Jews; for, the reader must keep in mind that the dispute with Jesus and the Jews was not of a moral character: it was as to his authority in a.s.suming to be greater than Abram, or all the prophets of the Old Testament.

Again, Jesus says, "_Woe unto you_ [of such a town or village,] _for if the mighty works which have been done in you, had been done in Sodom and Gomorrah, they would have repented in sackcloth and ashes_." "Therefore it will be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrah, in the day of judgment, than for you." Now here we can see, that the miracles were not of the sort to convince. Then, why not produce others more strong?

Besides, it showed Jesus to be ignorant of the human mind, his condemning men for not believing when the evidence was not strong enough to convince them. It is true, according to the accounts of Christ's preaching to the Jews, that instead of argument he resorted to abuse of the coa.r.s.est kind, and the same conduct is pursued by Christians towards unbelievers at the present day. In some instances, Jesus charged the persons on whom a miracle had been performed, that _they should tell none of it._

Again, the evidence arising from the working of miracles must always depend on the information possessed by those before whom such signs and wonders were wrought. If Jesus intended to rest his Messiahship on the wonders he intended to perform, in such a case the most learned and best informed of the Jewish nation were the proper persons to be the judges for, in our day, in the nineteenth century, we have daily proof that so universal is ignorance, and so credulous is the ma.s.s of society, that such trash and inconsistent doctrines as those taught by Joseph Smith and his famous Golden Bible have gained thousands Of believers, and the greatest part of them are sincere, and would suffer death sooner than renounce what they believe to be a divine revelation to Smith, and others of the same stamp. The most learned and intelligent of the Jews knew this truth, as many of their ignorant people had been led away by false Christs, and lost their all, and their lives also. No wonder, then, that they should watch closely every movement made by Jesus, the then reputed Messiah. There are, in the present age, many things discovered and known to the most unlearned, that, in former times, much less remote than the time in which Jesus is said to have lived, Would have been thought miraculous, and the persons performing them as possessing power more than human. So that we may safely conclude, that Infinite Wisdom would not have made use of so uncertain a species of evidence as miracles, to convince the Jews that the _sent of G.o.d was come_. Other and more certain means would have been resorted to, so that the Jews could not have mistaken the real Christ, and put him to death for an impostor.

If we attentively examine the life of Jesus, as written by the four evangelists, we shall be surprised at many parts of his proceedings. His uncourteous language to the great men of his nation must strike the reader very forcibly. He preaches humility and meekness, and soon we perceive him arrogating divine honors, and calling those, who came before him, robbers and thieves. He commands his followers to _judge not_, and the next moment he judges others, and condemns them without ceremony; and although it is said of him, that "a bruised reed he would not break, and smoking flax he would not quench," and that "_his voice could not be heard in the street,_" yet we find him using something very little short of outrage and violence. In the affair of the Temple, for instance, it is recorded that Jesus took a cord, and began to attack those sitting about that sacred place, "_overthrowing the tables of the money-changers, and the seats of them that sold doves,_" calling them "_a den of thieves._" Such conduct the Jews could not expect from their long-wished and earnestly-desired Messiah.

Even at twelve years of age, his conduct seems to have had something strange about it; namely, his absenting himself from his home. When his parents found him, and told him that "_they had sought him sorrowing,_"

he said, in reply, "Wist ye not that I must be about my Father's business?" This answer appears not to have been understood by his relations; but if Joseph was not his father, his mother could not wonder at his straying from home; she would have said to Joseph, "As you are not his father, he has reference to the Holy Ghost." His conduct also partook of the same strangeness at the marriage-feast. When the wine was all out, his mother told her son of it; his reply was not very dutiful-"_Woman_," says he, "_what have I to do with thee?_" At such a place, on the night of a marriage ceremony, there seems something so unearthly about him, that he never appeared at ease in any company; such an absence of mirthful enjoyment was calculated to spread a gloom throughout the whole party.

