{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_15968/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_15968","id":"gutenberg_15968","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/15968","summary":null,"tags":["Category: History - Religious","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Rationalism"],"text":"Produced by Charles Klingman\n\n\n\n\n\nThe Grounds of Christianity\nExamined by Comparing\nThe New Testament with the Old\n\nby George Bethune English, A.M.\n\n\n\"First understand, then judge.\"\n\"Bring forth the people blind, although they have eyes;\nAnd deaf, although they have ears.\nLet them produce their witnesses, that they may be justified;\nOr let them hear their turn, and say, THIS IS TRUE.\"\n\tISAIAH.\n\n\nBoston 1813\n\n\nTo the Intelligent and the Candid\nWho are\nWilling to Listen to Every Opinion\nThat is Supported by Reason;\nAnd\nNot Averse to Bringing their Own Opinions\nTo the Test of Examination;\nTHIS BOOK\nIs Respectfully Dedicated\nBy\nThe Author\n\n\n\nCONTENTS\n\nChapter I.\nIntroductory,--Showing that the Apostles and Authors of the\nNew Testament endeavour to prove Christianity from the Old.\n\nChapter II.\nStatement of the Question in Dispute.\n\nChapter III.\nThe Characteristics of the Messiah, as given by the Hebrew\nProphets.\n\nChapter IV.\nThe character of Jesus tested by those characteristic marks of the\nmessiah, given by the Prophets of the Old Testament.\n\nChapter V.\nExamination of the arguments from the Old Testament adduced in\nthe New, to prove that Jesus of Nazareth was the Messiah.\n\nChapter VI.\nExamination of the meaning of the phrase \"this was done that it\nmight be fulfilled.\"\n\nChapter VII.\nExamination of the arguments alledged from the Hebrew Prophets,\nto prove that Jesus was the Messiah.\n\nChapter VIII.\nStatement of Arguments which prove that Jesus was not the\nMessiah of the Old Testament.\n\nChapter IX.\nOn the character of Jesus of Nazareth, and the weight to be\nallowed to the argument of martyrdom, as a test of truth, in this\nquestion.\n\nChapter X.\nMiscellaneous.\n\nChapter XI.\nWhether the Mosaic Law be represented in the Old Testament as a\ntemporary, or a perpetual institution.\n\nChapter XII.\nOn the character of Paul, and his manner of reasoning.\n\nChapter XIII.\nExamination of some doctrines in the New testament, derived from\nthe Cabbala, the Oriental philosophy, and the tenets of Zoroaster.\n\nChapter XIV.\nA consideration of the \"gift of tongues,\" and other miraculous\npowers, ascribed to the Primitive Christians; and whether recorded\nmiracles are infallible proofs of the Divine Authority of doctrines\nsaid to have been confirmed by them.\n\nChapter XV.\nApplication of the two tests, said in Deuteronomy to have been\ngiven by God as discriminating a true prophet from a false one, to\nthe character and actions of Jesus.\n\nChapter XVI.\nExamination of the evidence, external and internal, in favour of the\ncredibility of the Gospel history.\n\nChapter XVII.\nOn the peculiar morality of the New Testament, as it affects\nnations and political societies.\n\nChapter XIX.\nA consideration of some supposed advantages attributed to the\nNew, over the Old, testament; and whether the doctrine of a\nResurrection and a Life to Come, is not taught by the Old\ntestament, in contradiction the assertion, that \"life and immorality\nwere brought to light by the Gospel.\"\n\nConclusion\n\nAppendix\n\nAddenda\n\n\n\nPREFACE\n\nThe celebrated Dr. Price, in his valuable \"Observation on\nthe Importance of the American Revolution,\" addressed to the\npeople of the United States, observes that, \"It is a common\nopinion, that there are some doctrines so sacred, and others of so\nbad a tendency, that no public discussion of them ought to be\nallowed. Were this a right opinion, all the persecution that has\never been practised would be justified; for if it is a part of the duty\nof civil magistrates to prevent the discussion of such doctrines,\nthey must, in doing this, act on their own judgments of the nature\nand tendency of doctrines; and, consequently, they must have a\nright to prevent the discussion of all doctrines which they think to\nbe too sacred for discussion, or too dangerous in their tendency;\nand this right they must exercise in the only way in which civil\npower is capable of exercising it--'by inflicting penalties upon all\nwho oppose sacred doctrines, or who maintain pernicious\nopinions.' In Mahometan, countries, therefore, magistrates would\nhave a right to silence and punish all who oppose the divine\nmission of Mahomet, a doctrine there reckoned of the most sacred\nnature. The like is true of the doctrines of transubstantiation,\nworship of the Virgin Mary, &c. &c., in Popish countries; and of\nthe doctrines of the Trinity, satisfaction, &c., in Protestant\ncountries. All such laws are right, if the opinion I have mentioned\nis right. But, in reality, civil power has nothing to do in such\nmatters, and civil governors go miserably out of their proper\nprovince, whenever they take upon them the care of truth, or the\nsupport of any doctrinal points. They are not judges of truth, and if\nthey pretend to decide about it, they will decide wrong. This all\nthe countries under heaven think of the application of civil power\nto doctrinal points in every country, but their own. It is indeed\nsuperstition, idolatry, and nonsense, that civil power at present\nsupports almost every where under the idea of supporting sacred\ntruth, and opposing dangerous error. Would not, therefore, its\nperfect neutrality be the greatest blessing? Would not the interest\nof truth gain unspeakably, were all the rulers of states to aim at\nnothing but keeping the peace; or did they consider themselves\nbound to take care, not of the future, but the present, interest of\nman; not of their souls and of their faith, but of their person and\nproperty; not of any ecclesiastical, but secular, matters only?\"\n\n\"All the experience of past time proves, that the consequence of\nallowing civil power to judge of the nature and tendency of\ndoctrines, must be making it a hindrance to the progress of truth,\nand an enemy to the improvement of the world.\"\n\n\"I would extend these observations to all points of faith, however\nsacred they may: be deemed. Nothing reasonable--can suffer by\ndiscussion. All doctrines, really sacred, must be clear, and\nincapable of being opposed with success.\"\n\n\"That immoral tendency of doctrines, which has been urged as a\nreason against allowing the public discussion of them, may be\neither avowed and direct? or only a consequence with which they\nare charged. If it is avowed and direct, such doctrines certainly will\nnot spread; the principles rooted, in human nature will resist them,\nand the advocates of them will be soon disgraced. If, on the\ncontrary, it is only a consequence with which a doctrine is charged,\nit should be considered how apt all parties are to charge the\ndoctrines they oppose with bad tendencies. It is well known that\nCalvinists and Arminians, Trinitarians and Socinians, Fatalists and\nFree-Willers, are continually exclaiming against one another's\nopinions, as dangerous and licentious. Even Christianity itself\ncould not, at its first introduction, escape this accusation. The\nprofessors of it were considered as atheists, because they opposed\npagan idolatry; and their religion was, on this account, reckoned a\ndestructive and pernicious enthusiasm. If, therefore, the rulers of a\nstate are to prohibit the propagation of all doctrines, in which they\napprehend immoral tendencies, an opening will be made, as I have\nbefore observed, for every species of persecution. There will be no\ndoctrine, however true or important, the avowal of which will not,\nin, some country or other, be subjected to civil penalties.\"\n\nThese observations bear the stamp of good sense, and their truth\nhas been abundantly confirmed by experience; and it is the peculiar\nhonour of the United States, that in conformity with the principles\nof these observations, perfect freedom, of opinion and of speech,\nare here established by law, and are the birthright of every citizen\nthereof. Our country* is the only one which has not been guilty of\nthe folly of establishing the ascendancy of one set of religious\nopinions, and persecuting or tolerating all others, and which does\nnot permit any man to harass his neighbour, because he thinks\ndifferently from himself. In consequence of these excellent\ninstitutions, difference of religious sentiment; makes here no\nbreach in private friendship, and works no danger to the public\nsecurity. This is as it should be; for, in matters of opinion,\nespecially with regard to so important a thing as religion, it is\nevery man's natural right and duty to think for himself, and to\njudge upon such evidence as he can procure, after he has used his\nbest endeavours to get information. Human decisions are of no\nweight in this matter, for another man has no more right to.\ndetermine what his opinions shall be, than I have to determine\nwhat another man's opinions shall be. It is amazing that one man\ncan dare to presume he has such a right over another; and that any\nman can be so weak and credulous, as to imagine, that another has\nsuch right over him.\n\nAs it is every man's natural right and duty to think and judge for\nhimself in matters of opinion; so he should be allowed freely to\nbring forward and defend his opinions, and to endeavour, when be\njudges proper, to convince others also of their truth.\n\nFor unless all men are allowed freely to profess their opinions, the\nmeans of information, with respect to opinions, must, in a great\nmeasure, be wanting; and just inquiries into their truth be almost\nimpracticable; and, by consequence, our natural right and duty to\nthink and judge for ourselves, must be rendered almost nugatory,\nor be subverted, for want of materials whereon to employ our\nminds. A man by himself, without communication with other\nminds, can make no great progress in knowledge; and besides, an\nindividual is indisposed to use his own strength, when an\nundisturbed laziness, ignorance, and prejudice give him full\nsatisfaction as to the truth of his opinions. But if there be a free\nprofession, or communication of sentiment, every man will have\nan opportunity of acquainting himself with all that can be known\nfrom others; and many for their own satisfaction will make\ninquiries, and, in order to ascertain the truth of opinions, will desire\nto know all that can be said on any question.\n\nIf such liberty of professing and teaching be not allowed, error, if\nauthorized, will keep its ground; and truth, if dormant, will never\nbe brought to light; or, if authorized, will be supported on a false\nand absurd foundation, and such as would equally support error;\nand, if received on the ground of authority, will not be in the least\nmeritorious to its professors.\n\nBesides, not to encourage capable and honest men to profess and\ndefend their opinions when different from ours, is to distrust the\ntruth of our own opinion, and to fear the light. Such conduct must,\nin a country of sense and learning, increase the number of\nunbelievers already so greatly complained of; who, if they see\nmatters of opinion not allowed to be professed, and impartially\ndebated, think, justly perhaps, that they have foul play, and,\ntherefore, reject many things as false and ill grounded, which\notherwise they might perhaps receive as truths.\n\nThe grand principle of men considered as having relation to the\nDeity, and under an obligation to be religious, is, that they ought to\nconsult their reason, and seek every where for the best instruction;\nand of Christians and Protestants the duty, and professed principle\nis, to consult reason and the Scripture, as the rule of their faith and\npractice.\n\nBut how can these, which are practical principles, be duly put in\npractice, unless all be at liberty, at all times, and in all points,\nconsider and debate with others, (as well as with themselves,) what\nreason and Scripture says; and to profess, and act openly,\naccording to what they are convinced they say? How can we\nbecome better informed with regard to religion, than by using the\nbest means of information? which consist in consulting reason and\nscripture, and calling in the aid of others. And of what use is it to\nconsult reason, and Scripture at all, as any means of information.,\nif we are not, upon conviction, to follow their dictates?\n\nNo man has any reason to apprehend any ill consequences to truth,\n(for which alone he ought to have any concern,) from free inquiry\nand debate.--For truth is not a thing to dread examination, but\nwhen fairly proposed to an unbiased understanding, is like light to\nthe eye; it must distinguish itself from error, as light does\ndistinguish does distinguish itself from darkness. For, while free\ndebate is allowed, truth is in no danger, for it will never want a\nprofessor thereof, nor an advocate to offer some plea in its behalf.\nAnd it can never be wholly banished, but when human decisions,\nbacked by human power, carry all before them.\n\nWe ought to examine foundations of opinions, not only, that we\nmay attain the discovery of truth, but we ought to do so, on this\naccount, because that it is our duty; and the way to recommend\nourselves to the favour of God. For opinions, how true soever,\nwhen the effect of education or tradition, or interest, or passion,\ncan never recommend a man to God. For those ways have no merit\nin them, and are the worst a man can possibly take to obtain truth;\nand therefore, though they may be objects of forgiveness, they can\nnever be of reward from Him.\n\nHaving promised these observations in order to persuade, and\ndispose the reader to be candid, I will now declare the motives,\nwhich induced me to submit to the consideration of the intelligent,\nthe contents of this volume. The Author has spared, he thinks, no\npains to arrive at certain Truth in matters of religion; the; sense of\nwhich is what distinguishes man from the brute. And in this most\nimportant subject that can employ the human understanding, he\nhas been particularly desirous to become acquainted with the\nGrounds, and Doctrines of the Christian Religion; and nothing but\nthe difficulties, which he in this volume lays before the public,\nstaggers his faith in it.\n\nIt may perhaps add to the interest the Reader may take in this work\nto inform him, that the Author was a believer in the religion of the\nNew Testament, after what he conceived to be a sufficient\nexamination of its evidence for a divine origin. He had terminated\nan examination of the controversy with the Deists to his own\nsatisfaction, i.e. he felt convinced that their objections were not\ninsurmountable, when he turned his attention to the consideration\nof the ancient, and obscure controversy between the Christians and\nthe Jews. His curiosity was deeply interested to examine a subject\nin truth so little known, and to ascertain the causes, and the\nreasons, which had prevented a people more interested in the truth\nof Christianity than any other from believing it: and he set down to\nthe subject without any suspicion, that the examination would not\nterminate in convincing him still more in favour of what were then\nhis opinions. After a long, thorough, and startling examination of\ntheir Books, together with all the answers to them he could obtain\nfrom a Library amply furnished in this respect, he was finally very\nreluctantly compelled to feel persuaded, by proofs he could neither\nrefute, nor evade, that how easily soever Christians might answer\nthe Deists, so called, the Jews were clearly too hard for them.\nBecause they set the Old and New Testament in opposition, and\nreduce Christians to this fatal dilemma.--Either the Old Testament\ncontains a Revelation from God; or it does sot. If it does, then the\nNew Testament cannot be from God, because it is palpably, and\nimportantly repugnant to the Old Testament in doctrine, and some\nother things. Now Jews, and Christians, each of them admit the\nOld Testament as containing a divine Revelation; consequently the\nJews cannot, and Christians ought not to receive and allow any\nthing as a Revelation from God which flatly contradicts a former\nby them acknowledged Revelation: because it cannot be supposed\nthat God will contradict himself. On the other hand--if the Old\nTestament be not from God, still the New Testament must go\ndown, because it asserts that the Old Testament is a revelation\nfrom God, and builds upon it as a foundation. And if the\nfoundation fails, how can the house, stand? The Author pledges\nhimself to the Reader, to prove, that they establish this dilemma\ncompletely. And he cannot help thinking, that there is reason to\nbelieve, that if both sides of this strangely neglected controversy\nhad been made public in times past, and become known, that the\nconsequences would have been long ago fatal at least to the New\nTestament.\n\nThe Author has been earnestly dissuaded from making public the\ncontents of this volume on account of apprehended mischievous\nconsequences. He thought, however, that the age of pious frauds\nought to be past, and their principle discarded, at least in Protestant\ncountries. Deception and error are always, sooner or later,\ndiscovered; and truth in, the long run, both in politics, and religion,\nwill never be ultimately harmful. If what the Book states is true, it\nought to be known, if it is erroneous; it can, and will, be refuted.\n\nThe Author therefore makes it public, for these reasons,--because\nhe thinks, that the matter contained in the book, is true, and\nimportant,--because he wished, and found it necessary to justify\nhimself from contemptible misrepresentations uttered behind his\nback; and to give to those who know him, good and sufficient\nreasons for past conduct, of which those to whom he is known,\ncannot be ignorant; and finally, he thought it right, and proper, and\nhumane, to give to the world a work which contained the reasons\nfor the unbelief of the countrymen of Jesus; who for almost\neighteen hundred years have been made the unresisting victims of,\nas the reader will find, groundless misrepresentation, and the most\namazing cruelty; because they refused to believe what it was\nimpossible that they should believe, on account of reasons their\npersecutors did not know, and refused to be informed of.\n\nIf the arguments and statements contained in this volume should be\nfound to be correct, he believes that every honest and candid man,\nafter his first surprise that they should not have been made known\nbefore, will feel for the victims of a mistake so singular and so\nancient as the one which is the subject of the following pages; and\nwill think with the author, that it is time, high time, that the truth\nshould be known, and justice be done to them.*\n\nThere is not in existence a more singular instance of the\nmischievous mistakes arising from taking things for granted which\nrequire proof, than the case before the reader. The world has all\nalong been in total error with regard to the reasons and the motives\nwhich have prevented the Hebrew nation from receiving the\nsystem of the New Testament. They have been successfully\naccused of incorrigible blindness and obstinacy; and while\nvolumes upon volumes have been written against them, and the\narguments therein contained, supported and enforced by the power\nof the Inquisition, and the oppressions of all Christendom, these\nunfortunate people have not been willingly suffered to offer to the\nworld one word in their own defence. They have not been\nallowed, after hearing with patience both arguments, and \"railing\naccusations\" in abundance, to answer in their turn; but have been\ncompelled, through the fear of confiscation, persecution, and death,\nto leave misapprehensions unexplained, and misrepresentations\nunrefuted.\n\nIs it then to be wondered at, that mankind have considered their\nadversaries as in the right, and that deserted by reason, and even\ntheir own Scriptures, they were supported in their opinion only by\na blind and pertinacious obstinacy, more worthy of wonder than\ncuriosity? Alas! the world did not consider, that nothing was more\neasy than to confute people whose tongues were frozen by the\nterror of the Inquisition!! But, thanks to the good sense of this\nenlightened age, those times are past and gone. There is now one\nhappy country where freedom of speech is allowed, where every\nharmless religious opinion is protected by law, and where every\nopinion is listened to that is supported by reason. The time, I trust,\nis now come when the substantial arguments of this oppressed,\nand, in this respect, certainly calumniated, people, may be\nproduced and their reasons set forth, without the fear of harm, and\nwith, and with the hope of hearing from the intelligent and the\ncandid. They, we believe, will be fully convinced, that their\nadversaries have for so long a time triumphed over them without\nmeasure, only because they have been suffered to do so without\ncontradiction.\n\nThe reader is assured, that, notwithstanding the subject, he will\nfind nothing in this volume but what is considered by the author to\nbe fair and liberal argument; and such no honest man ought to\ndecline looking in the face. He has endeavoured to discuss the\nimportant subject of the book in the most inoffensive manner; for\nhe has no wish, and claims no right, to wound the feelings of those\nwho differ from him in opinion. There is not, nor ought there to be,\na word of reproach in it, against the moral character of Jesus, or the\ntwelve Apostles; and the utmost the author attempts to prove is,\nthat their system was founded, not upon fraud and imposture, but\nupon a mistake. After the deaths of Christ and his Apostles, it was\nindeed aided and supported by very bad means; but its first\nfounders, the author believes, were guilty of no other crime than\nthat of being mistaken; a very common one indeed.\n\nHe hopes, therefore, that such a discussion as the one now laid\nbefore the public, will be fairly met, and fairly answered, if\nanswered at all, and that recourse will not be had to dishonest and\nungentlemanly misrepresentations, and calling names, in order to\nprevent people from examining things they have a right to know,\nand in order to blind and frighten the public, the jury to which he\nappeals. It is infallibly true, that the knowledge of truth is, and\nmust be beneficial to mankind; and that, in the long run, it never\nwas, and never can be, harmful. It is equally certain, that God\nwould never give a Revelation so slightly founded as to be\nendangered by any sophistry of man. If the Christian system be\nfrom God, it will certainly stand, no human power can overthrow\nit; and, therefore, no sincere Christian who believes the New\nTestament, ought to be afraid to meet half way the objections of\nany one who offers them with fairness, and expresses them in\ndecent language; and no sensible Christian ought to shut his ears\nagainst his neighbour, who respectfully asks \"a reason for the faith\nthat is in him.\"\n\nThe author has been told, indeed, that, \"supposing the Christian\nsystem to be unfounded, yet that it is reasonable to believe, that the\nSupreme Being would view any attempts to disturb it, with\ndispleasure, on account of its moral effects.\" But is not this\nsomething like absurdity? Can God have made it necessary, that\nmorals should be founded on delusion, in order that they might be\nsupported? Can the God of TRUTH be displeased to have men\nconvinced that they have been mistaken, or imposed upon, by\nRevelations pretended to be from Him, which if in fact not from\nhim, must be the offspring either of error or falsehood? And if the\nChristian system be, in truth, not from God, can we suppose, that\nin his eyes its doctrines with regard to Him are atoned for, by a few\ngood moral precepts? Can we suppose, that that Supreme and\nawful Being can feel Himself honoured, in having his creatures\nmade to believe, that He was once nine months in the womb of a\nwoman; that God, the Great and Holy, went through all the\nnastiness of infancy; that be lived a mendicant in a corner of the\nearth, and was finally scourged, and hanged on a gibbet by his own\ncreatures? If these things be, in truth, all mistakes, can we\nsuppose, that God is pleased in having them believed of Him? On\nthe contrary, can they, together with the doctrine of the Trinity, I\nwould respectfully ask, be possibly looked upon by Him (if they\nare not true), otherwise, than as so many--what I forbear to\nmention. But this is not all. The reader is requested to consider,\nthat the Christian system is built upon the prostrate necks of the\nwhole Hebrew nation. It is a tree which flourished in a soil watered\nby their tears; its leaves grew green in an atmosphere filled with\ntheir cries and groans; and its roots have been moistened and\nfattened with their blood. The ruin, reproach, and sufferings of that\npeople, are considered, by its advocates, as the most striking proof\nof the Divine authority of the New Testament; and for almost\neighteen hundred years the system contained in that book has been\nthe cause of miseries and afflictions to that nation, the most\nhorrible and unparalleled in the history of man.\n\nNow, if that system be indeed Divine, all this may be very well,\nand as it should be. But if, perchance, it should turn out to be a\nmistake if it be, in truth, not from God; will not, then, that system\nbe justly chargeable with all those shocking cruelties which, on\naccount of it, have been inflicted on that people?\n\nIf that system be verily and indeed founded on a mistake, no\nlanguage, no indignation, can do justice to its guilt in this respect.\nAll its good moral effects are a mere drop of pure water in that\nocean of Jewish and Gentile blood it has caused to be shed by\nembittering men's minds with groundless prejudices. And if it be\nnot divine; if it be plainly and demonstrably proved to have\noriginated in error; who is the man, that, after considering what has\nbeen suggested, will have the heart to come forward, and coolly\nsay, \"that it is better that a whole nation of men should continue, as\nheretofore, to be unjustly hated, reproached, cursed, and plundered,\nand massacred, on account of it, rather than that the received\nreligious system should be demonstrated to be founded on\nmistake?\" No! If it be, in fact, founded on mistake, every man of\nhonour, honesty, and humanity, will say, without hesitation, \"Let\nthe delusion (if it is one) be done away, which must be supported\nat the expense of truth, of justice, and the happiness and\nrespectability of a whole nation, who are men like ourselves, and\nmore unfortunate than any others, in having already suffered but\ntoo much affliction and misery on account of it.\" No! though the\nmoral effects ascribed to this system of religion were as good, as\ngreat, and ten times greater than they ever have been, or can be,\nyet, if it is a delusion, it would be absolutely wicked to support it,\nsince it is erected upon the sufferings, wretchedness, and\noppression of a people who compose millions of the great family\nof mankind.\n\nIt is remarkable, that the ablest modern advocates for the truth and\ndivine authority of the gospel, as if they knew of no certain,\ndemonstrative proof which could be adduced in a case of so much\nimportance, seem to content themselves, and expect their readers\nshould be satisfied, with an accumulation of probable arguments in\nits favour; and it has been even said, that the case admits of no\nother kind of proof. If it be so, the author requests all so persuaded\nto consider, for a moment, whether it could be reconciled to any\nideas of wisdom in an earthly potentate, if he should send an\nambassador to a foreign state to mediate a negotiation of the\ngreatest importance, without furnishing him with certain,\nindubitable credentials of the truth and authenticity of his mission?\nAnd to consider further, whether it be just or seemly, to attribute to\nthe Omniscient, Omnipotent Deity, a degree of weakness and folly,\nwhich was never yet imputed to any of his creatures? for unless\nmen are hardy enough to pass so gross an affront upon the\ntremendous Majesty of Heaven, the improbability that God should\ndelegate the Mediator of a most important covenant to be proposed\nto all mankind, without enabling him to give them clear and, in\nreason, indisputable proof of the divine authority of his mission,\nmust ever infinitely outweigh the aggregate sum of all the\nprobabilities which can be accumulated in the opposite scale of the\nbalance. And to conclude, I presume it will not be denied, that the\nauthenticity and celestial origin of any thing pretending to be a\nDivine Revelation, before it has any claims upon our faith, ought to\nbe made clear beyond all reasonable doubt; otherwise, it can have no\njust claims to a right to influence our conduct.\n\nAnd as for the opinions and the arguments contained in this\nvolume, I have but trembling hopes that they will meet with\nfavour, merely because the author is sincere, and wishes to do\nright. Conscious that I make a perilous attempt, in daring to\ndefend myself by attacking ancient error supported by multitudes,\nwith no other seconds besides Truth and Reason, it would be\nbootless for me to ask indulgence for them on account of my good\nintentions; and as they can derive no credit from the authority of\nthe writer, I am sensible they must fall by their own weakness, or\nstand by their own strength. I must leave them, therefore, to their\nfate; and I can cheerfully do it, without fear for the issue, if the\nreader will only be candid, and will comply with my earnest\nrequest--\"first to understand, and then judge.\"\n\nBefore I conclude these prefatory remarks, I would observe, that as\nthe contents of this volume will be perfectly novel to nine hundred\nand ninety-nine out of a thousand, it is but justice to the public, and\nto myself, to avow, that I do not claim to have originated all the\narguments advanced in this book. A very considerable proportion\nof them were selected, and derived, from ancient and curious\nJewish Tracts, translated from Chaldee into Latin, very little\nknown even in Europe, and not at all known there to any but the\ncurious and inquisitive. And I reasonably hope, that discerning\nmen will be much more disposed to weigh with candour the\narguments herein offered, when they consider that they are, in\nmany instances, the reasonings of learned, ancient and venerable\nmen, who, in times when the inquisition was in vigour, suffered\nunder the most bloody oppression, and whose writings were\ncautiously preserved, and secretly handed down to the seventeenth\ncentury in manuscript, as the printing of them would assuredly\nhave brought all concerned to the stake. Some few other arguments\nwere derived from other authors, and were taken from works not so\nmuch known as I hope they will be.\n\nFinally, I commit my work to the discretion of the good sense of\nthe reader, believing that if he is not convinced, he will at least be\ninterested; and hoping that he will discover from the complexion of\nthe book (what my own heart bears witness to) that the author is a\nsincere inquirer after truth, and perfectly willing to be convinced\nthat he is in error by any one who can remove the difficulties, and\nrefute the arguments, now laid by him before the public, with\ndeference and respect.\n\nSeptember 28, 1813.\n\n\n\nTHE\n\nEVIDENCES OF CHRISTIANITY\n\nExamined by Comparing the\n\nNEW TESTAMENT WITH THE OLD.\n\n\n\nCHAPTER I.\n\nIntroductory,--showing that the Apostles and the authors of the\nNew Testament, endeavour to prove Christianity from the Old.\n\nChristianity is founded on Judaism, and the New Testament upon\nthe Old; and Jesus of Nazareth is the person said in the New\nTestament to be Promised in the Old, under the character and name\nof the Messiah of the Jews, and who as such only claims the\nobedience, and submission of the World. Accordingly, it is the\ndesign of the authors of the New, to prove Christianity from the\nOld, Testament; which is said Jo. 5:39, to contain the words of\neternal life: and it represents Jesus and his Apostles, as fulfilling by\ntheir mission, doctrines and works, the predictions of the Prophets\nand the Law: which last is said to prophecy of, or to typify\nChristianity.\n\nMatthew, for example, proves several parts of Christianity from\nthe Old Testament, either by asserting them to be things foretold\ntherein as to come to pass under the gospel dispensation; or to be\nfounded on the notions of the Old Testament.\n\nThus he proves Mary's being with child by the Holy Spirit, and the\nAngel's telling her she \"shall bring forth a son, and call his name\nJesus;\" and the other circumstances attending his miraculous birth;\nJesus' birth at Bethlehem; his flight into Egypt; the slaughter of the\ninfants; Jesus Dwelling at Nazareth, and at Capernaum, in the\nborders of Zabulon, and Naphtali; his casting out devils, and\nhealing the sick; his eating with Publicans and sinners; his\nspeaking in parables that the Jews might not understand him; his\nsending his disciples to fetch an ass, and a colt; the children's\ncrying in the Temple; the resurrection of Jesus from the dead;\nJesus' being betrayed by Judas, and Judas' returning back the\nthirty pieces of Silver, and the Priest's buying the Potter's Field\nwith them; and his hanging Himself; &c. &c. All these events, and\nmany more, are said to be fulfillments of the Prophecies of the Old\nTestament, see Mat. 1, 2: and 4 chapters, and ch. 8: v. 16,17, and\nch. 9: 11,13, and ch. 13: 13, ch. 21: 2--7. 15,16, ch. 22: 31, 32, ch.\n26: 54, 56, ch. 27: 5--10.\n\nJesus himself is represented as proving the truth of Christianity\nthus. He, joining himself to two of his Disciples, (Luke 28: 15--\n22,) after his resurrection, who knew him not, and complaining of\ntheir mistake about his person, whom they now took not to be the\nMessiah, because he had been condemned to death, and crucified;\nhe, observing their disbelief of his resurrection, which had been\nreported to them by \"certain women of their acquaintance,\" upon\nthe credit of the affirmation of angels, said unto them, \"O Fools,\nand slow of heart to believe all that the Prophets have spoken.\nOught not Christ (i.e. the Messiah) to have suffered these things,\nand to enter into his Glory? and beginning at Moses, and all the\nProphets, he expounded unto them in all the Scriptures the things\nconcerning himself.\"\n\nAgain he discoursed to all his Disciples, putting them in mind, that,\nbefore his Death, he told them (Luke 24: 44, 46, 47,) that \"all\nthings must be fulfilled which were written in the law of Moses,\nand in the Prophets, and in the Psalms concerning him;\" adding,\n\"thus it is written, and thus it behoveth Christ (1. e. the Messiah) to\nsuffer, and to rise from the dead the third day; and that repentance,\nand remission of sins should be preached in his name, beginning at\nJerusalem.\"\n\nWhen the people of several nations, Acts 2:12, were amazed at the\nApostles speaking in their several tongues, and when many\nmocked the Apostles, saying they were full of new wine, Peter\nmakes a speech in public, wherein, after saying they were not\ndrunk, because it was but the third hour of the day, he endeavours\nto show them, that this was spoken of by the Prophet Joel, and he\nconcludes with proving the resurrection of Jesus from the book of\nPsalms.\n\nPeter, and John, tell the people assembled at the Temple, \"that\nGod had showed by the mouth of all his Prophets, that Christ\nshould suffer,\" Acts 3:18.\n\nPeter to justify his preaching to the Gentiles, concludes his\ndiscourse with saying, Acts 10: 43--\"To Jesus gave all the\nProphets witness, that through his name whosoever (i.e. Jew, or\nGentile) believeth in him, shall receive remission of sins.\"\n\nPaul also endeavours to prove to the Jews in the Synagogue of\nAntioch, (Ib. v. 13) that the history of Jesus was contained in the\nOld Testament, and that he, and Barnabas were commanded in the\nOld Testament, to preach the gospel to the Gentiles.\n\nOn the occasion of a dispute among the Christians whether the\nGentile converts were to be circumcised after the Law of Moses,\nand to observe the Law, we find, that after much disputing, the\npoint was settled by James by quotation from Amos.\n\nThe Bereans are highly extolled (Acts 17: 11,) for searching the\nScriptures, i.e. the Old Testament, daily, in order to find out\nwhether the things preached to them by the Apostles were so, or no:\nwho if they had not proved these things, i.e. Christianity from the\nOld Testament, ought, according to their own principles, to have\nbeen rejected by the Bereans, as teachers of false doctrine.\n\nPaul, when accused before Agrippa by the Jews, said (Acts 26; 6,)\n\"I stand, and am judged for the hope of the promise made of God\nunto our fathers,\" i.e. for teaching Christianity, or the true doctrine\nof the Old Testament, and to this accusation he pleads guilty, by\ndeclaring in the fullest manner, that he taught nothing but the\nDoctrines of the Old Testament. \"Having therefore (says he)\nobtained help of God, I continue unto this day, witnessing both to\nsmall, and great, saying now other things than those which the\nProphets, and Moses did say should come, that the Christ should\nsuffer, and that he should be the first who should rise from the\nDead, and should show light unto the People, and unto the\nGentiles.\"\n\nThe Author of the first Epistle to the Cor. says, 15 ch. v. 4, that\n\"Jesus rose again from the dead the third day, according to the\nScriptures,\" that is, according to the Old Testament, and he is\nsupposed to ground this on the history of the prophet Jonas, who\nwas three days and three nights in the fish's belly: though the cases\ndo not seem to be parallel, for Jesus being buried on Friday\nevening, and rising on Sunday morning, was in the tomb but one\nday and two nights.\n\nBut most singular is the argument of the Apostle Paul (in his\nEpistle to the Galatians) to prove Christianity from the Old\nTestament. \"Tell me (says he, Gal. 4: 21,) ye that desire to be\nunder the Law, do ye not hear the Law? For it is written, that\nAbraham had two Sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a free\nwoman. But he who was of the bond woman, was born after the\nflesh; but he who was of the free woman was by promise. Which\nthings are an Allegory. For these are the two covenants, the one\nfrom Mount Sinai which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar. But\nthis Agar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem\nthat now is, and is in bondage with her Children. But Jerusalem\nwhich is above is free, which is the Mother of us all. For it is\nwritten (Isaiah 54: 1,) \"Rejoice thou Barren that bearest not, break\nforth, and cry thou that travailest not, for the desolate hath\nmany more children than she which hath an husband.\" Now, we\nBrethren, as Isaac was, are children of the Promise. But as then he\nthat was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the\nspirit, even so it is now. But what saith the Scripture (Gen. 21: 10,\n12,) Cast out the bond woman, and her son, for the son of the bond\nwoman shall not be heir with the son of the free woman. So then,\nBrethren, we are not the children of the bond woman, but of the\nfree. Stand fast, therefore, in the Liberty wherewith Christ hath\nmade us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of\nbondage.\"\n\nIn fine, the Author of these Epistles reasons in the same singular\nmanner from the Old Testament throughout; which is, according to\nhim, (2 Tim. iii: 15,) \"able to make men wise unto Salvation:\"\nasserting himself and others to be ministers of the New Testament,\nas being ministers, not of \"the letter but of \"the Spirit,\" (2Cor. iii:\n6.) That is. Of the Old Testament, spiritually understood; and\nendeavouring to prove, especially in the Epistle to the Hebrews,\nthat Christianity was veiled and contained in the Old Testament,\nand was implied in the Jewish history, and Law, both which he\nconsiders as types and shadows of Christianity.\n\n\n\nCHAPTER II.\n\nSTATEMENT of THE QUESTION IN DISPUTE.\n\nHow Christianity depends on the Old Testament, or what proofs\nare to be met with therein in behalf of Christianity, are the subjects\nof almost all the numerous books written by divines, and other\napologists for Christianity, but the chief and principal of these\nproofs may be justly supposed to be urged in the New Testament\nitself, by the authors thereof; who relate the history of the first\npreaching of the Gospel, and profess themselves to be apostles of\nJesus, or companions of the Apostles.\n\nSome of these proofs, as a specimen, have been already adduced.\nAnd if they are valid proofs, then is Christianity strongly and\ninvincibly established: on its true foundations.\n\nIt is established upon its true foundations, because Jesus and his\nApostles did, as we have seen, ground Christianity on those proofs;\nand it is strongly and invincibly established on those foundations,\nbecause a proof drawn from an inspired book is perfectly\nconclusive. And prophecies delivered in an inspired book\nare, when fulfilled, such as may be justly deemed sure, and\ndemonstrative proof; and which Peter (2 Peter 1: 19) prefers as an\nargument for the truth of Christianity, to that miraculous\nattestation (whereof he, and two other Apostles are said to have\nbeen witnesses,) given by God himself to the mission of Jesus of\nNazareth. His argument appears to be as follows. \"Laying this\nfoundation, that Prophecy proceeds from the Holy Spirit, it is a\nstronger argument than a miracle, which depends upon eternal\nevidence, and testimony.\" And this opinion of Peter's is\ncorroborated by the words of Jesus himself, who, in Mat. xxiv: 23,\n24, Mark xiii: 21, 22, affirms, that miracles wrought in\nconfirmation of a pretender's being the Messiah, are not to be\nconsidered as proof of his being so--\"though they show great\nsigns and wonders, believe it not,\" is his command to his disciples.\n\nBesides, prophecies fulfilled, seem the most proper of all\narguments to evince the truth of a new revelation which is\ndesigned to be universally promulgated to men. For a man who has\nthe Old Testament put into his hands, which contain prophecies,\nand the New Testament afterward, which is said to contain their\ncompletions, and is once satisfied, as he may be with the greatest\nease, that the Old Testament existed before the New, may have a\ncomplete, internal, divine, demonstration of the truth of\nChristianity, without long, and laborious enquiries. Whereas,\narguments of another nature, such, for instance, as relate to the\nauthority and genuineness of the books, and the persons, and\ncharacters of authors, and witnesses, require more application, and\nunderstanding, than falls to the share of the bulk of mankind; or\nelse are very precarious in themselves, since we know that in the\nfirst centuries there were numberless forged Gospels, and\nApocryphal writings imposed upon the credulous as apostolic and\nauthentic; and there were in the Apostles times, as many, and as\ngreat heresies and schisms as perhaps have been since in any age\nof the Church. So that, setting aside the before mentioned internal\nproofs from prophecy, (which were the Apostle's proofs and in\ntheir nature sufficient of themselves) we should have no certain\nproof at all for the Religion of the New Testament.\n\nOn the other hand, if the proofs for Christianity from the Old\nTestament, are not valid, if the arguments founded on that Book be\nnot conclusive, and the Prophecies cited from thence be not\nfulfilled, then has Christianity no just foundation; for the\nfoundation on which Jesus and his Apostles built it is then invalid,\nand false. Nor can miracles, said to have been wrought by Jesus,\nand his Apostles in behalf of Christianity, avail anything in the\ncase. For miracles can never render a foundation valid, which is in\nitself invalid; can never make a false inference true; can never\nmake a prophecy fulfilled, which is not fulfilled; and can never\ndesignate a Messiah, or Jesus for the Messiah, if both are not\nmarked out in the Old Testament; no more than they could prove\nthe earth to be the sun, or a mouse a lion.\n\nBesides, miracles said to have been wrought, may be often justly\ndecided false reports, when attributed to persons who claim an\nauthority from the Old Testament, which they impertinently\nalledge to support their pretentions. God can never be supposed\noften to permit miracles to be done for the confirmation of a false,\nor pretended mission. And if at any time he does permit miracles to\nbe done in confirmation of a pretended mission, we have express\ndirections from the Old Testament (acknowledged by Christians to\nbe of divine authority) Deut. xiii. 1, 2, not to regard such miracles;\nbut to continue firm to the antecedent revelation given by Himself,\nand contained in the Old Testament, notwithstanding any \"signs or\nwonders;\" which, under the circumstance of attesting something\ncontrary to an antecedent revelation, we are forewarned of as being\nno test of truth. No new revelation, however supported by\nmiracles, ought ever to be received as coming from God, unless it\nconfirms, or at least does not contradict, the preceding standing\nrevelation, acknowledged to be from God.\n\nAccordingly, we find from the New Testament, that all the\nrecorded miracles of Jesus could not make the Jews believe him to\nbe the Messiah when they thought that he did not answer the\ndescription of that character given by the Prophets; on the\ncontrary, they procured him to be crucified for pretending to be\nwhat to them he appeared plainly not to be.\n\nNor had his miracles alone any effect on his own brethren, and\nkindred, who seem (Mark vi. 4; Jo. vii. 6,) to have been more\nincredulous in him than other Jews. Nor had they the effect, they\nare supposed to have been fitted to produce, among his immediate\nfollowers, and Disciples; some of whom did not believe in him, but\ndeserted him, and particularly had no faith in him when he spake\nof his sufferings; and thought that he could not be their Messiah\nwhen they saw him suffer, notwithstanding his miracles, and his\ndeclaration to them that he was the Messiah. And so rooted were\nthe Jews in the notion of the Messiah's being a temporal Prince, a\nconquering Pacificator, and Deliverer, even after the death of\nJesus, and the progress of Christianity grounded on the belief of his\nbeing the Messiah, that they have in all times of distress,\nparticularly in the apostolic sera, in great numbers followed\nimpostors giving themselves out as the Messiah, with force, and\narms, as the way to restore the kingdom of Israel. So that the Jews,\nwho it seems mistook in this most important matter, and after the\nmost egregious manner, the meaning of their own Books, might,\ntill they were set right in their interpretation of the Old Testament,\nand were convinced from thence that Jesus was the Messiah, might\nI say, as justly reject Jesus asserting his mission, and Doctrines\nwith miracles, as they might reject any other person, who in virtue\nof miracles would lead them into idolatry, or any other breach of\ntheir law.\n\nIn fine, the miracles said to have been wrought by Jesus, are,\naccording to the Old Testament, the gospel scheme, and the words\nof Jesus himself, no absolute proof of his being the Messiah, or of\nthe truth of Christianity; and Jesus laid no great stress upon them\nas proving doctrines, for he forewarned his disciples, that \"signs\nand wonders\" would be performed, so great and stupendous, as to\ndeceive, if possible, the very elect, and bids them not to give any\nheed to them.*\n\n\n\nCHAPTER III.\n\nTHE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE MESSIAH, AS GIVEN BY\nTHE HEBREW PROPHETS.\n\nHaving shewn from the New Testament, and proved from the\nnature of the case, that the whole credit and authority of the\nChristian religion, rests and depends upon Jesus' being the Messiah\nof the Jews; and, having stated the principles which ought to\ngovern the decision of this question, and established the fact, that\nthe pretensions of any claiming to be considered as this Messiah,\nmust be tested solely by the coincidence of the character, and\ncircumstances of the pretender with the descriptions given by the\nprophets as the means by which he may be known to be so--it is\nproper, in order that we may be enabled to form a correct opinion,\nto lay before the reader those passages of the Old Testament\nwhich contain the promise of the appearing, and express the\ncharacteristics of this \"hope of Israel,\" this beneficent saviour, and\naugust monarch, in whose time a suffering world, was, according\nto the Hebrew prophets, to become the abode of happy beings.\n\nLeaving out for the present the consideration of the Shiloh\nmentioned in Gen. xlix., the first prophecy we meet with, supposed\nto relate to this great character, is contained in Num. xxiv. 17,19,\n\"There shall come a star out of Jacob, and a sceptre shall rise out\nof Israel, shall smite the corners of Moab, and destroy the children\nof Seth.\" Geddes interprets the latter clause--\"shall destroy the\nsons of esdition;\" but it probably means, according to the common\ninterpretation, that this monarch was to govern the whole race of\nmen, i. e. the children of Seth; for Noah, according to the Old\nTestament, was descended from him; and of the posterity of Noah,\nwas the whole earth overspread. And in verse 19, it is added \"out\nof Jacob shall come he that shall have dominion.\"*\n\nGod says to David, 2 Sam. vii. 12, \"And when thy days shall be\nfulfilled, and thou shall sleep with thy fathers, I will set up thy seed\nafter thee, which shall proceed out of thy bowels; and I will\nestablish his kingdom. He shall build a house for my name, and I\nwill establish the throne of his kingdom for ever. I will be his\nFather, and he shall be my Son--if he commit iniquity, I will\nchasten him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the\nchildren of men. But my mercy shall not depart from him, as I took\nit from Saul, whom I put away before thee. And thy house, and thy\nkingdom shall be established before me, and thy throne shall be\nestablished for ever.\" Mention is made of this promise in several of\nthe Psalms, but it certainly suggests no idea of such a person as\nJesus of Nazareth, but only that of a temporal prince of the\nposterity of David. It implies, that his family would never entirely\nfail for though it might be severely punished, it would recover its\nlustre again. And connecting this promise with that of the glory of\nthe nation in general, foretold in the books of Moses, it might be\ninferred by the Hebrews, who believed them to be of Divine\nauthority, that after long and great calamities (the consequences of\ntheir sins,) the people of Israel would be restored to their country,\nand attain the most distinguished felicity under a prince of the\nfamily of David. This is the subject of numberless prophecies\nthroughout the Old Testament.\n\nPassing over all those prophecies in which the national glory is\nspoken of without any mention of a prince or head; I shall recite,\nand remark upon the most eminent of those in which mention is\nmade of any particular person, under whom, or by means of\nwhom, the Israelitish nation, it is said, would enjoy the\ntranscendent prosperity elsewhere foretold.\n\nThe second Psalm is no doubt well known to my readers, and\nsupposing it to refer to the Messiah, it is evident, that it describes\nhim enthroned upon mount Zion, the favorite of God, and the\nresistless conqueror of his enemies.\n\nThe next prophecy of this distinguished individual is recorded in\nIsaiah ix. 6--\"Unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given, and\nthe government shall be upon his shoulder; and the Wonderful, the\nCounsellor, the mighty God, the everlasting Father shall call his\nname* the Prince of Peace.\" [For thus it is pointed to be read in the\noriginal Hebrew, and this is the meaning of the passage, and not as\nin the absurd translation of this verse in the English version.] \"Of\nthe increase of his government there shall be no end upon the\nthrone of David, and his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it\nwith judgment, and with justice from henceforth and for ever: the\nzeal of the Lord of Hosts will do this.\" Here again we have a\nmighty monarch, sitting upon the throne of David, upon earth; and\nnot a spiritual king placed in heaven, upon the throne of \"the\nmighty God, the everlasting Father.\"\n\nThe next passage which comes under notice, is in the eleventh\nchapter of Isaiah, in which a person is mentioned, under whom\nIsrael, and the whole earth was to enjoy great prosperity and\nfelicity. He is described as an upright prince, endued with the spirit\nof God, under whose reign there would be universal peace, which\nwas to take place after the return of the Israelites from their\ndispersed state, when the whole nation would be united and happy.\n\n\"There shall spring forth a rod from the trunk of Jesse, and a scion\nfrom his roots shall become fruitful. And the spirit of the Lord\nshall rest upon him; the spirit of wisdom, and understanding; the\nspirit of counsel, and strength; the spirit of knowledge, and the fear\nof the Lord. And he shall be quick of discernment in the fear of the\nLord; so that not according to the sight of his eyes shall he judge,\nnor according to the hearing of the ears shall he reprove. With\nrighteousness shall he judge the poor, and with equity shall he\nwork conviction# on the meek of the earth. And he shall smite the\nearth with the blast of his mouth; and with the breath of his lips\nshall he slay the wicked one. And righteousness shall be the girdle\nof his lions, and faithfulness the cincture of his reins. Then shall\nthe wolf take up his abode with the lamb; and the leopard shall lie\ndown with the kid; and the calf, and the young lion, and the fatling\nshall come together, and a little child shall lead them. And the\nheifer, and the she bear shall feed together, and the lion shall eat\nstraw like the ox. And the suckling shall play upon the hole of the\nasp; and upon the den of the basilisk shall the new weaned child\nlay his hand. They shall not hurt, nor destroy in my holy mountain,\nfor the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord as the\nwaters cover the sea. And it shall come to pass in that day, the root\nof Jesse which standeth for an ensign to the people, unto him shall\nthe nations repair, and his resting place shall be glorious.\"\n\nAs the scion here spoken of is said to spring from the root of Jesse,\nit looks as if it were intended to intimate, that the tree itself would\nbe cut down, or that the power of David's Family would be for\nsome time extinct; but that it would revive in \"the latter days.\"\n\nThe same Prince is again mentioned, chap xxxiii. 1, 3, where the\npeople are described to be both virtuous, and flourishing, and to\ncontinue to be so. (v. 15--17.)\n\n\"Behold a king shall reign in righteousness, and princes shall rule\nwith equity. And the man shall be a covert from the storm, as a\nrefuge from the flood, as canals of waters in a dry place, as the\nshadow of a great rock in a land of fainting with heat. And him the\neyes of those that see shall regard, and the ears of them that hear\nshall harken, * * * * till the spirit from on high be poured out upon\nus, and the wilderness become a fruitful field, and the fruitful field\nbe esteemed a forest. And judgment shall dwell in the wilderness,\nand in the fruitful field shall reside righteousness. And the work of\nrighteousness shall be peace, and the effect of righteousness\nperpetual quiet, and security. And my people shall dwell in a\npeaceful mansion, and in habitations secure, and in resting places\nundisturbed.