t This transaction naturally suggests several questions concerning it; is it probable that such a number of swine as two thousand, would be kept in one herd, in a country where swine were declared unclean in their law, and were held in abomination by the people? Has the story not been invented to excite a prejudice against swine? Was it justice (if true) to drown the people's swine, and perhaps ruin them? Could Jesus not cast out the devils without doing so much mischief? Although Christians pretend to admire this transaction at this distance of time and place, yet were any itinerant preacher in this country, to cause so many of his neighbors swine to be drowned, he would either be sent after them himself, or be punished by the law, and would richly deserve it. Is it possible that the tetrarch, or governor of that country, would allow such a transaction to take place, without punishing the offender? If he did, it appears that the saints in the New Testament have had the privilege of working mischief, with impunity, as well as the worthies in the Old.* Jesus appears to sanction it by word, as well as example, he said, "that the priests in the temple profane the Sabbath-day, and are blameless," and referred to the law for proof of what he said, triumphantly asking the Scribes and Pharisees, if they had not read it, although there is not such a passage in the law of Moses! On another occasion, we are told, that they brought to Jesus many that were possessed with devils, and he cast out the spirits with his word, and healed all that were sick, (this he did) that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias, the prophet. saying, himself took our infirmities, and bare our sicknesses." What are we to conclude from this quotation? There is not such a passage in all the book of Isaiah. The place to which the author referred is, perhaps, "surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows; yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted." This passage is completely altered in the quotation, the words are not the same, nor is the sense (if it had any) given; who the person was that is there spoken of, we are not told; but it speaks plainly of what is past, and not of Jesus Christ, for his name is not mentioned in it; nor did Jesus take the infirmities of mankind, and bear their sicknesses; they have still as much of both as before he came. Matthew and Luke tells us, that Jesus said to a certain Scribe, who offered to follow him wherever he went, "that the foxes had holes, and the birds of the air had nests, but he had not where to lay his head." Yet John says, that he had a house, and the disciples went and saw where he dwelt. Matthew also * See a remarkable instance of mischief performed by Elijah, II. Kings, ch. 1, v. 10, 12, in destroying an hundred men, with their captains, by fire from heaven! And another by Elisha, ch. 2, v. 24, in causing forty-two children to be destroyed by bears! without being punished. + Ch. 12, v. 5.- Matt. ch. 8, v. 16.-§ Ch. 53, v. 4.-|| Ch. 1, v. 39. mentions, that he dwelt at Capernaum. Is this a contradiction, or had he left his house altogether, to stroll about the country? What connection is there between these doubtful and contradictory stories, and our present welfare, or future happiness? There is no merit in believing that they were written by divine inspiration; it is only a proof of credulity and ignorance; they are sure to perplex the mind, and divert it from more useful knowledge; good moral instructions, clearly expressed, and such as men could follow, would have been infinitely better. CHAPTER III. Remarks on the testimony concerning the events of Christ's life, from the time of sending out his apostles, until his arrival at Jerusalem. Among other pompous stories related in the life of Jesus Christ, we are told by Matthew, Mark, and Luke, that he sent forth his twelve apostles to heal the people, and preach through the country concerning him, saying, "the kingdom of heaven is at hand;" and before they are sent out, these authors give a list of their names, which are as follows: In the simple affair of a list of twelve names so well known, we might have expected agreement, yet it is not to be found, we are not told correctly what were the names of all the twelve apostles what has Luke made of Levi,† who was called from the receipt of customs? Matthew and Mark have in their lists one named Thaddeus, while Luke has not one of that name in his; and Luke has in his list Jude, the brother of James, a name which is not to be found in any of the others; these are so different, that it seems doubtful what were their, names, or who they were. It is strange that they do not agree concerning the names of the twelve apostles, which ought to have been cor rectly known to them all. Matthew gives a copy of the instructions which Jesus gave them before he sent them out; but these instructions are much * Ch, 4, v. 13.-t Ch. 5, v. 27, curtailed by Mark and Luke, indeed, few of them deserve to be recorded; several of them deserve the severest censure for their partiality, improvidence, and vindictive threatenings. If Jesus came to the earth for the salvation of mankind, and sent out his apostles to preach these glad tidings, why was he so partial as to command them* not to go into the way of the Gentiles, and not to enter any city of the Samaritans; but to go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel?" The Israelites seem to have been less deserving than the Gentiles and Samaritans; if this command had been always obeyed, he would in after ages have had very few disciples. If men are to be damned for not believing on him, was there any mercy or justice in this order? How could they believe on him if they did not hear of him? His order to themf to provide nothing for their journey, was foolish and improvident; and (if not fabricated afterwards,) is a proof that he meant his followers to live upon the industry of others; a direction which his ministers have not failed to follow in succeeding ages. The threat, that it should be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrah, in the day of judgment, than for those who did not receive and hear his disciples, displays a horrible spirit indeed! We are informed that Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed by fire and brimstone from heaven, and if he meant to inflict a severer punishment at the day of judgment, on those who would not receive his disciples, than on them, it proves that he only wanted power, or he would have been as cruel a persecutor as any other religious enthusiast. The professors of his religion. have been more bountifully endowed with the merciful spirit