The Grounds of ChristianityExamined by ComparingThe New Testament with the Old

by George Bethune English, A. M. 

“First understand, then judge. ”“Bring forth the people blind, although they have eyes;And deaf, although they have ears. Let them produce their witnesses, that they may be justified;Or let them hear their turn, and say, THIS IS TRUE. ”	ISAIAH. 

Boston 1813

To the Intelligent and the CandidWho areWilling to Listen to Every OpinionThat is Supported by Reason;AndNot Averse to Bringing their Own OpinionsTo the Test of Examination;THIS BOOKIs Respectfully DedicatedByThe Author

CONTENTS

Chapter I. Introductory, --Showing that the Apostles and Authors of theNew Testament endeavour to prove Christianity from the Old. 

Chapter II. Statement of the Question in Dispute. 

Chapter III. The Characteristics of the Messiah, as given by the HebrewProphets. 

Chapter IV. The character of Jesus tested by those characteristic marks of themessiah, given by the Prophets of the Old Testament. 

Chapter V. Examination of the arguments from the Old Testament adduced inthe New, to prove that Jesus of Nazareth was the Messiah. 

Chapter VI. Examination of the meaning of the phrase “this was done that itmight be fulfilled. ”

Chapter VII. Examination of the arguments alledged from the Hebrew Prophets, to prove that Jesus was the Messiah. 

Chapter VIII. Statement of Arguments which prove that Jesus was not theMessiah of the Old Testament. 

Chapter IX. On the character of Jesus of Nazareth, and the weight to beallowed to the argument of martyrdom, as a test of truth, in thisquestion. 

Chapter X. Miscellaneous. 

Chapter XI. Whether the Mosaic Law be represented in the Old Testament as atemporary, or a perpetual institution. 

Chapter XII. On the character of Paul, and his manner of reasoning. 

Chapter XIII. Examination of some doctrines in the New testament, derived fromthe Cabbala, the Oriental philosophy, and the tenets of Zoroaster. 

Chapter XIV. A consideration of the “gift of tongues, ” and other miraculouspowers, ascribed to the Primitive Christians; and whether recordedmiracles are infallible proofs of the Divine Authority of doctrinessaid to have been confirmed by them. 

Chapter XV. Application of the two tests, said in Deuteronomy to have beengiven by God as discriminating a true prophet from a false one, tothe character and actions of Jesus. 

Chapter XVI. Examination of the evidence, external and internal, in favour of thecredibility of the Gospel history. 

Chapter XVII. On the peculiar morality of the New Testament, as it affectsnations and political societies. 

Chapter XIX. A consideration of some supposed advantages attributed to theNew, over the Old, testament; and whether the doctrine of aResurrection and a Life to Come, is not taught by the Oldtestament, in contradiction the assertion, that “life and immoralitywere brought to light by the Gospel. ”

Conclusion

Appendix

Addenda

PREFACE

The celebrated Dr. Price, in his valuable “Observation onthe Importance of the American Revolution, ” addressed to thepeople of the United States, observes that, “It is a commonopinion, that there are some doctrines so sacred, and others of sobad a tendency, that no public discussion of them ought to beallowed. Were this a right opinion, all the persecution that hasever been practised would be justified; for if it is a part of the dutyof civil magistrates to prevent the discussion of such doctrines, they must, in doing this, act on their own judgments of the natureand tendency of doctrines; and, consequently, they must have aright to prevent the discussion of all doctrines which they think tobe too sacred for discussion, or too dangerous in their tendency;and this right they must exercise in the only way in which civilpower is capable of exercising it--'by inflicting penalties upon allwho oppose sacred doctrines, or who maintain perniciousopinions. ' In Mahometan, countries, therefore, magistrates wouldhave a right to silence and punish all who oppose the divinemission of Mahomet, a doctrine there reckoned of the most sacrednature. The like is true of the doctrines of transubstantiation, worship of the Virgin Mary, &c. &c. , in Popish countries; and ofthe doctrines of the Trinity, satisfaction, &c. , in Protestantcountries. All such laws are right, if the opinion I have mentionedis right. But, in reality, civil power has nothing to do in suchmatters, and civil governors go miserably out of their properprovince, whenever they take upon them the care of truth, or thesupport of any doctrinal points. They are not judges of truth, and ifthey pretend to decide about it, they will decide wrong. This allthe countries under heaven think of the application of civil powerto doctrinal points in every country, but their own. It is indeedsuperstition, idolatry, and nonsense, that civil power at presentsupports almost every where under the idea of supporting sacredtruth, and opposing dangerous error. Would not, therefore, itsperfect neutrality be the greatest blessing? Would not the interestof truth gain unspeakably, were all the rulers of states to aim atnothing but keeping the peace; or did they consider themselvesbound to take care, not of the future, but the present, interest ofman; not of their souls and of their faith, but of their person andproperty; not of any ecclesiastical, but secular, matters only?”

“All the experience of past time proves, that the consequence ofallowing civil power to judge of the nature and tendency ofdoctrines, must be making it a hindrance to the progress of truth, and an enemy to the improvement of the world. ”

“I would extend these observations to all points of faith, howeversacred they may: be deemed. Nothing reasonable--can suffer bydiscussion. All doctrines, really sacred, must be clear, andincapable of being opposed with success. ”

“That immoral tendency of doctrines, which has been urged as areason against allowing the public discussion of them, may beeither avowed and direct? or only a consequence with which theyare charged. If it is avowed and direct, such doctrines certainly willnot spread; the principles rooted, in human nature will resist them, and the advocates of them will be soon disgraced. If, on thecontrary, it is only a consequence with which a doctrine is charged, it should be considered how apt all parties are to charge thedoctrines they oppose with bad tendencies. It is well known thatCalvinists and Arminians, Trinitarians and Socinians, Fatalists andFree-Willers, are continually exclaiming against one another'sopinions, as dangerous and licentious. Even Christianity itselfcould not, at its first introduction, escape this accusation. Theprofessors of it were considered as atheists, because they opposedpagan idolatry; and their religion was, on this account, reckoned adestructive and pernicious enthusiasm. If, therefore, the rulers of astate are to prohibit the propagation of all doctrines, in which theyapprehend immoral tendencies, an opening will be made, as I havebefore observed, for every species of persecution. There will be nodoctrine, however true or important, the avowal of which will not, in, some country or other, be subjected to civil penalties. ”

These observations bear the stamp of good sense, and their truthhas been abundantly confirmed by experience; and it is the peculiarhonour of the United States, that in conformity with the principlesof these observations, perfect freedom, of opinion and of speech, are here established by law, and are the birthright of every citizenthereof. Our country* is the only one which has not been guilty ofthe folly of establishing the ascendancy of one set of religiousopinions, and persecuting or tolerating all others, and which doesnot permit any man to harass his neighbour, because he thinksdifferently from himself. In consequence of these excellentinstitutions, difference of religious sentiment; makes here nobreach in private friendship, and works no danger to the publicsecurity. This is as it should be; for, in matters of opinion, especially with regard to so important a thing as religion, it isevery man's natural right and duty to think for himself, and tojudge upon such evidence as he can procure, after he has used hisbest endeavours to get information. Human decisions are of noweight in this matter, for another man has no more right to. Determine what his opinions shall be, than I have to determinewhat another man’s opinions shall be. It is amazing that one mancan dare to presume he has such a right over another; and that anyman can be so weak and credulous, as to imagine, that another hassuch right over him. 

As it is every man's natural right and duty to think and judge forhimself in matters of opinion; so he should be allowed freely tobring forward and defend his opinions, and to endeavour, when bejudges proper, to convince others also of their truth. 

For unless all men are allowed freely to profess their opinions, themeans of information, with respect to opinions, must, in a greatmeasure, be wanting; and just inquiries into their truth be almostimpracticable; and, by consequence, our natural right and duty tothink and judge for ourselves, must be rendered almost nugatory, or be subverted, for want of materials whereon to employ ourminds. A man by himself, without communication with otherminds, can make no great progress in knowledge; and besides, anindividual is indisposed to use his own strength, when anundisturbed laziness, ignorance, and prejudice give him fullsatisfaction as to the truth of his opinions. But if there be a freeprofession, or communication of sentiment, every man will havean opportunity of acquainting himself with all that can be knownfrom others; and many for their own satisfaction will makeinquiries, and, in order to ascertain the truth of opinions, will desireto know all that can be said on any question. 

If such liberty of professing and teaching be not allowed, error, ifauthorized, will keep its ground; and truth, if dormant, will neverbe brought to light; or, if authorized, will be supported on a falseand absurd foundation, and such as would equally support error;and, if received on the ground of authority, will not be in the leastmeritorious to its professors. 

Besides, not to encourage capable and honest men to profess anddefend their opinions when different from ours, is to distrust thetruth of our own opinion, and to fear the light. Such conduct must, in a country of sense and learning, increase the number ofunbelievers already so greatly complained of; who, if they seematters of opinion not allowed to be professed, and impartiallydebated, think, justly perhaps, that they have foul play, and, therefore, reject many things as false and ill grounded, whichotherwise they might perhaps receive as truths. 

The grand principle of men considered as having relation to theDeity, and under an obligation to be religious, is, that they ought toconsult their reason, and seek every where for the best instruction;and of Christians and Protestants the duty, and professed principleis, to consult reason and the Scripture, as the rule of their faith andpractice. 

But how can these, which are practical principles, be duly put inpractice, unless all be at liberty, at all times, and in all points, consider and debate with others, (as well as with themselves, ) whatreason and Scripture says; and to profess, and act openly, according to what they are convinced they say? How can webecome better informed with regard to religion, than by using thebest means of information? which consist in consulting reason andscripture, and calling in the aid of others. And of what use is it toconsult reason, and Scripture at all, as any means of information. , if we are not, upon conviction, to follow their dictates?

No man has any reason to apprehend any ill consequences to truth, (for which alone he ought to have any concern, ) from free inquiryand debate. --For truth is not a thing to dread examination, butwhen fairly proposed to an unbiased understanding, is like light tothe eye; it must distinguish itself from error, as light doesdistinguish does distinguish itself from darkness. For, while freedebate is allowed, truth is in no danger, for it will never want aprofessor thereof, nor an advocate to offer some plea in its behalf. And it can never be wholly banished, but when human decisions, backed by human power, carry all before them. 

We ought to examine foundations of opinions, not only, that wemay attain the discovery of truth, but we ought to do so, on thisaccount, because that it is our duty; and the way to recommendourselves to the favour of God. For opinions, how true soever, when the effect of education or tradition, or interest, or passion, can never recommend a man to God. For those ways have no meritin them, and are the worst a man can possibly take to obtain truth;and therefore, though they may be objects of forgiveness, they cannever be of reward from Him. 

Having promised these observations in order to persuade, anddispose the reader to be candid, I will now declare the motives, which induced me to submit to the consideration of the intelligent, the contents of this volume. The Author has spared, he thinks, nopains to arrive at certain Truth in matters of religion; the; sense ofwhich is what distinguishes man from the brute. And in this mostimportant subject that can employ the human understanding, hehas been particularly desirous to become acquainted with theGrounds, and Doctrines of the Christian Religion; and nothing butthe difficulties, which he in this volume lays before the public, staggers his faith in it. 

It may perhaps add to the interest the Reader may take in this workto inform him, that the Author was a believer in the religion of theNew Testament, after what he conceived to be a sufficientexamination of its evidence for a divine origin. He had terminatedan examination of the controversy with the Deists to his ownsatisfaction, i. E. He felt convinced that their objections were notinsurmountable, when he turned his attention to the considerationof the ancient, and obscure controversy between the Christians andthe Jews. His curiosity was deeply interested to examine a subjectin truth so little known, and to ascertain the causes, and thereasons, which had prevented a people more interested in the truthof Christianity than any other from believing it: and he set down tothe subject without any suspicion, that the examination would notterminate in convincing him still more in favour of what were thenhis opinions. After a long, thorough, and startling examination oftheir Books, together with all the answers to them he could obtainfrom a Library amply furnished in this respect, he was finally veryreluctantly compelled to feel persuaded, by proofs he could neitherrefute, nor evade, that how easily soever Christians might answerthe Deists, so called, the Jews were clearly too hard for them. Because they set the Old and New Testament in opposition, andreduce Christians to this fatal dilemma. --Either the Old Testamentcontains a Revelation from God; or it does sot. If it does, then theNew Testament cannot be from God, because it is palpably, andimportantly repugnant to the Old Testament in doctrine, and someother things. Now Jews, and Christians, each of them admit theOld Testament as containing a divine Revelation; consequently theJews cannot, and Christians ought not to receive and allow anything as a Revelation from God which flatly contradicts a formerby them acknowledged Revelation: because it cannot be supposedthat God will contradict himself. On the other hand--if the OldTestament be not from God, still the New Testament must godown, because it asserts that the Old Testament is a revelationfrom God, and builds upon it as a foundation. And if thefoundation fails, how can the house, stand? The Author pledgeshimself to the Reader, to prove, that they establish this dilemmacompletely. And he cannot help thinking, that there is reason tobelieve, that if both sides of this strangely neglected controversyhad been made public in times past, and become known, that theconsequences would have been long ago fatal at least to the NewTestament. 

The Author has been earnestly dissuaded from making public thecontents of this volume on account of apprehended mischievousconsequences. He thought, however, that the age of pious fraudsought to be past, and their principle discarded, at least in Protestantcountries. Deception and error are always, sooner or later, discovered; and truth in, the long run, both in politics, and religion, will never be ultimately harmful. If what the Book states is true, itought to be known, if it is erroneous; it can, and will, be refuted. 

The Author therefore makes it public, for these reasons, --becausehe thinks, that the matter contained in the book, is true, andimportant, --because he wished, and found it necessary to justifyhimself from contemptible misrepresentations uttered behind hisback; and to give to those who know him, good and sufficientreasons for past conduct, of which those to whom he is known, cannot be ignorant; and finally, he thought it right, and proper, andhumane, to give to the world a work which contained the reasonsfor the unbelief of the countrymen of Jesus; who for almosteighteen hundred years have been made the unresisting victims of, as the reader will find, groundless misrepresentation, and the mostamazing cruelty; because they refused to believe what it wasimpossible that they should believe, on account of reasons theirpersecutors did not know, and refused to be informed of. 

If the arguments and statements contained in this volume should befound to be correct, he believes that every honest and candid man, after his first surprise that they should not have been made knownbefore, will feel for the victims of a mistake so singular and soancient as the one which is the subject of the following pages; andwill think with the author, that it is time, high time, that the truthshould be known, and justice be done to them. *

There is not in existence a more singular instance of themischievous mistakes arising from taking things for granted whichrequire proof, than the case before the reader. The world has allalong been in total error with regard to the reasons and the motiveswhich have prevented the Hebrew nation from receiving thesystem of the New Testament. They have been successfullyaccused of incorrigible blindness and obstinacy; and whilevolumes upon volumes have been written against them, and thearguments therein contained, supported and enforced by the powerof the Inquisition, and the oppressions of all Christendom, theseunfortunate people have not been willingly suffered to offer to theworld one word in their own defence. They have not beenallowed, after hearing with patience both arguments, and “railingaccusations” in abundance, to answer in their turn; but have beencompelled, through the fear of confiscation, persecution, and death, to leave misapprehensions unexplained, and misrepresentationsunrefuted. 

Is it then to be wondered at, that mankind have considered theiradversaries as in the right, and that deserted by reason, and eventheir own Scriptures, they were supported in their opinion only bya blind and pertinacious obstinacy, more worthy of wonder thancuriosity? Alas! the world did not consider, that nothing was moreeasy than to confute people whose tongues were frozen by theterror of the Inquisition!! But, thanks to the good sense of thisenlightened age, those times are past and gone. There is now onehappy country where freedom of speech is allowed, where everyharmless religious opinion is protected by law, and where everyopinion is listened to that is supported by reason. The time, I trust, is now come when the substantial arguments of this oppressed, and, in this respect, certainly calumniated, people, may beproduced and their reasons set forth, without the fear of harm, andwith, and with the hope of hearing from the intelligent and thecandid. They, we believe, will be fully convinced, that theiradversaries have for so long a time triumphed over them withoutmeasure, only because they have been suffered to do so withoutcontradiction. 

The reader is assured, that, notwithstanding the subject, he willfind nothing in this volume but what is considered by the author tobe fair and liberal argument; and such no honest man ought todecline looking in the face. He has endeavoured to discuss theimportant subject of the book in the most inoffensive manner; forhe has no wish, and claims no right, to wound the feelings of thosewho differ from him in opinion. There is not, nor ought there to be, a word of reproach in it, against the moral character of Jesus, or thetwelve Apostles; and the utmost the author attempts to prove is, that their system was founded, not upon fraud and imposture, butupon a mistake. After the deaths of Christ and his Apostles, it wasindeed aided and supported by very bad means; but its firstfounders, the author believes, were guilty of no other crime thanthat of being mistaken; a very common one indeed. 

He hopes, therefore, that such a discussion as the one now laidbefore the public, will be fairly met, and fairly answered, ifanswered at all, and that recourse will not be had to dishonest andungentlemanly misrepresentations, and calling names, in order toprevent people from examining things they have a right to know, and in order to blind and frighten the public, the jury to which heappeals. It is infallibly true, that the knowledge of truth is, andmust be beneficial to mankind; and that, in the long run, it neverwas, and never can be, harmful. It is equally certain, that Godwould never give a Revelation so slightly founded as to beendangered by any sophistry of man. If the Christian system befrom God, it will certainly stand, no human power can overthrowit; and, therefore, no sincere Christian who believes the NewTestament, ought to be afraid to meet half way the objections ofany one who offers them with fairness, and expresses them indecent language; and no sensible Christian ought to shut his earsagainst his neighbour, who respectfully asks “a reason for the faiththat is in him. ”

The author has been told, indeed, that, “supposing the Christiansystem to be unfounded, yet that it is reasonable to believe, that theSupreme Being would view any attempts to disturb it, withdispleasure, on account of its moral effects. ” But is not thissomething like absurdity? Can God have made it necessary, thatmorals should be founded on delusion, in order that they might besupported? Can the God of TRUTH be displeased to have menconvinced that they have been mistaken, or imposed upon, byRevelations pretended to be from Him, which if in fact not fromhim, must be the offspring either of error or falsehood? And if theChristian system be, in truth, not from God, can we suppose, thatin his eyes its doctrines with regard to Him are atoned for, by a fewgood moral precepts? Can we suppose, that that Supreme andawful Being can feel Himself honoured, in having his creaturesmade to believe, that He was once nine months in the womb of awoman; that God, the Great and Holy, went through all thenastiness of infancy; that be lived a mendicant in a corner of theearth, and was finally scourged, and hanged on a gibbet by his owncreatures? If these things be, in truth, all mistakes, can wesuppose, that God is pleased in having them believed of Him? Onthe contrary, can they, together with the doctrine of the Trinity, Iwould respectfully ask, be possibly looked upon by Him (if theyare not true), otherwise, than as so many--what I forbear tomention. But this is not all. The reader is requested to consider, that the Christian system is built upon the prostrate necks of thewhole Hebrew nation. It is a tree which flourished in a soil wateredby their tears; its leaves grew green in an atmosphere filled withtheir cries and groans; and its roots have been moistened andfattened with their blood. The ruin, reproach, and sufferings of thatpeople, are considered, by its advocates, as the most striking proofof the Divine authority of the New Testament; and for almosteighteen hundred years the system contained in that book has beenthe cause of miseries and afflictions to that nation, the mosthorrible and unparalleled in the history of man. 

