Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

Again, from the false miracle of Jesus's resurrection, we discover that all his other miracles were false miracles; for a superior being would not suffer true and false miracles to be mixed together, because the false miracles would discredit the true ones, and render them useless.

That miracles have been attributed to Jesus, we collect from Paul's Epistle to the Hebrews, chap. ii. v. 3. and 4, " by the Lord, (that is Jesus) and was confirmed unto us by those that heard him; God also bearing them witness, with signs and wonders." Besides, the same is impliedly intimated when Paul also pretends to call his conjuring tricks, or his miracles by confederacy, real miracles, in Rom. c. xv. v. 19, and in 2 Cor. c. xii. v. 12.

That Jesus, after his escape from death by crucifixion, lived in Arabia, we collect from Gal. c. i. v. 16, 17. "I conferred not with flesh and blood, neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia." Mark the antithesis between the apostles and somebody else, of at least as much importance with the party as the apostles, that is, Jesus. Paul went into Arabia to have an interview with Jesus, at the first when he came over to Jesus's side.

Moreover, Jesus's miracles being proved to be all false ones, he is thereby demonstrated to be neither the Son of God, nor the Christ, or Messiah.

Before I quit the subject of the genuineness of Paul's Epistles, I have to remark, that the sect of the Ebionites rejected from being held as their scriptures, these epistles of Paul's, not on the ground of their spuriousness, but because he was an apostate from the religion of the Jews, to which they adhered as well as to Jesuism. Now, if the Ebionites had thought the epistles spurious, that alone would have been a sufficient reason for rejecting them; yet they lived at a time early enough to know whether they were spurious or genuine. Irenæus (Book i. chap. 26.) says to this effect. Theodoret also, in Book 1.

The Encratita, another sect, spoke greatly to the disadvantage of Paul, and rejected both his Epistles and the Acts of the Apostles also, probably because Luke was a companion of Paul.-Eusebius, Book iv. chap. 27, of his Ecclesiastical History.

Thirdly, we come to speak of the genuineness of the Acts of the Apostles, attributed to Luke.

And by going over nearly the same ground, as in regard to the Epistles of Paul, we may prove the Acts to have really been written by Luke.

That the Acts were from the first attributed to one of Paul's compani ons, appears from the use of the first person plural, we, from the time that Paul arrived at Troas.

The Acts of the Apostles is a valuable book to disbelievers, because it helps to the knowledge more of detailed particulars, and of things which cannot be inferred from Paul's Epistles.

Mr. Taylor, I think, has somewhere pointed out two murders, that is, the poisoning of Ananias and Sapphira his wife. But another murder is detected by means of the Acts, that is, of Judas, who was stabbed by James the brother of John.

First, in regard to the poisoning of Ananias and Sapphira, we read, chap. 5th, that both Ananias and his wife died suddenly, a coincidence that establishes that both died a violent death. But the apostles waited at table upon the church of the Jesuans; therefore, the apostles must have poisoned them. In confirmation of that already obvious conclusion, which is apparent enough from the trumping up of the idle story of the miraculous death of Ananias and his wife; for those are the people in want

of the story of a miracle, who have guilty deeds to conceal by means of it; but besides this, in chap. 6, we find the apostles turned off from the place of waiters at table, probably from fear that they should physic other members of the Jesuan church.

Secondly, in respect to the murder of Judas by James, we have it in Acts, c. i. v. 18, that Judas "purchased a field with the reward of iniquity, and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out." Falling headlong is a phrase for hanging himself. It means, that he stood upon something, while he tied the rope round his neck, then, jumping from the place, he remained suspended. The Acts says that he hung himself. But who saw him hang himself? If any body had been present, he would have cut Judas down. Therefore he could only have been found hanging with his bowels gushing out, through a stab which he had received in the belly. He could not have committed suicide, as is pretended in the Acts of the Apostles; for, if Judas stabbed himself first, he could not hang himself afterwards; and if he hung himself first, he could not stab himself afterwards; therefore he must have been murdered.

