CHAPTER II.
The nature and Character of Jesus.
Before proceeding to the examination of the alleged miracles of Jesus, it is desirable that we form an established opinion in relation
to his personal nature and character; for if we suppose him a mere man, we shall be the more ready to suspect that his alleged miracles were not real: on the other hand, if we give him a super-human nature, we shall be more
inclined to believe the contrary. What evidence then is there, previous to his beginning to work miracles, that tends to shew that he was possessed of any other than a human nature? [*8]
We are told, in the first place, that he had a miraculous origin; that God (or the Holy Ghost) was his father, (Matt i.20-Luke i. 35), and Luke (i. 35) gives this fact as the reason why he was to be called the
Son of God. But let us see whether this fact were so. It is clear, on the one side, that if he had such an origin, no single human being could have had personal or absolute knowledge of
the fact except his mother. Now, if we had the direct declaration of the mother that such was the truth, it would be idiocy to pretend that a fact, admitted to be contrary to the order of nature, and such as the whole world
never witnessed before or since, ought to be taken as true, on the bare assertion of a single person, and of a person too, who, on the natural supposition in relation to her case, must have been under one of the strongest of all
possible earthly temptations to deceive. But we have not even her testimony at this point. We have only the simple declarations, made by two men (Mathew and Luke) more than forty years
afterwards- men, who could not have personally known the truth of what they stated; who unquestionably never heard a syllable of the matter until thirty or forty years from the time when it was said to have
occurred; who give us no account, either of the manner in which, or of the persons from whom, they obtained their information; and who differ widely in their account of the circumstances attending to their transaction- Luke
relating many marvelous preliminaries of which Mathew makes no mention, although they are such as he
too would likely to have related, if he had ever heard of them. Now he must have heard of them, if he had obtained his information of the principal fact from Mary, who was the only person that could have absolutely known the fact, if it were true.
It is evident, therefore, that each of these men took up some of the unattested stories, floating in that superstitious, credulous, ignorant, an deluded community, forty years after the supposed
transaction. After Jesus had begun to preach, many believed him to be a super-human personage, and it is easy to see that that circumstances alone would give rise, among those simple men, to
many conjectures about his origin; and every one of his followers would be desirous to believe that it would be supernatural, and would, for the sake of thus believing, catch at the slightest suggestion, conjecture or circumstance,
as sufficient evidence that it was so. Stories, thus originating, would at once circulate and gain currency among such a class of men as his followers were; and the marvelous character of the stories, instead of being
an objection to their credibility, would only make them the more credible to the minds of those who were ready and eager to believe anything supernatural, in relation to one, whom they considered the most marvelous personage that
had ever appeared anywhere on earth. But there is no ground for any pretence that he had a miraculous origin, unless he derived it in the particular manner related in
the Bible; and n order to believe that he derived it in that manner, it is unnecessary to believe- what? Why, that Deity became physically a parent! (Luke I, 35). The verse is here simply referred to without being quoted;
for it is fit only to be recorded with some of the fabulous accounts of the Jupiter of the ancients. But if the Bible itself contains more direct proof that the accounts about his origin, and
about the supernatural appearances at the time of his birth, are both untrue. If either of these circumstances had been true, his own parents must have preserved the
remembrance of it, and would forever after, have looked on him as an extraordinary being. But the story, which is told of his conduct at Jerusalem when twelve years old, would, if true, entirely prove that, up to that time, they
had not so viewed him. This story (Luke ii,48 to50) represents his parents as being "amazed" at seeing him in the temple; and when he asked them, "wist ye not that I must about my father's business?" "they understood not the
sayings which he spake to them." Now, if the accounts in relation to his birth were true, thy must have forever after viewed him as Emmanuel, n must, of necessity, have understood what he meant by being about his father's
business. So that either Luke's story of his origin and birth, or the one of his conduct at Jerusalem, must necessarily have been false, and if either of them to be false, the Bible is not a revelation from God. There
is no room for reasonable doubt, that one story is as false as the other, and that these ignorant and simple biographers, who have related so many things, (of which these are a part,) that they could not have known to
be true, even if they were true, picked them up thirty, forty, or fifty years after they relate them to have happened, from among the thousand unfounded ones, that would naturally be in circulation about him. Again. If even the story of his conduct at Jerusalem alone had been true, he must from that time have been viewed with astonishment by his family, an regarded
by them, as an uncommon being. If they had been (as they probably were,) as superstitious as the ignorant part of their countrymen generally, this single incident of his conduct at Jerusalem would have made him, in their
eyes, an inspired man. Yet there is not, that I am aware of, the slightest evidence that, after this time, until he began to preach, they did so look upon him. On the contrary, there is the most direct proof that his
brothers did not- for when he pretended to be able to work miracles, they tainted him with his pretensions, (John 7-3, 4 and 5) by telling him, if he could do such things, to show himself to the world, and
also (evidently out of contempt towards him for the course he had taken) that no man, who sought to make himself publicly known, performed his miracles in secret. This disrespect and contempt they never would
have exhibited towards him, if they had ever been informed by their parents, (as they undoubtedly would have been, if the circumstances had actually happened, and that too for the very purpose of procuring him respect
from them, ) either of his having had a miraculous origin, of any remarkable circumstance attending his birth, or that he had ever exhibited to them any of that precocity, which he is related to have displayed at Jerusalem.
