The Grounds of Christianity Examined by Comparing The New Testament with the Old Part 10

CHAPTER XV.

APPLICATION OF THE TWO TESTS, SAID, IN DEUTERONOMY, TO HAVE BEEN GIVEN BY G.o.d, AS DISCRIMINATING A TRUE PROPHET FROM A FALSE ONE, TO THE CHARACTER AND ACTIONS OF JESUS.

In the 18th chapter of Deuteronomy G.o.d says,--?The Prophet which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other G.o.ds, even that Prophet shall die. And if thou say in thine heart, how shall we know (or distinguish,) the word which the Lord hath not spoken?? Here is the criterion. ?When a Prophet speaketh in the name of the Lord, if the thing follow not, nor come to pa.s.s; that is the thing which the Lord hath not spoken. That Prophet hath spoken presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him.?

Again, Deuteronomy 13, ?If there arise among you a Prophet, or a dreamer of dreams, and give you a sign or a wonder (i. e. a miracle,) and the sign or wonder come to pa.s.s, whereof he spake unto thee saying, let us go after other G.o.ds, which thou hast not known, and let us serve them: thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that Prophet, or that dreamer of dreams; for the Lord your G.o.d proveth (or tryeth) you, to know whether ye love the Lord your G.o.d with all you heart, and with all your soul.?

And now Christian reader, I ask you what you think of miracles, or ?signs and wonders,? as proof of a divine mission, to teach doctrines novel and innovating, after such clear and unequivocal language as this, from such high authority? I am sure, that if you are a sincere lover of truth, you must certainly abandon that ground as untenable. For, from these direc-tions, the Jews were commanded these things#. 1. That the Prophet who presumes to speak a word, as from G.o.d, which G.o.d hath not commanded him to speak, must be put to death. 2. That the test, or criterion by which they are to discern a false prophet from a true one, is this: not his miracles, but the fulfillment of his words. If what he says comes to pa.s.s, he is a true prophet; if the event foretold does not take place, he has spoken presump-tuously, and must die the death. 3. ?If any man arise in Israel,? and advise, or teach them to worship any other besides the Eternal; and in proof of the divinity of his mission promise a sign, or a wonder, and in fact does bring to pa.s.s the sign or wonder promised, he is nevertheless, not to be hearkened to; but to be put to death. And these criteria given by G.o.d, or Moses, as the means whereby they might know a true Prophet from a false one, most exquisitely prove his wisdom and foresight. For if he had not expressly excluded miracles, or ?signs and wonders,? from being proof of the divinity of doctrines, the barriers which divided his religion from those of idolaters, must have been broken down; since, as we have seen, well attested miracles (meaning always by miracles, ?signs and wonders,?

brought to pa.s.s by human agency,) are related to have been performed in proof of the divinity of every religion under Heaven.

But veritable prophecy is, and can he a proof proper only to a true Revelation, because none can know what is to come but G.o.d, and those sent by him. Accordingly, we find that the Jewish Prophets were not acknowledged as such, but on account of their foretelling the truth, or being supposed to do so.

Thus, it is said, 1 Samuel iii. 20, ?And all Israel, from Dan even to Beersheba, knew, that Samuel was established to be a Prophet of the Lord.? Why? Because he performed miracles? No! he performed none. But he was known as a Prophet because ?the Lord was with him, and let none of his words fall to the ground,? i.

e. fail of their accomplishment. The same, may be said of all the Hebrew Prophets, from Nathan to Malachi. For though Elijah and Elisha performed miracles, yet it was not in proof of their mission, for that was established before; but these miracles were occasional acts of beneficence, or protection, but were never considered, or offered by them as proofs of their being sent from G.o.d.

These things being by this time, it is hoped, made plain and evident, let us now test the character of Jesus as a true Prophet, by the criteria, by Christians, and by the Jews, believed to be given by G.o.d. If his prophecies were fulfilled, and if he taught the worship of no other being besides the Eternal, he was, according to the Old Testament, a true Prophet. But if any of his prophecies were not fulfilled, or, if he taught the worship of any other Being besides the Eternal, he was not a true Prophet.