\"\n\nThe same Prophet, chap. lxii 1, speaks of a person under the title of\n\"God's Servant,\" of a meek disposition, raised up by God to\nenlighten the world, even the Gentile part of it; to bring prisoners\nout of their confinement, and to open their eyes; alluding,\nprobably, to the custom too common in the East; of sealing up the\neyes, by sewing or fastening together the eyelids of persons, and\nthen imprisoning thorn for life. It is doubted, however, whether the\nProphet meant, or had in view, in this passage, the Messiah, or his\nown nation.\n\n\"Behold my servant whom I will uphold, mine elect in whom my\nsoul delighteth; I will make my spirit rest upon him, and he shall\npublish judgment to the nations. He shall not cry aloud, nor raise a\nclamour, nor cause his voice to be heard in the public places. The\nbruised reed shall he not break, and the dimly burning flax he shall\nnot quench, he shall publish judgment so as to establish it\nperfectly. His force shall not be abated, nor broken, until he has\nfirmly seated judgment in the earth, and the distant nations shall\nearnestly wait for his Law.\"\n\n\"Thus saith the Lord, even, the Eternal, who created the heavens,\nand stretched them out; who spread abroad the earth, and the\nproduce thereof, who giveth breath to the people upon it, and spirit\nto them that tread thereon. I the Lord have called thee for a\nrighteous purpose,* and I will take hold of thy hand, and I will\npreserve thee; and I will give thee for a covenant to the people, for\na light to the nations; to open the eyes of the blind, to bring the\ncaptive out of confinement, and from the dungeon those that dwell\nin darkness. I am the Eternal, that is my name, and my glory will I\nnot give to another, nor my praise to the graven images. The\nformer predictions, lo! they are to come to pass, and now events I\nnow declare; before they spring forth, behold I make them known\nunto you.\" See also chap. xlix. 1,12, and chap. liv. 3, 5.\n\nIn the 3d chapter of Hosea, verses 4 and 5, it is said by the Prophet,\nthat \"the sons of Israel shall abide many days without a king, and\nwithout a prince, and without sacrifice, and without a statue, and\nwithout an ephod, and without Teraphim. Afterward shall the sons\nof Israel return, and shall seek the Lord their God, and DAVID\ntheir King, and shall fear the Lord, and his goodness in the latter\ndays.\"\n\nMicah chap. v. speaks of the Messiah thus, \"And thou Bethlehem\nEphratah, art thou too little to be among the leaders of Judah? Out\nof thee shall come forth unto me, him who is to be ruler in Israel;\nand his goings forth have been from old, from the days of hidden\nages. Therefore will He (God) deliver them up, until the time when\nshe that bringeth forth, hath brought forth, and until the residue of\nhis brethren shall return together with the sons of Israel. And. he\nshall stand and feed his flock, in the strength of the Lord, in the\nmajesty of the name of the Lord his God, and they shall abide, for\nnow shall he be great unto the ends of the earth, and he shall be\nPeace.\" Jeremiah also speaks of the restoration of the Israelites\nunder a Prince of the family of David, chap. xxiii. 5, 8.\n\n\"Behold the days are coming, saith the Lord, that I will raise up\nunto David a righteous branch, and a king shall reign, and act\nwisely, and shall execute justice, and judgment in the earth. In his\ndays Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell in security, and\nthis is the name by which the Eternal shall call him, OUR\nRIGHTEOUSNESS.\"# [Heb.] The same is mentioned in chap. xxx.\n8, 9. \"And it shall be in that day, saith the Lord of Hosts, I will\nbreak his yoke from off his neck, and his bands will I burst\nasunder, and strangers shall no more exact service of him. But they\nshall serve the Lord their God, and DAVID their King, whom I\nwill raise up for (or to) them. * * * The voice of joy, and the voice\nof mirth, the voice of the bridegroom, and the voice of the bride,\nthe voice of them that say. Praise ye the Lord of Hosts, for the\nLord is gracious, for his mercy endureth for ever, of them that\nbring praise to the house of the Lord. Thus saith the Lord of Hosts,\nyet again shall there be in this place that is desolate (Jerusalem and\nPalestine,) without man and beast, and in all the cities thereof, an\nhabitation of shepherds folding sheep, in the cities of the hill\ncountry, and in the cities of the plain, and in the cities of the south,\nand in the land of Benjamin, and in the environs of Jerusalem. * *\n* Behold the days come, saith the Lord, that I will perform the\ngood thing which I have spoken concerning the house of Israel,\nand concerning the house of Judah. In those days, and at that time,\n[he that readeth, let him observe] I will came to grow up of the line\nof David a branch of righteousness, and he shall execute judgment\nand justice in the earth. In those days Judah shall be saved, and\nJerusalem, shall dwell securely, and this is he whom the Lord shall\ncall--'OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS.' [Heb.] Surely, thus saith the\nLord, there shall not be a failure in the line of David, one to sit\nupon the throne of the house of Israel, neither shall there be a\nfailure in the line of the Priests, the Levites, of one to offer before\nme burnt offerings, and to perform sacrifice continually.\" See ch.\nxxxiiii. 14. In this place, the perpetuity of the tribe of Levi, as well\nas that of the house of David, is foretold. See also Jer. ch. xxx. 9.\n\nContemporary with Jeremiah was Ezekiel. He likewise describes\nthis happy state of the Israelites under a king of the name of David,\nchap. xxxiv. 22.\n\n\"Therefore will I save my flock, and they shall no more be a prey:\nand I will judge between cattle, and cattle. And I will set up one\nShepherd over them, and be shall feed them, even my servant\nDAVID: he shall feed them, and he shall be their shepherd, and I\nthe Lord will be their God, and my servant DAVID a Prince\namong them. I the Lord have spoken it. And I will make with them\na covenant of peace, and will cause the evil beasts to cease out of\nthe land; and they shall dwell safely in' the wilderness, and sleep in\nthe woods. And I will make them, and the places round about my\nhill, a blessing, and I will cause the shower to come down in the\nseason: there shall be showers of blessing. And the tree of the field\nshall yield her fruit; and the earth shall yield her increase; and they\nshall be safe in their land; and shall know that I am the Lord, &c.\"\n\nIn another passage this prophet says, that the two nations, Israel\nand Judah, shall have one king, and that this king shall be named\nDAVID, who shall reign for ever, chap. xxxvii. 21--28. \"Say unto\nthem, thus saith the Lord God, behold I will take the children of\nIsrael from among the heathen, whither they be gone, and will\ngather them on every side, and bring them into their own land. And\nI will make them one nation in the land, upon the mountains of\nIsrael, and one king shall be king to them all, and they shall be no\nmore two nations, neither shall they be divided into two kingdoms\nany more at all. Neither shall they defile themselves any more with\ntheir idols, nor with their detestable things, nor with any of their\ntransgressions; but I will save them out of all their dwelling places\nwherein they have sinned, and will cleanse them, so shall they be\nmy people, and I will be their God. And DAVID my servant shall\nbe king over them, and there shall be one shepherd. They shall\nalso walk in my judgments, and observe my statutes and do them.\nAnd they shall dwell in the land that I have given unto Jacob my\nservant, wherein your fathers have dwelt, and they shall dwell\ntherein, even they, and their children, and their children's children\nfor ever, and my servant DAVID shall be their prince forever.\nMoreover I will make a covenant of peace with them: it shall be an\neverlasting covenant with them, and I will place them, and\nmultiply them, and will set my sanctuary in the midst of them, for\nevermore. My tabernacle also shall be with them, and I will be\ntheir God, and they shall be my people. And the heathen shall\nknow, that I the Lord do sanctify Israel, when my sanctuary shall,\nbe in the midst of them for evermore.\"\n\nThe natural construction of this seems to be this, \"that a descendant\nof David, called by that name, should reign over the Israelites for\never.\"\n\nIn the very circumstantial description which Ezekiel gives of the\nstate of the Israelites in their own country, yet expected by the\nJews, he speaks of the prince, and the portion assigned him, chap.\nxlv. 78. And in his description of the temple service, he moreover\nspeaks of the gate, by which the prince is to enter into it. See chap.\nxlvi. 1, 2.\n\nThe next, and last, passage I shall quote, is from the book of\nDaniel, who, in the first year of Belshazzar king of Babylon, had a\nvision of four beasts, representing the four great Empires. At the\nclose of his account of which, he speaks of \"one like the son of\nman\" being brought into the presence of God, and receiving from\nthe Eternal an everlasting kingdom (chap. vii. 13)--\"I saw in the\nnight visions, and behold one like the son of man came with the\nclouds of heaven, and come to the ancient of days; and they\nbrought him near before him. And there was given him dominion,\nand glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages,\nshould serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which\nshall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be\ndestroyed.\"\n\nI have now gone through the prophecies which are allowed both by\nJews and Christians to relate to one person whom they call the\nMessiah. It must be evident from all these passages, that the\ncharacteristics of this, to both parties, highly interesting personage,\nas described by the Hebrew prophets, are these:--\n\n1. That he was to be a just, beneficent, wise, and mighty monarch,\nraised up and upheld, and established by God, to be the means of\npromoting universal peace, and happiness. That Israel should be\ngathered to him, and established in their own land; which was to\nbe the seat of dominion, and the centre of union, and of worship to\nall the people, and nations of the earth; who were to live under the\ngovernment, and receive, and obey the law of this beneficent\nprince; and enjoy unspeakable felicities on the earth, then changed\nto a universal paradise. And for all this happiness, they were to\nworship, and glorify the true God only, and glorify the Eternal, and\ngive thanks to Him \"because He is good, and his mercy endureth\nforever.\"\n\n2. That this prince was to be of the line of David, and as it should\nseem, called by that name, and was to reign on his throne in\nJerusalem.\n\n3. That according to Micah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel, (see the\nquotations)\n\nhis manifestation, and (and the restoration of Israel) were to be\ncontemporaneous. See Hosea, chap. iii. 4, 5. And from Jeremiah\nxxxiii. 15, and from Micah v. 2, it should seem also, that he was\nnot to be born, till the time of that restoration should be nearly\narrived.\n\nThe prophecies concerning the Messiah of the Jews being now laid\nbefore the reader, we have only to apply these descriptions to know\nwhether an individual be their Messiah, or not. For, (according to\nthe principles laid down, and established in the preceding chapter)\nwhere the foregoing characteristics given by the prophets do centre\nand agree, that person is the Messiah foretold; but where they are\nnot found in any one claiming that character, miracles are nothing\nto the purpose, and nothing is more certain, than that he has no\nright to be considered as such; and could he with a word turn the\nsun black in the face, in proof of his being the Messiah, he is,\nnevertheless, not to be regarded; for, whether such a person has yet\nappeared, can certainly only be known by considering, whether the\nworld has ever yet seen such a person as this Messiah of the\nHebrew prophets.\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IV.\n\nTHE CHARACTER OF JESUS TESTED BY THOSE\nCHARACTERISTIC MARKS OF THE MESSIAH GIVEN BY\nTHE PROPHETS OF THE OLD TESTAMENT.\n\nHad Jesus of Nazareth come into the world merely as a person sent\nwith a revelation from God, he would have had a right to be\nattended to, and tried upon that ground. And if his doctrines and\nprecepts were consistent with reason, consistent with one another,\nand with prior revelations, really such, and all tending to the\nhonour of God, and the good of men; his miracles, with these\ncircumstances, ought to have determined men to believe in him.\n\nBut since he claimed to be the Messiah of the Jews, foretold by\ntheir prophets, it is requisite, that that claim should be made out;\nand it is reasonable in itself, and just to him, and necessary to all\nthose who will not take their religion upon trust, that ho should be\ntried, by examining whether this claim can be made out, or not.\nThe argument from prophecy becomes necessary to establish the\nclaim of the Gospel: and as truth is consistent with itself, so this\nclaim must be true, or, it destroys all others.\n\nBesides, what notions of common morality must he have, who\npretends to come from God, and declares (Jo. v. 37,) \"that the\nScriptures testify of him,\" if, in fact, the Scriptures do not testify of\nhim? What honesty, or sincerity could he have, who could \"begin\nat Moses, and all the prophets, and expound unto his disciples in\nall the Scriptures the things concerning himself,\" if neither Moses\nnor the prophets ever spake a word about him? The prophets,\ntherefore, must decide this question, and the foundation of\nChristianity must be laid upon them; or else, to avoid one\ndifficulty, Christians will be forced into such absurdities, as no\nman can palliate, much less can extricate himself out of.\n\nFurthermore, this claim must be made out to the satisfaction of the\nGentile, as well as the Jew. For since the fundamental article of\nChristianity is, that Jesus is the Christ; (Jo. xx. 31) that is to say,\nthat he is the Messiah prophecied of in the Old Testament;\nwhoever comes into the world as such, must come as the Messiah\nof the Jews, because no other nation did expect, or pretend to, the\npromise of a Messiah. Moreover, whoever comes as this Messiah\nof the Jews, must at least pretend to answer the character of their\nMessiah plainly delivered in the writings of their prophets. And the\nJews themselves receiving those writings as divine, were not\nbound to, neither could they consistently with their duty, receive,\nany, who did not answer in all points to the description therein\ngiven.\n\nLet us now test the character of Jesus of Nazareth by the\ndescription of the Messiah given by the Hebrew prophets. If his\ncharacter corresponds in all respects with that given by those\nprophets, he is undoubtedly to be acknowledged as the king of\nIsrael foretold; but if they do not exactly correspond, if there be the\nslightest incongruity, he certainly was not this Messiah. For it is\nevident, that some of the characteristic marks given may belong to.\nmany illustrious individuals, but the whole can belong to, and be\nfound in, only one person.\n\nThe first characteristic of the Messiah, the reader will recollect,\nwas, according to the prophets, that he was to be \"the Prince of\nPeace,\" in whose times righteousness was to flourish, and\nmankind be made happy. That he was to sit upon the throne of\nDavid judging right; and that to him, and their own land, was Israel\nto be gathered, and all nations serve and obey him; and worship\none God, even Jehovah.\n\nBut of Jesus we read, that he asserted, that his kingdom was \"not\nof this world.\" Instead of effecting peace among the nations, he\nsaid, \"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth, I have\ncome to send a sword, I have come to put division between a son,\nand his father; the mother, and the daughter; the daughter-in-law,\nand her mother-in-law.\" \"Think ye, (said he to his disciples) that I\nhave come to put peace on earth, I tell you nay, but rather\ndivision.\" Again, \"I have come to put fire on the earth.\" These are\nnot the characteristics of the Messiah of the prophets of the Old\nTestament. For of him Zechariah (ch. ix.) says, that \"He shall\nspeak peace to the nations;\" and of him Isaiah says, \"Nation shall\nnot lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war\nanymore.\" And so far from being the author of division, sword, and\nfire; according to Malachi, in the times of the Messiah, \"the heart\nof the parents was to be converted to the children, and the heart of\nthe children to their parents.\"\n\nIn the times of the Messiah, wars were to cease, righteousness was\nto flourish, and mankind be happy. Whether this has yet taken\nplace, the experience of almost nineteen centuries, and the present\nstate of the world, can enable every one to determine for himself.\n\nIn the times of the Messiah, Israel was to be gathered, and planted\nin their own land, in honour, and prosperity. But not many years\nafter the death of Jesus of Nazareth, the Jewish nation underwent\nthe most dreadful calamities; and to this day, so far are they from\nbeing gathered, they are scattered to the four quarters of the globe.\nInstead of being in honour and prosperity, their history, since his\ntime, is one dreadful record of unparalleled sufferings, written in\nletters of blood by the hands of murder, rapine, and cruelty.\n\nAgain; the true Messiah was, it seems, to be called DAVID, and\nwas to reign at Jerusalem, on the throne of David; but the name\n\"Jesus\" is not the same as \"David,\" and Christians have assigned\nhim a spiritual kingdom, and a throne in heaven! But was the\nthrone of David in heaven? No! it was in Jerusalem, and no more\nin Heaven, than that of the Caesars.\n\nLastly, it appears from the prophecies of Hosea, Micah, and\nJeremiah, Isaiah, and Ezekiel, quoted in the last chapter, that the\nmanifestation of their Messiah was to be contemporaneous with\nthe restoration of Israel, and from the quotations adduced from the\nthree first mentioned prophets, it should seem that his birth was not\nto take place many years before that glorious event. But Jesus of\nNazareth was born almost two thousand years ago; and the\nchildren of Israel yet expect a deliverer. And to conclude, it was\nforetold by Malachi, and believed by the Jews then, and ever since,\nthat Elias the prophet, who did not die, but was removed from the\nearth, should precede the coming of the Messiah, and prepare them\nfor his reception. But the prophet Elias certainly has not yet\nappeared!\n\nIndeed, nothing appears to be more dissimilar than the character of\nthe Messiah, as given by the Hebrew prophets, and that of Jesus of\nNazareth. It seems scarcely credible, that a man who, though\namiable and virtuous, yet lived in a low state, was poor, living\nupon alms, without wealth, and without power; and who (though\nby misfortune) died the death of a malefactor, crucified between\ntwo robbers, (a death exactly parallel with being hanged at the\npublic gallows in the present day) should ever be taken for that\nmighty prince, that universal potentate, and benefactor of the\nhuman race, foretold in the splendid language of the prophets of\nthe Old Testament.\n\n\n\nCHAPTER V.\n\nEXAMINATION OF THE ARGUMENTS FROM THE OLD\nTESTAMENT ADDUCED IN THE NEW, TO PROVE THAT\nJESUS OF NAZARETH WAS THE MESSIAH.\n\nBut since one would esteem it almost incredible, that the apostles\ncould persuade men to believe Jesus to be this Messiah, unless they\nhad at least some proof to offer to their conviction, let us next\nconsider, and examine, the proofs adduced by the apostles and\ntheir followers, from the Old Testament for that purpose.\n\nOf the strength or weakness of the proofs for Christianity out of the\nOld Testament, we are well qualified to judge, as we have the Old\nand New Testament in our hands; the first containing what are\noffered as proofs of Christianity, and the latter the application of\nthose proofs, and we should seem to have nothing more to do, but\nto compare the Old and New Testament together.\n\nBut these proofs taken out of the Old Testament, and urged in the\nNew, being sometimes not to be found in the Old, nor urged in the\nNew, according to the literal and obvious sense, which they appear\nto bear in their supposed places in the Old, and, therefore, not\nproofs according to the rules of interpretation established by\nreason, and acted upon in interpreting every other ancient book--\nalmost all Christian commentators on the Bible, and advocates for\nthe religion of the New Testament, both ancient and modern, have\njudged them to be applied in a secondary, or typical, or mystical,\nor allegorical, or enigmatical sense; that is, in a sense different\nfrom the obvious and literal sense which they bear in the Old\nTestament.\n\nThus, for example, Matthew, after having given an account of the\nconception of Mary, and the birth of Jesus, says (ch. i.,) \"All this\nwas done that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the\nprophet, saying, Behold a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring\nforth a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel.\" But the words\nas they stand in Isaiah ch. vii. 14, from whence they are taken, do,\nin their obvious and literal sense, relate to a young woman in the\ndays of Ahaz, King of Judah, as will appear, considering the\ncontext.\n\nWhen Rezin, King of Syria, and Pekah, King of Israel, were\nconfederates in arms together, against Ahaz, King of Judah, Isaiah\nthe prophet was sent by God, first to comfort Ahaz and the nation,\nand then to assure them by a sign, that his enemies should in a little\ntime be confounded.--But Ahaz refusing a sign at the prophet's\nhand, the prophet said (see the chapter,) \"The Lord shall give you\na sign. Behold a virgin, or 'young woman' (for the Hebrew word\nmeans both as was truly and justly asserted by the Jews in the\nprimitive ages against the Christians, and is now acknowledged,\nand established beyond dispute by the best Hebrew scholars of\nthis age,) shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name\nImmanuel. Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to\nrefuse the evil and choose the good. For before the child shall\nknow to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land which thou\nabhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings.\" And this sign is\naccordingly given Ahaz by the prophet, who, ch. viii. v. 2, 18, took\ntwo witnesses and went to the said young woman, who in due time\nconceived, and bare a son, after whose birth the projects of Rezin\nand Pekah were, it appears, soon confounded, according to the\nprophecy and sign given by the prophet.\n\nAnd the prophet himself, puts it beyond dispute, that this is the\nproper interpretation of the prophecy, by express words, as well as\nby his whole narration; for he says, \"Behold I, and the children\nwhom the Lord hath given me, are for signs, and for wonders in\nIsrael from the Lord of Hosts, that dwelleth in mount Zion.\" Isaiah\nviii. 19.\n\nThis is the plain drift and design of the prophet, literally,\nobviously, and primarily understood; and thus he is understood by\none of the most judicious of interpreters, the great Grotius. Indeed,\nto understand the prophet as having the conception of Mary, and\nthe birth of her son Jesus from a virgin mother literally, and\nprimarily in view, is a very great absurdity, and contrary to the\nvery intent and design of the sign given by the prophet.\n\nFor the sign being given by Isaiah to convince Ahaz that he\nbrought a message from God to him, to assure him that the two\nkings should not succeed in their attempt against him, how could a\nvirgin's conception, and bearing a son seven hundred years\nafterwards, be a sign to Ahaz, that the prophet came to him, with\nthe said message from God? And how useless was it to Ahaz, as\nwell as absurd in itself for the prophet, to say, \"Before the child,\nborn seven hundred years hence, shall distinguish between good\nand evil, the land which thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both\nher kings,\" which would be a banter, instead of a sign.\n\nBut a prophecy of the certain birth of a male child, by a particular\nfemale within a short time, seems a proper sign, as being not only\nwhat could not with certainty, be foretold, except by a person\ninspired, but considered as soon coming to pass, it, consequently,\nevidences itself to be a divine sign, and answers all the purposes of\na sign. And such a sign is agreeable to God's conduct on like\noccasions; witness his conduct to Gideon and Hezekiah. Jud. vi.; 2\nKings xx.\n\nThis prophecy, therefore, not being fulfilled in Jesus, according to\nthe literal and obvious sense of the words as they stand in Isaiah, it\nis supposed that this, like the other prophecies cited in the New\nTestament, is fulfilled in a secondary, or typical, or mystical sense;\nthat is, the said prophecy, which was literally fulfilled by the birth\nof the son foretold by the prophet, was again fulfilled by the birth\nof Jesus, as being an event of the same kind, and intended to be\nsecretly and mystically signified either by the prophet or by God,\nwho directed the prophet's speech. If the reader desires further\nsatisfaction that the literal and obvious sense of this prophecy\nrelates to a son to be born in Isaiah's time, and not to Jesus, he is\nreferred to the commentator Grotius, and to Huetius' Demonstrat.\nEvang. in loc., to the ancient fathers, and to the most respectable of\nthe modern Christian. commentators, who all allow and show, that\nthe words of Isaiah are not applicable to the birth of Jesus in their\nliteral sense, but only in a mystical, or figurative, or allegorical\nsense.\n\nAgain, \tMatthew gives us another prophecy, which he says was\nfulfilled. He tells us, that Jesus was carried into Egypt; from\nwhence he returned after the death of Herod, (Mat. ii.) \"that it\nmight be fulfilled, which was of the Lord by the prophet, saying,\n'out of Egypt have I called my son.'\" Which, being word for word\nin Hosea, (ch. xi. 1) and no where else to be found in the Old\nTestament, are supposed to be taken from thence; where according\nto their obvious sense they are no prophecy at all! but relate and\nrefer to a past action, viz., to the calling of the children of Israel\nout of Egypt, which will, I think, be denied by few. This passage,\ntherefore, or as it is styled, prophecy, of Hosea, is said by learned\nmen among Christians to be mystically, or allegorically, applied,\nin order to render Matthew's application of it, just; and they say all\nother methods of some learned men to solve the difficulty arising\nfrom Matthew's citation of this passage, have proved unsuccessful.\n\nAgain, Matthew says, (ch. ii.) \"Jesus came, and dwelt at Nazareth,\nthat it might be fulfilled, which was spoken by the prophet, saying,\n'he shall be called a Nazarene;'\" but as this passage does not\noccur in the Old Testament at all, we are precluded from\nascertaining whether it be literal, mystical, or allegorical.\n\nJesus says of John the Baptist, (Mat. xi. 14) \"This is Elias that was\nfor to come,\" wherein he is supposed to refer to these words of\nMalachi, (ch. iv. 4) \"Behold I will send you Elijah the prophet,\nbefore the coming of the great and terrible day of the Lord,\" which,\naccording to their literal, and obvious sense, are a prophecy, that\nElijah or Elias was to come in person (which we know from the\nNew Testament, as well as elsewhere, was the constant expectation\nof the Jews.) Besides, this Elijah was to come \"before the great and\nterrible day of the Lord,\" which has not yet arrived; and, therefore,\nthis prophecy of Malachi, referred to by the evangelist, was\ncertainly not literally, but only mystically, fulfilled in John the\nBaptist.\n\nAgain, Jesus (Mat. xiii.) cites the prophecy of Isaiah (Is. vi. 9,) \"By\nhearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand;\" and he assures us,\nthat it was fulfilled in his time in those to whom he spake in\nparables, (which, by the way, he did, it is said, in order to fulfil a\npassage of the Psalms) though it is manifest that the prophecy of\nIsaiah quoted, according to its literal sense, undoubtedly relates to\nthe obstinate Jews who lived in the time of Isaiah.\n\nIn fine, these, and the many other passages cited as prophecies\nfrom the Old Testament by the authors of the New, do so plainly\nrelate, in their obvious and primary sense to other matters than\nthose which they are adduced to prove, that it is allowed by the\nmost learned defenders of Christianity, that to pretend that they\nprove in a literal sense what they are adduced to prove, is to give\nup with both hands the cause of Christianity to the enemies thereof,\nwho can so easily show in so many undoubted instances, the Old\nand New Testament to have no manner of connection in that\nrespect, but to be in an irreconcilable state.\n\nThese proofs from the prophets being so different from what we\nshould expect, it behoves us to enquire what could induce Jesus\nand his apostles to quote the Old Testament in such a manner?\n\nThe Jews shortly answer this question, by saying, that they did so,\nbecause they did not understand the meaning of the books they\nquoted. But it has been answered by some learned Christians, that\nJesus and the apostles did not quote in the manner they did through\ncaprice or ignorance bat according to certain methods of\ninterpretation, which were in their times of established authority\namong the Jews.\n\nThe rules of interpretation, which were supposed to be\nirrecoverably lost afterwards recovered to the world by the learned\nSurenhusius, professor of the Hebrew language in the illustrious\nschool of Amsterdam. He made an ample discovery to the world of\nthe rules by which the apostles cited the Old Testament, and\nargued from thence, wherein the whole mystery of the apostles\napplying scripture in a secondary, or typical, or allegorical sense,\nseems to be unfolded. I shall, therefore, state this matter from\nSurenhusius.\n\nHe (Surenhusius) says, \"that when he considered the various\nopinions Of the learned about the passages of the Old Testament\nquoted in the New, He was filled with grief, not knowing where to\nset his foot; and was much concerned, that what had been done\nwith good success upon profane authors, could not be so happily\nperformed upon the sacred.\"\n\nHe tells us, \"that having had frequent occasions to converse with\nthe Jews (on account of his application to Hebrew literature from\nhis youth) who insolently reflected upon the New Testament,\naffirming it to be plainly corrupted, because it seldom or never\nagreed with the Old Testament, some of whom were so confident\nin this opinion, as to say, they would profess the Christian religion,\nif any one could reconcile the New Testament with the Old. \"I was\nthe more grieved, because, (says this honest and well meaning\nman) I knew not how to apply a remedy to this evil.\" But the\nmatter being of great importance, he discoursed with several\nlearned men about it, and read the books of others, being\npersuaded that the authors of the books of the New Testament had\nwritten nothing but what was suited to the time wherein they lived,\nand that Christ and his apostles had constantly followed the\nmethod of their ancestors. After he had long revolved this\nhypothesis in his mind, at last he met with a Rabbi well skilled in\nthe Talmud, the Cabbala, and the allegorical books of the Jews.\nThis Rabbi had once embraced the Christian religion, but was\nagain relapsed to Judaism on account of the idolatry of the Papists,\nyet not perfectly disbelieving the integrity of the New Testament.\nSurenhusius asked him, what he thought of the passages of the Old\nTestament quoted in the New, whether they were rightly quoted or\nnot, and whether the Jews had any just reason to cavil at them, and\nat the same time proposed to him two or three passages, which had\nvery much exercised the most learned Christian commentators.\n\nThe Rabbi having admirably explained those passages, to the great\nsurprise of Surenhusius, and confirming his explications by\nseveral places of the Talmud, and other writings of the Jewish\ncommentators, and allegorical writers, Surenhusius asked him\nwhat would be the best method to write a treatise in order to\nvindicate the passages of the Old Testament quoted in the New?\nThe Rabbi answered, that he \"thought the best way of succeeding\nin such an undertaking would be to peruse a great part of the\nTalmud, and the allegorical and literal commentators; to observe\ntheir several ways of quoting and interpreting scripture, and to\ncollect as many materials of that kind, as would be sufficient for\nthat purpose.\"\n\nSurenhusius took the hint immediately: he read such books as were\nrecommended, observed every thing that might be subservient to\nhis design, and made a book upon the subject. And in the third part\nof that book he gives us the rules so long sought after, viz., the ten\nways# used, he says, by the Jewish doctors in citing scripture. And\nhere they are:--\n\n1. The first rule is--\"reading the words of the Hebrew bible, not\naccording to the points placed under them, but according to other\npoints substituted in their stead,\" as is done by Peter, Acts iii. 3; by\nStephen, Acts vii. 43, and by Paul, 1 Cor. xv. 54; 2 Cor. viii. 16,\nand Heb. iii. 10; ix. 21; xii. 6.\n\n2. The second rule is--\"changing the letters, whether those letters\nbe of the same organ (as the Hebrew grammarians speak,) or not,\"\nas is done by Paul, Rom. ix. 33; 1 Cor. xi. 9; Heb. viii. 9, and x. 6;\nand by Stephen, Acts vii. 43.\n\n3. The third is--\"changing both letters and points,\" as is done by\nPaul, Acts xiii. 41, and 2 Cor. viii. 15.\n\n4. The fourth is--\"adding some letters, and taking away others.\"\n\n5. The fifth is--\"transposing words and letters.\"\n\n6. The sixth is--\"dividing one word into two.\"\n\n7. The seventh is--\"adding other words to those in the text, in\norder to make the sense more clear, and to accommodate it to the\nsubject they we upon.\"\n\n8. The eighth is--\"changing the order of words.\"\n\n9. The ninth is--\"changing the order of words, and adding other\nwords.\"\n\n10. The tenth is--\"changing the order of words, adding words,\nand retrenching words,\" which, (says he) is a method often used\nby Paul. Of the application of all these rules, he gives examples\ntaken from the New Testament.\n\nIt is not necessary to make many observations upon these rules,\nthey speak for themselves most significantly; for what is there that\ncannot be proved from the Old Testament, or any other book, yea,\nfrom Euclid's Elements! or even an old almanac! by the help of\n\"altering words and sentences; adding; retrenching; and\ntransposing, and cutting words in two,\" as is stated above by a\nlearned and good man, and sincere Christian who found out, and\nbrought forward, these rules, as the best means of getting the\nauthors of the New Testament out of a difficulty, which had long\nshocked and grieved their best friends.\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VI.\n\nEXAMINATION OF THE MEANING OF THE PHRASE \"THIS\nWAS DONE THAT IT MIGHT BE FULFILLED.\"\n\nIt may be objected from divers learned authors, who have been\nvery sensible of the difficulties stated in the preceding chapters,\nand have, sensible of the difficulties stated in the preceding\nchapters, therefore, taken other ground than their predecessors, in\norder to defend themselves the better; I say, it may be objected to\nwhat I have advanced, that Christianity is not in fact grounded on\nthe prophetical, or other, quotations made from the Old, in the\nNew, Testament; but that those quotations being allegorically\napplied by the authors of the New Testament, are merely\narguments ad hominem, to convince the Jews of the truth of\nChristianity, who allowed such a method of arguing to be valid,\nand are not arguments to the rest of mankind.\n\nTo which I answer--That this distinction is the pure invention of\nthose who make the objection, and not only has no foundation in\nthe New Testament, but is utterly subverted by its express\ndeclarations; for the authors of the books of the New Testament\nalways argue absolutely from the quotations they cite as\nprophecies out of the books of the Old Testament. Moses and the\nprophets are every where represented to be a just foundation for\nChristianity; and the author of the Epistle to the Romans expressly\nsays, ch. xvi. 26, 26, \"The gospel, which was kept secret since the\nworld began, was now made manifest by the scriptures of the\nprophets (wherein that gospel was secretly contained) to all\nnations,\" by the means of the preachers of the gospel who gave\nthe secret or spiritual sense of those scriptures; for to the ancient\nJews, according to them, the gospel was preached by the types of\ntheir law, and, therefore, must have been considered as truly\ncontained in it.\n\nBesides, the authors of the books of the New Testament were\nconvinced long before the publication of them, that the gospel was\nto be preached to the Gentiles as well as the Jews, to both of\nwhom, therefore, they reasoned allegorically in their books, as\nPeter and others did in their sermons, though with greater success\non Gentiles than on Jews; and as Paul did before Felix, when he\nsaid he took his heresy, or Christianity, from the law, and the\nprophets. Acts xxiv., as also he did before Agrippa. It would,\ntherefore, seem strange, that books written to all the world by men\nequally concerned to convert Gentiles as well as Jews, and that\ndiscourses made expressly to Gentiles as well as to Jews, should be\ndesigned to be pertinent only to Jews, much less to a very few\nJews! Indeed, I am ashamed at being thus long engaged in showing\nwhat must be self evident; and did I not fear being further tedious\nto my readers, I would undertake to bring together passages from\nthe New Testament, where the meaning and intention of the writers\nis obvious, in such abundance, as would immediately and entirely\nput the hypothesis of our opponents out of countenance.\n\nThese quotations from the. Old Testament are certainly urged, and\nspoken of as direct proofs, as absolute proofs in themselves, and\nnot as mere proofs ad hominem to the Jews; for if these prophecies\nare only urged by the apostles as proofs to the Jews, and intended\nonly as proofs founded on the mistaken meanings of the Old\nTestament of some Jews of their time, what sense is there in\nappealing upon all occasions to the prophets, and recommending\nthe reading and search of the Old Testament for the trial and proof\nof what was preached? for that was to proceed on weakness itself,\nknowing it to be so. Certainly nothing, but a real persuasion, that\nthe prophecies of the Old Testament were really fulfilled in Jesus,\ncould make them every where inculcate and appeal to the fulfilling\nof prophecy. In order to support their hypothesis, Christians have\nbeen forced to seek evidence to prove, that the phrase--\"this was\ndone that it might be fulfilled,\" so frequent in the New Testament,\nmeant no such thing, but was only a habit the Jews had got of\nintroducing by such phrases a handsome quotation, or allusion,\nfrom the Old Testament. But this evasion must be given up, upon\ntwo accounts. 1. Because most of the European biblical critics of\nthe present day (the learned annotator on Michaelis' Introduction\nto the New Testament, Dr. Marsh, among others) frankly\nacknowledge it not to be tenable; and 2. Because it can be proved\nnot to be so from the New Testament itself. For example, when\nJohn represents (Jo. xix. 28,) Jesus upon the cross saying, \"'I\nthirst' that the scripture might be fulfilled,\" doth he not plainly\nrepresent Jesus as fulfilling a prophecy which foretold that the\nMessiah should thirst, or say, \"I thirst,\" upon the cross? Nay, does\nhe not suppose him to say so, in order to fulfil, or that he might\nfulfil, a prophecy? Is it not also suitable to the character of Jesus,\nwho founded his Messiahship on the prophecies in the Old\nTestament, and could not but have the accomplishment of those\nprophecies constantly in view to fulfil, and to intend to fulfil them?\nAnd is it not unsuitable in John, in describing his master dying\nupon the cross, to represent him as saying things, whereby he only\ngave occasion to observe, that he fulfilled, i. e., accommodated a\nphrase! not a prophecy!!\n\nBesides, they who set up this accommodating principle of\naccommodation, do, in some cases, take the term fulfilled in its\nproper sense, and do allow it, (when convenient) to relate to a\nprophecy really fulfilled. But I would ask them, what rule they\nhave to know when the apostles mean a prophecy fulfilled, and\nwhen a phrase accommodated, since they are acknowledged to use\nthe strong expression of fulfilling in the latter case no less than in\nthe former?\n\nIn a word, unless it be granted, that the citations were intended by\nthe authors of the New Testament, to be adduced, and applied, as\nprophecies fulfilled; if you do suppose them not intended to be\nadduced, and applied, as prophecies; then, the whole affair of Jesus\nbeing foretold as the Messiah, is reduced to an accommodation of\nphrases! and it will, assuredly, follow, that the citations of Jesus\nand his apostles out of the Old Testament, are like and no better\nthan the work of, the Empress Eudoxia, who wrote the History of\nJesus in verses put together, and borrowed out of--HOMER! or\nthat of Proba Palconia, who did the same, in verses, and words\ntaken out of--Virgil!\n\nIn fine, one of two things must be allowed, either (which is most\nprobable) the authors of the New Testament conceived their\ncitations to be indeed prophecies concerning Jesus, and then they\nwere ignorant and blundered, and, therefore; were not inspired; or,\nthey knowingly used them as means to deceive the simple and\ncredulous into a belief of their being testimonies sufficient to prove\nwhat they themselves knew they had no relation to;--and then\nthey were deceivers: there is no other alternative, and each horn of\nthe dilemma, must prove as fatal as the other.\n\nPerhaps it may be said, \"It is to no purpose for you to object to the\nquotations or the arguments of Jesus and his apostles, for God was\nwith them confirming their doctrine by signs following, they had\nfrom God the power of working miracles, and, consequently, their\ninterpretations of Scripture, however strange they may appear to\nyour minds, must be infallible, they being men inspired.\"\n\nTo this argument it can be justly answered, first, that the question\nwhether Jesus be the Messiah, entirely depends, as proved before,\nupon his answering the characteristics given of that personage by\nthe Jewish prophets; and all the miracles in the world could never,\nfrom the nature of the case, prove him to be so, unless his character\ndoes entirely agree with the archetype laid down by them, as had\nbeen already abundantly proved.\n\nSecondly,--That whether these miracles were really performed, or\nnot, depends entirely upon the credibility of the authors themselves\nwho have thus quoted! which, as shall be shown hereafter, may be\ndisputed; and, thirdly, it could be retorted upon Protestants, that\nthis same argument is the same in principle with the often refuted\npopish argumentation. The Papists pretend to derive all their new\ninvented and absurd doctrines and practices from the scriptures by\ntheir interpretations of them; but yet, when their interpretations are\nattacked from scripture, they immediately fly from thence to the\nmiracles wrought in their church, and to the visions of their holy\nmen and saints, for the establishment of their interpretations, by\nwhich they support those very doctrines and practices. And\nparticularly they endeavour to prove thus the doctrine of\ntransubstantiation, from the numerous miracles affirmed to have\nbeen wrought in its behalf, which reasoning Protestant Christians\nassert to be an argument absurd and inconclusive, therefore, they\nshould not use it themselves.\n\nWe allow, that if these interpretations of the sense of the Old\nTestament had been in existence before the Christian era, it might\nbe something. But we beg leave to remind them, that it is certain,\nthat these interpretations were not published till after the events to\nwhich they are referred took place, which is a circumstance of\nobvious significancy.\n\nIn fine, to this argument I would answer, as in Cicero (de Natura\nDeor. Ed. Dav. p. 209) Cotta did to Balbus--\"rumoribus mecum\npugnas, ego autem a te roitones requiro.\"\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VII.\n\nEXAMINATION OF THE ARGUMENTS ALLEGED FROM\nTHE HEBREW PROPHETS, TO PBOVE THAT JESUS WAS\nTHE MESSIAH.\n\nBut it may be asked, how it was possible, that wise and good men\ncould have been led to embrace the religion of the New Testament,\nif there were not in the Old Testament some prophecies which\nmight be conceived by them to supply, at least, plausible\narguments to prove that Jesus of Nazareth was the Messiah? Are\nthere no other passages in the prophets besides those quoted in the\nNew Testament, and are there not a few passages quoted in the\nNew Testament, which appear more to the purpose than those we\nhave been considering? To this I candidly answer that there are,\nand this chapter will be devoted to the consideration of them.\n\nTwo of these prophecies, one from Genesis, and the other from\nDaniel, are thought by the advocates of Christianity, (because they\nconceive them to point out and to limit the time of the coming of\nthe Messiah,) to be stronger in their favour than any of those\nquoted in die New Testament. If so, it is a very singular\ncircumstance, that the inspired authors of the New Testament did\nnot make use of them, instead of others not so much to the purpose.\nThis circumstance of itself should teach us to examine the\nprophecies in question with caution, and also with candour, since\nmany worthy and religious men have thought them sufficient to\nprove that Jesus was indeed the Messiah. These prophecies I shall\nreserve last for consideration, and shall now begin with the others\nusually adduced, taking them up pretty much in the order in which\nthey stand in the Old Testament.\n\nThe first passage is taken from Deut. xviii. 15, \"The Lord thy God\nwill raise up unto thee a prophet from the midst of thee, like unto\nme, unto him ye shall hearken. According to all that thou desiredst\nof the Lord thy God in Horeb, in the day of the assembly, saying.\nLet me not hear again the voice of the Lord my God, neither let me\nsee his great fire any more, that I die not. And the Lord said unto\nme, they have well spoken that which they have spoken. I will\nraise them up a prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee,\nand I will put my words into his mouth, and he shall speak unto\nthem all that I command him. And it shall come to pass, that\nwhosoever will not hearken unto my, words which he shall speak\nin my name, I will require it of him.\"\n\nThis passage is pertinaciously and solely applied to Jesus, by many\nChristian writers, because it is so applied by Peter in the 2 chap. of\nActs, in his sermon to the Jews, just after he had received the full\ninspiration of the Holy Spirit, and of course must be considered as\ninfallible. Nevertheless, these words of Moses are supposed by\nmany learned men, both Jews and Christians, to be spoken of\nJoshua, whom Moses himself afterwards, at the command and\nappointment of God, declared to be his successor, and who was\nendowed with the spirit which was upon Moses, (see Deut. xxxi.\n33, xxxiv. 17,) and to whom the Jews then promised to hearken,\nand pay obedience to, as they had done before to Moses. But others\nunderstand them to be a promise of a succession of prophets, to\nwhom the Jews might upon all occasions have recourse; and one or\nthe other of these seems to be the certain meaning of the place.\nFrom this consideration, that from the context it appears Moses\nwas giving the Jews directions of immediate use; and, therefore, in\npromising a prophet to them, to whom they should hearken, he\nseems to intend an immediate prophet who might be of use to the\nJews, and answer their common exigencies, and not a prophet two\nthousand years to come.\n\nBut I take the words to promise a succession of prophets, and for\nthat sense wherein Grotius and Le Clerc, and most of the Jews,\ntake them. I shall give my reasons, for this, and show that they do\nnot necessarily refer to Jesus Christ.\n\nMoses, in the verses preceding this prophecy in the same chapter,\n(Deut. xviii. 9--14) tells the Israelites from God, that \"when they\ncame into Canaan, they should not learn to do after, the\nabominations of the people thereof; and, particularly, that there\nshould not be found among them any one that useth divination, or\nan observer of times, &c., or a consulter with familiar spirits, &c.\nFor all, says he, \"that do these things are an abomination to the\nLord; and because of these abominations the Lord thy God doth\ndrive these people out from before thee. For these nations which\nthou shalt possess hearkened unto observers of times, and unto\ndiviners. But as for thee, the Lord thy God hath not suffered thee to\ndo so.\" Then follow the words about the prophet, \"The Lord thy\nGod will raise unto thee a prophet from the midst of thee of thy\nbrethren like unto me, unto him ye shall hearken.\" All which is as\nmuch as to say, \"When you come into Canaan, do not hearten to a\ndiviner, &c., as the Canaanites do, for the Lord will give you a\nprophet of your own brethren inspired like me, to guide any\ninstruct you, to whom ye shall hearken.\" Or rather, \"Do not\nhearken to diviners, &c., but to prophets, who shall be raised up\namong you.\"\n\nNow that the words cited must relate to a succession of prophets to\nbegin upon the Israelites taking possession of the land of Canaan,\nis manifest; because, the raising up of a prophet, to whom they\nwere to hearken, is the reason given why they should not hearken\nto a diviner, &c., when they came to that land; which reason could\nhave no force unless they were to have, 1st,--an immediate\nprophet in Canaan; for what sense is there, or would there be, in\nsaying, \"Don't hearken to such diviners as are in Canaan, when\nyou come there, for you shall have a prophet of your own, to\nwhom ye shall hearken two thousand years after you come there!\"\n\nSecondly,--As the context shows that the prophet to be raised up,\nwas an immediate prophet, so it also shows, that the singular\nnumber here stands for the plural, according to the frequent\ncustom of the Hebrew language, as is shown by Le Clerc and\nStillingfleet, in loco; for one single prophet to be raised up\nimmediately, who might soon die, could not be a reason why Jews\nof succeeding generations should not harken to diviners in Canaan.\n\nFinally,--The words of God by Moses, which follow the promise\nof a prophet, evidently show that by that promise prophets were\nintended, in laying-down a rule for the test or trial of the prophets\nbefore mentioned, in such a manner as implies, that that rule was to\nbe applied to all prophets pretending to come from him. See the\nwords in Deut. xviii., 19--22.\n\nI shall conclude this explication, by adducing, in confirmation of it,\nthe paraphrase of the words given in the Targum of Jonathan. \"The\nnations you are about to possess, (says the Jewish paraphrast)\nhearken to jugglers and diviners; but you shall not be like them;\nfor your priests shall enquire by Urim and Thummim, and the Lord\nyour God shall give you a true prophet.\" And this explication is\nthe one adopted by Origen,--[Contra Celsum, p. 28.]\n\nAs to the difficulty that is raised against this explication from the\nwords at the end of Deuteronomy--\"that there arose not a prophet\nsince in Israel like unto Moses whom the Lord knew face to face.\nIn all the signs and wonders which the Lord sent him to do,\" &c.--\nit is nothing at all. For every one perceives, that the word \"like\"\nmay be, and frequently is, used in scripture, and in common\nlanguage, to signify, similarity in some, though not in every,\nparticular; and every prophet, who speaks by God's direction, is a\nprophet \"like unto Moses,\" who did the same, though he be not\nlike, or equal to, him \"in doing signs and wonders,\" which is all\nthat is affirmed in the last chapter of Deuteronomy.\n\nAnd, finally, there is nothing to limit this prophecy to Jesus of\nNazareth, if we allowed (what we reject) the Christian\ninterpretation; since God might to-morrow, if such were his will,\nraise up a prophet like unto Moses in every respect, which Jesus\ncertainly was not; therefore, it cannot be applied and restrained to\nthe purpose for which it is quoted by Peter.\n\nThere is in the same sermon, in the 2 chap. of Acts, another\npassage quoted by Peter from the Psalms, and applied by him to\nprove the resurrection of Jesus, and on which he lays very great\nstress, which after all seems to be nothing to the purpose. Peter\nsays, \"Him (i. e., Jesus) God hath raised up, having loosed the\npains [or bands] of death, because it was not possible that he\nshould be holden of it.\" And why? \"For [because] David speaketh\nconcerning him, ' I foresaw the Lord always before my face, for\nhe is on my right hand, that I should not be moved. Therefore did\nmy heart rejoice, and my tongue was glad; moreover also my flesh\nshall rest in hope. Because thou wilt not leave my soul in Hades,\n[the place of departed Spirits] nor suffer thy holy one to see\ncorruption, thou hast made known to me the ways of life; thou\nshalt make me full of joy with thy countenance.' Men and\nbrethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that\nhe is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this\nday. Therefore, being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn\nwith an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins according to the\nflesh, he would raise up Christ to sit upon his throne. He, seeing\nthis before, spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was\nnot left in Hades, neither did his flesh see corruption.\"\n\nHow imposing is this argument! How plausible it appears! And yet\nit is irrelevant, as Dr. Priestly frankly confesses, who tries to save\nthe credit of the apostle by the convenient principle of\naccommodation! The whole force of Peter's reasoning depends\nupon the word \"corruption.\" David did see corruption; therefore,\nhe could not mean himself, but \"being a prophet,\" &c., he meant\nJesus Christ. Now, the whole of Peter's argument is grounded\nupon two mistakes; for, 1st, the Hebrew word translated\n\"corruption,\" here signifies \"destruction, perdition;\" and in the\nnext place, instead of being \"thy holy One,\" in the singular, it is in\nthe Hebrew \"thy saints,\" in general. The passage is quoted from\nthe 16th Psalm; and I will give a literal translation of it from the\noriginal, which will make the propriety or impropriety of Peter's\nquotation perfectly obvious. The contents and import of the Psalm,\naccording to the English version, are as follow; \"David, in distrust\nof his merits, and hatred of idolatry, fleeth to God for preservation,\nHe showeth the hope of his calling, of the resurrection, and of life\neverlasting.\" And the passage in question, according to the\noriginal, reads thus:--\"I have set the Lord always before me:\nBecause he is on my right hand, I shall not be moved: Therefore\nmy heart is glad, and my glory [i. e., tongue] rejoiceth: My flesh\nalso shall rest in hope. For thou wilt not leave my soul in Hades,\nneither wilt thou suffer thy saints to see destruction. Thou wilt\nshow me the path of life: In thy presence is fullness of joy, and at\nthy right hand are pleasures for evermore.