remind him of it, and claim forgiveness; he repented and ought to be pardoned. Will it be forgiven to ask these profane ques

tions?

Has this passage not been inserted into the text, to silence dispute and opposition, about the time that the Holy Ghost was introduced as the third person of the Trinity? If it was not, but really the saying of Jesus Christ, he has endeavoured to vitiate and reverse every just and rational opinion concerning virtue and vice, merits and crimes, in threatening the most terrible punishments for words, or matters of opinion, which scarcely deserve notice, and can injure none; and promising unlimited forgiveness for the greatest crimes, to those who believe. His directions, if strictly followed by every one, would dissolve society, and make the human race miserable.

*

As Jesus expressly declared to his disciples, that according to prophecy, the people's eyes were blinded, and their hearts hardened lest they should repent and be healed; and thanked his Father for it. We need not wonder when he says, that all things were spoken unto them in parables, that they might see and not perceive, and hear and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins be forgiven them: But what should we think of a Being who acts in this manner towards his creatures? Can we conceive a more cruel disposi tion? Was this like the works of a God of mercy? Was it like the Son of God to approve of this? And if the people were so blinded, why was he at other times angry and grieved at the hardness of their hearts. This was not consistent, what did he mean at all?

According to Matthew and Luke, Jesus said, that the Queen of Sheba came from the uttermost parts of the earth, to hear the wisdom of Solomon; but this saying was not true, Sheba was not the uttermost part of the earth, it was not so far distant from Jerusalem as America or China, or even Britain. We may conclude from this saying, that Christ's knowledge in geography, and of the state of the world was very limited and

inaccurate.

We are told, that when Herod's birth day was kept, the daughter of Herodias danced before Herod and pleased him, when he promised to give her whatsoever she would ask of him, Matthew says** that she was before instructed of her mother, and asked John Baptist's head; but according to Mark,†† she went forth after the promise was made, and inquired of her mother what she should ask, and her mother then told her, to ask John Baptist's head; and she came in, and then asked it. These accounts are certainly different, which of them is correct? This

*John, ch. 12, v. 40. Matt. ch. 11, v. 25.-‡ Mark, ch. 4, v. 11, 12. Mark, ch. 3, v. 5.—[ Ch. 12, v. 42.-¶ Ch. 11, v. 31.—** Ch. 14, v. 8.tt Ch. 6, v. 24, 25.

may seem but a trifling mistake, but divine revelation should be consistent in every particular.

It is recorded that Jesus fed five thousand men on five loaves and two fishes! a story like this (even if we allow the possibility of miracles) ought to be correctly told, and well attested, before it is believed for divine truth; but how is this told and attested? Matthew says,* there were five thousand men besides women and children, but according to mark, Luke, and John, there were five thousand men, neither women nor children present; and to attest the truth of this incredible tale there is only the testimony of two writers, Matthew and John, who contradict each other; the writings of Mark and Luke are not evidence, as their relation is only written from the reports of others.

Matthew tells us, that on another occasion, he fed four thousand men, besides women and children, on seven loaves and a few small fishes; but according to Mark, there were only about four thousand in all; which of these accounts are correct? Is this story another edition of the first miracle? Luke and John seem not to have heard of this last one at all, as they do not mention it; and Josephus is silent concerning them both. This makes the history of them very suspicious, for if it had been true, they would have been spread abroad over the whole country, and well known to all; but neither of them deserve the smallest credit,-and if true, they were useless. If such miracles can be wrought, why are they not performed among the poor in times of famine, when they would be of real benefit?

When Jesus came into the coasts of Tyre and Sydon, in one of his rounds of travels, a woman cried unto him, to have mercy on her, for her daughter was grievously vexed with a devil. " Matthew informs us, that she was a woman of Canaan, but Mark says, she was a Syro-Phenician Greek; such is their agreement. There was as much difference between a Canaanite and a Greek, as between a Jew and a Greek; of which nation was she? The answer which Jesus gave her was singular indeed, it was worthy of a Jew; although she approached him in the most humble manner, and worshipped, beseeching him to heal her daughter, he said, it is not meet to take the children's bread and cast it to dogs! This was calling her nation dogs, consequently she was the female of a dog, which in this country is called a b-h! Was this an answer worthy of the Son of God? We ought not to detest the Turks for calling other people dogs, since they have his word as an example. Were Luke and John ashamed of this answer, that they have not told the story?

* Ch. 14, v. 21.-† Ch. 15, v. 38.- Ch. 8, v. 9. It is singular that the numbers were in both cases so exactly four and five thousand.- Ch. 15, v. 22.Ch, 7, v. 26.

On another occasion, Jesus asked his disciples privately whom do men say that I am." This question displays more of the curiosity of a man, than the knowledge of a God. If he did not know what men said of him, he was not the Son of God; if he did know, the question was useless and unnecessary. After hearing their answer, he asks, "but whom say ye that I am." Simon Peter answered and said, "thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God." This answer seems to have pleased Jesus so well, that in great elevation of spirits, he immediately promised to Peter, to build his church upon him, and that the gates of hell should not prevail against it; and also to give him the keys of the kingdom of heaven, with ample ruling powers, to bind and loose on earth, all of which was to be ratified and confirmed in heaven: but as this extensive power was rather inconsiderately given, the confidence was not long continued, for we soon find himt reproving Peter sharply, saying, "Get thee behind me Satan, thou art an offence unto me; for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men,' because Peter had generously rebuked him, for saying that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders, and chief priests, and be killed, and raised again the third day, which Peter doubtless did not think likely to promote the establishment of an everlasting kingdom or church. These two. sayings, the promise and the reproof, are very unlike the words of an unchangeable God. It was hardly consistent to call Peter on whom the church was to be built, by the name of Satan, who was an offence to him. If he did not at first discover that Peter savoured not the things of God, but those that were of men, he had little discernment. He concluded his promise with charging them to tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ!! this appears very inconsistent, when he had sent them out before with orders to preach publicly concerning him, and had threatened-the people with judgments if they did not hear them. If it is necessary for salvation to believe on him, why did he now charge his disciples to tell no man concerning him? Dids he wish to fulfil the benevolent prophecy, of blinding their eyes, and hardening their hearts, lest they should repent and be saved?

