ページの画像
PDF
ePub

we find the following: "Visited Judea again, found all its inhabitants had abandoned their former religions, and had adopted a new one, the founder of which was one Jesus, who, these people all agreed, had declared himself a prophet and a son of God, had been crucified on a charge of sedition, had risen from the dead, and ascended to heaven, which ascension was in midday, and which was seen, as all these people declared, by the whole of them; that while in the air, so as to be seen by all the people, he uttered in a voice, so loud as to be heard by all the people, 'I am the son of God, keep this day holy until the end of the world, by meeting together and eating bread and drinking wine, and be baptised also in commemoration of my burial and resurrection.' As all these people make the same declaration and are living in obedience to this injunction, I am convinced that the fact was as they report it."

This would have been a case, such as Leslie wished the one before us to appear--a case similar to the declaration of independeace and the celebration of the day on which it was made. Let us now suppose our cosmopolite to hold this language in relation to his second visit "A few years afterwards, I again visited Judea and found a new sect of religionists there, who had all been Jews and were still very zealous of the law. They differed no otherwise from the Pharisees, than in this; the latter believed in the resurrection of the dead, because some philosophical Jew or Gentile had previously taught it; the former because their prophet, one Jesus, taught it, and because, as they affirmed, he actually had risen from the dead and ascended to heaven. Not more than one man in five hundred believed these facts. This ascension is said to have been made at Jerusalem, yet I could find none, who saw it, or who affirmed that they saw it, except a few of those, who had been his immediate followers, when alive. The chief of these, one Peter, told me, he did not show himself to all the people after s resurrection, but to a few only, who ate and drank with him, and that ascension was in the night. They baptized those, whom they admitted intheir party, in commemoration, as they said, of his burial and resurrection, and ate bread and drank wine on the first day of the week in commemoration of his death, which was on the sixth, and they had abolished their sab bath. They also affirmed, that for a year or two, before his death, he wrought many miracles in different parts of Judea; yet but very few believed in his pretensions, to establish which, these miracles were wrought; that one of his immediate followers, who had been an eye and ear witness of the whole of them, also denied and betrayed him; and that certain Jewish priests who had been fully convinced that he had risen from the dead, denied it and bribed certain soldiers, who saw the resurrection to deny it, notwithstanding this Jesus had denounced eternal damnation to all who

T

should make such denial." only: 1st, the Jews who had become christians, had not abolished the Jewish sabbath. 2d, baptism was not instituted by Jesus or his followers, nor was it pretended by them, that it was continued in commemoration of any thing. But admitting these were commemorative institutions, do they prove any thing? Were they adopted by a whole people at one and the same time, in commemoration of facts which they all saw or were said to have seen? I hope I am now understood. The perseverance of the twelve apostles, the lord's day, and baptism will be noticed in their proper places. Having finished our observations on the resurrection we will devote a few lines to the crucifixion. Whether there was a man by the name of Jesus crucified for sedition while Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea, is a matter of indifference with me. I would not waste five minutes time to prove or disprove it. Were it a material fact and disputed, I am bold to say, it is not proved by these evangelists-their statements destroy each other. If such a man was crucified, at the time they state, it is evident they knew nothing of the particulars. Many of their discrepancies have been noticed by others. I shall only call the readers attention to one that I do not recollect to have seen noticed. I allude to the position of the women while he was on the cross. Matthew and Mark say, that they, (the women) stood afar off beholding these things. They are particular as to names, Mary Magdelene, and Mary the mother of James and Joses, and the mother of Zebedee's children. John says, that the mother of Jesus, his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Cleopas, and Mary Magdelene stood by the cross, so near, that Jesus and his mother conversed together.

This is a caricature in these two particulars,

CHAPTER XI.

John's anxiety that all the prophecies should meet in Jesus, was so great, that he has run into a most laughable absurdity. He puts Jesus on the cross sometime in the afternoon (the rest before,) and tells us, that the Jews being apprehensive the three convicts would not die before the commencement of their great sabbath, besought Pilate that they might break their legs, which are not the seat of life, in order to kill them at once--that the soldiers brake the legs of the two, that were crucified with Jesus, because they were alive, but when they came to Jesus (this whole story is irreconcilable with the notion of Jesus being in the middle,) they brake not his legs because he was dead; but (because he was dead,) they run a spear into his vital parts. And all this breaking of legs, to kill some, and running a spear into another's vitals, because he was already dead, was to fulfil a a pretended prophecy, that his legs should not be broken—a maiming which probably had never happened before to any convict. Now, if John had said the soldiers pierced the other two and broke Jesus' legs there would have been some consistency in the story, however wanton it might have appeared in the soldiers to have maimed him after death. And if the prophecy had been "his bones shall be broken," John might, with something like exultation, have exclaimed, "his bones were broken, a maiming that never happened before to any convict, but one that exactly meets the prophecy." As well might the friends of the last executed traitor, claim Messiahship for him, because his bones were not broken, as the beloved disciple of Jesus, for him.