\" That is--\"Because I\nhave ever trusted in thee, and experienced thy constant protection,\ntherefore I will not fear death; because thou wilt not for over leave\nmy soul in the place of departed spirits, nor suffer thy saints to\nperish from existence. Thou wilt raise me from the dead, and make\nme happy for ever in thy presence.\"#\n\nIn the 4th chap. of the Acts, the apostles are represented as praying\nto God, and referring in their prayer to the 2d Psalm \"why did the\nheathen rage,\" &c., as being a prophecy of the opposition of the\nJews to Jesus; with how much justice may be seen from these\ncircumstances.\n\n1. That \"the nations,\" as it is in the original, did not assemble\ntogether to crucify Jesus, as this was done by a few soldiers. 2. The\n\"kings of the earth\" had no hand in it, for they knew nothing\nabout it. And 3rdly, Those who were concerned did by no means\n\"form vain designs,\" since they effected their cruel purposes. And\nlastly, From that time to the present, God has not set Jesus as his\nking upon the \"holy hill of Sion,\" as the Psalm imports, nor given\nhim \"the nations for his inheritance, nor the uttermost parts of the\nearth for a possession.\"\n\nThe next prophecy usually adduced to prove that Jesus is the\nMessiah, is The passage quoted from Micah v. 2, in the 2d chapter\nof Mat.--\"But from Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little\namong the chiefs of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto\nme, that is, to be ruler in Israel, whose goings forth have been from\nold, from the days of hidden ages.\" This passage probably refers to\nthe Messiah, but by no means signifies that this Messiah was to be\nborn in Bethlehem, as asserted by Matthew; but only, that he was\nto be derived from Bethlehem, the city of Jesse, the father of David\nof famous memory, whose family was venerable for its antiquity, \"\nbeing of the days of hidden ages.\" And this interpretation is\nknown, and acknowledged, by Hebrew scholars. But in order to cut\nshort the dispute, w will permit the passage to be interpreted as\nsignifying that Bethlehem was to be the birth place of the Messiah.\nWhat then? Will a man's being born in Bethlehem be sufficient to\nmake him to be the Messiah foretold by the Hebrew prophets?\nSurely it has been made plain in the beginning of this work, that\nmany more characteristic marks than this must meet in one person\nin order to constitute him the Messiah described by them!\n\nIn Zechariah ix. 9, it is written, \"Rejoice greatly, O Daughter of\nSion, Shout, O Daughter of Jerusalem! Behold thy king cometh\nunto thee, the righteous one, and saved, or preserved [according to\nthe Hebrew] lowly, and riding upon an ass, and upon a colt, the\nfoal of an ass.\" This has been applied by the evangelists to Jesus,\nwho rode upon an ass into Jerusalem.\n\nBut in the first place, it is to be observed, that there seems to have\nbeen a blunder in this transaction; for according to the Hebrew\nidiom of the passage quoted above, the personage there spoken of,\nwas to ride upon \"an ass' colt;\" whereas, the apostles, in order to\nbe sure of fulfilling the prophecy, represent Jesus as riding upon an\nass, and the colt, too! \"They spread their garments upon them,\nand set him upon them.\"[See the evangelists in loc.] In the next\nplace, a man may ride into Jerusalem upon an ass, without being\nthus necessarily demonstrated to be the Messiah. And unless, as\nsaid before, every tittle of the marks given by the prophets to\ndesignate their Messiah, be found in Jesus, and in any other\nclaiming to be that Messiah his being born in Bethlehem, and\nriding upon an ass into Jerusalem, will by no means prove him to\nbe so. Besides, those who will take the trouble to look at the\ncontext in Zechariah, will find, that the event spoken of in the\nquotation, is spoken of as contemporaneous with the restoration\nIsrael, and the establishment of peace and happiness, which seems\nto cut up by the roots the interpretation of the evangelists. And to\nconclude the argument,--Jesus being born in Bethlehem, and\nriding into Jerusalem, allowing it to be true, would not, we think,\nfrustrate these prophecies of a future fulfillment--for no one can\ndisprove, that if so be the will of God, such a person as\nthe Messiah is described to be, might be born in Bethlehem\nto-morrow, and ride in triumph into Jerusalem, twenty years\nafterwards.\n\nThe next passage which has been offered, as a prophecy of Jesus,\nis to be found in the 12th chap. of Zech. v. 10, and part of it has\nbeen misquoted by John. \"And I will pour upon the house of\nDavid, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace\nand supplications, and they shall look on me whom they have\npierced.\" So it stands in the English version; but, before I state\nwhat it ought to be, I would observe, that before the evangelist,\n(who in his account of the crucifixion applies this passage as\nreferring to Jesus' being pierced with a spear) could make this\npassage fit his purpose, he had to substitute the word \"him\" for\n\"me,\" as it is in the Hebrew; confirmed by, I believe, all the\nversions, ancient and modern, without exception. Yet, with this\nchange, it will by no means answer his purpose; for the Hebrew\nword here translated \"pierced,\" in this place signifies\n\"blasphemed,\" or \"insulted,\" as it is understood by Grotius, who\nconfirms this rendering from the Hebrew of Levit. xxiv. 11, where\nin this passage \"the Israelitish woman's son blasphemed the name\nof the Lord.\" The Hebrew word translated \"blasphemed\" is from\nthe same root with the Hebrew word translated \"pierced\" in the\npassage in Zechariah quoted above. So that the passage ought to be\ntranslated thus:--\"I will pour upon the house of David, and upon\nthe inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and supplications,\nand they shall look towards me whom they have blasphemed.\"\n[To \"look towards God\" is a phrase frequently met with, and well\nunderstood.] Now, to enable us to understand more perfectly this\npassage, let us consider the context, where we shall find that it\nstates, that there was to be a war in Judea, and a siege of\nJerusalem, and then a deliverance of the Jews, by the destruction of\nall the nations, that should come up at that time, against Jerusalem.\nImmediately after which matters, follows the prophecy under\nconsideration--\"I will pour upon the house of David,\" &c. Now,\nfrom these things thus laid together, I crave leave to argue in the\nwords of Dr. Sykes [Essay, &c., p. 268]--\"Did any one\ncircumstance of all this happen to the Jews about the time of the\ndeath of Jesus? Or rather, was not every thing the reverse of what\nZechariah says; and instead of all nations being destroyed that\ncame about Jerusalem, Jerusalem itself was destroyed: instead of a\nspirit of grace and supplications, the Jews have had their hearts\nhardened against the Christ; instead of mourning for him whom\nthey have pierced, they condemn him and his followers even until\nthis day.\"\n\nBut it is tiresome thus to waste time in proving that parts and ends\nof verses, disjointed from their connexion, and even the words\nquoted, some of them changed and some transposed, (though even\ndone according to the rules given by the venerable Surenhusius)\nprove nothing. We must, therefore, devote the remainder of this\nlong chapter to the consideration of the three famous prophecies,\non which Christians have not hesitated, with triumphing\nconfidence, to rest the issue of their cause. These are the prophecy\nof Shiloh, Gen. 49; the 53d ch. of Isaiah; and Daniel's prophecy of\nthe \"seventy weeks.\" I will consider them in order, and thus wind\nup the chapter.\n\nI have some where read in a catechism, the following question and\nanswer:--Q. \"How can you confound the Jews, and prove, from\nprophecy, that the Messiah is already come?\" A. \"From these two\nprophecies--'The sceptre shall not depart from Judah,' &c.--Gen.\nxlix.; and this--'Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people,'\"\n&c.--Dan. ix. 24.\n\nBut, notwithstanding these overwhelming proofs, the stubborn\nJews refuse to be confounded! on the contrary, they in fact laugh at\nChristians for being so easily imposed upon.\n\nThe prophecy concerning Shiloh, the Jews acknowledge, refers to\ntheir Messiah. But they do not allow that it defines or limits the\ntime of his coming.\n\nAnd that it in fact does not, will be perfectly, evident to all who\nwill look at the place in the Hebrew bible, which they will find\npointed to read not--\"The sceptre shall not depart from Judah,\nand a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come,\" &c.; but\nthus--\"The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver\nfrom between his feet, for ever; for Shiloh shall come, and to him\nshall the gathering of the people be.\" So that the prophecy does\nnot intimate that the Messiah should come before the sceptre be\ndeparted from Judah; but that it should not depart for ever, but\nshall be restored when Shiloh comes. This is the plain and obvious\nsense of the prophecy; and, moreover, is the only one that is\nconsistent with historical fact. For, in truth, the sceptre had\ndeparted from Judah several hundred years before Jesus of\nNazareth was born. For from the time of the Babylonish captivity\n\"Judah\" has never been free, but in subjection to the Persians, the\nSyrians, the Romans, and all the world.\n\nIf my readers desire further satisfaction with regard to this\ninterpretation of this famous prophecy, I refer them to the dispute\nupon this subject between the celebrated Rittangelius, and a\nlearned Jew, (preserved in Wagenseils' \"Tela Ignea,\") where he\nwill find Rittangelius first amicably inviting the Hebrew to discuss\nthe point, who does so most ably and respectfully toward his\nChristian antagonist, and unanswerably establishes the\ninterpretation above stated, by the laws of the Hebrew language, by\nthe ancient interpretation of the Targum, by venerable tradition,\nand by appealing to history. Rittangelius begins his defence by\nshuffling, an ends by getting into a passion, and calling names;\nwhich his opponent, who is cool, because confident of being able\nto establish his argument, answers by notifying to Rittangelius his\ncompassion and contempt.\n\nThe next prophecy proposed to be considered, is the celebrated\nprophecy of Isaiah, consisting of part of the 52nd, and the whole of\nthe 53rd, chapter. It is the only prophecy which Paley thinks worth\nbringing forward in his elaborate defence; and it must be\nconfessed, that if this prophecy relates to the Messiah, it is by far\nthe most plausible of any that are brought forward in favour of\nJesus Christ. It merits, therefore, a thorough discussion, and I shall\nendeavour that it shall be a candid one. This prophecy is quoted by\nJesus himself in Luke xxii. 39, and by Philip, when he converted\nthe Eunuch, (Acts 8,) for \"beginning at this prophecy, he preached\nunto him Jesus.\"\n\nIt will not be necessary to cite the passage at length, it being one\nperfectly familiar to every Christian. I will, then, before I consider\nit, first premise, that since it has been heretofore abundantly made\nevident, that the Messiah of the Old Testament was not to suffer,\nand die, but to live and reign, it is according to the rules of sound\ncriticism, and I think sound theology too, to interpret this solitary\npassage, so that it may not contradict very many others of a\ndirectly contrary import. Now, if this passage can relate only to the\nMessiah, it will throw into utter confusion the whole scheme of the\nprophetical scriptures. But if it can be made to appear, that it does\nnot necessarily relate to him; if it can, consistently with the\ncontext, be otherwise applied, the whole difficulty vanishes. Now,\nthe authors of the New Testament have applied this prophecy to\nthe Messiah, and to Jesus as the Messiah; and for doing so, they\nhave been accused of misapplication of it-from the earliest times;\nsince we know from Origen, that the Jews of his time derided the\nChristians for relying upon this prophecy; alleging that it related to\ntheir own nation, and was a prophecy of their suffering and\npersecuted state, and of their ultimate emancipation and happiness.\nAnd this interpretation of the prophecy the learned Vitringa, in his\ncommentary upon Is. in loc., allows to be the most respectable he\nhad met with among the Jews, and, according to him, \"to be by no\nmeans dispised.\"\n\nIn order that the fitness or unfitness of this application of the\nprophecy may be made apparent, and evident, we will new lay\nbefore the reader this famous prophecy, part by part, each part\naccompanied by the Jewish interpretation.\n\nIsaiah lii. 13, \"Behold, my servant shall prosper, he shall be\nexalted, and extolled, and be very high.\" Interpretation--My\nservant Israel, though he be in great affliction for a time, yet\nhereafter shall be released from captivity, and be honoured and\nraised to elevation very high among the nations of the earth. [That\nthe Jewish nation is spoken of, in the singular number and under\nthe title of God's servant frequently in the Old Testament, is well\nknown, and will be here made certain by a few examples. Isaiah\nxli. (the chapter preceding the prophecy,) \"But thou Israel my\nservant, thou, Jacob, whom I have chosen,\" presently afterwards,\n\"saying to thee, thou art my servant.\" Again, chapter xliv.--\n\"Now, therefore, hear Jacob my servant,\" and so frequently in the\nsame chapter. See also ch. xlv., and Jer. ch. xxx., and Ps. cxxxvi.,\nand Isaiah throughout, for similar examples.]\n\n\"And many were astonished at thee (his visage was so marred\nmore than any man, and his form more than the sons of men.)\"\nThat is--And many were astonished at thee, on account of thy\nabject state, and miserable condition, being squalid with misery,\nand suffering more than any men.\n\n\"So shall he sprinkle many nations, the kings shall shut their\nmouths at him; for that which had not been told them, shall they\nsee, and that which they had not heard, shall they consider.\"\n\nInterpretation--As the Gentiles wondered at their abject state, so\nas to make them a proverb of reproach, so shall they admire at their\nwonderful change of circumstances, from the depth of degradation\nto the height of prosperity and honour. So that they shall lay their\nhands upon their mouths, which had beforetime reproached them,\nwhen they shall see their felicity to be so far beyond what had been\ntold them, and they shall attentively consider it, and they shall say\nto each other--\n\n\"Who hath believed our report, and the arm of the Lord to whom\nwas it revealed? For he grew up [Hebrew, not \"he shall grow up,\"\nas in the English version] before him as a tender plant, and as a\nroot out of a dry soil; he had no form nor comeliness; and when\nwe saw him, there was no beauty that we should desire him.\"\n\nThe sense is--The Gentiles shall say to each other in wonder,\n\"Who believed what we heard concerning them? And to whom\nwas the interest the Lord took in them made known? For it was a\ndispised people, feeble, and wretched, like a tender plant springing\nup out of a thirsty soil. Their appearance was abject, and there was\nnothing attractive in their manners.\"\n\n\"He was despised and rejected of men, a man of sorrows and\nacquainted with grief: and we hid, as it were, our faces from him;\nhe was despised, and we esteemed him not.\"\n\nThat is--They were despised, and held in abhorrence: they were\nmen of sorrow, and familiar with suffering. We looked upon them\nwith dislike: we hid our faces from them, and esteemed them not.\n\n\"Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows.\"\n\nInterpretation--Surely their sufferings are as great as if they had\nborne the sins of the whole world; or, they are, nevertheless, the\nmeans appointed to remove the sufferings of an afflicted world, for\nGod hath connected universal happiness with their prosperity; and\nthe end of their sufferings, is the beginning of our joys.\n\n\"Yet did we esteem him smitten of God, and afflicted.\"\n\nInterpretation--Nevertheless, we considered them as a God-\nabandoned race, and devoted to wretchedness by him, for having\ncrucified their king.\n\n\"But he was wounded for [or by] our transgressions, he was\nbruised [for or by] our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was\nupon him; and through his stripes we are healed.\"\n\nThat is--But, instead of being the victims of God's wrath, they\nwere wounded through our cruelty, they were bruised by our\niniquitous treatment, we being suffered to do so, to chastise them\nfor their sins, and to prove their obedience; and this chastisement is\nthat by which our peace is to be effected; for their chastisement\nand probation being finished. God will by them impart and diffuse\npeace and happiness.\n\n\"All we like sheep have gone astray, we, have turned every one to\nhis own way, and the Lord hath caused to meet upon him the\niniquity of us all.\"\n\nBut it is we who have sinned more than they: we have all gone\nastray in our ignorance, being without the knowledge of God, or of\nhis law. Yet the Lord hath permitted us to make them the subjects\nof our oppressive iniquity.\n\n\"He was oppressed, [or \"exposed to pecuniary exactions\"] and he\nwas afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he was brought as a\nlamb to the slaughter; and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb,\nso he opened, not his mouth. He was taken from prison and from\njudgment, and who shall declare his generation, [\"into his manner\nof life, who stoopeth to look?\" according to the Hebrew] for he\nwas cut off out of the land of the living; for, [or by] the\ntransgression of my people was he stricken. And he made his grave\nwith the wicked; but with the rich were his deaths, [or tomb]\nbecause he had done no violence, neither was deceit in his mouth.\"\n\nInterpretation--How passive and unresisting were they, when\noppressed!--They were afflicted, and they complained not; when\nthrough false accusations, and mistaken cruelty they were\nplundered, and condemned to die, they went like a Iamb to the\nslaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so they\nopened not their mouth. They were taken from the dungeon to be\nslain, they were wantonly massacred, and every man was their foe;\nand the cause of the sufferers who condescended to examine; for\nby the thoughtless crimes of my people, they suffered. Yet\nnotwithstanding their graves were appointed with the wicked; yet\nthey were rich in their deaths. This did God grant them, because\nthey had not done iniquity.\n\nRabbi Isaac, author of the famous Munimen Fidei#, renders the\noriginal--\"on account of impieties was he given to his sepulchre,\nand on account of his riches was his death, because he did no\nviolence, neither was deceit in his mouth\"--which he interprets\nthus:--We (the former speakers) raised against them false\naccusations of impiety, on account of their religion, and refusing to\nworship our idols; but their riches was the real cause why we put\nthem to death. Nevertheless, they used no violence in opposition\nto our oppressions, neither would they forsake their religion, and\ndeceitfully assent to ours in hypocrisy.*\n\n\"Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise him: he hath put him to grief.\nWhen thou shalt make his soul a propitiation for sin, he shall see\nhis seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the Lord\nshall prosper in his hands.\" [This proves that this prophecy cannot\nrefer to any individual, but may refer to the Jewish nation, because\none individual cannot be put to death, and yet \"see his seed,\" and\n\"prolong his days.\"] \"After [or on account of] the travail of his\nsoul, seeing he shall be satisfied, by his knowledge shall\nmy righteous servant make many righteous [or show them\nrighteousness,] and he shall bear the burden of their iniquities.\"\n\nThat is--After and for their sufferings, they shall be abundantly\nrewarded; by their superior knowledge of religious truth, shall they\nmake many wise, \"for many nations shall go, and say, come ye,\nand let us ascend to the mount of the Lord, and to the house of the\nGod of Jacob, that he may teach us his ways\"--Mic. iv. ch.\n\n\"Wherefore, I will give him a portion with the great, and with the\nmighty shall he divide the spoil, because he poured out his life\nunto death, and was numbered with the transgressors, and himself\nbear the sin of many, and interceded for the transgressors.\"\n\nInterpretation--Therefore, their reward shall be exceeding great,\nbecause for the sake of their duty, they willingly exposed\nthemselves to death, and were accounted as transgressors, and bore\nthe cruel afflictions inflicted by many, and made intercession for\nthem who afflicted them.\n\nSuch is the explication given by the Jews of this prophecy. I have\nmade no important alterations of the common English translation;\nexcept, that in some passages, I have made it more conformable to\nthe original by substituting a verb in the past tense, instead of\nleaving it in the future, as in the English version. Those translators\nhave taken certain liberties in this respect to make this prophecy\n(and several others) more accordant to their own views, which are\nnot supported by the Hebrew: many of these expressions, however,\nwe have left unaltered, as they are quite harmless. But if any of our\nreaders desire further information with regard to the propriety of\nthis interpretation of this prophecy of Isaiah, we refer him to the\n\"Munimen Fidei,\" contained in Wagenseil's \"Tela Ignea,\" where\nhe will find it amply illustrated, and defended. Here, in this work,\nwe shall content ourselves with proving, that this prophecy can by\nno means relate to Jesus, from these circumstances:--1. Jesus\ncertainly was not exalted and magnified, and made very great upon\nearth, which, as has been shown, was to be the scene of the\nexaltation of the Old Testament Messiah; but was put to a cruel\nand disgraceful death. 2. He was not oppressed by pecuniary\nexactions, as is said of the subject of this prophecy. 3. He was\nnever taken from prison to die, for he was never in one. 4. He did\nnot \"see his seed,\" nor \"prolong his days,\" since he died childless;\nand we will not permit the word \"seed\" to be spiritualized on this\noccasion, for the word \"seed\" in the Old Testament, means\nnothing else, than literally \"children,\" which it is not pretended he\never had; and how could he \"prolong his days,\" when he was cut\noff in his 33d year. 5. Besides, who were \"the strong and mighty,\"\nwith whom he divided the spoil? Were they the twelve fishermen\nof Galilee? and what was the spoil divided? In a word, the literal\napplication of this prophecy to Jesus is now given up by the most\nlearned Hebrew scholars, who allow, that the literal sense of the\noriginal can never be understood of him. [See Priestley's notes on\nthe scriptures, in loco; and the context before and after.]\n\nWe have now come to the last subject proposed to be considered in\nthis chapter, viz., Daniel's prophecy of the seventy weeks, the\n\"instar omnium\" of the prophetical proofs of Christianity, and\nwhich was for ages held up to the view of \"the unbelieving race,\"\nas cutting off beyond doubt their \"hope of Israel\" from ever\nappearing, since the time so distinctly foretold had elapsed. But\nsuch is the instability of human opinions, that it was at length\nsuspected, and at last ascertained-by the learned, that \"the stubborn\nIsraelites\" had some reason for denying that prophecy, any voice in\nthe affair.\n\nDuring many years, one learned man after another, had amused\nhimself with destroying the system of his predecessor, and\nreplacing it with his own, not a whit better, but tending to the same\nend, viz., to make the prophecy of the seventy weeks tally and fit\nwith the event of the crucifixion. At length Marsham, a learned\nEnglishman, declared, and demonstrated, that his predecessors, in\nthis enquiry, had been grossly mistaken, for that the prophecy in\nall its parts was totally irrelevant and irreconcileable with the time\nof the crucifixion. The appearance of his book put all the\ntheologians of that age in an uproar! But many learned Christians\nin the last, and present, century, now freely acknowledge, that\nDaniel is not on their side, but as much a Jew as his brethren.\n\nThis celebrated prophecy, literally translated from the original, is\nas follows:--Dan. ix. 24, &c.--\"Seventy weeks are determined\nupon thy people, and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression,\nand to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity,\nand to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal the vision and\nprophecy, and to anoint the most Holy, [i. e., the sanctum\nsanctorum, or Holy of Holies.] Know, therefore, and understand,\nthat from the going forth of the word to restore and build\nJerusalem, unto the anointed prince, shall be seven weeks; and (in)\nthreescore and two weeks, the street shall be built again, and the\nwall, even in troublous times. And after threescore and two weeks\nshall the anointed (one) be cut off, and be without a successor;\n(Heb. \"and not, or none to him\") and the city and the sanctuary\nshall be destroyed# by the people of the prince that shall come;\nand the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the\nwar desolations are determined. And he shall confirm the covenant\nwith many for one week, and half the week (i. e., in the midst of\nthe week) he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and\nfor the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate,\neven until the consummation and that (is) determined, be poured\nupon the desolate?\"\n\nThis is the prophecy on which such stress has been laid, as\npointing out the precise time of the coming of the Messiah; and I\nshall fully demonstrate that it hath not the most distant reference to\nthat event. And for the better explanation of the prophecy, it is\nproper that we attend a little to the context.\n\n*In the preceding chapter of Daniel it is said, that when Daniel was\ninformed of the vision of the two thousand and three hundred days,\nhe sought for the meaning; but not rightly understanding it, he\njudged, that that great number was a contradiction to the word of\nGod as delivered by Jeremiah, concerning the redemption at the\nend of seventy years; (Jer. xxv. 11, 12, and ch. xxix. 10) and from\nthence he concluded that the captivity was prolonged on account of\nthe sins of the nation. This doubt arose from his not understanding\nthe prophecy, and, therefore, the angel said unto him,--\"I am now\ncome forth to give thee skill and understanding.\" And he proceeds\nto inform him, that as soon as he began to pray, and God saw, his\nperplexity, the royal command went forth from him, that he should\ncome to Daniel to make him understand the truth of those matters,\nthat were to come to pass in future time. And as the angel Gabriel\nhad explained to him the vision from whence his doubt arose, it\nwas incumbent on him to perfect the explanation; and that is what\nis meant by the expression \"to show,\" i. e., as I began the\nexplanation, the commandment was, that I should finish it.\n\nBefore I proceed to give the Jewish explanation of the prophecy, it\nis proper to show in what manner the answer of the angel in it,\nagreed to Daniel's question, and also the reason of his using the\nterm weeks, and not years, or times, as in the other visions.\n\nIt appears, that Daniel, from the words of Jeremiah, perceived that\nGod. would visit all the nations, and punish them for their sins, as\nmay be observed from the following words:--\"Thus saith the\nLord God of Israel unto me, Take the wine cup of this fury at my\nhand, and cause all the nations to whom I send thee, to drink it\"--\nJer, xxv. 15. He then mentions first Jerusalem, afterwards the king\nof Egypt, Tyre, Sidon, and all the Isles beyond the sea, and many\nothers; and at last the king of Sheshak, or Babylon.\n\nHe also further perceived, that the visitation of each nation would\nbe at the end of seventy years, as Isaiah observes of Tyre: \"And it\nshall come to pass in that day, that Tyre shall be forgotten seventy\nyears.\" Isaiah xxiii. 15, the same of Babylon: \"And it shall come to\npass, when seventy years are accomplished, I will punish the King\nof Babylon.\" Jer. xxv. 12, And as it is observed in the next verse:\n\"All that is written in this book which Jeremiah hath prophecied,\nagainst all the nations.\" From whence it appears, that as the\nvisitation of Babylon was to be seventy years, so was that of the\nother nations to be; for so had the wisdom of God decreed to wait\naccording to this number. For which reason, and because the\nprophets say that the restoration of Israel is to be contemporaneous\nwith the destruction of their enemies, Daniel appears to have.\njudged, that the sins of his nation would be done away by the\nseventy years of the captivity of Babylon; and, therefore, the angel\ninformed him of his error, by telling him, that this was not to be the\ncase with his nation, for that their wickedness was come up before\nGod, and their sin was very grievous; and that, therefore, their sins\nwould not be atoned for by seventy years, as in the case of the rest\nof the nations, to whom he allowed seventy years to see if they\nwould repent; and, if not, then he would punish them. But as for\nIsrael, he would not only wait seventy years, but seven times\nseventy years; (for thus it is literally, in the Hebrew, the words\ntranslated \"seventy weeks,\" are, literally, \"seventy sevens\") after\nwhich, if they had not repented and reformed, their kingdom\nshould be cut off, and they return into captivity, to finish an\natonement for their transgressions. Hence the cause of Daniel's\nquestion is evident; and the propriety of the angel's answer to the\nquestion, is manifest; as also the expression of weeks or sevens.\n\nThese seventy weeks are, without doubt, four hundred and ninety\nyears, the time elapsed from the destruction of the first temple, till\nthe destruction of the second.\n\nThis, it seems, was the more necessary for the angel to inform him\nof; because Daniel judged, that after their return from Babylon, by\nmeans of that visitation only, all their sins would be done away.\nFor which reason the angel showed him that it would not be so,\n[for the return from Babylon was not a perfect redemption,\nbecause there was not a general collection of all that were in\ncaptivity, even all the tribes, save only a few of Judah and\nBenjamin, and those not the most respectable. And after their\nreturn, they were not free, but were under the dominion of the\nPersians, Greeks and Romans. And although they, at one time,\nthrew off their yoke, and had kings of the Asmonean and Herodean\nfamilies, yet was there no king among them of the seed of David,\nneither had they the Shechinah, nor the Urim and Thummim, all\nwhich is a manifestation that it was not a perfect redemption, but\nonly a visitation, with which God was pleased to visit them; so that\nthey were allowed to build a temple to the Lord, by the permission\nof Cyrus, and according to the measure given by him. This was\nthat they might be the better enabled to do the works of repentance\nduring the time allowed, and thus \"make atonement, and thus\nfinish the transgression, and make an end of sins, and make\nreconciliation for iniquity;\" and thus, at the end of the time\nassigned, even \"seventy weeks,\" they would bring in \"everlasting\nrighteousness,\" i.e., universal virtue and felicity, throughout the\nworld, when the Eternal should be known, worshipped, and obeyed\nby all mankind. But if they did not repent, and amend, if they did\nevil, as their fathers, then their kingdom was to be cut off at the\nexpiration of the seventy weeks; which, in fact, took place.]\n\nAfter the angel had thus expressed himself in general terms, he\ndescended to particulars; and laid down three propositions (if I\nmay be allowed the term,) or periods.\n\nFirst. \"Know, therefore, and understand, (that) from the going\nforth of the word to restore and build Jerusalem, unto the anointed\nprince, (shall be) seven weeks.\"\n\nThat is, it shall be seven weeks or forty nine years from the\ndestruction of the first temple, to Cyrus, \"the anointed prince,\"\nwho shall give leave to build the second. [With regard to the\nimport of the phrase \"the going forth of the word,\" I refer the\nreader to Levi's Letters to Priestley, and shall here only concern\nmyself with settling the meaning of the expression of \"the\nanointed prince.\"] Many Christians have objected to the term\nMessiah, or anointed, being applied, as in our interpretation to\nCyrus a heathen prince; and they apply it themselves to Jesus of\nNazareth. But that the term, or appellation, Messiah, can be applied\nto Cyrus, is evident; since we find it so applied by God himself in\nthe xlv. ch. of Isaiah. \"Thus saith the Lord to his anointed, to\nCyrus. 2. It is a singular fact, that the appellation \"Messiah\" is\nnever applied to the expected deliverer of the Israelites in the\nwhole bible, except, perhaps, in ii. Psalm. It is an appellation\nindifferently applied to kings, and priests, and prophets; to all who\nwere anointed, as an induction into their office, and has nothing in\nit peculiar and exclusive; but the application of it to the expected\ndeliverer of Israel, originated in and from the Targums. 3. In order\nto make this prophecy, and this phrase, \"Messiah the prince,\" or\n\"the anointed prince,\" apply to Jesus of Nazareth, Christians\nconnect, and join together, this first member of the prophecy with\nthe second, in open defiance of the original Hebrew; and after all,\nthey can reap no benefit from this manoeuvre; for the term\n\"Messiah Nagid,\" or \"the anointed prince,\" can never apply to\nJesus, in this place, at any rate; because he certainly was no prince\nor \"Nagid,\" a word which in the Hebrew bible always, without\nexception, denotes a prince, or ruler, one invested with temporal\nauthority, or supreme command. Now, as it is allowed on all\nhands, that Jesus had no such temporal power, as a prince, or ruler;\nit, consequently, follows, that he can by no means be the\n\"anointed prince\" mentioned in the prophecy.\n\nSecond Period. \"And (in) threescore and two weeks, the street\nshall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times,\"\n\nHere the angel gave him to understand, that after the seven weeks\nbefore mentioned, there would come a time in which the building\nwould be hindered, (and which was on account of the letter written\nby Rheum and Shimshai to Artaxerxes, who, in consequence\nthereof, made the building to cease-See Ezra and Nehemiah) till\nthe second year of Darius, who gave leave to finish the building:\nwhich continued till the destruction by the Romans, sixty-two\nweeks, beside the last week, at the beginning of which, the Romans\ncame, and warred against them, and at length entirely destroyed the\ncities of Judah, Jerusalem, and the temple. For, from the time that\nCyrus first gave leave to build the temple, till its completion, was\ntwenty-one years; and its duration, four hundred and twenty; in the\nwhole, sixty-three weeks, or four hundred and forty one years. But\nthe angel made his division at sixty-two weeks, as he afterwards\ndescribed what was to come to pass in the last week (and with\nreason, for the horrible Jewish war lasted seven years!) And by the\nwords, \"in troublous times,\" he informed Daniel, that during the\nbuilding of the temple, they would have continual trouble and\nalarms from their enemies, as is mentioned in Ezra and Nehemiah,\nwhere we find, that while some worked, the others held the shield\nand spear. And even after finishing it, they were almost continually\nin trouble, and persecuted, as is evident from the books of\nMaccabees, and from Josephus.\n\nThird Period. \"And after threescore and two weeks shall the\nanointed be cut off, and have no successor--[Heb. \"and not, or,\nnone, to him\"]--and the city and the sanctuary shall be destroyed\nby the people of the prince that shall come; and the end thereof\nshall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are\ndetermined.\"\n\nThat is, and after that period, shall the High Priest (or \"the\nanointed one\") be cut off--[The High Priest is called \"Messiah,\"\nwitness Lev. iv. 3--\"If the Messiah Priest, (or anointed priest)\ndoth sin,\" &c.]--and have no successor; and the city and the\ntemple shall be destroyed by Titus and the Romans, and until the\nend of the war, your country shall be swept with the besom of\ndestruction.\n\nThe angel finishes the prophecy with these words:--\"And he (the\nprince that shall come) shall strengthen the covenant with many,\nfor one week. And in the midst of the week (i. e., the seventieth\nand last week,) he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to\ncease.\"\n\nThis prediction was fully accomplished; for 1. Titus, \"the prince\nthat should come,\" was continually offering peace to the Jews, and\ntried to \"strengthen the covenant\"--i. e., their old treaties made\nwith the Romans, and in fact did bring over many. 2. On account\nof the distress of the siege, the daily sacrifice did in fact cease to be\noffered in the temple some time before its destruction; and the\nangel further observes, that all this was to come upon them for\ntheir sins, \"for the overspreading of abominations, it should be\nmade desolate.\"\n\nThis is what appears to be a plain and fair explication of this\nprophecy; but since Christians, seeing mention made in it of a\nMessiah to be cut off, have eagerly endeavoured to press it into\ntheir service, it remains for me to show, that it is impossible to\nmake this prophecy refer to \"the cutting off\" of Jesus.\n\nThe difficulty that learned Christians have met with, in their\nattempts to do this, will be easily conceived by any person, when\nhe knows, that more than a dozen different hypotheses have been\nframed by them for that purpose; but that they have lost their\nlabour, will be obvious from this single observation, that \"the\nanointed one, or Messiah,\" who, the prophet says, was to be \"cut\noff,\" was to be cut off \"AFTER the threescore and two weeks,\" i.\ne., at the destruction of Jerusalem, or within the seven years\npreceding that event! Now, we know from the Evangelists, and;\nfrom profane history, that Jesus was crucified more than forty\nyears before the destruction of Jerusalem. In addition to this,\nnothing need be said, for this circumstance lays flat their\ninterpretation at one stroke.\n\nThose who desire to see a more elaborate discussion of this\nprophecy, and an ample defence of this interpretation, are referred\nto \"Levi's Letters, to Priestly;\" and those who are desirous of\nseeing an account of the various, contradictory, perplexed and\nmultitudinous contrivances, by which it has been endeavoured to\napply this prophecy to Jesus, are referred to Prideaux, Michaelis,\nand Blayney.\n\nWe have now gone through an examination of the evidence\nadduced from the prophets of the Old Testament, to prove that\nJesus is the Messiah of the Old Testament; and those of our readers\nwho love truth, are, we trust, now made sensible that the religion\nof the New Testament, if built upon such proofs as these, is,\nevidently, founded on--a mistake.\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VIII.\n\nSTATEMENT OF ARGUMENTS WHICH PROVE THAT\nJESUS WAS NOT THE MESSIAH OF THE OLD TESTAMENT.\n\nMost of our readers have, no doubt, heard from the pulpit, many\nexclamations and declamations against the \"blindness of the Jews,\"\nin not recognizing their Messiah in Jesus of Nazareth. The reasons\nof this \"blindness\" are made, I think, by this time pretty\nintelligible.\n\nNevertheless, for the further satisfaction of the reader, I will here\nset down the principal reasons given by Rabbi Isaac, in his\n\"Munimen Fidei,\" which cause the Jews to deny the Messiahship\nof Jesus.\n\n\"At a certain time, (says he,) a certain learned man of the wise men\nof the Christians said unto me:--'Wherefore are you Jews\nunwilling to believe Jesus of Nazareth to be the Messiah, when yet\nyour veritable prophets testified of him, whose words you profess\nto have faith in.'\n\n\"I gave him this answer. 'How, I require, could we believe him to\nbe the Messiah, when you can produce no genuine proof from the\nprophets in his favour, since all those things adduced by the\nevangelists from them, to prove Jesus the Messiah, are nothing to\nthe purpose? And we have many and evident reasons to prove that\nhe was not the Messiah. And of these, I will bring forward a few,\narising, 1, From his genealogy. 2. From his works. 3. From the time\nof his appearing. 4. From the prophecies of the things to take place\nin the time of the Messiah not having seen fulfilled in his age. And\nin these things are contained the genuine marks characteristic of\nour Messiah.'\n\n\"1. As to what concerns his genealogy; it does not prove this\nnecessary thing, that Jesus was the son of David, because he was\nnot begotten by Joseph, as the Gospel of Matthew testifies; for in\nthe first chapter of it, it is written, that Jesus was born of Mary\nwhen she was yet a virgin, and had not been known by Joseph;\nwhich things being so, the genealogy of Joseph has nothing to do\nwith Jesus. The descent and origin of Mary, is still less known, but\nit seems from Luke's calling Elizabeth, who was of Levi, her\ncousin, that Mary was of the tribe of Levi, and not of Judah, and,\nconsequently, not of David; and, if she were, still Jesus is not the\nmore the son of David; descents being reckoned from the males\nonly. Neither is the genealogy of Joseph rightly deduced from\nDavid, but labours under great difficulties. Matthew, and Luke\nalso, not only disagree, but irreconcilably and flatly contradict\neach other, in their genealogies of Joseph. Now, it cannot be that\nthe testimony of two witnesses, who directly contradict each other\nin the matter to be proved by them, can be received as true. But the\nprophets have directed us to expect no Messiah but one born of the\nseed of David.\n\n\"2. As to the works of Jesus, we object to what he said concerning\nhimself:--'Do not consider me as come to establish peace on\nearth, for I have come to send a sword, and to separate the son\nfrom the father, and the daughter from her mother, and the\ndaughter-in-law from her mother-in-law,' which words are written\nin Mat. ch. x. But we find the prophecies concerning the Messiah\nto attribute to him very different works from these; nay, the very\nopposite. For, whereas Jesus testifies concerning himself, that he\ndid not come to establish peace in the earth, but 'division,' 'fire'\nand 'sword,' Zechariah says, concerning the expected Messiah, ch.\nix.:--'He shall speak peace to the nations.' Jesus says he came to\nsend 'fire and sword' upon the earth, but Micah says, ch. ii., that in\nthe times of the true Messiah they shall beat their swords into\nploughshares, and their spears into pruning hooks, nation shall not\nlift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.'\nJesus says that he came 'to put division between the father and the\nson,' &c. But in the time of the true Messiah, Elias, the prophet,\nshall come, of whom Malachi prophecied 'that he shall convert the\nheart of the fathers unto the children, and the heart of the children\nto the fathers.' Jesus says 'that he came to serve others, not to be\nserved by them' - Mat. xx. 29. But of the true Messiah it is said,\nPsalm lxxii.:--'All kings shall bow themselves before him, all\nnations shall serve him.' The same also is said by Zechariah, ch. ix.:--\n'His dominion shall be, from one sea to the other, and from the\nriver unto the ends of the earth;' and so Dan., ch. vii.:--'All\ndominions shall serve and obey him.'\n\n\"3. As to the time, we object to the Christians, that Jesus did not\ncome at the time designated by the prophets; for the prophets\ntestify, that the coming of the Messiah should be 'in the end of\ndays' or, in the latter days, (which, surely, have not yet arrived) as\nit is in Isaiah ch. ii.:--'It shall come to pass in the latter days, that\nthe mountain of the Lord's house shall be established in the top of\nthe mountains, and all nations shall flow unto it;' and it\nimmediately follows, concerning the king Messiah, 'that he shall\njudge among the nations, and rebuke many peoples, and they shall\nbeat their words into ploughshares, and their spears into pruning\nhooks.' See also Hosea, ch. iii, and also Dan., ch. ii., where it is\nwritten:--'God hath made known unto king Nebuchadnezzar\nwhat shall come to pass in the latter days,' (or, in the end of days.)\nAnd this pertains to what follows, viz., to this:--'In the days of\nthose kings, (i. e., of the kingdoms that arose out of the ruins of the\nRoman Empire) the God of heaven will raise up a kingdom, which\nshall never be destroyed.' Thus you see, that the prophets\npredicted, that the kingdom of the Messiah should be after the\ndestruction of the Roman Empire, not while it was in its vigour;\nwhen Jesus came; in 'the latter days,' and not before.*\n\n\"4. Besides all these difficulties, neither were the promises made\nto us by the prophets, concerning the things to come to pass at the\ncoming of the Messiah, fulfilled in the time of Jesus. For examples,\ntake the following:--'1. In the time of the king Messiah, there was\nto be one kingdom only, and one only king upon earth, viz., the\nking Messiah--see Daniel, ch. ii.; but behold, we see with our\neyes, many independent kingdoms, distinct, and distinguished by\ndifferent laws and customs, religious and political, which things\nbeing so, it follows, that the Messiah is not yet come.\n\n\"2. In the time of the king Messiah, there was to be only one\nreligion and one law throughout the world; for, it is written in\nIsaiah, ch. lii. and lxvi., that all nations shall come at stated times\nto worship the Eternal at Jerusalem. See also Zechariah, ch. xiv.\nand ch. viii., and indeed throughout the writings of the prophets.\n\n\"3. In the time of the king Messiah, idols were to be cut off, and\nutterly to perish from the earth; as it is said in Zechariah, ch. xiii.,\nand so in Isaiah, ch. ii., it is written, 'And the glory of idols shall\nutterly pass away;' and so in Zephaniah, ch. ii., 'The Lord shall be\nterrible among them, when he shall make lean (i. e., bring to\nnothing) all the gods of the earth; and all the countries of the\nnations shall bow themselves to Him, each out of his place.'\n\n\"4. In the times of the Messiah, there shall obtain no more sins and\ncrimes in the earth, especially among the children of Israel, as is\naffirmed in Deut. xxx., Zephaniah, ch. iii and in Jeremiah, ch. iii.\nAnd l., and so in Ezekiel, ch. xxxvi. and xxxvii.\n\n\"5. In the times of the Messiah, there shall be peace between man\nand beast, and between the tiger and the tame beast; and the little\nchild shall stroke, with impunity, the variegated skin of the serpent,\nand,--as one of our own poets has beautifully said,--'and with\nhis forked tongue shall innocently play.' See in Isaiah, ch. xi. and\nlxv., the original from whence he derived his beautiful poem.\n\n\"6. In the time of the king Messiah, there are to be no calamities,\nno afflictions, no lamentations throughout the world. But the\ninhabitants thereof are to lead joyful lives in gratitude to the good\nGod, and in the enjoyment of his bounties. See Isaiah lxv.\n\n\"Lastly. In the time of the king Messiah, the glory of God was\nagain to return to Israel, and the spirit of the most High God was to\nbe liberally poured out upon them, and they were to be endowed\nwith the spirit of prophecy, and with wisdom, and knowledge, and\nunderstanding, and virtue; and God will no more hide his face from\nthem; but will bless them, and give them a ready heart and a\nwilling mind to obey his laws, and enjoy the felicities consequent\nthereupon. And the Shechinah shall inhabit the temple for ever,\nand the glory of God shall never depart from Israel; but they shall\nwalk amid the splendours of the glory of the Eternal, and all the\nearth shall resound with his praise, as is written in Ezekiel, ch.\nxxxvii., and xxxix., and xliii.; and in Joel, ch. ii., and in Zech., ch.\nii., and Isaiah, ch. xi., and throughout the latter part of his\nprophecies, and in Jer. xxxi.\"\n\nAnd now, reader, let me ask you this question, has any one of the\nforegoing prophecies been yet fulfilled, either in the days of Jesus,\nor ever since? Thou canst not say it! Now, then, hear the\nconclusion, which, in sincerity, and with the hand upon the heart, I\nam compelled to draw from these precedents. \"Since these\ndistinctive characteristics predicted by the Hebrew prophets, as to\nbe found in their Messiah, were certainly, and evidently, never\nfound in Jesus; and since these conditions and circumstances, and\nmany others beside, which, to avoid prolixity, have been omitted,\nmost assuredly did not take place in the time of Jesus, nor ever\nsince, and since they were according to those prophets, certainly to\nbe expected in the time of their Messiah; therefore, from all this, it\nseems to be demonstrable (allowing the prophets to be true,) that\nJesus of Nazareth was not this true Messiah.\" And I would ask the\ncandid Christian, in which link of this chain of proofs he can find a\nflaw? And I would ask him, too, as a moral and honest man,\nwhether any Jew, in his right mind, could, without setting at\nnought what he conceived to be the word of God, receive him as\nthe Messiah? The honest and upright answer, I believe, will be,\nthat he could net. And, accordingly, it is very well known, that the\nJewish nation have never done so. And this their obstinacy, as it is\ncalled, will not by this time, I think, appear unreasonable to any\nsensible man; and he will now be able to appreciate the justice of\nthat idle cant about \"the carnal Jews,\" and their \"worldly-minded\"\nexpectation of a temporal prince, as their Messiah. Certainly, the\nJews had very good reason, from their prophecies, to expect no\nMessiah but a Messiah who should sit on the throne of David, and\nconfer liberty and happiness upon them, and spread peace and\nhappiness throughout the earth, and communicate the knowledge\nof God, and virtue, and the love of their fellow-men to every\npeople. Whether this (carnal or not,) would have been better than a\nspiritual kingdom, and a throne in heaven; together with the ample\nlist of councils, dogmas, excommunications, proscriptions,\ntheological quarrels, and frauds, and an endless detail of blood and\nmurder, I leave to the judgment of those capable of deciding for\nthemselves.\n\nNeither, in fact, is it true, that the Jews were so \"carnally minded\"\nas to refuse Jesus as their Messiah, because he was poor and in a\nlow estate. On the contrary, did they not ask him not to evade, but\nto speak plainly? \"How long (said they) dost thou mean to keep us\nin suspense? If thou be the Messiah, tell us plainly.\" These very\nmen were willing to hazard, in his favour, their fortunes, their\nfamilies, and their lives, in his cause, against the whole power of\nthe Roman empire. Nay, so urgent were they, that they were going\nto make him their king by force, and he concealed himself from the\nhonour. The evasions he used to avoid their pressing questions\nupon the subject, are known to all who have read the evangelists;\nand so timed was he in acknowledging himself as the Messiah, that\nhe did not do so, till Simon Peter told him that he was. And can\nany candid man, after all this, wonder at, or condemn, \"the\nblindness,\" as it is called, of the Jews? or can he refrain from\nsmiling at the frothy declamations in which divines load that nation\nwith so much unmerited reproach? These Jews had just reason, we\nthink, to doubt his Messiahship; and they had a right to satisfactory\nand unambiguous proof of his being so: even the proofs laid down,\nby their prophets. And this, it must be now acknowledged, they\nwanted; and, certainly, the wise and learned of the Jewish nation,\nmight be allowed to have understood their sacred books upon the\nsubject, as well, at least, if not better, than the illiterate apostles,\nwho manifestly put new interpretations upon them, and those,\nconfessedly, not agreeable to the obvious and literal meaning of\nthose books; but contrary to the sense of the Jewish nation. And\nfor this scepticism they might plead the example of the apostles\nthemselves, who, at first, like other unbelieving Jews, expected a\ntemporal prince; and did disbelieve Jesus to be the Messiah on\naccount of his death, notwithstanding his miracles. And they\ncontinued in these thoughts, till it seems they come to understand\nthe spiritual sense of the scriptures; which spiritual sense, it is said,\nthey obtained by \"the traditionary rules of interpretation in use\namong the Jews.\" Yet, it is rather inconsistent and singular, that\nthey should place so much dependence upon these traditionary\nrules, and yet pay so little regard to the traditionary explication of\nthe scriptures, with respect to the temporal kingdom of the\nMessiah--inconsistent and singular is it, that they should \"cry\naloud\" for that which would support their peculiar views, but reject\nit when militating against these views.*\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IX.\n\nON THE CHARACTER Of JESUS OF NAZARETH AND THE\nWEIGHT TO BE ALLOWED TO THE ARGUMENT Of\nMARTYRDOM AS A TEST OF TRUTH IN THIS QUESTION.\n\nI am now about to consider a subject, to which, notwithstanding\nthe harsh ness of my language in some of the preceding chapters, I\napproach with feelings of great respect. Far be it from me to\nreproach the meek, the compassionate, the amiable Jesus; or to\nattribute to him, the mischiefs occasioned by his followers*. No, I\nlook upon his character with the respect which every man should\npay to purity of morals: though mingled with something like the\nsentiments which we naturally feel for the mistaken enthusiast.\nJesus of Nazareth appears to have been a man of irreproachable\npurity, of great piety, and of great mildness of disposition. Though\nthe world has never beheld a character exactly parallel with his, yet\nit has seen many, greatly similar. Contemplative, and melancholy,\nit is said of him by his followers, \"he was often seen to weep, but\nnever to laugh.\" He retired to solitary places, and there prayed: he\nwent into the wilderness to sustain and to vanquish the assaults of\nthe devil: In a word, he appears by such means to have persuaded\nhimself, as hundreds have done since, that he was the chosen\nservant of God, raised up to preach righteousness to the hypocrites,\nand sinners of his day. It is remarkable, that he never claimed to be\nthe Messiah, till encouraged to assume that character by Peter's\ndeclaration. And it is observable, that in assuming that name, he\ncould not assume the characteristics of the august personage to\nwhom it belongs; but infused into the character all that softness,\nmeekness, humility, and passive fortitude, which were so\neminently his own. The natural disposition, and character of Jesus,\ncould not permit him to attempt the character of a princely\nMessiah, a mighty monarch, the saviour of an oppressed people,\nand the benefactor of the human race. He could not do this, but he\ncould act as much of the character as was consistent with his own.\nHe could not indeed bring himself to attempt to be the saviour of\nhis countrymen from the Romans, their fleshly foes; but he\nundertook to save them from the tyranny of their spiritual enemies.\nHe could not undertake to set up his kingdom upon earth; but he\ntold them that he had a kingdom in another world. He could not\npretend to give unto his followers the splendid rewards of an\nearthly monarch: but he promised them instead thereof,\nforgiveness of sins, and spiritual remuneration.