



Produced by Charles Klingman





FIVE PEBBLES

From

THE BROOK.

A Reply

TO

"A DEFENCE OF CHRISTIANITY"

WRITTEN BY

EDWARD EVERETT,

GREEK PROFESSOR OF HARVARD UNIVERSITY
IN ANSWER TO
"THE GROUNDS OF CHRISTIANITY EXAMINED
BY
COMPARING THE NEW TESTAMENT WITH THE OLD"

BY
GEORGE BETHUNE ENGLISH.

"Should a wise man utter vain knowledge, and fill his belly with the
east wind?"
"Should he reason with unprofitable talk? or with speeches
wherewith he can do no good?--Thou chooseth[fn1] the tongue of
the crafty. Thy own mouth condemneth thee, and not I: yea, thine
own lips testify against thee."
"Behold I will make thee a new sharp threshing instrument having
teeth."

PHILADELPHIA:

PRINTED FOR THE AUTHOR.

1824.

[PG Editor's Note: Many  printer's errors in this text
have been retained as found in the original--in particular
the will be found a large number of mismatched and
wrongspace quotation marks.]

ADVERTISEMENT.

WHEN I left America, I had no intention of giving Mr. Everett's
book a formal answer: but having learned since my arrival in the
Old World, that: the controversy in which I had engaged myself
had attracted some attention, and had been reviewed by a
distinguished member of a German university, my hopes of being
serviceable to the cause of truth and philanthrophy are revived,
and I have therefore determined to give a reply to Mr. Everett's
publication.

In this Work, as in my prior writings, I have taken for granted the
Divine Authority of the Old Testament, and I have argued upon the
principle that every book, claiming to be considered as a Divine
revelation and building itself upon the Old Testament as upon a
foundation, must agree with it, otherwise the superstructure
cannot stand. The New Testament, the Talmud, and the Koran are
all placed by their authors upon the Law and the Prophets, as an
edifice is upon its foundation; and if it be true that any or all of
them be found to be irreconcileable with the primitive Revelation
to which they all refer themselves, the question as to their Divine
Authority is decided against them, most obviously and completely.

This work was written in Egypt and forwarded to the U. States,
while I was preparing to accompany Ismael Pacha to the conquest
of Ethiopia; an expedition in which I expected to perish, and
therefore felt it to be my duty to leave behind me, something from
which my countrymen might learn what were my real sentiments
upon a most important and interesting subject; and as I hoped
would learn too, how grossly they had been deluded into building
their faith and hope upon a demonstrated error.

On my arrival from Egypt I found that the MS. had not been
published, and I was advised by several, of my friends to abandon
the struggle and to imitate their example; in submitting to the
despotism of popular opinion, which, they said, it was imprudent to
oppose. I was so far influenced by these representations--
extraordinary indeed in a country which  boasts that here freedom
of opinion and of speech is established by law--that I intended to
confine myself to sending the MS. to Mr. Everett; in the belief that
when he should have the weakness of his arguments in behalf of
what he defended and the injustice of his aspersions upon me,
fairly and evidently laid before him, that he would make me at
least a private apology. He chose to preserve a sullen silence,
probably believing that he is so securely seated in the saddle
which his brethren have girthed upon the back of "a strong ass"
that; there is no danger that the animal will give him a fall.

Not a little moved at this, I determined to do my myself justice, and
to publish the pages following.

This book is not the work of an Infidel. I am not an infidel; what I
have learned and seen in Europe, Asia and Africa, while it has
confirmed my reasons for rejecting the New Testament, has
rooted in my mind the conviction that the ancient Bible does
contain a revelation from the God of Nature, as firmly as my belief
in the first proposition of Euclid.

The whole analogy of Nature, while it is in many respects opposed
to the characteristics ascribed to the Divinity by the
metaphysicians, yet bears witness in my opinion, that this world
was made and is governed by just such a Being as the Jehovah of
the Old Testament; while the palpable fulfillment of predictions
contained in that book, and which is so strikingly manifest in the
Old World, leaves in my mind no doubt whatever, of the ultimate
fulfillment of all that it promises, and all that it threatens.