But that which appears very strange in Jesus, is his using language that even his disciples did not understand, such as, "The kingdom of heaven is at hand;" that he "came down from heaven;" for, says Jesus, "_No man hath ascended up into heaven, but he who came down from heaven, even the son of man, who is in heaven._" And again, "_Repent ye, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand;_" and to the rich man, who asked him what he was to do to secure the kingdom of heaven, Jesus said, that in addition to loving and fearing G.o.d, and doing his duty to his neighbor, he "_must sell all he had, and give it to the poor._"

The reader must ever keep in mind the true merits of the case between Jesus and the Jews. It was not, whether they were more immoral than their heathen neighbors, nor as to their being more or less learned than surrounding nations; for, we do not find that Jesus ever made any inquiries as to their mechanic arts, or the state of agriculture practised among them. Neither do we find that Jesus interested himself as to their progress in the science of astronomy. The last of these we can conceive would have been very useful; and it might be supposed that he could impart some knowledge in regard to it, since, in his pa.s.sage from heaven to earth, he must have crossed: some of the planetary orbits, and no doubt observed their satellites then undiscovered; but to communicate such important information was not included in his mission.

His only object was, to convince the Jews that he, and he alone, was the true and undoubted Messiah promised by the prophets to redeem and restore the Jews, as a nation, to their former greatness and glory.

Every either subject was useless, and only stood as an hindrance in the way of the great purpose of his coming.

I have before stated, that miracles must ever be considered doubtful evidence to prove that the performer is any thing; more than what men in all ages have pretended to be; and to pretend to do what is far beyond human agency, presupposes that the persons who are to be the judges, know where human power ends, and divine power begins. But for this knowledge, no just and certain rule can be laid down; consequently, it is folly to conceive that Infinite Wisdom would make use of means so ill-adapted to the end m view. It would be but an attempt to prove a doubtful truth, by means equally if not more doubtful.

But, before closing this chapter, we will inquire into the probability of any miracles having been performed, as mentioned by the New Testament writers. And here our attention must be turned to the internal evidence afforded by the New Testament itself. We shall there find internal or indirect proof, that those miracles never took place, and that the whole of them were ante-dated; that is, after the persons were dead who are said to have been the performers. If this can be made out, miracles will then receive a shock from which they never can recover. To do this, will be the work of what remains to be done in this chapter.

John the Baptist is the first personage we shall select. The miracle said to have taken place at the baptism of Jesus, is recorded by John, as follows:-"_And after Jesus came up out of the water, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of G.o.d descending like a dove, and lighting upon him; and, lo! a voice from heaven saying, *This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased._" (Matthew iii. 16, 17.) Again, in John's Gospel, i., 36, when John the Baptist saw Jesus, he said of him, "_Behold the Lamb of G.o.d." John also said of Jesus, that *he knew him not till it was told him, that on whomsoever he (John) should see the Spirit of G.o.d descend, the same is he_-meaning the true Christ. Now here are repeated miracles to convince not only John the Baptist, but also all that were present at the baptism of Jesus. Such evidence ought to have stopped any future inquiries as to the real Messiahship of Jesus; but there are strong doubts as to the truth that any such wonders were exhibited at the time they are recorded to have taken place.

I shall proceed to present those doubts to the reader, as truth is my object, and I am not afraid to follow after it:-in Matthew ii., 1, 2, it reads, "_Now when John had heard in the prison the works of Christ, he sent two of his disciples, and said unto him, Art thou he that should come, or do we look for another?_" This question, sent by John to Christ, shows clearly that John did not hear of the wonders wrought by Christ until he (John) was in prison for his reproof of Herod. This account makes it almost certain that the whole story of John's baptizing Jesus, and also of the voice from heaven, saying, "This is my beloved Son, in whom 1 am well pleased," is a fabrication altogether, and that John had never heard of Jesus until his confinement For this conclusion, we have twofold proof: since if John had baptized Jesus, and the wonders were performed as recorded, John could not have required any further evidence us to his being no pretender, but the true Messiah, the hope and expectation of Israel. On the part of Jesus, his reply would have been, "Why, John, what do you mean by sending a question as to whom I am? You heard the voice from heaven when I was baptized; you also saw the dove descend on my head; and now you send two of your disciples to inquire of me, by saying, 'Art thou he that should come, or do we look for another?'"