\n\nIn a word, he was not a king fit for the, then, 'carnal Jews,' but he\nwas, from his mildness, and compassionate temper, worthy of their\nesteem, at least, of their forbearance. The only actions of his life\nwhich betray any marks of character deserving of serious\nreprehension, are his treatment of the woman taken in adultery;\nand his application of the prophecy of Malachi concerning Elias, to\nJohn the Baptist.\n\nAs to his conduct to the woman, it was the conduct of a mild, and\nmerciful man, but not that of one who declared, \"that he came to\nfulfil the law.\" For God commanded concerning such, \"that they\nshould surely be put to death.\" Now though Jesus was not her\njudge, and had no right to pronounce her sentence; yet the\ncontrivance by which he deterred the witness from testifying\nagainst her, was a contrivence directly calculated totally to\nfrustrate the ends of justice; and which, if acted upon at this day, in\nChristian countries, would infallibly prevent the execution of the\ncriminal law: For what testimony would be sufficient to prove a\nfact, if the witnesses were required to be \"without sin?\" Instead,\ntherefore, of saying unto them, \"whosoever of you is without sin,\nlet him cast the first stone at her;\" he should have said, 'Men! who\nmade me a judge, or a ruler over you? carry the accused to the\nproper tribunal.'\n\nAs to his conduct about the matter of Elias, it was as follows. It is\nsaid, in the 17th chapter of Matthew, that at his transfiguration, as\nit is called, Moses, and Elias appeared to his disciples on the\nmount, talking with Jesus. Upon coming down from the mount, the\ndisciples asked Jesus, \"how say the scribes that Elias must come\nfirst, (that is, before the Messiah.) Jesus answered, Elias truly\ncometh first, and restoreth all things; but I say unto you, that Elias\nhas come already and they have done unto him what they would;\"\nmeaning John the Baptist, who was beheaded by Herod. (See the\nparallel place in Mark.) And he says concerning John, (Mat. vi.\n14,) \"And if ye will receive it, this is Elias which was for to\ncome.\"\n\nNow certainly no one will pretend that John was the Elias\nprophecied of by Malachi, as to come before \"the great, and\nterrible day of the Lord,\" which has not yet taken place. And\nbesides, that he was not Elias is testified of, and confirmed by,\nJohn himself, who in the gospel of John, chapter 1, to the question\nof the Scribes, asking him, \"if he was Elias?\" answers \"I am\nnot.\" It is pretty clear that Jesus was embarrassed by the question\nof the Apostles, \"how say the Scribes, that Elias must come first?\"\nfor his answer is confused; for he allows the truth of the\nobservation of the Scribes, and then refers them to John, and\ninsinuates that he was \"the Elias to come.\" However, it must be\nacknowledged, that he does it with an air of hesitation, \"If you\nwill receive it,\" &c.\n\nBut are these all the accusations you have to bring against him?\nmay be said by some of my readers. Do you account as nothing,\nhis claiming to forgive sins? his speeches wherein ho claims to be\nconsidered as an object of religious homage, if not to be God\nhimself? Do you consider these impieties as nothing? I answer by\nasking--the following questions: What would you think of a man\nwho, in our times, should set up those extraordinary claims? and\nwho should assert, that \"eating his flesh, and drinking his blood\"\nwere necessary to secure eternal life? Who should say, that \"he\nand God were one?\" and should affirm (as Jesus does in the last\nchapters of John) that \"God was inside of him, and dwelt in him;\nand that \"he who had seen him, had seen God?\" What should we\nthink of this? Should we consider such a man an object of wrath, or\nof pity? Should we not directly, and without hesitation, attribute\nsuch extravagancies to hallucination of mind? Yes, certainly! and\ntherefore the Jews were to blame for crucifying Jesus. If Christians\nhad put to death every unfortunate, who after being frenzied by\nreligious fasting and contemplation, became wild enough to assert,\nthat he was Christ, or God the Father, or the Virgin Mary, or even\nthe Holy Trinity, they would have been guilty of more than fifty\nmurders; for I have read of at least as many instances of this\nnature; and believe that more than two hundred such might be\nreckoned up from the hospital records of Europe alone. And that\nthe founder of the Christian religion was not always in one\ncoherent consistent mind, I think will appear plain to every\nintelligent physician who reads his discourses; especially those in\nthe gospel of John. They are a mixture of something that looks like\nsublimity, strangely disfigured by wild, and incoherent words. So\nunintelligible indeed, that even the profoundest of Christian\ndivines have never been able to fathom all their mysteries. To\nprove that I do not say these things rashly, wickedly, or out of any\nmalignity towards the character of Jesus, which I really respect and\nvenerate, I will establish my assertions by examples. For\ninstance--\n\n--Many instances might be adduced of conduct directly\nsubversive of the very design, to promote which, he said that he\nwas sent into the world. For example, he said that he came to\npreach glad tidings to the poor, and uninformed; and yet he\ndeclares to his disciples, that ho spake to this very multitude of\npoor and ignorant people in parables, lest they might understand\nhim, and be converted from their sins, and God should heal, or\npardon them. In the 26th chapter of Matthew, Jesus says to his\ndisciples, in the garden at Gethsemane, these strange words, \"\nSleep on now, and take your rest--Arise! let us be going,\" The\ncommentators endeavour to get rid of the strange contradictoriness\nof these words, by turning the command into the future; and\nrendering the Greek word translated \"now\" thus--\"for the rest of\nyour time,\" or \"for the future.\" And that he asked them \"whether\nthey slept for the future\"? which appears to be just as rational as\nto have asked, \"how they do to-morrow\"?!!\n\nJo. viii. 51, \"Verily, verily.(said Jesus) I say unto you, if a man\nkeep my saying, he shall never see death \"Reader, what dost thou\nthink of this saying? Has believing in the Christian religion, at all\nprevented men from dying as in afore time? And should we be at\nall astonished at what the Jews said to him, when they heard this\nassertion--\"Then said the Jews unto him. Now we know that thou\nhast a demon [i. e. art mad.] Abraham is dead, and the Prophets,\nand thou sayest if a man keep my saying, he shall never taste of\ndeath?\" So said the Jews, and if in our times, a man was to make a\nsimilar assertion, should we not say the same?\n\nMany instances might also be given of strange and inconsequent\nreasoning; but I shall only adduce the following. He reproaches the\nPharisees, Luke xi. 47, 48, for building and adorning the\nsepulchres of the Prophets, whom their wicked fathers slew; and\nsays to them, \"Your fathers slew them, and ye build their\nsepulchres,\" and he adds, \"that thus they showed that they\napproved the deeds of their fathers!\" Surely this is absurd! Did\nthe Athenians by setting up a statue to Socrates after his unjust\ndeath, show to the world that they \"approved\" the deed of them\nwho slew him? did it not show the direct contrary? and was it not\nintended as a testimony of their regret, and repentance?\n\nAgain, \"Upon you (says Jesus to the Jews) shall come all the\nrighteous blood that has been shed upon the earth, from the blood\nof Abel the righteous, to the blood of Zechariah,\" &c. Now, herein\nis a marvellous thing! how could a man really sent from God,\nassert to the Jews, that of them should be required the blood of\nAbel, and of all the righteous slain upon the earth? Did the Jews\nkill Abel? or did their fathers kill him? No! he was slain by Cain,\nwhose posterity all perished in the deluge; how then could God\nrequire of the Jews who lived four thousand years after the murder,\nthe guilt of it; nay more, \"of all the righteous blood that had been\nshed upon the earth,\" were they guilty of all that too? If such\nassertions, and such reasonings do not prove what I asserted, what\ncan?\n\nIt is said, that Jesus, by giving himself up to suffer death, proved\nthe truth of his mission and doctrines, by his readiness to die for\nthem. But this is an argument which will recoil upon those who\nadvance it. Are there no instances upon record of mild, zealous,\nand amiable men who preached to the savages of America that\nthey ought to worship the Virgin Mary? and did they not\ncheerfully die by the most excruciating torments to prove it? Yes\ncertainly! and let any Protestant Christian read the accounts of the\npreaching, sufferings, deaths, aye! and miracles too, of the Roman\nCatholic missionaries in Asia, and America; and then let him\ncandidly answer whether he is willing to rest the issue of his\ncontroversy with the Papists upon the argument of martyrdom? We\nall know the power of enthusiasm upon a susceptible mind; and we\nhave read of, and perhaps sees, its effects in producing martyrdoms\namong people of all religions, in all parts of the world. Nay, more,\nsuch is the power of this principle, that even now, women in India\nburn themselves alive on the funeral piles of their husbands, to\nprove, as they say, their love for them, and their determination to\naccompany them to the other world; when it is well known, that\nthey burn themselves from the impulse of vanity, and the fear of\ndisgrace, if they should not do so. Nay, more still, so little support\ndoes martyrdom yield to truth, that there are more martyrdoms in\nhonour of the false, ridiculous, and abominable idols of Hindostan,\nthan any where else. You may see men hooked through the ribs,\nand supported, and whirled round in the air in honour of their gods,\nclapping their hands, and testifying pleasure, instead of crying out\nwith pain. You may see in that country, the misguided enthusiastic\nworshippers of misshapen idols prostrate their bodied before the\nenormous wheels of the car of Seeva, and piously suffering\nthemselves to be crushed in pieces by the rolling mass. And any\nman who has been upon the banks of the Ganges, can tell you of\nthe Yoguis, and of their self-inflicted torments, compared to which,\neven the cross is almost a bed of roses. Indeed the argument of\nmartyrdom will support any religion; and it has, in fact, been\ncheerfully undergone by enthusiasts and zealots of all religions, in\ntestimony of the firm belief of the sufferers not only in the\nabsurdities of Popery, and Brachinanism, but of every, even\nthe most monstrous system that ever disgraced the human\nunderstanding. There have been martyrs for Atheism itself.\n\nThis argument of martyrdom has been more particularly applied to\nthe Apostles and first Christians. \"How can it be imagined, (say\nChristian Divines,) that simple men like the Apostles could be\ninduced to leave their employment, and wander up and down, to\nteach the doctrines, and testify to the facts of the New Testament,\nand expose themselves to persecution, imprisonment, scourging,\nand untimely and violent death: unless they certainly knew, that\nboth the doctrines, and the facts were true? Besides, what honours,\nwhat riches, could they expect to get by supporting false doctrine,\nand false testimony?\"\n\nTo this argument 1 might reply as in the preceding pages, for I\nwould ask, have we not seen simple and honest men quit their\nemployments, and wander up and down to preach doctrines which\nthey not only had no means of certainly knowing to be true, but\nwhich they did not even understand? Have we not seen such\nmen submit to deprivations of every kind, and exposed to\nimprisonment, and the whipping post? And do we not certainly\nknow that some such have cheerfully suffered a most cruel death?\n\nIs it possible that any sensible man, after reading the History of the\nRoman Catholic Missionaries, the Baptists, the Quakers, and the\nMethodists, can be convinced of the certain truth of the Christian\nreligion, or seriously endeavour to convince another of it, by such\nan argument as the above?\n\nBut, much more than this can be said upon this topic; for it can be\nshown, that the Apostles in preaching Christianity, did not suffer\nnear so much as some well meaning enthusiasts in modern times\nhave suffered, to propagate religious tenets, notoriously false and\nabsurd. And that the Apostles could expect to get neither fame, nor\nhonour, nor riches by their preaching is doubtful. This is certain\nthat they could not lose much. For they were confessedly men of\nthe lowest rank in society, and of great poverty--poor fishermen,\nwho could not feel a very great regard for their own dignity, or\nrespectability. And it was by no means a small thing for such men\nto be considered as divine Apostles, and \"in exchange for\nheavenly things,\" to have the earthly possessions of their converts\nlaid at their feet. Peter left his nets, his boat, and boorish\ncompanions, and after persuading his disciples to receive his words\nfor oracles, go where he would, he found ample hospitality from\nthem. This, at least, was an advantageous change, and though they\ndid not acquire fame, or respect from the higher ranks of society,\nthey were at least had in great respect by their followers. Neither\nGeorge Fox, nor Whitfield, nor Westley were honoured by the\nnobility, or gentry, or scholars of England; nor Ann Lee, by the\nmost respectable citizens of the United States. Yet among their\ndisciples, the Quakers, the Methodists, and the Shakers they were\nheld by the most implicit veneration and can any man believe that\nthey did not think themselves thus well payed for the trouble of\nmaking converts?\n\nIt is true that the Apostles did not acquire riches, for they were\nconversant only with the poor. But neither had they any to lose, by\ntaking up the profession of Apostles, and Preachers. At least by\npreaching the gospel, they obtained food, and clothing, and\ncontributions; as is evident from many places in the Epistles,\nwhere they write to their converts, \"It is written, 'thou shalt not\nmuzzle the ox when he treadeth out the corn;'\" and Paul tells them,\nthat they must not think from this place, that God takes care for\noxen, \"for, (says he,) it was undoubtedly written for our sakes.\"\nThus we see that the gospel was by no means altogether\nunprofitable, and many men daily risk their lives for less gain than\nthe Apostles did.\n\nAs to the dangers to which it is said they exposed themselves, they\nhad none to fear, except in Judea, which they quickly quitted,\nfinding the Jews too stubborn, and went to the Greeks. From the\nGreeks, and likewise from the Romans, they had not much to fear,\nwho were not very difficult or scrupulous in admitting new gods,\nand new modes of worship. Besides this, the Romans for a great\nwhile seem to have considered the Christians merely as a Jewish\nsect who differed from the rest of the Jews in matters not worth\nnotice; as is to be gathered from Tacitus and Suetonius. And if the\nApostles did speak against the Pagan gods, it was no more than\nwhat the Roman poets and philosophers did; and the magistrates\nwere not then very severe about it. And it is evident from the Acts\nof the Apostles, that the Roman praetors considered the\naccusations against Paul and his companions, as mere trifles. But\nin Judea, where the danger was evident, it was otherwise. When\nPaul was in peril there, on account of his transgressions against the\nlaw, after being delivered from the Jews by the Roman garrison at\nJerusalem, he pleaded before Festus and Agrippa, that he was\nfalsely accused by the Jews; and he asserted that he had taught\nnothing against the Law of Moses, and his country, but that he only\npreached about the resurrection of the dead; and that it was for this\nthat the Jews persecuted him; and ended by appealing to Caesar.\nWhen yet he knew that this was not the reason of the hatred of the\nJew against him; but that it was because he taught that\ncircumcision, and the Law of Moses were abolished, and no longer\nbinding: which is evident to any one who will read the Acts, and\nthe Epistle to the Galatians. So you see by what manoeuvre he got\nout of the difficulty: first, by at least equivocating, and then by\nrefusing to be tried by his own countrymen, and appealing to\nCaesar; thus securing himself a safe conduct out of Judea, which\nwas too dangerous for him. Among the Gentiles, their doctrine had\na better chance of success, for they taught them marvellous\ndoctrines, such as they had been accustomed to listen to, viz. how\nthe Son of God was born of a virgin, and was cruelly put to death;\nand that his Divine Father raised him from the dead. The idea of\nGod's having a son of a woman did not shock them, for all their\ndemigods they believed had been so begotten; and a great part of\ntheir poems are filled with the exploits and the sufferings of these\nheroes, who are at length rewarded by being raised from earth to\nheaven, as Jesus is said to have been. These doctrines were not\ndisrelished by the common people, but were rejected by the wise\nand learned. Accordingly we see that Paul could make nothing of\nthe philosophers of Athens, who derided him, and considered him\nas telling them a story similar to those of their own mythology,\nwhen he preached to them Jesus and the resurrection. And in\nrevenge, we see Paul railing against both the stubborn Jews, and\nthe incorrigible philosophers, as being unworthy of knowing \"the\nhidden wisdom,\" which was to the one \"a stumbling block,\" and\nto the other, \"foolishness,\" and which he thought fit only for \"the\nbabes,\" and \"the devout women,\" with whom he principally dealt.\n\nThat the New Testament inculcates an excellent morality, cannot\nbe denied; for its best moral precepts were taken from the Old\nTestament. And if the Apostles had not preached good morals, how\ncould they have expected to be considered by the Gentiles\nas messengers from God? For if they had inculcated any\nimmoralities, such as rebellion, murder, adultery, robbery, revenge,\ntheir mission would not only have been disbelieved, but they\nwould have undergone capital punishment by the sentence of the\njudge, which it was their business to avoid. Mahomet, throughout\nthe Koran, inculcates all the virtues, and pointedly reprobates vice\nof all kinds. His morality is merely the precepts of the Old and\nNew Testaments, modified a little, and expressed in Arabic. They\nare good precepts, and always to be listened to with respect,\nwherever, and by whomsoever, inculcated. But surely that will not\nprove Islamism to be from God, nor that Mahomet was his\nprophet!\n\nThat the Apostles suffered death on account of their preaching the\ngospel, if allowed to be fact, as said before, proves nothing. Many\nhave suffered death for false and absurd doctrines. \"But whether\nany of the Apostles, (besides James who was slain by Herod,) died\na natural, or a violent death, the learned Christians do not certainly\nknow. For there is extant no authentic history of the Apostles,\nbesides the Acts. There are indeed many fabulous narrations\npublished by the Papists, called Martyrologies, stuffed with the\nmost extravagant lies, which no learned man now regards; and who\ntherefore will credit what such books say of the Apostles? Peter is\nsaid in them to have been put to death at Rome by Nero,\nnevertheless most of the learned men of the Protestants assert, that\nPeter never was in Rome, and as for Paul, no one certainly knows\nwhere, when, or how ho finished his days. So that if we were even\nto allow the feeble argument of Martyrdom, all the influence and\nweight given to it, it would not apply to the Apostles, who, we are\nsure, derived some benefit, by preaching the gospel, and are not\nsure that they came to any harm by it.\n\nI will conclude this long chapter, by laying before my reader some\nextracts from the book written by Celsus, a heathen philosopher,\nagainst Christianity, preserved by Origen in his work against\nCelsus. That the entire work of Celsus is lost, is to be regretted; as\nhe appears to have been a man of observation, though too sarcastic\nto please a fair inquirer; and from the picture given by him of the\nfirst Christians, their maxims, and their modes of teaching, and the\nsubjects they chose for converts, it appears, that they were the\nexact prototypes of the Methodists and Shakers of the present day,\nboth sects which contain excellent people, with hardly any fault\nbut credulity.\n\n\"If they (i. e. the teachers of Christianity,) say 'do not examine,'\nand the like: it is however incumbent on them to teach what those\nthings are which they assert, and whence they are derived.\"\n\n\"Wisdom in life is a bad thing, but folly is good.\"\n\n\"Why should Jesus, when an infant, be carried into Egypt, lest he\nshould be murdered? God should not fear being put to death.\"\n\n\"You say that God was sent to sinners: but why not to those who\nare free from sin? What harm is it not to have sinned?\n\n\"You encourage sinners, because you are not able to persuade any\nreally good men: therefore you open the doors to the most wicked\nand abandoned.\"\n\n\"Some of them say 'do not examine, but believe, and thy faith\nshall gave thee.'\"\n\n\"These are our institutions, say they, let not any man of learning\ncome here, nor any wise man, nor any man of prudence: for these\nthings are reckoned evil by us. But whoever is unlearned, ignorant,\nand silly, let him come without fear! Thus they own that they can\ngain only the foolish, the vulgar, the stupid slaves, women, and\nchildren.\"\n\n\"At first, when they were but few, they agreed. But when they\nbecame a multitude, they were rent, again and again, and each will\nhave their own factions: for factious spirits they had from the\nbeginning.\"\n\n\"All wise men are excluded from the doctrine of their faith; they\ncall to it only fools, and men of a servile spirit.\"\n\n\"The preachers of their divine word only attempt to persuade silly,\nmean, senseless persons, slaves, women, and children. What harm\nis there in being well-informed; and both in being, and appearing a\nman of knowledge? What obstacle can this be to the knowledge of\nGod? Must it not be an advantage?\"\n\n\"We see these Itinerants shewing readily their tricks to the vulgar,\nbut not approaching the assemblies of wise men, nor daring there\nto show themselves. But wherever they see boys, a crowd of\nslaves, and ignorant men, there they thrust in themselves, and show\noff their doctrine.\"\n\n\"You may see weavers, tailors, and fullers, illiterate and rustic\nmen, not daring to utter a word before persons of age, experience,\nand respectability; but when they get hold of boys privately, and\nsilly women, they recount wonderful things; that they must not\nmind their fathers, or their tutors, but obey them; as their fathers,\nor guardians are quite ignorant, and in the dark; but themselves\nalone have the true wisdom. And if the children obey them, they\npronounce them happy, and direct them to leave their fathers, and\ntutors, and go with the women, and their play-fellows, into the\nchambers of the females, or into a tailor's, or fuller's shop, that\nthey may learn perfection.\"\n\nCelsus compares a Christian teacher to a quack--\"who promises\nto heal the sick, on condition that they keep from intelligent\npractitioners, lest his ignorance be detected.\"\n\n\"If one sort of them introduces one doctrine, another another, and\nall join in saying, 'Believe if you would be saved, or depart:' what\nare they to do, who desire really to be saved? Are they to\ndetermine by the throw of a die, where they are to turn themselves,\nor which of these demanders of implicit faith they are to believe.\"\n\nOmitting what Celsus says reproachfully of the moral characters of\nthe Apostles, and the first teachers of Christianity, for which we\ncertainly shall not take his word; it is easy to perceive from the\nabove quotations, that they had more success among simple, and\ncredulous people, than among the intelligent, and well-informed.\nTheir introductory lesson to their pupils, was, \"Believe, but do not\nexamine;\" and their succeeding instructions seem to have been a\ncontinued repetition, and practice of the dogma of implicit faith*.\n\n\n\nCHAPTER X.\n\nMISCELLANEOUS\n\nIn Matthew, ch. v. Jesus says, \"ye have heard that it was said, that\nshalt love thy neighbour and hate thine enemy.'\" But this is no\nwhere said in the Law, or the Prophets; but, on the contrary, we\nread directly the reverse. For it is written, Ex. xxiii. \"If thou find\nthe ox of thine enemy or his ass going astray, thou shalt certainly\nbring him back to him.\" \"If thou meet the ass of him that hateth\nthee, lying under his burden, and wouldest forbear to help him,\nthou shalt surely help him.\" Again, Levit. xix. \"Thou shalt not\nhate thy brother in thine heart; rebuke thy neighbour, nor suffer sin\nupon him. Thou shalt not revenge, nor keep anger, (or bear any\ngrudge,) against the children of thy people; but thou shalt love thy\nneighbour as thyself; I am the Lord.\" So also in Prov. xxxiv. \"\nWhen thine enemy falleth, do not triumph, and when he stumbleth,\nlet not thine heart exult.\" So also in ch. xxv. \"If thy enemy hunger,\ngive him food; if he thirst, give him to drink.\" These precepts are\nto the purpose, and are practicable; but this command of Jesus, \"\nLove your enemies,\" if by loving he means, \"do them good,\" it is\ncommanded in the above passages in the Hebrew Law. But if by \"\nlove,\" he means to look upon them with the same affection that we\nfeel for those who love us, and with whom we are connected by the\ntenderest ties of mature, and friendship, the command is\nimpracticable; and the fulfillment of it contrary to nature, and\nthose very instincts given us by our Creator. And therefore,\nwhoever thinks he fulfills, really fulfills this command, does in fact\nplay the hypocrite unknown to himself; for though we can, and\nought to do good to our enemy, yet to love him is as unnatural as to\nhate our friends.\n\nIn Mark ch. ii. 25, Jesus says to the Pharisees, \"Have ye not read\nwhat David did when he hungered, and those that were with him.\nHow that he entered into the house of the Lord, in the time of\nAbiathar the High Priest, and did eat of the shew-bread, &c.\" See\nthe same also in Matthew, ch. xii. 3. Luke vi. 3. Now here is a\ngreat blunder; for this thing happened in the time of Achimelech,\nnot in the time of Abiathar; for so it is written, 1 Sam. xxi. \"And\nDavid came to Nob, to Achimelech the Priest, &c.\" And in the 22d\nchapter it is said that Abiathar was his son.\n\nIn Luke ch. i. 26, The angel Gabriel is said to have come from God\nto Mary, when she was yet a virgin, espoused to Joseph, who was\nof the house of David, and announced to her that she should\nconceive, and bear a son, and should call his name Jesus; that her\nholy offspring should be called the Son of God, and that God\nshould give unto him \"the throne of David his father, and that he\nshould rule the house of Jacob for ever, and that to his kingdom\nthere should be no end.\" Now this story is encumbered with many\ndifficulties, which I shall not consider; but confine myself to\nasking wherefore, if these things were true, did not the Mother of\nJesus? and his brethren, knowing these extraordinary things, obey\nhis teachings. For it is certain, that they did not at first believe him,\nbut, as appears from the 7th chap. of John, derided him. Besides,\nneither did his mother nor his brethren, when they came to the\nhouse where he was preaching to simple and credulous men, come\nfor the purpose of being edified, but \"to lay hold of him,\" to carry\nhim home, for said they he is mad, or \"beside himself [Mark iii.\n24] which certainly they would not have dared to do, if this story\nof Luke's were true. For their mother would have taught them of\nhis miraculous conception, and extraordinary character. Moreover,\nhow was it that God did not give him the throne of David, as was\npromised by the Angel to his Mother? For he did not sit upon the\nthrone of David, nor exercise any authority in Israel. Moreover,\nhow comes it that David is called the Father of Jesus, since Jesus\nwas not the son of Joseph, who, according to the Evangelists drew\nhis origin from that king. Finally, the saying \"that to his kingdom\nthere should be no end,\" is directly contradicted by Paul in the 1st\nEpis. to the Cor. ch. xv: for he says therein, that \"Jesus shall\nrender up his kingdom unto the Father, and be himself subject unto\nhim.\" Here you see, that the kingdom of Jesus is to have an end;\nfor when he renders up his kingdom to the Father, he certainly\nmust divest himself of his authority. How then can it be said, that \"\nto his kingdom there shall be no end?\n\nJesus says, John v. 39, \"And the Father himself which hath sent\nme, hath borne witness of me; ye have neither heard his voice at\nany time,\" &c. But how does this agree with Moses, who says,\nDeut. iv. 33, \"Did ever people hear the voice of God speaking out\nof the midst of fire, as thou hast heard?\"--\"And we heard his\nvoice out of the midst of the fire; we have seen this day, that God\ndoth talk with man, and he liveth.\" Deut. v. 24.\n\nLuke, ch. 4, 17, \"And they gave to Jesus the Book of Isaiah the\nProphet, and he opened the Book, and found this place, where it\nwas written, 'The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, therefore hath he\nanointed me to preach the Gospel; to the poor hath he sent me, that\nI should bind up the broken in heart, proclaim liberty to the\ncaptives, and sight to the blind; that I should preach the acceptable\nyear of the Lord.' And shutting the Book, he gave it to the\nminister, and afterwards addressed them, saying 'This day is this\nScripture fulfilled in your ears.\" Here you see the words which\ngave offence; and by turning to Is. in loco. ch. lxi. you may see the\nreason why the inhabitants of Nazareth arose up in wrath against\nhim. For these words alledged in Luke, are somewhat perverted\nfrom the original in Isaiah; for these words, \"and sight to the\nblind,\" are not in Isaiah, but are inserted in Luke for purposes very\nobvious. And 2. he neglects the words following, \"and the day of\nvengeance of our God, and of consolation to all who mourn. To\ngive consolation to the mourners of Zion; to give them beauty\ninstead of ashes, and the oil of joy instead of grief; a garment of\npraise instead of a broken heart,\" &c. to the end of the chapter.\nFrom this it is very clear, that this prophecy has no reference to\nJesus: but Isaiah speaks these things of himself; and the words \"\nthe Lord hath anointed me,\" signify, \"God hath chosen,\nestablished me to declare\"--what follows. This exposition of\nanointing is confirmed from these passages;--1 Kings, xix ch.\n\n\"Anoint a prophet in thy stead,\" where the sense is, \"constitute a\nprophet in thy place.\" Again, \"touch not mine anointed ones, and\ndo my prophets no harm,\" i. e. \"Touch not my chosen servants\";\nand so in several other places. The meaning, therefore, of Isaiah is,\nthat God had appointed, and constituted him a prophet to announce\nthese consolations to the Israelites, who were to be in captivity, in\norder that they should not dispair of liberation; and that they\nshould have hope, when they read those comfortable words spoken\nby the mouth of Isaiah, at the command of God. For he calls the\nsubjects of his message \"the broken in heart,\" \"the captives,\" \"\nthe mourners of Zion,\" &c. all which terms are applicable only to\nthe Israelites. That this is the true interpretation, will be made\nfurther evident to any impartial person, by reading the context\npreceding, and following.\n\nJo. ch. ii. v. 18. \"The Jews said to Jesus, what sign showest thou to\nus, that thou doest these things? Jesus answered and said unto\nthem, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up. The\nJews answered, saying, forty and six years was this temple in\nbuilding, and wilt thou build it in three days?\" The Jews could\nnever have spoken these words, here related; for the temple then\nstanding was built by Herod, who reigned but thirty-seven years,\nand built it in eight years. This, therefore, must be a blunder of the\nEvangelist's.\n\nJo. xiii. v. 21. Jesus says to his Disciples, \"a new commandment I\ngive unto you, that ye love one another.\" This is not true, for the\nlove of man towards his neighbour, was not a new precept, but at\nleast as ancient as Moses, who gives it, Levit. xix. as the command\nof God, \"Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.\"\n\nActs vii. v. 4. \"When he (Abraham) went out of the land of the\nChaldees, he dwelt in Charran; from thence after his father was\ndead, he led him into this land in which ye dwell.\" This directly\ncontradicts the chapter in Genesis where the story of Abraham's\nleaving Haran is related; for it is certain from thence, that Abraham\nleft his father Terah in Haran alive, when he departed thence. And\nhe did not die till many years afterwards. This chronological\ncontradiction has given much trouble to Christian Commentators,\nas may be seen in Whitby, Hammond, &c. &c.\n\nV. 14, Stephen says, \"Jacob therefore descended into Egypt, and\nour Fathers, and there died. And they were carried to Sichem, and\nburied in the sepulchre which Abraham bought from the Sons of\nHemor the Father of Sichem.\" Here is another blunder; for this\npiece of land was not purchased by Abraham, but by Jacob. Gen.\nxlix. 29; so also see the end of Joshua. But it is evident, that\nStephen has confounded the story of the purchase of the field of\nMachpelah, recorded in Gen. xxiii. with the circumstances related\nconcerning the purchase by Jacob.\n\nIn v. 43 of the same chapter, there is another disagreement between\nStephen's quotation from Amos, and the original. [In the Acts the\nquotation is,--\"Yea, ye took up the tabernacle of Moloch, and\nthe Star of your God. Remphan, figures which ye made to worship\nthem, and I will carry you away beyond Babylon.\" In Amos, ch. v.\n26--\"But ye have borne the tabernacle of Moloch and Chinn your\nimages, the Star of your God which ye made,\" &c.]\n\nSo also there is in the speech of James, Acts xv. a quotation from\nAmos, in which to make it fit the subject, (which after all it does\nnot fit,) is the substitution of the words, \"the remnant of men,\" for\nthe words, \"remnant of Edom,\" as it is in the original.\n\nAll these mistakes, besides others to be met with in almost--I was\ngoing to say in every page, of these Histories of Jesus and his\nApostles, sufficiently show how superficial was the acquaintance\nof these men with the Old Testament, and how grossly, either\nthrough design or ignorance, they have perverted it. Indeed from\nthese mistakes alone, I should be led strongly to suspect, that the\nBooks of the New Testament were written by Gentiles, as I can\nhardly conceive that any Jew could have quoted his Bible in such a\nblundering manner.\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XI.\n\nWHETHER THE MOSAIC LAW BE REPRESENTED IN THE\nOLD TESTAMENT AS A TEMPORARY, OR A PERPETUAL\nINSTITUTION.\n\nA very great part of Dogmatic Theology among Christians is\nfounded upon the notion that the Jewish Law was a temporary\ndispensation, only to exist till the coming of Jesus, when it was to\nbe superseded by a more perfect dispensation.\n\nOn the contrary, the Jews are persuaded that their Law is of\nperpetual obligation, and the Doctrine of the Trinity itself is hardly\nmore offensive to them, and, as they think, more contradictory to\nthe Scriptures, than the notion of the abrogation of it. Now, that the\nJews are on the right side of this question, i. e., arguing from the\nOld Testament, I shall endeavour to prove by several arguments.\nThey are all comprised in these positions, 1. That the Mosaic\nInstitutions are most solemnly, and repeatedly declared to be\nperpetual; and we have no account of their being abrogated, or to\nbe abrogated in the Old Testament. 2. They are declared to be\nperpetual by Jesus himself, and were adhered to by the twelve\napostles.\n\n1. Nothing can be more expressly asserted in the Old Testament\nthan the perpetual obligation of those rites which were to\ndistinguish the Jews from other nations. It appears, for instance,\n(from the 17th ch. of Genesis,) in the tenor of the covenant made\nwith Abraham, that circumcision was to distinguish his posterity,\nto the end of time. It is called \"an everlasting covenant\" to be kept\nby his posterity through all their generations. See the ch. where the\ncondition of the covenant is, that God would give to Abraham and\nhis posterity, the perpetual inheritance of the promised land with\nwhatever privileges were implied in his being their God, on\ncondition that their male children were circumcised in testimony of\nputting themselves under that covenant. There is no limitation with\nrespect to time; nay it is expressly said that the covenant should be\nperpetual.\n\nThe ordinance of the Passover is also said to be perpetual, Ex. xii.\n14, &c. \"And this day shall be unto you for a memorial, and you\nshall keep it as a feast to the Lord throughout your generations.\nYou shall keep it a feast by an ordinance for ever.\" This is repeated\nafterwards, and the observance of this rite is confined to Israelites,\nProselytes, and slaves who should be circumcised, v. 48.\n\nThe observance of the Sabbath was never to be discontinued, Ex.\nxxxi. 16. \"Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the Sabbath\nthroughout their generations, for a perpetual covenant. It is a sign\nbetween me and the children of Israel for ever.\"\n\nThe appointment of the Family of Aaron to be Priests, was to\ncontinue as long as the Israelites should be a nation. See Lev. vii.\n35.\n\nThe Feast of Tabernacles was to be forever. Lev. xxiii. 41. \"It\nshall be a statute for ever, in your generations.\" The observance of\nthis Festival is particularly mentioned in the prophecies, which\nforetell a future settlement of the Jews in their own land, as\nobligatory on all the world; as if an union of worship at Jerusalem\nwas to be, according to them, effected among all nations by the\nunited observance of this Festival there, see Zech. 14; what he\nthere says is confirmed by what Isaiah prophecied concerning the\nsame period. Is. 2. \"It shall come to pass in the last days, that the\nmountain of the Lord's house shall be established in the top of the\nmountains, and shall be exalted above the hills, and all nations\nshall flow unto it. And many people shall go, and say, Come ye,\nand let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, to the house of the\nGod of Jacob, and He will teach us of his ways, and we will walk\nin his paths. For out of Zion shall go forth the Law, and the word\nof the Lord from Jerusalem. And he shall judge among the nations,\nand rebuke many people, and they shall beat their swords into\nploughshares, and their spears into pruning hooks. Nation. shall not\nlift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any\nmore.\"\n\nWith respect to all the Laws of Moses, it is evident from the\nmanner in which they were promulgated, that they were intended\nto be of perpetual obligation upon the Hebrew nation, and that by\nthe observance of them they were to be distinguished from the\nother nations, see Deut. xxvi. 16.\n\nThe observance of their peculiar Laws was the express condition\non which the Israelites were to continue in possession of the\npromised land; and though on account of their disobedience they\nwere to be driven out of it, they had the strongest assurances given\nthem that they should never be utterly destroyed, like many other\nnations who should oppress them; but that on their repentance God\nwould gather them from the remote parts of the world, and bring\nthem to their own country again. And both Moses, and the later\nProphets assure them, that in consequence of their becoming\nobedient to God in all things, which it is asserted they will, (and\nwhich may be the natural consequence of the discipline they will\nhave gone through,) they shall be continued in the peaceable\nenjoyment of the land of promise, in its greatest extent to the end\nof time. See to this purpose Deut. iv. 25, &c.; also. Deut. 30,\nwhere it is thus written.\n\n\"And it shall come to pass, when all these things are come upon\nthee, the blessing and the curse, which I have set before thee, and\nshalt call them to mind among all the nations whither the Lord thy\nGod hath driven thee; and shalt return unto the Lord thy God, and\nshall obey his voice according to all that I command thee this day,\nthou and thy children, with all thy heart, and with all thy soul; that,\nthen, the Lord thy God will turn thy captivity, and have\ncompassion upon thee, and will return, and gather thee from all the\nnations whither the Lord thy God hath scattered thee. If any of\nthine be driven out unto the utmost parts of heaven, from thence\nwill the Lord thy God gather thee, and from thence will he fetch\nthee. And the Lord thy God will bring thee unto the Land which\nthy Fathers possessed, and thou shalt possess it, and He will do\nthee good, and multiply thee above thy Fathers. And the Lord thy\nGod will circumcise thy heart, and the heart of thy seed, to love the\nLord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, that thou\nmayest live; and the Lord thy God will put all these curses upon\nthine enemies, and on them that hate thee, which persecuted thee.\nAnd thou shalt return, and obey the voice of the Lord, and do all\nhis commandments which I command thee this day.\" &c.\n\n\"What an extent of prophecy, and how firm a faith in the whole of\nit do we see here! (says Dr. Priestly.) The Israelites were not then\nin the land of Canaan. It was occupied by nations far more\nnumerous, and powerful than they; and yet it is distinctly foretold\nin the 4th ch. that they would soon take possession of it, and\nmultiply in it: and that afterwards they would offend God by their\nidolatry, and wickedness, and would in con-sequence of it be\ndriven out of their country; and without being exterminated or\nlost, be scattered among the nations of the world; that by this\ndispersion, and their calamities, they would at length be reformed,\nand restored to the divine favour, and that then (as in the quotation)\nin the latter days they would be gathered from all nations, and\nrestored to their own country, when they would observe all the\nlaws which were then prescribed to them. Past history, and present\nappearances, correspond with such wonderful exactness to what\nhas been fulfilled of this prophecy, that we can have no doubt with\nrespect to the complete accomplishment of what remains to be\nfulfilled of it.\"\n\nWhat was first announced by Moses, is repeated by Isaiah and\nother prophets, assuring them of their certain return wherever\ndispersed, to their own land in the latter days; and that they should\nhave the undisturbed possession of it to the end of time.\n\nIt has been objected, that the term \"for ever\" is not always to be\nunderstood in its greatest extant, but is to be interpreted according\nto circumstances. This for the sake of saving time I will\nacknowledge. But the circumstances in which this phrase is used in\nthe passages already adduced, and in a number of others of similar\nimport which might be adduced, clearly indicate, that it is to be\nunderstood in those passages to mean a period as long as the\nduration of the Israelitish nation, which elsewhere is said to\ncontinue to the end of the world.\n\nFor this reason, among others, this final return of the Jews from\ntheir present dispersed state, cannot at any rate be said to have\nbeen accomplished at their return from the Babylonish captivity.\n\nFor that captivity was not by any means such a total dispersion of\nthe people among all nations, as Moses, and the later prophets\nhave foretold. Nor does their possession of the country subsequent\nto it, at all correspond to that state of peace, and prosperity, which\nwas promised to succeed this final return.\n\nFigures of speech must, no doubt, be allowed for. But if the whole\nof the Jewish polity was to terminate at the destruction of\nJerusalem by Titus, (as is maintained by Christians,) while the\nworld is still to continue, the magnificent promises made to\nAbraham, and his posterity, and to the nation, in general,\nafterwards, have never had any proper accomplishment of all.\nBecause with respect to external prosperity, which is contained in\nthe promises, many nations have hitherto been more distinguished\nby God, than the Jews. Hitherto the posterity of Ishmael has had a\nmuch happier lot than that of Isaac. To say, as Christians do, that\nthese prophecies have had a spiritual accomplishment in the spread\nof the Gospel, when there is nothing in the phraseology in which\nthe promises are expressed, that could possibly suggest any such\nideas, nay, when the promise itself in the most definite language\nexpresses the contrary, is so arbitrary a construction as nothing\ncan warrant. By this mode of interpretation, any event may be said\nto be the fulfillment of any prophecy whatever.\n\nBesides, it is perfectly evident, that these prophecies, whether they\nwill be fulfilled, or not, cannot yet have been fulfilled. For all the\ncalamity that was ever to befall the Jewish nation is expressly said\nto bear no sensible proportion to their subsequent prosperity:\nwhereas, their prosperity has hitherto borne a small proportion to\ntheir calamity; so that had Abraham really foreseen the fate of his\nposterity, he would on this idea, have had little reason to rejoice in\nthe prospect.\n\nIt may be said, that the prosperity of the descendants of Abraham,\nwas to depend on a condition, viz., their obedience, and that this\ncondition was not fulfilled. But, besides that the Divine Being must\nhave foreseen this circumstance, and therefore must have known\nthat he was only tantalizing Abraham with a promise which would\nnever be accomplished; this disobedience, and the consequences of\nit are expressly mentioned by Moses, and the other Prophets, only\nas a temporary thing, and what was to be succeeded by an effectual\nrepentance, and perpetual obedience, and prosperity.\n\nAmong others, let the following prophecy of Isaiah (in which the\nfuture security of Israel is compared to the security of the world\nfrom a second deluge) be considered, and let any impartial person\nsay, whether the language does not necessarily lead those who\nbelieve the Old Testament, to the expectation of a much more\ndurable state of Glory, and Happiness, than has, as yet, fallen to the\nlot of the posterity of Abraham.\n\nIs. 54, 7. \"For a small moment have I forsaken thee, but with great\nmercies will I gather thee. In a little wrath I hid my face from thee\nfor a moment, but with everlasting kindness will I have mercy on\nthee, saith the Lord, thy Redeemer. For this is as the waters of\nNoah unto me. For as I have sworn that the waters of Noah should\nno more go over the earth, go have I sworn, that I would not be\nwroth with thee, nor rebuke thee. For the mountains shall [or\n\"may\"] depart, and the hills be removed, but my kindness shall not\ndepart from thee, neither shall the covenant of my peace be\nremoved, saith the Lord that hath mercy on thee.--All thy\nchildren shall be taught of the Lord, and great shall be the peace of\nthy children. In righteousness shalt thou be established. Thou shalt\nbe far from oppression, for thou shalt not fear; and from terror, for\nit shall not come nigh thee. No weapon formed against thee, shall\nprosper, and every tongue that shall rise against thee in judgment,\nthou shalt condemn. This is the heritage of the servants of the\nLord, and their righteousness is of me, saith the Lord.\"\n\nHere, as also in Moses, and other Prophets, an establishment in\nrighteousness is promised to the Israelites, such as shall secure\ntheir future prosperity; and this promise has not yet been fulfilled.\nThe promise of future virtue as connected with their future\nhappiness, is also clearly expressed in Jer. ch. iii. 18.\n\nHad the Jewish nation become extinct, or likely to become so, it\nmight, with some plausibility, have been said by Christians, that\nthe purposes of God concerning them were actually fulfilled, and,\ntherefore, that the words of the promise must have had some other\nsignification than that which was most obvious. But the Jews are as\nmuch a distinct people as they ever were, and therefore seem\nreserved for some future strange destination.\n\nOn the whole, it must be allowed, that the settlement of Israel in\nthe land of Canaan, foretold with such emphasis by the Prophets, is\na settlement which has not yet taken place, but may take place in\nthat period so frequently, and so emphatically, distinguished by the\ntitle of \"the latter days;\" and therefore that whatever is said of\nJewish customs, or modes of worship in \"the latter days?\" is a\nproof of the meant restoration of their ancient religious rites.\n\nThat the institutions of the Mosaic Law are to be continued on the\nrestoration of the Jews to their own land after their utter dispersion,\nis asserted by Moses himself in one of the passages already quoted;\nbut is more clearly expressed by the subsequent Prophets. In some\nof their prophecies, particular mention is made of the observance\nof Jewish festivals, and of sacrifices; and in Ezechiel we find a\ndescription of a magnificent Temple, which being closely\nconnected with his prophecy of the future happy state of the\nIsraelites in their own land, cannot be understood of any other than\na Temple which is then, according to the Hebrew Prophets, to be\nreared with greater magnificence than ever. Mention is also made\nof \"the Glory of the Lord,\" or that effulgent Shechinah which was\nthe symbol of the divine presence, filling this Temple, as it did that\nof Solomon.\n\nEzech. xliii. 1, &c. \"Afterward he brought me to the gate, even the\ngate that looketh toward the East; and behold the glory of the Lord\ncame from the way of the East, and his voice was like the noise of\nmany waters, and the Earth shined with his Glory.--And the Glory\nof the Lord came into the house by the way of the gate, whose\nprospect is toward the East. So the Spirit took me up, and brought\nme into the inner court, and behold the Glory of the Lord filled the\nhouse.--And he said unto me, Son of man, the place of my\nThrone, and the place of the soles of my feet, where I will dwell in\nthe midst of the children of Israel for ever, and my holy name shall\nthe house of Israel no more defile,\" &c.\n\nTowards the end of the same chapter we read an account of the\ndedication of this new Temple by sacrifices; and particular\ndirections are given in the succeeding chapters for the Priests, and\nfor the Prince. If, therefore, there be any truth in these prophecies,\nthe Jews are not only to return to their own country, and to be\ndistinguished among the nations, but are to rebuild the Temple, and\nto restore the ancient worship.\n\nHaving proved that the Old Testament declares the perpetuity of\nthe Mosaic Law, I proceed, 2dly, to prove that it is declared to be\nperpetual by Jesus himself.\n\nBut before I adduce my proofs, I beg leave to premise, that when\nany Law is solemnly enacted, we expect that the abrogation of it\nshould be equally solemn, and express, in order that no room for\ndispute may remain upon the subject. Accordingly, it is the\ncustom, I believe, in all countries, not to make any new Law,\ncontradictory to another before subsisting, without a previous\nexpress abrogation of the old one. And certainly it appears to me a\nstrange notion to suppose, that the elaborate and noble Law given\nfrom mount Sinai amidst circumstances unexampled, awful, and\ntremendously magnificent, and believed to have been declared by\nthe voice of God to be a perpetual and everlasting Code, should\nvanish, perish, and be annihilated by the mere dictum of twelve\nfishermen!!\n\nBut the fact is otherwise, for Jesus was so far from teaching the\nabrogation of that law, that he expressly says--\" Think not that I\nam come to destroy the law, or the Prophets, I am not come to\ndestroy, but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, till heaven and\nearth pass, one jot, or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law,\ntill all be fulfilled.\" This is a most explicit declaration that not the\nsmallest punctilio in the law of Moses was intended to be set aside\nby the Gospel. Nay more, he expressly commanded his disciples to\nthe same purpose--\"The Scribes and Pharisees (says he,) sit in\nMoses' seat; all therefore whatsoever they command you, that\nobserve, and do.\"\n\nIt is said in answer to this by Christian Divines, that his discourse\nrelates to things of a moral nature, and that he only meant, that no\npart of the Moral Law was to be abolished. But besides that the\nexpression is general, there could be no occasion to make so\nsolemn a declaration against what he could not have been\nsuspected of intending, viz. of abolishing the moral law. He seems\nin his discourse to have had in view the additions that had been\nmade to the law. These he sets aside, but no part of the original law\nitself.\n\nIt has also been urged that by fulfilling, may be meant such an\naccomplishment of it as would imply the superseding of it when\nthe purposes for which it was instituted should be answered. To\nsilence this explication it will be sufficient to produce a few out of\nmany passages of the New Testament where the term fulfil occurs\nin connexion with the term law. Thus Paul says, Gal. v. 14, \"All\nthe law is fulfilled in one word, even in this, thou shalt love thy\nneighbour as thyself,\" and again. Rom. xiii. 8, \"He that loveth\nanother, hath fulfilled the law.\" But certainly, notwithstanding this\nfulfilment of the moral law, it remains in as full force as ever.\n\nThe Apostles understood Jesus to mean as we have asserted. For it\nis evident from the Acts, that the Christians at Jerusalem were\nzealous in attachment to the law of Moses; this is evident from\ntheir surprise at Peter's conduct with regard to Cornelius; and in\nthe dispute about imposing circumcision upon the Gentiles;\nobserve there was no dispute about its being obligatory upon Jews.\n\nPaul was indeed vehemently accused of teaching a contrary\ndoctrine, as we find in the history of the transactions respecting\nhim in his last journey to Jerusalem. Acts xxi. 21,\" They (i. e. the\nChristians) are informed of thee (says James to Paul) that thou\nteachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles, to forsake\nMoses, saying that they ought not to circumscise their children,\nneither to walk after the custom.\" Here James gives Paul to\nunderstand that he considered the report as a calumny, and\naccordingly, to convince the Jewish Christians that it was a false\nreport, he advises Paul to be at charges with some Jewish\nChristians, who were under a vow of Nazaritism, (which is an\ninstance in point to prove that the first Christians kept the law,) and\nthus publicly manifest that he himself \"walked orderly, and kept\nthe law.\" Paul complies with this advice, and purified himself in\nthe temple, and did what was done in like cases by the strictest\nJews. He also circumcised Timothy, who was a convert to\nChristianity, because he was the son of a Jewish Mother. And he\nsolemnly declared in open court. Acts xxv. 8, \"Against the law of\nthe Jews, neither against the Temple, have I offended any thing at\nall,\" and again, to the Jews at Rome, Acts xxviii., 7, he assures\nthem that \"he had done nothing against the people, or the customs\nof the fathers.\"\n\nBut some men will say,\" did not Paul expressly teach the\nabrogation of the law, in his Epistles, especially in that to the\nGalatians?