Now, if that system be indeed Divine, all this may be very well, and as it should be. But if, perchance, it should turn out to be amistake if it be, in truth, not from God; will not, then, that systembe justly chargeable with all those shocking cruelties which, onaccount of it, have been inflicted on that people?

If that system be verily and indeed founded on a mistake, nolanguage, no indignation, can do justice to its guilt in this respect. All its good moral effects are a mere drop of pure water in thatocean of Jewish and Gentile blood it has caused to be shed byembittering men's minds with groundless prejudices. And if it benot divine; if it be plainly and demonstrably proved to haveoriginated in error; who is the man, that, after considering what hasbeen suggested, will have the heart to come forward, and coollysay, “that it is better that a whole nation of men should continue, asheretofore, to be unjustly hated, reproached, cursed, and plundered, and massacred, on account of it, rather than that the receivedreligious system should be demonstrated to be founded onmistake?" No! If it be, in fact, founded on mistake, every man ofhonour, honesty, and humanity, will say, without hesitation, "Letthe delusion (if it is one) be done away, which must be supportedat the expense of truth, of justice, and the happiness andrespectability of a whole nation, who are men like ourselves, andmore unfortunate than any others, in having already suffered buttoo much affliction and misery on account of it. " No! though themoral effects ascribed to this system of religion were as good, asgreat, and ten times greater than they ever have been, or can be, yet, if it is a delusion, it would be absolutely wicked to support it, since it is erected upon the sufferings, wretchedness, andoppression of a people who compose millions of the great familyof mankind. 

It is remarkable, that the ablest modern advocates for the truth anddivine authority of the gospel, as if they knew of no certain, demonstrative proof which could be adduced in a case of so muchimportance, seem to content themselves, and expect their readersshould be satisfied, with an accumulation of probable arguments inits favour; and it has been even said, that the case admits of noother kind of proof. If it be so, the author requests all so persuadedto consider, for a moment, whether it could be reconciled to anyideas of wisdom in an earthly potentate, if he should send anambassador to a foreign state to mediate a negotiation of thegreatest importance, without furnishing him with certain, indubitable credentials of the truth and authenticity of his mission?And to consider further, whether it be just or seemly, to attribute tothe Omniscient, Omnipotent Deity, a degree of weakness and folly, which was never yet imputed to any of his creatures? for unlessmen are hardy enough to pass so gross an affront upon thetremendous Majesty of Heaven, the improbability that God shoulddelegate the Mediator of a most important covenant to be proposedto all mankind, without enabling him to give them clear and, inreason, indisputable proof of the divine authority of his mission, must ever infinitely outweigh the aggregate sum of all theprobabilities which can be accumulated in the opposite scale of thebalance. And to conclude, I presume it will not be denied, that theauthenticity and celestial origin of any thing pretending to be aDivine Revelation, before it has any claims upon our faith, ought tobe made clear beyond all reasonable doubt; otherwise, it can have nojust claims to a right to influence our conduct. 

And as for the opinions and the arguments contained in thisvolume, I have but trembling hopes that they will meet withfavour, merely because the author is sincere, and wishes to doright. Conscious that I make a perilous attempt, in daring todefend myself by attacking ancient error supported by multitudes, with no other seconds besides Truth and Reason, it would bebootless for me to ask indulgence for them on account of my goodintentions; and as they can derive no credit from the authority ofthe writer, I am sensible they must fall by their own weakness, orstand by their own strength. I must leave them, therefore, to theirfate; and I can cheerfully do it, without fear for the issue, if thereader will only be candid, and will comply with my earnestrequest--“first to understand, and then judge. ”

Before I conclude these prefatory remarks, I would observe, that asthe contents of this volume will be perfectly novel to nine hundredand ninety-nine out of a thousand, it is but justice to the public, andto myself, to avow, that I do not claim to have originated all thearguments advanced in this book. A very considerable proportionof them were selected, and derived, from ancient and curiousJewish Tracts, translated from Chaldee into Latin, very littleknown even in Europe, and not at all known there to any but thecurious and inquisitive. And I reasonably hope, that discerningmen will be much more disposed to weigh with candour thearguments herein offered, when they consider that they are, inmany instances, the reasonings of learned, ancient and venerablemen, who, in times when the inquisition was in vigour, sufferedunder the most bloody oppression, and whose writings werecautiously preserved, and secretly handed down to the seventeenthcentury in manuscript, as the printing of them would assuredlyhave brought all concerned to the stake. Some few other argumentswere derived from other authors, and were taken from works not somuch known as I hope they will be. 

Finally, I commit my work to the discretion of the good sense ofthe reader, believing that if he is not convinced, he will at least beinterested; and hoping that he will discover from the complexion ofthe book (what my own heart bears witness to) that the author is asincere inquirer after truth, and perfectly willing to be convincedthat he is in error by any one who can remove the difficulties, andrefute the arguments, now laid by him before the public, withdeference and respect. 

September 28, 1813. 

THE

EVIDENCES OF CHRISTIANITY

Examined by Comparing the

NEW TESTAMENT WITH THE OLD. 

CHAPTER I. 

Introductory, --showing that the Apostles and the authors of theNew Testament, endeavour to prove Christianity from the Old. 

Christianity is founded on Judaism, and the New Testament uponthe Old; and Jesus of Nazareth is the person said in the NewTestament to be Promised in the Old, under the character and nameof the Messiah of the Jews, and who as such only claims theobedience, and submission of the World. Accordingly, it is thedesign of the authors of the New, to prove Christianity from theOld, Testament; which is said Jo. 5:39, to contain the words ofeternal life: and it represents Jesus and his Apostles, as fulfilling bytheir mission, doctrines and works, the predictions of the Prophetsand the Law: which last is said to prophecy of, or to typifyChristianity. 

Matthew, for example, proves several parts of Christianity fromthe Old Testament, either by asserting them to be things foretoldtherein as to come to pass under the gospel dispensation; or to befounded on the notions of the Old Testament. 

Thus he proves Mary’s being with child by the Holy Spirit, and theAngel’s telling her she “shall bring forth a son, and call his nameJesus;” and the other circumstances attending his miraculous birth;Jesus’ birth at Bethlehem; his flight into Egypt; the slaughter of theinfants; Jesus Dwelling at Nazareth, and at Capernaum, in theborders of Zabulon, and Naphtali; his casting out devils, andhealing the sick; his eating with Publicans and sinners; hisspeaking in parables that the Jews might not understand him; hissending his disciples to fetch an ass, and a colt; the children’scrying in the Temple; the resurrection of Jesus from the dead;Jesus’ being betrayed by Judas, and Judas’ returning back thethirty pieces of Silver, and the Priest’s buying the Potter’s Fieldwith them; and his hanging Himself; &c. &c. All these events, andmany more, are said to be fulfillments of the Prophecies of the OldTestament, see Mat. 1, 2: and 4 chapters, and ch. 8: v. 16, 17, andch. 9: 11, 13, and ch. 13: 13, ch. 21: 2--7. 15, 16, ch. 22: 31, 32, ch. 26: 54, 56, ch. 27: 5--10. 

Jesus himself is represented as proving the truth of Christianitythus. He, joining himself to two of his Disciples, (Luke 28: 15--22, ) after his resurrection, who knew him not, and complaining oftheir mistake about his person, whom they now took not to be theMessiah, because he had been condemned to death, and crucified;he, observing their disbelief of his resurrection, which had beenreported to them by “certain women of their acquaintance, ” uponthe credit of the affirmation of angels, said unto them, “O Fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the Prophets have spoken. Ought not Christ (i. E. The Messiah) to have suffered these things, and to enter into his Glory? and beginning at Moses, and all theProphets, he expounded unto them in all the Scriptures the thingsconcerning himself. ”

Again he discoursed to all his Disciples, putting them in mind, that, before his Death, he told them (Luke 24: 44, 46, 47, ) that “allthings must be fulfilled which were written in the law of Moses, and in the Prophets, and in the Psalms concerning him;” adding, “thus it is written, and thus it behoveth Christ (1. E. The Messiah) tosuffer, and to rise from the dead the third day; and that repentance, and remission of sins should be preached in his name, beginning atJerusalem. ”

When the people of several nations, Acts 2:12, were amazed at theApostles speaking in their several tongues, and when manymocked the Apostles, saying they were full of new wine, Petermakes a speech in public, wherein, after saying they were notdrunk, because it was but the third hour of the day, he endeavoursto show them, that this was spoken of by the Prophet Joel, and heconcludes with proving the resurrection of Jesus from the book ofPsalms. 

Peter, and John, tell the people assembled at the Temple, “thatGod had showed by the mouth of all his Prophets, that Christshould suffer, ” Acts 3:18. 

Peter to justify his preaching to the Gentiles, concludes hisdiscourse with saying, Acts 10: 43--“To Jesus gave all theProphets witness, that through his name whosoever (i. E. Jew, orGentile) believeth in him, shall receive remission of sins. ”

Paul also endeavours to prove to the Jews in the Synagogue ofAntioch, (Ib. V. 13) that the history of Jesus was contained in theOld Testament, and that he, and Barnabas were commanded in theOld Testament, to preach the gospel to the Gentiles. 

On the occasion of a dispute among the Christians whether theGentile converts were to be circumcised after the Law of Moses, and to observe the Law, we find, that after much disputing, thepoint was settled by James by quotation from Amos. 

The Bereans are highly extolled (Acts 17: 11, ) for searching theScriptures, i. E. The Old Testament, daily, in order to find outwhether the things preached to them by the Apostles were so, or no:who if they had not proved these things, i. E. Christianity from theOld Testament, ought, according to their own principles, to havebeen rejected by the Bereans, as teachers of false doctrine. 

Paul, when accused before Agrippa by the Jews, said (Acts 26; 6, )“I stand, and am judged for the hope of the promise made of Godunto our fathers, ” i. E. For teaching Christianity, or the true doctrineof the Old Testament, and to this accusation he pleads guilty, bydeclaring in the fullest manner, that he taught nothing but theDoctrines of the Old Testament. “Having therefore (says he)obtained help of God, I continue unto this day, witnessing both tosmall, and great, saying now other things than those which theProphets, and Moses did say should come, that the Christ shouldsuffer, and that he should be the first who should rise from theDead, and should show light unto the People, and unto theGentiles. ”

The Author of the first Epistle to the Cor. Says, 15 ch. V. 4, that“Jesus rose again from the dead the third day, according to theScriptures, ” that is, according to the Old Testament, and he issupposed to ground this on the history of the prophet Jonas, whowas three days and three nights in the fish's belly: though the casesdo not seem to be parallel, for Jesus being buried on Fridayevening, and rising on Sunday morning, was in the tomb but oneday and two nights. 

But most singular is the argument of the Apostle Paul (in hisEpistle to the Galatians) to prove Christianity from the OldTestament. “Tell me (says he, Gal. 4: 21, ) ye that desire to beunder the Law, do ye not hear the Law? For it is written, thatAbraham had two Sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman. But he who was of the bond woman, was born after theflesh; but he who was of the free woman was by promise. Whichthings are an Allegory. For these are the two covenants, the onefrom Mount Sinai which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar. Butthis Agar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalemthat now is, and is in bondage with her Children. But Jerusalemwhich is above is free, which is the Mother of us all. For it iswritten (Isaiah 54: 1, ) “Rejoice thou Barren that bearest not, breakforth, and cry thou that travailest not, for the desolate hathmany more children than she which hath an husband. ” Now, weBrethren, as Isaac was, are children of the Promise. But as then hethat was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after thespirit, even so it is now. But what saith the Scripture (Gen. 21: 10, 12, ) Cast out the bond woman, and her son, for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the free woman. So then, Brethren, we are not the children of the bond woman, but of thefree. Stand fast, therefore, in the Liberty wherewith Christ hathmade us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke ofbondage. ”

In fine, the Author of these Epistles reasons in the same singularmanner from the Old Testament throughout; which is, according tohim, (2 Tim. Iii: 15, ) “able to make men wise unto Salvation:”asserting himself and others to be ministers of the New Testament, as being ministers, not of “the letter but of “the Spirit, ” (2Cor. Iii:6. ) That is. Of the Old Testament, spiritually understood; andendeavouring to prove, especially in the Epistle to the Hebrews, that Christianity was veiled and contained in the Old Testament, and was implied in the Jewish history, and Law, both which heconsiders as types and shadows of Christianity. 

CHAPTER II. 

STATEMENT of THE QUESTION IN DISPUTE. 

How Christianity depends on the Old Testament, or what proofsare to be met with therein in behalf of Christianity, are the subjectsof almost all the numerous books written by divines, and otherapologists for Christianity, but the chief and principal of theseproofs may be justly supposed to be urged in the New Testamentitself, by the authors thereof; who relate the history of the firstpreaching of the Gospel, and profess themselves to be apostles ofJesus, or companions of the Apostles. 

Some of these proofs, as a specimen, have been already adduced. And if they are valid proofs, then is Christianity strongly andinvincibly established: on its true foundations. 

It is established upon its true foundations, because Jesus and hisApostles did, as we have seen, ground Christianity on those proofs;and it is strongly and invincibly established on those foundations, because a proof drawn from an inspired book is perfectlyconclusive. And prophecies delivered in an inspired bookare, when fulfilled, such as may be justly deemed sure, anddemonstrative proof; and which Peter (2 Peter 1: 19) prefers as anargument for the truth of Christianity, to that miraculousattestation (whereof he, and two other Apostles are said to havebeen witnesses, ) given by God himself to the mission of Jesus ofNazareth. His argument appears to be as follows. “Laying thisfoundation, that Prophecy proceeds from the Holy Spirit, it is astronger argument than a miracle, which depends upon eternalevidence, and testimony. ” And this opinion of Peter’s iscorroborated by the words of Jesus himself, who, in Mat. Xxiv: 23, 24, Mark xiii: 21, 22, affirms, that miracles wrought inconfirmation of a pretender’s being the Messiah, are not to beconsidered as proof of his being so--“though they show greatsigns and wonders, believe it not, ” is his command to his disciples. 

Besides, prophecies fulfilled, seem the most proper of allarguments to evince the truth of a new revelation which isdesigned to be universally promulgated to men. For a man who hasthe Old Testament put into his hands, which contain prophecies, and the New Testament afterward, which is said to contain theircompletions, and is once satisfied, as he may be with the greatestease, that the Old Testament existed before the New, may have acomplete, internal, divine, demonstration of the truth ofChristianity, without long, and laborious enquiries. Whereas, arguments of another nature, such, for instance, as relate to theauthority and genuineness of the books, and the persons, andcharacters of authors, and witnesses, require more application, andunderstanding, than falls to the share of the bulk of mankind; orelse are very precarious in themselves, since we know that in thefirst centuries there were numberless forged Gospels, andApocryphal writings imposed upon the credulous as apostolic andauthentic; and there were in the Apostles times, as many, and asgreat heresies and schisms as perhaps have been since in any ageof the Church. So that, setting aside the before mentioned internalproofs from prophecy, (which were the Apostle's proofs and intheir nature sufficient of themselves) we should have no certainproof at all for the Religion of the New Testament. 

On the other hand, if the proofs for Christianity from the OldTestament, are not valid, if the arguments founded on that Book benot conclusive, and the Prophecies cited from thence be notfulfilled, then has Christianity no just foundation; for thefoundation on which Jesus and his Apostles built it is then invalid, and false. Nor can miracles, said to have been wrought by Jesus, and his Apostles in behalf of Christianity, avail anything in thecase. For miracles can never render a foundation valid, which is initself invalid; can never make a false inference true; can nevermake a prophecy fulfilled, which is not fulfilled; and can neverdesignate a Messiah, or Jesus for the Messiah, if both are notmarked out in the Old Testament; no more than they could provethe earth to be the sun, or a mouse a lion. 

Besides, miracles said to have been wrought, may be often justlydecided false reports, when attributed to persons who claim anauthority from the Old Testament, which they impertinentlyalledge to support their pretentions. God can never be supposedoften to permit miracles to be done for the confirmation of a false, or pretended mission. And if at any time he does permit miracles tobe done in confirmation of a pretended mission, we have expressdirections from the Old Testament (acknowledged by Christians tobe of divine authority) Deut. Xiii. 1, 2, not to regard such miracles;but to continue firm to the antecedent revelation given by Himself, and contained in the Old Testament, notwithstanding any “signs orwonders;” which, under the circumstance of attesting somethingcontrary to an antecedent revelation, we are forewarned of as beingno test of truth. No new revelation, however supported bymiracles, ought ever to be received as coming from God, unless itconfirms, or at least does not contradict, the preceding standingrevelation, acknowledged to be from God. 

Accordingly, we find from the New Testament, that all therecorded miracles of Jesus could not make the Jews believe him tobe the Messiah when they thought that he did not answer thedescription of that character given by the Prophets; on thecontrary, they procured him to be crucified for pretending to bewhat to them he appeared plainly not to be. 