If we consider John's question to Jesus, and also Jesus's reply, it will be plain that John had not even seen nor heard much of Jesus, till after he was in prison. What, then, aha** we say of those wonders at the baptism of Jesus? The answer is at hand, which is, that there is no truth in the story. The probability is, that it was recorded from hearsay evidence, by some person unknown, and ante-dated so as to correspond to the time of John the Baptist; but that such evidence was given to John, of the ident.i.ty of Jesus, as to prevent any future inquiry, there can be no doubt, admitting it ever took place; but John's sending his disciples to Jesus to ascertain the truth of his being the true Messiah, fully destroys the truth of any voice being heard by John, or the Holy Spirit descending like a dove on the head of Jesus.

The ignorance of all the disciples of Jesus, as it regards who he really was, is remarkable, if it be admitted that he performed what is said of him. We will notice the Apostle Peter, as he may be fairly considered the representative of the twelve. It is written, that when Jesus and Peter were together, behold! old Moses and Elias (Elijah) came so near to the earth that they held conversation with Jesus, and that Peter, somehow or other, knew them; but he, so far from being alarmed at seeing those two old prophets, was unwilling that they should return, and even proposed to Jesus to prepare for their stay. Surely, that was an age of miracles and wonders! We have an account of the old Devil's crawling out from some hole or cave, and following Jesus into the wilderness; and, again, we have two old prophets returned, hovering in the air, and conversing with Jesus; one of whom is said to have died a thousand years previous to the time of his holding this supposed conversation with Jesus from the clouds; and the other, at nearly the same time, was taken up into heaven in a chariot of fire! Those two strange personages must have had business of great importance with Jesus. Are we to consider this strange visit to have taken place, when the truth of it rests on the same authority as all the other miracles and wonders which are recorded concerning the mission of Jesus? If Moses and Elijah did not in truth and reality talk to Jesus from the clouds, in the hearing of Peter, in their real persons, or by their apparitions, it then follows, that there is no truth in any of the miracles or wonders said to have been performed, to prove that Jesus was _sent from G.o.d_; for all the miracles and wonders which (it is said) took place, stand or fall together.

If, for instance, the Devil did not find Jesus in the wilderness, and go with him into the city, and tempt him to throw himself from the Temple-if this is not strictly true, why, then, it is false as to Moses and Elijah's talking with him from the clouds. This incredible story, if related in any book but what is called the Word of G.o.d, would not be credited by one in ten thousand; but being found in the life of the Redeemer, the man who rejects it and proclaims it unworthy of credit, is considered an enemy of G.o.d, and will have the sentence of "_Go, ye cursed_," &c. As so much importance is attached to what is called the Word of G.o.d, we will discuss a little further the business which brought Moses and Elijah so near to this earth. As to where Moses or Elijah reside, we have no knowledge, and what is the nature of their employment, we know not; but if they still live, they must have some location, and also, we suppose, must be employed about something-but these things we must leave to those who are better acquainted with other worlds, while our attention will be directed to the business of the heavenly visitors.

