|
Main
- books.jibble.org
My Books
- IRC Hacks
Misc. Articles
- Meaning of Jibble
- M4 Su Doku
- Computer Scrapbooking
- Setting up Java
- Bootable Java
- Cookies in Java
- Dynamic Graphs
- Social Shakespeare
External Links
- Paul Mutton
- Jibble Photo Gallery
- Jibble Forums
- Google Landmarks
- Jibble Shop
- Free Books
- Intershot Ltd
|
books.jibble.org
Previous Page
| Next Page
Page 34
In a word, he was not a king fit for the, then, �carnal Jews,� but he
was, from his mildness, and compassionate temper, worthy of their
esteem, at least, of their forbearance. The only actions of his life
which betray any marks of character deserving of serious
reprehension, are his treatment of the woman taken in adultery;
and his application of the prophecy of Malachi concerning Elias, to
John the Baptist.
As to his conduct to the woman, it was the conduct of a mild, and
merciful man, but not that of one who declared, �that he came to
fulfil the law.� For God commanded concerning such, �that they
should surely be put to death.� Now though Jesus was not her
judge, and had no right to pronounce her sentence; yet the
contrivance by which he deterred the witness from testifying
against her, was a contrivence directly calculated totally to
frustrate the ends of justice; and which, if acted upon at this day, in
Christian countries, would infallibly prevent the execution of the
criminal law: For what testimony would be sufficient to prove a
fact, if the witnesses were required to be �without sin?� Instead,
therefore, of saying unto them, �whosoever of you is without sin,
let him cast the first stone at her;� he should have said, �Men! who
made me a judge, or a ruler over you? carry the accused to the
proper tribunal.�
As to his conduct about the matter of Elias, it was as follows. It is
said, in the 17th chapter of Matthew, that at his transfiguration, as
it is called, Moses, and Elias appeared to his disciples on the
mount, talking with Jesus. Upon coming down from the mount, the
disciples asked Jesus, �how say the scribes that Elias must come
first, (that is, before the Messiah.) Jesus answered, Elias truly
cometh first, and restoreth all things; but I say unto you, that Elias
has come already and they have done unto him what they would;�
meaning John the Baptist, who was beheaded by Herod. (See the
parallel place in Mark.) And he says concerning John, (Mat. vi.
14,) �And if ye will receive it, this is Elias which was for to
come.�
Now certainly no one will pretend that John was the Elias
prophecied of by Malachi, as to come before �the great, and
terrible day of the Lord,� which has not yet taken place. And
besides, that he was not Elias is testified of, and confirmed by,
John himself, who in the gospel of John, chapter 1, to the question
of the Scribes, asking him, �if he was Elias?� answers �I am
not.� It is pretty clear that Jesus was embarrassed by the question
of the Apostles, �how say the Scribes, that Elias must come first?�
for his answer is confused; for he allows the truth of the
observation of the Scribes, and then refers them to John, and
insinuates that he was �the Elias to come.� However, it must be
acknowledged, that he does it with an air of hesitation, �If you
will receive it,� &c.
But are these all the accusations you have to bring against him?
may be said by some of my readers. Do you account as nothing,
his claiming to forgive sins? his speeches wherein ho claims to be
considered as an object of religious homage, if not to be God
himself? Do you consider these impieties as nothing? I answer by
asking--the following questions: What would you think of a man
who, in our times, should set up those extraordinary claims? and
who should assert, that �eating his flesh, and drinking his blood�
were necessary to secure eternal life? Who should say, that �he
and God were one?� and should affirm (as Jesus does in the last
chapters of John) that �God was inside of him, and dwelt in him;
and that �he who had seen him, had seen God?� What should we
think of this? Should we consider such a man an object of wrath, or
of pity? Should we not directly, and without hesitation, attribute
such extravagancies to hallucination of mind? Yes, certainly! and
therefore the Jews were to blame for crucifying Jesus. If Christians
had put to death every unfortunate, who after being frenzied by
religious fasting and contemplation, became wild enough to assert,
that he was Christ, or God the Father, or the Virgin Mary, or even
the Holy Trinity, they would have been guilty of more than fifty
murders; for I have read of at least as many instances of this
nature; and believe that more than two hundred such might be
reckoned up from the hospital records of Europe alone. And that
the founder of the Christian religion was not always in one
coherent consistent mind, I think will appear plain to every
intelligent physician who reads his discourses; especially those in
the gospel of John. They are a mixture of something that looks like
sublimity, strangely disfigured by wild, and incoherent words. So
unintelligible indeed, that even the profoundest of Christian
divines have never been able to fathom all their mysteries. To
prove that I do not say these things rashly, wickedly, or out of any
malignity towards the character of Jesus, which I really respect and
venerate, I will establish my assertions by examples. For
instance--
Previous Page
| Next Page
|
|