Nor had his miracles alone any effect on his own brethren, andkindred, who seem (Mark vi. 4; Jo. Vii. 6, ) to have been moreincredulous in him than other Jews. Nor had they the effect, theyare supposed to have been fitted to produce, among his immediatefollowers, and Disciples; some of whom did not believe in him, butdeserted him, and particularly had no faith in him when he spakeof his sufferings; and thought that he could not be their Messiahwhen they saw him suffer, notwithstanding his miracles, and hisdeclaration to them that he was the Messiah. And so rooted werethe Jews in the notion of the Messiah's being a temporal Prince, aconquering Pacificator, and Deliverer, even after the death ofJesus, and the progress of Christianity grounded on the belief of hisbeing the Messiah, that they have in all times of distress, particularly in the apostolic sera, in great numbers followedimpostors giving themselves out as the Messiah, with force, andarms, as the way to restore the kingdom of Israel. So that the Jews, who it seems mistook in this most important matter, and after themost egregious manner, the meaning of their own Books, might, till they were set right in their interpretation of the Old Testament, and were convinced from thence that Jesus was the Messiah, mightI say, as justly reject Jesus asserting his mission, and Doctrineswith miracles, as they might reject any other person, who in virtueof miracles would lead them into idolatry, or any other breach oftheir law. 

In fine, the miracles said to have been wrought by Jesus, are, according to the Old Testament, the gospel scheme, and the wordsof Jesus himself, no absolute proof of his being the Messiah, or ofthe truth of Christianity; and Jesus laid no great stress upon themas proving doctrines, for he forewarned his disciples, that “signsand wonders” would be performed, so great and stupendous, as todeceive, if possible, the very elect, and bids them not to give anyheed to them. *

CHAPTER III. 

THE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE MESSIAH, AS GIVEN BYTHE HEBREW PROPHETS. 

Having shewn from the New Testament, and proved from thenature of the case, that the whole credit and authority of theChristian religion, rests and depends upon Jesus' being the Messiahof the Jews; and, having stated the principles which ought togovern the decision of this question, and established the fact, thatthe pretensions of any claiming to be considered as this Messiah, must be tested solely by the coincidence of the character, andcircumstances of the pretender with the descriptions given by theprophets as the means by which he may be known to be so--it isproper, in order that we may be enabled to form a correct opinion, to lay before the reader those passages of the Old Testamentwhich contain the promise of the appearing, and express thecharacteristics of this “hope of Israel, ” this beneficent saviour, andaugust monarch, in whose time a suffering world, was, accordingto the Hebrew prophets, to become the abode of happy beings. 

Leaving out for the present the consideration of the Shilohmentioned in Gen. Xlix. , the first prophecy we meet with, supposedto relate to this great character, is contained in Num. Xxiv. 17, 19, “There shall come a star out of Jacob, and a sceptre shall rise outof Israel, shall smite the corners of Moab, and destroy the childrenof Seth. ” Geddes interprets the latter clause--“shall destroy thesons of esdition;” but it probably means, according to the commoninterpretation, that this monarch was to govern the whole race ofmen, i. E. The children of Seth; for Noah, according to the OldTestament, was descended from him; and of the posterity of Noah, was the whole earth overspread. And in verse 19, it is added “outof Jacob shall come he that shall have dominion. ”*

God says to David, 2 Sam. Vii. 12, “And when thy days shall befulfilled, and thou shall sleep with thy fathers, I will set up thy seedafter thee, which shall proceed out of thy bowels; and I willestablish his kingdom. He shall build a house for my name, and Iwill establish the throne of his kingdom for ever. I will be hisFather, and he shall be my Son--if he commit iniquity, I willchasten him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of thechildren of men. But my mercy shall not depart from him, as I tookit from Saul, whom I put away before thee. And thy house, and thykingdom shall be established before me, and thy throne shall beestablished for ever. ” Mention is made of this promise in several ofthe Psalms, but it certainly suggests no idea of such a person asJesus of Nazareth, but only that of a temporal prince of theposterity of David. It implies, that his family would never entirelyfail for though it might be severely punished, it would recover itslustre again. And connecting this promise with that of the glory ofthe nation in general, foretold in the books of Moses, it might beinferred by the Hebrews, who believed them to be of Divineauthority, that after long and great calamities (the consequences oftheir sins, ) the people of Israel would be restored to their country, and attain the most distinguished felicity under a prince of thefamily of David. This is the subject of numberless propheciesthroughout the Old Testament. 

Passing over all those prophecies in which the national glory isspoken of without any mention of a prince or head; I shall recite, and remark upon the most eminent of those in which mention ismade of any particular person, under whom, or by means ofwhom, the Israelitish nation, it is said, would enjoy thetranscendent prosperity elsewhere foretold. 

The second Psalm is no doubt well known to my readers, andsupposing it to refer to the Messiah, it is evident, that it describeshim enthroned upon mount Zion, the favorite of God, and theresistless conqueror of his enemies. 

The next prophecy of this distinguished individual is recorded inIsaiah ix. 6--“Unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given, andthe government shall be upon his shoulder; and the Wonderful, theCounsellor, the mighty God, the everlasting Father shall call hisname* the Prince of Peace. ” [For thus it is pointed to be read in theoriginal Hebrew, and this is the meaning of the passage, and not asin the absurd translation of this verse in the English version. ] “Ofthe increase of his government there shall be no end upon thethrone of David, and his kingdom, to order it, and to establish itwith judgment, and with justice from henceforth and for ever: thezeal of the Lord of Hosts will do this. ” Here again we have amighty monarch, sitting upon the throne of David, upon earth; andnot a spiritual king placed in heaven, upon the throne of “themighty God, the everlasting Father. ”

The next passage which comes under notice, is in the eleventhchapter of Isaiah, in which a person is mentioned, under whomIsrael, and the whole earth was to enjoy great prosperity andfelicity. He is described as an upright prince, endued with the spiritof God, under whose reign there would be universal peace, whichwas to take place after the return of the Israelites from theirdispersed state, when the whole nation would be united and happy. 

“There shall spring forth a rod from the trunk of Jesse, and a scionfrom his roots shall become fruitful. And the spirit of the Lordshall rest upon him; the spirit of wisdom, and understanding; thespirit of counsel, and strength; the spirit of knowledge, and the fearof the Lord. And he shall be quick of discernment in the fear of theLord; so that not according to the sight of his eyes shall he judge, nor according to the hearing of the ears shall he reprove. Withrighteousness shall he judge the poor, and with equity shall hework conviction# on the meek of the earth. And he shall smite theearth with the blast of his mouth; and with the breath of his lipsshall he slay the wicked one. And righteousness shall be the girdleof his lions, and faithfulness the cincture of his reins. Then shallthe wolf take up his abode with the lamb; and the leopard shall liedown with the kid; and the calf, and the young lion, and the fatlingshall come together, and a little child shall lead them. And theheifer, and the she bear shall feed together, and the lion shall eatstraw like the ox. And the suckling shall play upon the hole of theasp; and upon the den of the basilisk shall the new weaned childlay his hand. They shall not hurt, nor destroy in my holy mountain, for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord as thewaters cover the sea. And it shall come to pass in that day, the rootof Jesse which standeth for an ensign to the people, unto him shallthe nations repair, and his resting place shall be glorious. ”

As the scion here spoken of is said to spring from the root of Jesse, it looks as if it were intended to intimate, that the tree itself wouldbe cut down, or that the power of David's Family would be forsome time extinct; but that it would revive in “the latter days. ”

The same Prince is again mentioned, chap xxxiii. 1, 3, where thepeople are described to be both virtuous, and flourishing, and tocontinue to be so. (v. 15--17. )

“Behold a king shall reign in righteousness, and princes shall rulewith equity. And the man shall be a covert from the storm, as arefuge from the flood, as canals of waters in a dry place, as theshadow of a great rock in a land of fainting with heat. And him theeyes of those that see shall regard, and the ears of them that hearshall harken, * * * * till the spirit from on high be poured out uponus, and the wilderness become a fruitful field, and the fruitful fieldbe esteemed a forest. And judgment shall dwell in the wilderness, and in the fruitful field shall reside righteousness. And the work ofrighteousness shall be peace, and the effect of righteousnessperpetual quiet, and security. And my people shall dwell in apeaceful mansion, and in habitations secure, and in resting placesundisturbed. ”

The same Prophet, chap. Lxii 1, speaks of a person under the title of“God’s Servant, ” of a meek disposition, raised up by God toenlighten the world, even the Gentile part of it; to bring prisonersout of their confinement, and to open their eyes; alluding, probably, to the custom too common in the East; of sealing up theeyes, by sewing or fastening together the eyelids of persons, andthen imprisoning thorn for life. It is doubted, however, whether theProphet meant, or had in view, in this passage, the Messiah, or hisown nation. 

“Behold my servant whom I will uphold, mine elect in whom mysoul delighteth; I will make my spirit rest upon him, and he shallpublish judgment to the nations. He shall not cry aloud, nor raise aclamour, nor cause his voice to be heard in the public places. Thebruised reed shall he not break, and the dimly burning flax he shallnot quench, he shall publish judgment so as to establish itperfectly. His force shall not be abated, nor broken, until he hasfirmly seated judgment in the earth, and the distant nations shallearnestly wait for his Law. ”

“Thus saith the Lord, even, the Eternal, who created the heavens, and stretched them out; who spread abroad the earth, and theproduce thereof, who giveth breath to the people upon it, and spiritto them that tread thereon. I the Lord have called thee for arighteous purpose, * and I will take hold of thy hand, and I willpreserve thee; and I will give thee for a covenant to the people, fora light to the nations; to open the eyes of the blind, to bring thecaptive out of confinement, and from the dungeon those that dwellin darkness. I am the Eternal, that is my name, and my glory will Inot give to another, nor my praise to the graven images. Theformer predictions, lo! they are to come to pass, and now events Inow declare; before they spring forth, behold I make them knownunto you. ” See also chap. Xlix. 1, 12, and chap. Liv. 3, 5. 

In the 3d chapter of Hosea, verses 4 and 5, it is said by the Prophet, that “the sons of Israel shall abide many days without a king, andwithout a prince, and without sacrifice, and without a statue, andwithout an ephod, and without Teraphim. Afterward shall the sonsof Israel return, and shall seek the Lord their God, and DAVIDtheir King, and shall fear the Lord, and his goodness in the latterdays. ”

Micah chap. V. Speaks of the Messiah thus, “And thou BethlehemEphratah, art thou too little to be among the leaders of Judah? Outof thee shall come forth unto me, him who is to be ruler in Israel;and his goings forth have been from old, from the days of hiddenages. Therefore will He (God) deliver them up, until the time whenshe that bringeth forth, hath brought forth, and until the residue ofhis brethren shall return together with the sons of Israel. And. Heshall stand and feed his flock, in the strength of the Lord, in themajesty of the name of the Lord his God, and they shall abide, fornow shall he be great unto the ends of the earth, and he shall bePeace. ” Jeremiah also speaks of the restoration of the Israelitesunder a Prince of the family of David, chap. Xxiii. 5, 8. 

“Behold the days are coming, saith the Lord, that I will raise upunto David a righteous branch, and a king shall reign, and actwisely, and shall execute justice, and judgment in the earth. In hisdays Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell in security, andthis is the name by which the Eternal shall call him, OURRIGHTEOUSNESS. ”# [Heb. ] The same is mentioned in chap. Xxx. 8, 9. “And it shall be in that day, saith the Lord of Hosts, I willbreak his yoke from off his neck, and his bands will I burstasunder, and strangers shall no more exact service of him. But theyshall serve the Lord their God, and DAVID their King, whom Iwill raise up for (or to) them. * * * The voice of joy, and the voiceof mirth, the voice of the bridegroom, and the voice of the bride, the voice of them that say. Praise ye the Lord of Hosts, for theLord is gracious, for his mercy endureth for ever, of them thatbring praise to the house of the Lord. Thus saith the Lord of Hosts, yet again shall there be in this place that is desolate (Jerusalem andPalestine, ) without man and beast, and in all the cities thereof, anhabitation of shepherds folding sheep, in the cities of the hillcountry, and in the cities of the plain, and in the cities of the south, and in the land of Benjamin, and in the environs of Jerusalem. * ** Behold the days come, saith the Lord, that I will perform thegood thing which I have spoken concerning the house of Israel, and concerning the house of Judah. In those days, and at that time, [he that readeth, let him observe] I will came to grow up of the lineof David a branch of righteousness, and he shall execute judgmentand justice in the earth. In those days Judah shall be saved, andJerusalem, shall dwell securely, and this is he whom the Lord shallcall--‘OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS. ’ [Heb. ] Surely, thus saith theLord, there shall not be a failure in the line of David, one to situpon the throne of the house of Israel, neither shall there be afailure in the line of the Priests, the Levites, of one to offer beforeme burnt offerings, and to perform sacrifice continually. " See ch. Xxxiiii. 14. In this place, the perpetuity of the tribe of Levi, as wellas that of the house of David, is foretold. See also Jer. Ch. Xxx. 9. 

Contemporary with Jeremiah was Ezekiel. He likewise describesthis happy state of the Israelites under a king of the name of David, chap. Xxxiv. 22. 

“Therefore will I save my flock, and they shall no more be a prey:and I will judge between cattle, and cattle. And I will set up oneShepherd over them, and be shall feed them, even my servantDAVID: he shall feed them, and he shall be their shepherd, and Ithe Lord will be their God, and my servant DAVID a Princeamong them. I the Lord have spoken it. And I will make with thema covenant of peace, and will cause the evil beasts to cease out ofthe land; and they shall dwell safely in' the wilderness, and sleep inthe woods. And I will make them, and the places round about myhill, a blessing, and I will cause the shower to come down in theseason: there shall be showers of blessing. And the tree of the fieldshall yield her fruit; and the earth shall yield her increase; and theyshall be safe in their land; and shall know that I am the Lord, &c. ”

In another passage this prophet says, that the two nations, Israeland Judah, shall have one king, and that this king shall be namedDAVID, who shall reign for ever, chap. Xxxvii. 21--28. “Say untothem, thus saith the Lord God, behold I will take the children ofIsrael from among the heathen, whither they be gone, and willgather them on every side, and bring them into their own land. AndI will make them one nation in the land, upon the mountains ofIsrael, and one king shall be king to them all, and they shall be nomore two nations, neither shall they be divided into two kingdomsany more at all. Neither shall they defile themselves any more withtheir idols, nor with their detestable things, nor with any of theirtransgressions; but I will save them out of all their dwelling placeswherein they have sinned, and will cleanse them, so shall they bemy people, and I will be their God. And DAVID my servant shallbe king over them, and there shall be one shepherd. They shallalso walk in my judgments, and observe my statutes and do them. And they shall dwell in the land that I have given unto Jacob myservant, wherein your fathers have dwelt, and they shall dwelltherein, even they, and their children, and their children’s childrenfor ever, and my servant DAVID shall be their prince forever. Moreover I will make a covenant of peace with them: it shall be aneverlasting covenant with them, and I will place them, andmultiply them, and will set my sanctuary in the midst of them, forevermore. My tabernacle also shall be with them, and I will betheir God, and they shall be my people. And the heathen shallknow, that I the Lord do sanctify Israel, when my sanctuary shall, be in the midst of them for evermore. ”

The natural construction of this seems to be this, “that a descendantof David, called by that name, should reign over the Israelites forever. ”

In the very circumstantial description which Ezekiel gives of thestate of the Israelites in their own country, yet expected by theJews, he speaks of the prince, and the portion assigned him, chap. Xlv. 78. And in his description of the temple service, he moreoverspeaks of the gate, by which the prince is to enter into it. See chap. Xlvi. 1, 2. 

The next, and last, passage I shall quote, is from the book ofDaniel, who, in the first year of Belshazzar king of Babylon, had avision of four beasts, representing the four great Empires. At theclose of his account of which, he speaks of “one like the son ofman” being brought into the presence of God, and receiving fromthe Eternal an everlasting kingdom (chap. Vii. 13)--“I saw in thenight visions, and behold one like the son of man came with theclouds of heaven, and come to the ancient of days; and theybrought him near before him. And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, whichshall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not bedestroyed. ”

I have now gone through the prophecies which are allowed both byJews and Christians to relate to one person whom they call theMessiah. It must be evident from all these passages, that thecharacteristics of this, to both parties, highly interesting personage, as described by the Hebrew prophets, are these:--

1. That he was to be a just, beneficent, wise, and mighty monarch, raised up and upheld, and established by God, to be the means ofpromoting universal peace, and happiness. That Israel should begathered to him, and established in their own land; which was tobe the seat of dominion, and the centre of union, and of worship toall the people, and nations of the earth; who were to live under thegovernment, and receive, and obey the law of this beneficentprince; and enjoy unspeakable felicities on the earth, then changedto a universal paradise. And for all this happiness, they were toworship, and glorify the true God only, and glorify the Eternal, andgive thanks to Him “because He is good, and his mercy endurethforever. ”

2. That this prince was to be of the line of David, and as it shouldseem, called by that name, and was to reign on his throne inJerusalem. 

3. That according to Micah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel, (see thequotations)

his manifestation, and (and the restoration of Israel) were to becontemporaneous. See Hosea, chap. Iii. 4, 5. And from Jeremiahxxxiii. 15, and from Micah v. 2, it should seem also, that he wasnot to be born, till the time of that restoration should be nearlyarrived. 

The prophecies concerning the Messiah of the Jews being now laidbefore the reader, we have only to apply these descriptions to knowwhether an individual be their Messiah, or not. For, (according tothe principles laid down, and established in the preceding chapter)where the foregoing characteristics given by the prophets do centreand agree, that person is the Messiah foretold; but where they arenot found in any one claiming that character, miracles are nothingto the purpose, and nothing is more certain, than that he has noright to be considered as such; and could he with a word turn thesun black in the face, in proof of his being the Messiah, he is, nevertheless, not to be regarded; for, whether such a person has yetappeared, can certainly only be known by considering, whether theworld has ever yet seen such a person as this Messiah of theHebrew prophets. 

CHAPTER IV. 

