And David "chose him five smooth stones out of the brook, and
put them in a shepherd's bag which he had, even in a scrip: and
his sling was in his hand: and he drew near to the Philistine."
Mr. Everett commences his work with the following remarks. "Was
Jesus Christ the person foretold by the prophets, as the Messiah
of the Jews?; one method, and a very obvious one, of examining
his claims to this character, is to compare his person, life, actions,
and doctrine, with the supposed predictions of them. But if it also
appear that this Jesus wrought such works, as evinced that he
enjoyed the supernatural assistance and cooperation of God, this
certainly is a fact of great importance. For we cannot say, that in
estimating the validity of our Lord's claims to the character of
Messiah, it is of no consequence whether, while he advanced
those claims, he wrought such works as proved his intimacy with
the God of truth. While he professed himself the Messiah, is it
indifferent whether he was showing himself to be as being beyond
delusion, and above imposture?--Let us make the case our own.
Suppose that we were witnesses of the miraculous works of a
personage of pretensions like our Lord's, should we think it
necessary or reasonable to resort to long courses of argument, or
indeed to any process of the understanding, except what was
requisite to establish the fact of the miracles? Should we, while he
was opening the eyes of the blind, and raising the dead from their
graves, feel it necessary to be deciphering prophecies, and
weighing these[fn 3] difficulties? Now we may transfer this case to
that of Christianity. The miracles of our Lord are either true or
false. The infidel if he maintain the latter must prove it; and if the
former can be made to appear, they are beyond all comparison
the most direct and convincing testimony that can be devised," p.
1, 2. of Mr. Everett's work.
To this statement I would reply--that I do not know what right Mr.
Everett has to call upon his opponent, to prove a negative. It was
his business to prove the affirmative of his question, and to show
that these miracles actually were performed, before he proceeded
to argue upon the strength of them. It is, I conceive, impossible to
demonstrate that miracles said to have been wrought 1800 years
ago, were not performed; but it is, I believe, quite possible to show
that there is no sufficient proof that they were. One of the reasons
given, in the 2d, ch. as I think, of the grounds of Christianity
examined, for throwing out of consideration the miracles recorded
in the New Testament in examining the question of the
Messiahship of Jesus, was, that the New Testament itself, was not
a sufficient proof that these miracles were actually wrought; and
this, with the reader's indulgence, I think I can plainly show.
Mr. Everett allows p. 450 of his work, what indeed he cannot deny,
that the four Gospels do sometimes contradict each other in their
narratives; and he refers with approbation, in a note to p. 458, to a
work of Lessing's, which he says, "ought to be read by every one
who is overfond of Harmonies." This work of Lessing's, if I
recollect right, maintains, that all hopes of harmonizing the
evangelists, of reconciling their contradictions, must be given up.
[See Lessings Sammliche, Schriften, ch. v. S. 150, as quoted by
Mr. Everett, p. 458.]
Now these contradictions, if they do exist, unquestionably argue
one of two things; either fraud, or want of accurate information in
their authors, as no man who wishes to be considered "compos
mentis" will deny, because, accurate information excludes the
possibility of contradiction in authors willing to tell the truth, and
much more in inspired authors, who must be incapable of writing
anything but the truth.
The Christian, therefore, must, it seems to me, on account of
these contradictions, allow one of two things; either, that the
evangelists were fraudulent men, or else that the Gospels were
not written by the Apostles and immediate followers of Jesus:
because want of accurate information, cannot be supposed of the
Apostles and immediate followers of Jesus; as having been
constantly with him, from the beginning, to the end of his
ministery, they must have been perfectly acquainted with his
actions and doctrines. Neither can lapse of memory be urged;
because the Gospels represent Jesus as saying, John ch. xvi. 26,
that they should have the aid of inspiration, which "should, bring
all things, to remembrance;" and in Acts ch. iv. 31, all the followers
of Jesus are represented as having actually received the effusion
of the Holy Ghost: of course want of accurate information, and
lapse or memory in them cannot be supposed.