\" I answer, he undoubtedly did; and in so doing he\ncontradicted the Old Testament, his master Jesus, the twelve\nApostles, and himself too. But how can this be? I answer, it is\nnone of my concern to reconcile the conduct of Paul; or to defend\nhis equivocations. It is pretty clear, that he did not dare to preach\nthis doctrine at Jerusalem. He confined this \"hidden wisdom,\" to\nthe Gentiles. To the Jews he became as a Jew; and to the\nuncircumcised as one uncircumcised, he was \"all things to all\nmen!\" and for this conduct he gives you his reason, viz. \"that he\nwas determined at any rate to gain some.\" If this be double\ndealing, dissimulation, and equivocation, I cannot help it; it is none\nof my concern, I leave it to the Commentators, and the\nreconciliators, the disciples of Surenhusius; let them look to it;\nperhaps they can hunt up some \"traditionary rules of interpretation\namong the Jews,\" that will help them to explain the matter.\n\nLastly, it has been said that there was no occasion for Jesus, or his\nApostles to be very explicit with respect to the abolition of the\nlaws of Moses, since the Temple was to be soon destroyed, when\nthe Jewish worship would cease of course.\n\nThis argument, flimsy as it is, is nevertheless the instar omnium of\nthe Christian Divines to prove the abolishment of this Law: (for the\nother arguments adduced by them as prophecies of it from the 1\nch. of Isaiah, and some of the Psalms, are nothing, to the purpose;\nthey being merely declarations of God, that he preferred obedience\nin the weightier matters of the Law; Justice, Mercy, and Holiness,\nto ceremonial observances; and that repentance was of more avail\nwith him than offering thousands of rams, and fed beasts,) and this\nargument like so many others, when weighed in the balance, will\nbe \"found wanting.\"\n\nFor, as the destruction of the Temple by Nebuchadnezzar certainly\ndid not abolish the Law, so neither did the destruction by Titus, do\nit. And as it would be notoriously absurd to maintain the first, so it\nis equally so to maintain the last, position. Besides, a very\nconsiderable part of that Law can be, and for these seventeen\nhundred years, has been kept without the Temple. As for example,\ncircumcision, distinction of meats, and many others. And when, if\never, they shall return to their own land, and rebuild the Temple,\nthey will then, according to the Old Testament, observe the whole,\nand with greater splendour than ever.\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XII.\n\nON THE CHARACTER OF PAUL AND HIS MANNER OF\nREASONING.\n\n\nAs Christians lay great stress upon their argument for the truth of\ntheir Religion, derived from the supposed miraculous conversion\nof Paul; and since almost the whole of Systematic Christianity is\nbuilt upon the foundation of the Epistles ascribed to him, we shall\npay a little more attention to his character and writings.\n\nPaul was evidently a man of no small capacity, a fiery temper,\ngreat subtilty, and considerably well versed in Jewish Traditionary,\nand Cabbalistic Learning, and not unacquainted with the principles\nof the Philosophy called the \"Oriental.\" He is said by Luke to have\nbeen converted to Christianity by a splendid apparition of Jesus,\nwho struck him to the ground by the glory of his appearance. But\nby the Jews and the Nazarene Christians, he is represented as\nhaving been converted to Christianity from a different cause. They\nsay that being a man of tried abilities and of some note, he\ndemanded the High Priest's daughter in marriage, and being\nrefused, his rash and rageful temper, and a desire of revenge, drove\nhim to join the \"sect of the Nazarenes,\" at that time beginning to\nbecome troublesome to the Sanhedrim. However this may be,\nwhether he became a Christian from conviction, or from ambition;\nit is certain from the Acts that he always was considered by the\nJewish Christians, as a suspected character; and it is evident that he\ntaught a different doctrine from that promulgated by the twelve\napostles. And this was the true cause of the great difficulty he was\nevidently under of keeping steady to him, his Gentile converts. For\nit is evident from the Epistles to the Galatians, and the Corinthians,\nthat the Jewish Christians represented Paul to them as not \"sound\nin the Faith,\" but as teaching a different doctrine from that of the\nTwelve, and so influential were these representations, that Paul had\nthe greatest difficulty in keeping them to his System.\n\nThat there were two Parties, or Schools in the first Christian\nchurch, viz. the adherents of the Apostles, and the Disciples of\nPaul, is evident from the New Testament, and has been fully, and\nunanswerably proved by the learned Semler, the greatest scholar\ncertainly in Christian Antiquities, that ever lived. The knowledge\nof this secret, accounts for the different conduct of Paul when\namong his Gentile converts, from that which he pursued when with\nthe apostles at Jerusalem. He had a difficult part to act, and he\nmanaged admirably. He was indeed, as he says, himself, \"all\nthings to all men,\" a Jew with the Jews, and as one uncircumcised\namong the uncircumcised. To the Jews, he asserted, that he \"\ntaught nothing contrary to the Law, and the Prophets,\" and when\nbrought before the Sanhedrim for teaching otherwise than he said,\nhe dexterously got himself out of tribulation, by throwing a bone of\ncontention among the Council, and setting his Judges together by\nthe ears. \"And when Paul perceived that the one part (of the\nCouncil) were Sadducees, and the other, Pharisees, he cried out in\nthe Council: Brethren, I am a Pharisee, and the son of a Pharisee;\nconcerning the hope of the resurrection of the dead, I am now\njudged. And when he had said this, a dissension arose between the\nPharisees and the Sadducees, and the multitude was divided. For\nthe Sadducees say there is no resurrection, neither angel, nor spirit;\nbut the Pharisees confess both. And there was a great cry, and the\nScribes that were on the part of the Pharisees, arose and strove,\nsaying, \"We find no evil in this man\" &c. This, indeed, was a\nmasterly manoeuvre, and produced the desired effect; and Paul by\nthis shows his knowledge of the human heart, in trusting to make\nhis Judges forget what he was accused of, by making an appeal to\ntheir sectarian passions. For, in truth, he was not accused\nconcerning his opinion about \"the hope, and the resurrection of the\ndead,\" but for the following cause, as his accusers vociferated (in\nthe xxi. ch.) when they seized him in the Temple, \"Men of Israel,\nHelp! This is the man, who teacheth all men every where against,\nthe people, and the Law, and this place.\"\n\nThese strokes of character enable us to understand the man; and I\nshall now go into the consideration of some of the arguments he\nhas deduced from passages in the Old Testament in support of his\nopinions; after premising, that the truth of the story of the manner\nof his conversion depends entirely upon his own assertion; and\nwhether his credibility be absolutely unimpeachable, can be easily\ndetermined by an impartial consideration of the history of his\nconduct already mentioned. I will only add upon this subject, that\nin telling the story of his conversion, he ought to have had a better\nmemory; for in telling it once in xxvi. ch. of Acts, he says, in\ndescribing his miraculous vision, that \"those that were with me,\nsaw indeed the light, and were afraid, but heard not the words of\nhim that spake to me;\" and thus he directly contradicts the story of\nit recorded in Acts ix., where it is said, \"that the men who\njourneyed with him stood speechless, hearing the voice, but seeing\nno one.\"\n\nIn the 9th chapter of the Epistle to the Romans, v. 24, he thus\nproves; that the Old Testament prophecied of the conversion of the\nGentiles, to the Gospel--\"Even us whom he hath called, not of the\nJews only, but also of the Gentiles, as he saith also in Hosea \"I\nwill call them my people, which were not my people; and her\nbeloved, which was not beloved. And it shall come to pass, that in\nthe place where it was said unto them, you are not my people, there\nshall they be called the sons of the living God.\"--Is not this to the\npurpose? yet, in applying this passage to the Gentiles, Paul has\nwilfully, (yes wilfully, for Paul was a learned man, and knew better)\nperverted the original from its proper reference, and has passed\nupon his simple converts., who did not know so much of the\nJewish Scriptures, as he did, a prophecy relating entirely to the\nJews, as referring to the Gentiles!! By turning to Hosea, Reader,\nyou will find this to be verily the case; here is the passage, \"Then\nsaid God, call his name (Hosea's son) Loammi, for ye (the\nIsraelites) are not my people, and I will not be your God, yet the\nnumber of the children of Israel shall be as the sand of the sea,\nwhich cannot be measured, nor numbered. And it shall come to\npass, that in the place where it was said unto them, ye are not my\npeople, there shall it be said unto them, ye are the sons of the living\nGod.\" Hosea chapter i\n\n\"Again v. 33. \"As it is written, Behold I lay in Zion a stone of\nstumbling, and a rock of offence, and every one who believeth in\nhim shall not be ashamed.\" Here Paul has pieced two passages\ntogether, which in the originals are disconnected. For in the 8th\nchapter of Isaiah it is written, \"Sanctify the Lord of Hosts\nhimself, and let him be your fear, and let him be your dread. And\nhe shall be for a sanctuary; but for a stone of stumbling, and for a\nrock of offence, to both the houses of Israel; for a gin, and for a\nsnare to the inhabitants of Jerusalem.\" And in the 28th chapter it is\nwritten, \"therefore, thus saith the Lord God, behold I lay in Zion\nfor a foundation, a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner stone, a\nsure foundation, he that believeth shall not be ashamed,\" (or\ndisappointed) Here \"you see, reader, that he jams two distant\npassages together no ways related; and alters some words, and\napplies them to Jesus, with whom, it appears from the context of\nIsaiah, they have no concern.\n\nCh. x. v. 6. \"The scripture saith, 'say not in thine heart, who shall\nascend into Heaven? (that is, that he may bring down Jesus from\nabove.) Again, 'who shall descend into the abyss?' (that is, that he\nmay bring up Jesus from the dead.) But what saith it? ' The word\nis very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart.' (that is the\nword of Faith which we speak.) For if thou confess Jesus with thy\nmouth, and believe in thine heart that God raised him from the\ndead, thou shalt be saved.\" Here you will see another instance of\nmisapplication of Scripture by Paul, in order to dazzle the eyes of\nhis simple and credulous converts, for let any one took at the place\nin the Scripture whence the quotation is taken, arid he will\nimmediately see the inapplicability of the words, and the\nadulteration of those of the original, in order to make them apply.\nFor the Scripture quoted speaks of, and refers to penitence, and.\nnot at all about believing on, or bringing down Jesus from Heaven,\nor up from the dead; for here are the words, Deut. 30.--\"If thou\nbe converted to the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all\nthy mind.\"--Immediately is subjoined--\"For this Law which I\ncommand you this day is not far from thee; neither is it afar off. It\nis not in Heaven, that thou shouldst say, who shall ascend for us\ninto Heaven, that he may bring it unto us, and declare it to us that\nwe might do it,\" &c. The sense of the whole is, that God wills us to\nrepent of sin; and that you may know when you have sinned, you\nhave only to look at his Law, which is not in Heaven, nor afar off,\nbut is put in your own hands, and is perfectly familiar with your\nheart, and lips.\n\n1 Cor, ch. v. 1. Paul accuses one of the Christians of the church of\nCorinth of the crime of incest, because he had married his\nstep-mother, and orders them to excommunicate him. But Paul, in all\nhis Epistles and teachings to the Gentiles, pronounced them free\nfrom the Law of Moses. Wherefore then for the violation of one of\nthose Laws interdicting such a marriage, does he so vehemently,\nblame them? Such a marriage is not forbidden in the Gospel: it was\nforbidden to them no where in the Scriptures but in the Mosaic\nCode. Therefore, Paul must have founded his judgment against the\ncriminal upon the dictum of that law in such cases. Paul puts the\nman under a curse; and it is the Mosaic Law which says, Deut. 27,\n\"Cursed is he who lieth with his father's wife.\" It seems,\ntherefore, that Jesus did not deliver his followers from \"the curse\nof the law,\" as Paul taught them it did in Gal. iii. 13.\n\n1 Cor. ch. x.:--\"And let us not pollute ourselves with fornication,\nas some of them were polluted, and fell in one day to the number\nof twenty-three thousand.\" Here is a blunder, for it is written \"\ntwenty-four thousand.\"--Num. 25.\n\nGal. iii., 13, Paul says, \"Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of\nthe law, being made a curse for us; for it is written, cursed is every\none that hangeth on a tree.\" What he says of the Christ, or the\nMessiah redeeming from the curses written in the law, that by no\nmeans agrees with truth; for no Jew can be freed from the curses of\nthe law, but by repenting of his sins, and becoming obedient to it.\nAnd in alledging the words \"cursed is every one that hangeth on a\ntree,\" from Deut. xxi., he, as usual, applies them irrelevantly.\n\nPaul says, Gal. iii, 10:--\"For as many as are of the works of the\nlaw, are under the curse; for it is written, Deut. xxvii. 26, ' Cursed\nis every one that continueth not in all things written in the book of\nthe law to do them.'\" And he interprets this to mean that all\nmankind, Jews and Gentile, are liable to damnation, (except those\nwho are saved by faith) because no man ever did continue in all\nthings written in the law. Now, in the first place I would observe,\nthat Paul has inserted the word \"all\" in the passage he quotes from\nDeuteronomy, (in the original of which it is not) in order to make it\nsupport his system; for the whole of his argument is built upon this\none surreptitiously inserted word. 2. The words according to the\noriginal are simply these:--\"Cursed is he that continueth not the\nwords of this law to do them;\" i. e.,--He who disobeys, or neglects\nto fulfil the commands of the law, shall be under the curse\ndenounced upon the disobedient. But who would conclude from\nthis that repentance would not remove the curse? Does not God\nexpressly declare in the xxx. ch. of Deut., that if they repent, the\ncurses written shall be removed from them? And have we not\ninnumerable instances recorded in the Old Testament, of sinners,\nand transgressors of this very law, received to pardon and favour,\nupon repentance and amendment? So that this argument founded\nupon an unwarrantable undeniable interpolation, and supported by\nbad logic, is every way bad, and insulting to God and his (by Paul\nacknowledged) word.\n\nGal ch. iii. 16:--\"To Abraham, and his seed were the promises\nmade, He saith not ' and to seeds,' (as of roomy) but as of one, '\nand to thy seed,' which is Christ.\" Here is an argument which one\nwould think too far-fetched, even for Paul; and it is built on a\nperversion of a passage from Genesis, which Paul, bold as he was\nin these matters, certainly would not have ventured, if he had not\nthe most assured confidence in the blinking credulity of his\nGalatian converts. His argument in this place is drawn from the\nuse of the word \"seed\" in the singular number, in the passage of\nGenesis, from whence he quotes. And because the word seed is in\nthe singular number, fag tells the \"foolish Galatians,\" as he justly\ncalls them, that this \"seed\" must mean one individual (and not\nmany,) \"which,\" says he, \"is Christ.\" Now, let us look at the xv.\nch. of Gen., from whence he quotes, and we shall see the force of\nthis singular argument, derived from the use of the singular\nnumber. \"And He (God) brought him (Abraham) forth abroad, and\nsaid. Look now towards heaven, and tell the stars if thou be able to\nnumber them, and He said unto him, so shall thy seed be.--And He\nsaid, know of a surety that thy seed shall be a stranger in a land that\nis not theirs, and they shall afflict them, &c., afterwards they shall\ncome out with great substance.--In that same day the Lord made a\ncovenant with Abraham, saying, unto thy seed have I given this\nland,\" &c. Again, ch. xxii., God said to Abraham by his Angel, \"I\nwill multiply thy seed as the stars of heaven, and as the sand which\nis upon the sea shore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his (or\nits) enemies, and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be\nblessed, because thou hast obeyed my voice! Reader, what do you\nthink now of Paul's argument from the use of the singular number?\nWhich is most to be admired? His offering such an argument to\nthe Galatians; (for being a learned man, he certainly knew that the\nargument was nought,) or their credulity in receiving such\nreasoning as Divine? Really, I fear there is some reason for\nadmitting as true what Celsus maliciously says of the simplicity of\nthe Primitive Christians, if Paul could with impunity feed his\n\"spiritual babes\" with such pap as this!\n\nI intended to have concluded this subject, by bringing under\nexamination some of the arguments and quotations in the Epistle\nto the Hebrews; but upon looking over that Epistle, and\ncontemplating my task, I confess I shrink from it. That Epistle is so\nreplete with daring, ridiculous, and impious applications of the\nwords of the Old Testament, that I am glad to omit it; and I think\nafter the specimens which have been already brought forward, that\nmy reader is quite as much satiated as myself. I will, therefore,\nbring forward only one quotation, which is alledged in that Epistle\nto prove the abolition of the law of Moses; and as for the rest, I\ncontent myself with referring those who want to know more of it,\nto the pieces written by the celebrated Dr. Priestley upon Paul's\narguments in general, and those in that Epistle in particular,\npreserved in his Theological Repository, where he will see\nabsurdity in reasoning, and, something worse, in quotation,\nexposed in a masterly manner. Indeed, some learned Christians are\nso sensible of the insuperable difficulties attending every attempt\nto reconcile that Epistle to the Doctrine of inspiration, or even to\ncommon sense, that they avoid the trouble, by denying that Paul\ncould have been the author of such a work, and attribute it to the\nsame, or a similar, hand, with that which forged the marvellous\nEpistle ascribed to Barnabas.\n\nThe quotation brought forward in the Epistle to the Hebrews, to\nprove the abrogation of the Mosaic Law, and the substitution of a\nnew one, is taken from Jer. xxxi. 31, &c.--\"Behold the days\ncome saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the\nhouse of Judah. Not according to the covenant which I made with\nthey fathers, in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them\nout of the land of Egypt, (which my covenant they brake, although\nI was an husband unto them, saith the Lord.) But this shall be the\ncovenant that I will make with the house of Israel. After those days\nsaith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it\nin their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people;\nand they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, saying\nknow the Lord, for they shall all know me from the least of them\nunto the greatest of them, saith the Lord, for I will forgive their\niniquity, and will remember their sins no more.\" Upon this passage\nthe author of the Epistle observes \"in that he saith 'a new\ncovenant,' he hath made the first old;\" and he sagely concludes \"\nnow that which decayeth, and waxeth old, is ready to vanish away!!\"\nand takes the quotation to be a prophecy of the abolition of the\nold law, and the introduction of the Gospel Dispensation.\n\nNow, I would observe on his reasoning, in the first place, that,\nallowing for a moment his interpretation of the prophecy to be\ncorrect, (i. e., that it signifies the abolishment of the old, and an\nintroduction of a new law) the prophecy, at any rate, cannot refer to\nJesus, or the Gospel; for so far from having been fulfilled in the\ntime of Jesus, or his Apostles, it has not been fulfilled to this day;\nfor certainly God has not yet made a new covenant with the Jews,\nto whom the prophecy refers, nor has he yet \"put his law in their\nhearts;\" nor \"caused them to walk in it;\" neither has he yet \"\nforgiven their sins, or forgotten their iniquities,\" since they are\neven now suffering, the consequences of them.\n\nI will now retract what I granted, and assert that the prophet did not\nmean an abolition of the Mosaic, and the introduction of a new,\nlaw; for though the prophet speaks of a new covenant, he says\nnothing of a new law; but on the contrary, asserts that this new\ncovenant would be effectual to make them obey the law. God\npromised to put his law within their hearts (not out of\nremembrance, as the catechisms say;) and in this alone this\ncovenant differs from the one entered into at Mount Sinai. For,\nthen, though the law was given them, it was not \"put within their\nhearts,\" but they were apt, to their own controul, to obey it, or not,\nbeing assured, however, that happiness should be the reward of\nobedience, and death and excision the punishment for revolt\nand disobedience. And you will moreover observe, that,\nnotwithstanding what is here called a new covenant, nothing is\nhere said of the abrogation of any former covenant, or constitution,\nor of any new terms, that would be required by God on the part of\nthe Israelites. The prophet, by expanding his idea, sufficiently\nexplains his whole meaning, which is evidently this, viz.: That God\nwould make a new, and solemn promise to the Israelites, that they\nshould be no more out of favor with him; that their hearts would be\nhereafter so right with God, that in consequence of it, they would\ncontinue in the quiet possession of their country to the end of time;\nand all this is intimated by Moses, in the quotation from\nDeuteronomy, quoted in the last chapter.\n\nThus is the passage perfectly consistent with those in the Old\nTestament, which affirm, (whether right or wrong is not my\nconcern) the perfection and perpetuity of the Mosaic Law. \"\nRemember,\" are the last words of the last of the prophets,\nMalachi,--\"Remember the Law of Moses, my servant which I\ncommanded unto him in Horeb, with the Statutes, and Judgments.\"\nAlso in the Psalms:--\"The Law of the Lord is perfect, converting\nthe soul. The Testimony of the Lord is faithful, bringing wisdom\nto the simple. The Precepts of the Lord are right, rejoicing the\nheart, and enlightening the eyes.\" \"The works of his hands are\nTruth, and Judgment. All his Precepts are sure. They stand fast for\never and ever: being done in Truth and Uprightness.\"\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XIII.\n\nEXAMINATION OF SOME DOCTRINES IN THE NEW\nTESTAMENT DERIVED FBOM THE CABALLA, THE\nORIENTAL PHILOSOPHY, AND THE TENETS OF\nZOROASTER.\n\nI have said in the preceding chapter, that Paul was well versed in\nCabbalistic Learning, and not unacquainted with the principles of\nthe Philosophy styled \"the Oriental;\" and to prove and exemplify\nthis assertion, is the subject and intention of this chapter. None but\nthe learned know, how much of Systematic Christianity is derived\nfrom the Cabbalism of the Jews; the Religion of the Magi of\nPersia; and the Philosophy of the Bramins of Indostan. I shall\nattempt to lay open these Theological Arcana, and make them\nknown to those who ought to know what they have been kept in\nignorance of.\n\nMany of my readers have, no doubt, frequently puzzled themselves\nover these words of Paul's, Eph. v. 30:--\"For we are members of\nhis (Christ's) body, of his flesh, and of his bones. Because of this,\na man shall leave his father, and mother, and shall cleave to his\nwife, and they two shall be one flesh. This mystery is great,\nbut I speak concerning Christ and the Church.\" This passage\nexemplifies the connexion between Christ and the Church, by that\nwhich subsists between a man and his wife; and this Paul calls \"a\ngreat mystery;\" and it no doubt must be a very mysterious passage\nto all those who are unacquainted with the cabbalistic notion to\nwhich it alludes, and refers. To illustrate the passage, and to prove\nthat Paul raised his Cabbalism with his religion, I shall set down\nhere the note of Dr. Whitby, the Christian Commentator, upon the\ntext of Paul.\n\n\"The learned Dr. Allix saith, The first match between Adam and\nEve, was a type of that between Christ and his Church; and in this,\nsaith he, the Apostle follows the Jewish notions. The Jews say, the\nmystery of Adam, is the mystery of the Messiah, who is the\nBridegroom of the Church. These two persons, therefore, confirm\nthe observation of Munster, that the creation of the woman from\nthe rib of the man, was made by the Jews to signify the marriage of\nthe celestial man who is blessed, or of the Messiah, with the\nChurch; whence the Apostle applies the very words which Adam\nsaid concerning Eve his spouse, to the Church, who is the spouse\nof Christ; saying, \"for we are members of his body, of his flesh,\nand of his bones.\" For the explanation of these words, take what\nfollows:--\"The profoundest of the Jewish Divines, whom they\nnow call Cabbalists, having such a notion as this among them, that\nsensible things are but an imitation of things above, conceived\nfrom thence, that there was an original pattern of love and union,\nwhich is between a man and his wife in this world. This being\nexpressed by the kindness of Tipheret and Malchut, which are the\nnames they give to the invisible Bridegroom and Bride in the upper\nworld. And this Tiphiret, or the celestial Adam, is so called in\nopposition to the terrestrial Adam; as Malchut also (i. e., the\nkingdom) they call by the name of Chinnereth Israel the\nCongregation of Israel, who is, they say, united to the celestial\nAdam as Eve was to the terrestrial.\" So that in sum, they seem to\nsay the same that Paul doth, when he tells us, that \"marriage is a\ngreat mystery, but he speaks concerning Christ and his Church.\"\nFor the marriage of Tipheret and Malchuth, is the marriage of\nChrist, \"the Lord from Heaven,\" (\"the first man was of the Earth\nearthly, the second man is the Lord from Heaven,\" says Paul I Cor.\nxv.,) with his spouse the Church, which is the conjunction of Adam\nand Eve, and of all other men and women descended from them.\nOrigen also seems to have had some notion of the relation of this\npassage to Adam and Eve, when he speaks thus:--\"If any man\nderide us for using the example of Adam and Eve in these words,\n'and Adam knew his wife,' when we treat of the knowledge of\nGod, let him consider these words--'This is a great mystery.'\"\nTertullian frequently alludes to the same thing, saying--\"This is a\ngreat sacrament, carnally in Adam, spiritually in Christ, because of\nthe spiritual marriage between Christ and the Church.\"\n\nThus far Dr. Whitby, and the intelligent reader, who is acquainted\nwith the dogmas and philosophy of Indostan, will not fail to see\nthrough this cloud, of words the origin of this analogy of Paul. The\nfact is, that in India and in Egypt, the Divine creative power which\nproduced all things and energizes in everything, was symbolized\nby the Phallus; and to this day, in Hindostan, the operation of\nDiety upon matter is symbolized by images of the same; and in the\ndarkest recesses of their Temples, which none but the initiated\nwere permitted to enter: the Phallus of stone is the solitary idol,\nbefore which the illuminated bowed. This symbol, though\nshameful and abominable, is yet looked upon in India with the\nprofoundest veneration, and is not with them the occasion of\nshame or reproach. It is, however, a blasphemous abomination; and\nthe marriage between Christ and the Church ought not to have\nbeen thus illustrated by Paul, who reproached the heathen\nmysteries as \"works of darkness,\" which mysteries, in fact,\nconsisted principally in exhibiting these symbols, and similar\nabominations.\n\nBut, it may be asked, what is the meaning of the other clause of the\nverse--what could Paul mean by the strong language, \"We are\nmembers of his body? of his flesh, and of his bones?\" Why, my\nreader, he meant, that Christians were really part of the body of\nChrist and if you desire to know How he imagined this union to be\neffected, I request you to see the 10th ch. of the 1st Epistle to the\nCorinthians, where at the 16th verse he thus writes to them:--\"The\ncup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation of the blood\nof Christ? The loaf (according to the Greek original) which we\nbreak, is it not a participation of the body of Christ? for, Because\nthe loaf is one, we, though many, are one body, for we all partake\nof that one loaf.\" Again, ch. xi. 19, \"For he that eateth, and\ndrinketh unworthily eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not\ndistinguishing (or discovering) the Lord's body;\" and in ch. xii.\n27, he says to them, \"Ye are the body of Christ, and his members\nseverally.\" (See the original of these passages in Griesbach's\nGreek Testament.) Thus you see, reader, that Paul considered\nChristians \"as members of his (Christ's) body, of his flesh, and of\nhis bones,\" because they partook of one loaf, which was the body\nof Christ. The Papists are in the right, and have been much\nslandered by the Protestants, for the doctrine of Transubstantiation,\nor at least the Real Presence, is as plainly taught in the New\nTestament, as the doctrine of the Atonement. You have seen what\nPaul believed upon this subject, and I shall corroborate the sense I\nput upon his words, by the words of Jesus, his master, and by\nquotations from the earliest Fathers.\n\nJesus says, John vi.--\"I am the living bread which came down\nfrom Heaven; if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever,\nand the bread which I will give is my flesh, which I will give for\nthe life of the world.\" The Jews, therefore, contended among\nthemselves, saying, \"How can this man give us his flesh to eat?\"\nJesus, therefore, said unto them, \"Verily, verily, I say unto you,\nunless ye eat the flesh of the son of man, and drink his blood, ye\nhave not life in you. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my\nblood, hath everlasting life, and I will raise him up at the last day.\nFor my flesh is verily food, and my blood is verily drink. He that\neateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, and I in\nhim. As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father,\n(here is an oath) so he likewise that eateth me shall live by me.\"\n\nThis strange doctrine was the faith of the Primitive Christians, as is\nwell known to the learned Protestants, though they do not like to\nsay so to their \"weaker brethren.\"\n\nIgnatius says, \"There is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and\none cup in the unity of his blood;\" and of certain heretics he says,\n\"they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus\nChrist.\"\n\nJustin Martyr, in his Apology, asserts that the consecrated bread\n\"is, some how or other, the flesh of Christ.\"\n\nIn the dispute with Latimer about Transubstantiation, it is\nacknowledged by the most candid writers, that the Roman\nCatholics had much the advantage. It must have been so, where\nquotations from the Fathers were allowed as arguments. For what\nanswer can be made to the following extracts?--\" What a miracle\nis this! He who sits above with the Father, at the same instant, is\nhandled by the hands of men.\" [Chrysostom.] Again, from the\nsame, \"That which is in the cup, is the same which flowed from\nthe side of Christ.\" Again, \"Because we abhor the eating of raw\nflesh; therefore, it appeareth bread, though it be flesh.\"\n[Theophylact.] Or to this?--\"Christ was carried in his own hands,\nwhen he said 'this is my body.'\" [Austin,] Or to this?--\"We are\ntaught, that when this nourishing food is consecrated, it becomes\nthe body and blood of our Saviour.\" [Justin Martyr.] Or, lastly, to\nthis? [from Ambrose]--\" It is bread before consecration, but after\nthat ceremony, it becomes the flesh of Christ.\"\n\nAnother doctrine which Paul derived from the Oriental Philosophy,\nand Which makes a great figure in his writings, is the notion, that\nmoral corruption originates in the influxes of the body upon the\nmind.\n\n\"It was one of the principal tenets of the Oriental Philosophy, that\nall evil resulted from matter, and its first founder appears to have\nargued in the following manner:--\"There are many evils in the\nworld, and men seem impelled of a natural instinct to the practice\nof those things which reason condemns. But that eternal mind,\nfrom which all spirits derive their existence, must be inaccessible\nto all kinds of evil, and also of a most perfect and beneficent\nnature; therefore, the origin of these evils with which the world\nabounds, must be sought somewhere else, than in the Deity. It\ncannot abide in him who is all perfection, and, therefore, it must be\nwithout him. Now, there is nothing without or beyond the Deity but\nmatter; therefore, matter is the centre and source of all evil, of all\nvice.\"\n\nOne of the consequences they drew from this hypothesis was, that\nsince All evil resulted from matter, the depravity of mankind arose\nfrom the pollution derived to the human soul, from its connexion\nwith the material body which it inhabits; and, therefore, the only\nmeans by which the mind could purify itself from the defilement,\nand liberate itself from the bondage imposed upon it by the body,\nwas to emaciate and humble the body by frequent fasting, and to\ninvigorate the mind to overcome and subdue it by retirement and\ncontemplation.\n\nThe New Testament, though it does not recognise this principle of\nthe Oriental Philosophy, \"that evil originates from matter,\" yet\ncoincides with it in strenuously asserting that the corruption of the\nhuman mind is derived from its connexion with the human body.\n\nTo prove this proposition, I shall show that Paul calls all crimes the\nworks of the flesh.\" \"Now, the works of the flesh are manifest,\n(says he, Gal. v. 19,) which are these: adultery, fornication,\nuncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, sorcery, hatred, contentions,\nrivalries, wrath, disputes, divisions, heresies, envyings, murders,\ndrunkenness, revellings, and such like.\" He also describes the\nconflict between the flesh and the spirit, or mind, in these terms:--\n\"For I know that in me, that is, in my flesh, dwelleth no good, for\nto will is present with me, but to perform that which is good, I find\nnot, but the evil which I would not, that I do. For I delight in the\nlaw of God according to the inner man, but I see another law in my\nmembers warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me\ninto captivity to the law of my sin in my members. O wretched\nman that I am! who will deliver me from the body of this death?\"\n(or this body of death.) And he goes on to observe, \"That I, the\nsame man, with my mind serve the law of God, but with my flesh\nthe law of sin.\"--Rom. vii. \"For the flesh desireth against (or in\nopposition to) the spirit, and the spirit against \"the flesh, and these\nare contrary the one to the other, so that ye cannot do the things\nthat ye would.\"\n\n\"Those that are Christ's (says Paul, Gal. v. 24) have crucified the\nflesh, with its passions and desires.\" And they are commanded\n(Rom. vi. 12 and viii. 13) \"to mortify,\" or, according to the\noriginal, \"put to death or \"kill their members;\" and Paul himself\nuses language upon this subject exceeding strong. He represents (1\nCor. ix. 27) his mind and body as engaged in combat, and says, \"I\nbuffet my body, and subject it.\" The word here translated \"\nsubject,\" in the original, means \"to carry into servitude,\" and is a\nterm taken from the language of the olympic games where the\nboxers dragged off the arena, their conquered, disabled, and\nhelpless antagonists like slaves, in which humbled condition the\nApostle represents his body to be with respect to his mind.\n\nFrom this notion of the sinfulness of \"the flesh,\" we are enabled to\napprehend Paul's reasonings about the sufferings of Jesus \"in the\nflesh.\" \"Since the children are partakers of flesh and blood, Christ\nhimself also in like manner partook of them\"--Heb. ii. 14. \"For\n(says Paul) what the law could not do in that it was weak through\nthe flesh, God hath done, who by having sent his own son in the\nlikeness of sinful flesh, and on account of sin, hath condemned sin\nin the flesh.\"--Rom. viii. 3. \"But now, through Christ Jesus, ye\nwho formerly were far off, are brought near by the blood of Christ.\nFor he is our Peace who hath made both one, and hath broken\ndown the middle wall of partition between us, having abolished by\nhis flesh the cause of enmity.\"--Ephes. ii. 16. \"You that were\nformerly aliens, and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet he\nhath now reconciled by his fleshly body, through his death.\"--Col.\ni. 20.\n\nThough these notions are sufficiently strange, yet they are not so\nvery remarkable as the one I am about to consider. It is a singular,\nand a demonstrable fact, that the fundamental scheme of\nChristianity was derived from the religion of the ancient Persians,\nThe whole of the New Testament scheme is built upon the\nhypothesis, that there is a powerful and malignant being, called the\nDevil and Satan, the chief of unknown myriads of other evil spirits;\nthat he is, by the sufferance of God, the Prince of this world, and is\nthe Author of sin, woe and death; the Tempter, the Tormentor of\nmen, and the Tyrant of the Earth; that the Son of God, to deliver\nmankind from the vassalage of this monster, descended from\nheaven, and purchased their ransom of the Tyrant, at the price of\nhis blood; for observe, my reader, that the idea of the death of\nJesus being an atonement to God for the sins of men, is a modern\nnotion; for the Primitive Christians, all of them, considered the\ndeath of Jesus as a ransom paid to the Devil, as may be proved\nfrom Origen and other Fathers. That the New Testament represents\nthis character as the sovereign of this world, may be proved by the\nfollowing passages:--\"All this power will I give thee, and the\nglory of them, (said the Tempter to Jesus, when he showed him all\nthe kingdoms of the earth,) for it is delivered unto me, and to\nwhomsoever I will, I give it.\" Luke iv., Jesus calls him \"the Prince\nof this world;\" John xii., and elsewhere. In his commission to Paul,\nhe calls embracing his religion, \"turning from darkness unto light,\nand from the power of Satan to God.\"--. Acts xxvi. 18.\nAccordingly we find, that to become a Christian was considered as\nbeing freed from the tyranny of Satan. \"God hath given life to\nyou, (says Paul) who were dead in offences, and sins; in which ye\nformerly walked, according to the course (or constitution) of this\nworld, according to the Prince of the Power of the air.\"--\nEphesians ii., 1. And again:--\"If our gospel be covered, (or hid)\nit is covered among those that are lost, among those unbelievers,\nwhose minds the God of this world hath blinded, to the end that the\nglorious gospel of Christ should not enlighten them.\"--2 Cor. iv.\n4. John says in his Epistle, that \"the whole world lieth in the\npower of the wicked one;\" and Jesus in the gospels compares him\nto \"a strong man armed, keeping his goods;\" and himself to one\nstronger than he, who strippeth him of the arms in which he\ntrusted, and spoileth his goods. \"For this purpose was the Son of\nGod manifested, that he might destroy the works of the Devil.\"--1\nJohn iii. 8. And it is said, \"that he came to send forth the captive\ninto liberty, and to heal those who were oppressed of the Devil.\"\nMen are also said to have been \"taken captive of the Devil, to\nfulfil his will.\"--2 Timothy ii. 26. And we find that the Christians\nattributed all their sufferings to the opposition of this Being. \"Put\non (says Paul) the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to\nstand against the wiles of the Devil. For we struggle not against\nflesh and blood only; but against principalities, against powers,\nagainst the rulers of the darkness of this world, against wicked\nspirits in high places.\"--Ephesians vi. 12. Christians are also said\nto be delivered by God from the power of darkness, and to be\ntranslated into the kingdom of his dear son. That is, as Christians\nwere considered as being the subjects of Jesus, and the rest of the\nworld as being of the kingdom of Satan, when a man became a\nChristian he was translated from the kingdom of one, to the\nkingdom of the other. Jesus accused the Devil as being the author\nof all evil, as a liar, and the father of lies, and a murderer of men,\nand of women, too, as appears in the Gospel, from the account of\nthat one, whose back the Devil had bowed down for eighteen\nyears--Luke xiii. 10--(on what account it does not appear.) In\nshort, the New Testament represents to him as being the source of\nall evil and mischief, and the promoter of it; and the whole world\nas being his subjects, and combined with him against all good.\n\nBut how does all this prove that these notions were derived from\nthe religion of the ancient Persians? I answer by requesting you,\nmy reader, to peruse, attentively, the following account of the\nfundamental principles of the religion of Zoroaster, the prophet of\nthe Persians.\n\nThe doctrine of Zoroaster was, that there was one Supreme Being,\nindependent, and self-existing from all eternity; that inferior to\nhim, there were two Angels, one the Angel of Light, who is the\nAuthor and Director of all Good; and the other, the Angel of\nDarkness, who is the Author and Director of all Evil; that these\ntwo are in a perpetual struggle with each other; and that where the\nAngel of Light prevails, there the most is good; awl where the\nAngel of Darkness prevails, there the most is evil. That this\nstruggle shall continue to the end of the world; that then there shall\nbe a general resurrection, and a day of judgment, wherein just\nretribution shall be rendered to all according to their works; after\nwhich, the Angel of Darkness, and his followers, shall go into a\nworld of their own, where they shall suffer in darkness, the\npunishment of their evil deeds. And the Angel of Light, and his\nfollowers, shall also go into a world of their own, where they shall\nreceive, in everlasting light, the reward due to their good deeds.\n\nIt is impossible but that the reader must see the agreement of the\ndoctrines of the New Testament with all this; and since it is\nundoubted, that these tenets of Zoroaster are far more ancient than\nthe New Testament, and since, as we have seen, that that book is\nmuch indebted to oriental notions for many of its dogmas, there is\nno way of accounting for this coincidence (that I know of), besides\nsupposing the Devil of the New Testament to be of Persian origin.\nIt is, however, in my power to make this coincidence still more\nstriking from the words of Jesus himself, who says, (Matthew xiii.\n24), \"The kingdom of Heaven is like a man who sowed good seed\nin his field, but while men slept, his enemy (mark the expression)\nhis enemy came, and sowed tares among the wheat; but when the\nblade sprung up, and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares\nalso. So the servants of the householder came near, and said unto\nhim, ' Sir, didst thou not sow good seed in thy field? whence,\nthen, hath it tares?' And he saith unto them, an enemy hath done\nthis.\" You know the rest of the parable. The explanation of it is as\nfollows:--\"He who soweth the good seed is the Son of Man, and\nthe field is the world; and the good seed are the sons of the\nkingdom, and the tares are the sons of the Evil One, and the enemy\nwho sowed them is the Devil.\" Here you see, as far as it goes, a\nprecise agreement with the doctrine of Zoroaster; and to complete\nthe resemblance, you need but to recollect, that at the day of\nJudgment, according to the words of Jesus, the wicked go into the\nfire prepared for the Devil and his angels; and the righteous go into\nlife eternal with the Son of God.\n\nBut is there not a Satan mentioned in the Old Testament, and is he\nnot there represented as an evil and malevolent angel? I think not.\nThis notion probably arises from the habit of interpreting the Old\nTestament by the New. The Satan mentioned in the Old Testament,\nis represented as God's minister of punishment, and as much his\nfaithful servant as any of his angels. The prologue to the book of\nJob certainly supposes that this angel of punishment, by office,\nappeared in the court of Heaven, nay, he is ranked among \"the\nSons of God.\" This Satan is merely the supposed chief of those\nministers of God's will, whose office is to execute his ordered\ncommands upon the guilty, and who may be sometimes, as in the\ncase of Job, the minister of probation only, rather than of\npunishment; and there is no reason why he should be ashamed of\nhis office more than the General of an army, or the Judges of the\ncriminal courts, who, though they are not unfrequently ministers of\npunishment are not, therefore, excluded the royal presence; but on\nthe contrary, their office is considered as honourable;--i. e.,\npunishment without malevolence, does not pollute the inflictor.\nConsider the story of the destruction of Sodom, Genesis xix.; of\nEgypt; Exodus xxii.; of Sennacherib, 1 Kings xxix. 35; also Joshua\nv. 13. The term Satan signifies an adversary, and is applied to any\nangel sent upon an errand of punishment For example, Numbers\nxxii. 23, \"The Angel of the Lord stood in the way, for an adversary\n(literally, for a Satan) against Balaam, with his sword drawn in his\nhand.\" \"Curse ye Meroz, saith the Angel of the Lord,\" whose\noffice is to punish. So also Psalms xxxv. 5, \"Let the Angel (of\npunishment) of the Lord chase them, (i. e., drive them before him\nin a military manner; pursue them:) let their way be dark and\nslippery, and the Angel of the Lord following them.\"\n\n2 Samuel xxiv. 16:--\"The Lord sent a pestilence upon Israel--the\nangel (of punishment) stretched forth his hand and smote the\npeople.\"--1 Chronicles xxi. 16:--\"David saw the angel (of\npunishment) having a drawn sword in his hand.\"\n\nThis notion is referred to, in the Apocryphal History of Susannah,\nverse 69. \"The Angel of the Lord waiteth with his sword that he\nmay cut thee in two.\"\n\nThus we see, that the term Satan is in the Old Testament applied to\nany Angel of the Lord sent upon an errand of punishment. And the\nterm itself is so far from being reproachful (for David is said, 1\nSamuel xxix. 4, to have been \"a Satan to the Philistines,\") that I\nam not sure, that if I had by me a Hebrew concordance, but I could\npoint out places, where God himself is represented as saying, that\nhe would be an adversary or a Satan to bad men and wicked\nnations. And though there is in the Old Testament a particular\nangel styled, by way of eminence, \"The Satan,\" it is so far from\nbeing evident that he is an evil being, that I would undertake to\ngive good reasons to prove that this distinguished angel is the real\nprototype, from whence the impostor Mahomet took the idea of his\n\"Azrael,\" the \"Angel of Death;\" who, in the Koran, is certainly\nrepresented as being as much the faithful servant of God, as any of\nthe Angelic Hosts.\n\nIn fine, the doctrine of the Old Testament upon this matter may be\nthus expressed:--\"These be spirits created for vengeance, which\nin their fury lay on sore strokes; in the time of destruction, they\npour out their force, sad appease the wrath of him that made them.\nThey shall rejoice in his (God's) commandment, and they shall be\nready upon earth, when need is: and when their time is come, they\nshall not transgress his word.\" Ecclesiasticus xxxix. 28.\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XIV.\n\nA CONSIDERATION OF THE \"GIFT OF TONGUES,\" AND\nOTHER MIRACULOUS GIFTS ASCRIBED O THE PRIMITIVE\nCHRISTIANS; AND WHETHER RECORDED MIRACLES ARE\nINFALLIBLE PROOFS OF THE DIVINE AUTHORITY OF\nDOCTRINES SAID TO HAVE BEEN CONFIRMED BY THEM.\n\nPaul, in his 1st Epistle to the Corinthians, speaks to them as\npossessing several spiritual gifts, conferred on them by his\nministration; such as the gift of prophecy, discerning of spirits, and\nspeaking in unknown tongues. He gives them directions about the\nproper use of their gifts, and speaks to them as absolutely\npossessing those gifts, with the utmost confidence. Dr. Paley, in his\nDefence of Christianity, lays great stress upon the manner in which\nPaul addresses the Corinthians upon these miraculous powers; and\nhe considers it as an absolute proof of the truth of Christianity--\nbecause, he says, it is not conceivable that Paul could have had the\nboldness and presumption to speak to these men concerning the\nuse and abuse of these gifts, if they really had them not.\n\nI am ready to confess, that this argument of Dr. Paley puzzled me;\nfor though I was satisfied that Paul had imposed upon their\ncredulity many irrelevant passages from the Scriptures as proofs of\nChristianity, yet I could not imagine that he could presume so\nmuch upon their stupidity, as to give them directions about the\nmanagement of their miraculous powers, which being matters of\nfact known to themselves, therefore, if false, I conceived must\nplace Paul in their minds in the light of a banterer, when he told\nthem of gifts, which their own consciousness, I thought, must\nmake them sensible they had not. I say I was puzzled with this\nargument, until I happened to meet with some extracts from\nBrown's \"History of the Shakers,\" which convinced me at once,\nfrom the obvious likeness between these Shakers and the primitive\nChristians, that Paul might have written to the Corinthians \"\nconcerning their spiritual gifts,\" with perfect impunity.\n\nThis Brown had been a Shaker himself, and while with them, he\nwas as great a believer in his own and their gifts, as the Corinthians\ncould be; and since it must be obvious, that the gifts of these\nShakers are mere self-delusions, there is, then, in our own times an\nexample of the gifts of the primitive Christians, which enables us\nto comprehend their nature and character perfectly well.\n\n\"Many of them,\" (the Shakers) says Mr. Brown, \"professed to have\nvisions, and to see numbers of spirits, as plain as they saw their\nbrethren and sisters, and to look into the invisible world, and to\nconverse with many of the departed spirits, who had lived in the\ndifferent ages of the world, and to learn and to see their different\nstates in the world of spirits. Some they saw, they said, were\nhappy, and others miserable. Several declared, that they often were\nin dark nights surrounded with a light, sometimes in their rooms,\nbut more often when walking the road, so strong, that they could\nsee to pick up a pin, which light would continue a considerable\ntime, and enlighten them on their way. Many had gifts to speak\nlanguages, and many miracles were said to be wrought, and\nstrange signs and great wonders shown, by the believers.\n\nAnd these poor creatures believed, and at this day do believe, all\nthis. They are not, you will observe, artful impostors, for the\nShakers are, certainly, a harmless and a moral people, and yet they\nconfidently asserted (and continue to assert), that they had these\nmiraculous powers of \"discerning spirits, speaking with tongues,\nand doing great signs and wonders\" Nevertheless, it must be\nevident, that these powers were conferred upon them only by their\nenthusiasm and heated imaginations.\n\nI have heard of the Shakers before, and have been informed, that\nthose in New England are so convinced of their miraculous\ncapabilities, that they have been known, in order to save their\nneighbours the trouble of applying to the tinman, charitably to\noffer to join the gaping seams of their worn-out tin coffee-pots, and\nother vessels, \"without the carnal aid of solder,\" merely by a\ntouch of their wonder-working fingers.\n\nMr. Brown, in describing their mode of conduct, in their religious\nassemblies, unwittingly gives a striking exposition of the 1st\nEpistle to the Corinthians. He describes \"the brethren and sisters\"\npraying, singing, dancing, and preaching in known and unknown\ntongues, and sticking out their arms, and extatically following their\nnoses round the church.\n\nHe says, respecting such as speak in unknown tongues, \"they have\na strong faith in this gift, and think a person greatly favoured who\nhas the gift of tongues; and at certain times, when the mind is\noverloaded with a fiery, strong zeal, it must have vent some way or\nother; their faith, or belief, at the time being in this, gift, and a will\nstrikes the mind according to their faith, and then such break out in\na fiery, energetic manner, and speak they know not what, as I have\ndone several times. Part of what I spake at one time was--\n\n\"Liero devo jerankemango, ad sileambano, durem subramo,\ndeviranto diacerimango, jasse vah pe cri evanigalio; de vom grom\nseb crinom, os vare cremo domo.\"\n\n\"When a person runs on in this manner for any length of time, I\nnow thought it probable that he would strike into different\nlanguages, and give some words in each their right pronounciation,\nas I have heard some men of learning, who were present, say a few\nwords, were Hebrew, three or four Greek, and a few Latin.\"\n\nIn another place he gives an account of his maiden speech in an\nunknown tongue; and it is easy to conjecture how he came by his\ngift, by attending to what passed before he broke out. Here it is:--\n\"We danced for near an hour, several turned round like tops, and,\nto crown all, I had a gift to speak in some other language; but the\ngreatest misfortune was, that neither I, nor any other, understood\nwhat I said.\"\n\nMy reader will not be surprized after this, at hearing them say, that\nthe spectators of \"these signs and wonders,\" instead of being\nproperly affected, considered the performers as \"out of their wits.\"\n\nLet us, now, compare this account with what Paul says upon\nsimilar subjects, in the 14th chapter of the 1st Epistle to the\nCorinthians. He advises them, in exercising their gifts, to a discreet\nuse of them, as follows:--\"He who speaketh in an unknown\ntongue, speaketh not to men, but to God, for no man understandeth\nhim; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries.\" Again: \"For if\nthe trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to\nbattle? So, likewise, unless ye utter by the tongue words to be\nunderstood, how shall it be known what is spoken, for ye will\nspeak to the air?\" And as others did not understand the\nCorinthians speaking in unknown tongues, so it seems, too, that the\nCorinthians themselves were in the same unfortunate predicament\nwith the Shakers, in not knowing the meaning of what they\nthemselves said on these occasions. This is clear from this\nargument of Paul:--\"Wherefore, let him that speaketh in an\nunknown tongue, pray that he may interpret.\" Why, pray that he\nmay interpret, if he understood himself? Does a man who speaks\nwith understanding a foreign language, need to pray that he may be\nenabled to interpret what he says in his mother tongue? Surely\nevery man who understands himself, can naturally do this? After\nmore to the same purpose, Paul wisely concludes his argument by\ndeclaring, \"that he would rather speak in the church five words\nwith understanding, (i. e., knowing what he said) that he might\ninstruct others also, than ten thousand words in an unknown\ntongue.