Furthermore, if God were ever to violate the order of nature, he would not be likely to do it unnecessarily- and an occurrence, such as that in which Jesus is said to have ha his origin, must have
been useless, on the supposition that men would act rationally in judging of its reality from the testimony of the only one, who could have had absolute knowledge of the fact.
Finally, Jesus was human in all his appearance, form his youth up; he is supposed to have labored like a man; he lived like a man, he looked like a man, ; his own brothers esteemed him as
nothing but a man; he was born of a woman; and unless God were his father, he was a man, and nothing but a man. But Christians say there is still other evidence- separate from the miraculous
- which tends to sustain the divinity of Jesus. We are told by them that the moral grandeur and importance of the object, at which he is said to have aimed in his public career, is of this kind. Now, s it is possible that a mistake
exists as to the nature of this object, some inquiry in relation to it is proper. There has always been disagreement between the Jews and Christians, as to the real design of Jesus in attempting to
gain followers in the manner he did. The Jews always contended- and they surely had the proper means of knowing- that he was only one of many, who started up nearly at the same time, and claimed to be entitled to reign over the
Jewish nation as temporal, or perhaps rather as semi-temporal, semi-spiritual kings- as such kings, in short, as the one, whom the Jews, who depended specially upon the almighty to send them rulers, expected would, about that time,
be sent to them. It had been predicted, by those, whom the Jews considered prophets, that an extraordinary king, to be called the Messiah, would be sent to that nation.
What the particular terms of all the predictions were, need not be here set forth, since it is admitted by Christians that they were such , as the universal opinion, gathered from them by the
Jews, to whom they were addressed, was, that this messiah was to be at least a temporal, though perhaps also a religious ruler. It is admitted by Christian writers that , at and about the
time of Jesus, a large number of persons appeared in Judea, who claimed to be the Messiah that had been predicted as about to come, and who went about attempting to gain adherents by pretending to work miracles, &c.
Now it is clear that these admissions of Christians, as to what were, up to the time of his crucifixion, the ostensible
designs of Jesus, and their pretensions as to his real designs during the same period, can be reconciled only by supposing, that, for so long a time, at least, he knowingly cheated and deceived the best, truest, and most intimate friends. It is preposterous to say- as Christians are obliged to do, in order to extricate their case from this dilemma- that these disciples were such dunces, (although that they were simple men I agree) that, for a year and a half or more, (the time he is supposed to have been with them), Jesus found it impossible to make them
understand the difference between a being, who came to establish an universal religion, and one who came merely to govern, as a King, the little territory of Judea; because men so foolish as that
supposition would make them, could ever have been educated so as even to be what some of these disciples afterwards became; and because also men could hardly be so simple as to be unable to distinguish between
things so widely different. It may be true, and probably is, as John says, (18-36,) that, after his followers had deserted him, and he found himself in the power of his enemies
, he Pilate told that "his kingdom was not of this world,' but he appears to have been himself brought to that conviction just at that time, and solely by the fact that his former supporters had abandoned his
cause, for he immediately add, "if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews; but now is my kingdom not from hence."