And here it must be recollected, that those prophecies of Jesus only, can be brought forward in this question, which were committed to writing, before the event foretold came to pa.s.s; and therefore all Jesus? prophecies concerning the manner and circ.u.mstances of his death, &c., must be set aside, as all those events are allowed to have taken place before any of the Gospels were written; and of course it is not certain that Jesus did actually foretell them. This is acknowledged by Christians; and accordingly they confine themselves to bringing forward as conclusive evidence in their favour, his Prophecy of the Destruction of Jerusalem, and the events following. Here it is. Luke xxi. 21.

?When ye shall see Jerusalem com-pa.s.sed with armies, then know, that the desolation thereof is nigh. Then let them which are in Judea flee to the mountains, and let them which are in the midst of it, depart out, and let not them which are in the counter, enter thereinto. For these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled. But woe unto them that are with child, and to them which give suck in those days. For there shall be great distress in the land, and wrath upon this people. And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations, and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled. And there shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars, and upon the earth distress of nations with perplexity, the sea and waves roaring, man?s hearts failing them for fear, and for looking after those things which are coming on the earth: for the powers of the heavens shall be shaken. And then, shall they see the Son of Man coming in a cloud, with power, and great glory. And when these things begin to come to pa.s.s, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh. And he spake to them a parable, Behold the fig tree and all the trees. When they now shoot forth, ye see, and know of your own selves, that summer is now nigh at hand. So likewise ye, when ye see these things come to pa.s.s, know ye that the kingdom of G.o.d is nigh at hand. Verily I say unto you, this generation shall not pa.s.s away till all be fulfilled. Heaven and earth shall pa.s.s away, but my words shall not pa.s.s away.?

Such is the prophecy, and on it I would remark, first, that what Jesus here foretells concerning Jerusalem did in fact come to pa.s.s.

But that was not a fulfillment of his prophecy, but of Daniel?s, who did, as is set down in the 7th chapter of this work, expressly foretell the utter destruction of the city and the temple. And it was from Daniel that Jesus obtained his know-ledge of the approach of that event. For he expressly cites Daniel, Matthew xxiv. 15; Mark xiii. 14; and you will please to observe reader, that he refers to him in this quotation from Luke, in the words, ?these be the days of vengeance that all things which are written, may be fulfilled. So that in foretelling the destruction of Jerusalem he did no more than any Jew of that age, who attentively read their Scriptures, could have done, and. been no prophet either.

2. It would have been better for his reputation as a Prophet, if he had stopped short where Daniel stopped. For what he goes on to foretell has not been fulfilled. For he proceeds to say, that ?there shall be signs in the sun, and the moon, and the stars,? &c. All this is taken from the 2nd chapter of Joel, who says that such things shall take place; not, however, at the destruction of Jerusalem, but in ?the latter days,? at the time of the restoration of Israel. So that here Jesus has been rather unlucky. For, in truth, there were no signs in the sun, and the moon, and the stars, at that time; neither was there upon earth any ?great distress of nations,? except in Judea. Nor were ?the powers of heaven? shaken. Certainly, they did not see Jesus ?coming in the clouds of heaven, with power, and great glory;? and most a.s.suredly, that generation did pa.s.s away, and many others since, and ?all these things? have not been fulfilled.

I know very well, and have very often smiled over the contrivances by which learned Christians have endeavoured to save the credit of this prophecy. They say that--it is a figurative prophecy relating entirely to the destruction of Jerusalem, which did in fact take place in that generation; that the expressions about the ?distress of nations,? and ?the sea and waves roaring,? the ?signs in heaven,?

&c., are merely poetical; and that the shaking of the powers of heaven was merely the shaking and pulling-down the stones of the temple, figuratively called heaven; and that the glorious coming of Jesus ?in the clouds of heaven, with power, and great glory,?

meant merely, that he sent t.i.tus, and the Romans to destroy, Jerusalem, or perhaps might have been an invisible spectator himself.