\" And he fortifies his reasoning by this sensible remark, \"If,\ntherefore, the whole church come together into one place, and all\nspeak in unknown tongues, and those that are unlearned, or\nunbelievers, come in, will they not say, that ye are mad?\" as the\nspectators said of the Shakers.\n\nHe advises them, therefore, to conduct their assemblies with less\nuproar than formerly, and exhorts them as follows:--\"How is it,\nthen, brethren, when you come together, hath each of you a psalm,\nhath he a doctrine, hath he an unknown tongue, hath he a\nrevelation? Let all things be done to edifying. Now, if any man\nspeak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at most by three,\nand that in succession, and let one interpret; but if there be no\ninterpreter, let such keep silence in the church, and let him speak to\nhimself and to God. And let two or three prophets speak, and let\nthe others discern. But if any thing be revealed to another who\nsitteth by, let the first keep silence. For ye may all prophecy, one\nby one, that all may learn, and all may be exhorted.\"\n\nI presume it will be needless to point out more particularly, the\nperfect correspondence between \"the spiritual gifts\" of the\nCorinthians, and those of the Shakers. And I would ask the\nvenerable Paley, if it were now possible, whether an apostolical\nepistle of Ann Lee, William Lee, or Whitaker, (the spiritual\nmother and. fathers of the Shakers,) addressed to them, and\nseriously giving directions about the use of \"their gifts of working\nmiracles, and speaking with tongues,\" would be sufficient to prove\nthat they really had those gifts? And, moreover, (to make the cases\nmore analogous) suppose that the Shakers from this time become\nthe dominant sect throughout the religious world, and kept the\nupper hand during a series of a thousand or two thousand years,\ntaking especial care to collect and burn up every writing of their\nenemies and opposers. How should we, (supposing ourselves all\nthe while invisible spectators of the thing), how should we pity our\nposterity, who, at the end of that period, should be gravely told by\nthe learned and mitred advocates of Shakerism, that the miracles of\nthe founders, and first followers of their religion were certainly\ntrue, for that they were honest and good men, with no motive to\ndeceive, and had addressed letters to their first converts, wherein\nthey make express mention of their possessing these gifts; and give\nin the simplest and most unassuming manner, directions for using\nthem. Suppose, then, that our posterity, having been deprived by\nthe prudential care of the old fathers of the then established church,\nof the means of detecting the fallacy which we possess; suppose\nthat they should believe all this, and devoutly praise God every day\nfor confirming the doctrines of his servants Lee and Whitaker, \"\nwith signs following\"--how should we pity their delusion, and.\nwhat should we think of the unlucky authors of it.\n\nFrom all this, I think my reader must be sensible how extremely\nfallacious are all proofs of doctrines, pretended to be from God,\nderived from Miracles said to have been wrought in proof of their\nDivine authority.\n\nMiracles are related to have been performed in support of all\nreligions without exception; even the followers of Mahomet,\nthough he did not claim the power of working miracles, have said\nthat he did. And they will tell you, that in proof of his mission, he,\nin the presence of hundreds, divided the moon with his finger, and\nput half of it in his pocket!*\n\nSpeaking of the gift of healing diseases, which the Primitive\nChristians claimed. Dr. Middleton, in his Free Inquiry, observes--\n\"But be that as it will the pretence of curing diseases, by a\nmiraculous power, was so suc-cessfully maintained in the heathen\nworld by fraud, and craft, that when it came to be challenged by\nthe Christians, it was not capable of exciting any attention to it\namong those who themselves pretended to the same power; which,\nalthough the certain effect of imposture, was yet managed with so\nmuch art, that the Christians could neither deny nor detect it; but\ninsisted always that it was performed by demons, or evil spirits,\ndeluding mankind to their ruin; and from the supposed reality of\nthe fact, they inferred the reasonableness of believing what was\nmore credibly affirmed by the Christians, to be performed by the\npower of the true God. \"We do not deny says Athenagoras, \"that,\nin different places, cities, and countries, there are some\nextraordinary works performed in the name of idols, from which\nsome have received benefit, others harm.\" And then he goes on to\nprove that they were not performed by God, but by demons.\nDoctor Middleton then proceeds, (p. 77.) \"whatever proof, then,\nthe primitive Church had among themselves, yet it could have but\nlittle effect towards making proselytes among those who pretended\nto the same gift; possessed more largely, and exerted more openly,\nthan in the private assemblies of the Christians. For in the Temple\nof Esculapius, all kinds of diseases were believed to be publicly\ncured by the pretended help of that deity: in proof of which, there\nwere erected in each temple columns, or tables of brass, and\nmarble, on which a distinct narrative of each particular cure was\ninscribed.\" He also observes that--\"Pausanias writes, ' that in the\ntemple at Epidauras there were many columns anciently of this\nkind, and six of them remaining in his time inscribed with the\nnames of men and women cured by the god, with \"an account of\ntheir several cases, and the method of their cure; and that there was\nan old pillar besides, which stood apart, dedicated to the memory\nof Hippolytus, who had been raised from the dead!' Strabo, also,\nanother grave writer, informs us, that these temples were\nconstantly filled with the sick, imploring the help of the god: and\nthat they had tables hanging around them, in which all the\nmiraculous cures were described.\" Dr. Middleton then proceeds\nthus--\"There is a remarkable fragment of one of these tables still\nextant, and exhibited by Gruter, in his collection, as it was found in\nthe ruins of Esculapius' Temple, in the island of the Tyber, at\nRome, which gives an account of two blind men restored to sight,\nby Esculapius, in the open view, and with loud declamations of the\npeople, acknowledging the manifest power of the god!!\" Upon\nwhich he remarks, that \"the learned Montfaucon makes this\nreflection, ' that in this, are seen either the wiles of the Devil, or\nthe tricks of Pagan priests, suborning men to counterfeit diseases,\nand miraculous cures.'\" He then proceeds, (p.79)--\"Now, though\nnothing can support the belief, or credit of miracles more\nauthentically than public monuments erected in proof, and memory\nof them at the time they were performed, yet, in defiance of that\nauthority, it is certain all these Heathen miracles were pure\nforgeries, contrived to delude the multitude; and, in truth, this\nparticular claim of curing diseases miraculously, affords great\nroom for such a delusion, and a wide field for the exercise of\ncraft.\"\n\nI need not observe, that by far the greater part of the miracles\nrecorded in the New Testament, are casting out devils, and healing\ndiseases, powers claimed by the heathens as well as these\nChristians: and these miracles, (undoubtedly false) are as well, if\nnot far better authenticated than those of the New Testament: for\nbooks may be forged, but public monuments of brass and marble\nare not so capable of being so: and these are always con-sidered\nas better evidence for facts than books. What then will the\nChristian say to this? for since these miracles, recorded on brass\nand marble, inscribed with the narratives of them almost\nimmediately after the occurrence of them, are unquestionably Lies;\nwhat can he pretend to say of those recorded in books certainly\nwritten many years after the events they record, and, as will be\nproved hereafter, more than suspected to be apocryphal?\nAnd what would become of truth? and who would be able to\ndistinguish truth from falsehood, in matters of religion, if attested\nmiracles, such as these, are sufficient to establish the divine\nauthority of doctrines said to be confirmed by them? Miracles are\nas numerous, and better authenticated on the part of Jupiter,\nApollo, and Esculapius, than on the part of Christianity. They are\nstrong on the part of Popery against Protestantism: for the Roman\nCatholic Churches in Europe are full of monumental records of\nmiracles wrought by the Virgin Mary and the Saints, in favour of\ntheir worshippers. Nay, there never were miracles better proved, as\nfar as human testimony could prove them, than the famous miracle\nmentioned by Gibbon in his History of the Roman Empire, where\nhe relates the story of the Arian Vandals cutting out the tongues of\na great number of orthodox Athanasians, who, strange to tell,\npreached as much to the purpose, in favour of the Trinity, without\ntheir tongues, as they did with them! Never was there a miracle\nbetter authenticated by testimony than this. It is mentioned\nby all the Christian writers of that age. It is mentioned\nby two contemporary Roman historians, one of whom lived in\nConstantinople, and who says he looked into the mouths of some\nof these confessors, who had in fact their tongues cut out entirely\nby the roots; and it is recorded in the archives of the Eastern\nEmpire.\n\nIs not this testimony enough; and yet, is it sufficient to prove the\ndoctrine of the Trinity? Is it adequate to prove, that \"the ancient of\ndays\" became a little child; was born of a woman, suckled,\n*******, &c., &c.; and that \"He who liveth for ever and ever,\"\nwas whipped, was hanged, and died upon the cross, and was buried?\nCan this miracle, well attested as it is, prove for truths, such\nstrange, such shocking things as these?\n\nThe miracles of the Abbe Paris, too, are proved to be true, as far as\ntestimony can prove any thing of the kind. For they happened\nwithin a hundred years, were seen by many, and were sworn to\nbefore the magistrates; by some of the most respectable inhabitants\nof the city of Paris. How can men, who pretend to believe the\nmiracles of the New Testament upon such meagre evidence as they\nhave in their favour, consistently reject the miracles of the Abbe\nParis? attested by evidence recent, respectable, and so strong, that\nto this day, the juggle, and the means by which so many\nrespectable people were imposed upon, have never yet been\nthoroughly developed, and explained.\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XV.\n\nAPPLICATION OF THE TWO TESTS, SAID, IN\nDEUTERONOMY, TO HAVE BEEN GIVEN BY GOD, AS\nDISCRIMINATING A TRUE PROPHET FROM A FALSE ONE,\nTO THE CHARACTER AND ACTIONS OF JESUS.\n\nIn the 18th chapter of Deuteronomy God says,--\"The Prophet\nwhich shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not\ncommanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other\ngods, even that Prophet shall die. And if thou say in thine heart,\nhow shall we know (or distinguish,) the word which the Lord hath\nnot spoken?\" Here is the criterion. \"When a Prophet speaketh in\nthe name of the Lord, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass; that\nis the thing which the Lord hath not spoken. That Prophet hath\nspoken presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him.\"\n\nAgain, Deuteronomy 13, \"If there arise among you a Prophet, or a\ndreamer of dreams, and give you a sign or a wonder (i. e. a\nmiracle,) and the sign or wonder come to pass, whereof he spake\nunto thee saying, let us go after other gods, which thou hast not\nknown, and let us serve them: thou shalt not hearken unto the\nwords of that Prophet, or that dreamer of dreams; for the Lord\nyour God proveth (or tryeth) you, to know whether ye love the\nLord your God with all you heart, and with all your soul.\"\n\nAnd now Christian reader, I ask you what you think of miracles, or\n\"signs and wonders,\" as proof of a divine mission, to teach\ndoctrines novel and innovating, after such clear and unequivocal\nlanguage as this, from such high authority? I am sure, that if you\nare a sincere lover of truth, you must certainly abandon that ground\nas untenable. For, from these direc-tions, the Jews were\ncommanded these things#. 1. That the Prophet who presumes to\nspeak a word, as from God, which God hath not commanded him\nto speak, must be put to death. 2. That the test, or criterion by\nwhich they are to discern a false prophet from a true one, is this:\nnot his miracles, but the fulfillment of his words. If what he says\ncomes to pass, he is a true prophet; if the event foretold does not\ntake place, he has spoken presump-tuously, and must die the\ndeath. 3. \"If any man arise in Israel,\" and advise, or teach them to\nworship any other besides the Eternal; and in proof of the divinity\nof his mission promise a sign, or a wonder, and in fact does bring\nto pass the sign or wonder promised, he is nevertheless, not to be\nhearkened to; but to be put to death. And these criteria given by\nGod, or Moses, as the means whereby they might know a true\nProphet from a false one, most exquisitely prove his wisdom and\nforesight. For if he had not expressly excluded miracles, or \"signs\nand wonders,\" from being proof of the divinity of doctrines, the\nbarriers which divided his religion from those of idolaters, must\nhave been broken down; since, as we have seen, well attested\nmiracles (meaning always by miracles, \"signs and wonders,\"\nbrought to pass by human agency,) are related to have been\nperformed in proof of the divinity of every religion under Heaven.\nBut veritable prophecy is, and can he a proof proper only to a true\nRevelation, because none can know what is to come but God, and\nthose sent by him. Accordingly, we find that the Jewish Prophets\nwere not acknowledged as such, but on account of their foretelling\nthe truth, or being supposed to do so.\n\nThus, it is said, 1 Samuel iii. 20, \"And all Israel, from Dan even\nto Beersheba, knew, that Samuel was established to be a Prophet\nof the Lord.\" Why? Because he performed miracles? No! he\nperformed none. But he was known as a Prophet because \"the\nLord was with him, and let none of his words fall to the ground,\" i.\ne. fail of their accomplishment. The same, may be said of all the\nHebrew Prophets, from Nathan to Malachi. For though Elijah and\nElisha performed miracles, yet it was not in proof of their mission,\nfor that was established before; but these miracles were occasional\nacts of beneficence, or protection, but were never considered, or\noffered by them as proofs of their being sent from God.\n\nThese things being by this time, it is hoped, made plain and\nevident, let us now test the character of Jesus as a true Prophet, by\nthe criteria, by Christians, and by the Jews, believed to be given by\nGod. If his prophecies were fulfilled, and if he taught the worship\nof no other being besides the Eternal, he was, according to the Old\nTestament, a true Prophet. But if any of his prophecies were not\nfulfilled, or, if he taught the worship of any other Being besides the\nEternal, he was not a true Prophet.\n\nAnd here it must be recollected, that those prophecies of Jesus\nonly, can be brought forward in this question, which were\ncommitted to writing, before the event foretold came to pass; and\ntherefore all Jesus' prophecies concerning the manner and\ncircumstances of his death, &c., must be set aside, as all those\nevents are allowed to have taken place before any of the Gospels\nwere written; and of course it is not certain that Jesus did actually\nforetell them. This is acknowledged by Christians; and accordingly\nthey confine themselves to bringing forward as conclusive\nevidence in their favour, his Prophecy of the Destruction of\nJerusalem, and the events following. Here it is. Luke xxi. 21.\n\"When ye shall see Jerusalem com-passed with armies, then\nknow, that the desolation thereof is nigh. Then let them which are\nin Judea flee to the mountains, and let them which are in the midst\nof it, depart out, and let not them which are in the counter, enter\nthereinto. For these be the days of vengeance, that all things which\nare written may be fulfilled. But woe unto them that are with child,\nand to them which give suck in those days. For there shall be great\ndistress in the land, and wrath upon this people. And they shall fall\nby the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all\nnations, and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until\nthe times of the Gentiles be fulfilled. And there shall be signs in\nthe sun, and in the moon, and in the stars, and upon the earth\ndistress of nations with perplexity, the sea and waves roaring,\nman's hearts failing them for fear, and for looking after those\nthings which are coming on the earth: for the powers of the\nheavens shall be shaken. And then, shall they see the Son of Man\ncoming in a cloud, with power, and great glory. And when these\nthings begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads;\nfor your redemption draweth nigh. And he spake to them a parable,\nBehold the fig tree and all the trees. When they now shoot forth, ye\nsee, and know of your own selves, that summer is now nigh at\nhand. So likewise ye, when ye see these things come to pass, know\nye that the kingdom of God is nigh at hand. Verily I say unto you,\nthis generation shall not pass away till all be fulfilled. Heaven and\nearth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.\"\n\nSuch is the prophecy, and on it I would remark, first, that what\nJesus here foretells concerning Jerusalem did in fact come to pass.\nBut that was not a fulfillment of his prophecy, but of Daniel's, who\ndid, as is set down in the 7th chapter of this work, expressly\nforetell the utter destruction of the city and the temple. And it was\nfrom Daniel that Jesus obtained his know-ledge of the approach of\nthat event. For he expressly cites Daniel, Matthew xxiv. 15; Mark\nxiii. 14; and you will please to observe reader, that he refers to him\nin this quotation from Luke, in the words, \"these be the days of\nvengeance that all things which are written, may be fulfilled. So\nthat in foretelling the destruction of Jerusalem he did no more than\nany Jew of that age, who attentively read their Scriptures, could\nhave done, and. been no prophet either.\n\n2. It would have been better for his reputation as a Prophet, if he\nhad stopped short where Daniel stopped. For what he goes on to\nforetell has not been fulfilled. For he proceeds to say, that \"there\nshall be signs in the sun, and the moon, and the stars,\" &c. All this\nis taken from the 2nd chapter of Joel, who says that such things\nshall take place; not, however, at the destruction of Jerusalem, but\nin \"the latter days,\" at the time of the restoration of Israel. So that\nhere Jesus has been rather unlucky. For, in truth, there were no\nsigns in the sun, and the moon, and the stars, at that time; neither\nwas there upon earth any \"great distress of nations,\" except in\nJudea. Nor were \"the powers of heaven\" shaken. Certainly, they\ndid not see Jesus \"coming in the clouds of heaven, with power,\nand great glory;\" and most assuredly, that generation did pass\naway, and many others since, and \"all these things\" have not been\nfulfilled.\n\nI know very well, and have very often smiled over the contrivances\nby which learned Christians have endeavoured to save the credit of\nthis prophecy. They say that--it is a figurative prophecy relating\nentirely to the destruction of Jerusalem, which did in fact take\nplace in that generation; that the expressions about the \"distress of\nnations,\" and \"the sea and waves roaring,\" the \"signs in heaven,\"\n&c., are merely poetical; and that the shaking of the powers of\nheaven was merely the shaking and pulling-down the stones of the\ntemple, figuratively called heaven; and that the glorious coming of\nJesus \"in the clouds of heaven, with power, and great glory,\"\nmeant merely, that he sent Titus, and the Romans to destroy,\nJerusalem, or perhaps might have been an invisible spectator\nhimself.\n\nThe reader will easily see, that all this is nonsense. And the\nCommentator Grotius, after meddling a great while in this\ntroublesome business, at length ventures to insinuate, that God\nmight have suffered Jesus to be in a mistake about the time of his\nsecond coming, and to tell the Apostles what he did, for the sake of\nkeeping up their spirits!\n\nBut to annihilate the figurative hypothesis of these well-meaning\nCommentators at once, it will be only necessary to bring forward\nthe testimony following. 1. The other Evangelists make an express\ndistinction between the destruction of Jerusalem and the coming of\nJesus; and not only so, but represent him as saying, that after that\nevent, (i. e., the destruction of Jerusalem, \"in those days,\" i. e., in\nthe same era in which that event took place,) \"the son of man shall\ncome,\" &c. Witness for me, Mark, chapter xiii. 24:--\"But in those\ndays, after that tribulation, (i. e., the destruction of Jerusalem)\nshall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light,\nand the stars of heaven shall fall, and the powers that are in heaven\nshall be shaken. And then shall they see the son of man coming in\nthe clouds, with power and glory; and-then shall he send his\nangels, and shall gather his elect from the four winds, from the\nuttermost part of the earth, to the uttermost part of heaven Verily, I\nsay unto you, that this generation shall not pass, till all these things\nbe accomplished.\" This is decisive, and cannot be evaded.\n\n2. The Apostles and Primitive Christians believed that Jesus would\ncome in that generation, as is evident from many passages of the\nNew Testament. Paul's Epistles to the Thessalonians prove this,\nand contain an argument to them, intended to allay their terrors, or\ntheir impatience. John says in his first Epistle, chapter ii. 18,\n\"Little children, it is the last hour; and as ye have heard that\nAntichrist should come, even now (or already) there are many\nAntichrists, whereby know that it is the last hour.\" Many passages\nof similar import might be brought forward. The meaning of it is\nthis--It appears from Paul's 2nd Epistle to the Thessalonians, that\njust before the second coming of Jesus, there was a personage to\nappear who was to be called Antichrist, i. e., an enemy to the\nMessiah. (This notion they got from the interpretation given by the\nangel of the vision of the \"little horn\" in Daniel.) John, therefore,\nseeing many Antichrists, i. e., opposers of the pretensions of Jesus,\nconsidered the sign, and thus knew that it was ''the last hour,\" and\nthat his master was soon to appear.\n\nIt appears from the 2nd Epistle of Peter, chapter iii., that there\nwere many in his days who scoffed at his master, saying,\ncontemptuously, \"where is the promise of his coming?\" And Peter\nreplies by telling them that their contempt is misplaced, for that\n\"one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand\nyears as one day.\" John, in the 1st chapter of Revelations, says,\nconcerning the coming of Jesus, \"Behold he cometh with clouds,\nand every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him, and\nall kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him.\" And in the last\nchapter of Revelations he represents Jesus, as saying, \"Surely I\ncome quickly\"!\n\nIn short, the Apostles, when they wanted to encourage their\ndesponding proselytes, they usually did it with such words as\nthese,--\"Be anxious for nothing, the Lord is at hand.\"--\"Behold!\nthe Judge standeth before the day.\"--\"Be patient, therefore,\nbrethren, (says James) for the coming of the Lord cometh nigh.\"\nAnd this persuasion did not end, as might be expected, with that\ncentury; for we find that the heathens frequently laughed at the\nexpec-tations of the Primitive Christians, who, till the fourth\ncentury, never gave up the expectation of the impending advent of\ntheir master. Nay, so rooted was the idea in their minds, that,\nunderstanding the words of Jesus concerning John, \"if I will that\nhe tarry till I come, what is that to thee,\" to mean that that disciple\nshould not die, but survive till the glorious appearance of his lord,\nso far were they from being convinced of the vanity of their\nexpectations by that Apostle's actual decease, that they insisted,\nthat, though he was buried, he was not dead, but only slept, and\nthat the earth over his body rose and fell with the action of his\nbreathing!!\n\nIt is now hardly necessary to add, that Jesus did not at all answer\nthe character of a true prophet, when tested by the criterion laid\ndown in Deuteronomy for ascertaining the truth of the claims of a\nprophet to a divine mission.\n\nLet us now see, whether he taught the worship of other beings\nbeside the Eternal, for if he did, the other test laid down in\nDeuteronomy will also decide against him. Now, did he not\ncommand the worship of himself in these words, \"All men should\nhonour the Son, even as they honour the Father?\" This, certainly,\ncommands to render to Jesus the same homage which is rendered\nto God. I might prove that his disciples did worship him, by\nreferring to many passages in the New Testament, especially in the\nRevelations, in the latter part of which, Jesus is represented as\nsaying, \"I am the Alpha, and the Omega, the beginning, and the\nend, the first, and, the last,\" terms applied to the Eternal in Isaiah,\nwhere God says, (as if in express opposition to such doctrine) that\n\"there is no God with him: He knows not any; there was none\nbefore him, neither shall there be any after him.\" I could also\nadduce many passages relating to the Eternal of Hosts, quoted\nfrom the Old Testament, and applied in the New to Jesus. Witness\n\"the following:--John xii. 41, alludes to Isaiah vi. 5; Revelations\ni. 8,.11, 17, and ii. 8, to Isaiah xli. 4, xliii. 11, and xliv. 6; John\nxxi. 16, 17, and Revelations ii. 23, to 1st Kings viii. 39; John vii.\n9, Jeremiah xi. 20, and xvii. 20, Revelations xx. 12,. to Isaiah xl.\n10; and, to crown all, Jesus, in Revelations i. 13, 14,15, 16, 17, is\ndescribed in almost the same words as is the Supreme God; \"the\nAncient of Days\" in Daniel, 7th chapter; and were there not other\nproofs in abundance to this purpose, this resemblance alone would\ndecide me.\n\nI now leave it to the cool judgment of the reader, whether Jesus\nprophecied truly, or did, or did not, teach the duty of paying\nreligious homage to other beings besides God? and, if so, it is\nconsequent, according to the tests by Christians acknowledged to\nbe given by God himself in Deuteronomy, that if Jesus was not\nsent by, or from, him; for if he was--God's own words would be\ncontradicted by God's own deeds.\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XVI.\n\nEXAMINATION OF THE EVIDENCE, EXTERNAL AND\nINTERNAL, IN FAVOR OF THE CREDIBILITY OF THE\nGOSPEL HISTORY.\n\nIn the preceding chapters, I have taken the New Testament as I\nfound it, and have argued upon the supposition that Jesus and the\napostles really said, and reasoned, as has been stated. I will now\nendeavour to show, by an examination of the authenticity of the\nfour gospels, that it is not certain that they were really guilty of\nsuch mistakes as are related of them in those books.\n\n*The life and doctrines of Jesus, and his followers, are contained in\nthe pieces composing the volume called the New Testament. The\ngenuineness of the books, i. e., whether they were written by those\nto whom they are ascribed, must be judged of, from the external\ntestimony concerning them, and from internal marks in the books\nthemselves; for the miraculous acts therein, and therein only,\ncontained and related, cannot prove the truth and authenticity of\nthe books, because the authority and credibility of the books\nthemselves must be firmly established, before the miracles related\nin them can reasonably be admitted as real facts.\n\nNow, the external evidence in favour of these books, is the\ntestimony of those men called \"the fathers;\" and as the value of\ntestimony depends upon the character of the witnesses, it would be\nproper, first, to state as much as, can be learned of these men. As\ntime will not permit me to adduce all that might be said upon this\nsubject, I shall here only take upon me to assert, that they were\nmost credulous, superstitious, and weak men, and, what is worse,\nmade no scruple of falsifying, to support and favour what they\ncalled \"the cause of truth;\" for they were writers of apocryphal\nbooks, attributing them to the apostles, and, moreover, great\nmiracle-mongers, who vamped up stories of prodigies to delude\ntheir followers, and which they themselves knew to be false. I say,\nI take upon me to assert this; and to confirm and establish this\naccusation, I refer the reader to Dr. Middleton's \"Free Enquiry,\" a\nlearned Christian, who, therefore, had no interest to misrepresent\nthis matter; and he will there find these accusations amply verified,\nand traits of character proved upon them. By no means favourable\nto the credibility of their testimony.\n\nThe first of these Fathers whose testimony is usually adduced to\nprove the authenticity of the Gospels, is Papias, a Disciple of John.\nThe character given of him by Eusebius is, that \"he was a\nsuperstitious, and credulous man.\" And this is easily proved by\nrecording some of the stories, concerning Jesus, and his followers,\nwritten by this Papias in a book extant in the time of Eusebius. One\nof these stories is mentioned by Irenoeus, who says, that Papias\nhad it from John; who, according to Papias, said, that Jesus said,\nthat--\" The days shall come, in which there shall be vines, which\nshall severally have ten thousand branches; and every one of these\nbranches shall have ten thousand lesser branches; and every one of\nthese branches shall have ten thousand twigs; and every one of\nthese twigs shall have ten thousand clusters of grapes; and every\none of these grapes being pressed shall yield two hundred and\nseventy-five gallons of wine. And when a man shall take hold of\nany of these sacred bunches, another bunch shall cry out \"I am a\nbetter bunch, take me, and bless the Lord by me!\" There's a\nMunchausen for you, reader! Well! this Papias is the first witness\nwho lived after Matthew, who has spoken of his Gospel. He lived\nabout the year 116 after Jesus. And what does he say of it? Why\nthis. \"Matthew composed a writing of the Oracles (meaning\nwithout doubt the Doctrines of the Gospel,) in the Hebrew\nLanguage, and every one interpreted them as he was able.\" So far\nas this Testimony goes it is positive evidence, that the only Gospel\nof Matthew extant in 116, was extant in Hebrew; and there was\nthen no translation, of it, for \"every one interpreted as he was\nable.\" The present gospel called of Matthew was then not written\nby him, for it is in Greek. And that it has not at all the air of being\na translation is asserted by most of the learned. As it stands then, it\nwas not written by Matthew: and that it cannot be a translation of\nMatthew's Hebrew, is not only plain from the circumstance of its\nstyle, and other marks understood by Biblical Critics, but can also\nbe proved by another story related by this same Papias concerning\nthe manner of the death of Judas. \"His body, and head (says\nPapias) became so swollen, that at length he could not get through\na street in Jerusalem, where two chariots might pass abreast, and\nhaving fallen to the ground, he--burst asunder.\n\nNow though this ridiculous story is undoubtedly false, yet it is not\ncredible that Papias, who had so great a reverence for the Apostles\nas to collect and gather all \"their sayings,\" would so flatly by his\nstory of the death of Judas contradict the story of Matthew, if the\nHebrew Gospel of Matthew contained that part of the Greek\nGospel of Matthew which relates the manner of Judas' Death.\n\nJustin Martyr lived after Papias, in the middle of the second\ncentury; and though he relates many circumstances agreeing in the\nmain with those recorded in the Gospels, and appears to quote\nsayings of Jesus from some book or books; yet it is substantially\nacknowledged by Dr. Marsh, the learned annotator on Michaelis's\nIntroduction, that these quotations are so unlike the words, and\ncircumstances in the received Evangelists to which they appear to\ncorrespond, that one of two things must be true; either, that Justin,\nwho lived 140 years after Jesus, had never seen any of the present\nGospels; or else, that they were in his time in a very different state\nfrom what they now are.\n\nThe next Christian father who mentions the Gospel of Matthew is\nIrenoeus, who says also that \"Matthew wrote his gospel in the\nHebrew Language.\" The character of Irenoeus is discoverable\nfrom his work against the Heresies of his time, to that I refer the\nReader, who will find him to have been a zealous, though a very\ncredulous, and ignorant man; for he believed the story of Papias\njust quoted, and many others equally absurd. He however furnishes\nthis important intelligence, that in the second century, the Christian\nworld was overrun with heresy, and a swarm of apocryphal, and\nspurious Books were received by many as genuine.\n\nThe next witness in favour of the Gospel is Tertullian, who lived in\nthe latter end of the second century. And the soundness of his\nJudgment, and his capability to distinguish the genuine Gospels\nfrom among a hundred apocryphal ones, and above all his regard\nfor truth, may be judged of from these proofs given by himself. He\nasserts upon his own knowledge, \"I know it,\" says he--\"that the\ncorpse of a dead Christian, at the first breath of the prayer made by\nthe priest, on occasion of its own funeral, removed its hands from\nits sides, into the usual posture of a supplicant; and when the\nservice was ended, restored them again to their former situation.\"\n(Tertul. de anima c. 51.) And he relates as a fact, which he, and all\nthe orthodox of his time credited, that--\"the body of another\nChristian already interred moved itself to one side of the grave to\nmake room for another corpse which was going to be laid by it.\"\nAnd it is on the testimony of such men as these, that the\nauthenticity of the gospels entirely depends as to external\nevidence; for these are all the witnesses that can be produced as\nspeaking of them, who lived within two hundred years after Jesus:\nThree men, (for Justin cannot be reckoned as a witness in favour of\nthe gospels.) Three men, who are all of them evidently credulous,\nand two of whom are certainly *****.\n\nTo convince a thinking man that histories recording such very\nextraordinary, ill supported, improbable facts as are contained in\nthe gospels are divine, or even really written by the men to whom\nthey are ascribed, and are not either some of the many spurious\nproductions with which (as we learn from Irenoeus) that early age\nabounded, calculated to astonish the credulous, and superstitious,\nor else writings of authors who were themselves infected with the\ngrossest superstitious credulity; of what use can it be to adduce the\ntestimony of the very few writers, of the same, or next succeeding\nage, when the very reading of their works shews him that they\nthemselves were tainted with that same superstitious credulity, of\nwhich are accused the real authors of the New Testament?\n\nIt is an obvious rule in the admission of evidence in any cause\nwhatsoever, that the more important the matter to be determined\nby it is, the more unsullied and unexceptionable ought the\ncharacters of the witnesses to be. And when no court of Justice, in\ndetermining a question of fraud to the amount of six pence, will\nadmit the' testimony of witnesses who are themselves notoriously\nconvicted of the same offence of which the defendant is accused;\nhow can it be expected, that any reasonable, unprejudiced person,\nshould admit similar evidence to be of weight, in a case of the\ngreatest importance possible, not to himself only; but to the whole\nhuman race?\n\nBut there is still a greater defect in the testimony of those early\nwriters, than their superstitious credulity, I mean their disregard of\nhonour, and veracity, in whatever concerned the cause of their\nparticular system.\n\nThough Luke asserts, that many (even before he wrote his histories\nfor the use of Theophilus,) had written upon the same subject:\n(who of course must have been of the Jewish nation,) and many\nmore must have been written afterwards, whose writings must have\nbeen particularly valuable yet so singularly industrious have the\nfathers, and succeeding sons of the orthodox church been, in\ndestroying every writing upon the subject of Christianity, which\nthey could not by some means, or other, apply to the support of\ntheir own unholy superstition, that no work of importance of any\nChristian writer, within the three first centuries, hath been\npermitted to come down to us, except those books which they have\nthought fit to adopt, and transmit to us as the canon of apostolic\nscripture; and the works of a few other writers, who were all of\nthem, not only converts from Paganism, but men who had been\neducated and well instructed in the Philosophic Schools of the\nlatter Platonists, and Pythagoreans.\n\nThe established maxim of these schools was, that it was not lawful\nonly, but commendable to deceive, and assert falsehoods for the\nsake of promoting what they considered as the cause of truth and\npiety, and the effects of this maxim, which was fully acted upon by\nboth orthodox Christians, and heretics, produced a multiplicity of\nfalse, and spurious writings wherewith the second century\nabounded.\n\nNay, they did not spare from the operation of this maxim, the\nscriptures themselves. For they stuffed their copies of the\nSeptuagint with a number of interpolated pretended prophecies\nconcerning Jesus, and his death upon the cross; forgeries as weak,\nand contemptible, and clumsy in themselves, as they were impious\nand wicked. Whoever desires to see a number of them; may find\nthem in the dispute, or dialogue of Justin with Trypho the Jew;\nwhere he will see the simple Justin bringing them out passage after\npassage against the stubborn Israelite, who contents himself with\ncoolly answering, that these marvellous prophecies were not to be\nfound in his Hebrew bible!\n\nThere is also another well known, incontrovertible proof of the\ndeceit and falsehood of the leading Christians of early times, of\nwhich every person in the least conversant with the ecclesiastical\nhistory of those times must be convinced--their pretended power\nof working miracles! On this subject I shall say nothing, but refer\nthe reader to the work of Dr. Middleton already mentioned, for an\nample account of their lying wonders, which they imposed as\nmiraculous upon the simple people.\n\nWith regard to the internal evidence for the authenticity of the\nwritings; composing the New Testament, it is still less satisfactory\nthan the external evidence. And this may be well believed, when\nthe reader is informed that the great Semler, after spending his life\nin the study of ecclesiastical history; and antiquities, which he is\nallowed to have understood better than any before him, affirmed to\nhis astonished coreligionists, that, except the Gospel of John, and\nthe Apocalypse, the whole New Testament was a collection of\nforgeries written by the partizans of the Jewish and Gentile parties\nin the Christian church, and entitled apostolic, in order the better to\nanswer their purpose. This opinion has been in part adopted in\nEngland, by a learned and shrewd clergyman named Evanson, who\nhas almost demonstrated, that the Greek Gospel of Matthew was\nwritten in the second century after the birth of Jesus by a Gentile.\nFor he proves that it could not be written by a Jew, on account of\ngeographical mistakes, and manifest ignorance of Jewish customs.\nHe also gives good reasons for rejecting the authenticity of some\nof the epistles. In short, he has poured such a flood of light upon\nthe eyes of his terrified brethren, as will, ere long, no doubt enable\nthem to see a little clearer than heretofore.\n\nHe gives several instances of geographical blunders in Matthew. I\nshall mention only one. Matthew says, in the 2nd chapter, that\nwhen Joseph, the husband of Mary, returned from Egypt, \"hearing\nthat Archelaus reigned in Judea, he was afraid to go thither, and\ntherefore turned aside, into the parts of Galilee.\" Now this, as will\nappear from a map of Palestine, is just like saying, \"a man at\nPhiladelphia, intending to go to the State of New York, on his route\nheard something which made him afraid to go thither, and\ntherefore he turned aside--into Boston!\"\n\nThat the author of that Gospel was ignorant of Jewish customs will\nbe evident from the following circumstances. He says Jesus told\nPeter, that before the cock crew he would deny him thrice; and that\nafterwards, when Peter was cursing and swearing, saying \"I know\nnot the man! immediately the cock crew.\" Now it is unfortunate\nfor the credit of this story, that it is well known, that in conformity\nwith Jewish customs, at that time subsisting, no cocks were\nallowed to be in Jerusalem, where Jesus was apprehended. This is\nknown, and acknowledged by learned Christians, who have\nextricated themselves from this difficulty, by proving that the\ncrowing of the cock, here mentioned, does not mean, as it appears\nto mean, absolutely the crowing of a cock, but that it means--what\ndost thou think reader? why it means---the sound of a trumpet!!*\n\nAccording to Luke, as soon as Jesus was dead, Joseph of\nArimathea went to Pilate, and begged his body, and hasted to bury\nit, because the Sabbath (which began at sunset,) drew on; that his\nfemale disciples attended the burial; observed how the body was\nplaced in the sepulchre, and returned and prepared spices and\nointments to embalm it with, before the Sabbath commenced; and\nthen rested the Sabbath day, according to the commandment.\n\nThe pretended Matthew, however, tells us, that \"when the even\nwas come (i. e., when the Sabbath day was actually begun,) Joseph\nwent to beg the body--took it down, wrapped it in linen, and\nburied it; and that Mary Magdalene and the other Mary, were\nsitting over against the sepulchre. From the time that this writer has\nthought fit to allot for the burial of Jesus, it is evident, that he was\nnot only no Jew, but so ignorant of the customs of the Jews, that\nhe did not know that their day always began with the evening, or\nhe would never have employed, Joseph in doing what no Jew\nwould, nor dared to have done, after the commencement of the\nSabbath. He takes no notice at all of the preparation made by the\nwomen, mentioned by Luke; for that would not have agreed with\nthe sequel of his story. But to make up for that omission, he\ninforms us of a circumstance not mentioned at all by the other\nEvangelists. For he tells us that \"on the next day which followeth\nthe day of preparation, the Chief Priests, and Pharisees came\ntogether unto Pilate,\" &c. \"The next day which followeth the day\nof preparation!!\"--such is the periphrasis that he uses for the\nSabbath day! It is well known that among the Jews it was, and is,\ncustomary to prepare, and set out, in the afternoon of the Friday,\nall the food and necessaries for every family during the Sabbath\nday. Because they were forbidden to light a fire, or do any servile\nwork, on that day; and therefore Friday was very properly called\n\"the day of preparation.\" But it appears to me next to impossible,\nthat any Jew would call the sabbath \"the day that followeth the day\nof the preparation.\" Yet this singular historian so denominates it,\nand moreover, goes on to inform us, that the chief priests, and\nPharisees went to Pilate to ask for a guard to place round the\nsepulchre, till the third day, to prevent his disciples from stealing\naway his body, and then saying, that he was risen from the dead;\nand that after obtaining the governor's permission, \"they, went,\nand secured the sepulchre by sealing the stone that was rolled\nagainst it; and setting a watch.\" Though there appears nothing very\nstrange in this account to a Christian, yet, I assure my reader, that\nto the Jews, it ever did, and must appear utterly incredible. For it is\nwonderful! that the Jewish rulers, and the rigorous Pharisees\nshould in so public a manner thus violate the precept for observing\nthe Sabbath day; for the penalty of this action of theirs was no less\nthan death! More wonderful still is it that they should have so\nmuch better attended to, and comprehended the meaning of the\nprediction of Jesus to his disciples, than his own disciples did; and\nmost wonderful of all, that a Roman Proconsul should consent to\nlet his troops keep watch round a tomb, for fear it should be\nthought that a dead man was come to life again.\n\nBut though our author's history of these extraordinary facts is\nneither consistent with reason, and probability, nor with the other\nhistories of the same event; it proceeds in pretty strict conformity\nto the manner in which it sets out. For to convince us still more\nfully that the author was totally ignorant of the mode of computing\ntime in use among the Jews, and habituated to that in use among\nthe Greeks and Romans? He reckons the Sabbath to last till day\nlight on Sunday morn, and says, (chapter xxviii.), \"that in the end\nof the Sabbath, as it began to dawn, towards the first day of the\nweek,\" the two Marys before mentioned, came, (not as in Luke, to\nembalm the body, for, with a guard round the sepulchre, that would\nhave been impracticable, but) to see the sepulchre. \"Whilst they\nwere there, the author tells us, there was another great earthquake,\nand an angel descended, rolled away the stone, and sat upon it, at\nwhose sight, the soldiers trembled, and were frighted to death. But\nto prevent the like effect of his appearance upon the women, he\nsaid unto them, fear not ye, for I know that ye seek Jesus who was\ncrucified. That the women as well as the soldiers were present at\nthe descent of this angel, appears not only from there being nobody\nelse, by whom these uncommon circumstances could have been\nrelated, but also by the pronoun personal ye, inserted in the original\nGreek, which in that language is never done, unless it be\nemphatically to mark such a distinction, or antithesis, as there was\non this occasion, between them and the Roman guard. Here,\nhowever, the author is inadvertently inconsistent with himself, as\nwell as with the other evangelists; and forgetting that the sole\nintent of rolling away the stone, was to open a passage, absolutely\nnecessary to the body of Jesus to come forth out of the sepulchre;\nand that if he had risen and come forth after the angel had rolled it\naway, both the women and the soldiers must have seen him rise, he\nmakes the angel bid them look into the sepulchre, to see--that he\nwas not there! and tell them that he was already risen; and that he\nwas gone before them into Galilee, where they should see him! In\ntheir way, the author adds, Jesus himself met the women, and said,\n\"be not afraid, go tell my brethren to go into Galilee, and there\nshall they see me.\" He says that the eleven apostles went\ninto Galilee, to an appointed mountain, and saw him there;\nnotwithstanding that some of them were so incredulous, as not\nto believe even the testimony of their own senses.\n\nIn the interim, whilst the women were going to the apostles, the\nauthor tells us, \"some of the watch;\" some strictly disciplined\nRoman soldiers left their station to bring an account of what had\npassed, not to the Governor their General, nor to any of their own\nofficers--but to the chief priests of the Jews! that they assembled a\ncouncil of the elders upon the occasion, and after deliberating what\nwas to be done, induced the soldiers, by large bribes, to run the risk\nof being put to death themselves, upon the highly improbable\nchance of the Jewish rulers having influence sufficient with the\nRoman Proconsul to prevail on him to submit to the indelible\ninfamy of neglecting the discipline of the army under his\ncommand, to such a degree, as to suffer an entire guard of soldiers\navowedly to sleep upon their station, without any notice being\ntaken of it! and to say \"his disciples came and stole him away\nwhilst we slept.\" This incredible story is another instance how\nnecessary it is, that those who do not adhere closely to the truth,\nshould have extraordinary good memories to enable them to keep\nclear of absurdities, or palpable contradictions in their narrations.\nFor, consider the circumstances. How were the tongues of these\nsoldiers to be restrained among the inquisitive inhabitants of a\nlarge city, (at that time too, greatly crowded on account of the\npaschal feast,) not only in their way to the chief priests; but also\nduring the whole time while the priests assembled the Sanhedrim,\nand were deliberating what was to be done? And if that part of the\nwatch, who, the author says, came to inform the chief priests, were\npoltroons enough for the sake of a bribe to undergo so shameful a\ndisgrace to themselves, as well as to hazard the resentment of their\nGeneral, how could they undertake that all their comrades who\nremained at the sepulchre would do the same? and to what\npurpose could the Jewish council bribe some, without a possibility\nof some one knowing how the rest of the corps would act? And\neven supposing all these difficulties surmounted, and that the\nwhole guard had agreed, and persisted in saying, \"his disciples\nstole him away while we slept,\" of what service could that be to\nthe Jewish rulers? For if the guards were asleep, they could be no\nevidence to prove that the body was taken away; and it might be\njust as probable that he might rise to life again while the watch was\nasleep, as it was if no watch had been set.\n\nIn a word, it appears from the numbers of Latin words in Greek\ncharacters, which this book contains; from the numerous\ngeographical blunders; and the author's evident ignorance of the\ncustoms of the Jews: from the form of Baptism enjoined at the\nconclusion, which was not in use in the first century, as appears\nfrom the form mentioned as then used in the Acts; from the Roman\nCenturion's being made to call Jesus \"a Son of a God,\" which\nwords in the mouth of a Pagan could only mean that he must be a\nDemigod, like Bacchus, Hercules, or Esculapius: it is clear that this\nGospel is the patched work composition of some convert from the\nPagan schools. At any rate, his gospel flatly contradicts the others\nin several important particulars in the history of the Resurrection.\nFor he represents the apostles as being commanded by the Angel\nand by Jesus, to go to Galilee, in order to see him; and that they\nwent there, and saw him on a mountain. Yet it is said by the other\nEvangelists, see Luke, ch. 24, and Acts 1, that he appeared on the\nsaw day of the resurrection to Peter at Jerusalem; to two other\ndisciples as they went to Emmaus; and on the succeeding night to\nthis whole congregation of the Disciples, not in Galilee, but in\nJerusalem, and that by his express command the apostles did not\ngo into Galilee, but remained at Jerusalem till the feast of\nPentecost.\n\nBut as this author differs from the other Evangelists, so they also\ndiffer among themselves. And the latter part of the last chapter of\nMark is so irreconcilable to the other historians of the resurrection,\nthat in many Manuscripts it is found omitted. And that gospel ends\nin them, at the eighth Terse of the last chapter. And Mr. West, in\nhis attempted reconciliation of their accounts of the resurrection, is\nobliged to make a number of postulates, to take a number of things\nfor granted, which might be denied: and after elaborately arranging\nthe stage for the performance, he sets the women, and the disciples\na driving backwards, and forwards, from the city to the sepulchre,\nand from the sepulchre to the city, and so agitated that they\nforgot to know each other when they cross in their journeys.\nNotwithstanding his great ingenuity in reconciling contradictions,\nin which he beats Surenhusius himself, he makes but a sorry piece\nof work of it after all. He had much letter have let it alone; for his\nwork upon the resurrection which he calls \"the main fact of\nChristianity,\" displays these contradictions in so glaring a light,\nthat the very laboured ingenuity of his methods of reconciliation,\ninevitably, suggests \"confirmation strong\" to the keen-eyed\nreader, of that irreconcilability which the author endeavors to\nrefute. What rational man therefore can reasonably be required to\nbelieve the story of a resurrection pretended to have been seen and\nknown, only by the party interested in making it believed! when in\ntheir testimony even, they do not agree but contradict each other?\n\nThere is really an immense number of discrepancies and\ncontradiction in the New Testament which the acumen of learned\nChristians has of late discovered, and pointed out to the world.\nAnd Mr. Evanson, in his work on \"the Dissonance of the four\nEvangelists,\" has collected a mass enough, I should think, to terrify\nthe most determined Reconciliator that ever lived. It is a little\nremarkable, that Mr. Evanson has asserted, and has proved, the\nspuriosness of the Gospel ascribed to John, which Semler spared,\nin the general wreck which he made of the authenticity of the\nother books of the New Testament. Mr. Evanson says, in his\nexamination of it, what has been said before, that the speeches\nascribed to Jesus in it, are most incoherent, contradictory, and\nfalsified by well known facts. And indeed the author of the book\nitself, sterns to be sensible of this; for he very naturally represents\nthe Jews repeatedly accusing Jesus of being mad. \"He hath a\ndevil, and is mad, (say they to the multitude) why hear ye him?\"\nand so in other places. Mr. Evanson considers this work as the\ncomposition of a converted Platonist or of a\" Platonizing Jew; the\nlatter we think to be the most correct opinion; since it is evident\nthat the author of that gospel had the works of Philo at his fingers'\nends, which is more than can be supposed of John. As Semler\nexcepted the Gospel of John only, so Mr. Evanson excepts the\nGospel of Luke only from the charge of spuriousness: though he\nsays that it is grossly corrupted, and interpolated. From these\ncorruptions and interpolations, he endeavours to purify it; in which\nattempt wo think he has had very indifferent success. In short, his\nwork has proved, (what he did not himself contemplate) that the\nprovidence of the God of truth has taken care, that so many\nabsurdities and contradictions, should be contained in these books\nof the New Testament which were written to establish a mistake, as\nmust I conceive, satisfy any man, who has them once pointed out\nto him, that the doctrine of those books is not, and cannot be from\nGod.\n\nBut it may be still asked, \"how did this notion of the resurrection\nof Jesus become current?\" \"How can you account for the apostles\nbelieving such a thing?\" We answer sincerely--we cannot\nabsolutely ascertain. The Jews of that age have left no documents\nupon this business. The origin of the Christian religion is so\nextremely obscure, that Josephus takes no notice of it at all, (for\nthe passage relating to Christian affairs now found in Josephus are\nnotorious interpolations.) And it is evident from the Chronological,\nand other mistakes about Jesus, in the Talmud, that the curiosity of\nthe learned Jews had never been interested by Christianity, till so\nlong after Jesus, that the memory of him, and his, was almost\nentirely lost among that nation. And it appears from the last\nchapter of the Acts, that when Paul was received by the Jews at\nRome, he had not been considered by the Jews of Jerusalem as of\nsufficient importance, as to cause them to warn their brethren of\nthe Dispersion concerning him; for these Jews tell Paul, on his\nenquiring, that they had not received any letters concerning him\nfrom Jerusalem. So that we can offer nothing but conjecture, to\nsolve the difficulty.