Now, in order to find out the murderer, I divide society into two parts, the adherents of Jesus, and the rest of the world. Which party trumped up the story of the miracle? Jesus's party. The miracle then was useful to Jesus's party, and some one of that party committed the murder. Now, to fix upon the individual who murdered Judas, we find, (Acts, c. xii. v. 1, 2.) that James, the brother of John, was put to death by Herod; and he is the only one of Jesus's adherents, who is mentioned in the Acts to have suffered death from the law; James, therefore, was the murderer. James stabbed Judas, and Peter assisted to hang him. You see, that the reason why James was put to death by Herod is not stated in the Acts; because James had committed a crime, and the Jesuan writer could not flatly deny it, but endeavours, by the manner of his omission, to have it thought, that James was persecuted by Herod on account of religion.

Herod seeing that it pleased the Jews, not that he had put James to death, for that he would have done at all events, whether it pleased the Jews or not; but seeing that what follows would please the Jews, proceeded further to apprehend Peter also. But the angel of the Lord appeared in the shape of a sum of money, and persuaded the keepers to let Peter escape from prison.

We see, that Herod did not lean to the side of severity but of lenity: for he would not have apprehended the accessory Peter, if it had been the wish of the Jews to have justice fully executed.

In the Acts, we discover the iniquity of the Apostles in other respects, besides the three murders already pointed out. But it may be asked, why was not the poisoning of Ananias and Sapphira punished in the same way as the stabbing of Judas? 1 answer, that a case of poisoning could not be made out clear enough for conviction, from the want of skill in medicine in those days.

We discern the iniquity of Peter, in Acts c. 2, v. 23. where he says to the Jews, "Jesus have ye taken, and by wicked hands crucified and slain." Now the Jews could not have been wicked in that instance: for they had not power to crucify; it was the Romans that crucified Jesus. Those Jews who had been robbed by Jesus had a right to accuse him; the witnesses who saw him commit the robbery had a right to declare what they saw; and the Roman judge Pontius Pilate has a right to pronounce a sentence of crucifixion, which the Roman law annexed to the crime of rob

bery; so that Jesus was not crucified by wicked hands: and it was very wrong in Peter to call people wicked that were not wicked.

The Jesuan historian says in Acts, c. 1, v. 18, that Judas purchased a field with the reward of iniquity. Now it could not be iniquity in Judas, to serve as a guide to those who took Jesus, that he might be brought to trial. If Judas committed iniquity in that instance, then all runners and constables would be criminal, whenever they took up thieves; an absurd supposition.

There is very much the appearance, from reading Acts, c. 2, that Jesus's church in Jerusalem was not composed of inhabitants and natives of Judæa; for these seem to have held Jesus in reprobation, but of pilgrims, who came from various parts to worship at the temple. Perhaps their means of return ran short, and they might close in with a proposal of the Apostles to club their resources together; and then they would not examine closely into the truth of Jesus's pretended miracles and resurrection. Their grandchildren very likely were real believers. As for the number of these free-masons or odd-fellows, we should in many cases deduct very largely from Jewish numbers to arrive at the truth.

In Acts, c. 3, v. 1-8, we have a miracle by confederacy on a man with a sham bad leg. Remember, that it is the Jesuans here who tell the story in their own way.

Now in c. 2, v. 34 and 35, observe the assurance of Peter in quoting the Greek version of the 110th Psalm in Judæa, where only the Hebrew version was in use. In the Septuagint it is called a psalm of David, as if David had penned it himself and termed the Messiah, My Lord, as in, "The Lord said unto my Lord the Messiah," &c. But in the Hebrew it is called, Mizmor le David, a psalm for David, or in honor of David, and is to be understood thus, as if the courtly psalmist had said, "The Lord said unto my lord King David, Sit thou on my right hand until I make thine enemies thy footstool."" This is an absurd contrivance of Peter, by misquotation of the psalm to pay a compliment to Jesus.