The reader will easily see, that all this is nonsense. And the Commentator Grotius, after meddling a great while in this troublesome business, at length ventures to insinuate, that G.o.d might have suffered Jesus to be in a mistake about the time of his second coming, and to tell the Apostles what he did, for the sake of keeping up their spirits!

But to annihilate the figurative hypothesis of these well-meaning Commentators at once, it will be only necessary to bring forward the testimony following. 1. The other Evangelists make an express distinction between the destruction of Jerusalem and the coming of Jesus; and not only so, but represent him as saying, that after that event, (i. e., the destruction of Jerusalem, ?in those days,? i. e., in the same era in which that event took place,) ?the son of man shall come,? &c. Witness for me, Mark, chapter xiii. 24:--?But in those days, after that tribulation, (i. e., the destruction of Jerusalem) shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars of heaven shall fall, and the powers that are in heaven shall be shaken. And then shall they see the son of man coming in the clouds, with power and glory; and-then shall he send his angels, and shall gather his elect from the four winds, from the uttermost part of the earth, to the uttermost part of heaven Verily, I say unto you, that this generation shall not pa.s.s, till all these things be accomplished.? This is decisive, and cannot be evaded.

2. The Apostles and Primitive Christians believed that Jesus would come in that generation, as is evident from many pa.s.sages of the New Testament. Paul?s Epistles to the Thessalonians prove this, and contain an argument to them, intended to allay their terrors, or their impatience. John says in his first Epistle, chapter ii. 18, ?Little children, it is the last hour; and as ye have heard that Antichrist should come, even now (or already) there are many Antichrists, whereby know that it is the last hour.? Many pa.s.sages of similar import might be brought forward. The meaning of it is this--It appears from Paul?s 2nd Epistle to the Thessalonians, that just before the second coming of Jesus, there was a personage to appear who was to be called Antichrist, i. e., an enemy to the Messiah. (This notion they got from the interpretation given by the angel of the vision of the ?little horn? in Daniel.) John, therefore, seeing many Antichrists, i. e., opposers of the pretensions of Jesus, considered the sign, and thus knew that it was ??the last hour,? and that his master was soon to appear.

It appears from the 2nd Epistle of Peter, chapter iii., that there were many in his days who scoffed at his master, saying, contemptuously, ?where is the promise of his coming?? And Peter replies by telling them that their contempt is misplaced, for that ?one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.? John, in the 1st chapter of Revelations, says, concerning the coming of Jesus, ?Behold he cometh with clouds, and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him, and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him.? And in the last chapter of Revelations he represents Jesus, as saying, ?Surely I come quickly?!

In short, the Apostles, when they wanted to encourage their desponding proselytes, they usually did it with such words as these,--?Be anxious for nothing, the Lord is at hand.?--?Behold!

the Judge standeth before the day.?--?Be patient, therefore, brethren, (says James) for the coming of the Lord cometh nigh.?

And this persuasion did not end, as might be expected, with that century; for we find that the heathens frequently laughed at the expec-tations of the Primitive Christians, who, till the fourth century, never gave up the expectation of the impending advent of their master. Nay, so rooted was the idea in their minds, that, understanding the words of Jesus concerning John, ?if I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee,? to mean that that disciple should not die, but survive till the glorious appearance of his lord, so far were they from being convinced of the vanity of their expectations by that Apostle?s actual decease, that they insisted, that, though he was buried, he was not dead, but only slept, and that the earth over his body rose and fell with the action of his breathing!!

It is now hardly necessary to add, that Jesus did not at all answer the character of a true prophet, when tested by the criterion laid down in Deuteronomy for ascertaining the truth of the claims of a prophet to a divine mission.

