CHAPTER III. The alleged Miracles of Jesus.
Keeping these facts in our minds, let us look at the cure of the palsy, as described by Matthew, (9-2 to 8) Mark (2-1 to 12) and Luke (5-17 to 26)- by Luke the most minutely.
Imagine Jesus surrounded by a multitude, who came to him from every quarter, who believed him to be the Messiah, and to have miraculous power; imagine him to
have been going from place to place, preaching as if by the authority of God- the report going before him that he cured all manner of diseases wherever he went; imagine so great a crowd around him that the man sick of palsy could
not be carried in at the door of the house and that it was necessary to uncover the roof to let him down there where Jesus was, in his ability to cure him carried on a bed by four, to the place where Jesus was, full of the highest
expectations; imagine him waiting and witnessing the crowd around full of the same extravagant expectations with himself, witnessing also the preparations being made to let him down through the roof of the house, to bring him into
the presence of the wonderful being who was to restore him at a word-(during such a scene, if he had a spark of nervous vitality in him, it must have been set most powerfully at work;) imagine him at length laid in the presence of
this messenger from God, this Messiah, imagine Jesus pardoning his sins with the assumed authority of God; imagine him telling the bystanders, in the hearing of the sick man, that he could cause him to rise up and walk as
easily as he could forgive his sin; (certainly, at this time, the man's nervous system must have been wrought to an extraordinary degree of excitement, if he had life in him)- then hear Jesus pronounce, in his oracular and
confident manner, "That ye may know that the son of man hath power on earth to forgive his sins, I say unto thee, arise; and take up thy couch, and go thy way into thy house;" and is there anything strange in the fact that he
should receive strength, should rise up and walk? or that he should take with him his bed (such a sack of straw as it probably was, judging from the circumstance of its being let down through the roof of the house)? To my
mind there is nothing in all this, which cannot be accounted for in the well known principles of physiology, even supposing the restoration to have been a permanent one. Here are the plain and obvious causes, sufficient to produce
the effect, without any supernatural evidence whatsoever. <fn17>
. If these views are correct, here was no miracle at all, even supposing the man to have really had
palsy. But suppose (a thing to the mind exceedingly probable) that this man only imagined himself to have palsy- or that he had some slight infirmity, which he, knowing nothing of the disease, as the ignorant and simple
people of that age and nation probably did, brought himself to believe to be the palsy;- and what sort of miracle do we have here to prove that Jesus possessed supernatural powers? I say its is probable that the disease was not a
real palsy, because ignorant, superstitious, and timid men, such as those that among whom Jesus preached, generally magnify a slight infirmity into a grievous disease, particularly if there is any person going about the
country pretending to cure diseases in a wonderful manner. Persons who live within the circuit of such a man's travels, generally have diseases more malignant, and more in a number than the rest of the human
family. Beside, Luke, after relating the fact of Jesus's being where he was, of their being great assemblage, &c., says, that a man was brought, who "was taken with a
palsy." This language naturally conveys that a man was taken just at that time, and if so, there are a thousand chances against one that these simple men who would make something marvelous out of every
circumstance that could, by the aid of an enormous gullibility, be made so; who probably knew no more of the disease than they knew about astronomy, and who the character of the attack, rather than that it should be the real
palsy; because that is an illness, that very rarely occurs. The patient himself too, would be as likely to be mistaken as the bystanders, and if he thought
he had the palsy, (and is such a suggestion had been made, he would be very likely to think so,) and that Jesus would take the trouble to display his miraculous power upon him, he would most surely keep up the appearance of a palsied man as well as he could.
Further, if the bare conversation, of those around, about Jesus performing strange cures, should make a simple man imagine he had some disease which needed curing, when he had no real
illness or difficulty at all, it would be no very remarkable instance of the power of the imagination. Reader, decide upon the testimony before you go any father. Is there, or is there not
here, unequivocal evidence that a genuine miracle was performed? Decide upon this case again, separately and independently of all others. Each alleged miracle must stand solely upon its own evidence; for even if Jesus performed any
real miracles, there is no doubt the country would be full of stories about miracles which were not real, and therefore we are not to believe there was a real miracle in any particular case. I will answer for the reader, that there
is not room for even a decent pretence that here was a miracle. [*26] The second supposed miracle of Jesus, that will be examined, is related by Matthew, (8-14 and 15,) Mark
(1-30 and 31,) and Luke (4-39 and 39.) It is the cure of Peter's wife's mother. The stories here leave quite too wide a latitude for doubt as to the reality and severity of the disease; for these simple beings probably did
not know a fever from any other trivial complaint. Luke indeed says it was "a great fever.", But Luke was not there, and possibly before the story reached his ears, several years afterwards, the truth
might have been a little exaggerated. This too is precisely such language as one would use, who wished to make it appear that a miracle was actually wrought, when the supposed miracle was of a sort, that, unless there
were some qualifying word, as "great," in this instance, inserted, those, who should read the account would see at once that there was doubtless no miracle at all. But,
independently of the word "great," Luke's whole account goes to show that this fever was all imaginary and brought on (as diseases sometimes are now) by the vicinity of a physician, who was thought able to
cure any thing. He says that Jesus "entered into Simon's house," and immediately he adds, "that Simon's wife's mother was taken
with a great fever.'' It would appear from this account that she was taken after Jesus had entered the house. If he were thus suddenly taken and thus suddenly cured, both the sickness and the cure were undoubtedly the work of the imagination.