But whatever may have been his opinion of himself, or whatever may have been his own ideas of the of the destiny for which he supposed God had designed him, after he was apprehended, the
evidence is abundant as to what had previously been his purpose. One important part of this evidence, that Daniel- the only one, I believe, of the supposed prophets, who mentions a
Messiah by that name- had evidently described him (Chap. 9- 25, 26,) as one, who was to be the temporal king of the Jews, and Jesus, imagining himself to be this Messiah, would naturally try to fulfill the prediction by
making himself answer the description as well as he could. And we accordingly find that he not only continually represented himself as the Messiah, but that there is also an evident attempt, on the part of
his biographers to make it appear that he had fulfilled the predictions, which had been made concerning the Messiah. Another piece of evidence, to the same point, is found in John,
(6-15,) where it is related that the people, who followed him, wished then "to take him by force , and make him king;" a thing, that it would naturally seem, they never would have thought of, had he not intimated to them that he
was, at some time, to become their king. Another fact, which shows that he expected to have become the king of Jews, is, that he once rode from Bethany to Jerusalem in a very in a very
triumphal and kingly manner, attended by a great body of men, who were shouting in a manner clearly indicative of their belief that he was a descendant of David, and was about to take possession of the throne which David had
occupied. (Mat. 21-1 to 11. Mark 11. Luke 19-28 to 44. John 12-12 to 15.) Now if he did not intend to become their king at this time, as they expected, he was fraudulently sanctioning the mistake, under which he
must have known they were acting, and must have knowingly led them on in a delusion. The only supposition therefore, that is consistent with his honesty, is, that he himself expected at this time to be made king.
It appears also (john 12-14, 15) that "it had been written," that a king of Jerusalem should come to that city, "sitting on an ass's colt," and Jesus at this time took pains to have
all ass's colt obtained for him to ride on, (Mat. 21-1 to 7.) John himself acknowledges (12-16,) that even "his disciples understood not these things at the first;" that is to say,
at the time when they not only saw, but joined in, all this pageantrv, they did not
understand that they were paying homage to one, who was to be a spiritual king; and if they did not so understand, there can be no doubt as to what kind of a person they thought they thought they were honoring. So that Jesus, according to the express acknowledgment of his own advocate, must either have deceived this whole crowd of followers, or he expected at this time to have been made king; because the impression, that he was about to become their king, could not have become so universal, and continued so long, among this crowd, unless he had directly countenanced it. John indeed represents (12-16) that after "Jesus was glorified (or risen, as they supposed, from the dead,) they understood exactly what these which at the time of their occurrence, they did not rightly understand, must have meant. But this was an afterthought , on the part of the disciples, and is therefore good for nothing to the advocate of Christianity, although it enables the unbeliever to see how it was, that the
re-appearance of Jesus after his crucifixion,
(a thing for which they could not naturally account) turned the heads of his followers, and made them see every event, which had previously taken place, in a very different light from that true and natural one, in which they had viewed it at the time of its occurrence. After
he was "glorified," they "glorified" and spiritualized every thing that he had previously said or done, and, by so doing, they gave to this benighted world a Revelation fit for use.
When Jesus, in this triumphal rise, had come near to Jerusalem, (Luke 19-37 to 44) some of the Pharisees told him to "rebuke his disciples" (meaning undoubtedly, by 'his disciples,' the crowd
generally who were attending him,) and they would be likely, under such circumstances, to say to him many other things, which his biographers would not choose to tell [*11] to us. But the fact that the Pharisees, who
were among the principal men of the Jews, told him to rebuke his followers, shows that they had no idea of receiving him, and he was probably thereby convinced that he could not be made king, for he immediately falls into a
lamentation for the fate of the city-not
for the souls of the Jews, as he would naturally have done, had he designed to be only a spiritual redeemer- but for the fate of the city itself. He virtually says that if the Jews would have accepted him as their king, their city would have been safe; but now, he safe; but now, he says, that "its enemies shall cast a trench about it, and compass it around, and keep it on every side and lay it even on the ground," &c. Now this is not the language of a purely spiritual teacher; it is precisely such language as we might reasonably expect to hear from a man, who wished to be the ruler of a people, but ho, on being rejected as such, should endeavor to alarm their fears for the fate of their city. Or it is such language as we might reasonably expect to hear from a man so deluded as to imagine that he had been appointed by God to be the deliverer of a city, but, who, on finding that he could not become its deliverer, should suppose, as a matter of course, that it would fall into the hands or its enemies and be destroyed.
