other writers. Had they happened, the eleven were there. See Matt. xxvii these supposed a poftles must have been 7, 16; John xx, 19; Luke xxiv, 21 witneffes of the earthquake and the re, Mark says nothing of the meeting i furrections, and must have related the Galilee, but relates, that Christ af particulars--who these laints were that peared in another form to two of then came to life again, whether they came as they walked into the country : Luk out naked or clothed, · whither they says, that he went in disguise that face went, and what became of them : they day, with two disciples, to Emmau came up,

like Jonah's gourd, in the and after supping with them, vanilher night, for no purpose at all, but to and re-appeared at the meeting of th wither in the morning.

eleven in Jerusalem. The only poir With respect to the resurrection of in which these writers agree is the pri Jesus, Mathew alone relates the story vacy of his re-appearance ; the story i of the guard fet over the sepulchre. that of an apparition. Paul's repos Matthew fays, that Mary Magdalene concerning the 500 witnefles is the te! and the other Mary came, at the dawn timony of one man, and not of the 50 of the first day of the week, to the fe- themselves. Of the asconfron, Mathey pulchre; Mark says, it was at fun and John fay nothing; Mark ank fifing ; John says, it was dark. Luke Luke mention it flightly, and do no says, Mary Magdalene, and Joanna, agree in their accounts : the former fta and Mary the mother of James, and ting, that, after the meeting of the elever other women came to the sepulchre; at Jerusalem, Jesus was received into and John states, that Mary Magdalene Heaven; the latter, that the afcenfion came alone. Matthew fays, the angel was from Betheny. It does not appear rolled back the itone, and sat upon it; how he was provided with clothes at Mark, that the angel was within the the resurrection, or what became of them, sepulchre, fitting on the right fide ; at the afcenfion. Luke, that there were two, and both The contradictions in the gospels ftanding, up; John, that they were prove, that the writers cannot have been both firring, one at the head, the other eye and car-witnesses of what they reat the feet. Matthew says, the angel late, and consequently were not a polficting on the stone on the outside of tles; and that they have not written in the fepulchre told the two Marys that concert, but each separately, without Chrift was risen, and they went away the knowledge of the rest. The same quickly ; Mark, that the women went contradictions, that prove there has into the fepulchre, and that the angel been no concert, prove also that the fitting within on the right side told reporters had no personal knowledge them so ; Luke, that it was the two of what they relate, and detect the angels ftanding up; John, that it was falsehood of their reports, Jelus himself that told it to Mary Mag There was no such book as the new dalene, and that she did not go into the testament, till more than three hundred fepulchre, but only stooped down and years after Chrift. It is altogether unlooked in. The storý of the body certain when the gospels were written, being stolen a way contradicts itself: or who wrote them. About 350 years for if the soldiers were asleep, they after Chrift, several writings of this could not know that it was taken away kind were scattered in the hands of by the disciples, The phrase until this divers individuals; and the church, now day, Matt. xxviii, 15, Thows that the vefted with temporal powers, fet about ftory was written long after the time collecting them into a code called the of which is speaks. Mauhew relates, new teftament: they decided hy vote, that the disciples went to meet Jesus which of these writings should be the in Galilee, according to the direction word of God; and their vote stands in of the angel, Behold, Christ is gone the place of authenticity; for it can be before you into Galilee';' John, that traced no higher. Disputes at that time the fame evening Jesus met them in a ran high on this subject. In a contest house in Jerusalem; and Luke, that between St. Augustine and Faufte, about


[merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small]
[ocr errors]

red to prove and his for were divorB to the rites

there ; and it was compeгу again. То in instrument Igogue there, ed from each

held this to : he could take edings in a folow the law of vas matter of be proved by nt Then called ove the divorce. an incompetent on being over sout producing ze was divorced abbi, at Legkorn, ay and custom

defendant had a


other writers.
these supposed a
witnesses of the
furreions, and
came to life agai
out naked or
went, and what
came up, like
night, for no i
wither in the mo