The Christian, therefore, must allow, since contradictions do exist,
if he would avoid accusing the Apostles and disciples of Jesus of
fraud, that the Gospels were not written by the Apostles and first
followers of Jesus, but that they were written by men, who had no
accurate information about the events they record. It is therefore
plain, that the miracles recorded in the Gospels, are incapable of
proof. For what Christian in his senses can ask another man to
believe accounts of miracles, which accounts, he must at the
same time allow, were written by fraudulent men, or by men who
had no accurate information upon the subjects about which they
write.
The edge of this, as I think, smites right through the neck of Mr.
Everett's argument on which his work depends, and leaves his
book--"a gasping head---a quivering trunk." Sic transit gloria
mundi.
But in order to make Mr. Everett still farther Sensible how easily
his argument can be "overturned, overturned and overturned," I
will suppose a reasonable and reasoning man, desirous to verify
the claims of the books of the New Testament as containing a
Revelation from God, to set down to scrutinize with anxious
solicitude every argument of internal and external evidence, in
favour of their authenticity, and authority, in the hope of becoming
satisfied of the truth of their claims. But in the course of his
examination, such a man will assuredly find, that almost every
step in his inquiry, is an occasion of doubt and of difficulty.
Books containing Revelations from the Supreme, must be
consistent with themselves. But he will observe on a careful
perusal of the evangelists, that the contradictions, particularly in
the narratives of the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus, are
numerous; and that all the ingenuity of Christian writers, has been
exhausted in vain in the attempt to reconcile them; for example,
the Gospel called of Matthew says, ch. iii. 14, that John the
Baptist, knew Jesus when he came to him to be baptised, (which
was very probable on account of the relationship and intimacy
subsisting between Mary the mother of Jesus, and: Elizabeth the
mother of John, as mentioned in the Gospel called of Luke, ch. i.
18, it could hardly have been otherwise) but the author of the
Gospel called of John says, ch. i. 31, that John knew him not, until
he was designated by the descent of the Holy Ghost upon him.
Again, it is said in the Gospel called of John, ch. ii. 14. that Jesus,
on his first visit to Jerusalem after he had commenced his
preaching, cast the buyers and sellers out of the Temple, whereas
the Gospel called of Matthew, and also those called of Mark and
Luke, represent this to have been done by Jesus at his last visit to
Jerusalem. See Matt. ch. xxi. 12. Mark ch. xi. 15. Luke ch. xix. 45.
Again, the author of the Gospel called of John, represents the last
supper or Jesus with his Apostles, to have taken place (See ch.
xiii. 1. and ch. xviii. 28.) on the eve before the feast of the
passover, and that Jesus was crucified on the feast day itself,
while the authors of the other Gospels represent the first event to
have taken place, on the evening of the passover itself, and that
Jesus was crucified the day after. See Matt. Ch. xxvi. 18. Mark xiv.
12. Luke ch. xxii. 7. Now Matthew and John must, according to the
Gospels themselves, have been present with Jesus when he
drove the buyers and sellers out of the Temple, and at his last
supper, and when he was seized in the garden of Gethsemane;
they must therefore have known perfectly whether Jesus drove
the buyers; and sellers out of the Temple, at his first visit to
Jerusalem in their company; or at his last, and whether his last
supper, and his seizure in the garden of Gethsemane took place
on the eve before this passover their great national festival, or on
the evening of the passover itself. They could not forget the time
and place of events, so affecting and important as the last
mentioned, and when we add to these considerations, that the
Gospels represent Jesus as saying, (John ch. xiv.;26.) that they
should be inspired by the Holy Spirit, which "should bring all things
to remembrance," the supposition that the real Matthew and John
could contradict each other in this manner, becomes quite
inadmissable.
