purpose; and as they intended to have Zacharias, the son of *Baruch, one of the most eminent citizens, slain." Then, after giving an account of his mock trial, Josephus adds: "So two of the boldest fell upon Zacharias, in the middle of the temple, and slew him." You may contend that Jesus, in this verse, (for Matthew tells us it was his language) alluded to Zachariah, the son of Jehoiada, who, according to 2d Kings, 24. 21. was slain in the court of the house of the Lord. Grant it; and grant that Matthew, through inadvertence, misquoted him, yet, how will you account for his stumbling on the name of Barachias? Grant that there were two Zacharias slain in the court of the temple, one some hundreds of years before the other-the first, the son of Jehoiada; the latter, the son of Barachias; and that Christ alluded to the former, the question still recurs, How came Matthew to stumble upon the name of the father of the latter? His giving us the true name of the father of the latter, admitting a misquotation on his part, is proof conclusive, that the latter incident was familiar to him. Conclusive, I say, unless you can shew that Jehoiada and Barachias were

synonymous.

I shall now proceed to examine this book, and all the others of the New Testament, on the supposition that the authors were the very persons spoken of in the volume, under the names of Matthew, or Levi, the publican; John Mark, Luke, the beloved physician; Saul of Tarsus; John, the son of Zebedee; Simon Peter, James, and Jude, the brothers of Jesus, or the sons of Alpheus. I do not wish to be understood, here, as asserting, that the brothers of Jesus, and the sons of Alpheus, were the same persons; but I mean to say, the christians may determine whether they shall be the one or the other. Matthew begins his account, by giving us the genealogy of a certain person by the name of Joseph, a carpenter, it is said of Galilee, a district of Judea. The country, formerly inhabited by Jews and Israelites, is sometimes called the land of Canaan; sometimes the Holy Land; sometimes Palestine; and sometimes Judea, though, originally, that part of it allotted to Judah, was called Judah, or Judea. It lies on the eastern shore of the Mediterranean, and is about one-fourth as large as Tennessee. Galilee was one of its northernmost districts. Nazareth, the town where this Joseph is said, by Luke, to have lived previous to the birth of Christ, is about fifty miles north of Jerusalem. I have already remarked, that Egypt is but one or two hundred miles from the latter city.

That this Joseph had a genealogy, is certain. That he might have descended from Judah, through Solomon, may or may not be true. It is a matter I shall not labor. But why state this man's pedigree? Why wish

* Baruch for Barachias, as John for Johannis, and Roman for Romanos, &c. &c.

to shew that he descended from Judah?

Matthew no where tells, nor does he intimate the reason why he gave this genealogy. As there appears to be no connexion between it and the subsequent narrative, it is suggested, whether it be not an interpolation.

If Matthew wrote it, his object, you say, was to prove that Christ descended from Judah. A most singular inference this; as, in the verse following the genealogy, he expressly informs us that Joseph was not the father of Jesus. You might, with the same propriety, have made the same inference, had he given the genealogy of Joseph of Arithmathea, or Gamaliel. It is immaterial to the inquiry respecting Christ's descent, what this or any other Joseph's genealogy was, unless you prove him the father of Jesus. But, you say, Luke shows that Mary, the mother of Jesus, descended from Judah, through David. I deny it. But granting, for a moment, that he does. Did Matthew and Luke write in concert? You deny this. We are now inquiring whether Matthew has shewn, or attempted to shew, that Christ descended from Judah. You must admit that he has done neither, but, on the contrary, has asserted, that he did not descend from Judah, on the side of his father. What Luke may have written, cannot affect this questión, especially as you all contend that Matthew wrote first. The conclusion is, that this follower, and inspired apostle of Christ, has given us a long pedigree of an obscure individual, without an object; or that some ignorant zealot has supplied this book with its present preface. Nothing has ever surprised me more than the assertions of your learned doctors, that Luke has given the genealogy of Christ on the maternal side. He commences it in these words: "And Jesus began to be about thirty years old, being, as was supposed, the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli, which was the son, &c.; and so it continues, son all the way through. Not a female is mentioned in any part of it. I believe some of your bishops pretend to know all about the family of Mary and Joseph, and to give the reasons why Joseph could be called the son of two fathers; for Matthew says he was the son of Jacob. If they pretend to know more about these persons than can be learned from the Evangelists, let them shew from what source they gathered this information. We want to know book and page. If they tell us this or that father wrote all about it, then we shall ask, how he knew? If you will believe the different sectarians, each of these fathers must have been the father of many lies.