If Moses had any interest in the mission of Jesus to the Jews, he could have been serviceable to him, as he had been their former leader, and therefore could give him useful hints concerning them. We may suppose he would introduce the subject of Jesus's mission in the following manner:-"I am Moses, the former leader of the seed of Abram, and hearing that Jehovah had sent his son Jesus to convert them to the true worship of G.o.d, and the practice of justice and truth, I come to offer my services, as I am well acquainted with that disobedient race; and, in truth, I had a terrible time of it with them: only think of forty years in the wilderness, always murmuring, and worshipping strange G.o.ds, for which, at times, they were cruelly punished; Jehovah destroyed thousands of them for resisting my authority; but they were incurable. He would have, at one time, so great was his wrath, destroyed them all; but I told him what the Egyptians and the heathen in general would say, and he altered his mind, and killed off the worst of them: for, getting a little out of temper with them at one time, in consequence of their murmurings, Jehovah became angry with me, and I was prevented from enjoying full possession of the promised land. It always surprised me how it came about that Jehovah should select them from the rest of the human race, for in my lifetime nothing was ever made of them; they even disgraced the G.o.d who had made them his choice. I left them in thy hands of Joshua, as the most proper person to rule over them; but how he got along with them, I have not heard." "Your offer, Moses, is duly appreciated; but the Jews, as a nation, are now a different people from what they were when you had to manage them. My course will be different altogether from what you pursued. Farewell! Moses and Elijah." We may suppose that Jesus would say to Peter, "As for your purposing to erect three tabernacles in this place, one for myself, one for Moses, and another for Elijah, it is proof that you are entirely ignorant of my future dealings with my own nation; for, in a few months, such things will transpire, that even you, Peter, all zealous as you are, will swear off and deny any knowledge of me."

Now, reader, nothing can be more extravagant than to suppose that such conversation took place between Jesus, Moses, and Elijah. But if those two old prophets did really descend, and converse with Jesus, then what I have supposed is no more extravagant than that two prophets, who had not been on earth for a thousand years, should pay a visit to Jesus, and hold converse with him. These miracles never occurred, and the world has been imposed upon and plundered by men, who, by telling such tales, have lived in idleness; and their quarrels about what Jesus said or somebody said, or did, have in every age been the cause of evils of every kind, and of rendering human beings ignorant and wretched.

Christians, in speaking of the divine mission of Jesus, urge is miracles as proofs that he came from G.o.d with full authority to give laws to, and finally _to judge both quick and dead_; but the proof is wanting that he ever performed one miracle. All the evidence we derive from the miracles said to have been performed is not, that we know they were wrought by Jesus, but that it is by somebody recorded that he did the mighty works attributed to him, and which to us is no evidence at all. To believe, then, what is written, without knowing by whom, or at what time and place it was written, is to believe without evidence, which would be a voluntary degradation of the n.o.ble faculties which have been conferred upon man.

CHAPTER III.

PETER, of all the twelve apostles, seems to have been more in the confidence of Jesus than the rest; since when he and Peter were alone, his inquiry of Peter was as to what the people thought of him. For he said to Peter, "_Whom do the people say that I, the son of man, am-?_"

Peter answered him, that different opinions were abroad concerning him.

Some said one thing, and some another; but the general opinion was, that one of the old prophets had returned. Jesus then turned to Peter and asked him as to his own conviction, and received for answer, "_Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living G.o.d. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona, for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven._" In consequence of this declaration of Peter, Jesus then grants him superhuman power. To Peter, he says-"_Upon this rock will I build my church. And I will give unto 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. Then charged he his disciples, that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ._" (Matthew xvi., 18, 19.. 20.)

From the subsequent conduct of Peter, it is not possible for him to have witnessed the astonishing miracles said to have been performed in his presence. Peter was present when Moses and Elijah conversed with Jesus; and while Peter was speaking to his Divine Master, "_Behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them, and, behold, a voice out of the cloud, which said, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him._"

Now, if there were such a demonstration as this, (and many such proofs Peter had been favored with,) how is it possible for us to account for Peter's denying that he even knew Jesus at all? This ought to be sufficient for us to conclude that the accounts of those wonders performed in the lifetime of Jesus, are false statements, written after the reputed resurrection of Jesus, and the death of Peter, and that neither of them saw nor believed any thing of the kind whatever.