But supposing the affair not to have been quite so farcical as it probably was, and supposing that when Jesus entered the house, she thought herself somewhat
ill, and lay on the bed, and that when he "stood over her and rebuked the fever," pretending to have miraculous power, she, felt able to rise and do what she is said to have done, still here is no evidence fit to be
thought of to prove a miracle. From the greatness of the number of sick, whom Jesus is said to have cured, it is evident that the diseases were either trivial or entirely imaginary; and this was undoubtedly a
case of the common kind, and one that could have been cured as well by the sight of Paul's handkerchief , or by the shadow of Peter, as those that were thus cured. (Acts 19-12-and 5-15 and 16.)
The third case to be examined is that of the woman, who had an "issue of blood," (menorrhagia undoubtedly) It is related by Matthew (9-20-22,) Mark (5-25 to 34,) and Luke (8-43 to 48.) This case
affords all excellent illustration of the manner in which miracles were wrought upon the sick. This woman not only believed that Jesus had miraculous power to cure the sick, but she even believed that a miracle would be
wrought upon her simply by her touching his garment without his knowledge, and of course, without his power being exerted. And so the event proved, if Mark and Luke are to be believed. It was the simple
touching of his garment, as they say that healed her. Mark says that "straightway" after touching, " she felt in her body that she was made whole of that plague," and also, that after Jesus had made
the sagacious discovery that "virtue had gone out of him," and inquired who touched him, the woman "knowing what was" (already) "done in her," came forward and told him the truth. He then told her that her faith
had already made her whole. Luke also says that the issue of blood staunched immediately upon her touching his garment. The he goes on to say that Jesus made the
inquiry, who had touched him, and that the woman declared to him before them all, that she had touched him, and how "she was" (had been) "healed immediately." There is no room for quibble upon this language.
Either his garments possessed miraculous power, or it was her imagination that healed her, or she was not healed at all- for though an evangelist say it, and though Jesus himself may have said it, (which is not very likely,) no
reasonable being can believe that he was filled with a sort of miraculous "virtue," which, when a person touched his garment, passed out of him, as electricity passes out of a cylinder, and that he would feet it leave him,
as he is represented to have done, and that too when he did not know beforehand that any person was going to touch his garment. But-to throw this disgusting nonsense about his
"virtue", out of the question-there is a rational and obvious explanation of this matter. It is this. Her faith, in the efficacy of simply touching his garment, was so strong, that when she had touched
it, she immediately did imagine, or did "feel in her body," that she was healed, and told the bystanders so. They took her word that it was really so, without ever troubling themselves to ascertain
whether she were permanently healed. There were too many of these cures going on before their eyes for them to inquire a second time in relation to one, which they supposed had once had once been well performed. From the
moment of the supposed cure, the story would circulate, and these narrators afterwards recorded it as it came to them having probably never heard of the condition of the woman after the time of the transaction; yet not doubting
that there were both a permanent cure and a miracle. The fourth case, which will he examined is that of the man, who was said to have a withered hand. It is related by Matthew (12-10 to
13,) Mark (3-1 to 6,) and Luke (6-6 to 11.) Independent of the improbability that a miracle was ever wrought on earth, there are two palpable ones against the truth of this story. One is, that a withered limb is met
with so rarely, that the chances are as all hundred to one, that those ignorant persons would call a limb withered, when it only had some slight affection, rather than that it should be in reality withered. Another improbability of
the change, in a man's power to use his hand, being so great as to afford any evidence of miraculous power, arises from the circumstance, that of [*27] the Scribes and Pharisees, who were among the most enlightened part of
the community, and of course the least likely to be imposed on in any case of an attempted or pretended miracle, there were some present, and they, when they say the act which others supposed to be a miracle, were enraged at Jesus
for what he had done. The narrators of this event attribute their anger to the fact that this act was done on the Sabbath day. But it is most manifestly absurd to suppose that men, such as they undoubtedly were, could look on
and see a man's hand, that was actually withered, restored and made whole by a word, and then have the hardihood to attempt violence, or plot mischief against the being who had done it. men are not such monsters. But if the
fact was as all the probability of the case goes to show it to have been, viz, that in consequence of some slight infirmity, this simple man imagined his hand to be withered, and had not used it as usual, but, when commanded
by Jesus, in whose miraculous power he had confidence, to stretch it forth, he used a little more effort than be was accustomed to, and stetched it out, and then, that many of the more ignorant ones, such as his disciples,
should say a miracle had been wrought, it is perfectly natural that the Scribes and Pharisees should be enraged at seeing them thus duped by a fanatic and mere pretender.