Let us now see, whether he taught the worship of other beings beside the Eternal, for if he did, the other test laid down in Deuteronomy will also decide against him. Now, did he not command the worship of himself in these words, ?All men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father?? This, certainly, commands to render to Jesus the same homage which is rendered to G.o.d. I might prove that his disciples did worship him, by referring to many pa.s.sages in the New Testament, especially in the Revelations, in the latter part of which, Jesus is represented as saying, ?I am the Alpha, and the Omega, the beginning, and the end, the first, and, the last,? terms applied to the Eternal in Isaiah, where G.o.d says, (as if in express opposition to such doctrine) that ?there is no G.o.d with him: He knows not any; there was none before him, neither shall there be any after him.? I could also adduce many pa.s.sages relating to the Eternal of Hosts, quoted from the Old Testament, and applied in the New to Jesus. Witness ?the following:--John xii. 41, alludes to Isaiah vi. 5; Revelations i. 8,.11, 17, and ii. 8, to Isaiah xli. 4, xliii. 11, and xliv. 6; John xxi. 16, 17, and Revelations ii. 23, to 1st Kings viii. 39; John vii.

9, Jeremiah xi. 20, and xvii. 20, Revelations xx. 12,. to Isaiah xl.

10; and, to crown all, Jesus, in Revelations i. 13, 14,15, 16, 17, is described in almost the same words as is the Supreme G.o.d; ?the Ancient of Days? in Daniel, 7th chapter; and were there not other proofs in abundance to this purpose, this resemblance alone would decide me.

I now leave it to the cool judgment of the reader, whether Jesus prophecied truly, or did, or did not, teach the duty of paying religious homage to other beings besides G.o.d? and, if so, it is consequent, according to the tests by Christians acknowledged to be given by G.o.d himself in Deuteronomy, that if Jesus was not sent by, or from, him; for if he was--G.o.d?s own words would be contradicted by G.o.d?s own deeds.

CHAPTER XVI.

EXAMINATION OF THE EVIDENCE, EXTERNAL AND INTERNAL, IN FAVOR OF THE CREDIBILITY OF THE GOSPEL HISTORY.

In the preceding chapters, I have taken the New Testament as I found it, and have argued upon the supposition that Jesus and the apostles really said, and reasoned, as has been stated. I will now endeavour to show, by an examination of the authenticity of the four gospels, that it is not certain that they were really guilty of such mistakes as are related of them in those books.

*The life and doctrines of Jesus, and his followers, are contained in the pieces composing the volume called the New Testament. The genuineness of the books, i. e., whether they were written by those to whom they are ascribed, must be judged of, from the external testimony concerning them, and from internal marks in the books themselves; for the miraculous acts therein, and therein only, contained and related, cannot prove the truth and authenticity of the books, because the authority and credibility of the books themselves must be firmly established, before the miracles related in them can reasonably be admitted as real facts.

Now, the external evidence in favour of these books, is the testimony of those men called ?the fathers;? and as the value of testimony depends upon the character of the witnesses, it would be proper, first, to state as much as, can be learned of these men. As time will not permit me to adduce all that might be said upon this subject, I shall here only take upon me to a.s.sert, that they were most credulous, superst.i.tious, and weak men, and, what is worse, made no scruple of falsifying, to support and favour what they called ?the cause of truth;? for they were writers of apocryphal books, attributing them to the apostles, and, moreover, great miracle-mongers, who vamped up stories of prodigies to delude their followers, and which they themselves knew to be false. I say, I take upon me to a.s.sert this; and to confirm and establish this accusation, I refer the reader to Dr. Middleton?s ?Free Enquiry,? a learned Christian, who, therefore, had no interest to misrepresent this matter; and he will there find these accusations amply verified, and traits of character proved upon them. By no means favourable to the credibility of their testimony.

The first of these Fathers whose testimony is usually adduced to prove the authenticity of the Gospels, is Papias, a Disciple of John.