The desertion of Jesus, by his followers, furnishes an argument in support or the supposition that he attempted to be king of the Jews, rather than that he was a superior being.
There was a time when he had a company, estimated at about five thousand, following him, (John 6-2, 10). Yet they soon began to leave him, (John 6-66, 67) and but a handful finally remained. Now it would be nothing
strange that the followers of a man, who was attempting to make himself king of the Jews, should, after a little time, desert his cause; but it would be very strange if a Son of God should either be unable to make proselytes
of all who should come to hear him, or should fail to keep them after he had once made them. When he was finally taken prisoner, the universal charge against him was, that he had
claimed to be the "King of the Jews." The people scoffed at, and insulted him, on that very account. They placed a mimic crown on his head, put on him a purple robe, and jeered him with "Hail, King of the Jews." How are these
unanimous opinion of him, and sentiment towards him, to be accounted for, otherwise than by supposing him to have attempted to make himself a king? The answer is obvious- they cannot otherwise be accounted for. Luke says also, (23-1, 2) that men declared before Pilate, that they had ''found that fellow perverting the nation, and forbidding to give tribute to Ceasar saying that
he himself is Christ, a king." Yes, he even went so far as to forbid any longer his adherents to pay any tribute unto Ceasar, and gave us reason why they should not, that he himself was a king, (their king). But Christians
will probably say that these men did not speak the truth. And what reason have we to believe that they did not? Did any one contradict what they stated? No- everybody at the time acquiesced. Still, because they told a
natural and probable story about Jesus Christ, instead of a marvelous and improbable one, they are not to be credited; because they made neither a God, nor a Son of God, out of "this fellow," they must be
set down as "false witnesses;" because there were several, who said that they heard the same language, they must all have conspired to detroy him by false testimony; because their statements corroborate, and are
corroborated by, what had already become notoriously the public belief, they must of course be untrue; because, in short, these men testified against Jesus, instead of testifying for him, they are not to be believed. This is
the kind of reasoning to which Christians must resort. Jesus once told his disciples (Luke 22-28 to 30) in substance that as a reward for their fidelity to him
through all the difficulties and opposition he had met with, he should give each of them a kingdom,
and that they should "sit on thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel." Now if he meant earthly thrones, he of course was himself to be an earthly king, for his language evidently implies that his twelve disciples were to be kings
under him. His language is, " I appoint unto you, a kingdom as my father hath appointed unto me; that ye may drink and eat at my table, and sit in thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel." Observe, they were to eat and
drink at his table at the same time that they were to be kings over the tribes of Israel; of course, if their thrones were on earth, his table must have been set on earth too and he must have been an earthly king. But the
Christian will reply that these thrones were to be thrones in heaven. Well, be it so- what then is the inference? Why, that they have kings in heaven. The evidence already
offered ought, as it seems to me, to be decisive; but there is one additional fact, which, if it do not prove that he attempted to make himself king, does, nevertheless, put it beyond a reasonable doubt, that, up to the time
when he was seized, he had had no such object in view as Christians pretend. It appears (Luke 22-36, 37, 38.) that in the evening before he was apprehended, and after Judas had left the room under circumstances, which led Jesus to
suppose that he was going to prove treacherous, he directed his remaining disciples to provide themselves with swords, evidently in order that they might be prepared for any danger, that might ensue. And when his disciples
told him "here are two swords"- (an incident, which shows that after their affairs began to grow desperate, they kept swords by them) he assented to their taking them by answering "it is enough," and it appears afterwards
that the swords were accordingly taken. Now I suppose it can hardly be necessary to go into an argument, even with Christians, in order to prove that a real "Prince of peace," a purely religious or moral teacher, or any
Divine Being, just as he was about to [*12] offer up his life voluntarily for mankind, who would not be very likely to put swords into the hands of his followers. The single fact, that Jesus should ever
authorize his followers to arm themselves with swords, brushes away, at a single sweep, all the subsequent conjectures and assertions of the ignorant, simple and deluded men, who followed him, that he intended
only to be a moral or religious teacher. The confidence too, with which, when he was about to be seized, his disciples appealed to him with "Lord, shall we smite
with the sword?" and the manner in which Peter rushed on and struck off an ear of one of the party, show that Jesus had given them other lessons than that of turning the other cheek also. Nor is the inference, naturally to be drawn from these facts, to be avoided by saying that Jesus for bid the further use of the swords, after Peter had thus employed his; because it is evident that he encouraged their use until he found the numbers against him too great to be resisted with safety. These circumstances show that his command to his disciples, to desist from further violence, was a matter of policy instead of principle.