In the account of the resurrection of Jesus, the most important fact
of Christianity, we also find several contradictions; for instance,
the Gospel called of Matthew says, that the first appearance of
Jesus to his disciples after his resurrection, was in Galillee, (See
Matt. ch.xxxviii. 7,) while the other evangelists assert, that his first
appearance to them after that event was at Jerusalem. See Mark
ch. xvi., Luke ch. xxiv. John ch.xx. The Gospel called of John
says, that he afterwards appeared to them in Galilee: but
according to that of Luke, the disciples did not go to Galilee to
meet Jesus; for that Gospel says, that Jesus expressly ordered
his disciples to tarry at Jerusalem, where they should receive the
effusion of the Holy Ghost, and that after giving that order he was
taken up to Heaven. See Luke ch. xxiv. 49, 50, also, the first ch. of
Acts. [fn 4]
This greatly invalidates the credibility of these accounts; for as
much as that the historical testimony in attestation of supernatural
events, ought, because such events are out of the common
course of nature, to be strong and unexceptionable.
He will observe too that these writers, supposed to have been the
inspired followers of Jesus Christ, have applied many passages of
the Old Testament as prophecies of Jesus, when it is most
certain, (and is at the present day allowed by Christian Biblical
Critics of the highest standing) from examining those passages in
their context in the Old Testament, that they are not prophecies of
Jesus; and that some of the passages cited are in fact no
prophecies at all, but are merely historical. Nor is this all, these
authors have cited as prophecies and proof texts, passages which
do not exist in the Old Testament. From which it seems to follow
that they must have forged those passages, or quoted them from
some Apocryphal book; which they believed to be inspired. If they
were capable of the first, they were not the honest and inspired
followers and disciples of Jesus Christ; if they were capable of the
last, they were not Jews but Gentiles, ignorant that the Jews in the
time of Jesus, acknowledged no books as inspired scripture but
the books of the Old Testament. See Appendix, A.
A reasonable and reasoning man, such as I have supposed, may
ask himself if it be possible that men filled with the Holy Ghost,
and whose minds were supernaturally opened to understand the
scriptures, could make mistakes such as these.
Lastly, he will recollect, on discovering what is about to be stated,
that the Apostles and followers of Jesus Christ were Jews, and
consequently could not be ignorant of what was notorious to the
whole nation, for instance, that the Jewish Sabbath begins at
sunset on Friday evening, and ends at sunset on Saturday
evening. Nevertheless the author of the Gospel called of Matthew
makes ch. xxviii. 1. the Sabbath to end at dawn of day on Sunday
morning: while the author of that called of John apparently
reckons, ch. xx. 19. the evening of the first day of the week as a
part of the first day of the week; whereas it is in fact, according to
the law and customs of the Jews, who then and now reckon their
days from sunset to sunset, the beginning and a part of the
second day of the week. Such mistakes appear to me to indicate
that the writers of those Gospels were Gentiles not perfectly
acquainted with Jewish customs, and therefore not Matthew and
John.[fn 6]
There are other traces of ignorance of Jewish customs, to be
found in the Gospel called of Matthew, which betray the Gentilism
of the author of it. For instance, he says ch. xxvi. 24[fn7], that
Jesus told Peter, that "before the cock crew he should deny him
thrice;" the same is also found in Mark ch. xiv. 30. in Luke ch. xxii.
54[fn8], and in John ch. xiii. 38. Now it is asserted in the Mishna (i.
e the oral law of the Jews.) in the Bava Kama according to Mr.
Everett p. 448. of his work, that cocks were not permitted in
Jerusalem where Peter's denial took place; [probably because that
bird is constantly scratching up the ground with his feet, and was
thereby liable to turn up impurities, by touching which in passing
by, a Jew would be ceremonially defiled, and rendered incapable
of visiting the Temple to perform his devotions, till after the
evening of the day on which the defilement took place], therefore
all the four Gospels which all contain, this story, must have been
written by Gentiles ignorant of the custom which belies the story.
Some Christian writers have endeavoured to get rid of this
objection, by attempting to prove "that the crowing of the cock
here mentioned, does not mean actually the crowing of a cock, but
'the sound of a trumpet!'" while others, blushing at the hardihood
of their brethren, think it more prudent to maintain, that the author
of the Mishna was ignorant of Jewish customs, and that the
writers of the Gospels were perfectly acquainted with them; and
that therefore every good Christian was bound in conscience not
to regard the objection.