The character given of him by Eusebius is, that ?he was a superst.i.tious, and credulous man.? And this is easily proved by recording some of the stories, concerning Jesus, and his followers, written by this Papias in a book extant in the time of Eusebius. One of these stories is mentioned by Irenoeus, who says, that Papias had it from John; who, according to Papias, said, that Jesus said, that--? The days shall come, in which there shall be vines, which shall severally have ten thousand branches; and every one of these branches shall have ten thousand lesser branches; and every one of these branches shall have ten thousand twigs; and every one of these twigs shall have ten thousand cl.u.s.ters of grapes; and every one of these grapes being pressed shall yield two hundred and seventy-five gallons of wine. And when a man shall take hold of any of these sacred bunches, another bunch shall cry out ?I am a better bunch, take me, and bless the Lord by me!? There?s a Munchausen for you, reader! Well! this Papias is the first witness who lived after Matthew, who has spoken of his Gospel. He lived about the year 116 after Jesus. And what does he say of it? Why this. ?Matthew composed a writing of the Oracles (meaning without doubt the Doctrines of the Gospel,) in the Hebrew Language, and every one interpreted them as he was able.? So far as this Testimony goes it is positive evidence, that the only Gospel of Matthew extant in 116, was extant in Hebrew; and there was then no translation, of it, for ?every one interpreted as he was able.? The present gospel called of Matthew was then not written by him, for it is in Greek. And that it has not at all the air of being a translation is a.s.serted by most of the learned. As it stands then, it was not written by Matthew: and that it cannot be a translation of Matthew?s Hebrew, is not only plain from the circ.u.mstance of its style, and other marks understood by Biblical Critics, but can also be proved by another story related by this same Papias concerning the manner of the death of Judas. ?His body, and head (says Papias) became so swollen, that at length he could not get through a street in Jerusalem, where two chariots might pa.s.s abreast, and having fallen to the ground, he--burst asunder.

Now though this ridiculous story is undoubtedly false, yet it is not credible that Papias, who had so great a reverence for the Apostles as to collect and gather all ?their sayings,? would so flatly by his story of the death of Judas contradict the story of Matthew, if the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew contained that part of the Greek Gospel of Matthew which relates the manner of Judas? Death.

Justin Martyr lived after Papias, in the middle of the second century; and though he relates many circ.u.mstances agreeing in the main with those recorded in the Gospels, and appears to quote sayings of Jesus from some book or books; yet it is substantially acknowledged by Dr. Marsh, the learned annotator on Michaelis?s Introduction, that these quotations are so unlike the words, and circ.u.mstances in the received Evangelists to which they appear to correspond, that one of two things must be true; either, that Justin, who lived 140 years after Jesus, had never seen any of the present Gospels; or else, that they were in his time in a very different state from what they now are.

The next Christian father who mentions the Gospel of Matthew is Irenoeus, who says also that ?Matthew wrote his gospel in the Hebrew Language.? The character of Irenoeus is discoverable from his work against the Heresies of his time, to that I refer the Reader, who will find him to have been a zealous, though a very credulous, and ignorant man; for he believed the story of Papias just quoted, and many others equally absurd. He however furnishes this important intelligence, that in the second century, the Christian world was overrun with heresy, and a swarm of apocryphal, and spurious Books were received by many as genuine.

The next witness in favour of the Gospel is Tertullian, who lived in the latter end of the second century. And the soundness of his Judgment, and his capability to distinguish the genuine Gospels from among a hundred apocryphal ones, and above all his regard for truth, may be judged of from these proofs given by himself. He a.s.serts upon his own knowledge, ?I know it,? says he--?that the corpse of a dead Christian, at the first breath of the prayer made by the priest, on occasion of its own funeral, removed its hands from its sides, into the usual posture of a supplicant; and when the service was ended, restored them again to their former situation.?

(Tertul. de anima c. 51.) And he relates as a fact, which he, and all the orthodox of his time credited, that--?the body of another Christian already interred moved itself to one side of the grave to make room for another corpse which was going to be laid by it.?

And it is on the testimony of such men as these, that the authenticity of the gospels entirely depends as to external evidence; for these are all the witnesses that can be produced as speaking of them, who lived within two hundred years after Jesus: Three men, (for Justin cannot be reckoned as a witness in favour of the gospels.) Three men, who are all of them evidently credulous, and two of whom are certainly *****.