\n\nIt has been said by some, (and it is by no means an hypothesis\ndestitute of plausibility) that Jesus was indeed crucified, but did\nnot actually die on the cross. It is evident that Pilate was extremely\ndesirous to save his life; and is it impossible that the Roman\nsoldiers, who crucified him, had secret orders? Consider the\nciscumstances. He was crucified at our nine in the morning, and\nwas taken from the cross at about three in the afternoon. Now,\ncrucifixion is not a death which kills men in six hours, and men\nhave been known to have lived fastened to the cross for more than\ntwo days. Consider, besides, that when the soldiers gave the coup\nde grace to the two robbers, that they did not break the legs of\nJews. This, the author of the Gospel according to John says, they\ndid, in order to fulfill a prophecy; but I leave it to my reader,\nwhether it is not more likely that they did so in order to fulfill\nsecret orders? But to make up for that omission, the author adds,\nthat they pierced Jesus with a spear. Now, besides that this is not\nmentioned by the other Evangelists, the very manner in which this\ncircumstance is mentioned, and eagerly affirmed by him, looks as\nif the author was aware of the likelihood of a suspicion of the fact\nwe are trying to prove probable, and that he wrote this in order to\nobviate it. And after all, the gospel according to John was certainly\nnot written by him, and, therefore, what the author of it observes,\nmay be true, or not. You will observe also, reader, that the body of\nJesus was given by Pilate to his friends immediately; a favour\nnever vouchsafed by the Romans in such a case, except \"speciali\ngratia.\" You will observe also, that the body was taken down by\nhis friends, no doubt with great care; probably was washed from\nthe blood, and rubbed perfectly dry; and was deposited in the cave\nor sepulchre, with a large quantity of spices, and aromatics. Now\nsuppose that Jesus only swooned on the cross, and that his naked\nbody, after being cleansed as aforesaid, was laid in the new\nsepulchre where the air was cool and fresh, wrapped in a\nconsiderable quantity of dry linen, together with many spices, and\naromatics, what could be more opportune, or proper, to stimulate\nhis drowsed senses, and recall the unfortunate sufferer to life?\nSuppose then, that on awaking from his trance, he disengaged\nhimself, and took himself away as secretly as possible, might not\nall this have happened? Is it impossible? And does it not look\nplausible? It is not improbable that he might after this have\nshewed himself privately to his particular disciples; for you will\nrecollect, reader, that the appearances of Jesus to his disciples after\nhis crucifixion were to them, only, and for the most part in the\nnight. And it is by no means impossible, that the twelve apostles,\nwho were, I doubt not, well meaning men, though extremely\nsimple and credulous; I say it is thus by no means impossible, that\nthey might have believed sincerely, that their master had risen\nfrom the dead. This hypothesis must not be considered only as the\nbrain work of an unbelieving sceptic; for it has been (in its main\nprinciple) advanced, and elaborately defended by Dr. Paulus the\nprofessor of divinity in the principal University in Bavaria.\n\nIt is true, that it may be said, that this is all hypothesis, and mere\nconjecture. We allow it; it is true; and we assert that the account\ngiven by the Evangelists is no better, nay, worse than conjecture,\nas it is a mere forgery of the second century! For no man, we think,\nwho knows all that has been made known by biblical critics, in\nlater years, will now seriously contend for the literal truth of that\naccount. [See Appendix A.]\n\nIf all this will not satisfy the man that \"believeth all things,\" our\nlast resource is to demy the act of this resurrection. And this we\ncan do with perfect sang froid, as we know very well that it cannot\nbe proved; for the only testimony in favour of it, are the four\nevangelists; four witnesses, the like of whose written testimony,\nwith reference thereto, (being as contradic-tory as that is,) to say\nno more, certainly would not, we believe, be received in a modern\ncourt of justice, to settle the fact about a debt of five dollars. And if\nit be still urged, that such a story is unparalleled, and therefore\nrespectable; we say that it is not unparalleled; as we have an\naccount of a false Messiah, who applied the prophecies to himself,\nhad a forerunner, and more than two hundred thousand followers,\nwho publicly acknowledged him for the Messiah, raised\ncontributions, and supported him magnificently. He too, quoted the\nprophets as speaking concerning him, and was said to have worked\ndivers miracles, and was ultimately put to death by the order of the\nGrand Seignor at Constantinople; yet nevertheless was said to have\nbeen, seen again by certain of his followers, who wrote books in\nfavour of that fact, and of his Messiahship. Many learned Rabbins\nenrolled themselves as his disciples, and wrote controversial works\nin his cause, as Paul did. And to conclude, his party was not\nentirely extinct within a very few years. Yet, notwithstanding all\nthis, he was an impostor; and no man now believes the stories of\nhis miracles, or his resurrection; notwithstanding that both are\naffirmed by more recent, more learned, and more respectable\ntestimony than is, or can be, offered, in favour of the Messiahship\nof Jesus. The name of this famous impostor was Shabathai Tzevi,\nand his history is given by Basnage, in his history of the Jews, [and\nby other writers of Jewish history. See on this subject the Sepher\nTorath Hakenaoth, page 2. The learned Mr. Zedner has extracted\nthe life of Shabetai Tsebi from tins book, and published it, with a\nGerman translation, in his Auswahl historischer Stucke aus\nHebraischen Schriftstellern, Berlin, 1840.--D.]\n\nI wish the Christian reader to peruse carefully, and cooly, that\naccount; and if he then persists in believing the history given by\nthe evangelists; with such faith as his, he certainly ought to be able\nto move mountains; and I have no doubt at all, that with such a\ngood natured understanding as his, if he had found in his New\nTestament the story of Jonah misquoted, and and by a small\ntransposition a la mode de Surenhusius, representing that \"Jonah\nswallowed the whale!\" this sturdy \"confidence in things not seen,\"\nwould, I doubt not have enabled him without difficulty to swallow\nthe prophet with the whale in his belly.\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XVII.\n\nOF THE PECULIAR MORALITY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT,\nAS IT AFFECTS INDIVIDUALS.\n\nI have already expressed my respect for the character of Jesus. And\nI again declare, that I request it may be distinctly understood, that\nby nothing that I have said do I intend to impeach, or to deprecate\nhis moral character. Whatever may have been his defects, or\nwhatever were his foibles, they must have been the faults of his\nmind, not of his heart. For, though he may hare been a mistaken\nenthusiast; yet I do firmly believe, That, with such a character as\nhe is represented to have possessed, he could not have been either\na hypocrite, or a wilful impostor. And if it be replied, that I have,\nby some observations on his conduct, indirectly impeached the\nperfection of his moral character; I answer, that if so, it is certainly\nmy misfortune, but it may not be his fault. To explain this\nobservation, I request the reader to recall to mind, that Jesus wrote\nnothing himself! that the only accounts we have of him, are\ncontained in books, probably apocryphal, certainly not generally\nknown till after the middle of the second-century from his birth.\nThe gospels now extant do not appear to have been known to\nJustin Martyr; and the earliest fathers, in their writings, generally\nquote traditions concernng Jesus, instead of histories. Since these\nthings are so, who knows, but that the authors of the histories of\nhim now extant, have attributed to him words and actions of which\nhe was guiltless. We know how prone mankind are to invent\nfalsehoods concerning eminent men; for instance, Mahomet\nexpressly disclaimed the power of working miracles, and yet the\nwritings of his early followers ascribe hundreds to him. Why may\nit not be possible then, since Jesus wrote nothing himself, that\nthese books ascribe to him words and actions he neither spake nor\nperformed? God grant that this may one day be proved! For I\nshould rejoice to find the meek, gentle, and amiable man of\nNazareth proved guiltless of the follies and impieties attributed to\nhim in the New Testament as I find it, and to reason concerning the\nworks and words of Jesus, as I find them there expressed, yet I\nwould earnestly request the reader to consider me willing and\ndesirous to exempt the author, or rather the cause of the Christian\nreligion, from the reproach of the sentiments I am bound by my\nregard for one God, and his attributes, to express for the system\nitself. Yes! I can in my own mind separate Jesus from his religion\nand his followers. I read with admiration many of his beautiful\nparables. I shall ever contemplate his mildness, and benevolence\nwith respect; and I peruse, with pity, the recital of his sufferings,\nand cruel death. All this I have done, and I believe I shall ever do;\nbut I cannot! I cannot, in effect, deny the one living and true God,\nand renounce my reason, and common sense, by believing all the\ncontradictory and strange doctrines contained in the New\nTestament.\n\nHaving unburthened my mind upon this subject, and frankly\nexpressed my sentiments and feelings with regard to the character\nof Jesus; I hope I may now be allowed (without incurring the\ncharge of maliciously exposing him, or the twelve apostles, to\nreproach) to state my opinions with regard to the merit of the\nmoral maxims, ascribed to him and them, in the New Testament.\nAnd I again caution the reader, that he is not obliged to lay to his,\nor their, charge, the mischievous consequences that originated\nfrom acting upon these maxims and principles, since it is by no\nmeans impossible that they may have been falsely ascribed to him\nand to them.\n\nNow then, let us attend to the subject of the chapter, viz., the moral\nmaxims ascribed to Jesus. These moral maxims consist of 1st,\nThose which were adopted by him from the Old Testament. 2d,\nThose of which he himself is described as the author. With the\nconsideration of those of the first class I shall not trouble the\nreader, but shall devote this chapter to the examination of those\nwhich are supposed to have originated from him. These are, 1st, '\nDo to others what you would that others should do to you.' 2d, '\nResist not the injurious person; but if a man smite thee on one\ncheek, turn to him the other also.' 3d, If a man ask thy cloak, give\nhim thy coat also.' 4th, ' If thou wouldest be perfect, sell all that\nthou hast, and give to the poor; and come follow me.' 5th, ' Unless\na man hate his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and\npossessions, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.'\n6th, ' Take no thought for the morrow.'\n\nWith regard to the first of these maxims, it does not belong to\nJesus, as the author. It is found in the book of Tobit, chapter iv.\n15, and it was a maxim well known to the Rabbins. It is found in\nthe Talmud verbatim. \"What thou wouldest not have done to thee,\ndo not thou to another.\" (Tal. Bab. Schabbat. fol. 31.) So also\nHillel addressed a proselyte thus, \"What is hateful to thee, do not\nthou to thy neighbour.\" Several other expressions of Jesus were, it\nappears from the Talmud, proverbial expressions in use among the\nJews. For instance, the original of that saying recorded Matthew\nvii. 2. \"With whatsoever measure ye mete,\" &c., is found in the\nTalmud of Babylon (Sanhedrim fol. 100, Sotah, chapter 4, 7, 8,9.)\n\"With whatsoever measure any one metes it shall be measured to\nhim. So also the original of that expression of \"Cast out the beam\nout of thine own eye, and then thou shalt see clearly to cast the\nmote out of thy brother's eye is to be found in the Talmud*.\n\nWhat is called by Christians \"the Lord's Prayer,\" is merely a few\nclauses taken from Jewish prayers, and put together. Very many\ninstances of a similar nature to these might be produced; but, as I\nmust be brief, the reader is referred for further satisfaction to the\nworks of Lightfoot, where he will learn, by extracts from Jewish\nwritings, the source, and meaning of many more of the sayings of\nJesus.\n\nI now proceed to the most disagreeable part of the subject, viz.:\nThe consideration of the other maxims mentioned, which, it must\nbe allowed, do belong to Jesus, or at least to the New Testament,\nsince they are the peculiar moral principles of Christianity, and the\nhonour of them can be challenged by, I believe, no other religion.\n\nThese precepts are so extremely hyperbolical, that they are not,\nand cannot be perfectly observed by any Christian, who does not\ndetach himself completely from the business of society; and these\nmaxims, (which, as I said before, are the only parts of the morality\nof the New Testament, which are not borrowed,) never have been\nobeyed by any but the primitive Christians; and by the Monks, and\nAnchorets; for even the Quakers and Shakers, eminent as they are\nin Christian morality, have never been able to come quite up to the\nself denial required by the New Testament.\n\nIndeed, the moral maxims peculiar to Christianity are\nimpracticable, except by one who confines his wealth to the\npossession of a suit of clothes, sad wooden platter, and who lives\nin a cave, or a monastery. They bear the stamp of enthusiasm upon\ntheir very front, and we have always seen, and ever shall see, that\nthey are not fit for man: that they lift him out of the sphere in\nwhich God designed him to move; that they are useless to society,\nand frequently produce the most dangerous consequences to it. In a\nword, in these maxims we find commands, the fulfillment of\nwhich, is impossible by any man who is a husband, a father, or a\ncitizen.\n\nIt is an outrage to human nature, and to common sense, to order a\nvirtuous man, in order to reach perfection, to strip himself of his\nproperty; to offer the other cheek to receive a new outrage; not to\nresist the most unjust violence, injury, and insult; not to defend\nhimself, or his property, when \"sued at the law;\" to quit his house\nand goods, and to hate his parents, and brethren, and wife, and\nchildren, for the sake of Jesus; to refuse and reject innocent\npleasures; to deny himself lawful enjoyments, appointed by the\nCreator to make the existence of man a blessing to himself and\nothers.\n\nWho does not see in these commands the language of enthusiasm\nof hyperbole? These maxims! are they not directly fitted to\ndiscourage, and debase a man? to degrade him in his own eyes, and\nthose of others? to plunge him into despair? And would not the\nliteral fulfillment of them prove destructive to society? What shall\nwe say of that morality which orders the heart to detach itself from\nobjects, which God, and reason, and nature order it to love? To\nrefuse to enjoy innocent and lawful happiness,--what is it but to\ndespise the benefits of God? What real good can result for society\nfrom these melancholy virtues, which Christianity regards as\nperfections? Will a man become more useful to society when his\nmind is perpetually inquieted by imaginary terrors, by mournful\nthoughts, which prevent him from fulfilling the duties he owes to\nhis family, his country and those with whom he is connected?\n\nIt may be safely said, that enthusiasm is the base of the morality of\nChristianity; I say, the morality of Christianity, meaning thereby,\nnot the morality of those called Christians, but the morality\nexpressed, and required in the New Testament. The virtues it\nrecommends, are the virtues caricatured, and rendered extravagant;\nvirtues which divide a man from his neighbour, and plunge him in\nmelancholy, and render him useless, and unhappy In this world we\nwant human virtues, not those which make a man a misanthrope.\nSociety desires, and wants virtues that help to maintain it, which\ngives it energy and activity. It wants virtues which render families\nindustrious, and united; and which incite, and enable every one to\nobtain lawful pleasures, and to augment the general felicity. But\nthe peculiar virtues of the New Testament, either debase the mind\nby overwhelming fears, or intoxicate it with visionary hopes, both\nwhich, are equally fitted to turn away men from their proper duties.\n\nIn truth, what advantages can society derive from those virtues\nstyled by Christians, Evangelical? which they prefer to the social\nvirtues, the real and the useful, and without which, they assert, a\nman cannot please God, Let us examine these vaunted perfections,\nand let us see of what utility they can be to society, and whether\nthey really merit the preference which is given them by their\nadvocates.\n\nThe first of these Christian virtues, which serves as a base for all\nthe others, is faith. It consists in believing the truth of dogmas, of\nabsurd fables, which Christianity (according to the catechisms)\norders its disciples to believe--dogmas, as absurd and impossible\nas a square circle, or a round triangle--from which we see, that\nthis virtue exacts an entire renunciation of common sense; an\nassent to incredible facts, and a blind credulity in absurd dogmas,\nwhich, yet, every Christian is required to believe, under pain of\ndamnation.\n\nThis virtue, too, though necessary to all men, is, nevertheless, the\ngift of heaven! the effect of special grace. It forbids doubt and\nexamination; it \"forbids a man the right to exercise his reason; it\ndeprives him of the liberty of thinking, and degrades him into a\nbearded baby.\n\nThis faith vanishes when a man reasons; this virtue cannot sustain\na tranquil scrutiny. And this is the reason why all thorough going\nChristians are naturally, and, consequently, the enemies of science.\nThis miraculous faith, which \"believeth all things,\" is not given to\npersons enlightened by science and reflection, and accustomed to\nthink. It is not given but to those who are afraid to think, lest they\nshould offend God.\n\nThe next Christian virtue which flows from the first, is hope,\nfounded upon the promises which the New Testament makes to\nthose who render themselves miserable in this life. It nourishes\ntheir enthusiasm, it makes them \"forget the things that are on earth,\nand reach forward unto the things\" which are in another world. It\nrenders them useless here below, and makes them firmly believe\nthat God will recompense in heaven, the pains they have taken to\nmake themselves miserable on earth. How can a man, occupied\nwith such expectations of heavenly happiness, concern himself at\nall with, or for, the actual and present happiness of those around\nhim, while he is indifferent as to his own? And how can he help\nthis, when he believes that \"friendship with the world is enmity\nwith God?\"\n\nThe third virtue is charity. We have elsewhere said, that if\nuniversal love or charity means only general benevolence, and a\ndesire to makes others happy, and to do them good, all this is\ncommanded by reason and the ancient revelation; but if by this\nprecept it is commanded to love those who hate, oppress or insult\nus, we do not at all scruple to assert, that the thing is impossible,\nand unnatural. For, though we can abstain from hurting our\nenemy; or even can do him good, we cannot really love him. Love\nis a movement of the heart, which is governed and directed by the\nlaws of our nature, to those whom we think worthy of it, and to\nthose only.\n\nCharity, considered as general benevolence of disposition, is\nvirtuous and necessary. It is nothing more than a feeling which\ninterests us in favour of our fellow beings. But how is this feeling\nconsistent with the peculiar doctrines of the gospel? According to\nits maxims, it is a crime to offer God a heart, whoso affections are\nshared by terrestrial objects. And besides, does not experience\nshow, that devotees obliged by principle to hate themselves, are\nlittle disposed to give better treatment to others?\n\nWe should not be surprised that maxims, originating with\nenthusiasm, should aim at, and have the effect of, driving man out\nof himself. In the delirium of its enthusiasm, this religion forbids a\nman to love himself. It commands him to hate all pleasures but\nthose of religion, and to cherish a long face. It attributes to him as\nmeritorious, all the voluntary evils he inflicts upon himself. From\nthence originate those austerites, those penances, destructive to\nhealth; those cruel privations by which the inhabitants of the\nmonastic cell kill themselves by inches, in order to merit the joys\nof heaven. Now, how can good sense admit that God delights in\nseeing his creatures torment themselves?\n\nIt may be said to all this, perhaps, that this is mere declamation, for\nChristians now a days do not torment themselves, but live as\ncomfortable as others. To this I answer that Christianity is to be\njudged not by what Christians do, but by what it commands them\nto do. Now, I presume it will not be denied that the New Testament\ncommands its professors to renounce the world, to be dead to the\nworld, to \"crucify the flesh with its passions, and desires.\"\nCertainly these directions were literally complied with by the\nprimitive Christians; and, in doing so, they acted consistently. In\nthose times, the deserts, the mountains, the forests were peopled\nwith perfect Christians; who withdrew from the world, deprived\ntheir families of support, and their country of citizens, in order to\nlead unmolested \"the divine life.\" It was the New Testament\nmorality that spawned those legions of monks and cenobites, who\nthought to secure the favour of heaven, by burying their talents in\nthe deserts, and devoting themselves to inaction and celibacy.\n\nAnd at this very day we see these very same things in those\nChristian countries, which are truly faithful to the principles of\ntheir religion.\n\nIn fine, Christianity seems from the first, to have taken pains to set\nitself in point blanc opposition to nature, and reason. If it admits\nand includes some virtues ordered and appointed by God, good\nsense, and universal experience; it drives them beyond their\nbounds into extravagance. It preserves no just medium, which is\nthe point of perfection. Voluptuousness, adultery and debauchery\nare forbidden by the laws of God and reason. But Christianity not\ncontent with commanding, and encouraging marriage, as did the\nOld Testament, must forsooth go beyond it, and therefore\nencourages celibacy, as the state of perfection God says, in\nGenesis, \"it is not good that man should be alone. I will make a\ncompanion for him.\" And he blessed all his creatures, saying, \"\nincrease and multiply.\" But the gospel annuls this law, and\nrepresents a single life to be most pleasing, to the very being,\nwhose very first command was, \"increase and multiply\"! It advises\na man to die without posterity, to refuse citizens to the state, and to\nhimself, a support for his old age.\n\n\"It is to no purpose to deny that Christianity recommends all this; I\nsay, it substantially does! and I boldly appeal,--not to a few\nProtestant Divines,--but to the New Testament; to the Homilies\nof the Fathers of the Church; to the History, and Practice of the\nPrimitive Christians; to the innumerable Monasteries of Europe,\nand Asia; to the immense multitudes who have lived, and died\nhermits; and, finally, (because I know very well, the Protestant\ndivines attribute these follies to the influence of Platonism,\nPythagoranism, and several other isms upon pure Christianity) I\nappeal to living evidence now in the world, to the only\nthoroughgoing Christians in it, viz., to the Society of the Shakers,\nwho I maintain, and can prove, to be true, genuine imitators of the\nPrimitive Christians, and a perfect exemplification of their\nmanners, and modes of thinking. I adduce them the more\nconfidently, because, being simple, and unlearned, their character\nhas been formed by the spirit of the New Testament, and perfectly\nrepresents the effects of its principles fully carried out, and acted\nupon. They never heard of Platonism, or of Pythagoras in their\nlives, and, consequently, the polemic tricks, and evasions, which\nhave been, as hinted just now, resorted to by Protestant divines, to\nshift from the shoulders of Christianity to those of Plato or\nPythagoras, the obnoxious principles we have been considering,\nare of no use in this case, as, whatever the characters of these\nShakers may be, they were formed by the New Testament, and by\nnothing else; and I believe, that every scholar in ecclesiastical\nhistory, who reads Brown's history of the Shakers, will be\nimmediately and powerfully struck with the resemblance\nsubsisting between them, and the Christians of the two first\ncenturies.\n\nAs examples of the effects of those precepts of Christian morality,\nwhich command us to hate father, and mother, and sister, and\nbrother, for the Bake of Jesus, take the following extracts from the\nhistory referred to.\n\n\"According to their faith, natural affection must be eradicated; and\nthey say they must love all equally alike, as brothers, and sisters in\nthe gospel. It would exceed the limits of this work to give a\nparticular account of the various schemes that have been contrived,\nto destroy all natural affection and social attachment between man\nand wife, parent and child, brothers and sisters; especially towards\nsuch as have left the society. Two instances that occurred about\nthis time, as specimens of others, may suffice. A mother, who had\nrenounced the faith, (i. e. left the society,) come to Niskeuna to\nsee, her daughter. Eldress Hannah Matterson told the daughter to\ngo into the room to her carnal mother, and say, ' What do you\ncome here for? I don't want you to come and see me with your\ncarnal affections!' 'The mother being grieved, replied, 'I did not\nexpect that a daughter of mine would ever address me in that\nmanner.'\n\n'The daughter, in obedience to what she was taught, replied again,\n'You have come here with your carnal fleshly desires, and I don't\nwant to see you,' and left her mother.\"\n\n\"Some time after, one Duncan Shapley, who had belonged to the\nsociety, called to see Abigail, his sister, at Niskeuna, whom he had\nnot seen for six or seven years; but he was not admitted: he waited\nsome time, being loath to go away without seeing her. At last she\nwas ordered to go to the window and address him in the language\nof abuse and scurrility. The words she made use of, it would be\nindecent to mention. For this she was applauded, and that in the\nauthor's hearing, when he belonged to the society.\"\n\nThis man gives a very curious account how the elders treated \"\ntheir babes,\" in their spiritual nursery; but I shall notice only one or\ntwo examples, which illustrate what I have advanced concerning\nthe natural hostility of the spirit of the New Testament towards\nscience. \"I know of several, who, soon after they joined the\nChurch, have been counselled by the Elders to dispose of their\nbooks; and have accordingly done it. Elder Ebenezer being at my\nhouse one day, on seeing a number of books, he said--'Ah!\nThomas must put away his books if he intends to become a good\nbeliever.'\n\nAs an instance of its effects upon the human understanding, take\nthe following:--\"A short time after, being at a believer's house,\nat eleven o'clock at night, they all having retired to rest, and I\nlaying awake in a dry well finished room, in which was a stove and\nfire, there fell a large drop of water on my temples; on\nexamination, I could not discover where the water came from. I\ntold the believers of it in the morning.\"\n\n\"One said, ' Ah! it is a warning to you respecting your unbelief.'\n\n\"I then assigned some inconclusive reason, how the drop might\nhave become formed in the room, and its falling.\"\n\n\"One replied, 'Ah! that is the way you render a natural reason for\nthe cause of every thing, and so reason away your faith and\nyourself out of the gospel.'\"\n\nAs another proof, that genuine Christianity discourages marriage,\nand considers celibacy as the only state of perfection, the Shakers\nallow of no marriages at all.\n\nThus you see that, among these people, to become a \"good\nbeliever,\" you must insult your parents, revile your brother, depise\nlearning, and never render a \"natural reason\" for any thing, lest\nyou should \"reason away your faith, and yourself out of the\ngospel.\"\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XVIII.\n\nON THE PECULIAR MORALITY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT,\nAS IT AFFECTS NATIONS AND POLITICAL SOCIETIES.\n\nAfter having seen the uselessness, and even the danger, to\nindividuals, of the perfections, the virtues, and the duties, which\nChristianity peculiarly commands; let us now see whether it has a\nmore happy influence upon politics; or whether it produces real\nhappiness among the nations with whom this religion is\nestablished, and the spirit of it faithfully observed. Let us do so,\nand we shall find, that wherever Christianity is established and\nobeyed, it establishes a set of laws directly opposed to those of a\nwell ordered national society; and it soon makes this disagreement\nand incompatibility distinctly to be felt.\n\nPolitics are intended to maintain union and concord among the\ncitizens. Christianity, though it preaches universal love, and\ncommands its followers to live in peace; yet, by a strange\ninconsistency, consequentially annihilates the effect of these\nexcellent precepts, by the inevitable divisions it causes among its\nfollowers, who necessarily understand differently the Old and New\nTestaments, because the latter is not only irreconcilably\ncontradictory to the former, but it is even inconsistent with itself.\nFrom the very commencement of Christianity, we perceive very\nviolent disputes among its founders and teachers; and through\nevery succeeding century, we find, in the history of the Church,\nnothing but schism and heresy. These are followed by persecutions\nand quarrels, exceedingly well adapted to destroy this vaunted\nspirit of concord, said by its defenders to be peculiar to Christianity;\nand the existence of which is, in fact, impossible in a religion\nwhich is one entire chaos of obscure doctrines and impracticable\nprecepts. In every religious dispute, both parties thought that God\nwas on their side, and, consequently, they were obstinate and\nirreconcilable. And how should it have been otherwise, since they\nconfounded the cause of God with the miserable interests of their\nown vanity? Thus, being little disposed to give way on one part or\nthe other, they cut one another's throats; they tormented, they burnt\neach other: they tore one another to pieces; and having\nexterminated or put down the obnoxious sects, they sung Te Deum.\n\nIt is not my intention to pursue, in this place, the horrid detail of\necclesiastical history, as connected with that of the Roman empire.\nMr. Gibbon has exhibited in such colours this dreadful record of\nfollies, and of crimes, that it is difficult to see how the maxim of\njudging the tree by its fruit, will not fatally affect the cause of the\nChristian religion. I refer to Mr. Gibbon's history as a cool and\nimpartial narrative; for I am well satisfied that, so far from having\nreason to complain of him, the advocates of Christianity have very\ngreat reason, indeed, to thank him for his forbearance, since, with\nhis eloquence, he might have drawn a picture that would have\nmade humanity shudder. For, throughout the whole history, if a\nman had wished to know what was then the orthodox faith, the best\nmethod of ascertaining it, would have been, undoubtedly, to ask, \"\nWhat is the catechism of this public executioner.\"\n\nThe Christian religion was, it is evident from his history, the\nprincipal, though by no means the only cause of the decline and\nfall of the Roman empire. Because it degraded the spirit of the\npeople, and because it produced monks and hermits in abundance,\nbut yielded no soldiers. The heathen adversaries of Christianity\nwere in the right when they said, that \"if it prevailed, Rome was no\nmore!\" The Christians would not serve in the armies of the\nemperor, if they could possibly avoid it. They justly considered the\nprofession of a soldier, and that of a Christian, as incompatible.\nCelsus accuses them of abandoning the empire, under whose laws\nthey lived, to its enemies. And what is the answer of Origen to this\naccusation? Look: at his pitiful reply! He endeavours to palliate\nthis undutiful refusal by representing that--\"the Christians had\ntheir peculiar camps, in which they incessantly combatted for the\nsafety of the emperor and empire, by lifting up their right hands--\nIN PRAYER!!\" (See Origen contra Celsum, Lib. 8, p. 437.) This is\na sneaking piece of business truly! But Origen could have given\nanother answer, if he had dared to avow it, which is, that his\nco-religionists, in his time, had not ceased to expect their master\nmomentarily to appear; and, of course, it little mattered what\nbecame of the emperor, or the empire. This notion was the\nprincipal engine for making proselytes; and it was by this\nexpectation that many were frightened into baptism.\n\nThat Christianity was considered incompatible with the military\nprofession, is evident from many passages of the fathers. And one\nof them, I believe, Tertullian, ventures to insinuate to the\nChristians in the legions, the expediency of deserting, to rid\nthemselves of \"their carnal employment.\" Nay, to such a height did\nthis spirit prevail, that it never stopped till it taught the Roman\nyouth in Italy the expedient of cutting off the thumbs of their right\nhands in order to avoid the conscription, and that they might be\nallowed to count their beads at home in quiet.\n\nIf we examine, in detail, the precepts of this religion, as they affect\nnations, we shall see, that it interdicts every thing which can make\na nation flourishing. We have seen already the notion of\nimperfection which Christianity attaches to marriage, and the\nesteem and preference it holds out to celibacy. These ideas\ncertainly do not favour population, which is, without contradiction,\nthe first source of power to every state.\n\nCommerce is not less obnoxious to the principles of a religion\nwhose founder is represented as denouncing an anathema against\nthe rich, and as excluding them from the kingdom of heaven. All\nindustry is equally interdicted to perfect Christians, who are to\nspend their lives \"as strangers, and pilgrims upon earth,\" and who\nare \"not to take care of the morrow.\"\n\nChrysostom says, that \"a merchant cannot please God, and that\nsuch a one ought to be chased out of the church.\"\n\nNo Christian, also, without being inconsistent, can serve in the\narmy. For a man, who is never sure of being in a state of grace, is\nthe most extravagant of men, if, by the hazard of battle, he exposes\nhimself to eternal perdition. And a Christian who ought to love his\nenemies, is he not guilty of the greatest of crimes, when he inflicts\ndeath upon a hostile soldier, of whose disposition he knows\nnothing: and whom he may, at a single stroke, precipitate into hell?\nA Christian soldier is a monster! a non-descript! and Lactantius\naffirms, that \"a Christian cannot be either a soldier, or an accuser\nto a criminal cause.\" And, at this day, the Quakers, and\nMennonites refuse to carry arms, and, in so doing, they are\nconsistent Christians.\n\nChristianity declares war against the sciences; they are regarded as\nan obstacle to salvation. \"Science puffeth up.\" says Paul. And the\nfathers of the church, St. Gregory, St. Ambrose, and St. Augustine\ndenounce vehemently astronomy, and geometry. And Jerome\ndeclares, that he was whipped by an angel only for reading that\nPagan Cicero.\n\nIt has been often remarked, that the most enlightened men are\ncommonly bad Christians. For independent of its effects on faith,\nwhich science is exceedingly apt to subvert, it diverts the Christian\nfrom the work of his salvation, which is the only thing needful. In\na word, the peculiar principles of Christianity literally obeyed,\nwould entirely subvert from its foundations every political society\nnow existing. If this assertion is doubted, let the doubter read the\nworks of the early Fathers, and he will see that their morality is\ntotally incompatible with the preservation and prosperity of a state.\nHe will see according to Lactantius, and others, that \"no Christian\ncan lawfully be a soldier.\" That according to Justin, \"no Christian\ncan be a magistrate.\" That according to Chrysostom, \"no Christian\nought to be a merchant\" And that according to several, \"no\nChristian ought t study.\" In fine, joining these maxims together\nwith those of the New Testament, it will follow, that a Christian,\nwho as he is commanded, aims at perfection, is a useless member\nof the community, useless to his family, and to all around him. He\nis an idle dreamer, who thinks of nothing but futurity; who has\nnothing in common with the interests of the world, and according\nto Tertullian \"has no other business but to get out of it as quietly as\npossible.\"\n\nLet us hearken to Esebius of Caesarea, and we shall abundantly\ndiscover the truth of what has been said.\n\n\"The manner of life, (says he,) of the Christian church, surpasses\nour present nature, and the common life of men. It seeks neither\nmarriage, nor children, nor riches. In fine, it is entirely a stranger\nto human modes of living. It is entirely absorbed in an insatiable\nlove of heavenly things. Those who follow this course of life, have\nonly their bodies upon earth, their whole souls are in heaven, and\nthey already dwell among pure and celestial intelligences, and they\ndespise the manner of life of other men\" Demonstrat. Evang. vol.\nii. p.29.\n\nIndeed a man firmly persuaded of the truth of; Christianity cannot\nattach himself to any thing here below. Every thing here is \"an\noccasion of stumbling, a rock of offence.\" Every thing here, diverts\nhim from thinking of his salvation. If Christians in general,\nhappily, for society, were not inconsistent, and did not neglect the\npeculiar precepts of their religion, no large society of them could\nexist; and the nations enlightened by the gospel would turn\nhermits, and nuns. All business, but fasting and prayer, would be at\nan end. There would be nothing but groaning in \"this vale\" of\ntears;\" and they would make themselves, and others, as miserable\nas possible, from the best of motives, viz; the desire to fulfill what\nthey mistakenly conceived to be the will of God.\n\nIs this a picture taken from the life, or is it a fanciful representation\nof something different from the peculiar morality of the New\nTestament? This serious question demands a serious answer. If it\nbe such as it is represented above and such it really appears to me,\nand such I have unfortunately experienced its operation to be on\nmy own mind--I would respectfully ask--can such a religion,\nwhose peculiar principles tend to render men hateful, and hating\none another: which has often rendered sovereigns, persecutors, and\nsubjects, either rebels, or slaves: a religion, whose peculiar moral\nprinciples and maxims, teach the mind to grovel, and humble, and\nbreak down the energies of man; and which divert him from\nthinking of his true interests, and the true happiness of himself and\nhis fellow men. Can such a religion, I would respectfully ask, be\nfrom God, since where fully obeyed, it would prove utterly\ndestructive to society?\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XIX.\n\nA CONSIDERATION OF SOME SUPPOSED ADVANTAGES\nATTRIBUTED TO THE NEW, OVER THE OLD, TESTAMENT;\nAND WHETHER THE DOCTRINE OF A RESURRECTION,\nAND A LIFE TO COME, IS NOT TAUGHT IN THE OLD\nTESTAMENT; IN CONTRADICTION TO THE ASSERTION,\nTHAT \"LIFE AND IMMORTALITY WERE BROUGHT TO\nLIGHT BY THE GOSPEL.\"\n\nFrom the preceding chapters, you may judge, reader, of the justice\nand truth of the opinion, that \"the yoke of Christian morality is\neasy, and its \"burthen light;\" and also of the veracity and fairness\nof that constant assertion of divines, \"that Jesus came to remove\nthe heavy yoke of the Mosaic Law, and to substitute in its room\none of easier observance.\"--Whether this, their assertion, be not\nrash, and ill founded, I will cheerfully leave to be decided by\nany cool and thinking man, who knows human nature, and is\nacquainted with the human heart. I say, I would cheerfully leave it\nto such a man, \"whether the Mosaic Law, with all its numerous\nrites, and ceremonial observances, nay, with all \"the (ridiculous)\ntraditions of the Elders,\" superadded, would not be much more\nbearable to human nature, and much easier to be observed and\nobeyed, than such precepts as these, \"Sell all thou hast, and give it\nto the poor.\" \"If a man ask thy cloak, give him thy coat also.\"\n\"Resist not the injurious person, but if a man smite thee on one\ncheek, turn to him the other also.\" \"Extirpate and destroy all carnal\naffection, and love nothing, but religion.\" \"Take no thought for\nto-morrow;\"--I am confident that the decision would be given in\nmy favour; and have no doubt, that with thinking men, the contrary\nopinion would be instantly rejected with the contempt it merits.\n\nWhether the Mosaic Code be the best possible, or really divine, is\nof no consequence in this inquiry, and is with me another question\nfrom that of its inferiority to that of the New Testament. I do by no\nmeans assert the former; but have no hesitation to give my opinion,\nafter a pretty thorough examination of the subject, that the\nreflections of Paul, and those usually thrown out against the\nMosaic Code by Theologians, when comparing it with that of the\nNew Testament, in order to deprecate the former, appear to me\nextremely partial and unjust; and so far from true, that I think, that\nthe ancient law has the advantage over the precepts of the New\nTestament, in being, at least, practicable and consistent.*\n\nAnother unfounded reproach which Theologians, in order to\nmagnify the importance of the New Testament, cast upon the Old,\nis this: They say, that the Old Testament represents God only as\nthe tutelary Deity of the Israelites, and as not so much concerned\nfor the rest of mankind. To show that this is a very mistaken\nnotion, and to manifest that the Eternal of the Old Testament is\nrepresented therein, not as the God of the Jews only, but also of the\nGentiles, I refer to these words:--\"The Lord thy God is God of\ngods, and Lord of lords, a great God, a mighty and a terrible; who\nregardeth not persons, nor taketh reward. He doth execute the\njudgment of the fatherless, and widow, and loveth the stranger, in\ngiving him food and raiment. Love ye, therefore, the stranger.\nThou shalt neither vex a stranger, nor oppress him, for ye know the\nheart of a stranger, seeing ye were strangers in the land of Egypt.\nHear the causes between your brethren, and judge righteously\nbetween a man and his brother, and the stranger that is with him.\nOne law shall be to him that is home born, and to the stranger that\nsojourneth among you. The stranger that dwelleth with you shall\nbe as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself. I am\nthe Lord your God.\"\n\nIndeed, so little truth is there in the notion, that the law and\nreligion of the Old Testament were established with the intention\nof confining them to one people, exclusive of all others, that the\nOld Testament certainly represents them in such manner, as\nshows, that they were intended to be as unconfined as the\nChristian, or Mahometan; its religion, in fact, admitted every one\nwho would receive it. And what is more, it can be proved that the\nOld Testament dispensation claims, as appears from itself, to have\nbeen given for the common advantage of all mankind. And it is\nasserted in it, (whether truly or not, is not the question; it is\nsufficient for my purpose, that it asserts it), that the religion\ncontained in it, will one day be the religion of all mankind. For it\ndeclares that Jerusalem will be the centre of worship for all\nnations, and the temple there, be \"the house of prayer for all\nnations;\" that the Eternal will be the only God worshipped; and his\nlaws the only laws obeyed. It represents Abraham and his posterity\nas merely the instruments of the Eternal to bring about these ends;\nit is repeatedly declared therein, that the reason of God's\ndispensations towards them was, \"that all the earth might know that\nthe Eternal is God, and that there is no other but Him.\" According\nto its history, when God threatened to destroy the Israelites for\ntheir perverseness in the wilderness, and offers Moses, interceding\nfor them, to raise, up his seed to fulfil the purposes for which he\ndesigned the posterity of Abraham; he tells Moses that his purpose\nshould not be frustrated through the perverseness of the chosen\ninstruments; \"but, (saith He), as surely as I live, all the earth shall\nbe filled with the glory of the Lord,\" Numbers xiv. 21. Many\npassages of similar import are contained in the Psalms, and the\nProphets. In fact, there is no truth at all in the statement of the\nCatechisms, that the Old Testament was merely preparatory, and\nintended merely to prepare the way for \"a better covenant,\" as\nPaul says; even for another religion, (the Christian) which was to\nconvert all nations; for, (if the Old Testament be suffered to tell its\nown story,) we shall find, that it claims, and challenges the honour\nof beginning, and completing, this magnificent design solely to\nitself. I was going to overwhelm the patience of the reader with\nquotations from it, to this purpose; but being willing to spare him\nand myself, I will only produce one, which, as it is direct and\nperemptory to this effect, is as good as a hundred, to demonstrate\nthat the Old Testament at least claims what I have said. Zech. viii.\n20, \"Thus saith the Eternal of Hosts: It shall yet come to pass, that\nthere shall come people, and the inhabitants of many cities; and the\ninhabitants of one city shall go to another, saying: \"Let us go\nspeedily to pray before the Eternal, and to seek the Eternal of\nHosts: I will go also. Yea, many people, and strong nations shall\ncome to seek the Eternal of Hosts in Jerusalem, and to pray before\nthe Eternal. Thus saith the Eternal of Hosts: In those days it shall\ncome to pass, that ten men shall take hold out of all the languages\nof the nations, even shall take hold of the skirt of him that is a Jew,\nsaying, we will go with you.\"\n\nBe it so, it may be said;--\"Still, it is to Christianity the world\nowes the consoling doctrine of a life to come. Life and immortality\nwere brought to light by the Gospel,\" say the Christian divines; and\nthey assert, that the doctrine of a resurrection was not known to\nJew or Gentile, till they learned it from Jesus' followers. The Old\nTestament, (say they,) taught the Jews nothing of the glorious\ntruths concerning \"the resurrection of the body, and the life\neverlasting,\" their \"beggarly elements\" confined their views to\ntemporal happiness, only.\" These assertions I shall prove from the\nOld Testament itself, to be contrary to fact; for the Jews both knew,\nand were taught by their Bibles to expect a resurrection, and\nbelieved it as firmly as any Christian can, or ever did. For proof\nhereof, I shall, in the first place, quote the 37th chapter of Ezekiel,\nand which is as follows, \"The hand of the Lord was upon me, and\ncarried me out in the spirit of the Lord, and set me down in the\nmidst of the valley, which was full of bones. And caused me to\npass by them round about, and behold there were very many in the\nopen valley, and behold they were dry.--And he said unto me.\nSon of man, can these bones live? and I answered, O Lord God,\nthou knowest. Again he said unto me. Prophecy upon these bones,\nand say unto them, O ye dry bones, hear the word of the Lord.\nThus saith the Lord God unto these bones, behold I will cause\nbreath to enter into you, and ye shall live, and I will lay sinews\nupon you, and will bring up flesh upon you; and cover you with\nskin, and put breath into you; and ye shall live, and know that I am\nthe Lord. So I prophesied as I was commanded, and, as I\nprophesied, there was a noise, and behold, a shaking, and the bones\ncame together, bone to his bone. And \"when I beheld, lo, the\nsinews and the flesh came up upon them, and the skin covered\nthem above; but there was no breath in them. Then said he unto\nme. Prophecy son of man, and say unto the wind, thus saith the\nLord God, come from the four winds, O breath! and breathe upon\nthese slain, that they may live. So I prophesied as he commanded\nme, and the breath came into them, and they lived, and stood up\nagain upon their feet, an exceeding great army.\"\n\nA plainer resurrection than this is, I think never was preached\neither by Jesus or his followers. Again, Daniel the prophet says,\n\"Many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some\nto everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt,\"\nDaniel xii. 2. Now Ezekiel lived almost six hundred years before\nJesus, and Daniel was contemporary with the former; and is it not a\nlittle surprising, that the Jews should learn, for the first time, the\ndoctrine of a resurrection of the followers of Jesus Christ, when\nthey knew of the resurrection almost six hundred years before he\nwas born? Isaiah also, (who lived before either Ezekiel or Daniel),\nin the 26th chapter of his prophesies, (exciting the Jews to have\nconfidence in God, and not to despair on account of their captivity,\nand the troubles and afflictions which they should suffer therein),\nforetells to them that death would not deprive them of the reward\nof their piety and virtue; for God would raise them from the dead,\nand make them happy. \"Thy dead men shall live, my dead bodies#\n(i. e., the bodies of God's servants) they shall arise. Awake! and\nsing! ye that dwell in the dust, for thy dew is as the dew of herbs,\"\nThe meaning of the last clause is--that, as the grass, which in\nOriental countries becomes brown and shrivelled by the heat of the\nsun; from the effects of the dew it changes and springs up, as it\nwere, in a moment, green and fresh and beautiful; so, by the\ninstantaneous influence of the word of God, the dry and decayed\nremains of mortality shall become blooming with immortal\nfreshness and beauty. See also Hosea xiii. 14. I might easily\nmultiply passages from the Old Testament, to prove that the\ndoctrine of a resurrection was familiar to the ancient Israelites, but\nI suppose that what I have already produced, is sufficient. Those,\nhowever, who wish to see the subject more thoroughly examined,\nare referred to \"Greave's Lectures on the Pentateuch,\" a work\nlately published in Europe, highly honourable to the author. See\nalso a Tract upon this subject, published by Dr. Priestley, in 1801.\n\nI shall only add one observation more on this subject, viz., that it is\nvery singular that Christian divines should assert, that \"life and\nimmortality were first brought to light by the Gospel,\" when the\nNew Testament itself represents the resurrection of the dead as\nbeing perfectly well known to the Jews, and describes Jesus\nhimself as proving it to the Sadducees out of the Old Testament!!!\n\n\n\nCONCLUSION.\n\nI have now finished my work, which I have written in order to\nexculpate myself, and to do justice to others; and having\nre-examined every link of the chain of my argument, I think it amply\nstrong to support the conclusions attached to it. Though there\nmight have been drawn from the Old and New Testaments, many\nadditional arguments corroborative of what has been said, yet, at\npresent, I shall add no more; as I think that what has been brought\nforward has just claims to be considered by the impartial as quite\nsufficient to prove these two points--that the New Testament can\nneither subsist with the Old Testament, nor without it; and that the\nNew Testament system was built first upon a mistake, and\nafterwards buttressed up with forged and apocryphal documents.\n\nLet the candid now judge, whether the author, knowing these\nthings, or, at least persuaded of their truth, could have persisted in\naffirming, (in a place where sincerity is expected), in the name of\nthe Almighty, that the claims of the New Testament were valid,\nwithout being a hypocrite, and an impostor.\n\nLet them also consider, whether, after being unable to obtain a\nsatisfactory refutation of the objections contained in this volume,\nhis resigning a profession whose duties obliged him to say what he\nwas convinced was false, was conduct to be reprehended. And\nlastly, he appeals to the good sense of the public, for a decision,\nwhether, with such objections and difficulties weighing upon his\nmind, as he has now exposed, his conduct in that respect can\nreasonably be attributed to the unmanly influence of caprice and\nfickle-ness, (as has been circulated by some who had an interest in\nmaking it believed;) or to the just influence of motives deserving a\nbetter name.\n\nWith regard to the unfortunate people whose arguments have been\nbrought forward in this volume, we have, reader, now gone over,\nand distinctly felt, the whole ground of the controversy between\nthem and their persecutors, mentioned in the Preface. And as they\nmake use of the Old Testament as a foundation, admitted, and\nnecessarily admitted by Christians, to be of divine authority, and\nare surrounded by the bulwarks they have raised out of the\ndemolished entrenchments of their adversaries, I do not see but\nthat \"their castle's strength may laugh a siege to scorn.\" And after\nreviewing, and revolving, over and over in my own mind the\narguments on both sides, I am obliged to believe, that the stoutest\nPolemical Goliath who may venture to attack it, especially their\nstrong hold--their arguments about the Messiahship, will find to\nhis cost, that when his weak point is but known, the mightiest\nAchilles must fall before the feeblest Paris, whose arrow is--aimed\nat his heel.\n\nThe author hopes, and thinks he has a right to expect, that whoever\nmay attempt to answer his book, will do it fairly, like a man of\ncandour; without trying to evade the main question--that of the\nMessiahship of Jesus. He fears, that he shall see an answer\nprecisely resembling the many others he has seen upon that\nsubject. Except two--those of Sukes, and Jeffries. (who\nacknowledge that miracles have nothing to do with the question of\nthe Messiahship, which can be decided by the Old Testament only;)--\nall that he has ever met with, evade this question, and slide\nover to the ground of miracles. Such conduct in an answerer of this\nbook would be very unfair, and also very absurd. For the case is\nprecisely resembling the following--A father informs by letter his\nson in a foreign country, that he is about to send him a Tutor,\nwhom he will know by the following marks; \"He is learned in the\nmathematics, and the physical sciences; acquainted with the\nlearned languages, and an excellent physician; of a dark\ncomplexion; six feet high, and with a voice loud, and\ncommanding.