I cannot do better than to conclude these observations with the
manly declaration of the celebrated Christian orator Dr. Chalmers,
"We are ready, (says he,) to admit that as the object of the inquiry
is not the character, but the Truth of Christianity, the philosopher
should be careful to protect his mind from the delusions of its
charms.  He should separate the exercises of the understanding
from the tendencies of the fancy or of the heart. He should be
prepared to follow the light of evidence, though it should lead him
to conclusions the most painful and melancholy. He should train
his mind to all the hardihood of abstract and unfeeling intelligence.
He should give up every thing to the supremacy of argument and
he able to renounce without a sigh all the tenderest
possessions[fn 2] of infancy, the moment that TRUTH demands of
him the sacrifice." (Dr. Chalmers on the Evidence and Authority of
the Christian Religion. Ch. I.)

Finally, let the Reader remember, that "there is one thing in the
world more contemptible than the slave of a tyrant--it is the dupe
of a SOPHIST."

G. B. E.

PEBBLE I

And David "chose him five smooth stones out of the brook, and
put them in a shepherd's bag which he had, even in a scrip: and
his sling was in his hand: and he drew near to the Philistine."

Mr. Everett commences his work with the following remarks. "Was
Jesus Christ the person foretold by the prophets, as the Messiah
of the Jews?; one method, and a very obvious one, of examining
his claims to this character, is to compare his person, life, actions,
and doctrine, with the supposed predictions of them. But if it also
appear that this Jesus wrought such works, as evinced that he
enjoyed the supernatural assistance and cooperation of God, this
certainly is a fact of great importance. For we cannot say, that in
estimating the validity of our Lord's claims to the character of
Messiah, it is of no consequence whether, while he advanced
those claims, he wrought such works as proved his intimacy with
the God of truth. While he professed himself the Messiah, is it
indifferent whether he was showing himself to be as being beyond
delusion, and above imposture?--Let us make the case our own.
Suppose that we were witnesses of the miraculous works of a
personage of pretensions like our Lord's, should we think it
necessary or reasonable to resort to long courses of argument, or
indeed to any process of the understanding, except what was
requisite to establish the fact of the miracles? Should we, while he
was opening the eyes of the blind, and raising the dead from their
graves, feel it necessary to be deciphering prophecies, and
weighing these[fn 3] difficulties? Now we may transfer this case to
that of Christianity. The miracles of our Lord are either true or
false. The infidel if he maintain the latter must prove it; and if the
former can be made to appear, they are beyond all comparison
the most direct and convincing testimony that can be devised," p.
1, 2. of Mr. Everett's work.

To this statement I would reply--that I do not know what right Mr.
Everett has to call upon his opponent, to prove a negative. It was
his business to prove the affirmative of his question, and to show
that these miracles actually were performed, before he proceeded
to argue upon the strength of them. It is, I conceive, impossible to
demonstrate that miracles said to have been wrought 1800 years
ago, were not performed; but it is, I believe, quite possible to show
that there is no sufficient proof that they were. One of the reasons
given, in the 2d, ch. as I think, of the grounds of Christianity
examined, for throwing out of consideration the miracles recorded
in the New Testament in examining the question of the
Messiahship of Jesus, was, that the New Testament itself, was not
a sufficient proof that these miracles were actually wrought; and
this, with the reader's indulgence, I think I can plainly show.

Mr. Everett allows p. 450 of his work, what indeed he cannot deny,
that the four Gospels do sometimes contradict each other in their
narratives; and he refers with approbation, in a note to p. 458, to a
work of Lessing's, which he says, "ought to be read by every one
who is overfond of Harmonies." This work of Lessing's, if I
recollect right, maintains, that all hopes of harmonizing the
evangelists, of reconciling their contradictions, must be given up.
[See Lessings Sammliche, Schriften, ch. v. S. 150, as quoted by
Mr. Everett, p. 458.]