Jesus made few or no converts among the enlightened part of the very nation that be pretended to be sent more especially to convert. Instead of working his miracles freely before such that they might be
convinced, he, when in another instance, they bad asked him to show them a sign-apparently for the express purpose of enabling them to determine whether he were the Messiah- called them (probably not to their face however) a
wicked and adulterous generation for seeking a sign, by which they might ascertain that fact, (Mat. 16-4.) He was also continually formenting the most narrow, liberal and spiteful prejudices against them, in the minds of his
ignorant followers. Such conduct, on his part, can be accounted for only by the fact, that when they saw, with their own eyes, those acts, which he called miracles, they, instead of being satisfied that he
was the Messiah, were satisfied that he was an impostor. The Bible represents the Jews as having been a people, upon whom God had bestowed peculiar privileges, with a view of making
them the depositories or the true relations and or preparing them for the reception of the Messiah. Now if these representations in the Bible were true, and if Jesus were the Messiah, whom God had been preparing the minds of
the Jews to receive it is absolutely absurd to suppose that they would not have been the very first to have been convinced and the fact, that they were not convinced, can be accounted for only by supposing, either that God
was defeated and disappointed in his attempts to prepare them to receive the Messiah, or that Jesus was not the Messiah. But to return. After Jesus had performed his
supposed miracle, "he withdrew himself from thence," (evidently through fear of the Jews,) "and charged the people that had followed him, ''that they should not make him known," (Mat. 12-14 to 16.) Very
dignified conduct, indeed, for a Son of God, or a Saviour of the world, and one too who could work miracles! But such was his course continually ; and such cowardice reveals the character of the man, and shows us how
much credit is due to his pretensions. If be had really been what he claimed to be, or had bad any thing like moral courage, he would have better sustained tile character he had assumed, and would have scorned that practice
of skulking, which he so often adopted- another still more contemptible instance of which, related by John (7-1 to 10,) has been before referred to. The fifth case, that related by John
(5-2 to 9) only, of the "impotent man" at the pool of Bethesda, was probably like the last. The man, as simple ones generally, and others sometimes, do, probably magnified his infirmity, in his imagination, to a
degree beyond the reality, and when he was commanded to rise and walk, he made more effort, and walked better, than usually, and that was a miracle. The man evidently had full faith that
he should be restored by being put into a pool, as is shown by the fact of his being, at the pool for that purpose; and if he had been put in precisely at the time when the supposed the angel had troubled the waters, be would
probably have been restored in the same manner that others were. But if he had been put ill at any other time, he would have received no benefit- and for the very good reason, that he would not have expected to receive
any. The facts that a great "multitude of impotent folk, of blind, halt and withered," waited at this pool for the meet to trouble the waters; that every one was cured of
whatever disease he had, by being the first then to step in; and that none were cured, except such as stepped in first, prove that both the diseases and the cures were entirely, or in a great degree, imaginary.
There was apparently just as much efficacy in the supposed troubling of the pool by an angel, and in the diseased person's being the first to step in after that had been done, as there was in the command of Jesus to rise and walk,
and no more. They both directed the imaginations of the superstitious, and that effected till the cures there were in the cases. Here too we are enabled to see how much of a miracle
Jesus performed in restoring the "withered hand," for John says that the "withered" could be restored by stepping into this Pool, after the angel had troubled it, and before any other had been in. If then the withered, could
in any case be cured by the power of the imagination, they would as likely be when Jesus pretended to work a miracle upon them, as when they stepped into a pool. [*28] The circumstance
too that there were so many withered people, as it is intimated by John that there were, at this point, shows that that there is no reason in believing that they were actually withered; because that is an affection,
that is exceedingly rare. Yet those at the pool, who imagined themselves withered, are as likely to have been really so, as the one whose hand Jesus is said to have restored.
The sixth case, that one of the woman, who had "a spirit of infirmity," being "bound by Satan," as Jesus said (Luke 13-11 to 16); also the seventh case, the cure of one letter, (Mat. 8-2 to 4, Mark 1-40 to 44, Luke 5-12 to 14);
also the eighth case, the cure of ten lepers!(Luke 17-12 to 19), (who ever saw ten lepers at a time?) also the ninth case, the cure of the dropsy, (Luke 14-2 to 4), were all undoubtedly cures of the same kind as
those that were performed by Valentine Greatrak's glove, or by stepping into the pool of Bethesda first after it was supposed that the waters had been troubled by an angel. It is very probable, that nine out of
ten, of these lepers, did not consider themselves restored, for although one returned to thank Jesus for what he had done, the nine did not take that trouble. We here have the
opportunity to see on how slight a pretence these narrators would make up a story of genuine, undoubted miracle. These lepers are represented as standing "afar off," from Jesus, and calling him to be healed. He simply tells
them to go to the priest. They go, and nine of them do not return. Yet Luke says the whole were cleansed. Now, if they did not return, how did they know whether they were cleansed or not? why, he inferred
they must have been, and related it for a fact that they were, although he knew nothing about it. There is no reason for supposing that any of these cures were any better ones than those
effected at the pool, and it is clear that the cures at the pools were all the work of the imagination, or that the diseases themselves were so, and that there was no efficacy in the waters; because, if there had been any
efficacy in the waters, people would have learned that the second one, who should step in after gurgling the water, could be healed as well as the sons, whom Jesus cured, its is reasonable to suppose, had no diseases more real, or
more difficult to cure, than the others, and were restored, or apparently restored, solely by being made to imagine themselves miraculously operated upon.