In the present chapter, I shall notice the mode adopted by Jesus to prove his Messiahship. In this investigation, we shall discover a want of openness and plain-dealing as it relates to the communication of his objects as the expected _hope and deliverer of Israel._ The reader must ever keep in mind, that the object of Christ's coming, so far as the Jews were interested, was, first, to prove, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that the true and only Messiah had arrived among them. Until this was settled, nothing which Jesus said or taught would be of any avail, because, unless this point was established, none would admit his authority to enforce any thing that appeared in opposition to Jewish theology, or to the ceremonies of the laws of Moses, the observance of which, the Jews could not be prevailed upon to neglect; for it clearly appears that the Jewish priests and rulers never showed any disposition to resist, or in any way to treat with disrespect, the _holy one of Israel_. The Jews, then, were in a favorable state of mind to receive him whom they had so long and so earnestly expected and desired. But, as that nation had before been deceived, a double degree of caution became necessary to detect deception and expose imposture; for, until Jesus had proved, beyond the possibility of a doubt, that he had the sanction of Heaven for all which he taught, the Jews could place no reliance on his pretensions.

It will now be proper to notice the introduction of the mission of Jesus to the Jews. If he came by the divine command of the Governor of the Universe, we ought to expect that his mission would be clearly made known to all those who were interested. Nothing of such vast importance must be guess-work; and the first and most important of all inquiries would be, who are you, and by whom are you sent? for, until these inquiries were 'finally settled, his sayings could not have their full effect; since, as it has before been remarked, the moral state of the Jews was not the point at issue, until his mission was made known, and each party came to a right understanding. When, therefore, the Jews understood who Jesus was, and the high authority under which he taught, to correct their moral defects would make a part of his teaching, and their minds would have been free from the obstacles that stood in the way of attending to his precepts.

The erratic method resorted to by Jesus, in his converse with his nation, as recorded in the history of his life, seems very singular. So high a personage as the _only Son of G.o.d_ to be sent on a mission of peace and reconciliation to his chosen people, it certainly must be expected that his steps would have been directed to the most learned men of his nation, and that all offensive language would have been withheld, even admitting that the Jews were immoral to a very great degree. But the acquaintances of Jesus were the most ignorant and unlearned of the Jews, and were, from the nature of their employment, incapable of judging correctly of those signs and wonders which Jesus produced as proofs of his divine authority. The learned priests and scribes were the proper persons to have resorted to, as being alone competent to examine and explain all those predictions which related to Christ's coming, as foretold by the prophets of the Old Testament. What would be thought of a Minister Extraordinary, who, being sent from Washington to London on business of the first importance, should he, instead of repairing to London, make known his mission, by hints and indirect sayings, to some untaught fishermen, and, at the same time, abuse, and also make use of the most threatening expressions towards the heads of the government to whom he was sent? Could it be expected that such conduct would be productive of any thing but failure? This is exactly similar to the conduct pursued by Jesus in his intercourse with the Jewish rulers. Can we, for a moment, admit that Infinite Wisdom could have sent such an amba.s.sador on the all-important subject of the salvation of the human race? Jesus repeatedly reproaches the Jews in general, and his disciples in particular, for their want of faith in his divine authority: at the same time, he makes use of sayings that it was impossible for them to understand.

Jesus often referred to his treatment and death. How was it possible for them to understand this prediction? It never could have entered the minds of the descendants of Abram, Isaac, and Jacob, that the true Messiah must suffer death before he could begin to restore the Jews to their former greatness. Instead of calling together the most talented and the most influential of the Jewish nation, and openly making known to them the object of his delegation, he a.s.sociated with that portion of society whose knowledge of Jewish history was very limited; and, as if he dreaded publicity, often charged them to "tell no man that he was the Christ"-the very opposite course to what appears to be consistent with the important object of his coming. Taking the history of Christ's life, and also, more particularly, that of his teaching, he seems to have no settled plan whatever. At times, he seems to be in the strictest sense a Jew, not only as it regards his nation, but, also, most strictly following the law of Moses, submitting even to all its ceremonies. At other times, he opposes his sayings to those of the law of Moses, and openly forgives sins, without having any recourse to the offering of sacrifice according to the Mosaic law. Sometimes, he speaks of being not only "_Lord of all,_" but that they would "_see him coming down in the clouds, in power and glory, to judge both quick and dead_"; and then, again, speaking of his poverty, as "not having where to lay his head."