THE CHARACTER OF JESUS TESTED BY THOSECHARACTERISTIC MARKS OF THE MESSIAH GIVEN BYTHE PROPHETS OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 

Had Jesus of Nazareth come into the world merely as a person sentwith a revelation from God, he would have had a right to beattended to, and tried upon that ground. And if his doctrines andprecepts were consistent with reason, consistent with one another, and with prior revelations, really such, and all tending to thehonour of God, and the good of men; his miracles, with thesecircumstances, ought to have determined men to believe in him. 

But since he claimed to be the Messiah of the Jews, foretold bytheir prophets, it is requisite, that that claim should be made out;and it is reasonable in itself, and just to him, and necessary to allthose who will not take their religion upon trust, that ho should betried, by examining whether this claim can be made out, or not. The argument from prophecy becomes necessary to establish theclaim of the Gospel: and as truth is consistent with itself, so thisclaim must be true, or, it destroys all others. 

Besides, what notions of common morality must he have, whopretends to come from God, and declares (Jo. V. 37, ) “that theScriptures testify of him, ” if, in fact, the Scriptures do not testify ofhim? What honesty, or sincerity could he have, who could “beginat Moses, and all the prophets, and expound unto his disciples inall the Scriptures the things concerning himself, ” if neither Mosesnor the prophets ever spake a word about him? The prophets, therefore, must decide this question, and the foundation ofChristianity must be laid upon them; or else, to avoid onedifficulty, Christians will be forced into such absurdities, as noman can palliate, much less can extricate himself out of. 

Furthermore, this claim must be made out to the satisfaction of theGentile, as well as the Jew. For since the fundamental article ofChristianity is, that Jesus is the Christ; (Jo. Xx. 31) that is to say, that he is the Messiah prophecied of in the Old Testament;whoever comes into the world as such, must come as the Messiahof the Jews, because no other nation did expect, or pretend to, thepromise of a Messiah. Moreover, whoever comes as this Messiahof the Jews, must at least pretend to answer the character of theirMessiah plainly delivered in the writings of their prophets. And theJews themselves receiving those writings as divine, were notbound to, neither could they consistently with their duty, receive, any, who did not answer in all points to the description thereingiven. 

Let us now test the character of Jesus of Nazareth by thedescription of the Messiah given by the Hebrew prophets. If hischaracter corresponds in all respects with that given by thoseprophets, he is undoubtedly to be acknowledged as the king ofIsrael foretold; but if they do not exactly correspond, if there be theslightest incongruity, he certainly was not this Messiah. For it isevident, that some of the characteristic marks given may belong to. Many illustrious individuals, but the whole can belong to, and befound in, only one person. 

The first characteristic of the Messiah, the reader will recollect, was, according to the prophets, that he was to be “the Prince ofPeace, ” in whose times righteousness was to flourish, andmankind be made happy. That he was to sit upon the throne ofDavid judging right; and that to him, and their own land, was Israelto be gathered, and all nations serve and obey him; and worshipone God, even Jehovah. 

But of Jesus we read, that he asserted, that his kingdom was “notof this world. ” Instead of effecting peace among the nations, hesaid, “Think not that I am come to send peace on earth, I havecome to send a sword, I have come to put division between a son, and his father; the mother, and the daughter; the daughter-in-law, and her mother-in-law. ” “Think ye, (said he to his disciples) that Ihave come to put peace on earth, I tell you nay, but ratherdivision. ” Again, “I have come to put fire on the earth. ” These arenot the characteristics of the Messiah of the prophets of the OldTestament. For of him Zechariah (ch. Ix. ) says, that “He shallspeak peace to the nations;” and of him Isaiah says, “Nation shallnot lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn waranymore. ” And so far from being the author of division, sword, andfire; according to Malachi, in the times of the Messiah, “the heartof the parents was to be converted to the children, and the heart ofthe children to their parents. ”

In the times of the Messiah, wars were to cease, righteousness wasto flourish, and mankind be happy. Whether this has yet takenplace, the experience of almost nineteen centuries, and the presentstate of the world, can enable every one to determine for himself. 

In the times of the Messiah, Israel was to be gathered, and plantedin their own land, in honour, and prosperity. But not many yearsafter the death of Jesus of Nazareth, the Jewish nation underwentthe most dreadful calamities; and to this day, so far are they frombeing gathered, they are scattered to the four quarters of the globe. Instead of being in honour and prosperity, their history, since histime, is one dreadful record of unparalleled sufferings, written inletters of blood by the hands of murder, rapine, and cruelty. 

Again; the true Messiah was, it seems, to be called DAVID, andwas to reign at Jerusalem, on the throne of David; but the name“Jesus” is not the same as “David, ” and Christians have assignedhim a spiritual kingdom, and a throne in heaven! But was thethrone of David in heaven? No! it was in Jerusalem, and no morein Heaven, than that of the Caesars. 

Lastly, it appears from the prophecies of Hosea, Micah, andJeremiah, Isaiah, and Ezekiel, quoted in the last chapter, that themanifestation of their Messiah was to be contemporaneous withthe restoration of Israel, and from the quotations adduced from thethree first mentioned prophets, it should seem that his birth was notto take place many years before that glorious event. But Jesus ofNazareth was born almost two thousand years ago; and thechildren of Israel yet expect a deliverer. And to conclude, it wasforetold by Malachi, and believed by the Jews then, and ever since, that Elias the prophet, who did not die, but was removed from theearth, should precede the coming of the Messiah, and prepare themfor his reception. But the prophet Elias certainly has not yetappeared!

Indeed, nothing appears to be more dissimilar than the character ofthe Messiah, as given by the Hebrew prophets, and that of Jesus ofNazareth. It seems scarcely credible, that a man who, thoughamiable and virtuous, yet lived in a low state, was poor, livingupon alms, without wealth, and without power; and who (thoughby misfortune) died the death of a malefactor, crucified betweentwo robbers, (a death exactly parallel with being hanged at thepublic gallows in the present day) should ever be taken for thatmighty prince, that universal potentate, and benefactor of thehuman race, foretold in the splendid language of the prophets ofthe Old Testament. 

CHAPTER V. 

EXAMINATION OF THE ARGUMENTS FROM THE OLDTESTAMENT ADDUCED IN THE NEW, TO PROVE THATJESUS OF NAZARETH WAS THE MESSIAH. 

But since one would esteem it almost incredible, that the apostlescould persuade men to believe Jesus to be this Messiah, unless theyhad at least some proof to offer to their conviction, let us nextconsider, and examine, the proofs adduced by the apostles andtheir followers, from the Old Testament for that purpose. 

Of the strength or weakness of the proofs for Christianity out of theOld Testament, we are well qualified to judge, as we have the Oldand New Testament in our hands; the first containing what areoffered as proofs of Christianity, and the latter the application ofthose proofs, and we should seem to have nothing more to do, butto compare the Old and New Testament together. 

But these proofs taken out of the Old Testament, and urged in theNew, being sometimes not to be found in the Old, nor urged in theNew, according to the literal and obvious sense, which they appearto bear in their supposed places in the Old, and, therefore, notproofs according to the rules of interpretation established byreason, and acted upon in interpreting every other ancient book--almost all Christian commentators on the Bible, and advocates forthe religion of the New Testament, both ancient and modern, havejudged them to be applied in a secondary, or typical, or mystical, or allegorical, or enigmatical sense; that is, in a sense differentfrom the obvious and literal sense which they bear in the OldTestament. 

Thus, for example, Matthew, after having given an account of theconception of Mary, and the birth of Jesus, says (ch. I. , ) “All thiswas done that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by theprophet, saying, Behold a virgin shall be with child, and shall bringforth a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel. ” But the wordsas they stand in Isaiah ch. Vii. 14, from whence they are taken, do, in their obvious and literal sense, relate to a young woman in thedays of Ahaz, King of Judah, as will appear, considering thecontext. 

When Rezin, King of Syria, and Pekah, King of Israel, wereconfederates in arms together, against Ahaz, King of Judah, Isaiahthe prophet was sent by God, first to comfort Ahaz and the nation, and then to assure them by a sign, that his enemies should in a littletime be confounded. --But Ahaz refusing a sign at the prophet’shand, the prophet said (see the chapter, ) “The Lord shall give youa sign. Behold a virgin, or ‘young woman’ (for the Hebrew wordmeans both as was truly and justly asserted by the Jews in theprimitive ages against the Christians, and is now acknowledged, and established beyond dispute by the best Hebrew scholars ofthis age, ) shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his nameImmanuel. Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know torefuse the evil and choose the good. For before the child shallknow to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land which thouabhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings. ” And this sign isaccordingly given Ahaz by the prophet, who, ch. Viii. V. 2, 18, tooktwo witnesses and went to the said young woman, who in due timeconceived, and bare a son, after whose birth the projects of Rezinand Pekah were, it appears, soon confounded, according to theprophecy and sign given by the prophet. 

And the prophet himself, puts it beyond dispute, that this is theproper interpretation of the prophecy, by express words, as well asby his whole narration; for he says, “Behold I, and the childrenwhom the Lord hath given me, are for signs, and for wonders inIsrael from the Lord of Hosts, that dwelleth in mount Zion. ” Isaiahviii. 19. 

This is the plain drift and design of the prophet, literally, obviously, and primarily understood; and thus he is understood byone of the most judicious of interpreters, the great Grotius. Indeed, to understand the prophet as having the conception of Mary, andthe birth of her son Jesus from a virgin mother literally, andprimarily in view, is a very great absurdity, and contrary to thevery intent and design of the sign given by the prophet. 

For the sign being given by Isaiah to convince Ahaz that hebrought a message from God to him, to assure him that the twokings should not succeed in their attempt against him, how could avirgin’s conception, and bearing a son seven hundred yearsafterwards, be a sign to Ahaz, that the prophet came to him, withthe said message from God? And how useless was it to Ahaz, aswell as absurd in itself for the prophet, to say, “Before the child, born seven hundred years hence, shall distinguish between goodand evil, the land which thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of bothher kings, ” which would be a banter, instead of a sign. 

But a prophecy of the certain birth of a male child, by a particularfemale within a short time, seems a proper sign, as being not onlywhat could not with certainty, be foretold, except by a personinspired, but considered as soon coming to pass, it, consequently, evidences itself to be a divine sign, and answers all the purposes ofa sign. And such a sign is agreeable to God’s conduct on likeoccasions; witness his conduct to Gideon and Hezekiah. Jud. Vi. ; 2Kings xx. 

This prophecy, therefore, not being fulfilled in Jesus, according tothe literal and obvious sense of the words as they stand in Isaiah, itis supposed that this, like the other prophecies cited in the NewTestament, is fulfilled in a secondary, or typical, or mystical sense;that is, the said prophecy, which was literally fulfilled by the birthof the son foretold by the prophet, was again fulfilled by the birthof Jesus, as being an event of the same kind, and intended to besecretly and mystically signified either by the prophet or by God, who directed the prophet’s speech. If the reader desires furthersatisfaction that the literal and obvious sense of this prophecyrelates to a son to be born in Isaiah's time, and not to Jesus, he isreferred to the commentator Grotius, and to Huetius’ Demonstrat. Evang. In loc. , to the ancient fathers, and to the most respectable ofthe modern Christian. Commentators, who all allow and show, thatthe words of Isaiah are not applicable to the birth of Jesus in theirliteral sense, but only in a mystical, or figurative, or allegoricalsense. 

Again, 	Matthew gives us another prophecy, which he says wasfulfilled. He tells us, that Jesus was carried into Egypt; fromwhence he returned after the death of Herod, (Mat. Ii. ) “that itmight be fulfilled, which was of the Lord by the prophet, saying, ‘out of Egypt have I called my son. ’” Which, being word for wordin Hosea, (ch. Xi. 1) and no where else to be found in the OldTestament, are supposed to be taken from thence; where accordingto their obvious sense they are no prophecy at all! but relate andrefer to a past action, viz. , to the calling of the children of Israelout of Egypt, which will, I think, be denied by few. This passage, therefore, or as it is styled, prophecy, of Hosea, is said by learnedmen among Christians to be mystically, or allegorically, applied, in order to render Matthew’s application of it, just; and they say allother methods of some learned men to solve the difficulty arisingfrom Matthew's citation of this passage, have proved unsuccessful. 

Again, Matthew says, (ch. Ii. ) “Jesus came, and dwelt at Nazareth, that it might be fulfilled, which was spoken by the prophet, saying, ‘he shall be called a Nazarene;’” but as this passage does notoccur in the Old Testament at all, we are precluded fromascertaining whether it be literal, mystical, or allegorical. 

Jesus says of John the Baptist, (Mat. Xi. 14) “This is Elias that wasfor to come, ” wherein he is supposed to refer to these words ofMalachi, (ch. Iv. 4) “Behold I will send you Elijah the prophet, before the coming of the great and terrible day of the Lord, ” which, according to their literal, and obvious sense, are a prophecy, thatElijah or Elias was to come in person (which we know from theNew Testament, as well as elsewhere, was the constant expectationof the Jews. ) Besides, this Elijah was to come “before the great andterrible day of the Lord, ” which has not yet arrived; and, therefore, this prophecy of Malachi, referred to by the evangelist, wascertainly not literally, but only mystically, fulfilled in John theBaptist. 

Again, Jesus (Mat. Xiii. ) cites the prophecy of Isaiah (Is. Vi. 9, ) “Byhearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand;” and he assures us, that it was fulfilled in his time in those to whom he spake inparables, (which, by the way, he did, it is said, in order to fulfil apassage of the Psalms) though it is manifest that the prophecy ofIsaiah quoted, according to its literal sense, undoubtedly relates tothe obstinate Jews who lived in the time of Isaiah. 

In fine, these, and the many other passages cited as propheciesfrom the Old Testament by the authors of the New, do so plainlyrelate, in their obvious and primary sense to other matters thanthose which they are adduced to prove, that it is allowed by themost learned defenders of Christianity, that to pretend that theyprove in a literal sense what they are adduced to prove, is to giveup with both hands the cause of Christianity to the enemies thereof, who can so easily show in so many undoubted instances, the Oldand New Testament to have no manner of connection in thatrespect, but to be in an irreconcilable state. 

These proofs from the prophets being so different from what weshould expect, it behoves us to enquire what could induce Jesusand his apostles to quote the Old Testament in such a manner?

The Jews shortly answer this question, by saying, that they did so, because they did not understand the meaning of the books theyquoted. But it has been answered by some learned Christians, thatJesus and the apostles did not quote in the manner they did throughcaprice or ignorance bat according to certain methods ofinterpretation, which were in their times of established authorityamong the Jews. 

The rules of interpretation, which were supposed to beirrecoverably lost afterwards recovered to the world by the learnedSurenhusius, professor of the Hebrew language in the illustriousschool of Amsterdam. He made an ample discovery to the world ofthe rules by which the apostles cited the Old Testament, andargued from thence, wherein the whole mystery of the apostlesapplying scripture in a secondary, or typical, or allegorical sense, seems to be unfolded. I shall, therefore, state this matter fromSurenhusius. 

He (Surenhusius) says, “that when he considered the variousopinions Of the learned about the passages of the Old Testamentquoted in the New, He was filled with grief, not knowing where toset his foot; and was much concerned, that what had been donewith good success upon profane authors, could not be so happilyperformed upon the sacred. ”

He tells us, “that having had frequent occasions to converse withthe Jews (on account of his application to Hebrew literature fromhis youth) who insolently reflected upon the New Testament, affirming it to be plainly corrupted, because it seldom or neveragreed with the Old Testament, some of whom were so confidentin this opinion, as to say, they would profess the Christian religion, if any one could reconcile the New Testament with the Old. “I wasthe more grieved, because, (says this honest and well meaningman) I knew not how to apply a remedy to this evil. ” But thematter being of great importance, he discoursed with severallearned men about it, and read the books of others, beingpersuaded that the authors of the books of the New Testament hadwritten nothing but what was suited to the time wherein they lived, and that Christ and his apostles had constantly followed themethod of their ancestors. After he had long revolved thishypothesis in his mind, at last he met with a Rabbi well skilled inthe Talmud, the Cabbala, and the allegorical books of the Jews. This Rabbi had once embraced the Christian religion, but wasagain relapsed to Judaism on account of the idolatry of the Papists, yet not perfectly disbelieving the integrity of the New Testament. Surenhusius asked him, what he thought of the passages of the OldTestament quoted in the New, whether they were rightly quoted ornot, and whether the Jews had any just reason to cavil at them, andat the same time proposed to him two or three passages, which hadvery much exercised the most learned Christian commentators. 

The Rabbi having admirably explained those passages, to the greatsurprise of Surenhusius, and confirming his explications byseveral places of the Talmud, and other writings of the Jewishcommentators, and allegorical writers, Surenhusius asked himwhat would be the best method to write a treatise in order tovindicate the passages of the Old Testament quoted in the New?The Rabbi answered, that he “thought the best way of succeedingin such an undertaking would be to peruse a great part of theTalmud, and the allegorical and literal commentators; to observetheir several ways of quoting and interpreting scripture, and tocollect as many materials of that kind, as would be sufficient forthat purpose. ”

Surenhusius took the hint immediately: he read such books as wererecommended, observed every thing that might be subservient tohis design, and made a book upon the subject. And in the third partof that book he gives us the rules so long sought after, viz. , the tenways# used, he says, by the Jewish doctors in citing scripture. Andhere they are:--

1. The first rule is--“reading the words of the Hebrew bible, notaccording to the points placed under them, but according to otherpoints substituted in their stead, ” as is done by Peter, Acts iii. 3; byStephen, Acts vii. 43, and by Paul, 1 Cor. Xv. 54; 2 Cor. Viii. 16, and Heb. Iii. 10; ix. 21; xii. 6. 

2. The second rule is--“changing the letters, whether those lettersbe of the same organ (as the Hebrew grammarians speak, ) or not, ”as is done by Paul, Rom. Ix. 33; 1 Cor. Xi. 9; Heb. Viii. 9, and x. 6;and by Stephen, Acts vii. 43. 

3. The third is--“changing both letters and points, ” as is done byPaul, Acts xiii. 41, and 2 Cor. Viii. 15. 

4. The fourth is--“adding some letters, and taking away others. ”

5. The fifth is--“transposing words and letters. ”

6. The sixth is--“dividing one word into two. ”

7. The seventh is--“adding other words to those in the text, inorder to make the sense more clear, and to accommodate it to thesubject they we upon. ”

8. The eighth is--“changing the order of words. ”

9. The ninth is--“changing the order of words, and adding otherwords. ”

10. The tenth is--“changing the order of words, adding words, and retrenching words, ” which, (says he) is a method often usedby Paul. Of the application of all these rules, he gives examplestaken from the New Testament. 