[ocr errors]

The Priests, and the Captain of the Temple, and the Sadducees, in Acts, c. 4, v. 1-7 came upon Peter and John to apprehend them for the miracle by confederacy with the man's sham bad leg, in c. 3, and the next day they were brought before the Sanhedrim. Here we see Peter's impudence; Luke calls it boldness, v. 13; for Peter calls Jesus the Christ, and falsely says, that he was brought up at Nazareth, when Celsus affirms, that he was in Egypt till he was grown up.

When Peter returned to the church of the Jesuans, he has the impudence again to misapply the Second Psalm, for it is only David himself who is complimented in that Psalm, v. 7: "To day I will declare the decree; the Lord hath said unto me, Thou art my son, I begat thee." The to-day has been wrongly transposed. No compliment was here intended for Jesus. What a fine thing to have a good assurance! Peter has the impudence to maintain before the Sanhedrim, that Jesus was brought up at Nazareth, and to say that the Sanhedrim crucified him, when it was the Romans: and that he was raised from the dead, when he had not died yet.

In c. 5, v. 16, the Apostles perform so many conjuring tricks and miracles by confederacy, that the high priest and the Sadducees determined to check them, and they brought them before the Sanhedrim: but the Pharisaic members showed them some favor, so that no great harm was done to them. Peter has the outrageous assurance again to maintain that the Sanhedrim had hung Jesus on a tree, when they had no power to hang

any body; and that they slew him when he was not yet dead, but was alive and well: see c. 5, v. 30.

In c. 6, the Apostles are turned off from being waiters on account of their addiction to administering poison; witness the case of Ananias and his wife; and the church resolved to have men of honest report that time. Stephen is one of these waiters: however, for all his honesty he can play conjuring tricks and miracles by confederacy, v. 8. He might excel as a conjurer; but when he gets into an argument with the Libertines, Cyreneans and others, v. 9, he has the worst of it, as you may read in c. 7, where he wanders from the subject. He blames the Israelites of earlier time c. 7, v. 52, unjustly for persecuting the prophets: for these prophets were thieves; witness Samuel who stole Cis's asses; for he could find them when they were enquired after by Saul, 1 Sam. c. 9. But Samuel could not have known where the asses were, if he had not stole them and hid them.

Again, we see, 2 Kings, c. 5, that Elisha employed his servant Gehazi to steal a garment from Naaman the Syrian; and the theft being discovered, the prophet produces by means of drugs a fictitious leprosy on Gehazi, to deprecate the Syrian's anger, and prevent any farther exposure of the business.

Observe the villainy of the prophet Isaiah, who says, c. 5, v. 8. "Woe unto them that join house to house, that lay field to field ;” just as if men have not a right to invest their own money in whatever way they think proper:" but this is to curry favor with a part of the people. Again he says "Wo unto them that are wise in their own eyes, and prudent in their own sight," v. 21. The prophet did not like people to see far before them: impostors get nothing from them. That Isaiah's meaning ought to be interpreted in a bad sense will be evident from his impudence in v. 19. "Woe unto them that say, Let him make speed and hasten his work, that we may see it, and let the counsel of the Holy One of Israel draw nigh and come, that we may know it." Objectors had challenged the prophet to fix upon a time for the fulfilment of his prophecy, or at least to fix a limit, and that a short and early one, that they might know whether he was a prophet or only an impostor: nothing could be more reasonable than that proposal; but Isaiah declined it: We see what sort of people the prophets were; and the harsh treatment they met with from their countrymen was amply merited. Mr. Isaiah's woes, v. 18, "Woe unto them that draw iniquity with cords of vanity, and sin with a cart-rope," are pointed against Isaiah himself; for he and Stephen both pull the same way; and they also both of them "sin with a cart-rope.'

