ページの画像
PDF
ePub

and how he was conducting himself, went out or started to go and lay hold on him; "for they said he is beside himself." In the 31st verse of this same chapter, Mark lets us know, who these kinsfolk were. They were no other than his mother and brethren, for he says: "Then came his brethren and his mother, and standing without," &c., as detailed by Matthew.The truth is, according to the accounts given us by the evangelists, that Jesus was well aware, in what light his career was viewed by his kin.— He was, no doubt, well aware of their object in coming to the place, where he was holding forth. To use a familiar phrase, he smoked them; he did not intend they should lay hold of him, and put him in a straight jacket. And as they could not get at him, he did not intend to go to them. John in his 7th chapter, informs us that his brethren had jeered and insulted him, plainly insinuating to his face, that he was an impostor. His pretensions, according to all of his biographers, were a subject of railery with all the family.

Can all these statements be true? Can it be true that Mary was conscious of all the miracles attending the conception, birth and infancy of her son, as detailed by Matthew and Luke, and also true, that she considered him a maniac, for asserting that he was, what an angel of God had vouchsafed to her, he should be? The thing is impossible. How could his brothers and sisters have rejected him? Must not the history of his infancy have been familiar to all of them? Did the parents keep their journey to Egypt and the cause of it and the visit of the wise men, as profound secrets from all their children? What became of all the gold given by the Magi? It is reasonable to suppose, that Mary must have kept a few ́pieces for a memento, and that these would have been shown to the family, and their history made known to them. We should naturally conclude, that the other boys would have been for pushing their elder brother forward, to take the station he was destined to occupy; instead of throwing obstacles in his way. Strange that all these primary miracles should have made a convert of no one in the family, not even of the mother. The Jew Appelles, would not believe it; neither will I.

We never hear anything of Joseph after the sparring of his son with the Doctors, in the temple.

Your teachers are sadly perplexed to ascertain who these.persons were, that were called Christs' brothers and sisters. Some, I believe, have said they were Josephs' children by a first wife, the fact of his ever having married this first wife being assumed without the least data whatever.Others say (our American Doctors universally,) that they were the children of the virgin's sister, whose name was Mary also, and whose husband was Cleopas; therefore, although called brothers, they were in fact first

cousins of Jesus. Now our plain people, when they see the word brothers in any book, understand it to mean two male persons, who have the same father and mother, or the same father or mother; and as they learn from your testament that Joseph did not put away his wife Mary, but that he went with her to Jerusalem every year at the passover, until Jesus was twelve years old, and are never informed of his death; when they read of the brothers and sisters of Jesus, they, poor souls, are very apt to think that these persons were the sons and daughters of Joseph and Mary; especially since the biographers make the people of Nazareth ask, if Jesus was not the son of Joseph the carpenter; and if his brothers and sisters were not living among them. The words of Matthew are: "Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren James and Joses, and Simon and Judas?" Can any man, learned or unlearned, wise or simple, doubt as to the sense or meaning of the author here? Is it not plain, that he means to tell us, that the Carpenter and Mary were the father and mother of James and Joses, and Simon and Judas, as well as of Jesus?

If this is not the construction, then the people ought not to read the book; for it will only mislead them, and the claim of the Pope is well founded.

Granting for a moment that brother does not mean brother, in other words, that these four persons were not, in truth, the brothers of Jesus, but for some reason that does not appear, were so called-I proceed to show: First, that no one of them, according to the four evangelists, was of the twelve disciples; and, secondly, that Paul contradicts the whole four.

You must confess that there is a disagreement between the three first evangelists, as to the names of the twelve disciples. The translators make them all say that the second James was the son of Alpheus,—they make Luke say, that the loyal Judas was the brother of this James.Matthew and Mark mention but one Judas, the traitor. Their Lebbeus or Thadeus, is in the place of Luke's loyal Judas; but they do not intimate that Thadeus was the son of Alpheus, or brother of James. John gives us the names of but four of these twelve, one of which is Nathaniel. The three first plainly intimate that none of those persons called Christ's brothers, were of the twelve. John does more; for in his 6th chapter, he tells us that, on a certain occasion, some of those who had followed Jesus, left him; whereupon he said to the twelve, "Will ye go away also? have not I chosen you twelve?" John commences his 7th chapter in these words: "After these things,' ," that is, after Jesus had chosen the twelve, "Jesus walked in Galilee," &c. John then proceeds to give an account of

the insults offered to Jesus by his brethren, and by way of explanation, he says: "For neither did his brethren believe in him." His brethren, therefore could not have been of the twelve.