\" By and by, a man comes to the young man,\nprofessing to be this tutor sent to him by his father. On examining\nthe man, and comparing him with the description in his father's\nletter, he finds him totally unlike the person he had been taught to\nexpect. Instead of being acquainted with the sciences, therein\nmentioned, he knows nothing about them; instead of being \"six\nfeet high, of a dark complexion, and with a voice loud and\ncommanding,\" he is a diminutive creature of five feet, of a light\ncomplexion, with a voice like a woman's.\n\nThe young man, with his father's letter in his hand, tells the\npretended tutor, that he certainly cannot be the person he has been\ntold to expect. The man persists, and appeals to certain \"wonderful\nworks\" he performs in order to convince the young man, that he is\nacquainted with the sciences aforesaid, and that he is also six feet\nhigh; of a dark complexion; and talks like an Emperor! The young\nman replies. \"Friend, you are either an enthusiast, a mad man, or\nsomething worse. As to your ' signs and wonders,' I have been\nwarned in my father's letter to pay no regard to any such things in\nthis case. Besides, you ought to be sensible, that your identity with\nthe person I am taught by my father's letter to expect, can be only\ndetermined by comparing you with the description of him given\ntherein. Whether your 'wonderful works' are real miracles or not, I\nneither know, nor care. At any rate, they cannot, in the nature of\nthings, be any thing to the purpose in; this case. For you to pretend,\nthat they prove what you offer them to prove, is quite absurd; you\nmight as well, and as reasonably, pretend, that they could prove\nAristotle to have been Alexander; or the Methodist George\nWhitfield to be the Emperor Napoleon Bonaparte!\"\n\nTo conclude, if any person should feel inclined to attempt to refute\nthis book, let him do it like a man; without evading the question, or\nequivocating, or caviling about little things. Let him consider the\nprincipal question, and the main arguments on which he perceives\nthat the author relies, and not pass over these silently, and hold up\na few petty mistakes and subsidiary arguments as specimens of the\nwhole book. Such a mode of defence would be very disengenuous,\nand with a discerning reader, perfectly futile and insufficient. It\nwould be as if a man prostrate, and bleeding under a lion whose\nteeth and claws were infixed in his throat, should tear a handful of\nhairs out of the animal's mane, and hold them up as proofs of\nvictory.\n\nIn fine, let him, before his undertaking, carefully consider these\npungent words of Bishop Beveridge, \"Opposite answers, and\ndownright arguments advantage a cause; but when a disputant\nleaves many things untouched, as if they were too hot for his\nfingers; and declines the weight of other things, and alters the true\nstate of the question: it is a shrewd sign, either that he has not\nweighed things maturely, or else (which is more probable,) that he\nmaintains a desperate cause.\"\n\nFINIS.\n\n\n\nAPPENDIX A.#\n\nAs reasons for this assertion, (that \"the account of the resurrection\ngiven by the evangelists is no better, nay, worse, than conjecture,\nas it is a mere forgery of the second century.--Vide page 86) take\nthe following facts, which are now ascertained, and can be\nproved:--1. Several sects of Christians in the first century, in the\napostolic era, denied that Jesus was crucified, as the Basildeans,\n&c. The author of the epistle ascribed to Barnabas, I think, denied\nit, and the author of the gospel of Thomas certainly did. 2. The\nJewish Christians, the disciples of the twelve apostles, never\nreceived, but rejected every individual book of the present New\nTestament. They held in especial abomination the writings of Paul,\nwhom they called \"an apostate;\" and there is extant, in \"\nCotelerius' Patres Apostolici,\" a letter ascribed to Peter, written to\nJames at Jerusalem wherein he complains bitterly of Paul, styling\nhim \"a lawless man,\" and a crafty misrepresenter of him (Peter,)\nand his doctrine, in that Paul represented, every where, Peter as\nbeing secretly of the same opinions with himself; against this he\nenters his protest, and declares that he reprobates the doctrine of\nPaul. (See Appendix B.) 3. It is certain, that from the beginning,\nthe Christians were never agreed as to points of faith; and that the\napostles themselves, so far from being considered as inspired, and\ninfallible, were frequently contradicted, thwarted, and set at naught\nby their own converts: and there were as many sects, heresies, and\nquarrels, in the first century, as in the second or third. 4. Jesus and\nhis apostles were no sooner off the stage, than forgeries of all kinds\nbroke in with irresistible force: Gospels, Epistles, Acts,\nRevelations without number, published in the names, and under the\nfeigned authority, of Jesus and his apostles, abounded in the\nChristian church; and as some of these were as early in time as any\nof the writings in the present canon of the New Testament, so they\nwere received promiscuously with them, and held in equal credit\nand veneration, and read in the public assemblies as of equal\nauthority with those now received. 5. The very learned and pious\nDodwell, in his Dissertations on Iraeneus avows, that he cannot\nfind in ecclesiastical antiquities, (which he understood better than\nany man of his age,) any evidence at all, that the four Gospels were\nknown or heard of, before the time of Trajan, and Adrian, i.e.\nbefore the middle of the second century, i. e. nearly a hundred\nyears after the apostles were dead. (See Appendix C.) Long before\nthis time, we know that there were extant numbers of spurious\ngospels, forged, and ascribed to the apostles; and we have not the\nleast evidence to be depended on, that those now received were not\nalso apocryphal. For they were written nobody certainly knows by\nwhom, or where, or when. They first appeared in an age of\ncredulity, when forgeries of this kind abounded and were received\nwith avidity by those whose opinions they favoured, while they\nwere rejected as spurious by many sects of Christians, who\nasserted that they were possessed of the genuine apostles, which,\nhowever, those who received \"the four,\" denied. 6. All the\ndifferent sects of Christians, without a known exception, altered,\ninterpolated, and without scruple garbled, their different copies of\ntheir various and discordant gospels, in order to adapt them to their\njarring and whimsical philosophical notions, Celsus accuses them\nof this, and they accuse each other. And that they were continually\ntampering with their copies of the books of the New Testament, is\nevident from the immense number of various readings, and from\nsome whole phrases, and even verses, which for knavish purposes\nwere foisted into the text, but have been detected, and exposed by\nGriesbach, and others. They also forged certain rhapsodies under\nthe name of \"Sybbiline Oracles,\" and then adduce them as\nprophetic proofs of the truth of their religion. They also\ninterpolated certain clumsy forgeries as prophecies of Jesus into\ntheir copies of their Greek version of the Old Testament. 7. The\npresent canon of the New Testament has never been sanctioned by\nthe general consent of Christians. The Syrian church rejects some\nof its books;--some of its books were not admitted until after long\nopposition, and not until several hundred years after Jesus. The\nlists of what were considered as canonical books, differ in different\nages, and some books now acknowledged by all Christians to be\nforgeries, were in the second and third centuries considered as\nequally apostolic as those now received, and as such, were publicly\nread in the churches. 8. The reason why we have not now extant\ngospels, different and contradictory to those now received, is,\nbecause that the sect or party which finally got the better of its\nadversaries, and styled itself Catholic, or orthodox, took care to\nburn and destroy the heretics, and their gospels with them. They\nlikewise took care to hunt up and burn the books of the pagan\nadversaries of Christianity, \"because they were shockingly\noffensive to pious ears.\" 9. Semler considered the New Testament\nas a collection of pious frauds, written for pious purposes, in the\nlatter part of the second century, (the very time assigned for their\nfirst appearance by Dodwell.) Evanson adopts, and gives good\nreasons for a similar opinion with regard to most of the books\nwhich go to compose it. Lastly. The reason why the New\nTestament canon has been so long respected, seems to have been\npurely owing to the credulity of the ignorant, and the laziness,\nindifference, or fears of the learned.\n\nDouglas, in his famous \"Criterion,\" gives us, as infallible tests, by\nwhich we may distinguish when written accounts of miracles are\nfabulous, the following marks:--\n\n1. \"We have reason to suspect (he says) the accounts to be false,\nwhen they are not published to the world till after the time when\nthey are said to have been performed.\"\n\n2. \"We have reason to suspect them to be false, when they are not\npublished in the place where it is pretended the facts were\nwrought, but are propagated only at a great distance from the\nsupposed scene of action.\"\n\n3. \"Supposing the accounts to have the two fore-mentioned\nqualifications, we still have reason to suspect them to be false, if in\nthe time when, and at the place where, they took their rise, they\nmight be suffered to pass without examination.\"\n\nThese are the marks he gives us as infallible tests by which we\nmay distinguish the accounts of miracles in the New Testament to\nbe true; and accounts of miracles in other books (though supported\nby more testimony than the former,) to be false; with how much\njustice, may be evident from the following observations:--\n\n1. If \"we have reason to suspect the accounts to be false, when\nthey are not published to the world till long after the time when\nthey are said to have been performed,\" then we have reasons to\nsuspect the accounts given in the four gospels; for we have no\nproof in the world, that any of them were written till nearly one\nhundred years after the supposed writers of them were all dead.\n\n2. If \"we have reason to suspect them to be false, when they are\nnot published in the place where it is pretended the facts were\nwrought, but are propagated only at a great distance from the\nsupposed scene of action,\" then it is still further evident that the\naccounts in question are not true. For they were apparently none of\nthem published in Judea, the scene of the events recorded in them.\nBut it is pretty clear that they were written in countries at a\ndistance from Palestine. And the facts recorded in them were-no\nwhere so little believed as in Judea, among the people in whose\nsight they are said to have been wrought, where they ought, if true,\nto have met with most credit. It is, however, evident from the\nhistories themselves, that these stories were laughed at, by the\nlearned and intelligent of the Jewish nation, and disbelieved by the\ngreat body of the people. In truth the first Christians were merely\none hundred and twenty Galilaeans, who asserted to their\nco-religionists, that Jesus of Nazareth was the ejected Messiah. It\nwas a mere national quarrel between the great body of the Jews, and a\nfew schismatics. This is evident from the Acts, where we find that\nfor several years they confined their preaching to Jews only. Till\nthe conversion of Cornelius, they do not appear to have thought the\nGentiles any way interested in their dispute with their countrymen.\nSo that it is not improbable, (as the Jewish Christians dwindled\nvery rapidly,) that had it not been for the Gentile proselytes to\nJudaism, Christianity would have perished in its cradle. These\npeople were very numerous, and formed the connecting link\nbetween the Jews and the Gentiles. And it was through the medium\nof these people, that Christianity became known to the heathens.\nFor we find that after the apostles could make nothing of the\nstubborn Jews \"they shook their garments, and told them that from\nhenceforth we go to the Gentiles.\"--Accordingly, when the\napostles preached in the synagogues, and the Jews contradicted,\nand blasphemed,\" and made fun of their mode of proving from the\nprophets, \"that Jesus was the Christ; yet the \"proselytes and devout\nwomen\" listened, and believed.\n\n3. If \"supposing the accounts to have the two foregoing\nqualifications, we still may suspect them to be false; if, in the time\nwhen, and in the place where, they took their rise, they might be\nsuffered to pass without examination,\" we have still less reason to\nbelieve the gospels. For one reason why they might be suffered to\npass without examination is, where the miracles proposed\ncoincided with the notions and superstitious prejudices of those\nwhom they were reported, and who, on that account, might be\nprone to receive them unexamined. Now, we have documents in\nplenty, which abundantly prove, along with the virtues, the\nextreme credulity and simplicity of the Primitive Christians, whose\nmaxim was, \"believe, but do not examine, and thy faith shall save\nthee.\" Another very good reason why they might be suffered to\npass without, examination is, that the miracles of the gospels were\nentirely unknown to, or at least acknowledged by, any heathen or\nJew of the age in which they are recorded to have happened.\nNobody seems to have known a syllable about them but the\napostles and their converts. Even the books of the New Testament\nwere not generally known to the heathens until some hundred years\nafter the birth of Jesus; and it seems from the few fragments of\ntheir works come down to us, that the only notice they did take of\nthem, was to accuse them of telling lies and old wives fables. And\nas for the Jews, the origin and early propagation of Christianity\nwas so very obscure, that those who lived nearest the times of the\napostles, do not seem to have known any thing about them, or their\ndoctrines.\n\nThough a little out of place, yet I will here adduce a fact which\nillustrates and exemplifies the power of enthusiasm, to make\npeople believe they saw what they did not see. Lucian gives an\naccount of one Peregrinus, a philosophist very famous in his time,\nwho had a great number of disciples. He ended his life by throwing\nhimself, in the presence of assembled thousands, into a burning\npile. Yet such was the enthusiastic veneration of his followers,\nthat some of his disciples did solemnly aver, that they had seen\nhim after his death, clothed in white, and crowned; and they were\nbelieved, insomuch that altars and statues were erected to\nPeregrinus as to a demi-god. See Lucian's account.\n\n\n\nAPPENDIX B.\n\nSee Cotelerius \"Patres Apostolic,\" Tom. 1, p. 602.\nExtract of a letter from Peter to James, prefixed to the\nClementines.\n\n\"For, if this be not done, (says Peter, after entreating James not to\ncommunicate his preachings to any Gentile without previous\nexamination,) our speech of truth will be divided into many\nopinions, nor do I know this thing as being a prophet, but as seeing\neven now the beginning of this evil. For some from among the\nGentiles have rejected my legal preaching, embracing the trifling,\nand lawless doctrine of a man who is an enemy; and these\nthings, some have endeavoured to do now in my own lifetime,\ntransforming my words by various interpretations, to the\ndestruction of the Laws: as if I had been of the same mind, but\ndared not openly profess it, (see Galatians ii. 11, 12, &c.,) which\nbe far from me! For this were to act against the law of God, spoken\nby Moses, and which has the testimony of our Lord for its\nperpetual duration; since he thus has said, \"Heaven and earth shall\npass away, yet one jot, or one tittle, shall not pass from the law.\"\nBut these, I know not how, promising to deliver my opinion, (see\nGalatians as above) take upon them to explain the words they\nheard from me, better than I that spoke them; telling their disciples,\nmy sense was that of which I had not so much as thought. Now, if\nin my own life time, they dare feign such things, how much more\nwill those that come after, do the same.\"\n\n\n\nAPPENDIX C.\n\nExtract from Dodwell's Dissertations on Irenaeus, Diss. 1, p.p. 38,\n39.\n\n\"The Canonical writings (i. e. of the New Testament), lay\nconcealed in the coffers of private churches, or persons, till the\nlatter times of Trajan, or rather perhaps of Adrian; so that they\ncould not come to the knowledge of the church. For if they had\nbeen published, they would have been overwhelmed under such a\nmultitude as were then of apocryphal and suppositious books, that\na new examination and a new testimony would be necessary to\ndistinguish them from these false ones. And it is from this new\ntestimony (whereby the genuine writings of the apostles were\ndistinguished from the spurious pieces which went under their\nnames,) that depends all the authority which the truly apostolic\nwritings have formerly obtained, or which they have at present in\nthe Catholic Church. But this fresh attestation of the canon is\nsubject to the same inconveniences with those traditions of the\nancient persons that I defend, and whom Irenaeus both heard and\nsaw; for it is equally distant from the original, and could not be\nmade except by such only as had reached those remote times. But\nit is very certain that before the period I mentioned of Trajan's\ntime, the canon of the sacred books, was not yet fixed, nor any\ncertain number of books received in the Catholic Church, whose\nauthority must ever after serve to determine matters of faith;\nneither were the spurious pieces of heretics yet rejected, nor were\nthe faithful admonished to beware of them for the future. Likewise,\nthe true writings of the apostles used to be so bound up in one\nvolume with the apocryphal, that it was not manifest by any mark\nof public censure which of them should be preferred to the other.\nWe have at this day, certain authentic writings of ecclesiastical\nauthors of those times, as Clemens Romanus, Barnabas, Hermas,\nIgnatius, and Polycarp, who wrote in the same order wherein I\nhave named them, and after all the other writers of the New\nTestament, except Jude, and the two Johns. But in Hermas you\nshall not meet with one passage, or any mention of the New\nTestament; nor in all the rest is any one of the evangelists called by\nhis own name. And if sometimes they cite any passages like those\nwe read in our gospels; yet, you will find them so much changed,\nand for the most part so interpolated, that it cannot be known,\nwhether they produced them out of ours, or some apocryphal\ngospels; nay, they sometimes cite passages which it is most certain\nare not in the present gospels. From hence, therefore, it is evident\nthat no difference was yet put between the apocryphal and\ncanonical books of the New Testament, especially if it be\nconsidered, that they pass no censure on the apocryphal, nor leave\nany mark whereby the reader might discern whether they attributed\nless authority to the spurious than to the genuine gospels; from\nwhence it may reasonably be suspected, that if they cite sometimes\nany passages conformable to ours, it was not done through any\ncertain design, as if dubious things were to be confirmed only by\nthe canonical books, so as it is very possible that both those and the\nlike passages may have been borrowed from other gospels besides\nthese we now have. But what need I mention books that are not\ncanonical, when indeed it does not appear from those of our\ncanonical books which were last written, that the church knew any\nthing of the gospels, or that the clergy made a common use of\nthem. The writers of these times do not chequer their works with\ntexts of the New Testament, which yet is the custom of the\nmoderns, and was also theirs in such books as they acknowledge\nfor scripture; for they most frequently cite the books of the Old\nTestament, and would, doubtless, have done so by those of the\nNew, if they had then been received as canonical.\"\n\nSo far Mr. Dodwell, and (excepting the genuineness of the writings\nof Barnabas and the rest, for they are incontestably ancient,) it is\ncertain that the matters of fact with regard to the New Testament\nare all true. Whoever has an inclination to write on this subject, is\nfurnished from this passage with a great many curious disquisitions\nwherein to show his penetration and his judgment, as--how the\nimmediate successors and disciples of the apostles could so grossly\nconfound the genuine writings of their masters with such as were\nfalsely attributed to them; or since they were in the dark about\nthese matters so early, how come such as followed them, by a\nbetter light; why all those books which are cited by the earliest\nfathers with the same respect as those now received, should not be\naccounted equally authentic by them; and what stress should be\nlaid on the testimony of those fathers, who not only contradict one\nanother, but are often inconsistent with themselves, in relating the\nvery same facts; with a great many other difficulties, which\ndeserve a clear solution from any capable person.\n\nI have said the ancient heretics asserted that the present gospels\nwere forgeries. As an example of this, take the following, from the\nworks of Faustus, quoted by Augustine, contra Faustum Lib. 32, c.\n2. \"You think, (says Faustus to his adversaries,) that of all the\nbooks in the world the Testament of the Son only, could not be\ncorrupted; that it alone contains nothing which ought to be\ndisallowed; especially when it appears, that it was not written by\nthe apostles, but a long time after them, by certain obscure persons,\nwho, lest no credit should be given to the stories they told of what\nthey could not know, did prefix, to their writings, the names of the\napostles, and partly of those who succeeded the apostles, affirming,\nthat what they wrote themselves, was written by these. Wherein\nthey seem to me to have been the more heinously injurious to the\ndisciples of Christ, by attributing to them what they wrote\nthemselves so dissonant and repugnant; and that they pretended to\nwrite those gospels under their names, which are so full of\nmistakes, of contradictory relations and opinions, that they are\nneither coherent with themselves, nor consistent with one another.\nWhat is this, therefore, but to throw a calumny on good men, and\nto fix the accusation of discord on the unanimous society of\nChrist's disciples.\"\n\n\n\nADDENDA.\nThere is, in the Gospel ascribed to John, a passage, quoted as a\nprophecy, which, as it has been looked on as a proof text, ought to have\nbeen mentioned in the 7th chapter. It is this. The evangelist (John xix.\n23) says, \"Then the soldiers, when they had crucified Jesus, took his\ngarments, and made four parts, to every soldier a part; and also his\ncoat--now the coat was without seam, woven from the top throughout. They\nsaid, therefore, among themselves, ' Let us not rend it, but cast lots\nfor it'; that the Scripture might be fulfilled, which saith, 'They\nparted my raiment among them and for my vesture they did cast lots.'\n\"Now, however plausible this prophesy may appear, it is one of the most\nimpudent applications of passages from the Old Testament that occurs in\nthe New. It is taken from the 18th verse of the 22d Psalm, which Psalm\nwas probably made by David, in reference to his humiliating and wretched\nexpulsion from Jerusalem by his son Absalom, and what was done in\nconsequence, viz., that he was hunted by ferocious enemies, whom he\ncompares to furious bulls, and roaring lions, gaping upon him to devour\nhim; that his palace was plundered, and that they divided his treasured\ngarments, (in the East, where the fashions never change, every great man\nhas constantly presses full of hundreds and thousands of garments, many\nof them very costly: they are considered as a valuable part of his\nriches), and cast lots for his robes. This is the real meaning of this\npassage quoted as a prophecy. In the same Psalm, there is another verse,\nwhich has been from time immemorial quoted as a prophecy of the\ncrucifixion, (v. 16,) \"They pierced my hands and my feet.\" In the\noriginal, there seems to have been a word dropped importing \"they\ntear,\" or something like it, for it is literally, \"Like a lion--my hands\nand my feet,\" and there is there no word answering to \"pierced.\" The\nmeaning, however, of the verse is not difficult to be discerned, \"dogs\nhave compassed me; the assembly of wicked men have enclosed me; like a\nlion--(they tear) my hands and my feet.\" The meaning may be discovered\nfrom the context, where David represents himself as in the utmost\ndistress, helpless, and abandoned amidst his enemies, raging like wild\nbeasts around him; then, by a strong, but striking Oriental figure, he\nrepresents himself like a carcass surrounded by dogs, who are busied in\ntearing the flesh from his bones; their teeth fixed in his hands and\nfeet, and pulling him asunder. This is the import of the place, and this\ninterpretation is at last adopted, for the first time, I believe, by\nChristians, in the new version of the Psalms used by the Unitarian\nChurch in London.\n\nThere is not a more palpable instance of the facility with which good\nnatured and voracious piety is made to swallow the most flimsy\narguments, if only agreeable to its wishes and wants, than the case\nunder consideration. This Psalm, containing these passages, \"they\nparted my raiment among them;\" and \"they pierced my hands and my feet,\"\nis read, and for ages has been read, in the name of God, to the good\npeople of the Church of England, on every Good Friday, as undoubtedly a\nprophesy of the Crucifixion; when yet the learned divines of the Church\nof England (and of these it can boast a noble Catalogue indeed)\ncertainly know, and are conscious that the Psalm, which contains these\npassages, has no more relation to Jesus, than it has to Nebuchadnezzar.\n\nA reference ought to have been subjoined at the end of the 10th chapter\nto the dialogue, called \"Philopatris\" in Lucian's Works, for an account\nof the customs, habits, and personal appearance of the early Christians,\ncorroborative of what is said in the 17th and 18th chapters of this\nwork. Lest, however, Lucian's testimony in this matter should be\nobjected to, because he was a satirist, and, of course, may have been\nguilty of giving an overcharged picture of the subjects of his ridicule,\nI request the reader to peruse, if he can obtain it, \"Lami's Account of\nthe domestic habits and personal appearance and practices of the\nprimitive Christians.\" Lami was a very learned and sincere Christian,\nand of course his testimony cannot be objected to, and the reader will\nfind, on a perusal of his work, that what I have asserted in the 17th\nand 18th chapters is altogether true, and not the whole truth neither.\nIndeed, that the statements in those chapters, as to the effects of the\npeculiar maxims of the New Testament upon the heart and understanding,\nare substantially correct, will, I believe, be discovered by asking any\nhonest individual among the Methodists, who is an enthusiast, i. e\nsincere, and thorough-going in his religion. I have no doubt that he or\nshe will avow, without hesitation, to the enquirer, and glory in it,\nthat chastity is more honourable than marriage; that faith is every\nthing; that doubt is damnable, and a proof of \"an unregenerated mind;\"\nthat all the goods and pleasures of this world are \"trash;\" that human\ninstitutions are mere \"carnal ordinances;\" and that human science and\nlearning is a snare to faith and an abomination to a true disciple of\nthe cross.\n\n\n\nPublished 1785.\n\n* In the present day, various-attempts, insidious and powerful, have\nbeen made, even here, to coerce in matters of conscience, and to\noverthrow those wise barriers to the destructive effects of sectarian\nfanaticism and intolerance, which the great founders of the Republic, to\ntheir everlasting glory, erected.--D.\n\n* Do you know (says Rousseau) of many Christians who have taken the\npains to examine, with care, what the Jews have to say against them? If\nsome persons have seen any thing of the kind, it is in the books of\nChristians, A fine way, truly, to get instructed in the arguments of\ntheir adversaries! But what can they do? If any one should dare to\npublish among us, books, in which be openly favours their opinions, we\npunish the author, the editor, the bookseller. This policy is\nconvenient, and sure always to be in the right. There is a pleasure in\nrefuting people who dare not open their lips\"--(Emilius.) In the same\nwork he says that \"he will never be convinced that the Jews have not\nsomething strong to say, till they shall be permitted to speak for\nthemselves without fear, and without restraint.\" It was this hint of\nRousseau which first excited the author's curiosity with regard to the\nsubject of this book.--E.\n\n* There are a great many persons who conceive that Christianity is\nsufficiently proved to be true, if the miracles of Jesus are true, even\nwithout any regard to the prophecies, so often appealed to by him. But\nsupposing the miracles to be true; yet no miracles can prove that which\nis false in itself to be true. If therefore Jesus be not foretold as the\nMessiah in the Old Testament, no miracles can prove Jesus to be the\nMessiah foretold. Nay, it would be a stronger argument to prove Jesus to\nbe a false pretender, that he appealed to prophecies as relating to him,\nwhen in fact they had no relation whatever to him; and by that means\nimposed upon the ignorant people; than it would be that he came from\nGod, merely because he worked miracles; for \"False Christs and false\nprophets may arise, and may show such great signs and wonders as to\ndeceive, if it were possible, the very elect.\" Matt. xxiv. 24. Yet no\nChristian would allow it to be argued from thence, that those false\nChrists were true ones: nor would any one conclude; that a man came from\nGod, (notwithstanding any miracle he might do) if he appealed to\nScripture for that which is no where in it. In fine, if miracles would\nprove the Messiahship of Jesus, so also they would prove the Messiahship\nof the false Christs, and false prophets spoken of above. Nay more, they\nwould demonstrate the Divine mission of Antichrist himself; who,\naccording to the epistle to the Thessalonians, (2 Thes. ch. ii. 8, 9,10)\nand the Revelations, ch. xiii. 13, 14, was to perform \"great signs and\nwonders,\" equal to any wrought by Jesus, for the same Greek words are\nused to express the wonderful works or \"great signs and wonders\" of\nAntichrist, which are elsewhere used to express the miracles, or \"great\nsigns and wonders\" of Jesus himself.\n\nIt is a striking circumstance, that the earliest apologists for\nChristianity laid little stress upon the miracles of its founder.\n\nJustin Martyr, in his Apology, is very shy of appealing to the miracles\nof Jesus in confirmation of his pretentions; he lays no stress upon\nthem, but relies entirely upon the prophecies he quotes as in his favor.\nJerome, in his comment on the eighty-first Psalm, assures us, \"that the\nperformance of miracles was no extraordinary thing: and that it was no\nmore than what Appollonius, and Apulias, and innumerable impostors had\ndone before.\"\n\nLactantius saw so little force in the miracles of Christ, exclusive of\nthe prophecies, that he does not hesitate to affirm their utter\ninability to support the Christian religion by themselves. [Lactan. Div.\nInst. L. v. c. 3.]\n\nCelsus, observing upon the words of Jesus, that \"false prophets and\nfalse Christs shall arise, and show grant signs and wonders,\" sneeringly\nobserves, \"A fine thing truly! that miracles done by him should prove\nhim to be a God, and when done by others should demonstrate them to be\nfalse prophets and impostors.\"\n\nTertullian, on the words of Jesus, here referred to by Celsus, says as\nfollows;\n\n\"Christ, foretelling that many imposters should come and perform many\nwonders, shews, that our faith cannot without great temerity be founded\non miracles, since they were so early wrought, by false Christians\nthemselves.\" [Tertul. in Marc. L. ii. c. 3.]\n\nIndeed, miracles in the two first centuries were allowed very little\nweight in proving doctrines. Since the Christians did not deny, that the\nheathens performed miracles in behalf of their gods, and that the\nheretics performed them as will as the orthodox. This accounts for the\nperfect indifference of the heathens to the miracles said to have been\nperformed by the founders of Christianity. Hierocles speaks with great\ncontempt of what he calls \"the little tricks of Jesus,\" And Origen, in\nhis reply to Celsus, waves the consideration of the Christian miracles:\n\"for (says he) the very mention of these things sets you heathens upon\nthe. broad grin.\" Indeed, that they laughed very heartily at what in\nthe eighteenth century is read with a grave face, is evident from the\nfew fragments of their works written against Christianity which has\nescaped the burning zeal of the fathers, and the Christian emperors; who\npiously sought for, and burned up, these mischievous volumes to prevent\ntheir doing mischief to posterity. This conduct of theirs is very\nsuspicious. Why burn writing they could so triumphantly refute, if they\nwere refutable? They should have remembered the just reflection of\nArnobius, their own apologist, against the heathens, who were for\nabolishing at once such writings as promoted Christianity.--\"Intercipere\nscripta et publicatam velle submergere lectionem, non est Deos\ndefendere, sed veritatis testificationem timere.\"[Arnob. contra\nGentes. Liber ni.]--E.\n\n\n* Before going into the consideration of the following prophecies, the\nauthor would warn the reader to bear in mind, that whether these\nprophecies ever will be fulfilled, is a question of no import in the\nworld to the question under consideration, which is--whether they have\nbeen fulfilled eighteen hundred years ago, in the person of Jesus\nChrist, who is asserted by Christians to be the person foretold in these\nprophecies, and to have fulfilled their predictions. This question can\nbe easily decided, and only, we think, by appealing to past history, and\nto the scenes passing around us, and comparing them with these\npredictions.--E.\n\n\n* The word in the original being Vayikra, in the Kal or Active form of\nthe verb, and not Vayikare the Niphal or Passive form.--D.\n\n\n# reprove or argue.--D.\n\n\n* Or, in righteousness.--D.\n\n\n# Mr. English very properly takes notice of the disjunctive accent\n(Pasek) occurring here in the text.--D.\n\n\n# For a more correct enumeration of the thirteen cabalistic rules of\nexposition, the English reader is referred to vol. 1, page 209, of the\n\"Conciliator\" of B. Menasseh ben Israel, translated by E, H. Lindo,\nEsqr.--D.\n\n\n# Mr. E. was, doubtless, aware that this is an exposition given by\nJewish Commentators.--D.\n\n# There exists an English translation of this work by Abraham de Sola.\n--D.\n\n\n* The person here spoken of by Isaiah is said to make his grave with the\nwicked, and be with the rich in his death. Whereas Jesus did exactly the\ncontrary. He was with the wicked (i. e., the two thieves) in his death,\nand with the rich (i.e., Joseph of Arimathea) in his grave, or tomb. In\nthe original, the words may be translated that \"he shall avenge, or\nrecompence upon the wicked his grave, and his death upon the rich.\" Thus\ndoes the Targum and the Arabic version interpret the place, and Ezekiel\nix. 10, uses the verb in the verse in Isaiah under consideration\ntranslated (in The English version)--\"He made,\" &c--in the same sense,\ngiven to this place in Isaiah, by the Targum, and the Arabic, as said\nabove. See the place in Ezekiel, where it is translated--\"I will\nrecompence their way upon their head.\" See also Deut. xxi. 8, in the\noriginal. The Syriac has it--\"The wicked contributed to his burial, and\nthe rich to his death.\" The Arabic--\"I will punish the wicked for his\nburial, and the rich for his death.\" The Targum--\"He shall send the\nwicked into hell, and the rich who put him to a cruel death.\"--E.\n\n# Or, shall destroy.--D.\n\n* The remainder of this chapter is taken from Levi and Wagenseil.--E.\n\n* The reader is requested to consider the reasoning in the last\nparagraph. The prophecy in the second chapter of Daniel, is commonly\nsupposed to relate to the four Great Empires, the Babylonian, Persian,\nGrecian and Roman. This last, it is (according to this interpretation,)\nforetold, should be divided into many kingdoms, and that 'in the latter\ndays of these kingdoms,' (which are now subsisting) God would set up a\nkingdom which would never be destroyed,--that of the Messiah. Of course,\naccording to this interpretation, the kingdom of the Messiah was not to\nbe not only sustain after the destruction of the Roman Empire, but not\ntill the latter days of the kingdoms which grew up out of its ruins;\nwhereas, Jesus was born in the time of Augustus, i. e., precisely when\nthe Roman Empire itself was in the highest of its splendour and vigour.\nThis is a remarkable, and very striking, repugnance, to the claims of\nthe New Testament, and, if substantiated, must overset them entirely.--E.\n\n* The sum of our argument may be expressed thus. God is represented in\nthe prophecies of the Old Testament as designing to send into the world\nan eminent deliverer, descended from David, the peace and prosperity of\nwhose reign should far exceed all that went before him, in whom all the\nglorious things foretold by the prophets should receive their entire\ncompletion; and who should be distinguished by the character of the\nMessiah or Christ. This is an article of faith common to Christians and\nJews. But that Jesus of Nazareth should be esteemed this Messiah, and\nthat Christians can support that opinion, by alledging the prophecies of\nthe Hebrew scriptures as belonging to, and fulfilled in, him, is what we\ncan by no means allow, and that especially on account of these\ninconsistencies.\n\n1. Because, these prophecies, acknowledged on both sides to point out\nthe Messiah, could not otherwise answer the end of inspiring them than\nby an accomplishment so plain and sensible as might sufficiently\ndistinguish the person meant by them to be that Messiah. But no such\naccomplishment, we contend, can possibly be discerned in Jesus, and,\nconsequently, he cannot be the person meant by them.\n\n2. Because, several predictions which Christians apply to Jesus, are\nwrested to a meaning which quite destroys the historical sense of\nscripture, and breaks the connexion of the passages from whence they are\ntaken. Thus many shreds and loose sentences are culled out for this\npurpose, which do not appear to have any relation to Jesus, or to the\nMessiah either; but to have received their proper and intended\ncompletion in some other person, whom the prophet, as is manifest, had\nthen only in view.\n\n3. Because, in their forced applications of the prophecies, Christians,\nfinding themselves hard pressed by the simple and natural construction,\nforsake the literal, and take shelter in spiritual and mystical senses;\nfly to hyperboles and strained metaphors, and thus expound the true\nmeaning and importance of the prophecies quite away; the intent whereof\nbeing to instruct men in so necessary a point of faith as that relating\nto the Messiah, it is reasonable to think they would be delivered in the\nmost perspicuous and intelligible terms. Since ambiguous expressions\n(capable of such strange meanings as they pretend,) would be too\nslippery a foundation to build such a point of faith upon; would be of\nno use, or worse than none; would be unable to teach the clear truth,\nand apt to ensnare men into dangerous errors, by leaving too great a\nlatitude for fanciful interpretations, and introducing darkness and\nconfusion, and contradiction inexplicable.\n\n4. Because, admitting (as indeed it never was, or can be denied) that\nmany passages of scripture, and of prophetical scripture especially,\nmust be figuratively taken; yet, we must always put a wide difference\nbetween a sense not just as the words in their first signification\nimport, and a sense directly the contrary of what they import. And yet\nwe complain that this latter is the sense which Christians labour to\nobtrude upon the gainsayers. We say, that a kingdom of this world, and\nnot of this world; contempt and adoration; poverty and magnificence;\npersecution and peace; sufferings and triumph; a cross and a throne;\nthe scandalous death of a private man upon a gibbet, and the everlasting\ndominion of a universal monarch, must be reconciled, and mean the self\nsame thing, before the prophecies appealed to, can do their cause any\nservice. Granting, then, the goodness of God (according to them,) to\nhave been better than his word, by giving spiritual blessings, instead\nof temporal; yet, what will become of the truth of God, if He act\ncontrary to his word, even when it would be for our advantage, if He\nmisleads people by expressions, which, if they mean any thing at all,\nmust mean what the Jews understand by them?\n\nIn short, it seems to me, that if Providence has, in truth, any concern\nwith the predictions of the Old Testament, it could not have taken more\neffectual care to justify the unbelief and obstinacy of the Jews, than\nby ordering matters so, that the life and death of Jesus should be so\nexactly, and so entirely, the very reverse of all those ideas under\nwhich their prophets had constantly described, and the Hebrew nation as\nconstantly expected of their Messiah, and his coming; and to suppose\nthat the Supreme Being meant to describe and point out such a person as\nJesus by such descriptions of the Messiah as are contained in the Old\nTestament, is certainly substantially to accuse him of the moat\nunjustifiable prevarication, and mockery of his creatures.\n\nIn order that the subject we are examining, and the arguments we make\nuse of, may be clearly understood by the reader, he is requested to bear\nin mind, that the author reasons all along upon the supposed Divine\nauthority of the Old Testament; which is admitted by both Jews and\nChristians. Whether the supernatural claims of the Old Testament be\njust, or not, is of no consequence in the world to the controversy we\nare considering. For the dispute of the Jew with the Christian is one\nthing, and his dispute with the sceptic is another, totally different.\nFor whether such a personage as the Messiah is described to be, has\nappeared eighteen hundred years ago, is quite a different thing from the\nquestion, whether such a personage will appear at all. The Christian\nsays, that he has appeared in the person of Jesus of Nazareth. This the\nJew denies, but looks forward to the future fulfilment of the promises\nof his Bible, while the Sceptic denies that the Messiah has come, or\never will.\n\nBut the subject at present under consideration is the dispute of the Jew\nwith the Christian, who acknowledges the Old Testament to be a\nRevelation, upon which a new Revelation, that of the New Testament, is\nfounded and erected. To him the Jew argues, that if the Old Testament be\na Divine Revelation, then the New Testament cannot be a Revelation,\nbecause it contradicts, and is repugnant to, the Old Testament, the more\nancient, and acknowledged Revelation. Now God cannot be the author of\ntwo Revelations, one of which is repugnant to the other. One of them is\ncertainly false. And if the Christian, conscious of the difficulty of\nreconciling the New, with the Old, Testament, attempts to support the\nNew, at the expense of the Old, Testament, upon which the former is, and\nwas, built by the founders of Christianity; then the Jew would tell\nhim, that he acts as absurdly as would the man who should expect to make\nhis house the firmer, by undermining, and weakening its foundation.\n\nSo that whether the Christian affirms, or denies, he is ruined either\nway. For he is reduced to this fatal dilemma. If the Old Testament\ncontains a Revelation from God, then the New Testament is not from God,\nfor God cannot contradict himself: and it can be proved abundantly, that\nthe New Testament is contradictory, and repugnant to the Old and to\nitself too. If, on the other hand, the Old Testament contains no\nRevelation from God, then the New Testament must go down at any rate\nbecause it asserts that the Old Testament does contain a Revelation from\nGod, and builds upon it, as a foundation.--E.\n\n* There was nothing which gave the author, in writing this Book, so much\nuneasiness, at the apprehension of being supposed to entertain\ndisrespectful sentiments of the Founder of the Christian Religion. I\nwould most earnestly entreat the reader to believe my solemn assurances,\nthat by nothing that I have said, or shall be under the necessity of\nsaying, do I think, or mean to intimate the slightest disparagement to\nthe moral character of one, whose purity of morals, and good intentions,\ndeserve any thing else but reproach. That he was an enthusiast, I do not\ndoubt, that he was a wilful impostor I never will believe. And I protest\nbefore God, that from the apprehensions above-mentioned alone, I would\nhave confined the contents of this volume to myself, did I not feel\ncompelled to justify myself for having quitted a profession: and did I\nnot, above all, think it my duty, to make a well meant attempt, which I\nhope will be seconded, to vindicate the unbelief of an unfortunate\nnation, who, on that account, have for almost eighteen hundred years,\nbeen made the victim of rancorous prejudice, the most infernal\ncruelties, and the most atrocious wickedness. If the Christian religion\nbe, in truth, not well founded, surely it is the duty of every honest\nand every humane, man, to endeavour to dispel an illusion, which\ncertainly has been, notwithstanding any thing that can be said to the\ncontrary, the bona fide, and real cause of unspeakable misery, and of\nrepeated, and remorseless plunderings, and massacres, to an unhappy\npeople; the journal of whose sufferings, on account of it, forms the\nblackest page in the history of the human race, and the most detestable\none in the history of human superstition.--E.\n\n* Jerome, in his Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians, says, that\n\"The Church of Christ was not gathered from the Academy, or the Lyceum,\nbut from the lowest of the people.\" [Vili Plebecula.] And Coecilius, in\nMinutius Felix, says, that the Christian assemblies were made up \"de\nultima faece collectis, imperitioribus, et mulieribus credulis sexus\nsuae facilitate labentibus,\" i. e. \"that they consisted of the lowest\nof the mob, simple and unlearned, men, and credulous women.\"\n\nThe president of a province is introduced, by Prudentius as thus\naddressing a martyr:--\"Tu qui Doctor, ait, seris novellum Commenti\ngenus, ut Leves Puellae, Lucos destituunt, Jovem relinquant; Damnes, si\nsapias, ANILE DOGMA.\"\n\nThe Christian Fathers confess, and glory in it, that the greater part of\ntheir congregations consisted of women and children, slaves, beggars,\nand vagabonds.\n\nThe Jewish Christians were, as appears evidently from the New Testament,\nexceedingly poor, and therefore there is frequent mention made of\ncontributions for \"the poor Saints at Jerusalem.\" From thence it was\nthat the Jewish Christians got the name of Ebionites, i. e. Poor. The\nJewish Christian Church consisted of the dregs of the Jewish people,\nsimple and ignorant men, Samaritans, &c. No person in Judea of eminence,\nor learning, appears to have joined the sect of the Nazarenes, except\nPaul; after the destruction of Jerusalem they gradually dwindled in\nnumber, and became extinct.--E.\n\n* I will here lay before the reader the arguments advanced by the\nMahometans in behalf of the miracles of their prophet, extracted from\nthe learned Reland's account of Mehometanism. They say that--\"the\nmiracles of Mahomet and his followers have been recorded in innumerable\nvolumes of the most famous, learned, pious, and subtle Doctors of the\nMahometan Faith, who let nothing pass without the strictest and severest\nexamination, and whose tradition, therefore, is unexceptionable among\nthem; that they were known throughout all the regions of Arabia, and\ntransmitted by common and universal tradition from father to son, from\ngeneration to generation. That the books of Interpreters and\nCommentators on the Koran, the books of Historians, especially such as\ngive an account of Mahomet's life and actions, the books of annalists\nand lawyers, the books of mathematicians and philosophers, and, last of\nall, the books of both Jews and Christians concerning Mahomet, are full\nof his miracles. That if the authority of so many great and wise doctors\nbe denied, then, for their part, they cannot see but that a universal\nscepticism as to all other accounts of miracles must obtain among people\nof all persuasions. For authority being the only proof of facts done out\nof our time, or out of our sight, if that be denied, there is no way to\ncome to the certainty of any such, without immediate inspiration; and\nall accounts of matters recorded in history, must be doubtful and\nprecarious.\"\n\n\"And these witnesses would not have dared to assert these miracles\nunless they were true; for such as forged any miracles for his, which he\nreally did not, lay under a hearty curse from the prophet. For it was a\nreceived tradition among the faithful, that Mahomet denounced hell and\ndamnation to all those who should tell any lies of him. So that none who\nbelieved in Mahomet, durst attribute miracles to him which he was not\nconcerned in; and those who believed not in him, would certainly never\nhave given him the honour of working any, unless he had done so.\"\nChristian reader, thou seest how much can be said, and how many\nrespectable witnesses and authorities can be adduced to prove that\nMahomet wrought miracles. Canst thou adduce more, or better, authorities\nin behalf of the miracles of the New Testament? Art thou not rather\nsatisfied how fallacious the evidence of testimony is in all such cases?\n\nThis is not all that the Mahometan might urge in behalf of his prophet,\nfor he might tell the Christian, boasting that Jesus and his Apostles\nconverted the Roman world from idolatry, that they overthrew one system\nof idolatry, only to build up another, since the worship of Jesus, the\nVirgin Mary, and the Saints, and their images was established in a few\nhundred years after Jesus, and continues to this day; an idolatry as\nrank, and much more inexcusable than the worship of the ancient Greeks\nand Romans. Whereas, Mahomet cut \"up root and branch, both Christian and\nPagan idolatry, and proclaimed one only God as the object of adoration;\nand if the Christian should urge the rapid propagation of Christianity,\nthe Mahometan might reply, that Mahomet was a poor camel-driver, but\nthat Islamism made more progress in one hundred years, than Christianity\ndid in a thousand; that it was embraced by the noble, the great, the\nwise, and the learned, almost as soon as it appeared; whereas,\nChristianity was skulking and creeping among the mob of the Roman Empire\nfor some hundred years before it dared to raise its head in public view.\nIf the Christian should reply to this, by ascribing the success of\nMahometanism to the sword, the Mahometan might reply, with truth, that\nit was a vulgar error; for that vastly more nations embraced Islamism\nvoluntarily, than there were who freely received Christianity; and he\nmight remind him, how much Christianity owed to the accession of\nConstantine; to Charlemagne; and the Teutonic Knights; and bid him\nrecollect that the monks were assisted by soldiers to convert to\nChristianity almost every nation in Modern Europe.--E.\n\n# Compare the above with Maimonides, Hilchot Yessode Hattorah, from\nchapter 7.--D.\n\n* The reader is requested by the author to understand, and bear in mind,\nthat it is not at all intended by any of the observations contained in\nthis chapter on the histories of the four evangelists, to reflect upon,\nor to disparage, the characters of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, under\nwhose names they go; because he believes, and thinks it is proved in\nthis chapter, that the real authors of these histories were very\ndifferent persons from the Apostles of Jesus; and that, in fact, the\naccounts were not written till the middle of the second century, about a\nhundred year's after the supposed authors of them were dead. Of course,\nnone of the observations contained in the chapter relative to these\nhistories, ware considered, or intended, to apply to any of the twelve\napostles, who were not men who could make such mistakes as will be\npointed out. These mistakes belong entirely to the authors who have\nassumed their names.--E.\n\n* That the pretended Gospel of Matthew was not written by Matthew, or by\nan, inhabitant of Palestine, may also be inferred, I think, from the\nblundering attempts of the author of it to give the meaning of some\nexpressions uttered by Jesus, and used by the Jews, in the language of\nthe country, which was the Syro Chaldaic; and which the real Matthew\ncould hardly be ignorant of. For instance, he says that Golgotha\nsignifies--\"the place of a skull.\" Matthew xxvii. 33. Now, this is not\ntrue, for Golgotha, or as it should have been written, Golgoltha, does\nnot signify \"the place of a skull,\" but simply \"a skull.\" The Gospels\naccording to Mark, and John, are guilty of the same mistake, and thus\nbetray the same marks of Gentilism. Again, the pretended Matthew says,\nthat Jesus cried on the cross, \"Eli Eli lama, sabackthani,\" which he\nsays meant, \"My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me?\" (Matthew\nxxvii. 46.) If the reader will look at what Michaelis, in his\nintroduction to the New Testament, says upon this subject, he will find\nthe real Syro Chaldaic expression which must have been used by Jesus, to\nbe so different from the one given by the supposed Matthew, that he\nwill, (and the observation is not meant as a disparagement to the real\nMatthew, who certainly had no hand in the imposition of the Gospel\ncovered with his name) I suspect be inclined to believe, that this\npretended Matthew's knowledge of the vulgar language of the Jews, used\nin Christ's time, must have been about upon a par with the honest\nsailor's knowledge of French; who assured his countrymen, on his return\nhome, that the French called a horse a shovel and a hat a chopper!--E.\n\n* See Addenda, No. 2.\n\n* The author had prepared, in order to subjoin in this place, an\nexamination of the Mosaic Code, and a development of its principles,\nwhich he thinks would have satisfied the reader of the truth of what he\nhas said in the last paragraph. But as it would have too much increased\nthe bulk of the volume, it has been omitted. It is an institution\nhowever curious enough to be the subject of an interesting discussion,\nwhich he should be happy to see from the hands of one able to do it\njustice.--E.\n\n# Mr. English, it will be perceived, differs in his translation of the\nHebrew word 'nebelati,' which is, certainly, in the singular number, and\nnot plural. The correct rendering is, doubtless, \"with my dead body\nthey,\" &c.; but this weakens not at all his argument, which is\nessentially a Jewish one. See the Commentators, Chizoook Emunah, &c.\n&c.--D.\n\n# This was, originally, a note; but, in order not to divert too much the\nreader's attention, it has been thought advisable to insert it here.--D.","title":"The Grounds of Christianity Examined by Comparing The New Testament with the Old","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":77564}