There can be no doubt as to the fact, that this party had swords with them at this time, for it does not rest on the testimony of Luke alone. Mathew and John, who were of
the twelve, and probably were on the spot at the time, both say that a man's ear was cut off with a sword. It is clear, therefore, from these facts, that Jesus could not have been such a
personage as Christians believe him to have been; and if he was not, it is of no consequence to us what he may have been, although the evidence may leave us in no doubt in relation to it.
Taking it for granted then, that the evidence has settled the question, so far as it was necessary to be settled, in relation to his object in his public career, we come now to
another matter, to which Christians refer as evidence of his divinity, viz, the alleged perfection of his personal character. This point will be examined, although somewhat of his personal character has already been developed.
Perhaps the most conspicuous defects in his personal character were, 1st, his readiness to resort to subterfuge, when challenged to work miracles, by those who doubted his miraculous
powers, 2d, his propensity to practice concealment; and 3d, his notorious cowardice. A few instances only of conduct, illustrative of each of these characteristics, need be referred to. As evidence
of his readiness to resort to subterfuge, when challenged to work miracles by those who doubted his miraculous power, the following cases are deemed sufficient. On one occasion (Mark
8-11 to 13) when some of the Pharisees came to question him, and asked them how to show them a sign - apparently that they might judge of the justice of his claims to be the Messiah- he pretended to his disciples that these
Pharisees were a very unreasonable set of men to ask such a thing of him, and said he would give them no sign, but left them and departed. Mark says that their object was to entrap him,
or to work some mischief with him- but how did Mark know that they had any other design than their question implies? The biographers of Jesus were very good at conjecturing reasons, finding apologies, and hunting excuses for
the dastardly conduct of their master. At another time, (John 2-13 to 21) when he had been attempting to drive the Jews from the Temple, and they had asked him, as they
reasonably might do- what sign he could give them as evidence of his right to do so, the only sign he proposed to show them was this, that if they would destroy their beautiful temple- a thing which he knew of course they would not
do- he would rebuild it in three days. It is possible to imagine an evasion more mean or contemptible? John says that Jesus, in his instance, referred to "the temple of his body." But if he
did, he acted the knave outright, because he must have known that he was deceiving those whom he addressed. Once (Luke 4-16 to 30) in his travels came to "Nazareth, where he had been brought up," and where he
was proudly known. He there told the people that he was the one who had been prophesied of, but virtually acknowledged that they had a right to expect that they would work miracles, for he said, "ye will surely say unto me,
whatsoever we have heard done in Capernaum, do also here in thy country." But as an excuse for not working any miracles, he made use of this despicable pretence, viz: that "no prophet is accepted in his own country"- innuendo, that
it would be of no avail even to work miracles before those who knew him. It appears - putting the natural construction upon the remainder of Luke's story- that the people thereupon thrust him out of the place, dragged him to
the brow of the hill, frightened him by pretending to be about to cast him headlong down it, and then let him go. And, in my judgment, he had no reason to complain of treatment he received.