There are four different cases recorded of the cure of the blind persons, viz: one in Matthew (9-27 to 30), where two were cured; one in Mark (8-22 to 26), where one was cured; one
in John (9-1 to 7), where one was cured; one in Mathew (20-30 to 34), Mark (10-46 to 52), and Luke (18-35 to 43), where one, according to Mark and Luke, and two, according to Matthew, were cured. The accounts of Matthew, Mark
and Luke, in the last case, refer to the same transaction, as appears by the context- for it took one place, as they all say, when Jesus was near Jericho; and the similarity of the language, quoted by all, as having
been used by the blind person or persons, confirms the fact. True it is, these cautious and credible historians disagree as to the number cured; but in relating so probably facts as miracles, such a slight discrepancy
does not at all impair the credibility of the men as to all important particulars. Such a disagreement is not, in fact, at all material, for blind men in those days, judging from the Bible, were nearly as frequent as those who
could see. These also were probably cured in the same way as were those "blind" persons, who, John says, (5-3 and 4), were cured at the pool of Bethesda- and they were probably
just as blind as these, and no more so. How did it happen that these blind persons were so numerous? Was the blindness real, feigned, imaginary, total or partial ? To give a correct answer to this last question, it is
only necessary to take into consideration the number of those called blind, and the manner in which those at the pool were cured. Some of these blind men also seem to
have had the power of locomotion rather unusual, to say the least, in really blind persons. On one occasion, (Mat. 9-27, 28), "two blind men followed
Jesus, and when he was come into the house, the blind men came to him." On another occasion (John 9-7) he told the blind man to "go, wash in the pool of Siloam," and the blind man "went his way."
In some cases it appears that Jesus cured the blind man on certain conditions. For example, in one case (Mat. 9-28 and 29), he required of the blind men that they should believe, in advance,
that he was "able" to restore their sight, and consented to heal them only in proportion to their faith. It requires but half an eye to see that the object of this condition was, to have something to attribute his failure
to, in case his "miraculous power" should not "work well." He, in that case, would unquestionably have said " O ye of little faith, why did ye doubt?" and would thus have made those masses believe that the failure was owing
to their doubts. In other instances he used more jugglery and ceremony than would seem to be necessary, if he were a real miracle worker. I the case related by John (9-6 and 7), " he spat on the ground, and made clay of the
spittle, and annointed the eyes of the blind man with the clay, and said to him, go, wash in the pool of Siloam." In the case, which is related by Mark only (8-22 to 26), he led the man out of the town to do it;
he then spit on his eyes, and put his hands on him, and then asked him if he could see. The man could not then see clearly, although he could see well enough to discover that a man looked like a tree. Jesus then put his
hands upon his eye again, and bade him look up! whereupon the man saw distinctly. Jesus them commanded him, "neither to go into the town, nor tell it to any in the [*29] town"- a very singular command to be given by one, who
was working real miracles in order to prove to the world at large that he was the Messiah. We, of course, cannot say absolutely that there could not have been real miracles performed
here; but, if there were, any but "blind men" can see that they were not wrought in a workmanlike manner. The next case, being the fourteenth, that will be examined, is
that of the alleged restoration of the daughter or Jairus from the dead, and is related by Matthew (9-18 to 26), Mark (5-22 to 48), and Luke (8-41 to 56). Now, supposing the story true, that the child
arose, when Jesus "took her by the hand," that does not prove that a miracle was performed, because we do not know that she was dead. These narrators say only is equivalent to saying that those in the house
believed her dead; but it would appear, from Luke's account, that after Jesus had seen the child, he said she was not dead, but that she slept. The child,
say the accounts, was twelve years old. How often is it that-children of that age have fits, which for a sort time, cause them to appear dead, and immediately afterwards, restored to health? How
soon, after Jesus went into the room, she arose, we cannot know, because those who give us the story, did not see the transaction - they expressly say that, of his followers, only Peter, James and John were
suffered to go with him. Whether Jesus lifted her up, as he did Simon's wifes's mother, we do not know, but there is ground for the strongest presumption that he did, because "he took her by the hand."