It is not necessary to make many observations upon these rules, they speak for themselves most significantly; for what is there thatcannot be proved from the Old Testament, or any other book, yea, from Euclid’s Elements! or even an old almanac! by the help of“altering words and sentences; adding; retrenching; andtransposing, and cutting words in two, ” as is stated above by alearned and good man, and sincere Christian who found out, andbrought forward, these rules, as the best means of getting theauthors of the New Testament out of a difficulty, which had longshocked and grieved their best friends. 

CHAPTER VI. 

EXAMINATION OF THE MEANING OF THE PHRASE “THISWAS DONE THAT IT MIGHT BE FULFILLED. ”

It may be objected from divers learned authors, who have beenvery sensible of the difficulties stated in the preceding chapters, and have, sensible of the difficulties stated in the precedingchapters, therefore, taken other ground than their predecessors, inorder to defend themselves the better; I say, it may be objected towhat I have advanced, that Christianity is not in fact grounded onthe prophetical, or other, quotations made from the Old, in theNew, Testament; but that those quotations being allegoricallyapplied by the authors of the New Testament, are merelyarguments ad hominem, to convince the Jews of the truth ofChristianity, who allowed such a method of arguing to be valid, and are not arguments to the rest of mankind. 

To which I answer--That this distinction is the pure invention ofthose who make the objection, and not only has no foundation inthe New Testament, but is utterly subverted by its expressdeclarations; for the authors of the books of the New Testamentalways argue absolutely from the quotations they cite asprophecies out of the books of the Old Testament. Moses and theprophets are every where represented to be a just foundation forChristianity; and the author of the Epistle to the Romans expresslysays, ch. Xvi. 26, 26, “The gospel, which was kept secret since theworld began, was now made manifest by the scriptures of theprophets (wherein that gospel was secretly contained) to allnations, ” by the means of the preachers of the gospel who gavethe secret or spiritual sense of those scriptures; for to the ancientJews, according to them, the gospel was preached by the types oftheir law, and, therefore, must have been considered as trulycontained in it. 

Besides, the authors of the books of the New Testament wereconvinced long before the publication of them, that the gospel wasto be preached to the Gentiles as well as the Jews, to both ofwhom, therefore, they reasoned allegorically in their books, asPeter and others did in their sermons, though with greater successon Gentiles than on Jews; and as Paul did before Felix, when hesaid he took his heresy, or Christianity, from the law, and theprophets. Acts xxiv. , as also he did before Agrippa. It would, therefore, seem strange, that books written to all the world by menequally concerned to convert Gentiles as well as Jews, and thatdiscourses made expressly to Gentiles as well as to Jews, should bedesigned to be pertinent only to Jews, much less to a very fewJews! Indeed, I am ashamed at being thus long engaged in showingwhat must be self evident; and did I not fear being further tediousto my readers, I would undertake to bring together passages fromthe New Testament, where the meaning and intention of the writersis obvious, in such abundance, as would immediately and entirelyput the hypothesis of our opponents out of countenance. 

These quotations from the. Old Testament are certainly urged, andspoken of as direct proofs, as absolute proofs in themselves, andnot as mere proofs ad hominem to the Jews; for if these propheciesare only urged by the apostles as proofs to the Jews, and intendedonly as proofs founded on the mistaken meanings of the OldTestament of some Jews of their time, what sense is there inappealing upon all occasions to the prophets, and recommendingthe reading and search of the Old Testament for the trial and proofof what was preached? for that was to proceed on weakness itself, knowing it to be so. Certainly nothing, but a real persuasion, thatthe prophecies of the Old Testament were really fulfilled in Jesus, could make them every where inculcate and appeal to the fulfillingof prophecy. In order to support their hypothesis, Christians havebeen forced to seek evidence to prove, that the phrase--“this wasdone that it might be fulfilled, ” so frequent in the New Testament, meant no such thing, but was only a habit the Jews had got ofintroducing by such phrases a handsome quotation, or allusion, from the Old Testament. But this evasion must be given up, upontwo accounts. 1. Because most of the European biblical critics ofthe present day (the learned annotator on Michaelis’ Introductionto the New Testament, Dr. Marsh, among others) franklyacknowledge it not to be tenable; and 2. Because it can be provednot to be so from the New Testament itself. For example, whenJohn represents (Jo. Xix. 28, ) Jesus upon the cross saying, “’Ithirst’ that the scripture might be fulfilled, ” doth he not plainlyrepresent Jesus as fulfilling a prophecy which foretold that theMessiah should thirst, or say, “I thirst, ” upon the cross? Nay, doeshe not suppose him to say so, in order to fulfil, or that he mightfulfil, a prophecy? Is it not also suitable to the character of Jesus, who founded his Messiahship on the prophecies in the OldTestament, and could not but have the accomplishment of thoseprophecies constantly in view to fulfil, and to intend to fulfil them?And is it not unsuitable in John, in describing his master dyingupon the cross, to represent him as saying things, whereby he onlygave occasion to observe, that he fulfilled, i. E. , accommodated aphrase! not a prophecy!!

Besides, they who set up this accommodating principle ofaccommodation, do, in some cases, take the term fulfilled in itsproper sense, and do allow it, (when convenient) to relate to aprophecy really fulfilled. But I would ask them, what rule theyhave to know when the apostles mean a prophecy fulfilled, andwhen a phrase accommodated, since they are acknowledged to usethe strong expression of fulfilling in the latter case no less than inthe former?

In a word, unless it be granted, that the citations were intended bythe authors of the New Testament, to be adduced, and applied, asprophecies fulfilled; if you do suppose them not intended to beadduced, and applied, as prophecies; then, the whole affair of Jesusbeing foretold as the Messiah, is reduced to an accommodation ofphrases! and it will, assuredly, follow, that the citations of Jesusand his apostles out of the Old Testament, are like and no betterthan the work of, the Empress Eudoxia, who wrote the History ofJesus in verses put together, and borrowed out of--HOMER! orthat of Proba Palconia, who did the same, in verses, and wordstaken out of--Virgil!

In fine, one of two things must be allowed, either (which is mostprobable) the authors of the New Testament conceived theircitations to be indeed prophecies concerning Jesus, and then theywere ignorant and blundered, and, therefore; were not inspired; or, they knowingly used them as means to deceive the simple andcredulous into a belief of their being testimonies sufficient to provewhat they themselves knew they had no relation to;--and thenthey were deceivers: there is no other alternative, and each horn ofthe dilemma, must prove as fatal as the other. 

Perhaps it may be said, “It is to no purpose for you to object to thequotations or the arguments of Jesus and his apostles, for God waswith them confirming their doctrine by signs following, they hadfrom God the power of working miracles, and, consequently, theirinterpretations of Scripture, however strange they may appear toyour minds, must be infallible, they being men inspired. ”

To this argument it can be justly answered, first, that the questionwhether Jesus be the Messiah, entirely depends, as proved before, upon his answering the characteristics given of that personage bythe Jewish prophets; and all the miracles in the world could never, from the nature of the case, prove him to be so, unless his characterdoes entirely agree with the archetype laid down by them, as hadbeen already abundantly proved. 

Secondly, --That whether these miracles were really performed, ornot, depends entirely upon the credibility of the authors themselveswho have thus quoted! which, as shall be shown hereafter, may bedisputed; and, thirdly, it could be retorted upon Protestants, thatthis same argument is the same in principle with the often refutedpopish argumentation. The Papists pretend to derive all their newinvented and absurd doctrines and practices from the scriptures bytheir interpretations of them; but yet, when their interpretations areattacked from scripture, they immediately fly from thence to themiracles wrought in their church, and to the visions of their holymen and saints, for the establishment of their interpretations, bywhich they support those very doctrines and practices. Andparticularly they endeavour to prove thus the doctrine oftransubstantiation, from the numerous miracles affirmed to havebeen wrought in its behalf, which reasoning Protestant Christiansassert to be an argument absurd and inconclusive, therefore, theyshould not use it themselves. 

We allow, that if these interpretations of the sense of the OldTestament had been in existence before the Christian era, it mightbe something. But we beg leave to remind them, that it is certain, that these interpretations were not published till after the events towhich they are referred took place, which is a circumstance ofobvious significancy. 

In fine, to this argument I would answer, as in Cicero (de NaturaDeor. Ed. Dav. P. 209) Cotta did to Balbus--“rumoribus mecumpugnas, ego autem a te roitones requiro. ”

CHAPTER VII. 

EXAMINATION OF THE ARGUMENTS ALLEGED FROMTHE HEBREW PROPHETS, TO PBOVE THAT JESUS WASTHE MESSIAH. 

But it may be asked, how it was possible, that wise and good mencould have been led to embrace the religion of the New Testament, if there were not in the Old Testament some prophecies whichmight be conceived by them to supply, at least, plausiblearguments to prove that Jesus of Nazareth was the Messiah? Arethere no other passages in the prophets besides those quoted in theNew Testament, and are there not a few passages quoted in theNew Testament, which appear more to the purpose than those wehave been considering? To this I candidly answer that there are, and this chapter will be devoted to the consideration of them. 

Two of these prophecies, one from Genesis, and the other fromDaniel, are thought by the advocates of Christianity, (because theyconceive them to point out and to limit the time of the coming ofthe Messiah, ) to be stronger in their favour than any of thosequoted in die New Testament. If so, it is a very singularcircumstance, that the inspired authors of the New Testament didnot make use of them, instead of others not so much to the purpose. This circumstance of itself should teach us to examine theprophecies in question with caution, and also with candour, sincemany worthy and religious men have thought them sufficient toprove that Jesus was indeed the Messiah. These prophecies I shallreserve last for consideration, and shall now begin with the othersusually adduced, taking them up pretty much in the order in whichthey stand in the Old Testament. 

The first passage is taken from Deut. Xviii. 15, “The Lord thy Godwill raise up unto thee a prophet from the midst of thee, like untome, unto him ye shall hearken. According to all that thou desiredstof the Lord thy God in Horeb, in the day of the assembly, saying. Let me not hear again the voice of the Lord my God, neither let mesee his great fire any more, that I die not. And the Lord said untome, they have well spoken that which they have spoken. I willraise them up a prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and I will put my words into his mouth, and he shall speak untothem all that I command him. And it shall come to pass, thatwhosoever will not hearken unto my, words which he shall speakin my name, I will require it of him. ”

This passage is pertinaciously and solely applied to Jesus, by manyChristian writers, because it is so applied by Peter in the 2 chap. OfActs, in his sermon to the Jews, just after he had received the fullinspiration of the Holy Spirit, and of course must be considered asinfallible. Nevertheless, these words of Moses are supposed bymany learned men, both Jews and Christians, to be spoken ofJoshua, whom Moses himself afterwards, at the command andappointment of God, declared to be his successor, and who wasendowed with the spirit which was upon Moses, (see Deut. Xxxi. 33, xxxiv. 17, ) and to whom the Jews then promised to hearken, and pay obedience to, as they had done before to Moses. But othersunderstand them to be a promise of a succession of prophets, towhom the Jews might upon all occasions have recourse; and one orthe other of these seems to be the certain meaning of the place. From this consideration, that from the context it appears Moseswas giving the Jews directions of immediate use; and, therefore, inpromising a prophet to them, to whom they should hearken, heseems to intend an immediate prophet who might be of use to theJews, and answer their common exigencies, and not a prophet twothousand years to come. 

But I take the words to promise a succession of prophets, and forthat sense wherein Grotius and Le Clerc, and most of the Jews, take them. I shall give my reasons, for this, and show that they donot necessarily refer to Jesus Christ. 

Moses, in the verses preceding this prophecy in the same chapter, (Deut. Xviii. 9--14) tells the Israelites from God, that “when theycame into Canaan, they should not learn to do after, theabominations of the people thereof; and, particularly, that thereshould not be found among them any one that useth divination, oran observer of times, &c. , or a consulter with familiar spirits, &c. For all, says he, “that do these things are an abomination to theLord; and because of these abominations the Lord thy God dothdrive these people out from before thee. For these nations whichthou shalt possess hearkened unto observers of times, and untodiviners. But as for thee, the Lord thy God hath not suffered thee todo so. ” Then follow the words about the prophet, “The Lord thyGod will raise unto thee a prophet from the midst of thee of thybrethren like unto me, unto him ye shall hearken. ” All which is asmuch as to say, “When you come into Canaan, do not hearten to adiviner, &c. , as the Canaanites do, for the Lord will give you aprophet of your own brethren inspired like me, to guide anyinstruct you, to whom ye shall hearken. ” Or rather, “Do nothearken to diviners, &c. , but to prophets, who shall be raised upamong you. ”

Now that the words cited must relate to a succession of prophets tobegin upon the Israelites taking possession of the land of Canaan, is manifest; because, the raising up of a prophet, to whom theywere to hearken, is the reason given why they should not hearkento a diviner, &c. , when they came to that land; which reason couldhave no force unless they were to have, 1st, --an immediateprophet in Canaan; for what sense is there, or would there be, insaying, “Don’t hearken to such diviners as are in Canaan, whenyou come there, for you shall have a prophet of your own, towhom ye shall hearken two thousand years after you come there!”

Secondly, --As the context shows that the prophet to be raised up, was an immediate prophet, so it also shows, that the singularnumber here stands for the plural, according to the frequentcustom of the Hebrew language, as is shown by Le Clerc andStillingfleet, in loco; for one single prophet to be raised upimmediately, who might soon die, could not be a reason why Jewsof succeeding generations should not harken to diviners in Canaan. 

Finally, --The words of God by Moses, which follow the promiseof a prophet, evidently show that by that promise prophets wereintended, in laying-down a rule for the test or trial of the prophetsbefore mentioned, in such a manner as implies, that that rule was tobe applied to all prophets pretending to come from him. See thewords in Deut. Xviii. , 19--22. 

I shall conclude this explication, by adducing, in confirmation of it, the paraphrase of the words given in the Targum of Jonathan. “Thenations you are about to possess, (says the Jewish paraphrast)hearken to jugglers and diviners; but you shall not be like them;for your priests shall enquire by Urim and Thummim, and the Lordyour God shall give you a true prophet. ” And this explication isthe one adopted by Origen, --[Contra Celsum, p. 28. ]

As to the difficulty that is raised against this explication from thewords at the end of Deuteronomy--“that there arose not a prophetsince in Israel like unto Moses whom the Lord knew face to face. In all the signs and wonders which the Lord sent him to do, ” &c. --it is nothing at all. For every one perceives, that the word “like”may be, and frequently is, used in scripture, and in commonlanguage, to signify, similarity in some, though not in every, particular; and every prophet, who speaks by God’s direction, is aprophet “like unto Moses, ” who did the same, though he be notlike, or equal to, him “in doing signs and wonders, ” which is allthat is affirmed in the last chapter of Deuteronomy. 

And, finally, there is nothing to limit this prophecy to Jesus ofNazareth, if we allowed (what we reject) the Christianinterpretation; since God might to-morrow, if such were his will, raise up a prophet like unto Moses in every respect, which Jesuscertainly was not; therefore, it cannot be applied and restrained tothe purpose for which it is quoted by Peter. 

There is in the same sermon, in the 2 chap. Of Acts, anotherpassage quoted by Peter from the Psalms, and applied by him toprove the resurrection of Jesus, and on which he lays very greatstress, which after all seems to be nothing to the purpose. Petersays, “Him (i. E. , Jesus) God hath raised up, having loosed thepains [or bands] of death, because it was not possible that heshould be holden of it. ” And why? “For [because] David speakethconcerning him, ‘ I foresaw the Lord always before my face, forhe is on my right hand, that I should not be moved. Therefore didmy heart rejoice, and my tongue was glad; moreover also my fleshshall rest in hope. Because thou wilt not leave my soul in Hades, [the place of departed Spirits] nor suffer thy holy one to seecorruption, thou hast made known to me the ways of life; thoushalt make me full of joy with thy countenance. ’ Men andbrethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, thathe is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto thisday. Therefore, being a prophet, and knowing that God had swornwith an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins according to theflesh, he would raise up Christ to sit upon his throne. He, seeingthis before, spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul wasnot left in Hades, neither did his flesh see corruption. ”

How imposing is this argument! How plausible it appears! And yetit is irrelevant, as Dr. Priestly frankly confesses, who tries to savethe credit of the apostle by the convenient principle ofaccommodation! The whole force of Peter’s reasoning dependsupon the word “corruption. ” David did see corruption; therefore, he could not mean himself, but “being a prophet, ” &c. , he meantJesus Christ. Now, the whole of Peter’s argument is groundedupon two mistakes; for, 1st, the Hebrew word translated“corruption, ” here signifies “destruction, perdition;” and in thenext place, instead of being “thy holy One, ” in the singular, it is inthe Hebrew “thy saints, ” in general. The passage is quoted fromthe 16th Psalm; and I will give a literal translation of it from theoriginal, which will make the propriety or impropriety of Peter’squotation perfectly obvious. The contents and import of the Psalm, according to the English version, are as follow; “David, in distrustof his merits, and hatred of idolatry, fleeth to God for preservation, He showeth the hope of his calling, of the resurrection, and of lifeeverlasting. ” And the passage in question, according to theoriginal, reads thus:--“I have set the Lord always before me:Because he is on my right hand, I shall not be moved: Thereforemy heart is glad, and my glory [i. E. , tongue] rejoiceth: My fleshalso shall rest in hope. For thou wilt not leave my soul in Hades, neither wilt thou suffer thy saints to see destruction. Thou wiltshow me the path of life: In thy presence is fullness of joy, and atthy right hand are pleasures for evermore. ” That is--“Because Ihave ever trusted in thee, and experienced thy constant protection, therefore I will not fear death; because thou wilt not for over leavemy soul in the place of departed spirits, nor suffer thy saints toperish from existence. Thou wilt raise me from the dead, and makeme happy for ever in thy presence. ”#

In the 4th chap. Of the Acts, the apostles are represented as prayingto God, and referring in their prayer to the 2d Psalm “why did theheathen rage, " &c. , as being a prophecy of the opposition of theJews to Jesus; with how much justice may be seen from thesecircumstances. 

