Imagini ale paginilor
PDF
ePub

2. Worse still, it is in direct contradiction to the tables as given in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke. Matthew begins his narrative thus: "The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham. Abraham begat Isaac, Isaac begat Jacob," and so on until he comes to the finale: "And Jacob begat Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus who is called Christ. So all the generations from Abraham to David were fourteen generations,' Here we have not only no word which refers to time, or to the average of life, but the generations counted by the names of individuals, which made up the successive links in the genealogical chain that united Jesus with Abraham, and was supposed to mark him as a lineal descendant of the Father of the faithful.

etc.

The good priest, who was to grant nothing and to take nothing for granted, without referring to Scripture or other authority, assumes what flatly contradicts the express words of the Scriptures themselves.

3. The proposed explanation is opposed to respected orthodox authorities. Rev. Albert Barnes, in his Notes on Matthew i. I, says, "The book of the generation;' this is the proper title of the chapter. It is the same as to say, the account of the ancestry, of the family, or the genealogical table of Jesus Christ. The phrase is common in Jewish writings. Compare Genesis v. i.: 'This is the book of the generation of Adam;' see also Genesis vi. 9.'" Thus we see that the Father's criticism is not only opposed to the orthodox commentator but to common Jewish and scriptural usage.

But the Father himself is not satisfied with his own explanation as given above, for we next find him trying to reconcile the conflict between the two tables by asserting, without attempt at proof, that one writer (Matthew) gives the ancestry of Christ, the other (Luke) the ancestry of Mary.

Ingersoll." Is it not wonderful that Luke and Matthew do not agree on a single name of Christ's ancestors for thirtyseven generations?"

Lambert." It is wonderful only to those who are ignorant of the fact that Matthew gives the ancestors of Joseph, while Luke gives the ancestors of Mary, the Mother of God."

This explanation takes all the sap out of the preceding one. It was not the one accepted by most of the fathers of the church. It is opposed to the plain words and obvious interpretation of Scripture. The Father says that "Matthew gives the ancestors of Joseph.” Granted. "While Luke gives the ancestors of Mary." Let us see. In neither of the family tables is the name of Mary mentioned. Strange fact, if the genealogy of her family is given, and for so important a purpose as to prove her descent from Adam through Abraham by a royal lineage. But to set the matter at rest let us inquire, what does Luke purport to do? Is he describing a male or female line of ancestry? Does he begin or end with Mary? Luke iii. 23: "And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son (not the daughter) of Heli, which was the son," etc. In this way we have the male line traced backward to Adam from Joseph (not Mary). And yet how Jesus could be proved to be of the lineage of Abraham and David by showing that Joseph was a descendant of the royal line, when Joseph was not the father of Jesus, is a problem which puzzles the stupid "infidel."

Above you have a specimen of a work of which the Buffalo Courier says: "Written with singular controversial insight, depth of thought, and breadth of learning." I envy not such encomiums. Save from love of truth I would not, if I could, pluck one leaf from the laurel wreath which encircles the Father's brow. I regard him as an earnest, unfortunate

votary of a crystallized dogmatism; as one who, by steadfast gaze into a dark and void expanse, fails to see the priceless gems of truth which are scattered in rich profusion around him.

The Father denies that either of the evangelists claims to report the last words of Christ as uttered from the cross. I will refer the reader to the record of that sad tragedy: "And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said: Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said thus, he gave up the ghost" (Luke xxiii. 46). Who will deny that these were recorded as the last words of Jesus? Again, "When Jesus, therefore, had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head and gave up the ghost" (John xix. 30.) Who will affirm that these were not, according to John, the last words of Jesus? Suppose I would say, "My father said, 'Bless thee, my son,' and died," would not the common sense of every one declare that I had repeated my father's last words?

Lambert.-" You say that the commission which Christ gave to his apostles to pardon sinners 'puts a world beneath the feet of priests.' Does the power of pardoning criminals, which is in the hands of the governor, place the people of this State at his feet?"

The priest winces at the charge that the Catholic world is beneath the feet of priests. Yet where is there a slavery more abject, more humiliating, more absolute, than that to which the Catholic devotee is subject? Other forms of servitude, in the main, enslave the body only: the mind being compelled to give but an external recognition of superiority, while thoughts unexpressed and motives undiscovered are seldom sought after. But the priesthood maintains an espionage of the soul, and by the confessional extorts from its votaries under penalty of eternal torments, every secret thought which the church may wish divulged.

Lambert.-"Does the power of pardoning criminals, which is reposed in the hands of the governor, place the people of the State at his feet?"

No. First, because the people of the State are not all criminals; secondly, because as to the exceptional class (criminals) they are not required to confess to the officers of the law, nor to the executive, nor to bow submissively before them, but are permitted to prove their innocence, or to show mitigating circumstances which may entitle them to executive clemency. "Reflect on this for a moment, and you will learn that there is more sound than sense in your" analogy.

II

CHAPTER XX.

REPLY TO CHAPTER XIX.

Proof of Miracles-Who Wrote the Gospels?-The Evangelists neither Claim to Write by Authority nor to be Guided by Inspiration-Neither Catholics nor Protestants have an Authoritative Translation of the Scriptures-The Father's Statements show that John the Apostle could not have Written the Fourth Gospel.

THE reader will remember the resolve formed at the beginning of the last chapter, not to follow the Father further in his devious windings. But the pursuit was begun and continued, with what success the reader must decide. Yet really some interest did attach to one or two questions last discussed, old though they be. But in order to answer something we must find something to answer, and the almost entire absence of this something is our difficulty in reviewing the "Notes" from Chapter XIX. to the end. In the present and succeeding chapters few issues are raised save as to opinion, and on matters of pure faith one man's notion is as good as another's-if not better. But there is a gleam of light even in the darkness. We follow it.

Lambert." Christianity must be defended by straight, true and correct methods, or none."

At last we agree. Over the yawning chasm the Father and I can shake hands and congratulate each other on entire accord. The question which divides us is a question of evidence. With regard to weight of testimony the best of friends may differ, honestly differ, and narrow of soul is that man who makes that difference a cause of enmity, or even of per

« ÎnapoiContinuă »