Besides James, the son of Alpheus, there was another James, the son of Zebedee, who was one of the twelve; so there were two James' among the twelve. The author of the Acts of the Apostles, says that Herod put to death this latter James, the son of Zebedee. He also tells us, that one of these twelve having proved a traitor, and having hung or thrown himself from a precipice, another was chosen, who was numbered with the eleven apostles. These twelve then, and no others, according to Luke, were called apostles. They were, by way of eminence, called the apostles of Jesus Christ, to witness of his resurrection; because, says this author, they had been with him from the baptism of John, till his ascension.-You by this time are ready to ask, where the difficulty or discrepancy is, of which I spoke. I will tell you. The man Paul, in his letter to the Galatians, states that on his return from Damascus to Jerusalem, he saw Peter and none other of the apostles except James, the Lord's brother.

The argument is this: all the evangelists agree that James, the Lord's brother, was not one of the twelve disciples. No one, not of the twelve, except Matthias, according to Luke, could be called one of the apostles. Yet Paul calls James, the Lord's brother, another of the apostles, ranking him with Peter. My second position is fully sustained by Luke in his first of acts; for he says that, besides the eleven disciples, there were upwards of a hundred persons then at Jerusalem, who had companied with them (the eleven) all the time, the Lord Jesus went in and out among them, from the baptism of John unto the ascension of Jesus; and out of these one, and but one was to be ordained. Now for what purpose? Why "to witness," says Peter, "with us (the eleven) of the resurrection." Two of these persons, to whom allusion had been made, and of whom one was to be chosen, were put in nomination. Matthias was elected. Previous to the final vote or drawing the lots, they (the eleven) prayed and said: "Thou Lord, which knowest the hearts of all men, show whether of these two thou hast chosen, that he may take part of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas by transgression fell." &c. The lot fell upon Matthias, and he was numbered with the eleven apostles. The complement was now again made up-the vacancy was now filled-—no more were to be elected, twelve being the limit. James, the Lord's brother, was not one of the original twelve-he was not elected; in truth, he was ineligible-he had not the proper qualifications--he was not one of those who had companied with them, from the beginning. You may reconcile Paul with the evangelists, as you best can.

The truth is, Paul appears to be ignorant of the dramatis Persona.He speaks of Christ showing himself "to Cephas, (Peter,)--then to the twelve;" thus giving us to understand, that Peter was not of the twelve, and also that there were twelve, when according to all the evangelists there were but eleven disciples from the time of the resurrection, to the final ascension.

[ocr errors]

CHAPTER IX.

It has been frequently asserted, that there is no direct technical contradiction in the New Testament. I think I have already shown one, as to the time of Johns' imprisonment. I agree, that the assertion of a fact by one writer and the silence of another, as to this same fact, is not a contradiction; so the statement of Luke, that Joseph took Mary and her son direct from Jerusalem to Nazareth, is not a contradiction of Matthew, who says, he took them from Bethlehem to Egypt. Both statements may be true.— Had both these authors been particular, as to time, there could have been no difficulty on the subject. A direct contradiction, or perfect consistency of statement, would have been manifest. It is difficult to find any two authors that directly contradict each other, except as to the time at which the events they detail, may be said to have happened; unless one writes after the other, and for the express purpose of contradiction. It is not the business of the historian or biographer proper, to state that the nation or the individual, that may be the subject of his history. did not do this or that, or that this or that event did not happen. This is the province of the critic or reviewer. And I further agree, that there can be contradictions between two authors, as to time and place, and still the facts related by both be true. So the statements of Matthew, Mark and Luke, that John was put in prison before Jesus went to Galilee, and before he entered upon his ministry, and the contradictory statement of John, the evangelist, that the baptist was not put in prison till sometime after Christ had entered upon his ministry, neither prove nor disprove the imprisonment of the baptist. So if they disagree as to the place where Christ was, and what he was doing during the forty or fifty days immediately preceding this imprisonment, one party has made a false statement; and as it cannot be determined which, the testimony of both is to be rejected-neither proving the temptation of Jesus or imprisonment of John. I need not remind the intelligent reader, that the averments of the time and place of the happenning of a fact may be material, and that a wilfully false averment as to either by a witness, in a court of justice, may be perjury.

That four or more individuals should undertake to write an account of the sayings and doings of another during a very few months of his life; and that individual a vicegerent of God from heaven; and his doings miracles; and they his special favorites and supernaturally influenced by the spirit of truth; their books to be the foundation of a religion, in which all

« 前へ次へ »