The most rational supposition that can be formed from the three indefinite and carelessly
told stories, which come from men-who did not see the transaction, is, that the child had a fit, (perhaps only a common fainting fit), and lay apparently dead at the time the father ran for Jesus; and that when he
arrived at
the house, and therefore he went into the room where the child was, those, that had been in the room, but had then come out, told him that she was dead; but that, by the time he had come to the child, the fit had left her,
and she lay asleep; and that then, in the course of the time he remained in the room, (how long that might be is uncertain), he spoke to her, took her by the hand and lifted her up, and that she then had in
a considerable degree recovered. If such were the case, the story has come to us in just the shape we would suppose such a story would, coming, as this does, from men, who did not see anything that they relate, but who honestly
believed, from what they heard, that a miracle was performed. But there are two or three circumstances, which render it extremely doubtful whether there was anything in this
occurrence, which, to the eyes of the actual witnesses, appeared so marvelous as the case, above supposed, would have been likely to so. One is, that Jesus, when they came to him first, and told him the child was dead, would
permit but three of his disciples to go in with him; and after the transaction (whatever it might be) was over, he charged them, and the parents also, to say nothing of it to anyone. Another link in this chain of
suspicious circumstance, is, that John, who, as the others say, was an eye-witness, says not a syllable about the matter. Now, since Jesus would permit but three of his disciples to in, and charged all, who were
eye-witnesses, to reveal nothing, and as John, in his narrative obeys this injunction, the fair presumption is, that Jesus, when he heard she was dead, doubted his ability to restore her, and did not choose to have too many
witnesses to a failure, and that after he had come into the room, the transaction was not of such a kind, that he thought it safe for his reputation as a miracle-worker, that it should be known abroad; but that Matthew, Mark and
Luke afterward obtained an inkling of the affair, which in some way leaked out, and which proved sufficient to enable tem to make such a brief account of a supposed miracle as they have done. Are
we to believe a revelation on the testimony of works done in secret, and ordered to be kept secret? The fifteenth case is related by John (4-46 to 54) of the cure of the son of a noblemen
of Capernaum. It appears that Jesus did not see the subject of this miracles He was at home; the father came to Jesus, and was told by him that his son lived; he (the father) then went away alone, and, as John
says, met his servants, who told him that his son was better, &c. Now, since John did not go with the father, nor see the son, or know any thing personally about the time of his beginning to amend, all the
testimony, that we have here to support the slightest possible pretence of ea miracle, is simple John's virtual declaration that he heard how, or from whom, he heard it, the deponent saith not), that at the same hour when Jesus
told the man his son should live, the son began to amend; and that he (John) had no doubt, from these circumstances, that Jesus wrought a miracle upon the sick man. But I suppose the day has gone by when such
"circumstantial evidence" as this, is sufficient to prove a miracle. The sixteenth case, is that related by Matthew (8-6 to 13) and Luke (7-2 to 10), of the Centurion's
servant at Capernaum, and is probably the same one as the last; but as the accounts differ a little. I thought proper to consider them as referring, to different transactions. Here two the person sick
was at a distance from Jesus; so that even if Jesus were at the time, (which, if true, is not stated), he could not have personally known any thing about the cure, and could only have heard of it, in a particular case,
of such circumstances as satisfied his minds that there was one. Besides another part of Matthews [*30] story cannot be true. That man said his servant was "sick of the palsy, grievously tormented." This could not be
the case, because palsy, instead of grievously tormenting folks, never occasions pain, but generally deprives them of all sensibility to pain. But supposing the servant did have sudden
painful attack of some sort, which alarmed the Centurion, and then, while the Centurion was gone to Jesus, did actually recover from it, that is no proof of a miracle, because such temporary illnesses are frequent
occurrences. I now come to the examination of those cases, where Jesus is said to have cast out devils. But we will first inquire whether there ever were such a thing,
as men's being possessed of devils. There is perhaps not an enlightened Christian in America, who, not withstanding he in may believe that, at the time of Jesus, men were possessed of devils, believes that they ever
have been in any other instances, either before or since. And those, who believe that such was the fact then, believe it simply because a particular set of superstitious men, in a superstitious age, believed so, and
have related some circumstances about it, which they say happened at that time. The testimony of the whole Jewish nation, who did not also believe in Jesus, would
nothave made them credit it for a moment. If the same thing, had been stated in any other book than the Bible, men now would no more credit it, than they would an assertion that men were inhabited by the spirits of oxen and
horses. Yet such is the unparalleled gullibility of some men in relation to every thing related in the Bible, or connected with Christianity. There are indeed many
Christians now, who do not pretend to believe in this matter literally. They will say that they suppose those individuals, out of whom Jesus was said to cast devils, were insane,
or had some disorder, which the people of that nation, being ignorant of diseases, attributed to the influence of "evil or unclean spirits;" and that whatever that disorder may have been, Jesus cured it
miraculously. But if such men will look at the accounts as they are told to us in the New Testament, taking the collateral circumstances, which are related, as facts, it is absolutely out of the power of the human mind,
either by sophistical interpretation of language, or by any possible perversion of intellect, to believe that those persons were insane, or that they had any disorder, unless an imaginary one, other than that of being
actually and unequivocally inhabited by such evil spirits, as, if they really existed, might more properly be denominated devils than anything else. The narratives of the doings of Jesus state the precise number
of devils, that went out of particular individuals - thus leaving no chance for equivocation, or any apology for the pretence till the persons were insane, in the ordinary acceptation of the word. For example, out of Mary Magdalen there actually went seven devils-seven individual spirits, or this affair being possessed of devils was all a delusion. In other cases, Jesus is said to have cast out one, and, and in one instance a legion. If therefore risen will believe the Bible, they just believe in Devils too.
These accounts say further that these devils would speak. Mark says (5-12), after having spoken of a legion of devils being cast out, that "all the devils besought
him, saying, send us
into the swine, treat we may enter into them." If we believe the truth of these narratives, there is no escape from believing that there were such living and speaking creatures as devils, who inhibited both men and-swine!