If Joseph was not his father, we are naturally led to ask, who was? Matthew and Luke both inform us, that no man was his father. The question, who or what begat him, is not yet answered. These writers inform us, that something, or somebody they call the Holy Ghost, begat him. Admitting that we can conceive of the Holy Ghost, let me put the plain

question, which any man, woman, or child, can decide as well as a Newton or a Locke, a Voltaire, or a Volney. Let me put it to every individual of my country, Would you believe any woman of your acquaintance-she may be a married woman, for whom it would be no disgrace to be found with child-she may be one of the most exemplary and truth-telling women in the circle of your acquaintance-I ask, would you believe this woman, should she come into one of your courts of justice, and make oath that she was with child, without the aid of a man, but by the Holy Ghost? I am bold to affirm, you would not. No, you would not believe her, even if her neighbors and husband should swear that they saw the Holy Ghost overshadowing her. Why, then, will you believe this man, Matthew, who does not even condescend to tell us that Mary told him what he states. He avers that Joseph had a dream, which confirmed him that his wife's tale was true; but this Evangelist does not tell us that Joseph related to him this dream. Mary is the only human being who could testify, knowingly, in this matter; and we have not even her hearsay testimony. Matthew roundly asserts the fact, but does not tell us how he acquired his information. Such testimony, from the most respectable man in our community, would not send a notorious offender to the pillory. Let this witness state, in general terms only: "The prisoner at the bar stole the money," and refuse to state further, and no jurors would convict. They would desire to ask the witness, how he knew? whether the prisoner had confessed the theft to him? whether he saw him take the money, or had seen it in his possession, knowing it to be the stolen money?

Matthew goes into none of these particulars. You have not the direct, or even the hearsay testimony, of the only person (the mother) who could testify, knowingly, to the fact. She would have been an interested witnes, had she been introduced. The desire to wipe out the disgrace, and purge the crime of fornication, or adultery, would have gone far to discredit her testimony before any jury, even if her tale had not been miraculous. Yet you will believe Matthew's round and sweeping assertion of a miracle, and, at the same time, confess that you would not believe the sworn allegation of your most respectable matron, embracing the particulars of a similar miracle, even if supported by the oaths of her husband and friends, all equally respectable. Now, let us hear you reason on these cases. the case supposed, you would say: I can hardly bring myself to believe that Madam, who has uniformly supported a spotless reputation, would wilfully perjure herself—she is no doubt deceived-probably there has been some temporary alienation of mind; and, while in this situation, she may have had the address to impose upon her husband and friends; and what she merely fancied, she now alleges as fact. Yet, rather than believe that she

In

is pregnant by the Holy Ghost, I will set her husband and friends down as perjured wretches." We will now attend to your argument in the case before us. "The prophets (say you) foretold just such a personage hundreds of years before he made his appearance." Grant that they did assert, that just such a person, as described by the Evangelists, was to appear, and at the very time that they said he did appear; that he was to be begotten just as they say he was begotten; that he was to be born just as they say he was born; and that he was to be crucified, rise from the dead, and ascend to heaven, just as they say he did; yet these prophets saying so, does not prove it was so. Their saying that a person should be begotten by the Holy Ghost, suffer under Pontius Pilate, be crucified, dead and buried, and rise and ascend to heaven, did not prove, or have the least tendency to prove, that these facts would happen; nor can their assertions be now quoted to prove that they have happened. I have labored this point before. You will recollect the case put, by way of illustration, of my growing fifty feet high. You continue: "God made Abraham his favorite, and determined that in his seed all the families of the earth should be blessed. This grace, or partiality, descended to Isaac, from Isaac to Jacob, and from Jacob to Judah, from whom this seed, or the Saviour, Jesus Christ, was to trace his descent, through David." Grant that Moses, and other writers of the old testament, expressly say all this, which I deny, the question arises, from what source these authors acquired their information. Who told Moses, for instance, that God appeared to Abraham so frequently, and talked so much and so familiarly? This question you cannot an~ swer to your own satisfaction, for Moses is silent upon it. You conjecture that God communicated to him all the facts which he has recorded. Grant that Moses so asserts-will you believe him?

