Five Pebbles from the Brook Part 1

Five Pebbles from the Brook.

by George Bethune English.

ADVERTIs.e.m.e.nT.

WHEN I left America, I had no intention of giving Mr. Everett's book a formal answer: but having learned since my arrival in the Old World, that: the controversy in which I had engaged myself had attracted some attention, and had been reviewed by a distinguished member of a German university, my hopes of being serviceable to the cause of truth and philanthrophy are revived, and I have therefore determined to give a reply to Mr. Everett's publication.

In this Work, as in my prior writings, I have taken for granted the Divine Authority of the Old Testament, and I have argued upon the principle that every book, claiming to be considered as a Divine revelation and building itself upon the Old Testament as upon a foundation, must agree with it, otherwise the superstructure cannot stand. The New Testament, the Talmud, and the Koran are all placed by their authors upon the Law and the Prophets, as an edifice is upon its foundation; and if it be true that any or all of them be found to be irreconcileable with the primitive Revelation to which they all refer themselves, the question as to their Divine Authority is decided against them, most obviously and completely.

This work was written in Egypt and forwarded to the U. States, while I was preparing to accompany Ismael Pacha to the conquest of Ethiopia; an expedition in which I expected to perish, and therefore felt it to be my duty to leave behind me, something from which my countrymen might learn what were my real sentiments upon a most important and interesting subject; and as I hoped would learn too, how grossly they had been deluded into building their faith and hope upon a demonstrated error.

On my arrival from Egypt I found that the MS. had not been published, and I was advised by several, of my friends to abandon the struggle and to imitate their example; in submitting to the despotism of popular opinion, which, they said, it was imprudent to oppose. I was so far influenced by these representations-- extraordinary indeed in a country which boasts that here freedom of opinion and of speech is established by law--that I intended to confine myself to sending the MS. to Mr. Everett; in the belief that when he should have the weakness of his arguments in behalf of what he defended and the injustice of his aspersions upon me, fairly and evidently laid before him, that he would make me at least a private apology. He chose to preserve a sullen silence, probably believing that he is so securely seated in the saddle which his brethren have girthed upon the back of "a strong a.s.s"

that; there is no danger that the animal will give him a fall.

Not a little moved at this, I determined to do my myself justice, and to publish the pages following.

This book is not the work of an Infidel. I am not an infidel; what I have learned and seen in Europe, Asia and Africa, while it has confirmed my reasons for rejecting the New Testament, has rooted in my mind the conviction that the ancient Bible does contain a revelation from the G.o.d of Nature, as firmly as my belief in the first proposition of Euclid.

The whole a.n.a.logy of Nature, while it is in many respects opposed to the characteristics ascribed to the Divinity by the metaphysicians, yet bears witness in my opinion, that this world was made and is governed by just such a Being as the Jehovah of the Old Testament; while the palpable fulfillment of predictions contained in that book, and which is so strikingly manifest in the Old World, leaves in my mind no doubt whatever, of the ultimate fulfillment of all that it promises, and all that it threatens.

I cannot do better than to conclude these observations with the manly declaration of the celebrated Christian orator Dr. Chalmers, "We are ready, (says he,) to admit that as the object of the inquiry is not the character, but the Truth of Christianity, the philosopher should be careful to protect his mind from the delusions of its charms. He should separate the exercises of the understanding from the tendencies of the fancy or of the heart. He should be prepared to follow the light of evidence, though it should lead him to conclusions the most painful and melancholy. He should train his mind to all the hardihood of abstract and unfeeling intelligence.

He should give up every thing to the supremacy of argument and he able to renounce without a sigh all the tenderest possessions[fn 2] of infancy, the moment that TRUTH demands of him the sacrifice." (Dr. Chalmers on the Evidence and Authority of the Christian Religion. Ch. I.)

Finally, let the Reader remember, that "there is one thing in the world more contemptible than the slave of a tyrant--it is the dupe of a SOPHIST."

G. B. E.

PEBBLE I

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 a.s.sistance and cooperation of G.o.d, 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 G.o.d 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 G.o.d, 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 a.s.suredly 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 pa.s.sover, 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 pa.s.sover 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 pa.s.sover their great national festival, or on the evening of the pa.s.sover 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.x.x.xviii. 7,) while the other evangelists a.s.sert, 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 pa.s.sages 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 pa.s.sages in their context in the Old Testament, that they are not prophecies of Jesus; and that some of the pa.s.sages 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, pa.s.sages which do not exist in the Old Testament. From which it seems to follow that they must have forged those pa.s.sages, 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 Sat.u.r.day 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 c.o.c.k 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 a.s.serted 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 c.o.c.ks 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 pa.s.sing 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 c.o.c.k here mentioned, does not mean actually the crowing of a c.o.c.k, 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 c.o.c.ks 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 "t.i.thers of mint, anise, and c.u.mmin," 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 Sat.u.r.day 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 acc.u.mulate. 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 a.s.serted 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 pa.s.sage, 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.