ページの画像
PDF
ePub

CHAPTER XII.

Perhaps the most fatal discrepancy between the writers of the New Testament, is that respecting the time at which Christ is said to have made known his pretensions. And in this particular, each, as he is commonly understood contradicts himself. All assert, that at this baptism of Jesus, a dove appeared and sat upon him, and at the same time, a voice was heard from heaven, saying: "This is my beloved son in whom I am well pleased.” This was at Bethabara on the Jordan, where, we are told, thousands were congregated.

The first inquiry is, who saw the dove and heard the voice. You are all ready to answer, that the whole multitude there assembled, saw and heard. So much the worse for the evangelists, but not one of them says so. Matthew and Mark assert, expressly to the contrary, as to the dove, and leave it doubtful as to the voice. The language of Matthew is: "And lo! the heavens were opened unto him, (Jesus) and he saw the spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him; and lo a voice from heaven saying, &c." How did Matthew know this, if Jesus only saw and heard? An honest and fair construction will not make Matthew say, that the multitude heard the voice. Mark gives the same version of this matter. Luke tells us, that Jesus was the last who was baptised by John at Bethabara. The fair inference is, that no one, but the administrator, was present to witness the baptism, or the spiritual prodigies. John the Baptist tells John the evangelist, that he saw the dove, or spirit of God, descending upon Jesus, but says nothing about the voice. I am willing to admit, that it can not be fairly inferred from the accounts given of this transaction, that the dove was seen, or voice heard, by any other than Jesus and John. You all say, that Jesus was then and there anointed by God, with the Holy Spirit, it having then been poured upon him. He thence became Christos, or Christ the Anointed. If therefore, you contend that all Judea and Jerusalem, and the regions round about, saw this anointing, and heard this voice, you make the first three evangelists the most stupid and inconsistent writers that ever lived; for they all tell us, that Jesus kept this unction, and his sonship, a profound secret even from his disciples, till near the close of his ministry. With what propriety could he enjoin upon the twelve to tell no man, that he was Christ, the son of the living God, if all Judea and Jerusalem, and the regions round about, had seen the spirit of God constituting

him the one, and heard his voice from heaven, proclaiming him the other. John's first chapters are in confirmation of my construction; for in them we are given plainly to understand, that Andrew and Peter, and Philip and Nathaniel, did not know the character of Jesus, even after his baptism, till John informed them.

Now Andrew had been an attendant upon John, and must be presumed to have witnessed Jesus' baptism, and to have seen the dove and heard the voice, if the one was seen, and the other heard by all the congregation. But this is inconsistent with the baptist's saying to him-"Behold the Lamb of God," and giving him the reason why he knew it; and also inconsisitent with Andrews running to find Peter, and telling him after his interview with Christ, and not before, "we have found the Christ;" and furthermore inconsistent with the reason given by Nathaniel, who was at Bethabara, and must have heard of these celestial prodigies, why he confessed him to be the son of God, viz: because Jesus saw him under the fig tree. God's voice would have been more satisfactory proof than that.

But John in his 5th Chap. tells us plainly, that the multitude did see the dove, and hear the voice. He therein represents Christ as endeavoring to establish his pretensions before a company of Jews. Granting Jesus his premises, his argument is very logical. He first lays down the undeniable principle, that the testimony of him who lays claim to a Messiahship, and the sonship of God, ought not to be regarded—that they ought not to rely upon his mere ipse dixit as proof of his high pretensions. This is all fair and proper. He then proves his Messiahship by appealing to his works. Then he states his sonship, by alleging, that the Father had testified of him; and proves it by appealing to the appearance of the dove, and to the voice from heaven. This was virtually alleging that a great portion of the inhabitants of Judea were at Bethabara to witness both, and that some of those present were of the number. I am aware, that according to our common translation, Christ is made to state the proposition, and then tell the people that they must depend upon his own ipse dixit for the proof, all which is in direct violation of the principle upon which he started. It reads thus in our common translation: "The father also, which sent me, hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape.” This is stating a proposition, and making the utmost exertions to disprove it t—an absurdity that no man was ever guilty of. It ought to read, as we find it in the translations of the most learned biblical scholars: "Did ye not, at a certain time, hear his voice-did ye not see his shape?" As at present translated, it is, as if I should say: "The President has spoken highly of me, though no man ever heard him say a word about me."

You are here in a dilemma.