1. That “the nations, ” as it is in the original, did not assembletogether to crucify Jesus, as this was done by a few soldiers. 2. The“kings of the earth” had no hand in it, for they knew nothingabout it. And 3rdly, Those who were concerned did by no means“form vain designs, ” since they effected their cruel purposes. Andlastly, From that time to the present, God has not set Jesus as hisking upon the “holy hill of Sion, ” as the Psalm imports, nor givenhim “the nations for his inheritance, nor the uttermost parts of theearth for a possession. ”

The next prophecy usually adduced to prove that Jesus is theMessiah, is The passage quoted from Micah v. 2, in the 2d chapterof Mat. --“But from Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be littleamong the chiefs of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth untome, that is, to be ruler in Israel, whose goings forth have been fromold, from the days of hidden ages. ” This passage probably refers tothe Messiah, but by no means signifies that this Messiah was to beborn in Bethlehem, as asserted by Matthew; but only, that he wasto be derived from Bethlehem, the city of Jesse, the father of Davidof famous memory, whose family was venerable for its antiquity, “being of the days of hidden ages. ” And this interpretation isknown, and acknowledged, by Hebrew scholars. But in order to cutshort the dispute, w will permit the passage to be interpreted assignifying that Bethlehem was to be the birth place of the Messiah. What then? Will a man’s being born in Bethlehem be sufficient tomake him to be the Messiah foretold by the Hebrew prophets?Surely it has been made plain in the beginning of this work, thatmany more characteristic marks than this must meet in one personin order to constitute him the Messiah described by them!

In Zechariah ix. 9, it is written, “Rejoice greatly, O Daughter ofSion, Shout, O Daughter of Jerusalem! Behold thy king comethunto thee, the righteous one, and saved, or preserved [according tothe Hebrew] lowly, and riding upon an ass, and upon a colt, thefoal of an ass. ” This has been applied by the evangelists to Jesus, who rode upon an ass into Jerusalem. 

But in the first place, it is to be observed, that there seems to havebeen a blunder in this transaction; for according to the Hebrewidiom of the passage quoted above, the personage there spoken of, was to ride upon “an ass’ colt;” whereas, the apostles, in order tobe sure of fulfilling the prophecy, represent Jesus as riding upon anass, and the colt, too! "They spread their garments upon them, and set him upon them. "[See the evangelists in loc. ] In the nextplace, a man may ride into Jerusalem upon an ass, without beingthus necessarily demonstrated to be the Messiah. And unless, assaid before, every tittle of the marks given by the prophets todesignate their Messiah, be found in Jesus, and in any otherclaiming to be that Messiah his being born in Bethlehem, andriding upon an ass into Jerusalem, will by no means prove him tobe so. Besides, those who will take the trouble to look at thecontext in Zechariah, will find, that the event spoken of in thequotation, is spoken of as contemporaneous with the restorationIsrael, and the establishment of peace and happiness, which seemsto cut up by the roots the interpretation of the evangelists. And toconclude the argument, --Jesus being born in Bethlehem, andriding into Jerusalem, allowing it to be true, would not, we think, frustrate these prophecies of a future fulfillment--for no one candisprove, that if so be the will of God, such a person asthe Messiah is described to be, might be born in Bethlehemto-morrow, and ride in triumph into Jerusalem, twenty yearsafterwards. 

The next passage which has been offered, as a prophecy of Jesus, is to be found in the 12th chap. Of Zech. V. 10, and part of it hasbeen misquoted by John. “And I will pour upon the house ofDavid, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of graceand supplications, and they shall look on me whom they havepierced. ” So it stands in the English version; but, before I statewhat it ought to be, I would observe, that before the evangelist, (who in his account of the crucifixion applies this passage asreferring to Jesus’ being pierced with a spear) could make thispassage fit his purpose, he had to substitute the word “him” for“me, ” as it is in the Hebrew; confirmed by, I believe, all theversions, ancient and modern, without exception. Yet, with thischange, it will by no means answer his purpose; for the Hebrewword here translated “pierced, ” in this place signifies“blasphemed, ” or “insulted, ” as it is understood by Grotius, whoconfirms this rendering from the Hebrew of Levit. Xxiv. 11, wherein this passage “the Israelitish woman's son blasphemed the nameof the Lord. ” The Hebrew word translated “blasphemed” is fromthe same root with the Hebrew word translated “pierced” in thepassage in Zechariah quoted above. So that the passage ought to betranslated thus:--“I will pour upon the house of David, and uponthe inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and supplications, and they shall look towards me whom they have blasphemed. ”[To “look towards God” is a phrase frequently met with, and wellunderstood. ] Now, to enable us to understand more perfectly thispassage, let us consider the context, where we shall find that itstates, that there was to be a war in Judea, and a siege ofJerusalem, and then a deliverance of the Jews, by the destruction ofall the nations, that should come up at that time, against Jerusalem. Immediately after which matters, follows the prophecy underconsideration--“I will pour upon the house of David, ” &c. Now, from these things thus laid together, I crave leave to argue in thewords of Dr. Sykes [Essay, &c. , p. 268]--“Did any onecircumstance of all this happen to the Jews about the time of thedeath of Jesus? Or rather, was not every thing the reverse of whatZechariah says; and instead of all nations being destroyed thatcame about Jerusalem, Jerusalem itself was destroyed: instead of aspirit of grace and supplications, the Jews have had their heartshardened against the Christ; instead of mourning for him whomthey have pierced, they condemn him and his followers even untilthis day. ”

But it is tiresome thus to waste time in proving that parts and endsof verses, disjointed from their connexion, and even the wordsquoted, some of them changed and some transposed, (though evendone according to the rules given by the venerable Surenhusius)prove nothing. We must, therefore, devote the remainder of thislong chapter to the consideration of the three famous prophecies, on which Christians have not hesitated, with triumphingconfidence, to rest the issue of their cause. These are the prophecyof Shiloh, Gen. 49; the 53d ch. Of Isaiah; and Daniel’s prophecy ofthe “seventy weeks. ” I will consider them in order, and thus windup the chapter. 

I have some where read in a catechism, the following question andanswer:--Q. “How can you confound the Jews, and prove, fromprophecy, that the Messiah is already come?” A. “From these twoprophecies--‘The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, ’ &c. --Gen. Xlix. ; and this--‘Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people, ’”&c. --Dan. Ix. 24. 

But, notwithstanding these overwhelming proofs, the stubbornJews refuse to be confounded! on the contrary, they in fact laugh atChristians for being so easily imposed upon. 

The prophecy concerning Shiloh, the Jews acknowledge, refers totheir Messiah. But they do not allow that it defines or limits thetime of his coming. 

And that it in fact does not, will be perfectly, evident to all whowill look at the place in the Hebrew bible, which they will findpointed to read not--“The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, and a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come, ” &c. ; butthus--“The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiverfrom between his feet, for ever; for Shiloh shall come, and to himshall the gathering of the people be. ” So that the prophecy doesnot intimate that the Messiah should come before the sceptre bedeparted from Judah; but that it should not depart for ever, butshall be restored when Shiloh comes. This is the plain and obvioussense of the prophecy; and, moreover, is the only one that isconsistent with historical fact. For, in truth, the sceptre haddeparted from Judah several hundred years before Jesus ofNazareth was born. For from the time of the Babylonish captivity“Judah” has never been free, but in subjection to the Persians, theSyrians, the Romans, and all the world. 

If my readers desire further satisfaction with regard to thisinterpretation of this famous prophecy, I refer them to the disputeupon this subject between the celebrated Rittangelius, and alearned Jew, (preserved in Wagenseils’ “Tela Ignea, ”) where hewill find Rittangelius first amicably inviting the Hebrew to discussthe point, who does so most ably and respectfully toward hisChristian antagonist, and unanswerably establishes theinterpretation above stated, by the laws of the Hebrew language, bythe ancient interpretation of the Targum, by venerable tradition, and by appealing to history. Rittangelius begins his defence byshuffling, an ends by getting into a passion, and calling names;which his opponent, who is cool, because confident of being ableto establish his argument, answers by notifying to Rittangelius hiscompassion and contempt. 

The next prophecy proposed to be considered, is the celebratedprophecy of Isaiah, consisting of part of the 52nd, and the whole ofthe 53rd, chapter. It is the only prophecy which Paley thinks worthbringing forward in his elaborate defence; and it must beconfessed, that if this prophecy relates to the Messiah, it is by farthe most plausible of any that are brought forward in favour ofJesus Christ. It merits, therefore, a thorough discussion, and I shallendeavour that it shall be a candid one. This prophecy is quoted byJesus himself in Luke xxii. 39, and by Philip, when he convertedthe Eunuch, (Acts 8, ) for “beginning at this prophecy, he preachedunto him Jesus. ”

It will not be necessary to cite the passage at length, it being oneperfectly familiar to every Christian. I will, then, before I considerit, first premise, that since it has been heretofore abundantly madeevident, that the Messiah of the Old Testament was not to suffer, and die, but to live and reign, it is according to the rules of soundcriticism, and I think sound theology too, to interpret this solitarypassage, so that it may not contradict very many others of adirectly contrary import. Now, if this passage can relate only to theMessiah, it will throw into utter confusion the whole scheme of theprophetical scriptures. But if it can be made to appear, that it doesnot necessarily relate to him; if it can, consistently with thecontext, be otherwise applied, the whole difficulty vanishes. Now, the authors of the New Testament have applied this prophecy tothe Messiah, and to Jesus as the Messiah; and for doing so, theyhave been accused of misapplication of it-from the earliest times;since we know from Origen, that the Jews of his time derided theChristians for relying upon this prophecy; alleging that it related totheir own nation, and was a prophecy of their suffering andpersecuted state, and of their ultimate emancipation and happiness. And this interpretation of the prophecy the learned Vitringa, in hiscommentary upon Is. In loc. , allows to be the most respectable hehad met with among the Jews, and, according to him, “to be by nomeans dispised. ”

In order that the fitness or unfitness of this application of theprophecy may be made apparent, and evident, we will new laybefore the reader this famous prophecy, part by part, each partaccompanied by the Jewish interpretation. 

Isaiah lii. 13, “Behold, my servant shall prosper, he shall beexalted, and extolled, and be very high. ” Interpretation--Myservant Israel, though he be in great affliction for a time, yethereafter shall be released from captivity, and be honoured andraised to elevation very high among the nations of the earth. [Thatthe Jewish nation is spoken of, in the singular number and underthe title of God’s servant frequently in the Old Testament, is wellknown, and will be here made certain by a few examples. Isaiahxli. (the chapter preceding the prophecy, ) “But thou Israel myservant, thou, Jacob, whom I have chosen, ” presently afterwards, “saying to thee, thou art my servant. ” Again, chapter xliv. --“Now, therefore, hear Jacob my servant, ” and so frequently in thesame chapter. See also ch. Xlv. , and Jer. Ch. Xxx. , and Ps. Cxxxvi. , and Isaiah throughout, for similar examples. ]

“And many were astonished at thee (his visage was so marredmore than any man, and his form more than the sons of men. )”That is--And many were astonished at thee, on account of thyabject state, and miserable condition, being squalid with misery, and suffering more than any men. 

“So shall he sprinkle many nations, the kings shall shut theirmouths at him; for that which had not been told them, shall theysee, and that which they had not heard, shall they consider. ”

Interpretation--As the Gentiles wondered at their abject state, soas to make them a proverb of reproach, so shall they admire at theirwonderful change of circumstances, from the depth of degradationto the height of prosperity and honour. So that they shall lay theirhands upon their mouths, which had beforetime reproached them, when they shall see their felicity to be so far beyond what had beentold them, and they shall attentively consider it, and they shall sayto each other--

“Who hath believed our report, and the arm of the Lord to whomwas it revealed? For he grew up [Hebrew, not “he shall grow up, ”as in the English version] before him as a tender plant, and as aroot out of a dry soil; he had no form nor comeliness; and whenwe saw him, there was no beauty that we should desire him. ”

The sense is--The Gentiles shall say to each other in wonder, “Who believed what we heard concerning them? And to whomwas the interest the Lord took in them made known? For it was adispised people, feeble, and wretched, like a tender plant springingup out of a thirsty soil. Their appearance was abject, and there wasnothing attractive in their manners. ”

“He was despised and rejected of men, a man of sorrows andacquainted with grief: and we hid, as it were, our faces from him;he was despised, and we esteemed him not. ”

That is--They were despised, and held in abhorrence: they weremen of sorrow, and familiar with suffering. We looked upon themwith dislike: we hid our faces from them, and esteemed them not. 

“Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows. ”

Interpretation--Surely their sufferings are as great as if they hadborne the sins of the whole world; or, they are, nevertheless, themeans appointed to remove the sufferings of an afflicted world, forGod hath connected universal happiness with their prosperity; andthe end of their sufferings, is the beginning of our joys. 

“Yet did we esteem him smitten of God, and afflicted. ”

Interpretation--Nevertheless, we considered them as a God-abandoned race, and devoted to wretchedness by him, for havingcrucified their king. 

“But he was wounded for [or by] our transgressions, he wasbruised [for or by] our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace wasupon him; and through his stripes we are healed. ”

That is--But, instead of being the victims of God’s wrath, theywere wounded through our cruelty, they were bruised by ouriniquitous treatment, we being suffered to do so, to chastise themfor their sins, and to prove their obedience; and this chastisement isthat by which our peace is to be effected; for their chastisementand probation being finished. God will by them impart and diffusepeace and happiness. 

“All we like sheep have gone astray, we, have turned every one tohis own way, and the Lord hath caused to meet upon him theiniquity of us all. ”

But it is we who have sinned more than they: we have all goneastray in our ignorance, being without the knowledge of God, or ofhis law. Yet the Lord hath permitted us to make them the subjectsof our oppressive iniquity. 

“He was oppressed, [or “exposed to pecuniary exactions”] and hewas afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he was brought as alamb to the slaughter; and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he opened, not his mouth. He was taken from prison and fromjudgment, and who shall declare his generation, [“into his mannerof life, who stoopeth to look?” according to the Hebrew] for hewas cut off out of the land of the living; for, [or by] thetransgression of my people was he stricken. And he made his gravewith the wicked; but with the rich were his deaths, [or tomb]because he had done no violence, neither was deceit in his mouth. ”

Interpretation--How passive and unresisting were they, whenoppressed!--They were afflicted, and they complained not; whenthrough false accusations, and mistaken cruelty they wereplundered, and condemned to die, they went like a Iamb to theslaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so theyopened not their mouth. They were taken from the dungeon to beslain, they were wantonly massacred, and every man was their foe;and the cause of the sufferers who condescended to examine; forby the thoughtless crimes of my people, they suffered. Yetnotwithstanding their graves were appointed with the wicked; yetthey were rich in their deaths. This did God grant them, becausethey had not done iniquity. 

Rabbi Isaac, author of the famous Munimen Fidei#, renders theoriginal--“on account of impieties was he given to his sepulchre, and on account of his riches was his death, because he did noviolence, neither was deceit in his mouth”--which he interpretsthus:--We (the former speakers) raised against them falseaccusations of impiety, on account of their religion, and refusing toworship our idols; but their riches was the real cause why we putthem to death. Nevertheless, they used no violence in oppositionto our oppressions, neither would they forsake their religion, anddeceitfully assent to ours in hypocrisy. *

“Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise him: he hath put him to grief. When thou shalt make his soul a propitiation for sin, he shall seehis seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the Lordshall prosper in his hands. ” [This proves that this prophecy cannotrefer to any individual, but may refer to the Jewish nation, becauseone individual cannot be put to death, and yet “see his seed, ” and“prolong his days. ”] “After [or on account of] the travail of hissoul, seeing he shall be satisfied, by his knowledge shallmy righteous servant make many righteous [or show themrighteousness, ] and he shall bear the burden of their iniquities. ”

That is--After and for their sufferings, they shall be abundantlyrewarded; by their superior knowledge of religious truth, shall theymake many wise, “for many nations shall go, and say, come ye, and let us ascend to the mount of the Lord, and to the house of theGod of Jacob, that he may teach us his ways”--Mic. Iv. Ch. 

“Wherefore, I will give him a portion with the great, and with themighty shall he divide the spoil, because he poured out his lifeunto death, and was numbered with the transgressors, and himselfbear the sin of many, and interceded for the transgressors. ”

Interpretation--Therefore, their reward shall be exceeding great, because for the sake of their duty, they willingly exposedthemselves to death, and were accounted as transgressors, and borethe cruel afflictions inflicted by many, and made intercession forthem who afflicted them. 

Such is the explication given by the Jews of this prophecy. I havemade no important alterations of the common English translation;except, that in some passages, I have made it more conformable tothe original by substituting a verb in the past tense, instead ofleaving it in the future, as in the English version. Those translatorshave taken certain liberties in this respect to make this prophecy(and several others) more accordant to their own views, which arenot supported by the Hebrew: many of these expressions, however, we have left unaltered, as they are quite harmless. But if any of ourreaders desire further information with regard to the propriety ofthis interpretation of this prophecy of Isaiah, we refer him to the“Munimen Fidei, ” contained in Wagenseil's “Tela Ignea, ” wherehe will find it amply illustrated, and defended. Here, in this work, we shall content ourselves with proving, that this prophecy can byno means relate to Jesus, from these circumstances:--1. Jesuscertainly was not exalted and magnified, and made very great uponearth, which, as has been shown, was to be the scene of theexaltation of the Old Testament Messiah; but was put to a crueland disgraceful death. 2. He was not oppressed by pecuniaryexactions, as is said of the subject of this prophecy. 3. He wasnever taken from prison to die, for he was never in one. 4. He didnot “see his seed, ” nor “prolong his days, ” since he died childless;and we will not permit the word “seed” to be spiritualized on thisoccasion, for the word “seed” in the Old Testament, meansnothing else, than literally “children, ” which it is not pretended heever had; and how could he “prolong his days, ” when he was cutoff in his 33d year. 5. Besides, who were “the strong and mighty, ”with whom he divided the spoil? Were they the twelve fishermenof Galilee? and what was the spoil divided? In a word, the literalapplication of this prophecy to Jesus is now given up by the mostlearned Hebrew scholars, who allow, that the literal sense of theoriginal can never be understood of him. [See Priestley’s notes onthe scriptures, in loco; and the context before and after. ]

We have now come to the last subject proposed to be considered inthis chapter, viz. , Daniel’s prophecy of the seventy weeks, the“instar omnium” of the prophetical proofs of Christianity, andwhich was for ages held up to the view of “the unbelieving race, ”as cutting off beyond doubt their “hope of Israel” from everappearing, since the time so distinctly foretold had elapsed. Butsuch is the instability of human opinions, that it was at lengthsuspected, and at last ascertained-by the learned, that “the stubbornIsraelites” had some reason for denying that prophecy, any voice inthe affair. 