His living a life of wandering and mendicity, at times making a great excitement in one place, and suddenly departing to another,-these strange movements (admitting they occurred) entirely took off the attention of the heads of the Jewish people, and caused him to be considered as any thing but the promised _restorer of Israel_. In addition to his unsettled state, his repeated attacks on the rulers, holding them up to the scorn and contempt of the people, had generated such feelings in the minds of the priests and scribes, that they considered him as a pretender to the Messiahship. Besides the hostility he showed to rich men, in speaking of the almost impossibility of their entering that kingdom which was included in all his teachings, namely, "_The kingdom of heaven is at hand,_" when a rich man asked him "what he was to do to inherit eternal life?" the answer of Jesus to him was, in addition to what the rich man had done, "Go and sell all, and give to the poor, and follow me." We are told that the rich man refused to do that, and Jesus then said of the rich, "how difficult it was for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven." This is the wild and levelling doctrine taught by modern prophets. Nothing can be more unreasonable and unjust. If such doctrines as these had, in in the time of Jesus, been practised, he would have drawn a host of idlers after him. Besides, to teach such an unqualified practice as the one proposed to the rich man, must, at that time, have convinced every well-informed man how very unfit Jesus was to regulate society. I well know that Christians will consider this mode of examination of the sayings and doings of Jesus, as wicked and horrible; as opposing the weak judgment of man to the infinite wisdom of G.o.d. In reply to this, I would say, it is by investigating the teachings of Jesus as recorded in the New Testament, that we can perceive its defects, and thereby fully discover that the wise Ruler and Governor of all never sanctioned doctrines such as those said to have proceeded from Jesus.

In taking a candid survey of the teaching, manner, and life of Jesus as it is written in the evangelists, we find that both he and his apostles lived a wandering life. How they raised funds, we know not, but it seems that Judas Iscariot was treasurer; and that he loved money better than he did his master, his betraying him to the rulers for thirty pieces of silver, fully proved. His having no fixed home, and following no regular and permanent employment, will throw some light on the system of morals which Jesus inculcated. Although some of his moral precepts were undoubtedly good, and calculated to make those happy who reduced them to practice, still others there were, which, if practised, would create disorder--such as that which repudiates the taking any thought for the morrow. There is a vast difference in taking prudential thought for the morrow, and always looking at the gloomy side of what may possibly happen. Jesus makes no distinction; but in his explanation he leaves the subject more obscure than if he had not left any comment at all. Jesus says, "_Consider the lilies of the field; they toil not, neither do they spin, yet Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these."

And again, "Take no thought for the morrow, what ye shall eat or what ye shall drink, nor wherewithal ye shall be clothed, for your heavenly father knoweth ye have need of all these. But seek ye first the kingdom of heaven, and its righteousness, and all these things shall be added unto you." Again, "If a man sue you at law and take your coat, let him have your cloak also:_" and many more precepts of the same nature, which are impracticable, and which must be left to prudence and common sense to carry into practice.

But this very imperfect code of morals could be practised better by Jesus and his followers, considering their mode of life, than by others who had fixed homes. How Jesus and his apostles lived, as to their means to buy food or clothing, is unknown,-unless they lived the lives of mendicants, or, to speak more plainly, by what they could pick up, which is implied in the saying of Christ: "for," says he, "_foxes have holes, and the birds of the air have nests, but the son of man has not where to lay his head,_" To persons so situated, the taking thought for the morrow would be but of little use; but by those persons who had homes, and who, by labor, had to provide for a family, such morality could not be practised. We will give but one instance.