This is a question precisely similar to the one now before us; and I have, as I think, incontrovertibly shown, that if you would not believe any individual of the present day, some Catholic priest, a Joe Smith, a Matthias, or (if you please) the most respectable man in community, should he assert that God appeared and talked to him, you cannot believe Moses. I refer you to the argument in chapter I. As a last resort, you say: "Matthew was inspired. Why, he was one of the apostles of Jesus Christ! Who was the Son of God? and who gave his apostles his holy spirit, soon after leaving the world, that they might testify of him, and establish his holy religion? I will believe God before I will man," &c. The argument is closed, the debate at an end. You have settled the question at once, by taking for granted, the whole matter in controversy. I have frequently protested against this circular mode of argument. Still, I wish to advert to certain expressions which are familiar with you christians, such as God's

testimony, and holy religion. You have liberty to use these to each other; but it is an insult to an infidel to use them when in controversy with him. You might talk about God's testimony, if he had ever spoken to you; but, as he never has, you can only arrive at this testimony through the testimony of man. If you believe Moses, for instance, you may be said to have the testimony of God; for Moses tells us what God said to him; that is, you believe the testimony of Moses, a man, and, through this, you arrive at the testimony of God. Yet, how often do we hear your divines, in what they choose to call their sacred desks, exclaim, "Oh, ye vile infidels, who will neither believe the testimony of man nor of God," when they know full well, that all their pretended testimony of God is obtained from, or contained in, the writings of certain` men. Your terms, sacred, holy, pure, and good, when applied to your religion, are so many petitio principii. You say to the infidel: "Why do you wish to overthrow our holy religion?” His answer ought to be: "If your religion be holy, by which, you mean, true and pure, I would not raise a finger for its destruction." Your children, from their infancy, have been compelled to associate the ideas of goodness, purity, and holiness, with your religion; so that, to make war upon it, strikes them with horror, as much so as to make war upon chastity, sobriety, honesty, and fair dealing. But Christ, you say, gave his apostles his holy spirit. Who told you so? Why, one of the men who states the fact now under discussion. Here, then, is your circle: "Matthew and Luke say, that Mary was gotten with child by the Holy Ghost. This allegation, although of a miracle, should be believed, because Christ gave his holy spirit to these apostles, and the first converts. It was a spirit of truth; they, therefore, could speak nothing but truth." When asked, how you became convinced of this miracle, viz: the gift of this holy spirit to the apostles, you reply: "Oh, Luke told us so in his book of Acts." A witness, according to this mode of reasoning, establishes his claim to your faith, in his narration of one miracle, by relating another. therefore, give no good reason why Matthew's statement should be believed, that cannot be given for any similar one made at the present day; or you can give no good reason why our supposed lady's statement should be disbelieved, that will not apply, with much greater force, to Matthew's. *

You can,

But Matthew quotes a prophecy, in point, to prove his statement. I have more than once stated, and proved, that a prophecy cannot prove a fact; and will now prove, that the citation of this prophecy, "Behold, a virgin shall conceive," &c. so far from supporting, throws distrust upon his whole book. This prophecy is found in the 7th chapter of Isaiah. In order to understand it, we must ascertain under what circumstances, and to whom, it was delivered. It appears to have been spoken to Ahaz, then