of destroying unbelievers and heretics by fire, than the professors of any other; they have been apparently, the most cruel and intolerant of all enthusiasts, the different sects have persecuted one another by fire and sword, with the most unfeeling cruelty, and only united to destroy those who did not believe in their system. They have inherited largely of that spirit which operates conviction by fire. But this pompous commission of Christ to his apostles, is a mere fiction, and ends in nothing but words; if they were really sent out with power to heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, and cast out devils freely, and had performed these labours faithfully, we would have got some account of their success from all the Evangelists, and even from Josephus; but John never mentions this commission, or their labours, and Matthew has told us nothing of either their preaching or miracles; they are but slightly mentioned by Mark; and their outset and return is merely noticed by Luke, who says, that they, *Matt, ch. 10, v. 5, 6.-t Ver. 9, 10.- Ver. 15.—§ Gen. ch. 19, v, 24.Matt. ch. 10, v. 8.-¶ Ch. 9. v. 6, 10. 1 "went through the towns preaching the gospel, and healing every where," which cannot be true, or else their works would have had more effect, and the particulars would have been better recorded. But if he was so anxious that his apostles should preach concerning him at this time, and also that the people should receive them, why did he afterwards charge these same apostles strictly* to tell no man that he was Christ? This was very inconsistent; besides, he did not fulfil his prophecy, or promise,† "verily I say unto you, ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, until the Son of Man be come." He could hardly mean his first coming, as he was with them at the time; and if he meant his second coming, what are we to think of him as a prophet? It has not happened according to his word. In what estimation should we hold this Jesus Christ, who declares, that he came not to send peace on earth, but a sword; to set the father against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; in short, to make all the members of the family enemies to one another. We can hardly imagine any calamity greater, than a sword without, and families all enemies to one' another within; we can hardly conceive any purpose more wicked than to stir up so much mischief; does the man deserve to be deified and worshipped, who was the cause of it? Is this the declaration of the meek and lowly Jesus? If it is, he has equalled Moses in cruelty, who inculcated enmity for ever between the Israelites and their brethren, the Ammonites and Moabites, and commanded them to exterminate their enemies, Mahomet did not promise such blessings to the world, nor threaten severer punishments against his enemies. Is this the peace of God which passeth all understanding? According to Luke, Jesus declared, that except a man hate' his father and mother, wife and children, brethren and sisters,' yea, and his own life also, he cannot be his disciple! What should we think of the founder of a religion, who declares, that his disciples must hate their nearest friends? What ought we to think of a band of disciples teaching such sublime virtues as this? Is this Christian love and friendship? This saying is more like the expression of some gloomy fanatic, than the words of the Saviour of the world. We are told, (no doubt) that in this Jesus had a meaning dif ferent from what he spake; but why did he not speak rationally, and tell his own meaning plainly, that men might understand his doctrine at once? This would have been more rational than to return thanks to his Father that he had hid these things from the wise and prudent, and had revealed them * Matt. ch. 16, v. 20.—† Ch. 10, v. 23.—‡ Ch. 10, v. 34, 35, 36.—§ Deut. ch. 23, v. 3, 6.- Ch. 14, v. 26.—¶ Matt. ch. 11, v. 25. to babes! If they were meant for the benefit of all, why were they hidden from any? Wise and prudent men were most likely to be correct judges of wise doctrines, and more likely to embrace them, and teach the rest of mankind, than babes and fools. We are informed by Matthew* and Luke,† that when John heard in prison of the works of Jesus, he sent two of his disciples to ask him, "art thou he that should come, or do we look for another?" If John was the messenger of Christ sent to prepare the way before him, and if he knew him at first when he saw him, and was assured of his divinity by the Holy Ghost descending like a dove, and lighting upon him, it is strange that he should have had doubts concerning him in the midst of his mighty works! If it is true, that he was now in doubt, the accounts of their first meeting are very improbable. According to Matthew's narrative, it was after Christ had sent out his apostles to preach and to heal, that John sent this message to Jesus; but Luke represents it as before they were sent out. But the Evangelists preserve no regular order in their narrative. According to Matthew, Jesus told the Pharisees, "that all manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men, but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven, neither in this world, nor in the world to come." This is a sweeping sentence, for an unknown sin, the promise that all manner of sin shall be forgiven, is very encouraging indeed. Will murder, in all its horrible shapes, singly, or by thousands, (as at Paris on St. Bartholomew's day,) be forgiven? Will robbery, burning, plunder, adultery, and rapes be forgiven? Will kidnapping the poor negroes, and selling them for slaves by thousants, be forgiven? Is blaspheming the Holy Ghost a greater crime than these? What is this undefined crime? the threat that it shall never be forgiven is dreadful, and shows a tyrannical disposition in this theological reformer, to declare, that an unheard of crime shall never be forgiven, and not to define clearly what that crime is? The unlimited promise of forgiveness for all sin and blasphemy, is a license for those who believe to commit crimes of all kinds; and the menace is void of hu anity, cruel, and reprehensible; had Jesus forgotten the punishments which he threatened against those who would not receive his disciples, and against the man who should offend one of his little ones, when he promised this forgiveness; or had he forgotten the promise of forgiveness, when he pronounced the woes against Chorazin, Bethsaida, and Capernaum, and afterwards threatened such vengeance against Jerusalem? As the promise of pardon was made unconditionally, Judas may * Ch. 11, v. 2. 3.—† Ch. 7, v. 19.—¦ Ch. 12, v. 31.—§ Ch. 10, v. 15.—[Matt. ch. 18, v. 6.-¶ Ch. 11, v. 21, 23, |