[fn 4. Mr. Everett appears willing to allow, as said before, the existence of these contradictions in the narratives of the Evangelists, particularly in their accounts of the resurrection of Jesus, [See p.456. of his work.] but maintains their credibility nevertheless, and in justification of this opinion, he quotes p. 457, the contradictions of the historians of the execution of the Marquis of Argyle; a fact nevertheless not doubted. But the cases are by no means parallel; that a rebel should be decapitated is a fact of notorious frequency in British history and very probable in itself, and as it is a fact without consequence, no man will be inclined to doubt it, if it be affirmed by history, notwithstanding some contradictions in the accounts of the circumstances of his execution.
But I would ask Mr. Everett—if the same historians who report the execution of the Marquis of Argyle; had also affirmed that three days after he had his head cut off, he appeared again alive to his particular friends with his head on, talking and dining with them; and that one of these historians represent this to have taken place at London—another at Edinburgh—and a third at Stirling, would Mr. Everett, or any man in his senses, hesitate to consider these contradictions in the accounts of such a supernatural event as of no weight? Let us add to this another consideration.—Suppose that the Marquis of Argyle was a man of irreproachable and admirable character, and enthusiastically beloved by his friends, and that these friends believed in certain ancient prophecies which predicted that a Scotchman should arise, who should make Scotland supreme over all the earth, and live himself for ever; and that these friends believed the Marquis of Argyle to be the man: but that disappointed in their expectations by seeing him suffer his head to be cut off, they had their hopes revived by the appearance of this story of his having been seen alive by twelve of his most intimate friends, who were the heads of the party who had believed that the Marquis of Argyle would fulfill the prophecies aforesaid, and not content with receiving this contradictory story with avidity themselves, (which after all might have been invented as a salvo for his non-fulfillment or postponing the fulfillment of these prophecies, by submitting to be decapitated) insisted that every body else should believe it too, on pain of eternal damnation!—Would not Mr. Everett be inclined to suspect that these friends of the Marquis of Argyle were deluded men, and possibly noncompos mentis; and suppose that these friends of the Marquis of Argyle had told their party that he had been taken up to Heaven, for a time, but would return again into the World, before that generation had passed away, and would then fulfill the prophecies aforesaid; and that this party, notwithstanding, that the Marquis of Argyle did not come again before that generation had passed away nor for eighteen hundred years afterwards, still retained their belief in the aforesaid circumstances, and still insisted that everybody else should believe them too on pain of eternal damnation; would not Mr. Everett consider these men as certainly distracted? "Mulata[fn5] nomine de te fabula narratur," Mr. Everett.]
[fn5 for "mulata" read "mulatto">[
[fn6 Dr. Campbell in his notes to his translation of the Evangelists in loco. tries to prove that the Greek words in the Gospel of Matthew, which undoubtedly strictly and literally Signify "in the evening of the Sabbath," or "at the end of the Sabbath," may mean "the Sabbath being ended,"; which, if it could be established, would set aside the objection I have mentioned.]
[fn7 for 24 read 36]
[fn8 for 54 read 34]
[fn9 Of lrenaeus and. Tertullian Mr. Everett remarks, that "Tertullian was a very shrewd writer, [yes indeed, and of his fraudulent shrewdness Middleton gives some notable instances in his true inquiry] and Irenaeus less fool than knave," p. 471. of Mr. Everett's work. I would observe to Mr. Everett, that this Irenaeus is the first writer who mentions the four Gospels, and that the Fathers of the Church who came after him in affirming the genuineness of the four Gospels appeal to this Irenaeus this "half fool, half knave," as the authority and voucher for their authenticity; the evidence for their authenticity stops short with him. Justin Martyr who flourished about the year 140 of the Christian Era, in his apology quotes, indeed, Memoirs of Jesus Christ which he says, were written by Apostles and Apostolick men. But it is, acknowledged by Bishop Marsh in his notes to Michaelis Introduction, to the New Testament, that the quotations of Justin Martyr are so unlike the expressions in the received Evangelists to which they appear to refer, that one of two things must be true; either that Justin does not quote our present Gospels; or else, that they were in his time in a very different state, than what they now are.
Papias who wrote about 116 of the Christian Era says, that Matthew wrote a Gospel "in Hebrew which every one interpreted as he was able," but says nothing of a Gospel of Matthew in Greek; and that the present Greek Gospel called of Matthew could not be a translation from Matthew's Hebrew, appears from Bishops Marsh's Dissertation on the origin of these[fn10] first Gospels; where he proves that it is not a translation of one work, but a compilation from several. The same is maintained by the German Theologians to be presently mentioned.
[fn10 for "these," "the three">[
[fn11 These Sybiline oracles so often, and so confidently appealed to by the Fathers of the Church, are now universally allowed to have been forged by the Christians themselves: of them Scaliger speaks as follows.