"

Stephen says, v. 52, that these prophets foretold the coming of Jesus. Now there is not one of them that ever mentions Jesus. Stephen adds that the Jews had betrayed Jesus. To charge Jesus in a regular way with a robbery before a Roman magistrate was not a betrayal of Jesus: and he had still the chance of acquittal, if the charge could not have been made out against him. He says, that the Jews murdered Jesus; who had not yet died and was living all the while.

Luke says, v. 58, 59, that the Jews threw stones at Stephen and killed him. But he does not mention that any of them were put to death for the murder, which they would have been, if Stephen had not been the aggressor: therefore, we may conclude that Stephen threw stones at them first, and that in the affray the conjuror Stephen had the worst of it.

In c. 8, v. 1, there is a persecution against the Jesuan church at Jerusalem. The affair of the poisoning doubtless had transpired by that time, and perhaps other enormities. Another waiter of honest repute, Philip,

who was also a conjuror, v. 7, thought it prudent to decamp for some reason, for all his honesty: and when he came to Samaria, he got acquainted with another conjuror, named Simon, who discovered that the Jesuans whose sleight of hand and deceptions had been brought by Jesus from Egypt, were better than those of the Samaritan jugglers: he therefore kept close to Philip, for some time, with view to learn some tricks of him; but Philip seems to have been upon his guard, from what follows. The affair of the poisoning seems now to have reached the ears of the magistrates, and we find Peter, who performed a prominent part in the business of Ananias, accompanied by John, who might have had some band in it; for he is the brother of the murderer James. These two frame an excuse for their disappearance from Jerusalem, and are seen in Samaria. Simon proposed to these two last to sell him a trick or two. They affect indignation, that supernatural powers should be regarded as the mere tricks of a juggler: but Simon, being a conjuror himself, knew that they were nothing better; and from practising that art, he must be a competent judge of those matters.

Philip overtakes a eunuch of Queen Candace, c. 8, v. 32, reading aloud in Isaiah, c. 53, v. 7. "He was oppressed and was afflicted; yet he opened not his mouth," &c. Now Philip has the assurance to tell the eunuch, that this is a prophecy of Jesus; when it is obvious, that it is not a prediction at all: the past time is used. It is some hard lot that befel a cotemporary of the prophet. This is a fair specimen we may suppose of what Stephen calls prophecies about Jesus. How can narratives of past events be prophecies about any body?

When in c. 9, Paul came over to Jesuism, a miracle by confederacy was practised between another Ananias and him: scales of fish were gummed upon Paul's eyes and kept on three days, v. 9; in v. 18, you find the scales of fish are rubbed off. We have conjurors in London that would have made a complete laugh of the paltry performances and sleight-of-hand of Jesus and his Apostles.

In v.

22, you have an impudent boast, that Paul confuted the Jews in the synagogue at Damascus. Why then does Paul admit, that he gained so few proselytes among the better informed classes, when he says, I Cor. c. 1, v. 20, "Where is the wise, where is the scribe, where is the disputer of this world?" By his own admission, the Jews must have refuted Paul; for his words imply as much.

Against those who maintain that Paul was the author of Jesuism, we have, as a testimony, the Ebionites and Encratita who rejected Paul from being an Apostle.

We have not time to pursue Paul through all his journeys. By trade, he was a journeyman tent-maker, or rather, a house-joiner, as Adam Clarke renders it. He did not like hard work, and was glad of any release from it. That is the reason he submits to sometimes be pelted with stones, and sometimes thrown into prison: and he is never ashamed of any thing he says. Rom. c. 1, v. 16.

He continued to go with the contribution for the church in Judæa, c. 20, v. 22, and it is a question, whether they ever got much of it; for we find that the Roman governors think Paul possessed of money; and one might think that they would have good intelligence, c. 24, v. 26.

How impudent Luke must be, to put in the mouth of King Agrippa, c. 26, v. 28, such words as " Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian." For King Agrippa, being a descendant of Herod the Great, another pretender to be Christ, and a rival of Jesus, though dead before Jesus's birth, Agrippa, I say, must have been an Herodian of course, and must from his

« AnteriorContinuar »