Suppose a person had business from home for some weeks, and had given his wife orders to provide his linen, with other things, for his journey; and when the time arrived for him to leave home, his wife had, agreeable to the precepts of Jesus, taken no thought for the morrow,-would such an excuse satisfy the husband? No. Prudent forethought is connected with every thing moral; and without it, society would be entirely broken up. But to persons living a wandering life, and not knowing from one day to another how they should fare; and rising in the morning ignorant how it might turn out as to where they could lie down at night-to such, the sayings of Jesus would better apply. But to those who were settled and had fixed homes, the _taking no thought for the morrow_ would break up every family who should attempt it. Had we been of the Jewish nation, and lived in the time of Jesus, in all probability we should have considered the conduct of Christ very strange. Sometimes, he upbraided the Jews for their unbelief; and at others, charged his own apostles to keep as a secret that he was the Christ.

The only way to understand this strange history of the Messiah is, to reject the account of his preaching altogether; and to consider the whole of his ministry as being written by unknown persons from hearsay only. And it is nearly proof positive that no such person as Jesus existed, who said and did those things ascribed to him; for it is utterly impossible by his history, admitting it to be correct, to gather, from the evangelists' account of it, for what he came, and also what end was answered to the Jews. They we're left in a worse state than if Jesus had not been among them: for, as the Jews mistook the object of his mission in consequence of the obscurity of his preaching, so the different sects, to this day, have not decided what is Christianity.

The history of the life and preaching of Jesus, is such a confusion of opposite doctrines, that, after eighteen hundred years' investigation, by men the most learned; and after thousands and tens of thousands of volumes have been written, and commentators have endeavored to settle the different and conflicting accounts of what he taught, it still remains unsettled whether Christ is part G.o.d and part man, or whether he had a natural father, and is to be considered as nothing but a man, but of superior holiness of life. It is not settled whether Christ died for all, or only a part of the human race. Again, it is not yet agreed on by Christian sects whether baptism should be extended to infants, or be administered exclusively to adults. These, and many more subjects, are by different parties viewed differently; at the same time all and each appeal to the New Testament in support of their respective creeds.

I will now appeal to the reader whether a G.o.d of infinite wisdom and power would be the author of a religion which could give rise to so many contradictory doctrines? which in the life-time of the propagator was not understood? and for eighteen hundred years has been a fruitful field of discord, war, and murder, instead of producing "peace on earth and good-will towards men?" It has never failed to be a source of war, hatred, malice, and ill-will towards men; and nothing but the extension of Infidel Principles can secure the human race against a recurrence of those dreadful scenes, which, for ages, converted this otherwise happy world into a slaughter house of human victims. To my brother Infidels, then, I say, "Ye are the salt of the earth." If you cease from your n.o.ble exertions, the human race may again exhibit one ma.s.s of theological putrefaction. If Infinite wisdom and power had ever undertaken to give a revelation to man, we should not have witnessed any blunders or mistakes. A revelation coming from such a being, would have been directed to some beneficial end, and, like the eternal laws of the universe, the means made use of would not have failed to bring about the glorious end intended. But the Bible, including the Old and New Testaments, is not only unworthy of its pretended high authority; but it portrays the all-wise Governor and Director of all worlds as a being changeable, cruel, and unjust.

In addition to the obscure manner resorted to by Jesus in his speeches, he seldom conversed with any of his countrymen of any distinction. It was always the lower ranks of society to whom he directed his sayings; so that, to the most learned and opulent of the Jews, he was little known; for when the higher powers were about to take him into custody, to them he was unknown. It then became expedient to offer a reward to some one to point him out to the officers appointed to arrest him. Judas Iscariot was the man who seemed willing as well as competent, to conduct this ungrateful business. Jesus had often said that _one of his apostles would betray him_. There is something very strange in the saying of Jesus, that _he had chosen twelve apostles and one would betray him_. If Jesus came to the Jews as the promised and expected Messiah, the very idea of betraying him implies that he did not intend that the Jews should ever know him as _the sent of G.o.d_. At all events, Jesus, at the time Judas made him personally known to the chief priest and rulers, complained of the deceitfulness of Judas, which is full proof that he did not wish at that time to be put on his trial.