On another occasion John says (6-30) that the people put the question to him directly, "what sign showest thou then, that we may see, and believe thee? what dost thou work?" It appears,
from the context, that these, men had taken much pains to find him, and had come from a distance to see him; and although their question indicates an intention to be convinced by nothing less than a miracle, they,
at the same time, declare their intention to believe in him, the very thing he desired of all men,) if he would but work one plainly. In all this they asked nothing which was not entirely reasonable. They desired only that he
should exhibit the credentials, which he professed to carry with him, as evidence or his authority. They, in fact, offered him just such an opportunity as a real miracle-worker would have desired. But Jesus, [*13]
instead of working a miracle, chose to talk about something else, about their motives following him, about his being "the bread that came down from heaven," &c., and went on talking about one thing and another, that had
nothing to do with the miracle which they had challenged him to work, until (John 6-60, 61, 66, and 67) the company left him in evident disgust. I suppose Christians would say, as John says
that Jesus intimated, (John 6-26) that he had already wrought miracles before them, and since they did not give him credit for them, it was not his business to go on working them. Now this apology is but a poor
compliment to the character of his miracles, for it assumes that they did not convince eye-witnesses. But-leaving that consideration- how did Jesus know that these particular men, who had now come so far, apparently for no other
reason than to ascertain whether he could work miracles, had ever before seen him work what he called miracles ? Besides, their question implies that they never had seen him work a miracle, and their declaration is, at least,
its good, in such a. case, as his. Admitting it therefore to be true-as we must do until the contrary be unequivocally proved-
Another defect in his character, which was to be mentioned, was his propensity to practice concealment. He again and again, when he had done something, which his biographers
have called a miracle, charged those, who were with him, to "let no man know it." In one instance (Mark 1-40 to 44) where he is said to have cured a leper, after he had done it, "he straitly charged him, and
said unto him, see thou say nothing to any man." In a case, (Mark 8-22 to 26) where it is said that he cured a blind man, "he led the blind man out of the
town" to do it; and not satisfied with that, he told the man, when the work was done, "neither go into the town, nor tell it to any in the town." In the case (Mark 5-37 to 43)
where he is said to have restored to life the dead daughter of Jairus, he suffered none but Peter, James, John and the father and mother of the child to go into the room with him, although others desired to go in; and when
the scene was over, he even "charged" those, who had been witnesses, "that no man should know of it;" and John in his biography of Jesus, says not a word about it; and we are indebted, for such a story as we have,
to those who were not eyewitnesses. In another instance, (Mark 7-32 to 36) where he is said to have cured (after a great deal of apparently unnecessary ceremony) a man, who "was deaf and had
an impediment in his speech," 'he charged" those, who had been present, "that they should tell no man." In still another case (Mat. 9-27 to 30) where it is related of him that he cured two blind men,
after the work was done, "he straitly charged them, saying , See that no man know it." Is there any excuse for such conduct as this in a real miracle-worker? Was not the taunt of his brothers well applied,
when they said to him, (John 7-4) in substance, that no man did his works in secret, when he was seeking to make himself publicly known, and told him, if he could work miracles, to do it before the world ?
His brothers appear to have been men of some understanding- for, although they, like the rest of their countrymen, believed in miracles, yet they saw readily enough that for a
pretended miracle-worker, either to avoid the scrutiny of those who doubted his miraculous power, to select the right kind of witnesses of his acts, or to be careful to have no witnesses at all, was "no way
to do things." He appears also to have been very cautious, in the early part of his career, that the public should not know that he claimed to be the Messiah. He once
(Mat. 16-13 to 20. Mark 8-27 to 30. Luke 9-18 to 21) asked his disciples, "Who say the people that I am?" And when they had told him that men had different Opinions about him, "he saith unto them, But who say
ye that I am?" Peter then expressed his belief that he was "the Christ." Whereupon "he charged his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus, the Christ."
Cowardice was another defect in his character, and it is made so manifest that it cannot be concealed. He repeatedly betrayed it by fleeing from his enemies, and by so doing, he must have
brought himself, and his pretensions into public contempt. When his disciples came to him, and told him that John the Baptist had been beheaded by order of Herod, (Mat. 14-12, 13)
"he departed into a desert place apart;" or, in plain English, he fled. John says, (10-39, 40) in speaking of another occasion, "Therefore they sought again to take him,
but he escaped out of their hands, and went away beyond Jordan, and there he abode;" that is to say, he run away, and stayed away. On another occasion
also John says, (11-53 and 54) "Then from that day forth they took council together for to put him to death. Jesus therefore walked no more openly among the Jews." [*14] Mathew says, (12-14, 15, 16) in still another
case, "Then the Pharisees went out, and held council against, him, how they might destroy him. But when Jesus knew it, he withdrew himself from thence, and charged his followers that they should not make him
known:" that is, he took himself off, and told his friends to let nobody know where he had gone. John says again, (8-59) "Then took they up stones to cast at him; but Jesus hid
himself, and went out of the temple," &c. Yes, it seems that this Son of God, in a case of emergency, could even "Aide" himself. But the most contemptible
instance of the cowardice of Jesus is related by John, (7-1 to 10) who says of him, that "he walked in Galilee, for he would not walk in Jewry, because the Jews sought to kill him." He then adds, that the feast of the tabernacles
was at hand, and that his brothers wished him, if he could work miracles, to go up to the feast and perform them openly. They also taunted him with doing his works in secret. But neither solicitations nor taunts
could induce him to go with them. He attempted to excuse himself by saying that the world hated him; and said to them, "Go ye up to this feast, I go not up yet into this feast, for my time is not yet full
come." What then did this man do? This bold reformer? This pretended Messiah? This man, who afterwards (Mat. 26-30) said that he could call upon his Father, and he would give him more than twelve legions of angels to protect
him? Why, he remained behind until his brothers had gone, "but (to use John's own language) when his brethren had gone up, then went he also to the feast, not openly, but as it were in secret."
