CHAPTER II.
The nature and Character of Jesus.
Perhaps it will be thought strange that Judas should have found Jesus in the night, if there had been no previous concert between them. But John says (18-2) that Judas knew where this garden was, and knew also that Jesus often went there with his disciples. He therefore, after having procured men to go with him, probably went first to the house where he had left Jesus and his disciples at supper, and on not finding them there, suspected this garden to be the place of their concealment.
There are several items of testimony, which tend to show that Jesus intended, at this time, to escape the danger, which he apprehended to his life. One is,
(Mat. 26-24) that, at the supper, he said, in the presence of Judas, (whom, as was before remarked, he probably suspected of having a design against him,) "we unto that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed ! It had
been good for that man if he had not been born." What was the occasion for such a remark, unless it were intended as a menace to deter Judas from any attempt against his life? Another
is, (John 18-1) that after Judas, had left the room, Jesus and his disciples left it also, (although it was a dark night, as is proved by the fact that those, who came to take him, carried lanterns and torches, (John 18-3) for the
purpose of finding him,) went away, crossed a brook, and took up quarters for the night in a garden. Now can any reason be imagined why this man should leave a house, and go into a garden, in the
darkness of the night, and remain there, unless it were for concealment and safety? But there is less reason to suppose that Jesus bid any other motive than that of
concealment and security, in this instance, than there would be in the case of many other persons in the like circumstances; because it was a common thing, for him to hide himself from enemies; and, moreover, if he had
wished, as Christians would have it, to offer up his life at this time, he would have had this special reason for remaining, where Judas had left him, viz.: that he might not fail of being found by
those who were seeking to destroy him. Another fact, too unequivocal and decisive to admit of argument, is, that in this crisis of his affairs, he directed his followers
to provide themselves with swords, and assented to their taking with them the two, which they had. (Luke 22-36 and 38). The fact also, that some of his disciples,
when they saw that Jesus was likely to be taken, evinced so much readiness to fight, and appealed to him to know whether they should not "smite with the sword," show that they had looked forward to such an
exigency, and had made up their minds to defend themselves, if it should be practicable, and that he had no idea of just then offering himself up, or of being offered up, as a sacrifice for mankind-at least,
if he could prevent it. Another item of the same kind of testimony, is, that after he had come into the garden, he directed his disciples to "watch," keep (keep guard)
while he went and prayed, (Mark 14-34). When he returned also, and found them asleep, he said unto Peter, "what, could ye not watch with me one hour?" (Mat 26-40).
Still another item is, that when Jesus discovered those who had come to take him; he said to his disciples, "Rise up, let us go: Lo! he that betrayeth me is at hand." (Mark 14-42). What is
this but saying, "Let us run, we're going to be taken?" But it was too late to escape, for Mark adds, that "immediately, while he yet spake, Judas and a great multitude, with swords and staves, came," and, after
Judas had designated the one to be seized, "laid their hands on him, and took him." Here is evidence enough, one would think, to satisfy any candid mind, possessed of common discernment, that
Jesus, in this case, as he had so often done before, sought, in the most cowardly manner, to escape the fate that overtook him. His disciples indeed would represent him as having courted death, and perhaps, at the time when these
accounts were written, the authors had brought themselves to believe, that he had actually desired to die for the benefit of mankind. But we are to judge from the facts themselves and not from the subsequent construction put
upon those facts by simple men, who, as we can easily see, may have been, "after Jesus had been glorified," and all that, in a state of perfect delusion in relation to the meaning of the whole affair.
The manner of Jesus, while upon the cross, is in strict accordance with the supposition of his being a weak spirited victim, rather than a voluntary martyr, conscious of the importance and
necessity of his dying, and refutes the pretence that he died for the purpose which Christians allege for if such were the purpose of his dying, there was more in that purpose, to one who could appreciate it, to sustain a man
through the scene, than any other martyr ever had. But this man sunk under the infliction, said that God had forsaken him, and throughout, disclosed the weakness of his character.
