ページの画像
PDF
ePub

honestly assert, that we can understand from this chapter that there were forty days between the resurrection and ascension?

I have been thus particular and tedious, for the reason, that you all say, there is no discrepancy between this account and the one in the first chapter of Acts; where, it is said, Christ was seen forty days by his disciples, after his resurrection. As this latter book is dedicated to Theophilus, the same man to whom Luke's Gospel is dedicated; and as it refers to a former treatise, Luke is said to be its author; and therefore it is concluded that the first chapter of Acts is an explanation of the last of Luke's Gospel. The better conclusion is, that the latter is a contradiction of the forThis conclusion cannot be avoided, unless you say that Christ was backwards and forwards from and to heaven, for forty days previous to what was said to be his final ascension. It will be recollected, that Paul says Jesus visited and spoke to him, two or three years after all this.

mer.

I will call the readers attention to two expressions in this last chapter of Luke, viz: the injunction of Christ, that his disciples should not leave Jerusalem and their compliance with it. Now John tells us they did leave Jerusalem, and return to their original occupations; and that Jesus appeared to Peter and six others, while fishing on the sea of Tiberias.

We will now recapitulate. Matthew mentions but two women that went to the sepulchre. Mark in his first version two-in his second one. Luke three with an et cetera. John but one. Matthew says they went to see the sepulchre. Mark in his first version, to anoint the body—in his second, no object mentioned. Luke, to anoint the body. John mentions no object, but tells us that Joseph and Nicodemus wrapped him up in a hundred pound weight of spices. Matthew says they saw the angel sitting on a stone outside the sepulchre. Mark, sitting inside the sepulchre.Luke, two angels, and probably inside. John's woman saw none. Matthew says his women saw Jesus before they went to the disciples. Mark in his first version does not say they saw Jesus at all-in his second, his woman saw him before she went to the disciples. Luke does not mention the im portant circumstance of their seeing Jesus. John says that his woman, on seeing the stone rolled away, ran and told Peter and himself, then met Jesus in a garden, and then told the eleven. Matthew says his women ran to tell the disciples what the angel and Jesus told them. Mark says they did not tell it to any body. Luke says they did tell ail to the eleven, and the rest. John's woman was also communicative. Matthew mentions the guard and the earthquake. The others say nothing about either. Matthew says he first showed himself to his disciples in a mountain in Galilee. Mark mentions neither time nor place. Luke says Jérusalem, and in the evening after the resurrection. John does not specify the

place, but the time was the evening after the resurrection. Matthew, Mark and Luke mention but one appearance to the disciples. John three. Matthew says, Jesus and his disciples started for Galilee early in the morning of his resurrection. Luke says, he was on the road from Jerusalem to Emmaus, in the afternoon of that same day, and his disciples at Jerusalem in the evening. Peter says, (Luke makes him say it,) that Jesus did not appear to all the people, but unto witnesses chosen of God; even to us, who did eat and drink with him, after he rose from the dead. Witnesses of what? Why, of the resurrection. See Acts, first chapter, already commented on. Who were these witnesses? The same Luke tells us, they were the twelve. Say, that he meant those also that were with them when the two men returned from Emmaus. The question then arises, how many there were. Luke also tells you in this first of Acts, that there were, including the eleven, one hundred and twenty. We have no account of Jesus eating or drinking with any, except these. Paul says he appeared to above five hundred brethren at once. Which is your best witness, Paul or Peter? Where did these above five hundred see Jesus?— Your standard writers say, at Galilee; and allege, that this meeting at Galilee, for which Matthew says Jesus started immediately after his resurrection, and to which the eleven were told to hasten; did not take place, until at least a week after the resurrection. What assurance! The only reason these divines give, for the postpoment of this meeting, is, that the eleven dare not leave Jerusalem till the close of the feast; when it is evident from John, that Jesus himself before his crucifixion, did not attend one of these feasts. Besides if it was improper they should leave Jerusalem, why did he on Sunday morning, send word by the women, that they must meet him in Galilee, he then being on his way thither? Again. I believe you say, that at this time, the whole Jewish ritual, at least, was abolished. But Paul has said, that he appeared to above five hundred, after he had appeared to the twelve-and Paul must be supported—a place must be fixed for this next week's meeting. You have chosen a mount in Galilee; therefore Matthew's last chapter must be tortured for the support of this position. The angel must be made to say to the women: "Run and say to the eleven: Your Jesus has risen, and is on his way to Galilee, where he told you he would meet you after his resurrection, but you need not go there till next week; as your Lord would rather wait there that long, than that you should violate the least tittle of the Jewish law, by leaving Jerusalem a moment before the close of the feast." And Jesus himself must be made to say to these same women: "Run and tell my brethren that they go into Galilee, next week. True, I intend to see them all this very evening, and meet them frequently during the course of the week in Jerusalem, and shall go

to Galilee, for which place I am now on my way, merely for form sake, which journey I can perform in five minutes; as I am now a spiritual body, yet you better run and tell them of the appointment, for fear I may forget it, among the multiplicity of more important matters to be communicated to them." And the 16th and 17th verses must be made to read, "Then, viz., the next week, the eleven and above five hundred more of the brethren, went into Gallilee, into a mountain, where Jesus had appointed them, and when these above five hundred other brethren saw him, (the eleven having seen him daily for the week past in Jerusalem,) they worshipped him but some doubted." Now men who will thus torture a plain simple narration, to support a favorite position, can do any thing. Such zeal will prompt them to interpolate, to forge and erase; and it is to such zeal that we must attribute the interpolations, forgeries and erasures, practiced by the Fathers, upon each other, and upon every other author, when the practice of such knavery might aid a favorite cause. Can the reader have confidence in the integrity of men, who will resort to such means for the support of their cause; and can he have confidence in a cause that requires such means for its support? I have endeavored to put such a construction on the different accounts of the resurrection, as the plain meaning and common acceptation of theirwords will justify-such a construction, as every honest, ingenuous searcher after truth must and will put upon them.