But in what did this betraying consist? The Jewish rulers wished to have the man pointed out to them who had made so much noise and stir among the lower order of the people. Judas took the reward, and if Jesus were really sent by the Lord of all to his nation, this betraying was only giving him an opportunity of openly avowing his Messiahship. Here then was the time for him to show such signs and wonders as to prevent any doubts as to who he was, and of the important object of his coming; for if _he came into the world to die for the sins of mankind_, Judas then was of vast importance in bringing about that which was before ordained by the _determinate counsel and foreknowledge of G.o.d_. But if he (Jesus) did not intend to suffer death, then, and only then, had he cause to complain of Judas as a traitor. Jesus, in speaking of Judas, says, "_it had been good for that man if he had never been born:_" but if the salvation of mankind depended on the death of Christ, a more important person than Judas was never born of woman. Whether such a man as Jesus ever lived or not, it is impossible to determine; but admitting that such a man as he is said to have been, did exist, it does appear that his life was a scene of incongruities bordering on insanity. And the whole of his public ministry was so erratic, that it seems as if he had no specific object in view.

CHAPTER IV.

NOTHING can be more unreasonable than to admit, for a moment, that the Almighty Power which governs the vast unbounded universe, should be the author, either directly or indirectly, of a system which has produced so much cruelty, carnage, and bloodshed, as the Christian Religion-a very large portion of which has been brought about by the discordant doctrines attributed to the preaching of Christ. If G.o.d is its author, (which is more than doubtful,) if, in addition to the evils with which human nature is afflicted, he had intended to make man's misery complete, the Christian religion seems well adapted to secure that end, for it is the key-stone of human wretchedness. A great amount of evil has resulted from the different sects that have arisen from the New Testament.

A few particulars will suffice to show that the various doctrines, all gathered from and founded on the sayings of Christ, have created discord and persecution among the followers of Jesus, the pretended pacificator of the human race.

One of the most destructive sayings of Jesus-one which has entailed on the human race a system of continual evil, and which bids fair to last for ages to come, is the delegated power given to the Apostle Peter, and which is, to the present day, claimed by his successors. Peter, being asked by Christ as to what the Jews thought of him, answered that "some thought that one of the old prophets had returned from the dead, while others thought differently." But, says Jesus to Peter, "_Whom do you say that I am?_" Give me your opinion. Peter replied, "_Thou art the Christ, the Son of G.o.d._" This answer was responded to by Jesus, and to Peter he said, "_Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona, for flesh and blood has not revealed it unto thee, but my Father who is in heaven;" and Jesus added, "Thou art Peter, and on this rock will I build my church, and the gates of h.e.l.l shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto 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._" (Matthew xvi., 19.)

After appearing to give Peter unlimited power, he tells him that "_the chief priest and scribes will put him to death, and that he should be raised the third day._" Peter, not understanding this sad reverse, and out of regard for his master, rebuked him, but very mildly, by saying, "_Be it far from thee, Lord, this shall not be unto thee._" At this, Jesus seemed to lose his temper, and said, "_Get thee behind me, Satan, thou art an offence to me._" Jesus then tells Peter that "_The son of man should come in the glory of his Father, with his angels, to reward every man according to his works,_" Jesus then adds, "_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._"

Now it was not possible for Peter, or any one else, to understand Christ's meaning. He tells them things concerning his second coming, before they understood his object as it related to his Messiahship.

Besides, what he told them would surely come to pa.s.s in their time, is not yet fulfilled. This obscure mode of teaching runs through all his speeches; and he continually reproaches them for their want of faith in his doctrines. A method so incoherent appears to approach to insanity.