Sivut kuvina
PDF
ePub

philofophy' of the Hellenistic Chriftians, on purpose that we should take the pains to search the prophecies of the Old Testament, which went before concerning Christ, one of the two external divine teftimonies, miracles being the other, which Chriftians enjoy of the Meffiahfhip of Jesus, and which, if confulted, will rectify every misapprehenfion of the nature, perfon, fubftance, or effence of Chrift, arifing from their metaphyfical inventions. They are highly worthy of cenfure for acting in direct oppofition to the practice of Paul, who faid none other things,' concerning Chrift, ⚫ than Mofes and the prophets did say should come;' and an indifputable inftance, or two, of their unjustifiable prefumption and ingenious dexterity, in religious forgery and interpolation, I shall immediately produce.

The two first chapters of the Gofpel by Matthew are acknowledged to be of doubtful authority by many of the learned; and I shrewdly suspect, that the 34th and 35th verses of the first chapter of Luke's Gospel, 'Then faid Mary unto the Angel, fhall this be, feeing I know not a man ?"

"how

and the angel answered, and faid unto her,"

[blocks in formation]

"The Holy Ghoft fhall come upon thee, and the power of the higheft shall overfhadow thee: Therefore alfo that holy thing, which shall be born of thee, shall be called the Son of God," are an interpolated forgery, calculated to establish an agreement with Matthew i. 25. Jofeph knew her,' Mary, 'not, till she had brought forth her first born fon, Jefus.' If indeed the 34th and 35th verfes were neceffary to preserve a connexion between the 33d and 36th, my fufpicions would be but illfounded. But this is fo far from being the cafe, that, on the contrary, the speech of the angel to Mary, fuffers an interruption from Mary's question, and the angel's an fwer, contained in these two verses. fhort therefore, the correfpondent paffages, Luke i. 34, 35. and Matthew i. 20, 25, I utterly reject, as being unauthenticated by all the prophetic writings of the old covenant, which refpect the Meffiah, and as being grofsly inconfiftent with, and flatly contradictory to, Luke iii, 23, iv, 22. and John i. 45. and vi. 42. Here Jefus is expref

ln

fly ftiled the Son of Jofeph,' without the appearance of an intimation, that he was not really, but merely reputedly, begotten

by

by Jofeph, on the body of his wife, Mary, Luke, iii. 23, excepted, where the parenthefis, as was fuppofed,' I regard

[ocr errors]

as a corruption foifted in, to subserve the cause of the fanciful metaphyfical hypothefes of the different fects of Chriftian Platonifts, in the School of Alexandria. The remaining three paffages are intirely exempt from this, or a fimilar parenthesis. Moreover, in Matthew xiii. 55, Jefus is called the carpenter's fon,' by whom I fuppofe is meant Jofeph, as alfo Jefus himself is ftiled the carpenter,' in Mark vi. 3. But as the compiler of the Gospel denominated Matthew's, palpably mifapplies the prophecies of the Old Teftament, and Mark's Gofpel is manifeftly an Abridgement, and an indifferent abridgement, of Matthew's, I do not implicitly confide in the veracity of their narration even of these unimportant facts.

That I may not seem to question the veracity of the compiler of Matthew's Gofpel without fufficient grounds, I judge it proper to exhibit to you one inftance, wherein I have detected him in an untruth.

Luke,

Luke,in his valuable hiftory of Jefus, speaks of Nazareth as the native city of Jofeph and Mary, expressly calling it, their own city, Luke ii. 39. He reprefents the angel Gabriel as fent to Nazareth, where Mary dwelled, Luke i. 26. and defcribes Jofeph and Mary as coming up from Nazareth, Luke ii. 4. to Bethlehem, for the purpose of complying with the edict, which Auguftus had iffued for a general cenfus throughout the Roman empire. 'And fo it was, while they were there,' at Bethelem, the days were accomplished, that fhe fhould be delivered.' Accordingly, agreeably to prophecy, Chrift was born at Bethlehem, the city of David; but, as soon after this event as poffible, 'when they,' Joseph and Mary, had performed all things according to the Law of the Lord,' in respect to the circumcifion of Jefus, and the purification of Mary, they returned', without farther delay, into Galilee, to their own city, Nazareth,' Luke, ii. 39.

6

'No, No, Matthew is in effect made to fay, Good Chriftians, ye are mistaken. They did not return thither. I tell you, they went down from Bethlehem into Egypt, in confequence of a dream of Jo

feph,

feph, ftaid there till the death of Herod, and in their return from thence, the effect of another dream of Jofeph, which, by the bye was his third dream, "turned afide into the parts of Galilee, and dwelled in a

[ocr errors]

city called Nazareth, not their own city, but a city they had never feen before, "that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, he shall be called a Nazarene." See Matthew ii. 23.

If these be not contradictory accounts, I profefs myself abfolutely ignorant of the effential characteristics of a contradiction. But to me it is a plain cafe, that Luke was awake and knew what he said, and that Mafter Matthew dreamed and talked at random in his fleep, otherwife, he could never have attempted to prove the truth of his narration by confidering Hofea xi. 1. • When Ifrael was a child, then I loved him, and called my fon out of Egypt,' a paffage fimply narrative of the past exodus of the Ifraelites from Egypt, as prophetical, and appropriating the fancied prophecy, (fee Matthew ii. 15.) to that imagi nary event, the return of the child Jesus from that country.

Moreover,

« EdellinenJatka »