When the angel says to the women, "go quickly and tell his disciples to go into Galilee," I understand him as intimating that the message should be speedily delivered to them that they might get under way immediately. And I appeal to the ingenuous reader, if he is not a dishonest man, who will assign any other reason. And when the author makes Jesus say to the women, "Go tell my brethren that they go into Galilee and there shall they see me." I understand him as asserting, that Jesus had not yet seen them and did not intend to see them until he should see them in Galilee. And he is a dishonest man, and an enemy to truth, who will pretend to understand him differently. When Matthew, after stating distinctly the day, proceeds to give an account of the transactions of that day, and among others of the proceedings of the Jewish Sanhedrim, and continues his account by passing to another transaction, without intimating a change of day, by the words: "and then:" I understand him as saying that this event happened on the same day. And he is a dishonest man and an enemy to truth, who will say that he meant next week. Your doctors and champions and standard writers pursue a course of argument and give their sanction to principles in the support of this cause that they would repudiate in every other,-principles for holding which, they would consider me or any other individual as mean and contempiible.

S

For example; they will insist that there is no discrepancy between the evangelists, as to the number of women that went to the sepulchre.— When we say that Matthew says but two, John but one, they reply; "You are unfair and even dishonest, Matthew and John were not obliged to mention all they mentioned as many as answered their purpose. Neither of them says that no more went." I agree, that according to the strict rules of special pleading, there is not a contradiction here. And do you mean to set down your evangelists as special pleaders, as speaking by the card, as modern diplomatists, as men whose writings must be construed strictly. Do you insist upon the exclusion of any conclusion not warranted by the strict and technical import of every word? Is no latitude to be given to us in any question of discrepancy and the widest range to be given to you in this and in every other? Do you intend to allow Matthew to say: “I said two women and the reader has no right to make any inferences, that there were more or no more. I have not said that there were more or no more, there may have been more, I have not said that there were not, neither have I said that there were." A man, who would resort to such quirks and shifts and niceties in the common concerns of life, would be spurned the society of all honest and honorable men. Should you ask Mr. A., who came passengers in the stage with him, from Frankfort to Louisville, this morning, and he should answer; Messrs. B. and C.; and should you, afterwards on further enquiry, ascertain that Mr. D. was also along, the person about whose journey you were anxious to be made certain, though not wishing your anxiety should be known; would you not condemn such evasion in Mr. A., as mean and contemptible. And should you on meeting him, upbraid him with it, and he should reply: "I was not obliged to tell you the whole truth,—all that were along. I was not under oath. I told you the truth as far as I went-you were not abliged to infer that Mr. D. was not along, from what I said.. I did not say he was not in the stage." I ask, if after such a reply, you would not set Mr. A. down as a contemptible puppy, one, who ought to be kicked out of the society of all high minded and honorable men? You would punish your own son o. ten years of age, who should resort to such quirks aud subterfuges. historian voluntarily makes himself the interrogatee, (let me coin a word,) of all mankind, and he is bound to answer every question, in a manner not to deceive or make false impressions, or leave the world in doubt, when in his power to prevent it. This matter of the resurrection, you allege, and the evangelists maintain, was of great importance to mankind. Every circumstance attending it, which they thought worthy of noticing, was also of importance and ought to have been stated fully and accurately, at least in such a manner, as not to leave us in doubt, and certainly not to

A

make a false impression. The whole world should be supposed to have asked Matthew and each of the others, this question: "What or how many women went to the sepulchre on the morning of the resurrection?" And he should have made his answer, as if the whole world were present, to hear him say: "Mary Magdalene and the other Mary." Was this an ingenuous answer, provided more than these went? If the world had received no other answer from any person; would it not have made a false impression? Would not all Christendom, had no other Gospel been written, have been at this day under the false impression, that there were but two women that went to the sepulchre? Was this answer a suppressian of the truth? Proceeding on the supposition, that Matthew was an ingenuous and honest man, you are compelled to say with me, that according to his account, there were but two women that went to the sepulchre on the morning of the resurrection. In short, you are compelled to admit, that, Matthew has either been guilty of a piece of vulgar trickery or that Luke has stated an absolute falsehood. These observations apply to many other

cases.

men.

Your divines proceed upon the ground, that no one of these writers can be guilty of a suppression of the truth-in other words, that the suppression of truth cannot in any case be guilt in any one of your inspired penWhat would be esteemed criminal or shameful in you or me, is all right and proper and even praiseworthy in them. You arrive at this conclusion, by the aid of your patcnt elixir or universal solvent: "They were inspired therefore could do no wrong."

I have been occasionally much amused, at witnessing the shouts of victory, raised by many a Christian champion over the poor Jew as panoplied by Matthew. Thousands appear to be under the impression, that no other argument can be urged against the resurrection, than the one Matthew has put into the mouth of the Jew, and that when this is answered, victory is complete.

If there were nothing else; the account given by Matthew of the proceedings of the chief priests and the guard is sufficient to authorize us to brand him as an impostor. In the first place, how did Matthew know what transpired at the secret conclave of the chief priests? You may answer, that Nicodemus told him. Let that go. I am aware, that Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus are represented as double-faced gentlemen. Can it be possible, that the most enlightened body of the Jewish nation would give money to soldiers to propogate a story, that carried an absurdity upon the face of it? The soldiers could not know who took the body away, if they had slept. Admit, that the soldiers were bribed to state that they slept, from which it might be inferred, that the disciples came by night and

« 前へ次へ »