Now these contradictions, if they do exist, unquestionably argue
one of two things; either fraud, or want of accurate information in
their authors, as no man who wishes to be considered "compos
mentis" will deny, because, accurate information excludes the
possibility of contradiction in authors willing to tell the truth, and
much more in inspired authors, who must be incapable of writing
anything but the truth.

The Christian, therefore, must, it seems to me, on account of
these contradictions, allow one of two things; either, that the
evangelists were fraudulent men, or else that the Gospels were
not written by the Apostles and immediate followers of Jesus:
because want of accurate information, cannot be supposed of the
Apostles and immediate followers of Jesus; as having been
constantly with him, from the beginning, to the end of his
ministery, they must have been perfectly acquainted with his
actions and doctrines. Neither can lapse of memory be urged;
because the Gospels represent Jesus as saying, John ch. xvi. 26,
that they should have the aid of inspiration, which "should, bring
all things, to remembrance;" and in Acts ch. iv. 31, all the followers
of Jesus are represented as having actually received the effusion
of the Holy Ghost: of course want of accurate information, and
lapse or memory in them cannot be supposed.

The Christian, therefore, must allow, since contradictions do exist,
if he would avoid accusing the Apostles and disciples of Jesus of
fraud, that the Gospels were not written by the Apostles and first
followers of Jesus, but that they were written by men, who had no
accurate information about the events they record. It is therefore
plain, that the miracles recorded in the Gospels, are incapable of
proof. For what Christian in his senses can ask another man to
believe accounts of miracles, which accounts, he must at the
same time allow, were written by fraudulent men, or by men who
had no accurate information upon the subjects about which they
write.

The edge of this, as I think, smites right through the neck of Mr.
Everett's argument on which his work depends, and leaves his
book--"a gasping head---a quivering trunk." Sic transit gloria
mundi.

But in order to make Mr. Everett still farther Sensible how easily
his argument can be "overturned, overturned and overturned," I
will suppose a reasonable and reasoning man, desirous to verify
the claims of the books of the New Testament as containing a
Revelation from God, to set down to scrutinize with anxious
solicitude every argument of internal and external evidence, in
favour of their authenticity, and authority, in the hope of becoming
satisfied of the truth of their claims. But in the course of his
examination, such a man will assuredly find, that almost every
step in his inquiry, is an occasion of doubt and of difficulty.

Books containing Revelations from the Supreme, must be
consistent with themselves. But he will observe on a careful
perusal of the evangelists, that the contradictions, particularly in
the narratives of the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus, are
numerous; and that all the ingenuity of Christian writers, has been
exhausted in vain in the attempt to reconcile them; for example,
the Gospel called of Matthew says, ch. iii. 14, that John the
Baptist, knew Jesus when he came to him to be baptised, (which
was very probable on account of the relationship and intimacy
subsisting between Mary the mother of Jesus, and: Elizabeth the
mother of John, as mentioned in the Gospel called of Luke, ch. i.
18, it could hardly have been otherwise) but the author of the
Gospel called of John says, ch. i. 31, that John knew him not, until
he was designated by the descent of the Holy Ghost upon him.

Again, it is said in the Gospel called of John, ch. ii. 14. that Jesus,
on his first visit to Jerusalem after he had commenced his
preaching, cast the buyers and sellers out of the Temple, whereas
the Gospel called of Matthew, and also those called of Mark and
Luke, represent this to have been done by Jesus at his last visit to
Jerusalem. See Matt. ch. xxi. 12. Mark ch. xi. 15. Luke ch. xix. 45.