During many years, one learned man after another, had amusedhimself with destroying the system of his predecessor, andreplacing it with his own, not a whit better, but tending to the sameend, viz. , to make the prophecy of the seventy weeks tally and fitwith the event of the crucifixion. At length Marsham, a learnedEnglishman, declared, and demonstrated, that his predecessors, inthis enquiry, had been grossly mistaken, for that the prophecy inall its parts was totally irrelevant and irreconcileable with the timeof the crucifixion. The appearance of his book put all thetheologians of that age in an uproar! But many learned Christiansin the last, and present, century, now freely acknowledge, thatDaniel is not on their side, but as much a Jew as his brethren. 

This celebrated prophecy, literally translated from the original, isas follows:--Dan. Ix. 24, &c. --“Seventy weeks are determinedupon thy people, and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal the vision andprophecy, and to anoint the most Holy, [i. E. , the sanctumsanctorum, or Holy of Holies. ] Know, therefore, and understand, that from the going forth of the word to restore and buildJerusalem, unto the anointed prince, shall be seven weeks; and (in)threescore and two weeks, the street shall be built again, and thewall, even in troublous times. And after threescore and two weeksshall the anointed (one) be cut off, and be without a successor;(Heb. “and not, or none to him”) and the city and the sanctuaryshall be destroyed# by the people of the prince that shall come;and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of thewar desolations are determined. And he shall confirm the covenantwith many for one week, and half the week (i. E. , in the midst ofthe week) he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, andfor the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation and that (is) determined, be pouredupon the desolate?”

This is the prophecy on which such stress has been laid, aspointing out the precise time of the coming of the Messiah; and Ishall fully demonstrate that it hath not the most distant reference tothat event. And for the better explanation of the prophecy, it isproper that we attend a little to the context. 

*In the preceding chapter of Daniel it is said, that when Daniel wasinformed of the vision of the two thousand and three hundred days, he sought for the meaning; but not rightly understanding it, hejudged, that that great number was a contradiction to the word ofGod as delivered by Jeremiah, concerning the redemption at theend of seventy years; (Jer. Xxv. 11, 12, and ch. Xxix. 10) and fromthence he concluded that the captivity was prolonged on account ofthe sins of the nation. This doubt arose from his not understandingthe prophecy, and, therefore, the angel said unto him, --“I am nowcome forth to give thee skill and understanding. ” And he proceedsto inform him, that as soon as he began to pray, and God saw, hisperplexity, the royal command went forth from him, that he shouldcome to Daniel to make him understand the truth of those matters, that were to come to pass in future time. And as the angel Gabrielhad explained to him the vision from whence his doubt arose, itwas incumbent on him to perfect the explanation; and that is whatis meant by the expression “to show, ” i. E. , as I began theexplanation, the commandment was, that I should finish it. 

Before I proceed to give the Jewish explanation of the prophecy, itis proper to show in what manner the answer of the angel in it, agreed to Daniel’s question, and also the reason of his using theterm weeks, and not years, or times, as in the other visions. 

It appears, that Daniel, from the words of Jeremiah, perceived thatGod. Would visit all the nations, and punish them for their sins, asmay be observed from the following words:--“Thus saith theLord God of Israel unto me, Take the wine cup of this fury at myhand, and cause all the nations to whom I send thee, to drink it”--Jer, xxv. 15. He then mentions first Jerusalem, afterwards the kingof Egypt, Tyre, Sidon, and all the Isles beyond the sea, and manyothers; and at last the king of Sheshak, or Babylon. 

He also further perceived, that the visitation of each nation wouldbe at the end of seventy years, as Isaiah observes of Tyre: “And itshall come to pass in that day, that Tyre shall be forgotten seventyyears. ” Isaiah xxiii. 15, the same of Babylon: “And it shall come topass, when seventy years are accomplished, I will punish the Kingof Babylon. ” Jer. Xxv. 12, And as it is observed in the next verse:“All that is written in this book which Jeremiah hath prophecied, against all the nations. ” From whence it appears, that as thevisitation of Babylon was to be seventy years, so was that of theother nations to be; for so had the wisdom of God decreed to waitaccording to this number. For which reason, and because theprophets say that the restoration of Israel is to be contemporaneouswith the destruction of their enemies, Daniel appears to have. Judged, that the sins of his nation would be done away by theseventy years of the captivity of Babylon; and, therefore, the angelinformed him of his error, by telling him, that this was not to be thecase with his nation, for that their wickedness was come up beforeGod, and their sin was very grievous; and that, therefore, their sinswould not be atoned for by seventy years, as in the case of the restof the nations, to whom he allowed seventy years to see if theywould repent; and, if not, then he would punish them. But as forIsrael, he would not only wait seventy years, but seven timesseventy years; (for thus it is literally, in the Hebrew, the wordstranslated “seventy weeks, ” are, literally, “seventy sevens”) afterwhich, if they had not repented and reformed, their kingdomshould be cut off, and they return into captivity, to finish anatonement for their transgressions. Hence the cause of Daniel'squestion is evident; and the propriety of the angel’s answer to thequestion, is manifest; as also the expression of weeks or sevens. 

These seventy weeks are, without doubt, four hundred and ninetyyears, the time elapsed from the destruction of the first temple, tillthe destruction of the second. 

This, it seems, was the more necessary for the angel to inform himof; because Daniel judged, that after their return from Babylon, bymeans of that visitation only, all their sins would be done away. For which reason the angel showed him that it would not be so, [for the return from Babylon was not a perfect redemption, because there was not a general collection of all that were incaptivity, even all the tribes, save only a few of Judah andBenjamin, and those not the most respectable. And after theirreturn, they were not free, but were under the dominion of thePersians, Greeks and Romans. And although they, at one time, threw off their yoke, and had kings of the Asmonean and Herodeanfamilies, yet was there no king among them of the seed of David, neither had they the Shechinah, nor the Urim and Thummim, allwhich is a manifestation that it was not a perfect redemption, butonly a visitation, with which God was pleased to visit them; so thatthey were allowed to build a temple to the Lord, by the permissionof Cyrus, and according to the measure given by him. This wasthat they might be the better enabled to do the works of repentanceduring the time allowed, and thus “make atonement, and thusfinish the transgression, and make an end of sins, and makereconciliation for iniquity;” and thus, at the end of the timeassigned, even “seventy weeks, ” they would bring in “everlastingrighteousness, ” i. E. , universal virtue and felicity, throughout theworld, when the Eternal should be known, worshipped, and obeyedby all mankind. But if they did not repent, and amend, if they didevil, as their fathers, then their kingdom was to be cut off at theexpiration of the seventy weeks; which, in fact, took place. ]

After the angel had thus expressed himself in general terms, hedescended to particulars; and laid down three propositions (if Imay be allowed the term, ) or periods. 

First. “Know, therefore, and understand, (that) from the goingforth of the word to restore and build Jerusalem, unto the anointedprince, (shall be) seven weeks. ”

That is, it shall be seven weeks or forty nine years from thedestruction of the first temple, to Cyrus, “the anointed prince, ”who shall give leave to build the second. [With regard to theimport of the phrase “the going forth of the word, ” I refer thereader to Levi's Letters to Priestley, and shall here only concernmyself with settling the meaning of the expression of “theanointed prince. ”] Many Christians have objected to the termMessiah, or anointed, being applied, as in our interpretation toCyrus a heathen prince; and they apply it themselves to Jesus ofNazareth. But that the term, or appellation, Messiah, can be appliedto Cyrus, is evident; since we find it so applied by God himself inthe xlv. Ch. Of Isaiah. “Thus saith the Lord to his anointed, toCyrus. 2. It is a singular fact, that the appellation “Messiah” isnever applied to the expected deliverer of the Israelites in thewhole bible, except, perhaps, in ii. Psalm. It is an appellationindifferently applied to kings, and priests, and prophets; to all whowere anointed, as an induction into their office, and has nothing init peculiar and exclusive; but the application of it to the expecteddeliverer of Israel, originated in and from the Targums. 3. In orderto make this prophecy, and this phrase, “Messiah the prince, ” or“the anointed prince, ” apply to Jesus of Nazareth, Christiansconnect, and join together, this first member of the prophecy withthe second, in open defiance of the original Hebrew; and after all, they can reap no benefit from this manoeuvre; for the term“Messiah Nagid, ” or “the anointed prince, ” can never apply toJesus, in this place, at any rate; because he certainly was no princeor “Nagid, ” a word which in the Hebrew bible always, withoutexception, denotes a prince, or ruler, one invested with temporalauthority, or supreme command. Now, as it is allowed on allhands, that Jesus had no such temporal power, as a prince, or ruler;it, consequently, follows, that he can by no means be the“anointed prince” mentioned in the prophecy. 

Second Period. “And (in) threescore and two weeks, the streetshall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times, ”

Here the angel gave him to understand, that after the seven weeksbefore mentioned, there would come a time in which the buildingwould be hindered, (and which was on account of the letter writtenby Rheum and Shimshai to Artaxerxes, who, in consequencethereof, made the building to cease-See Ezra and Nehemiah) tillthe second year of Darius, who gave leave to finish the building:which continued till the destruction by the Romans, sixty-twoweeks, beside the last week, at the beginning of which, the Romanscame, and warred against them, and at length entirely destroyed thecities of Judah, Jerusalem, and the temple. For, from the time thatCyrus first gave leave to build the temple, till its completion, wastwenty-one years; and its duration, four hundred and twenty; in thewhole, sixty-three weeks, or four hundred and forty one years. Butthe angel made his division at sixty-two weeks, as he afterwardsdescribed what was to come to pass in the last week (and withreason, for the horrible Jewish war lasted seven years!) And by thewords, “in troublous times, ” he informed Daniel, that during thebuilding of the temple, they would have continual trouble andalarms from their enemies, as is mentioned in Ezra and Nehemiah, where we find, that while some worked, the others held the shieldand spear. And even after finishing it, they were almost continuallyin trouble, and persecuted, as is evident from the books ofMaccabees, and from Josephus. 

Third Period. “And after threescore and two weeks shall theanointed be cut off, and have no successor--[Heb. “and not, or, none, to him”]--and the city and the sanctuary shall be destroyedby the people of the prince that shall come; and the end thereofshall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations aredetermined. ”

That is, and after that period, shall the High Priest (or “theanointed one”) be cut off--[The High Priest is called “Messiah, ”witness Lev. Iv. 3--“If the Messiah Priest, (or anointed priest)doth sin, ” &c. ]--and have no successor; and the city and thetemple shall be destroyed by Titus and the Romans, and until theend of the war, your country shall be swept with the besom ofdestruction. 

The angel finishes the prophecy with these words:--“And he (theprince that shall come) shall strengthen the covenant with many, for one week. And in the midst of the week (i. E. , the seventiethand last week, ) he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation tocease. ”

This prediction was fully accomplished; for 1. Titus, “the princethat should come, ” was continually offering peace to the Jews, andtried to “strengthen the covenant”--i. E. , their old treaties madewith the Romans, and in fact did bring over many. 2. On accountof the distress of the siege, the daily sacrifice did in fact cease to beoffered in the temple some time before its destruction; and theangel further observes, that all this was to come upon them fortheir sins, “for the overspreading of abominations, it should bemade desolate. ”

This is what appears to be a plain and fair explication of thisprophecy; but since Christians, seeing mention made in it of aMessiah to be cut off, have eagerly endeavoured to press it intotheir service, it remains for me to show, that it is impossible tomake this prophecy refer to “the cutting off” of Jesus. 

The difficulty that learned Christians have met with, in theirattempts to do this, will be easily conceived by any person, whenhe knows, that more than a dozen different hypotheses have beenframed by them for that purpose; but that they have lost theirlabour, will be obvious from this single observation, that “theanointed one, or Messiah, ” who, the prophet says, was to be “cutoff, ” was to be cut off “AFTER the threescore and two weeks, ” i. E. , at the destruction of Jerusalem, or within the seven yearspreceding that event! Now, we know from the Evangelists, and;from profane history, that Jesus was crucified more than fortyyears before the destruction of Jerusalem. In addition to this, nothing need be said, for this circumstance lays flat theirinterpretation at one stroke. 

Those who desire to see a more elaborate discussion of thisprophecy, and an ample defence of this interpretation, are referredto “Levi’s Letters, to Priestly;” and those who are desirous ofseeing an account of the various, contradictory, perplexed andmultitudinous contrivances, by which it has been endeavoured toapply this prophecy to Jesus, are referred to Prideaux, Michaelis, and Blayney. 

We have now gone through an examination of the evidenceadduced from the prophets of the Old Testament, to prove thatJesus is the Messiah of the Old Testament; and those of our readerswho love truth, are, we trust, now made sensible that the religionof the New Testament, if built upon such proofs as these, is, evidently, founded on--a mistake. 

CHAPTER VIII. 

STATEMENT OF ARGUMENTS WHICH PROVE THATJESUS WAS NOT THE MESSIAH OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 

Most of our readers have, no doubt, heard from the pulpit, manyexclamations and declamations against the “blindness of the Jews, ”in not recognizing their Messiah in Jesus of Nazareth. The reasonsof this “blindness” are made, I think, by this time prettyintelligible. 

Nevertheless, for the further satisfaction of the reader, I will hereset down the principal reasons given by Rabbi Isaac, in his“Munimen Fidei, ” which cause the Jews to deny the Messiahshipof Jesus. 

“At a certain time, (says he, ) a certain learned man of the wise menof the Christians said unto me:--‘Wherefore are you Jewsunwilling to believe Jesus of Nazareth to be the Messiah, when yetyour veritable prophets testified of him, whose words you professto have faith in. ’

“I gave him this answer. ‘How, I require, could we believe him tobe the Messiah, when you can produce no genuine proof from theprophets in his favour, since all those things adduced by theevangelists from them, to prove Jesus the Messiah, are nothing tothe purpose? And we have many and evident reasons to prove thathe was not the Messiah. And of these, I will bring forward a few, arising, 1, From his genealogy. 2. From his works. 3. From the timeof his appearing. 4. From the prophecies of the things to take placein the time of the Messiah not having seen fulfilled in his age. Andin these things are contained the genuine marks characteristic ofour Messiah. ’

“1. As to what concerns his genealogy; it does not prove thisnecessary thing, that Jesus was the son of David, because he wasnot begotten by Joseph, as the Gospel of Matthew testifies; for inthe first chapter of it, it is written, that Jesus was born of Marywhen she was yet a virgin, and had not been known by Joseph;which things being so, the genealogy of Joseph has nothing to dowith Jesus. The descent and origin of Mary, is still less known, butit seems from Luke’s calling Elizabeth, who was of Levi, hercousin, that Mary was of the tribe of Levi, and not of Judah, and, consequently, not of David; and, if she were, still Jesus is not themore the son of David; descents being reckoned from the malesonly. Neither is the genealogy of Joseph rightly deduced fromDavid, but labours under great difficulties. Matthew, and Lukealso, not only disagree, but irreconcilably and flatly contradicteach other, in their genealogies of Joseph. Now, it cannot be thatthe testimony of two witnesses, who directly contradict each otherin the matter to be proved by them, can be received as true. But theprophets have directed us to expect no Messiah but one born of theseed of David. 

“2. As to the works of Jesus, we object to what he said concerninghimself:--‘Do not consider me as come to establish peace onearth, for I have come to send a sword, and to separate the sonfrom the father, and the daughter from her mother, and thedaughter-in-law from her mother-in-law, ’ which words are writtenin Mat. Ch. X. But we find the prophecies concerning the Messiahto attribute to him very different works from these; nay, the veryopposite. For, whereas Jesus testifies concerning himself, that hedid not come to establish peace in the earth, but ‘division, ’ ‘fire’and ‘sword, ’ Zechariah says, concerning the expected Messiah, ch. Ix. :--‘He shall speak peace to the nations. ’ Jesus says he came tosend ‘fire and sword’ upon the earth, but Micah says, ch. Ii. , that inthe times of the true Messiah they shall beat their swords intoploughshares, and their spears into pruning hooks, nation shall notlift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more. ’Jesus says that he came ‘to put division between the father and theson, ’ &c. But in the time of the true Messiah, Elias, the prophet, shall come, of whom Malachi prophecied ‘that he shall convert theheart of the fathers unto the children, and the heart of the childrento the fathers. ’ Jesus says ‘that he came to serve others, not to beserved by them’ – Mat. Xx. 29. But of the true Messiah it is said, Psalm lxxii. :--‘All kings shall bow themselves before him, allnations shall serve him. ’ The same also is said by Zechariah, ch. Ix. :--‘His dominion shall be, from one sea to the other, and from theriver unto the ends of the earth;’ and so Dan. , ch. Vii. :--‘Alldominions shall serve and obey him. ’

“3. As to the time, we object to the Christians, that Jesus did notcome at the time designated by the prophets; for the prophetstestify, that the coming of the Messiah should be ‘in the end ofdays’ or, in the latter days, (which, surely, have not yet arrived) asit is in Isaiah ch. Ii. :--‘It shall come to pass in the latter days, thatthe mountain of the Lord’s house shall be established in the top ofthe mountains, and all nations shall flow unto it;’ and itimmediately follows, concerning the king Messiah, ‘that he shalljudge among the nations, and rebuke many peoples, and they shallbeat their words into ploughshares, and their spears into pruninghooks. ’ See also Hosea, ch. Iii, and also Dan. , ch. Ii. , where it iswritten:--‘God hath made known unto king Nebuchadnezzarwhat shall come to pass in the latter days, ’ (or, in the end of days. )And this pertains to what follows, viz. , to this:--‘In the days ofthose kings, (i. E. , of the kingdoms that arose out of the ruins of theRoman Empire) the God of heaven will raise up a kingdom, whichshall never be destroyed. ’ Thus you see, that the prophetspredicted, that the kingdom of the Messiah should be after thedestruction of the Roman Empire, not while it was in its vigour;when Jesus came; in ‘the latter days, ’ and not before. *

“4. Besides all these difficulties, neither were the promises madeto us by the prophets, concerning the things to come to pass at thecoming of the Messiah, fulfilled in the time of Jesus. For examples, take the following:--‘1. In the time of the king Messiah, there wasto be one kingdom only, and one only king upon earth, viz. , theking Messiah--see Daniel, ch. Ii. ; but behold, we see with oureyes, many independent kingdoms, distinct, and distinguished bydifferent laws and customs, religious and political, which thingsbeing so, it follows, that the Messiah is not yet come. 