His conduct too after his recovery from his crucifixion, if he did recover from it, corresponds well with his conduct before it. He lurks about privately. He does not, as Peter, one of his disciples, expressly acknowledges
(Acts 10-41 ), "show himself to all people," but to a few friends only- and to these he shews himself, as far as appears by the evidence, but a few times during forty days, and at those times "in the evening," and
within closed doors, (John 20-19 and 26), or in some other private and stealthy manner. One other trait in his character deserves an allusion. We have some little
evidence that the notoriety, which he acquired among the ignorant, produced upon him somewhat of the effect which it frequently does upon vulgar minor, and none others, viz: an idea that the happiness of those who were once
their equals, is not now to be considered in comparison with [*16] their own pleasure or convenience, and also an inflated assumption of superiority over them. He seems to have sometimes considered himself entitled,
solely by the elevation of his rank above that of his followers, to servile and degrading manifestations of reverence from them and to have been very willing to receive this kind of incense even at the expense of the "weightier
matters of the law," of it but served to raise the estimation of his superiority in the minds of his followers. Look, for example, at the self-complacent assumption of dignity and importance, with which, when Mary had lavished the
costly ointment on his head, he replied to the remonstrance against the foolish waste of what might have been made so valuable to the poor, (John 12-2 to 8). He did not point out any good that was to come of the act, but silenced
the objector by intimating that what had been done was only a proper manifestation of reverence towards so wonderful a human being as himself; and added, in substance, that there were always so many poor, that it was of no
importance to attend to their wants when he was present, and when his followers were blessed with an opportunity of appropriating their funds to demonstrating of devotion towards him. And yet this man was the author of a
religion "peculiarly adopted to the poor." On another occasion (Luke 7-38,) this delightful fellow permitted even a female to "Kiss his FEET,- to wash
them with their tears- and to wipe them with the hairs of her head," and yet women are now told that the author of this elegant act of gallantry was the founder of a religion, which their self-respect and a proper
regard for the dignity of their sex, imperiously require them to
embrace.
But Christians have a saying that Jesus "went about doing good." Well, supposing he did for a year or two give his attention to "doing good"- is there any thing so remarkable in the
fact that it can be accounted far only by supposing him a divine being ? But how was this matter? Did he really "go about doing good ?" Was he "doing good" when he consented to the foolish waste of
three hundred pence worth of ointment, which might have been sold and given to the poor?" Was he "doing good," when he suffered Mary to "kiss his feet?" Was he "doing good" when he sneaked up to the feast at
Jerusalem in secret?
Was he "doing good," when he rode an ass's cult to Jerusalem, to make the people believe that he had been appointed by the Almighty to be their king? Was he "doing good," when he told his followers to arm themselves with swords? Was he "doing good" when practising the mean evasions, the subterfuges and the secrecy, which have been referred to? "Why, no, perhaps not," the Christian will probably answer, "but then he healed a great many sick folks, and cast out a great many devils." But it is a supposable case, and perhaps it will hereafter satisfactorily appear, that he could work only such miracles as these, (where doubtless the imaginations of men did the business,) and that he wrought such more for the purpose of gaining adherents, and thus making himself the King of the Jews, than of "doing good."
But Christians will say that there is one kind of evidence, by which the divinity of Jesus is unequivocally proved, and that is furnished by his moral and religious instructions.
Now one objection to the moral and religious precepts and doctrines ascribed to Jesus-considering them as evidence of his divine nature-is, that a part of moral ones are very silly,
and a part of the religious one's are very blasphemous and absurd- as any person may see, who will take the trouble to read them with the view of seeing whether they are or not - and another objection to them is, that it is
not likely that many of them were ever uttered by him. Besides, if a man, who should set himself up in opposition to a portion of the community, in the manner Jesus did, and should attempt to
lead those whom he could persuade to join him, should now and then utter a sentiment somewhat original and singular, and correct withal, it would be no more than might reasonably be expected. We generally see such things in
every one, who has never had his mind moulded by intercourse with the many, and who attempts to lead the few. Such, a man generally has something original and peculiar in his ideas.
One reason for believing that Jesus never uttered many of the sentiments ascribed to him, is, that a person attempting to prove himself such a Messiah as the Jews expected, and to make himself their
king, would
not be likely to give such instructions as are many of those ascribed to Jesus- but he would be likely to give such as could very easily be "glorified" into such as these are. For example, when he was addressing those, who followed him, on the subject of that combined temporal and religious government, which he pretended to be appointed by God to establish, he would naturally speak of its kingdom in terms, which could easily be "glorified" into "the kingdom of God," "the kingdom of heaven," &c. And the Evangelistas, although at the time he spoke, they understood as referring to his kingdom among the Jews, would yet, at the time they wrote, when their ideas of the nature of this kingdom had been changed by his supposed resurrection from the dead, consider every thing, that he had previously said, as referring to a different kingdom from what they had before supposed, and would record it accordingly.