We are told by Matthew, Mark. and Luke, that Jesus declared there were some standing with him, who should not tasteof death until they saw him coming in his kingdom! Those who were with him are certainly all dead, and he is not yet come, but the prophecy must nevertheless be fulfilled, for as he was the Son of God he could not lie, every word he spake was divine truth But why is there so many doubtful expressions and double meanings in revelation? This prophecy, with others of

Matt. ch. 16, v. 13.-† Matt. ch. 16. v. 23.-‡ Ver. 20. Ch. 16, v. 28.Ch. 9, v. 1.-¶ Ch. 9, v. 27.

the same kind, gave rise to the expectation of his second coming being near at hand, and no wonder, since he expressly foretold it himself; if they believed him, they must have looked for it immediately. This expectation continued very prevalent among the primitive Christians for some centuries, and no true believer entertains a doubt of its being fulfilled, although none can discover it. The apostle Peter indeed, foretells,* that scoffers would arise who would make light of this opinion; proba-. bly some had begun to suspect it was a falsehood, even in his own time. But these were not believers, for among the faithful, that expectation prevailed for some centuries, although the companions of Jesus were all dead.

But

Several days after Jesus had declared, that some of his attendants should live to see his second coming, (we are told) he went up to a mountain, with Peter, James, and John, and was transfigured before them; and his face did shine as the sun, and his raiment was white as the light. Matthewt and Mark‡ relate, that it was six days after this prophecy; but Luke says, it was eight days after it; Matthew and Mark tell us, that he was transfigured before the three disciples, whereas according to Luke, they were heavy with sleep, even in the midst of this glorious scene; consequently very unfit for witnesses. why did he go to a secret place, with only three sleepy followers, to make this display of his glory? He ought to have made it in public, to convince the people of his divinity; such a display of his glory, in the midst of Jerusalem, would have been more effectual in convincing the Jews of his divine mission, than all the arguments which he ever employed; yet this remarkable exhibition was made in a mountain apart, before three men heavy with sleep, and is related in a manner worthy of such a dream. Neither Matthew, Mark, nor Luke, who relate the story, were there; and John, who they say was present, never mentions it! To pass over so remarkable an event as the transfiguration without notice, and relate so many other trifles, is rather suspicious; but our duty is to believe it without doubting.

It is related by Matthew and Mark, that Jesus said to his disciples, that if they had faith like a grain of mustard seed, they might say to this mountain, remove hence to yonder place, and it would remove; or be removed, and be cast into the sea, and it would be done, and that nothing should be impossible unto them! Luke either hearing this saying incorrectly reported, or doubtful of the extent of this promised power of working miracles, has substituted another promise in its place, less in appearance, though equally miraculous ;** that if they had faith as a grain of mustard seed, they might say unto this,

*2d Epist. ch. 3, v. 3, 4.- Ch. 17, v. 1.- Ch. 9, v. 2.--§ Ch. 9, Y. 28.Ch. 17, v, 20,-¶ Ch. 11, v. 23.-** Ch, 17, v. 6,

sycamine tree, be thou plucked up by the roots, and planted in the sea, and it should obey them!

The being who had power to enable them to work such miracles, might have propagated his religion in a manner worthy of his power, and not resorted to such miserable shifts as these mean fabrications. Such a power of working miracles was never possessed by any on earth; that power vanishes with the progress of reason. The divines and believers of modern times cannot work miracles, however strong their faith. Even Jesus himself failed among those who knew him; if this saying is the Lord's word it is above our comprehension.

ls it

If the doctrines of Jesus were pure, his sayings were truly sublime; he spake as never man spake; he told his disciples with apparent approbation,* that there were some who made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake! a recommendation to the kingdom of heaven, to be in that state? Is it because they are constantly engaged in singing, that eunuchs are acceptable there? If they are necessary, he ought to have made a sufficient number from their mother's womb, as it appears. By his own words, that he made some. Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh; none but a debauchee in remorse, or a gloomy enthusiast, would have used such an expression. His modern disciples are ashamed of this saying, and represent it as an allegory; it is a beautiful allegory indeed! But the primitive Christians did not think it so, many of them put it in practice, and even some Christians in modern times have followed their example; † though such a recommendation would have been despised in any other cause but religion. If this was a divine revelation, it is very different from what was given to Moses; in his law it is expressly commanded, that the man who was wounded or mutilated in the private parts, should not enter into the congregation of the Lord and if Moses had known of the kingdom of heaven, he would probably have excluded them from it also. The law of Moses, and the doctrines of Jesus, seldom agree; but true faith can reconcile all contradictions.

According to Matthew, Mark, and Luke, Jesus told his disciples, that a rich man can hardly be saved; and again, that it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God; Is this saying either truth or reason? If riches, will exclude men from future happiness: why were they provided? but his disciples have quite disregarded it, they do not appear ever to have be

* Matt. ch 19, v. 12.-† Besides individuals, a sect of enthusiasts sprung up in the government of Moscow, who, in the true spirit of devotion, made themselves eunuchs for the sake of heaven, and gained a great body of proselytes; their practice was spreading, until the government prevented the further dissemination of these Christian principles, by the irresistible argument of the knout. James' Tour in Sweeden, Russia, &c. sec. 3.

Deut. ch, 23, y. .- Matt. ch. 19, v. 24.