Here the believer, or rather the one who wishes to be a believer (for I do not think it possible for any person of common knowledge and common sense any longer to be actually so) may
perhaps, in the height of his embarrassment, put the question, how then are these accounts to be explained, unless we believe that those, who relate them, were knaves and liars? To answer this question is very easy. The
people of that nation were superstitious enough to believe in devils, (as people have sometimes believed in witches), and to believe that they entered into men, and then controlled them as they pleased. When such a
belief was prevalent, it is to be expected that among, the more ignorant, who composed the great body of the community, there would be multitudes, who would imagine themselves to be possessed of them, just as some person, who have
believed in witchcraft, have imagined themselves; bewitched. A person, who should suppose himself under the dominion of devils, would imagine himself actually compelled, by a power which he could not resist, to such unnatural
and strange conduct as he believed an evil spirit spirit would instigate men to. And this fact accounts for the conduct of the man, (or men, for here the stories disagree), spoken of by Matthew (8-28 to 34), Mark (5-1
to 17), and Luke (8-27 to 36), who was said to live among the tombs; to be driven by the devil into the wilderness, &c. A man in this condition, could be restored in no other way there by some deception of the
imagination. This man was so restored. He believed Jesus to be the son of God, as is proved by the fact that he addressed him as the "Son of the most high God." He believed also that Jesus had power
over evil spirits, as is proved by the circumstance that he besought him not to torment him." When therefore this powerful being should command the devils to go out of him, he, of course, would suppose that they had left him,
and would then appear the sane. As for the rest of the circumstances related, such as that of the devils talking going into the swine, &c., they are only such embellishments as a story of that kind
would naturally gain by a very little circulation in such a community as that-and these historians, who give us the accounts, having, like the rest of their countrymen, perfect faith in the reality of such circumstances, would
relate them, as they board them, without in the least doubting their truth. It is evident that they only recorded the flying story of the, from the fact that [*31] they disagree as to the number healed. Matthew says
two, Mark and Luke but one. That their different accounts refer to the same transaction, is evident from the similarity or the stories, and the language of each, and also from the circumstance that they are related by each
immediately after the story of Jesus's calming the tempest. Besides the above, there are five different instances of Jesus's casting out devils. One is related by Mark (1-23 to 26), and
Luke (4-33 to 35). From both these accounts, it appears that the man, out of whom the devil was supposed to be cast, considered Jesus "the HOLY one of God; and that circumstance is sufficient evidence that the cure,
like the disease, was the work of the imagination. Another case is related by Mark only, (7-25 to 30). All that Mark knew of this case, as appears from his account, was, that he heard, (for he
is not supposed to have been with Jesus) that a woman come to Jesus, and told him that her daughter, who was at home, was possessed or a devil; that he told her the devil had gone out; and that when she arrived at
home, she found her daughter lying on a bed. To Mark's mind, and perhaps also to the minds of some men in more modern ages of the world, these facts, thus obtained, proved a miracle.
Another case is related by Matthew (17-14 to 21), Mark (9-17 to 29), and Luke (9-38 to 42). According to Mark's account, Jesus "rebuked the foul spirit, saying unto him, Thou dumb and
deaf spirit. I charge thee, COME OUT OF HIM, and enter no more into him." (Can anything be imagined more ludicrous or disgusting than such a speech? Verily, "never man spake like this man"). Still,
after he had said thus, "the spirit cried, and rent
him sore, and came out of him, and he was as one dead, insomuch that many said he is dead. But Jesus took him by the hand and lifted him up, and he-AROSE!" and from the circumstance that he did arise, and probably appear more calm than before, they all inferred That he had been delivered of a real devil.
This wonderful exhibition of miraculous power so astonished Jesus's disciples, that they afterwards asked him why they could not cast him out? (They, it seems, had attempted
it, and failed, (Mark 9-18). He answered-doubtless with an air and manner becoming the solemn nature of the case-that "this kind (of devils) can come forth (be brought forth) by nothing, but by prayer and-
fasting! Another case is related by Matthew only (9-32 to 34) of the cure of a dumb man, possessed of a devil. I will here add nothing, but a note of admiration, which appears to be
very much needed, to the following brief, but graphic description of this affair by Matthew himself. "And when the devil was cast out, the dumb spake, and the multitudes marvelled!"
The last case of this kind of miracle-working, that remains to be mentioned, is that of the cure of the man, who, according to Luke (11-14), was dumb, but, according to Matthew (12-22), was
blind and dumb. Both accounts refer to the same transaction, as may be seen by the context following each. The difference in the accounts, of course, proves only the honesty
of the writers; it does, by no means, prove their lack of inspiration, their carelessness about particulars, or their readiness to record any idle story, which they might hear, without inquiring cautiously into its truth. Each one supposed that future generations could only wish to know the simple face that a miracle was wrought; and therefore, not imagining that they themselves could ever be suspected of having been mistaken as to the reality of the miracles did not trouble themselves to relate many of those circumstances, that would enable men now to judge whether they actually were or not.