This, you say, is a small matter. How dare you say, that any thing Riven by inspiration, is a small matter? Let us, however, proceed to what you are obliged to confess, is an important matter.

Matthew says, that Christ in his last interview with his disciples, enjoined upon them to go and teach all nations, baptising them, &c. Mark, has it: "go ye into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature." Luke: that it behooved Christ to suffer, "that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations beginning at Jerusalem." According to all three, this was the only command he gave them after his resurrection. It was the last too, from all which these writers would have us to understand, it was the most important, and one which the eleven would be the slowest to forget, and the most eager to execute.— It was also a new command and what is more extraordinary was in direct

opposition to all his previous infunctions. He had told them, that he was sent but to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. When he sent these persons forth to preach, during his ministry, he told them expressly not to go in the way of the Gentiles; but to go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

The question now presents itself, did these Apostles obey this last, this important, this new, and to them, strange command? They did not commence, or dream of its execution, until eight years after its delivery. In truth, they never obeyed it. Peter did preach to some Gentiles, but not in obedience to this injunction. Instead of commencing to execute this order,

we find Peter, a very few days after, declaring publicly, in Jerusalem, that Christ was risen a Prince and a Saviour, to give repentance unto Israel. After the persecution that arose at the death of Stephen, we are told by Luke, in his Acts of the Apostles, that the thousands who left Jerusalem, went every where preaching the word, but to the Jews only, thus clearly evincing, that they had been taught by these same Apostles, that the Jews alone were interested in this gospel.

This is not all. In about eight years after the ascension, as appears from your own chronological table, while Peter was visiting the churches, which neither he, nor any other of the twelve had founded, he dreamed at Joppa, that a mighty sheet, full of living things, was let down from heaven, from which there came a voice, saying, "slay and eat." From this dream, and other wonderful circumstances, by him detailed, he was induced to go to the house of Cornelius, a Gentile. The first thing he says on meeting Cornelius, is: "ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for one, that is a Jew, to keep company with, or come unto one of another nation, but God hath shewed me, that I should not call any man common, or unclean," thus placing his justification, not on the ground of that express command from Christ, given in his last interview, but on his dream.

THIS is not all.

The other Apostles call him to account, for his going to this Gentile. Can it be supposed, that they would call him to accoun for doing what their risen Lord, in his last interview, expressly enjoined on

them?

THIS is not all. Peter as before, when at the house of Cornelius, talks about the sheet and its contents. If such a command as these evangelists speak of had ever been given, would not Peter, instead of resting his defence on the sheet, and prating about it, have said-"What! my brethren, call me to account, for doing what our Lord, the moment before his ascension, commanded us all to do! No, rather chide me, and stand rebuked yourselves, for not going about this business sooner. Our negligence is unpar

donable."

There is this remarkable passage in Peter's speech on his arraignment"Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said," what? Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature? No, nothing of the kind, but the following:-"John indeed baptised with water, but ye shall be baptised with the Holy Ghost." This command, to preach

the gospel to every creature, could never have been given, or Peter would have remembered and quoted it here.

And this is not all. Paul was commissioned for the express purpose of preaching the Gospel to the gentiles, from which it is to be inferred, that no one before him, had recieved a similar commission. But, it is not left to inference. Paul, in his letter to the Galatians, tells us expressly, that the gospel of the uncircumcision (to the Gentiles) was committed to him, as the gospel of the circumcision (to the Jews) was to Peter.

I am now prepared to ask you, if you can reconcile the declaration of Christ, that he was sent but to the lost sheep of the house of Israel-his injunction to the twelve when he sent them out, that they should go but to these same lost sheep-the declaration of Peter, that Christ was risen a Prince and Saviour, to give repentance and remission of sins to Israel-the persecuted converts preaching the word to the Jews only-the long delay of the Apostles in going to the Gentiles—the reason given why Peter went to Cornelius-his declaration on meeting him—the indignation of the other Apostles on hearing of this visit-his defence-the purpose for which Paul was called; I say, can you reconcile all these, with the declaration of the three evangelists, that the eleven were ordered by Christ, in his last interview with them, to go into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature? You cannot. There is falsehood somewhere. It is immaterial to me at whose door it is laid.

This is a proper place to establish the important position, that Paul was the author of the christian religion, as we now find it. Had it not been for his abortive apostle, this interloper, the christian religion would have been confined to the Jews, and probably have added one more sect to the number then existing among them. This man, Paul, (I shall never call him an Apostle,) held the Apostles in contempt, preached a gospel as different from theirs, as modern christianity is from Judaism-was hated by all the Jewish converts, and in danger of being persecuted by them unto death.He was the first man who preached Christ to the Gentiles, although you boldly assert, that Cornelius was the first Gentile to whom the gospel was proclaimed. Paul, according to your chronological table, was converted about two years after the resurrection. And he tells us in his letter to the Galatians, that (God having thought proper to reveal his son in him, that he might preach him to the Gentiles,) he did not wait a moment, not even to

« 前へ次へ »