The Doubts of Infidels: Or, Queries Relative to Scriptural Inconsistencies & Contradictions — John Shaqi
The Doubts of Infidels: Or, Queries Relative to Scriptural Inconsistencies & ContradictionsNicholson, William
Religion
The Doubts of Infidels: Or, Queries Relative to Scriptural Inconsistencies & Contradictions
Nicholson, William
Bible -- Criticism, interpretation, etc.; Christianity -- Controversial literature
30. Out of forty Gospels we receive four as canonical; the rest are the
fruitful produce of that spirit of forgery which the Christian world has
always been celebrated for. Their piety was indefatigable in burning
the books of the heretics and unbelievers, and the same piety was not
sparing in furnishing apocryphal books. It is for the salvation of
mankind that Christianity should prevail; and how can its propagation
be advanced, and its dominion confirmed, more than by preventing
the arguments against it from being exposed to view? Some may indeed
pretend, that this mode of proceeding is tyrannical, and destructive of
the rights of mankind; but we, the faithful, insist that it is zealous
and politic. How can a man be said to be injured, even if we allow
that he is cheated, since he is cheated into salvation, though perhaps
against his will? Yet it will be doing a singular service to us
weaker Christians, if your Lordships will point out by what particular
emanation of the Holy Spirit the Church was enabled to select the divine
out of such a number of apocryphal writings.
* John i. 21.
** Matt. xi. 14.
Our enemies, the infidels, say, that time has obliterated the primitive
disputes on this subject, and that the sanction of custom has confirmed
the authority of the four Gospels, which, so far from external and
historical, have not even the internal evidence of truth. They observe,
that the gospel of Mark, though evidently an abridgement of that of
Matthew, yet differs from it in many very material particulars; that the
grand circumstance of the conspiracy by which Christ lost his life,
is told differently and discordantly by all the four. They express the
highest astonishment that the sending of Jesus to Herod by Pilate should
be related by Luke, and that the other three Evangelists should not only
omit that occurrence, but relate the proceedings in this affair so as
entirely to exclude the possibility of its insertion. They think it also
impossible that an earthquake should rend rocks, and that many saints
should arise from the dead, and go into the holy city, as Matthew
relates; and yet that these great events should not only have escaped
contemporary historians, but even the other three Evangelists. And to
this they add, that it is particularly strange and amazing that John,
who was present at the crucifixion,* should not only forbear to
mention any one of the terrible appearances recorded in Matthew on that
occasion, but that even the darkness of three hours' duration, which
must have made the most lasting impression on every individual in Judea,
should also be by him totally unnoticed.
* Such as we behold even in the present enlightened day by
that great prophetess, Joanna Southcott, and her followers!
who are now deceiving the people of this kingdom with her
prophecies. Edit.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account