Matthew says that "they brought unto Christ one possessed with a devil, blind and dumb, and he healed him, insomuch that the blind and dumb both spake and saw." Luke says, "and Christ was
casting out a devil, and it was dumb. And it came to pass, when the devil was gone out, the dumb spake, and the people wondered." Language could hardly be selected,
that should tell a stronger tale of superstition, than is conveyed in these brief lines. Men imagining themselves possessed of a devil! and that the devil prevents them from seeing! and speaking! others
standing around to see the Son of God dislodge a devil, as boys stand around to see the tricks of a juggler. If the Bible has accomplished enough of good to atone for the numerous and
mischievous superstitions, which, in various ways, it has entailed upon, and introduced into, men's minds, it has done more good than, I think, is apparent to most impartial observers of the whole of the history of
Christendom, as compared with that of other nations of the same degree of intelligence. Even if it has not originated, it has, at least, justified, spread, and probably prolonged a belief ill witchcraft and sorcery-it has
introduced superstitions about a Son
or God; ABOUT HIS VISITING THE EARTH IN THE DISGUISE OF A MAN! about a holy Ghost, or holy phantom; about a fictitious atonement, and a barbarous and useless sacrifice, which have for acres and centuries engrossed the minds of the few learned men, who otherwise might have been engaged in liberal schemes for improving society. And finally, it has spread wide a belief in angels, and miracles, and evil spirits- in a devil and his ten thousand deputies prowling about the universe.
I must now think that, of the thirty three miracles of Jesus, twenty two have been disposed of in a manner, if not satisfactory to, at least, answerable by, the most resolute believer.
Eleven remain to be examined. [*32] One is that of calming the tempest, recorded by Matthew (8-24 to 27), Mark (4-37 to 41), and Luke (8-23 to 25). Matthew says "the ship
was covered with the waves." Mark says "the waves beat into the ship, so that it was now full." Luke says "they were filled with water." Now we know that these accounts cannot be true
because Jesus would not have remained asleep, had this been the case. These errors are mentioned entirely to show the propensity these men had to exaggeration- a propensity, that, in many other instances, is
manifest enough; but which is here so palpable that it cannot be denied. Matthew says "there arose a great tempest," and Mark says "there arose a great storm of wind." But
since these men have already been convicted of exaggeration, we may now judge for ourselves how great a " tempest " would be likely to arise on a little petty lake; (fourteen miles long and five wide;) and, unless
we have a very strong desire to believe in miracles, we shall probably come to the conclusion that a slight squall arose, such as generally continues for a few minutes; that, it being in the evening (as Mark says, and
as is probable from the circumstance that Jesus was asleep,) these timid and superstitious men thought they should certainly be drowned; that Jesus, being called, commanded the waves of this mighty sea to be quiet; that
when this sudden squall had passed, which probably happened very soon, the waves subsided, and they then thought the act of Jesus was a miracle. These narrators, although they generally appear very fond of using the word
"immediately," when relating any occurrence, which they themselves could not have seen, but in relation to which that word is necessary in order to make out a good miracle, have, nevertheless, in this case,
neglected, for some reason or another, to tell us how soon, after the command was given, quiet was restored- the fair presumption of them that the wind and waves took their own time in this matter, as they always have done in
every other of the same kind. Another is that of Jesus's walking on the sea, related by Matthew (14-24 to 32,) Mark (6-47 to 51,) and John (6-
15 to 21.) John says that after Jesus had entered the ship, "immediately it was at land whether they went"- of course, it must have been bear the shore when Jesus came to it. Furthermore, they all agree that it was in
the might; John says that it was dark. Now, inasmuch as Jesus never shewed any inclination to trust himself on the water in the day-time, without anything to bear him up, is it not probable that at this time a plank, a
slightly built raft, a small boat, or something else to stand on, which those in the ship or large, which those in the ship or large boat did not see, or that he walked in the water instead of on
it, rather than he attempted to perform a miracle of that sort, and at that time, when none but his disciples, and probably not even these, would observe it? If he really could walk on the water, why did he not, at least once in his life, do it in any day-time, and in the presence of a concourse of people? He surely had opportunities enough.
But perhaps it will be asked, how did Jesus get to that side of the lake, unless he walked across the water? and a person, who should simply read the accounts of this affair, without
looking at the map, would probably be misled into the supposition that the boat had crossed
the lake, to the other side from where the disciples had left Jesus, and therefore that he could not have come to them unless he had crossed the lake also. But according to John (6-23,) it was at or near Tibernas, that the disciples left Jesus, and they landed (Mat. 14-34) in "the land of Gennessaret;" and it so happened that Tibernas and Genessaret are on the same side of the lake, (see Ingraham's map of Palenstine) adjoining each other. Jesus, therefore, undoubtedly walked from one place to the other, (perhaps a mile or two) on the land, while the disciples went in the boat.