If you contend that all the evangelists are

to be understood as asserting, that the multitude saw the dove, and heard the voice, then the first three contradict, or are inconsistent with themselves; for they make Jesus, towards the close of his ministry, ask his disciples, who men said that he was. On the supposition, that this dove was seen, and voice heard, by so great a multitude, that Jesus could refer to them, before a promiscuous company of Jews, in proof of his pretensions, he could not, with the least propriety, ask his disciples this question. They are made to answer: "Some say Elias, some Jonn the Baptist." This answer is also irreconcilable with the aforesaid supposition. Peter, however, said, that he (Jesus) was the Christ, the son of the living God. Jesus then assures him, that flesh and blood had not revealed it unto him, but his father who was in heaven. (This is in direct contradiction to John, who tells us, that Andrew, a piece of flesh and blood, told this same Peter, that Jesus was the Christ.) I have clearly shown the folly and absurdity of this charge, on the supposition that the dove was seen, and voice heard by all the congregation.

If you contend, that the evangelists are not, when giving an account of his baptism, to be understood as asserting, that the dove was seen, and a voice heard, then you make John irreconcilable with himself, and all the rest; for no honest and rational man will contend, that the King's translation of the 37th verse of his 5th chapter, is correct; and in his first chapter he represents those who were at Bethabara, where Christ was baptised, as being ignorant of his divine character.

But, have all this as you please. Matthew and Mark represent him as working miracles, (not exactly for the purpose of producing faith, for his miracles were directly as the faith of the people—no faith, no miracles— much faith, many miracles,) and requiring faith of the people. Faith in what? That he was Christ, the son of the living God? By no means; for he carefully conceals, even from his disciples, his Messiahship and sonship, till near the close of his ministry. And when he ascertains that they understand both, he strictly charges them to tell no one that he was the Christ. Yet John gives us to understand, that Jesus divulged his real character in full, very soon after his first setting out, makes him declare to Nicodemus, that he was the only begotten son of God-to the woman of Samaria, that he was the Christ; and strongly contend before a company of Jews, that he was both the Messiah and the Son.

I have already mentioned many important particulars in which John cannot be reconciled with the others. I now state, and will prove, that on a fair construction, he contradicts Matthew and Luke, as to the place of Christ's birth, and descent. In his seventh chapter he tells us, that certain persons believed on him as the Christ, "But some said shall Christ come out

of Galilee?

Hath not the scripture said that Christ cometh of the seed of David, and out of the town of Bethlehem where David was." This form of objection is equivalent to saying: "This man cometh not of the seed of David, nor out of the town of Bethlehem, and therefore cannot be the Christ." John does not correct them, and therefore, he is to be presumed as admitting the truth of their allegation, but denying their conclusion.

If the future historian shall write, that the people of the United States were about to support Daniel Webster for President, but some said, "does not the constitution say, that he must be a native born citizen of the United States; in order to be eligible to this high office," would not posterity believe, and be authorised to believe, that he was not born in the United States? They could have no other belief, unless the author should give the true place of his birth in some other part of his work, which John has not done as to Christ. I insist, that the statement by an author, of an objection, without an answer or denial, is equivalent to an admission of its truth. I must again remind the reader, that these evangelists did not write in concert, but independently of each other.

!

CHAPTER XIII.

I have already noticed one of Matthew's quotations from the prophecies, respecting a conception by a virgin. In his second chapter he introduces many others, all in this form: "That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying." As many of these quotations are evidently not prophecies, but matters of history, having no relation to Christ, your teachers have come to the conclusion, that Matthew did not mean what his words import, but that he quoted to show a mere consimilarity (I believe this is the word) of circumstances; in other words, that Matthew was another Dr. Pangloss, or Pangloss another Matthew.

A very learned Bishop, (Dr. Sykes) has lately confessed, that the passage in Isaiah, respecting the virgin, was not a prediction of Christ, and contends that Matthew did not quote it as such. His language is: "The evangelist, in citing this passage, (which, as appears by the context, concerned a child which was to be born before the land should be forsaken by Rezin and Pekah, who then invaded Judea, and overran it) only cited them (it) as words of Isaiah, remarkably agreeable to the miraculous birth of Jesus, and not as a prophecy of his birth. Matthew, observing the providential disposition of things, and seeing the surpassing and extraordinary birth of the Messiah, in so wonderful a manner, expressed it thus: “All this was done that it might be fulfilled, which was spoken of the Lord by the Prophet:" but yet he meant no more than an accommodation of the prophet's words to the case in hand."

This learned Doctor admits the correctness of the position for which we contend, viz; that this child was born before the overthrow of Rezin and Pekah, and has the effrontery to assert, that Matthew did not quote the passage from Isaiah, as a prophecy of Jesus. If Matthew had used these words only, "All this was done that it might be fulfilled, which was spoken by the prophet," there would have been some pretext, though as a schoolmate used to say, "a precious little one," for the assertion, that the evangelist meant no more than an accommodation: but when his language is; "All this was done that it might be fulfilled, which was spoken oF THE LORD by the prophet;" for the doctors (Sykes is not alone) to insist, that Matthew did not mean to say, that the prophet spoke of, or had reference to THE LORD, is a piece of unparalleled, as well as unpardonable impudence. With the same propriety they might contend, that Matthew in the first

« 前へ次へ »