Again, the author of the Gospel called of John, represents the last
supper or Jesus with his Apostles, to have taken place (See ch.
xiii. 1. and ch. xviii. 28.) on the eve before the feast of the
passover, and that Jesus was crucified on the feast day itself,
while the authors of the other Gospels represent the first event to
have taken place, on the evening of the passover itself, and that
Jesus was crucified the day after. See Matt. Ch. xxvi. 18. Mark xiv.
12. Luke ch. xxii. 7. Now Matthew and John must, according to the
Gospels themselves, have been present with Jesus when he
drove the buyers and sellers out of the Temple, and at his last
supper, and when he was seized in the garden of Gethsemane;
they must therefore have known perfectly whether Jesus drove
the buyers; and sellers out of the Temple, at his first visit to
Jerusalem in their company; or at his last, and whether his last
supper, and his seizure in the garden of Gethsemane took place
on the eve before this passover their great national festival, or on
the evening of the passover itself. They could not forget the time
and place of events, so affecting and important as the last
mentioned, and when we add to these considerations, that the
Gospels represent Jesus as saying, (John ch. xiv.;26.) that they
should be inspired by the Holy Spirit, which "should bring all things
to remembrance," the supposition that the real Matthew and John
could contradict each other in this manner, becomes quite
inadmissable.

In the account of the resurrection of Jesus, the most important fact
of Christianity, we also find several contradictions; for instance,
the Gospel called of Matthew says, that the first appearance of
Jesus to his disciples after his resurrection, was in Galillee, (See
Matt. ch.xxxviii. 7,) while the other evangelists assert, that his first
appearance to them after that event was at Jerusalem. See Mark
ch. xvi., Luke ch. xxiv. John ch.xx. The Gospel called of John
says, that he afterwards appeared to them in Galilee: but
according to that of Luke, the disciples did not go to Galilee to
meet Jesus; for that Gospel says, that Jesus expressly ordered
his disciples to tarry at Jerusalem, where they should receive the
effusion of the Holy Ghost, and that after giving that order he was
taken up to Heaven. See Luke ch. xxiv. 49, 50, also, the first ch. of
Acts. [fn 4]

This greatly invalidates the credibility of these accounts; for as
much as that the historical testimony in attestation of supernatural
events, ought, because such events are out of the common
course of nature, to be strong and unexceptionable.

He will observe too that these writers, supposed to have been the
inspired followers of Jesus Christ, have applied many passages of
the Old Testament as prophecies of Jesus, when it is most
certain, (and is at the present day allowed by Christian Biblical
Critics of the highest standing) from examining those passages in
their context in the Old Testament, that they are not prophecies of
Jesus; and that some of the passages cited are in fact no
prophecies at all, but are merely historical. Nor is this all, these
authors have cited as prophecies and proof texts, passages which
do not exist in the Old Testament. From which it seems to follow
that they must have forged those passages, or quoted them from
some Apocryphal book; which they believed to be inspired. If they
were capable of the first, they were not the honest and inspired
followers and disciples of Jesus Christ; if they were capable of the
last, they were not Jews but Gentiles, ignorant that the Jews in the
time of Jesus, acknowledged no books as inspired scripture but
the books of the Old Testament. See Appendix, A.

A reasonable and reasoning man, such as I have supposed, may
ask himself if it be possible that men filled with the Holy Ghost,
and whose minds were supernaturally opened to understand the
scriptures, could make mistakes such as these.

Lastly, he will recollect, on discovering what is about to be stated,
that the Apostles and followers of Jesus Christ were Jews, and
consequently could not be ignorant of what was notorious to the
whole nation, for instance, that the Jewish Sabbath begins at
sunset on Friday evening, and ends at sunset on Saturday
evening. Nevertheless the author of the Gospel called of Matthew
makes ch. xxviii. 1. the Sabbath to end at dawn of day on Sunday
morning: while the author of that called of John apparently
reckons, ch. xx. 19. the evening of the first day of the week as a
part of the first day of the week; whereas it is in fact, according to
the law and customs of the Jews, who then and now reckon their
days from sunset to sunset, the beginning and a part of the
second day of the week. Such mistakes appear to me to indicate
that the writers of those Gospels were Gentiles not perfectly
acquainted with Jewish customs, and therefore not Matthew and
John.[fn 6]

