ページの画像
PDF
ePub

Jesus "stole all courtesy from heaven, and dressed himself in such humility, that he did pluck allegiance from men's hearts, loud shouts and salutations from their mouths even in the presence of" two Roman deputies. This stealing and dressing, were preparatory to this plucking, in the case of King Henry. So the great poet makes him confess and boast. And why not in the case of Jesus? To sum it up. We judge of men, not from the first, but the last scene--not from what they say, but from what they do. Upon these principlos, the real character of Jesus, is to be determined from his conduct during the last few days of his life.

When we take into consideration, the part he bore in this unlawful assemblage of the people, his approbation of their shouts, and his tresspass on the money brokers, our opinions concerning him, must be far from favor. able. When we extend that consideration to the excuses, or defences, he made before the people and Pilate, he becomes an object of loathing and contempt. The first is bottomed on the false assumption, that the court of the Gentiles was holy ground, and the other, on the necessity of this pageant as a prelude to his coronation in heaven.

The closing scene of this drama, when rightly considered, adds force to my charge against the apostles.

I had intended to rest this case here, but as the charge of treason and rebellion, is somewhat startling, I have thought proper to support it by other statements from the evangelists. They tell us, that Jesus sent out his disciples, (eighty-two of them according to Luke) to preach to the Jens only. They were to proclaim, that a kingdom, styled by these writers a kingdom of heaven, was near at hand. It is immaterial what they called it It is evident the disciples understood it to be a temporal kingdom. This point is conceded. The twelve disciples returned from their missionary tour, and after their return we find them quarreling about precedence in this kingdom. Could it have been a spiritual kingdom?

It being conceded that these disciples firmly believed, until his death, that their leader was about to establish a temporal kingdom, it follows, first: that they must have taken up this impression from his conduct and conversation. Second: that their Hosannas, or Huzzas, when he made his grand entry, were to him as a temporal king. Third: that instead of preaching, as is generally supposed, spiritual matters, these disciples, after receiving their commission, acted the part of recruiting officers, under their chief: for they must have understood this commission as authorizing, and requiring them to drum up and enlist partisans for this kingdom. And can

it be supposed they did not execute this commission as they understood it, or that Jesus was not aware, how they understood it, and how they were executing it?

,'After these things, the Lord appointed other seventy also, and sent them two and two before his face into every city and place, whither he himself mould come. (Luke x. 1.)

The passover week was the time when, and Jerusalem the place where, these recruits were to assemble from the different cantons of Judea, to strike the decisive blow. Previous to this feast Jesus took a circuit through these cantons-his partisans previously enlisted, flocked to his standard--their numbers rapidly increased as he approached the capitol-on leaving Jericho, so numerous was the host, and so great the press to see him, as he passed along the road, that men of low stature were obliged to climb trees in order to get a view of him. Blind men, startled at the tramp of this spiritual army, cried out, "what is this?" and were told, that "Jesus of Nazareth passeth by." As these multitudes (for Matthew says a great multitude followed him out of Jericho) drew nigh to Jerusalem, Jesus sent for the colt in order to make his entry in style. John says, that as these multidudes drew nigh to Jerusalem, "much people that were come to the feast, took branches of palm trees, and went forth to meet him," and cried, Hosanna, Blessed is the King of Israel that cometh in the name of the Lord.

This entry has been described. Will auy man be so blind, as not to see the object of all this? Will he suffer that spiritual jargon--that medley of rant and devotion of humility, and extravagance of pretension, of empyricism, mysticism, and sooth-saying, with which the evangelists have interlarded their accounts of this insurrection, to deprive him of his common sense? Will he be so downright a fool, as not to see, that if Jesus and his party had not been thwarted, the Roman power in Judea would have been subverted, and he crowned King? Can he be so stupid, as to believe, that Deity required of a son, a temporal crown, as a passport to the courts above? Must he not see the absurdity and ridiculousness of the defence which is put into the mouth of Jesus. when arraigned before the Roman Governor-"I admit that this looks very like rebellion, but nothing of the kind is intended. I merely wish to be proclaimed, and if possible, crowned King of the Jews, not that I want to subvert your authority, or govern here a single moment; I am to rule in heaven, but somehow it is so fixed, that I must go through the ceremony of a coronatfon here, and be acknowledged King by this multitude of Jews, before I can take my seat on my celestial throne. You are still to be the Ruler of the Jews, I their heavenly King." This is the only defence he could make, and is in truth the one his Gentile partisans at this day, make for him.