But the prohibition of cocks from entering the Holy city is so
perfectly of a piece with many other cautions against defilement
observed by the Jews, and is so perfectly in the taste of the times
of the Pharisees, "the careful washers of plates and platters,"--the
"tithers of mint, anise, and cummin," not to mention the reason
above expressed, which perhaps was, to say truth, according to
the regulations against defilement contained in the Pentateuch a
sufficient reason for excluding that bird from the city, where stood
the Temple, that the reader will probably believe that such a
custom might have existed.
Again, it is said Matt. xxvii. 62, that the Chief Priests and
Pharisees went to Pilate; demanded a guard; went to the
Sepulchre of Jesus, sealed the door, and set watch. Now Jesus is
said to have arisen on the day after this, on the first day of the
week, i.e. Sunday, of course the day before was Saturday of the
Jewish Sabbath. I maintain that the Chief Priests and Pharisees,
who objected to Jesus curing the sick and rubbing corn from the
ear, in order to satisfy his hunger on the Sabbath day; I maintain
that it is utterly incredible, that these men should have gone to
Pilate on public business, and transacted all this on their Sabbath.
For such an action would have come completely within the spirit,
and the letter of the Laws against breaking the Sabbath contained
in the-Pentateuch, which makes the penalty of such actions as are
here ascribed to the Chief Priests and rigorous Pharisees, nothing
less than stoning to death. I infer therefore, that the author of the
Gospel of Matthew was ignorant of this, and of course not a Jew,
and consequently not Matthew.
I would observe further, in connection with this subject, that Jesus
is represented, Matt. xxiii. 35, as saying, that upon the Jews of this
time should come "the blood of Zecharias the son of Barachias
whom ye slew between the Temple and the altar." Now, I believe
that it is recorded in Josephus' history, that the Jews slew this
Zecharias in the time of the Jewish war, about forty years after
Jesus is represented as saying, that they had killed him already.
Of course Jesus never could have said this, nor would a Jew
acquainted with the times, as Matthew must have been, have
been guilty of such an anachronism. The writer of that Gospel
must therefore, have been a Gentile, and not Matthew. The same
mistake is made by Luke xi. 51.
On turning his attention to the external evidence in favour of the
authenticity of the Gospels, the difficulties and objections
accumulate. He will find, that they are not mentioned by any writer
earlier than the latter half of the second century, after the birth of
Jesus. The first writers who name the four Gospels, were
Irenaeus, and Tertullian.[fn9] The competency of the testimony of
these Fathers of the church, as to the genuineness of these
books, is invalidated by the fact, (See Middleton's Free Enquiry)
that they admitted the principle of the lawfulness of pious frauds,
and from their having acted upon this principle, in having asserted
in their writings, as from their personal knowledge, things which
were certainly false; (See the work above referred to) while their
capability to distinguish the genuine writings of the Apostles, from
the numerous forgeries in their names that appeared about the
same time that the four Gospels begin to be mentioned, is
rendered suspicious by the fact, that they also give their sanction
as Divine Scriptures, to books notoriously apocryphal; for instance
the book of Enoch and the Sybilline Oracles.[fn11] The testimony
of the Fathers who succeeded them is liable to the same
objections, with this aggravation that its value diminishes more
and more, as the distance of the ages in which they flourished
increases, from that of Jesus Christ.
Thirdly, He will find that these Gospels were never received by the
Mother Church of Jerusalem and Judea, founded by the Apostles.
The Jewish Christians, the countrymen of Jesus, who one would
think had the best means of knowing the real history, and real
doctrines of Jesus and his Apostles, uniformly rejected not only
these Gospels, but all the other books of the New
Testament.[fn12] They were also rejected, by several sects of
Christians who flourished in the early ages of Christianity.
Fourthly, he will learn too that the Christians most distinguished
for their learning on this subject, for instance, Michaelis, Semler,
Lessing, Eichorn, and the erudite Bishop Marsh, do allow and
maintain in their works, that the Gospels according to Matthew,
Mark and Luke were compiled from accounts of the life and
doctrines of Jesus which became, after different additions,
revisions and translations, the BASIS of our present Gospels; from
such separate materials, which had gone through different hands,
and had acquired a variety of text and context, from the different
transcripts and translations in which they circulated, though for the
most part they were copied verbatim from one another, several
Gospels, among which were our three first Matthew Mark and
Luke, were composed AFTER [fn13] the destruction of Jerusalem,
and designated some by the names of the readers for whom they
were designed, and others by the names of their authors and
compilers. (See the life of Semler in Eichorn's Universal Library,
as quoted by Mr. E. p. 465. of his work.)