There are other traces of ignorance of Jewish customs, to be
found in the Gospel called of Matthew, which betray the Gentilism
of the author of it. For instance, he says ch. xxvi. 24[fn7], that
Jesus told Peter, that "before the cock crew he should deny him
thrice;" the same is also found in Mark ch. xiv. 30. in Luke ch. xxii.
54[fn8], and in John ch. xiii. 38. Now it is asserted in the Mishna (i.
e the oral law of the Jews.) in the Bava Kama according to Mr.
Everett p. 448. of his work, that cocks were not permitted in
Jerusalem where Peter's denial took place; [probably because that
bird is constantly scratching up the ground with his feet, and was
thereby liable to turn up impurities, by touching which in passing
by, a Jew would be ceremonially defiled, and rendered incapable
of visiting the Temple to perform his devotions, till after the
evening of the day on which the defilement took place], therefore
all the four Gospels which all contain, this story, must have been
written by Gentiles ignorant of the custom which belies the story.

Some Christian writers have endeavoured to get rid of this
objection, by attempting to prove "that the crowing of the cock
here mentioned, does not mean actually the crowing of a cock, but
'the sound of a trumpet!'" while others, blushing at the hardihood
of their brethren, think it more prudent to maintain, that the author
of the Mishna was ignorant of Jewish customs, and that the
writers of the Gospels were perfectly acquainted with them; and
that therefore every good Christian was bound in conscience not
to regard the objection.

But the prohibition of cocks from entering the Holy city is so
perfectly of a piece with many other cautions against defilement
observed by the Jews, and is so perfectly in the taste of the times
of the Pharisees, "the careful washers of plates and platters,"--the
"tithers of mint, anise, and cummin," not to mention the reason
above expressed, which perhaps was, to say truth, according to
the regulations against defilement contained in the Pentateuch a
sufficient reason for excluding that bird from the city, where stood
the Temple, that the reader will probably believe that such a
custom might have existed.

Again, it is said Matt. xxvii. 62, that the Chief Priests and
Pharisees went to Pilate; demanded a guard; went to the
Sepulchre of Jesus, sealed the door, and set watch. Now Jesus is
said to have arisen on the day after this, on the first day of the
week, i.e. Sunday, of course the day before was Saturday of the
Jewish Sabbath. I maintain that the Chief Priests and Pharisees,
who objected to Jesus curing the sick and rubbing corn from the
ear, in order to satisfy his hunger on the Sabbath day; I maintain
that it is utterly incredible, that these men should have gone to
Pilate on public business, and transacted all this on their Sabbath.
For such an action would have come completely within the spirit,
and the letter of the Laws against breaking the Sabbath contained
in the-Pentateuch, which makes the penalty of such actions as are
here ascribed to the Chief Priests and rigorous Pharisees, nothing
less than stoning to death. I infer therefore, that the author of the
Gospel of Matthew was ignorant of this, and of course not a Jew,
and consequently not Matthew.

I would observe further, in connection with this subject, that Jesus
is represented, Matt. xxiii. 35, as saying, that upon the Jews of this
time should come "the blood of Zecharias the son of Barachias
whom ye slew between the Temple and the altar." Now, I believe
that it is recorded in Josephus' history, that the Jews slew this
Zecharias in the time of the Jewish war, about forty years after
Jesus is represented as saying, that they had killed him already.
Of course Jesus never could have said this, nor would a Jew
acquainted with the times, as Matthew must have been, have
been guilty of such an anachronism. The writer of that Gospel
must therefore, have been a Gentile, and not Matthew. The same
mistake is made by Luke xi. 51.

On turning his attention to the external evidence in favour of the
authenticity of the Gospels, the difficulties and objections
accumulate. He will find, that they are not mentioned by any writer
earlier than the latter half of the second century, after the birth of
Jesus. The first writers who name the four Gospels, were
Irenaeus, and Tertullian.[fn9] The competency of the testimony of
these Fathers of the church, as to the genuineness of these
books, is invalidated by the fact, (See Middleton's Free Enquiry)
that they admitted the principle of the lawfulness of pious frauds,
and from their having acted upon this principle, in having asserted
in their writings, as from their personal knowledge, things which
were certainly false; (See the work above referred to) while their
capability to distinguish the genuine writings of the Apostles, from
the numerous forgeries in their names that appeared about the