Many of his moral precepts are such too as would naturally be thrown out to his hearers by such a man as I have supposed him to be; because it would be
necessary that one, who proposed to make himself such a king as the Jews expected, one who was to control both their civil and religious affairs, should give to those whom he was persuading to join him, some idea of the
social regulations, and the moral and religious observances, which he intended to establish among the people. [*17] Another reason for believing of the many sayings, attributed to
Jesus, were never uttered by him, is, that the time, when they were recorded, was so long after they are represented to have been spoken, as to forbid the belief that there is any great accuracy in them. It is preposterous, to
pretend that these men should remember conversations in the manner they assume to have done Still another reason is, that these narrators, at the time
they wrote, had probably become more capable of being themselves the authors; of whatever would seem to be above the capacity of a very simple man, in indeed there be any such sentiments in the New Testament), than
Jesus himself, for they had then had much intercourse with mankind, they had traveled extensively, and had spoken and labored much as preachers, and their talents must have been improved by such an education. And of their
readiness to relate the best and the most they could either remember or imagine of the sayings of Jesus, having the semblance of similarity to anything that he had ever uttered, it seems to me there can
reasonably be little doubt in the mind of any man who reads their stories. In order to show how little reliance is to be placed upon the pretended authorship of the sentiments ascribed
to Jesus by the Evangelists, nothing more need be done than to exhibit the authority, in which his talk to the people on the mount has come down to us. Mathew would have us believe that he has given us the matter of a
discourse, which Jesus held to his followers at this time. And yet, as I shall attempt to satisfy the reader, Mathew not only was not present when the speech was made, but was not even a disciple of Jesus at the time.
The seventh chapter of Mathew closes the speech; the eighth gives accounts of miracles, &c., the first verse of the ninth then says, that "he entered into a ship, and passed over, and came
into the city," (Nazareth) It would appear from the remark here quoted, and from the last fourteen verses of the fourth
chapter, that this harangue was made in Galilee, on the other side from Nazareth, of the sea of Galilee. By the ninth verse of the ninth chapter, it appears that Mathew was found in Nazareth, and called to be a disciple, after
Jesus had returned from Galilee. It is probable, from the fact that Mathew was found in Nazareth, that he lived
there, and of course, at a distance from the place where the speech was made, render it improbable that he was present at the delivery of the speech, or that he knew anything about it until it was over. And yet, some ten, twenty or thirty years afterwards, he pretends to give us the substance of a discourse, containing remarks upon a great variety of subjects, having no connection with each other.
Even if he had heard them uttered, it is preposterous to suppose that he could have remembered so great a variety of disconnected remarks. But when we consider that he probably did not
hear them, all confidence in the correctness of his report vanishes. So that, whether we consider this production either as heard, or only as heard of, by Mathew, it comes to us in the shape of a thing mainly fabricated or
"glorified," years afterwards. But there is another and stronger objection to the instructions, which are attributed to Jesus, than has yet been mentioned. This objection is, that
the whole system of morals and religion is based upon the selfish principle. The system throughout, is one of rewards and punishments- the most debasing, to men's motives, of all imaginable systems. In it, right and
wrong are not recognized as fundamental principles of action, but are made referrible to ulterior considerations of personal pleasure and pain. Jesus never instructed men to do what was right, because it was right;
yet this is the true reason why they should
do it. Nor did he instruct them to avoid what was wrong, for the reason that it was wrong: yet that should be the fundamental and principle reason in every man's mind, because it is the moral reason. But the Bible, by the uniformity, with which it makes the inducement, the promise of reward, or the threat of punishment, follow the moral precept,
implicitly admits
that the principal reason why we should do right, is, that we shall be rewarded for it, and the principal reason why we should not do wrong, is, that we should be punished for it. How much real honesty of principle, or how much of purely virtuous sentiment, can be infused into men's minds by means of such mercenary inducements, I leave others to determine.
Men's moral principles are weak enough without their being made subordinate to selfishness; and their selfishness is quite active enough, without any such effort as Christianity
makes to constitute it the mainspring of all their conduct. There are natural sentiments of justice, rectitude and virtue, in men's minds, which when directly appealed to
as motives to action, are generally found capable of being cultivated and strengthened, and of controlling the conduct of any of mankind. There are few, (if indeed there are any,) men, who cannot be persuaded to do what is right, by having it urged upon them that it
is right; and there are but few men, who cannot, in any particular case whatever, be dissuaded from a wrong action, by having it urged upon them that it is wrong. Yet a great portion of the same men, who are thus easily
persuaded to do what is right, by the argument that is right, and dissuaded from being what is wrong, by the argument that it is wrong, would consider it, and justly too, a despicable and degrading descent, to yield to, or act
under, the influence of such hopes of reward, and such fears [*18] of punishment, as the Bible and its advocates attempt to awaken. And the very men, whose trade and incessant effort it is to brig others under the control of
these base and mercenary and false motives of action, would consider it an imputation upon their virtue and their character, to insinuate that they themselves are governed by such means; and would take it in high dudgeon to
have it intimated that their natural sense of right was scanty, or that it would in general be insufficient to control their conduct. But they have great fears for the virtue of their fellow men- its is entirely unsafe to trust
mankind in general with no motives but such as truth would furnish- their fellow men are generally either such simpletons that they must be wheedled by prospects a thousand times too extravagant to be Probable, by promises of
"sweet things" hereafter, or they are such perfect monsters that they must be set upon and overawed by menace, or enslaved by fear; they are utterly incapable of appreciating any consideration of right or reason; and
hence the absolute necessity of Christianity.