To convince a thinking man that histories recording such very extraordinary, ill supported, improbable facts as are contained in the gospels are divine, or even really written by the men to whom they are ascribed, and are not either some of the many spurious productions with which (as we learn from Irenoeus) that early age abounded, calculated to astonish the credulous, and superst.i.tious, or else writings of authors who were themselves infected with the grossest superst.i.tious credulity; of what use can it be to adduce the testimony of the very few writers, of the same, or next succeeding age, when the very reading of their works shews him that they themselves were tainted with that same superst.i.tious credulity, of which are accused the real authors of the New Testament?

It is an obvious rule in the admission of evidence in any cause whatsoever, that the more important the matter to be determined by it is, the more unsullied and unexceptionable ought the characters of the witnesses to be. And when no court of Justice, in determining a question of fraud to the amount of six pence, will admit the? testimony of witnesses who are themselves notoriously convicted of the same offence of which the defendant is accused; how can it be expected, that any reasonable, unprejudiced person, should admit similar evidence to be of weight, in a case of the greatest importance possible, not to himself only; but to the whole human race?

But there is still a greater defect in the testimony of those early writers, than their superst.i.tious credulity, I mean their disregard of honour, and veracity, in whatever concerned the cause of their particular system.

Though Luke a.s.serts, that many (even before he wrote his histories for the use of Theophilus,) had written upon the same subject: (who of course must have been of the Jewish nation,) and many more must have been written afterwards, whose writings must have been particularly valuable yet so singularly industrious have the fathers, and succeeding sons of the orthodox church been, in destroying every writing upon the subject of Christianity, which they could not by some means, or other, apply to the support of their own unholy superst.i.tion, that no work of importance of any Christian writer, within the three first centuries, hath been permitted to come down to us, except those books which they have thought fit to adopt, and transmit to us as the canon of apostolic scripture; and the works of a few other writers, who were all of them, not only converts from Paganism, but men who had been educated and well instructed in the Philosophic Schools of the latter Platonists, and Pythagoreans.

The established maxim of these schools was, that it was not lawful only, but commendable to deceive, and a.s.sert falsehoods for the sake of promoting what they considered as the cause of truth and piety, and the effects of this maxim, which was fully acted upon by both orthodox Christians, and heretics, produced a multiplicity of false, and spurious writings wherewith the second century abounded.

Nay, they did not spare from the operation of this maxim, the scriptures themselves. For they stuffed their copies of the Septuagint with a number of interpolated pretended prophecies concerning Jesus, and his death upon the cross; forgeries as weak, and contemptible, and clumsy in themselves, as they were impious and wicked. Whoever desires to see a number of them; may find them in the dispute, or dialogue of Justin with Trypho the Jew; where he will see the simple Justin bringing them out pa.s.sage after pa.s.sage against the stubborn Israelite, who contents himself with coolly answering, that these marvellous prophecies were not to be found in his Hebrew bible!

There is also another well known, incontrovertible proof of the deceit and falsehood of the leading Christians of early times, of which every person in the least conversant with the ecclesiastical history of those times must be convinced--their pretended power of working miracles! On this subject I shall say nothing, but refer the reader to the work of Dr. Middleton already mentioned, for an ample account of their lying wonders, which they imposed as miraculous upon the simple people.

With regard to the internal evidence for the authenticity of the writings; composing the New Testament, it is still less satisfactory than the external evidence. And this may be well believed, when the reader is informed that the great Semler, after spending his life in the study of ecclesiastical history; and antiquities, which he is allowed to have understood better than any before him, affirmed to his astonished coreligionists, that, except the Gospel of John, and the Apocalypse, the whole New Testament was a collection of forgeries written by the partizans of the Jewish and Gentile parties in the Christian church, and ent.i.tled apostolic, in order the better to answer their purpose. This opinion has been in part adopted in England, by a learned and shrewd clergyman named Evanson, who has almost demonstrated, that the Greek Gospel of Matthew was written in the second century after the birth of Jesus by a Gentile.

For he proves that it could not be written by a Jew, on account of geographical mistakes, and manifest ignorance of Jewish customs.

He also gives good reasons for rejecting the authenticity of some of the epistles. In short, he has poured such a flood of light upon the eyes of his terrified brethren, as will, ere long, no doubt enable them to see a little clearer than heretofore.