The man, who can read these accounts of his secresy, his cowardice, and of the miserable subterfuges to which he would resort to prevent an exposure of his incapacity to work miracles before
scrutinizing eyes, and not
feel "ashamed of Jesus" as a Master, must not only be quite content to have a master, but very indifferent in his choice of one. And be it not forgotten, that those, who, after having had their attention called to this conduct of Jesus, shall continue to advocate Christianity, must practice the effrontery of pretending that this creeping, skulking, hiding, fleeing fellow was acting a part appropriate to a Son of God, and exhibiting a perfect pattern of moral greatness.
Such, be it remembered, is one part of the character given to this man by his best friends. It is no "enemy that has done this." It all comes from men, who evidently did not
intend to let out any thing, which would make against their cause, but who happened to be too simple always to know what it would be expedient to keep back. And we can easily judge, from the character given to this man by his
friends, what an one would have been given to him by an unbelieving eye-witness, if such an one had cared enough about him to take the trouble of exposing the whole of his conduct.
Christians have the opinion that Jesus, at last, delivered himself up magnanimously and willingly, a martyr for the benefit of mankind. Now this opinion is founded entirely upon the improbable, to the rejection of
the probable, part of the contradictory testimony in relation to his conduct on that occasion. The probable part of the testimony (and there is enough of it for any purpose,) goes, directly and manifestly, to show that Jesus
skulled and endeavored to escape in this instance, in the same manner he had so often done before. But before introducing this testimony, let us look at the absurdity of that
which Christians adopt. The latter is, that at the supper, on the evening before Jesus was taken, it was understood between him and Judas, that the latter should betray him; that Judas
thereupon left the room, obtained a posse of men, went in search of Jesus, and found him, not in the room where be had left him, but concealed in a garden; that he approached him, addressed him as a friend, and
kissed him; that Jesus then addressed Judas as a friend, saying to him, "Friend, wherefore are thou come?" (Mat. 26-49, 50) Now is it to be supposed that such a solemn face of affected friendship would have been acted over between
two men, if it had been previously understood with certainty, that the one would turn enemy, and deliver the other into the hands of those who put him to death?
It is nevertheless probable that, previously to the supper, Jesus had seen reason to suspect the fidelity of Judas, and that, when he saw him leave the room, he apprehended that an
immediate attempt was tempt was to be made, by Judas to have him seized. This supposition accounts for Jesus's leaving the house, after the departure of Judas, and going as he did, into the darkness of the night, into
the concealment of a garden. (John 18-1.) It is natural too, that, when approached him in the garden, Jesus, seeing that escape was impossible, should return a friendly reply to the salutation of his suspected enemy, because
he might have irritated one whom he feared, if he had showed any suspicion of his malicious design. But it is beyond credibility, if it had previously been explicitly understood between them, that Judas should act the enemy,
that Jesus should thus seriously address him as a friend. This particular story about Jesus's conversation with Judas at supper was probably made up or "glorified," by these apostles, out
of something that had passed, as some other conversation appeared to have been, for the purpose of making, it appear that their "Divine Lord and Master" could not have met with any disaster, which he had not forseen, and
intended to meet. Jesus's alleged predictions (which none of his disciples appear to have understood at the time they were made) that he should raise again, were probably manufactured, or "glorified" out of something or
other, and in the same way, to meet the necessities of the, case, or to make every thing correspond with the ideas, which they had come to entertain of Jesus, at the time they wrote. [*15]