The Romans sent out a cohort of five hundred armed men, to assist the proper officers in arresting Jesus. Could he then have been a common malefactor? Does not the employment of this military force, show that he

must have had a strong party at his back? Pray tell us for what he was arrested, tried, and executed. Can you make the world believe that a Roman Governor would send out a regiment of armed men to, arrest a meek and lowly, despised and rejected individual, and try, and convict, and then execute him, merely because he differed from the Jews, in some points of doctrine-those Jews whom this same Roman Governor, despised, and whose religion he held in contempt.

No doubt, Jesus would gladly have gathered Jerusalem under his wings. Spiritual wings say you! Riding at the head, or in the midst of this noisy procession, was a most singular position for imparting spiritual instruction. Why, if his object was not revolution and usurpation, did he not inform this multitude of followers, that were cheering and proclaiming him King, that they were laboring under a great mistake-to use a westernism-barking up the wrong tree.

These questions cannot be answered, nor the foregoing conclusions be avoided, but by a denial of the facts on which they are founded. You may take either horn of the dilemma. If you admit the facts, I impale you on the inferences. A denial of them is equally fatal.

That the statements on which the charge of rebellion is founded, are irreconcilable with other statements of the evangelists, I admit. The betrayal of Jesus by Judas, is a most absurd tale and wholly irreconcilable with the previous history of Jesus, as given by his biographers. In what particulars could Judas have betrayed him. He could not have disclosed to the proper authorities, the crime for which he was crucified-publieity being its main git-a secret tumult or sedition, being a contradiction in terms. He could not have betrayed him, by identifying or pointing him out to those sent in quest of him: for his person must have been famaliar to almost every inhabitant of Judea, and particularly to the citizens of Jerusalem, to whom he had but a few days before exhibited himself, as the leader of a tumultuous throng, bent on the overthrow of the existing government. He could not have betrayed him by directing the sheriff, and his posse, to the place of his concealment; for he was arrested in a public garden, and boasted that he had not skulked. Be pleased to suggest any other particulars in which he could have been betrayed.

His remaining in Jerusalem unmolested, for several days after the com. mission of the crime for which he was executed, and exhibiting himself daily in the temple, are wholly inexplicable. Such inconsistency of statement, would discredit any other author.

I cannot close this chapter, without warning my friends to be on their guard against false, or immaterial issues. The christian asserts that this 53d had reference to Jesus. The infidel says it had not. This is one issue.

The infidel asserts, that the greater part of this chapter, related to Jeremiah, or some prophet. The christian says it did not. This is another issue, but an immaterial one: for if in this issue, the christian proves the infidel in an error, he does not prove the truth of his allegation, in his first issue; that is, by showing it did not relate to any prophet, he does not prove that it had reference to Jesus.

CHAPTER XVIII.

In the argument of the question respecting the philanthropy of the apostles, I agreed to admit all the facts stated by Luke in his second book, (miracles excepted.) I now procceed to show, either that the apostles were not imprisoned, or if imprisoned were not released by any celestial being called an angel.

It will be borne in mind that the Jews had no power to put any man to death for any cause-that they dared not take down dead bodies from the cross without leave first had and obtained from the Roman governor.Luke asserts in his fourth chapter Acts, that the priests and captain or ruler of the temple, and the Saducees came upon Peter and John and put them in hold, or held them in custody till the next day, being greived that they taught in the name of Jesus. The next day the chief men of the Jews assembled and called these apostles before them, and after an examination, dismissed them. How can you reconcile this seizure and imprisonment of the apostles, by these Jews, with the express declaration of John and the indirect admissions of this same Luke, of their total want of power. This captain or ruler of the temple was not, as has been insinuated, the Roman centurion. I make this assertion, and my opponents must show, from proof, that he was, before they can assert that this authority to seize these apostles was derived through him. Admitting that he was, can it be contended that he would arrest and imprison men on a charge that the Roman authorities would not take cognizance of? This charge, it will be recollected, was for preaching in the name of Jesus.The Roman magistrates, throughout the empire, at this period, and long after, would drive from their presence, all parties complainant, preferring it as an offence. A profanation of the temple they would take notice of, but this was not the charge against Peter and John. The probability, therefore, is that the account of this arrest of these two apostles is a sheer fabrication. The same reasoning will apply to their subsequent arrest.

After the death of Annanias and Saphira, we are told by Luke, that the Sadducees were filled with indignation, (though not on account of these deaths,) and arrested the apostles and threw them into the common prison. It is clear from the previous argument, that this arrest, if ever made, was an illegal one, for two reasons, viz: the want of authority in those who made it, and of criminality in the act for which it was made.

« 前へ次へ »