With respect Jesus, Mathew of the guard se Matthew says, 1 and the other M; of the firft day o pulchre ; Márk fifing; John say says, Mary May aud Mary the a other women cai and John states, came alone. M: rolled back the i Mark, that the a fepulchre, fitting Luke, that there ftanding, up; J both fitting, one at the feet. Mat fitting on the ftoi the fepulchre told Chrif was risen, quickly ; Mark, into the sepulchr fitting within on them so ; Luke, angels standing up Jelus himself that dalene, and that a sepulchre, but only looked in. The being stolen awaj for if the soldier çould not know th by the disciples, day, Matt. xxviii, ftory was written of which it speaks that the disciples in Galilee, accordi of the angel, ' Beh before yoụ into G the fame evening. Je house in Jerufalera

the year 400, the latter charges the they have perused some of the principal books of the gospels with discordancy, of the defences of revelation already and says, they were composed from tales furnithed, or have heard what wilí, and vague reports by fome obscure men, doubtless, without unnecellary delay. who published them under the names be further offered on the other side of of the apoftles*

this most interesting question. Concerning the fourteen epiftles afcribed to Paul, it is of little importance 10 Curious Law Cale decided in the Court of determine whether they were written by King's Bench, London, Dec, 6. bin, as he does not pretend to have been

Ganer v. Lady Lanesborough. piness to any of the scenes told of the rdurrection, and declares that he had

Debt on Judgment. sot believed them. The story of his conversion may be explained on the suppofition of his having been forudbe THE defendant pleaded in abate

ment that she was covert of Joba sich ligbtning. His character has in King, and the plaintiff, by his replicait a great deal of violence and fanaticism, tion, traversed the plea. The defendant and he is a bad reasoner. See 1 Cor. proved her marriage to King, in answer Ir. The belief of a future state is a to which the plaintiff proved the marriage rational belief, founded on acts visible of King with a former wife, and that the in the creation; but Paul's account of was ftill living. Thisevidence was objecthe resurrection of the body explains ted to as incompetant for the plaintiff nothing to the understanding, illustrates to give on this replication, which only nothing to the imagination.

traversed the marriage of King with Revelation is possible, but can be the defendant. But lord Kenyon ade proved only to the person to whom it is mixed it, saying, it proved there was aide ; there being no criterion where. no marriage at all between the defen. by to judge of the truth of what he tells. dant and King, he being unable to conThe mof horrid cruelties and greatest tract mariage with her. miserics have attended the propagation

The defendant then offered to prove and support of what is called revealed that King being a Jew, and his forreligion. The fragments of morality mer wite a Jewels, they were divorscattered through the bible are the na- ced at Leghorn, according to the rites tural dictates of conscience, and are and customs of the Jews ihere; and Dearly the same in all religions. The that after such a divorce it was compedogma of loving enemies is without tent to either party to marry again. To meaning. Revelation is unneceffary; prove this the produced an instrument for the book of the creation teaches pure under the seal of the synagogue chere, religion and morals.”

whereby they were divorced from each Such is the substance of the objections other. But lord Kenyon held this to to revelation offered in this publication. be no evidence, for before he could take Those who have studied the subject will any notice of any proceedings in a foimmediately perceive, how very much reign court, he must know the law of of what is here advanced coincides with the country, which was matter of the objections of former deiftical wri- evidence, and should be proved by tings, and will easily recollect the re- witnesses. The defendant ihen called plies which have been so fully provided King's former wife to prove the divorce.

by a numerous train of able defenders, She was objected to as an incompetent I toch from the clergy and laity of all witness, but the objection being over

se&s. Those who have not had leisure ruled, the swore (without producing to examine the matter, would do well any instrument) that she was divorced at least io suspend their judgement, till from King, before the rabbi, at Leghorn,

according to the ceremony and custom Ν Ο Τ Ε.

of the fews there.

On this evidence the defendant had a * Seç Boulanger's life of St. Paul. verdict.


[blocks in formation]
« ElőzőTovább »