Five Pebbles from the Brook

by George Bethune English

"Quid pseudo—Sybilina oracula quae Christiani gentibus objiciebant, quum tamen e Christianorum officina prodiissent in Gentium autem Bibliothecis non reperirentur? Adeo verbum Dei inefficax esse censuerunt, ut regnum Christi sine mendaciis promoveri posse diffiderent? atque utinam illi firimi mentiri coepissent," apud La Roche Mem. Lit. 7. 331. as quoted by Mr. Everett, p. 228. of his work.

If the reader will consult Toland's Amyntor, he will find appended to that work, a list of the names of I think about a hundred Gospels, Epistles, and Revelations, forged by the Gentile Christians in the first centuries of the Christian Era. The Celebrated Semler, so distinguished for his knowledge in Biblical criticism and ecclesiastical antiquities, has said, as Mr. Everett allows, p. 464 of his work, that the general Epistles of James, Peter, and John and Jude, and the book of Revelations, contained in the New Testament at present, must be also placed upon the long list of pious frauds, fabricated in the first ages of Christianity.]

[fn12 It is an allowed principle of liberal criticism, that when the expressions of an author are capable of two senses, one of which would make him contradict himself, and the other would leave him consistent, it is but fair to suppose that he meant to be consistent, and therefore should be interpreted in the sense which would exclude self contradiction. How has the liberal Mr. Everett acted on an occasion of this kind? I had said in my first work "the Jewish Christians, the disciples of the twelve Apostles, NEVER received, but rejected every individual book of the present New Testament."

I had also maintained, that the Gospels were forged after the middle of the second century. Now any reasonable man would I believe understand me as using the expressions, "Jewish Christians, the disciples of the twelve Apostles," in the same sense as when we speak of the followers of Plato, Whitfield, or Wesley, by the name of Disciples of Plato, Whitfield, or Wesley, without confining the expression to signify their immediate disciples; the insertion of the words, "never received," also suggests that this must have been my meaning. Nevertheless Mr. Everett, in order to bring me in contradiction with myself in order to serve a turn of his own, remarks upon my words, "without presuming to decide upon the opinions of a writer, so keen in detecting dissonances as Mr. English, I do presume to think, that if every individual book, of the present New Testament, was rejected, by the disciples of the twelve Apostles, that they must have been in being at the time they were rejected, and therefore could not have been forged, a century after that period. I am not conscious of any wish to weaken the force of Mr. English's arguments, by affecting to speak of them in contemptuous terms, I would, as I have, answered them fairly, or not at all." p.445.]

[fn13 If so, what becomes of all Mr. Everett's laboured argument upon Jesus' prophecy of the destruction of Jerusalem contained in p. 401 et seq. of his work; if it be true that the prophecy was written, after the events predicted took place!]

[fn14 If this opinion be true, and Bishop Marsh may be considered as having almost demonstrated it to be so in his dissertation upon the origin of the three first Gospels, it follows, that these Gospels could not have been written by the Apostles, and immediate followers of Jesus Christ; for certainly, men personally and intimately acquainted with all his actions, and all his doctrines, (as were his Apostles and all his immediate followers, and influenced too by the Holy Ghost, as they are all represented to have been in the book of Acts, ch. iv. 31,) in setting about writing Memoirs of Jesus, would write from their own complete, inspired and personal knowledge; and would not compile from "books which had gone through various hands, and been variously altered and added to in the passage." No! such a procedure would be that of men who had no personal knowledge of the events they undertook to record; and who were therefore obliged to consult books for information.

In order to place in a fair light the absurdity of supposing the four Gospels to have been written by the Apostles and first followers of Jesus, I will suppose, a case. Suppose there should appear in the world, four different Lives of Napoleon pretending to have been written by four of his aids de camp, who had constantly been near his person, from the time that he commanded the troops in Paris till his dethronement; and that one of them represented that the expedition to Egypt took place when he was General of the troops in Paris, another that it took place when he was first Consul, and the others that it took place when he was Emperor. Would any man believe, that ALL these books were written by aids de-camp of Napoleon, who had been constantly near his person from the time that he commanded the troops of Paris till his dethronement?]

[fn15 The New Testament, is I believe unparalleled among all the ancient books that have come down to us for the number, and importance of the corruptions, and alterations, it has undergone. What! can learned Christians tell us of several hundred thousands of various readings, in copies of a small book like the New Testament—that almost every, perhaps every verse has been altered, interpolated, or retrenched in some copy or other—and then add in the same breath that the book is nevertheless to be received, as containing the uncorrupted doctrines of the founders of Christianity? If we did not know the inconsistency, and blindness of prejudice, one might be tempted to suspect that these learned men were hardly sincere.

What! is it to be insisted on that a book which Providence has evidently abandoned to carelessness, or to roguery, or to both, was nevertheless intended by the Supreme, as a credible record of an ultimate, permanent and universal religion for all mankind!!— The insane effrontery of such a supposition deserves to be hooted out of countenance.

Mr. Everett says, p. 243. of his work "that not one of the books of the New Testament, nor all of them together, were intended to be a forensic defence of Christianity. On the contrary, the historical books are brief, and imperfect memoirs, which were not designed, nor supposed to contain all the faces, and which do not set forth, nor profess to set forth the evidences of the religion. The Epistolary parts are the counsels, instructions and affectionate sentiments which the occasions of the infant churches, drew from their founders. Now from these we expect, to collect the whole of Christianity, of its doctrines, its precepts, and its sanctions." Can Mr. Everett confidently believe, that God Almighty, who descended to the earth, to deliver a Code to one nation would have left the world to collect as they could a complete, universal, and permanent code of religion and, morals from "brief and imperfect," interpolated and corrupted memoirs, and a few occasional letters?]