These Gospels then, in the opinion of these learned Christians,
were originally compiled from anonymous writings, which had
gone through different hands and been variously altered, and
added to in the passage, before they became the BASIS,!! of our
present Gospels.[fn14]
Lastly, he will discover, that since their construction from such
nameless materials, they have been further altered and
interpolated. Celsus accuses the Christians of his time (the latter
part of the 2nd century) of "continually altering their Gospels;" and
the ancient Christian sects accuse each other of the same fact.
That these accusations were well founded, is evident from
Griesbach's edition of the Greek Testament, where besides the
notice of some hundred thousands of various readings, we find
not only single words, but whole phrases, and verses, and even
entire paragraphs rejected as corruptions and interpolations.
Neither have all these corruptions been accidental; for as much as
the strongest text in the New Testament, in support of the doctrine
of the Trinity and the Divinity of Jesus Christ, which is to be found
in the first Epistle, called of John ch. v. 7, "there are three that
bear witness in Heaven. The Father, the Word, and the Holy
Ghost and these three are one," has been struck out of the text by
Griesbach, himself a Trinitarian, as a pious fraud, and is now I
believe universally acknowledged as such by learned Christians.
There are also, two other passages which for ages have been
cited as proofs of the Divinity of Jesus (viz. "The Church of God
which he has redeemed with his own blood," Acts ch. xx. 28. and
"God was manifested in the flesh," in the first Epistle to Timothy,
ch. iii. 16.) which the same Critic has proved to have been altered
from their original reading to favour the same doctrine, and it is
impossible to say how many more frauds of a similar nature might
be detected, if the learned and candid Christians before-
mentioned were in possession of the primitive manuscripts of the
New Testament.[fn15]
All these enormities Mr. Everett, who has a light hand in writing
upon some subjects, comprizes with great tenderness in the
following expressions, "our copies of the New Testament by the
lapse of time, have suffered some literal alterations, which may
have fallen occasionally on the quoted texts (he is trying to justify
the writers of the New Testament, for quoting the Old Testament
otherwise than it is written) and thus made them to differ from the
reading of the Old Testament," p. 279.
I have supposed that a reasonable and reasoning man, desirous
to ascertain the truth of the religion of the Christians, and in the
hope of finding it well founded, in the course of his examination of
the testimony for the authenticity and authority of the books of the
New Testament, comes to the knowledge of all these
circumstances. If the reader be such a man, I would ask him, if he
can rationally rest his belief in the moral attributes of God and his
faith in a future life, upon a foundation composed of such
materials?
Mr. Everett observes "that as prophecy and miracle are equally
divine works, it is impossible that they should contradict each
other. They are equally the works of the God of truth, and
whatever contradiction there appears to be between them, must
be but apparent. If a person of whatever pretensions proposes to
work miracles in support of those pretensions, in which
nevertheless he is contradicted by express prophecy, one of these
things is certain--that the prophecy is a forged one--or that we
have mistaken the meaning of it--or that the miracles are not real,"
p. 3. of Mr. Everett's work.
Granted--upon this ground I think that Mr. Everett can fairly be
brought to issue. I presume that he will hardly persist in
maintaining that the Gospels are a sufficient proof of the miracles
they record, in the face of the objections to their authenticity and
authority already stated--and as neither he nor myself maintain
that the prophecies, with regard to the Messiah, contained in the
Old Testament were forged, it remains only to be considered,
whether he or I have mistaken the meaning of them. So that, as I
have repeatedly said in my former publications, the prophets, after
all, are the only criterion which can be appealed to certainly most
important to the great interests of humanity, were it only on this
account, that the dispute has occasioned the most unparalleled
degradation, misery, and oppression to one of the parties to
it.[fn16]