Imatges de pàgina
PDF
EPUB

taken from Matthew as that from Luke, is rejected by the Unitarians as spurious. This sect, which is every day increasing, contains, and has long contained, many very learned men; and these men have for the use of the sect made a new translation of the Testament, which is published under the title of "THE NEW TESTAMENT, IN AN IMPROVED VERSION," &c.

In a long note, appended to the 16th verse of the 1st chapter of St. Matthew, reasons are given for rejecting the story of the miraculous conception. Among other things it observes, "The account of the miraculous conception of Jesus was probably the fiction of some early Gentile convert, who hoped, by elevating the founder, to abate the popular prejudices against the sect._See upon this subject, Dr. Priestley's History of Early Opinions, Vol. IV. Book iii. c. 29; Pope on the Miraculous Conception; Dr. Williams's Free Enquiry; Dr. Bell's Arguments for the Authenticity of the Narratives of Matthew and Luke, and Dr. Williams's Remarks; Dr. Campbell's and Dr. Newcombe's Notes upon the Text; Mr. Evanson's Dissonance, chap. i. sect. 3. chap. iii. sect. 2.; Jones's Developement of Events, Vol. I. p. 365," &c.

In a note to the 1st chapter of Luke, the Improved Version has six articles, containing reasons for rejecting both that and the succeeding chapter. The six articles are summed up by the following observation : "And there are many other circumstances in the story which wear an improbable and fabulous aspect."

"It has," they continue," been objected, that so large and gross an interpolation could not have escaped detection, and would never have been so early and so generally received. In reply to this objection it is observed, that the interpolation was not admitted into the Hebrew1 copies of Matthew's Gospel, nor into Marcion's copies of Luke. That it is notorious that

The language in which Matthew is supposed to have written. ? Marcion was the leader of a sect in the second century.

forged writings, under the names of the apostles, were in circulation almost from the apostolic age. See 2 Thessalonians, chap. ii. ver. 2. That the orthodox charge the heretics with corrupting the text; and that the heretics recriminate upon the orthodox. Also, that it was much easier to introduce interpolation when copies were few and scarce, than since they have been multiplied by means of the press. And, finally, that the interpolation in question would, to the generality of Christians, be extremely gratifying, as it would lessen the odium attached to Christianity from its founder being a crucified Jew, and would elevate him to the dignity of the heroes and demi-gods of the heathen mythology."

The Unitarians, reject all that is related of the birth of Christ, as spurious and interpolated, and of course consider him as the son of Joseph and Mary, begotten in the ordinary way; and they give references to many scholars and inquisitive men, in whose works the curious reader will find a number of learned arguments against the stories of Matthew and Luke being received, and to these he is referred. What follows is a short examination of the two stories on the principles of what is usually called common sense, in the way in which an ordinary man would investigate a tale in which he was interested in knowing the truth.

We will begin with Matthew, because he is admitted to have been the oldest writer.

Ver. 18. "Before they came together." It was necessary to premise this, because their "coming together" was in no way disreputable according to the custom of the Jews of that time. It was usual, when both the parties were of mature age, for them to come together as soon as they were espoused; if the woman became great with child, they were then married, if otherwise, the espousement continued for a year, when the parties were usually married; but it sometimes hap

B

pened that they separated by consent. Not having children being considered a curse.

[ocr errors]

Ver. 19. Joseph was minded to put her away privily." In the former verse it is said, "she was found with child of the Holy Ghost;" here, it seems, it was not suspected to be "of the Holy Ghost," but by a man, and that too as a fraud upon Joseph, who was minded in consequence to put her away. It follows, also, that Mary was unconscious that it was "of the Holy Ghost" she was breeding, or we must suppose she would not have failed to have told Joseph of so very important a circumstance; it is, however, abundantly plain, she told him nothing about it. "She was found with child." How found? By her own confession. No such thing; had that been the case, it would certainly have been mentioned; and the angel which, in the next verse, came on purpose to announce it, would, instead of announcing it, have come only to have confirmed her account of her being with child, without having known man, and to say how it happened. But, no; the angel comes not for any such purpose, but to prevent her being put away when it had been discovered that she was breeding. By what was she found to be with child. By her appearance? No; in that case, "putting her away privily" would have been absurd? By her friends? No; " putting her away privily" would in that case have been equally absurd. It could then have been known to no one but her husband Joseph, who finding himself imposed upon, was willing to hide his shame by getting rid of her in the quietest way he could. But all this happened "before they came together;" this assertion was made for the openmouthed, wide-throated, credulous, ignorant people, to whom this Gospel was addressed, and for their successors," who strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.”

If they had " not come together," all Joseph would

have had to do would have been to send her home again to her parents; he would have had no occasion to cogitate on the means of getting rid of her; he would have told her relations, "My bargain was for sound ware, and I cannot take this cracked pitcher,'" and there the matter would have ended. But it was by their coming together that Joseph found out she was with child; how long they had cohabited does not appear, but it must have been some time, according to the easy, familiar style of the narrative: "When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together she was found with child." Their having been together, and her being with child, were indeed the only reasons why he could not send her home again, as barrenness was a curse, so fruitfulness was a blessing, and had Joseph sent her home he would have been reminded that he had possessed the person of his espoused, and was in a fair way to be blessed. According to the Jewish law and custom, he had no cause for complaint, and could have received no redress; therefore he "thought on these things, and was minded to put her away privily."

So far this story is told in a bungling manner, pompously introduced by a falsehood, that "she was found with child of the Holy Ghost."

[ocr errors]

Ver. 20. But while he thought of these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost."" In verse 18, "she was found to be with child of the Holy Ghost," and then, and not till then, Joseph was going to put her away; plain enough it is, if the words have any meaning, that "she was found with child," but not "of the Holy Ghost;" if it had been so, it could not have been said, "Then Joseph was minded to put her away," neither would it have been necessary for "the angel of the Lord" to pester him in his sleep, as he is said to have done.

Cavillers may talk themselves blind, learned doctors may preach themselves hoarse, commentators may write" so many books, that the world would not contain them," they will never be able to make any thing more of this story than that a poor, ignorant, credulous man, dreamed in his sleep that an angel had been talking nonsense to him; this folly might have passed, as no doubt it did pass for reason,

some

centuries ago, when almost every body had faith in dreams, but it is an ill compliment to the intelligence of the present generation to expect it should be equally besotted.

Joseph dreamed that he saw an angel, that the angel told him his wife was with child by God himself, (the Holy Ghost being God), and ver. 24, "Then Joseph being raised from his sleep, did as the angel of the Lord had commanded him, and took unto him his wife." But did Joseph dream? Perhaps he did; but whether he did or did not, clear enough it is that he, and he alone, could relate that he had dreamed; whether or not he did make such a relation we are not told, but we are left to infer that he did, because somebody, nobody knows who, has written that he did say he had dreamed. But if he had dreamed, and haď personally related his dream to every one of us, would that be any reason for our believing that God had got his wife with child, and that an angel had been sent to tell him so? Talk of blasphemy; in what can this relation be paralleled as blasphemous, except indeed by the grossest credulity? A poor, ignorant man relates a dream, and all the world are called upon not only to believe his relation of that dream, absurd, abominable, and ridiculous as it is, but to place their everlasting happiness upon the absurd relation, to inculcate a belief fo it into their children, to waste their substance in paying people to preach it, and to persecute to death those whose minds cannot receive the monstrous doctrine as undoubted truth. Moral evidence there is none, there can be none;-there is nothing in the

« AnteriorContinua »