this the Jewish worship, which had become merely a dead formal worship, took place; they taught the precepts of men for the commandments of God; and therefore this messenger, preparer of the way of the Messiah, was not the Elias who had been, but on account of the striking similarity between the circumstances which had taken place in the time of Elijah, and which introduced the true worship of God, and those which were to introduce the new dispensation at the coming of the Baptist; he was declared to be Elias who was to come. OBJE CTION. "There is an irreconcilable difference between John and Mark, respecting the crucifixion; one declaring that when Christ was under condemnation before Pilate, it was the preparation of the Passover, and about the SIXTH hour: while the other says, it was the THIRD hour, and they crucified him." ANSWER. This objection is 1600 years old; and we are told, that "the pens of Peter of Alexandria, Jerome, and others, have been employed to reconcile these contradictory passages; but that they are forced at last to leave the difficulty just as they found it, chargeable with all the consequences of a manifest inconsistency.' The more any one examines with a design to know the truth, the more he will be confirmed in the truth of the sacred Scriptures. This is another proof of the presumptuous ignorance of these objectors, respecting the particular circumstances and things, which have taken place at different periods of the history. Matthew, Mark and Luke, according to the testimony of the ancients, and the universal consent of all interpreters, wrote their gospels during the continuation of the Jewish government, and used the Jewish custom of reckoning their hours; thus beginning the day at six in the morning, and ending at six in the evening. This is proved by the three when speaking of the darkness from noon to three o'clock, which is said to be from the sixth to the ninth hour. Now as every writer uses the style, year, and computation of the age and nation in which he lives, John, (by the testimony of the ancients, and the universal consent of all interpreters, wrote his gospel at Ephesus, long after the destruction of Jerusalem, at the final period of the Jewish government) makes use of the Roman beginning of the day in his gospel, which was the same as we use at this day, reckoning the hours from midnight to noon, and from noon to midnight. So that it was the sixth hour, or six o'clock in the morning, when Christ was brought before Pilate, according to John; and when he was crucified, it was the third hour according to the Jewish account, or our nine in the morning, as stated by Mark. From which the reader will be convinced, that there is nothing "irreconcilable" in the statements of the apostles John and Mark, as is asserted by these objectors. And from what has been said in these pages, it will also be plain to the meanest understanding, that not a man among these writers, from the time of Porphyry and Celsus, in the second century, to the present day, has ever qualified himself to form a true judgment concerning the passages which have so frequently been advanced with no other design than to invalidate the truth of the sacred record. OBJECTION. The DEIST objects to the miracle of the fig-tree, and says, "the credibility of the history is affected because two of the apostles contradict each other. In the xxist chapter of Matthew, it appears that Christ first drave out the buyers and sellers from the temple, and on the morrow cursed the fig-tree: whereas, according to Mark, ch. xi. it is clear that it was transacted before the driving them out of the temple." ANSWER. Matthew in this chapter describes the entry of Christ into Jerusalem, that all Jerusalem were moved at his approach, that a vast concourse of people attended him to the temple, where for the first time he cast out the buyers and sellers; after which he went to Bethany in the evening. Now we cannot for a moment doubt but that as soon as Christ and the great multitude were gone, the buyers and sellers would again take their seats, as they had the whole body of priests and elders on their side. Mark also describes his entry into Jerusalem in the same manner as Matthew does, that he went into the temple, and in the evening to Bethany; but does not say any thing concerning his casting out the buyers and sellers on this day. Matthew then says as Mark does, that on the morrow as he came from Bethany he saw the fig-tree and cursed it. Mark observes, that they came to Jerusalem, Christ, his disciples, and the concourse of people as on the preceding day; and that Jesus went into the temple and cast out the buyers and sellers. So that it appears he cast them out twice; the first recorded by Matthew and Luke, the second by Mark, That he cast out the buyers and sellers the second day also appears from Matthew, who describing his coming to the temple the second day says, v. 23. “And when he was come into the temple, the chief priests and the elders of the people came unto him as he was teaching, and said, By what authority dost thou these things?" viz. By what authority dost thou cast out the buyers and sellers? From all which it is evident that he cast out the buyers and sellers twice; the first described by Matthew before he cursed the fig-tree, the second described by Mark immediately after he had cursed it. But the following observation will render this view of the subject conclusive. Matthew and Mark say, that when he rode into Jerusalem, he came immediately from Jericho. Both say, that after he had made this entry into Jerusalem, he went in the evening to Bethany and lodged there; both say, that it was the following day when he came from Bethany, that he, cursed the fig-tree, and not the first day when he came from Jericho. From which it is clear that he cast the buyers and sellers out of the temple twice; the first time when he came directly from Jericho, as mentioned by Matthew, the second time when he came from Bethany, as recorded by Luke, OBJECTION. "How happened it that the whole Jewish nation then living, should mistake and suppose the kingdom of the Messiah to be temporal ?" ANSWER. The kingdom of the Messiah was never understood as.a temporal kingdom from the time of Moses to the Babylonish captivity. If his kingdom had been understood as a temporal kingdom, he would have been most graciously received by the Jews. But it is expressly said by Isaiah, ch. viii. 14. that he should be " for a stone of stumbling and for a rock of offence to both the houses of Israel." And in conformity with these words, he said, "My kingdom is not of this world ;" on which account he was persecuted. OBJECTION. "The genealogy of Jesus Christ as it is given by Matthew, is quite different to that which is given by Luke; if Luke speak truth, Matthew speaks falshood; and if Matthew speak truth, Luke speaks falshood." ANSWER. This objection has often been advanced to prove the disagreement between the genealogies; but it has certainly been made in the most profound ignorance of the subject on which these writers have written. It does not appear to be known to them, that Matthew gives the regal descent of the Messiah, beginning with David and passing through Solomon to Jechonias, where the line of Solomon became extinct. And here we have 27 generations or descendants. The regal descent then begins with the next relative, who was Salathiel, a descendant of Nathan, another son of David. But the genealogy given by Luke is derived from Nathan in the natural line, which passing through Salathiel, meets the regal order, or line of Solomon, in the person of Zerubbabel the grandson of Salathiel. Zerubbabel had two sons, Abihud and Rhesa; Matthew pursues the regal order, and follows the line of the eldest |