He gives several instances of geographical blunders in Matthew. I shall mention only one. Matthew says, in the 2nd chapter, that when Joseph, the husband of Mary, returned from Egypt, ?hearing that Archelaus reigned in Judea, he was afraid to go thither, and therefore turned aside, into the parts of Galilee.? Now this, as will appear from a map of Palestine, is just like saying, ?a man at Philadelphia, intending to go to the State of New York, on his route heard something which made him afraid to go thither, and therefore he turned aside--into Boston!?

That the author of that Gospel was ignorant of Jewish customs will be evident from the following circ.u.mstances. He says Jesus told Peter, that before the c.o.c.k crew he would deny him thrice; and that afterwards, when Peter was cursing and swearing, saying ?I know not the man! immediately the c.o.c.k crew.? Now it is unfortunate for the credit of this story, that it is well known, that in conformity with Jewish customs, at that time subsisting, no c.o.c.ks were allowed to be in Jerusalem, where Jesus was apprehended. This is known, and acknowledged by learned Christians, who have extricated themselves from this difficulty, by proving that the crowing of the c.o.c.k, here mentioned, does not mean, as it appears to mean, absolutely the crowing of a c.o.c.k, but that it means--what dost thou think reader? why it means---the sound of a trumpet!!*

According to Luke, as soon as Jesus was dead, Joseph of Arimathea went to Pilate, and begged his body, and hasted to bury it, because the Sabbath (which began at sunset,) drew on; that his female disciples attended the burial; observed how the body was placed in the sepulchre, and returned and prepared spices and ointments to embalm it with, before the Sabbath commenced; and then rested the Sabbath day, according to the commandment.

The pretended Matthew, however, tells us, that ?when the even was come (i. e., when the Sabbath day was actually begun,) Joseph went to beg the body--took it down, wrapped it in linen, and buried it; and that Mary Magdalene and the other Mary, were sitting over against the sepulchre. From the time that this writer has thought fit to allot for the burial of Jesus, it is evident, that he was not only no Jew, but so ignorant of the customs of the Jews, that he did not know that their day always began with the evening, or he would never have employed, Joseph in doing what no Jew would, nor dared to have done, after the commencement of the Sabbath. He takes no notice at all of the preparation made by the women, mentioned by Luke; for that would not have agreed with the sequel of his story. But to make up for that omission, he informs us of a circ.u.mstance not mentioned at all by the other Evangelists. For he tells us that ?on the next day which followeth the day of preparation, the Chief Priests, and Pharisees came together unto Pilate,? &c. ?The next day which followeth the day of preparation!!?--such is the periphrasis that he uses for the Sabbath day! It is well known that among the Jews it was, and is, customary to prepare, and set out, in the afternoon of the Friday, all the food and necessaries for every family during the Sabbath day. Because they were forbidden to light a fire, or do any servile work, on that day; and therefore Friday was very properly called ?the day of preparation.? But it appears to me next to impossible, that any Jew would call the sabbath ?the day that followeth the day of the preparation.? Yet this singular historian so denominates it, and moreover, goes on to inform us, that the chief priests, and Pharisees went to Pilate to ask for a guard to place round the sepulchre, till the third day, to prevent his disciples from stealing away his body, and then saying, that he was risen from the dead; and that after obtaining the governor?s permission, ?they, went, and secured the sepulchre by sealing the stone that was rolled against it; and setting a watch.? Though there appears nothing very strange in this account to a Christian, yet, I a.s.sure my reader, that to the Jews, it ever did, and must appear utterly incredible. For it is wonderful! that the Jewish rulers, and the rigorous Pharisees should in so public a manner thus violate the precept for observing the Sabbath day; for the penalty of this action of theirs was no less than death! More wonderful still is it that they should have so much better attended to, and comprehended the meaning of the prediction of Jesus to his disciples, than his own disciples did; and most wonderful of all, that a Roman Proconsul should consent to let his troops keep watch round a tomb, for fear it should be thought that a dead man was come to life again.