The third one of the eleven is that of the fig-tree, related by Matthew (21-17 to 22,) and Mark (11-12 to 23.) Matthew says the fig-tree withered away
"presently." Mark says that as they passed the next morning they discovered That it was withered away. But they agree as nearly as we can reasonably two such persons would, who should relate
miracles upon hearsay. Since the story has nothing probably about it, and since the accounts disagree, it is probable that they both differ a little from the truth, and that the fig-tree was withered away when they
first
came to it. This supposition is rendered more probable by the fact that Luke, who speaks of Jesus being at Bethany (19-29 to 40.) and of some other circumstances mentioned by Matthew, says nothing about the fig-tree. It is also rendered probable by the fact that there were no figs on the tree. Mark pretends to account for there being no figs on it, by saying that the time of figs had not yet come- but this is clearly a falsehood, for if such were the truth, why dud Jesus go to the tree at all? Or why did he manifest so much disappointment at not finding figs, as to "curse" even a tree?"
The fourth, related by Mark only (7-32 to 36,) is that of the cure of a man "who was deaf, and had an
impediment in his speech." Jesus, in order doubtlessly to have a fair opportunity to perform this miracle, and to do it in a manner to furnish evidence to the world of his miraculous power,
"took the man aside from the multitude." When he had done this, he "put his fingers into his ears;" "then spit, and touched his tongue;" then "looked up to heaven, and sighed," and uttered the word
Epliphatha, and thus, as Mark heard the story, opened the man's ears, and loosed the string of his tongue so that he spake plain, and then "charged them that they should tell no man" of the occurrence.
The fifth, related by John (2-1 to 10,) is that of turning the water into wine. John says that this was the first miracle that Jesus ever performed; but does not say that he
saw it done; and if it were his first attempted miracle, it is entirely improbable that John was present. Besides, towards the close of the preceding chapter, John speaks particularly of Andrew, Peter, Philip and
Nathaneal, as having become disciples of Jesus; but mentions none others as such, previous to this wedding. We just therefore suppose that John here only tells us a hearsay story. Now it would be nothing strange if Jesus were to go
to a wedding- nor would it be anything strange if they were to have wine there- nor would it be strange if Jesus should there make some pretensions to miracle-working- nor would it be strange, if, out of these circumstances, after
he had obtained a little notoriety in his way, a story should be got up and circulated similar to that told by John; but it would be very strange of a man should work a miracle; and it would also be very strange that neither
Matthew, Mark, nor Luke should ever have heard of this miracle, if there really were on wrought, (if they had heard of it, some of them would undoubtedly have recorded it, since they have taken the pains to record so many things of
no consequence at all); and it would also be very strange of the saviour of a world should perform either his first or last miracle of this kind. We should as naturally expect a Son of God would exhibit his powers by
making brooms dance cotillions, as by such miracles as this. Still- as was before remarked- such a man as I have supposed Jesus to have been, would, when first beginning hesitatingly to think about working miracles, be
very likely to have made an attempt or pretension of this kind- and if he but made such an attempt or pretension, that circumstance alone would afford sufficient materials for a future story.
The sixth, related by Luke (7-11 to 16), is that of raising from the dead the son of the widow of Nain. This story is told by none but Luke. He, as I have said before, was a citizen of Antioch, and was converted to Christianity by
Paul- of course he never knew anything of personally of Jesus or his miracles; he must therefore have depended entirely upon the stories of others for his information. Of whom he obtained it in this instance we know not. He
wrote his narrative some thirty or forty years after the death of Jesus. So that all the evidence we have here to prove an occurrence so wonderful as that of a man's being restored to life after he had once died, is a simple
declaration, made many years afterward, by a man living remote from the place and who could not have personally known anything about what he was writing, but who has been shown heretofore to b credulous enough to believe miracles
in the testimony of others. Furthermore, neither of the narrators, although two of them were of twelve, give us any account of such an occurrence, although, if it really happened, they would
most surely have heard of it, and if they had heard of it, they would as surely have related it; for, in order to make their stories as marvelous as possible, they have already gone so far as to relate for undoubted miracles many
things, which they could not have known to be true, even if they were true. The seventh case, that of raising Lazarus from the dead, is related by John only, (11 Chapter)- John
does not say that he saw the fact. If then we believe that, in this case, a man really died, and was then restored to life again, we must believe a fact, such as we could not now be made to believe if ten thousand of
the most respectable men of any nation on earth should solemnly testify that they saw it. We must believe too on the testimony of a single individual- one who gives the account forty years after the transaction is alleged to have
been performed; who does not even say that he saw it; who is not supported by a single one of the many alleged eyewitnesses, nor by the testimony of any other person. If the ten
thousand should testify as I have supposed, we should then say, either that the man had not been actually dead, or that some deception or another had been practised upon the witnesses- and we should say so with perfect
confidence too, because we should know, as absolutely as it is possible for us to know any thing, that such an occurrence could not have happened. Yet we are called upon to believe it in this case, upon such
testimony as I have mentioned. Is it possible that the attempt can be made at this day, to impose upon men's understandings by such stuff as this?
But there is evidence tending to discredit this story or John. One part of this evidence is, that neither Matthew, Mark nor Luke speak of
the affair. Yet Luke heard of, and even related (10-38 to 42), so small and unimportant a circumstance as that of Jesus's once being in Bethany, at the house of Martha, the sister of Lazarus, and yet he never
heard (as we may safely infer from the fact that he never related it) of this miracle [*34] wrought upon Lazarus- a miracle too, that is so much more wonderful than Jesus was generally supposed to perform.