“2. In the time of the king Messiah, there was to be only onereligion and one law throughout the world; for, it is written inIsaiah, ch. Lii. And lxvi. , that all nations shall come at stated timesto worship the Eternal at Jerusalem. See also Zechariah, ch. Xiv. And ch. Viii. , and indeed throughout the writings of the prophets. 

“3. In the time of the king Messiah, idols were to be cut off, andutterly to perish from the earth; as it is said in Zechariah, ch. Xiii. , and so in Isaiah, ch. Ii. , it is written, ‘And the glory of idols shallutterly pass away;’ and so in Zephaniah, ch. Ii. , ‘The Lord shall beterrible among them, when he shall make lean (i. E. , bring tonothing) all the gods of the earth; and all the countries of thenations shall bow themselves to Him, each out of his place. ’

“4. In the times of the Messiah, there shall obtain no more sins andcrimes in the earth, especially among the children of Israel, as isaffirmed in Deut. Xxx. , Zephaniah, ch. Iii and in Jeremiah, ch. Iii. And l. , and so in Ezekiel, ch. Xxxvi. And xxxvii. 

“5. In the times of the Messiah, there shall be peace between manand beast, and between the tiger and the tame beast; and the littlechild shall stroke, with impunity, the variegated skin of the serpent, and, --as one of our own poets has beautifully said, --‘and withhis forked tongue shall innocently play. ’ See in Isaiah, ch. Xi. Andlxv. , the original from whence he derived his beautiful poem. 

“6. In the time of the king Messiah, there are to be no calamities, no afflictions, no lamentations throughout the world. But theinhabitants thereof are to lead joyful lives in gratitude to the goodGod, and in the enjoyment of his bounties. See Isaiah lxv. 

“Lastly. In the time of the king Messiah, the glory of God wasagain to return to Israel, and the spirit of the most High God was tobe liberally poured out upon them, and they were to be endowedwith the spirit of prophecy, and with wisdom, and knowledge, andunderstanding, and virtue; and God will no more hide his face fromthem; but will bless them, and give them a ready heart and awilling mind to obey his laws, and enjoy the felicities consequentthereupon. And the Shechinah shall inhabit the temple for ever, and the glory of God shall never depart from Israel; but they shallwalk amid the splendours of the glory of the Eternal, and all theearth shall resound with his praise, as is written in Ezekiel, ch. Xxxvii. , and xxxix. , and xliii. ; and in Joel, ch. Ii. , and in Zech. , ch. Ii. , and Isaiah, ch. Xi. , and throughout the latter part of hisprophecies, and in Jer. Xxxi. ”

And now, reader, let me ask you this question, has any one of theforegoing prophecies been yet fulfilled, either in the days of Jesus, or ever since? Thou canst not say it! Now, then, hear theconclusion, which, in sincerity, and with the hand upon the heart, Iam compelled to draw from these precedents. “Since thesedistinctive characteristics predicted by the Hebrew prophets, as tobe found in their Messiah, were certainly, and evidently, neverfound in Jesus; and since these conditions and circumstances, andmany others beside, which, to avoid prolixity, have been omitted, most assuredly did not take place in the time of Jesus, nor eversince, and since they were according to those prophets, certainly tobe expected in the time of their Messiah; therefore, from all this, itseems to be demonstrable (allowing the prophets to be true, ) thatJesus of Nazareth was not this true Messiah. ” And I would ask thecandid Christian, in which link of this chain of proofs he can find aflaw? And I would ask him, too, as a moral and honest man, whether any Jew, in his right mind, could, without setting atnought what he conceived to be the word of God, receive him asthe Messiah? The honest and upright answer, I believe, will be, that he could net. And, accordingly, it is very well known, that theJewish nation have never done so. And this their obstinacy, as it iscalled, will not by this time, I think, appear unreasonable to anysensible man; and he will now be able to appreciate the justice ofthat idle cant about “the carnal Jews, ” and their “worldly-minded”expectation of a temporal prince, as their Messiah. Certainly, theJews had very good reason, from their prophecies, to expect noMessiah but a Messiah who should sit on the throne of David, andconfer liberty and happiness upon them, and spread peace andhappiness throughout the earth, and communicate the knowledgeof God, and virtue, and the love of their fellow-men to everypeople. Whether this (carnal or not, ) would have been better than aspiritual kingdom, and a throne in heaven; together with the amplelist of councils, dogmas, excommunications, proscriptions, theological quarrels, and frauds, and an endless detail of blood andmurder, I leave to the judgment of those capable of deciding forthemselves. 

Neither, in fact, is it true, that the Jews were so “carnally minded”as to refuse Jesus as their Messiah, because he was poor and in alow estate. On the contrary, did they not ask him not to evade, butto speak plainly? “How long (said they) dost thou mean to keep usin suspense? If thou be the Messiah, tell us plainly. ” These verymen were willing to hazard, in his favour, their fortunes, theirfamilies, and their lives, in his cause, against the whole power ofthe Roman empire. Nay, so urgent were they, that they were goingto make him their king by force, and he concealed himself from thehonour. The evasions he used to avoid their pressing questionsupon the subject, are known to all who have read the evangelists;and so timed was he in acknowledging himself as the Messiah, thathe did not do so, till Simon Peter told him that he was. And canany candid man, after all this, wonder at, or condemn, “theblindness, ” as it is called, of the Jews? or can he refrain fromsmiling at the frothy declamations in which divines load that nationwith so much unmerited reproach? These Jews had just reason, wethink, to doubt his Messiahship; and they had a right to satisfactoryand unambiguous proof of his being so: even the proofs laid down, by their prophets. And this, it must be now acknowledged, theywanted; and, certainly, the wise and learned of the Jewish nation, might be allowed to have understood their sacred books upon thesubject, as well, at least, if not better, than the illiterate apostles, who manifestly put new interpretations upon them, and those, confessedly, not agreeable to the obvious and literal meaning ofthose books; but contrary to the sense of the Jewish nation. Andfor this scepticism they might plead the example of the apostlesthemselves, who, at first, like other unbelieving Jews, expected atemporal prince; and did disbelieve Jesus to be the Messiah onaccount of his death, notwithstanding his miracles. And theycontinued in these thoughts, till it seems they come to understandthe spiritual sense of the scriptures; which spiritual sense, it is said, they obtained by “the traditionary rules of interpretation in useamong the Jews. ” Yet, it is rather inconsistent and singular, thatthey should place so much dependence upon these traditionaryrules, and yet pay so little regard to the traditionary explication ofthe scriptures, with respect to the temporal kingdom of theMessiah--inconsistent and singular is it, that they should "cryaloud" for that which would support their peculiar views, but rejectit when militating against these views. *

CHAPTER IX. 

ON THE CHARACTER Of JESUS OF NAZARETH AND THEWEIGHT TO BE ALLOWED TO THE ARGUMENT OfMARTYRDOM AS A TEST OF TRUTH IN THIS QUESTION. 

I am now about to consider a subject, to which, notwithstandingthe harsh ness of my language in some of the preceding chapters, Iapproach with feelings of great respect. Far be it from me toreproach the meek, the compassionate, the amiable Jesus; or toattribute to him, the mischiefs occasioned by his followers*. No, Ilook upon his character with the respect which every man shouldpay to purity of morals: though mingled with something like thesentiments which we naturally feel for the mistaken enthusiast. Jesus of Nazareth appears to have been a man of irreproachablepurity, of great piety, and of great mildness of disposition. Thoughthe world has never beheld a character exactly parallel with his, yetit has seen many, greatly similar. Contemplative, and melancholy, it is said of him by his followers, “he was often seen to weep, butnever to laugh. ” He retired to solitary places, and there prayed: hewent into the wilderness to sustain and to vanquish the assaults ofthe devil: In a word, he appears by such means to have persuadedhimself, as hundreds have done since, that he was the chosenservant of God, raised up to preach righteousness to the hypocrites, and sinners of his day. It is remarkable, that he never claimed to bethe Messiah, till encouraged to assume that character by Peter’sdeclaration. And it is observable, that in assuming that name, hecould not assume the characteristics of the august personage towhom it belongs; but infused into the character all that softness, meekness, humility, and passive fortitude, which were soeminently his own. The natural disposition, and character of Jesus, could not permit him to attempt the character of a princelyMessiah, a mighty monarch, the saviour of an oppressed people, and the benefactor of the human race. He could not do this, but hecould act as much of the character as was consistent with his own. He could not indeed bring himself to attempt to be the saviour ofhis countrymen from the Romans, their fleshly foes; but heundertook to save them from the tyranny of their spiritual enemies. He could not undertake to set up his kingdom upon earth; but hetold them that he had a kingdom in another world. He could notpretend to give unto his followers the splendid rewards of anearthly monarch: but he promised them instead thereof, forgiveness of sins, and spiritual remuneration. 

In a word, he was not a king fit for the, then, ‘carnal Jews, ’ but hewas, from his mildness, and compassionate temper, worthy of theiresteem, at least, of their forbearance. The only actions of his lifewhich betray any marks of character deserving of seriousreprehension, are his treatment of the woman taken in adultery;and his application of the prophecy of Malachi concerning Elias, toJohn the Baptist. 

As to his conduct to the woman, it was the conduct of a mild, andmerciful man, but not that of one who declared, “that he came tofulfil the law. ” For God commanded concerning such, “that theyshould surely be put to death. ” Now though Jesus was not herjudge, and had no right to pronounce her sentence; yet thecontrivance by which he deterred the witness from testifyingagainst her, was a contrivence directly calculated totally tofrustrate the ends of justice; and which, if acted upon at this day, inChristian countries, would infallibly prevent the execution of thecriminal law: For what testimony would be sufficient to prove afact, if the witnesses were required to be “without sin?” Instead, therefore, of saying unto them, “whosoever of you is without sin, let him cast the first stone at her;” he should have said, ‘Men! whomade me a judge, or a ruler over you? carry the accused to theproper tribunal. ’

As to his conduct about the matter of Elias, it was as follows. It issaid, in the 17th chapter of Matthew, that at his transfiguration, asit is called, Moses, and Elias appeared to his disciples on themount, talking with Jesus. Upon coming down from the mount, thedisciples asked Jesus, “how say the scribes that Elias must comefirst, (that is, before the Messiah. ) Jesus answered, Elias trulycometh first, and restoreth all things; but I say unto you, that Eliashas come already and they have done unto him what they would;”meaning John the Baptist, who was beheaded by Herod. (See theparallel place in Mark. ) And he says concerning John, (Mat. Vi. 14, ) “And if ye will receive it, this is Elias which was for tocome. ”

Now certainly no one will pretend that John was the Eliasprophecied of by Malachi, as to come before “the great, andterrible day of the Lord, ” which has not yet taken place. Andbesides, that he was not Elias is testified of, and confirmed by, John himself, who in the gospel of John, chapter 1, to the questionof the Scribes, asking him, “if he was Elias?” answers “I amnot. ” It is pretty clear that Jesus was embarrassed by the questionof the Apostles, “how say the Scribes, that Elias must come first?”for his answer is confused; for he allows the truth of theobservation of the Scribes, and then refers them to John, andinsinuates that he was “the Elias to come. ” However, it must beacknowledged, that he does it with an air of hesitation, “If youwill receive it, ” &c. 

But are these all the accusations you have to bring against him?may be said by some of my readers. Do you account as nothing, his claiming to forgive sins? his speeches wherein ho claims to beconsidered as an object of religious homage, if not to be Godhimself? Do you consider these impieties as nothing? I answer byasking--the following questions: What would you think of a manwho, in our times, should set up those extraordinary claims? andwho should assert, that “eating his flesh, and drinking his blood”were necessary to secure eternal life? Who should say, that “heand God were one?” and should affirm (as Jesus does in the lastchapters of John) that “God was inside of him, and dwelt in him;and that “he who had seen him, had seen God?” What should wethink of this? Should we consider such a man an object of wrath, orof pity? Should we not directly, and without hesitation, attributesuch extravagancies to hallucination of mind? Yes, certainly! andtherefore the Jews were to blame for crucifying Jesus. If Christianshad put to death every unfortunate, who after being frenzied byreligious fasting and contemplation, became wild enough to assert, that he was Christ, or God the Father, or the Virgin Mary, or eventhe Holy Trinity, they would have been guilty of more than fiftymurders; for I have read of at least as many instances of thisnature; and believe that more than two hundred such might bereckoned up from the hospital records of Europe alone. And thatthe founder of the Christian religion was not always in onecoherent consistent mind, I think will appear plain to everyintelligent physician who reads his discourses; especially those inthe gospel of John. They are a mixture of something that looks likesublimity, strangely disfigured by wild, and incoherent words. Sounintelligible indeed, that even the profoundest of Christiandivines have never been able to fathom all their mysteries. Toprove that I do not say these things rashly, wickedly, or out of anymalignity towards the character of Jesus, which I really respect andvenerate, I will establish my assertions by examples. Forinstance--

--Many instances might be adduced of conduct directlysubversive of the very design, to promote which, he said that hewas sent into the world. For example, he said that he came topreach glad tidings to the poor, and uninformed; and yet hedeclares to his disciples, that ho spake to this very multitude ofpoor and ignorant people in parables, lest they might understandhim, and be converted from their sins, and God should heal, orpardon them. In the 26th chapter of Matthew, Jesus says to hisdisciples, in the garden at Gethsemane, these strange words, “Sleep on now, and take your rest--Arise! let us be going, ” Thecommentators endeavour to get rid of the strange contradictorinessof these words, by turning the command into the future; andrendering the Greek word translated “now” thus--“for the rest ofyour time, ” or “for the future. ” And that he asked them “whetherthey slept for the future”? which appears to be just as rational asto have asked, “how they do to-morrow”?!!

Jo. Viii. 51, “Verily, verily. (said Jesus) I say unto you, if a mankeep my saying, he shall never see death “Reader, what dost thouthink of this saying? Has believing in the Christian religion, at allprevented men from dying as in afore time? And should we be atall astonished at what the Jews said to him, when they heard thisassertion--“Then said the Jews unto him. Now we know that thouhast a demon [i. E. Art mad. ] Abraham is dead, and the Prophets, and thou sayest if a man keep my saying, he shall never taste ofdeath?” So said the Jews, and if in our times, a man was to make asimilar assertion, should we not say the same?

Many instances might also be given of strange and inconsequentreasoning; but I shall only adduce the following. He reproaches thePharisees, Luke xi. 47, 48, for building and adorning thesepulchres of the Prophets, whom their wicked fathers slew; andsays to them, “Your fathers slew them, and ye build theirsepulchres, ” and he adds, “that thus they showed that theyapproved the deeds of their fathers!” Surely this is absurd! Didthe Athenians by setting up a statue to Socrates after his unjustdeath, show to the world that they “approved” the deed of themwho slew him? did it not show the direct contrary? and was it notintended as a testimony of their regret, and repentance?

Again, “Upon you (says Jesus to the Jews) shall come all therighteous blood that has been shed upon the earth, from the bloodof Abel the righteous, to the blood of Zechariah, ” &c. Now, hereinis a marvellous thing! how could a man really sent from God, assert to the Jews, that of them should be required the blood ofAbel, and of all the righteous slain upon the earth? Did the Jewskill Abel? or did their fathers kill him? No! he was slain by Cain, whose posterity all perished in the deluge; how then could Godrequire of the Jews who lived four thousand years after the murder, the guilt of it; nay more, “of all the righteous blood that had beenshed upon the earth, ” were they guilty of all that too? If suchassertions, and such reasonings do not prove what I asserted, whatcan?

It is said, that Jesus, by giving himself up to suffer death, provedthe truth of his mission and doctrines, by his readiness to die forthem. But this is an argument which will recoil upon those whoadvance it. Are there no instances upon record of mild, zealous, and amiable men who preached to the savages of America thatthey ought to worship the Virgin Mary? and did they notcheerfully die by the most excruciating torments to prove it? Yescertainly! and let any Protestant Christian read the accounts of thepreaching, sufferings, deaths, aye! and miracles too, of the RomanCatholic missionaries in Asia, and America; and then let himcandidly answer whether he is willing to rest the issue of hiscontroversy with the Papists upon the argument of martyrdom? Weall know the power of enthusiasm upon a susceptible mind; and wehave read of, and perhaps sees, its effects in producing martyrdomsamong people of all religions, in all parts of the world. Nay, more, such is the power of this principle, that even now, women in Indiaburn themselves alive on the funeral piles of their husbands, toprove, as they say, their love for them, and their determination toaccompany them to the other world; when it is well known, thatthey burn themselves from the impulse of vanity, and the fear ofdisgrace, if they should not do so. Nay, more still, so little supportdoes martyrdom yield to truth, that there are more martyrdoms inhonour of the false, ridiculous, and abominable idols of Hindostan, than any where else. You may see men hooked through the ribs, and supported, and whirled round in the air in honour of their gods, clapping their hands, and testifying pleasure, instead of crying outwith pain. You may see in that country, the misguided enthusiasticworshippers of misshapen idols prostrate their bodied before theenormous wheels of the car of Seeva, and piously sufferingthemselves to be crushed in pieces by the rolling mass. And anyman who has been upon the banks of the Ganges, can tell you ofthe Yoguis, and of their self-inflicted torments, compared to which, even the cross is almost a bed of roses. Indeed the argument ofmartyrdom will support any religion; and it has, in fact, beencheerfully undergone by enthusiasts and zealots of all religions, intestimony of the firm belief of the sufferers not only in theabsurdities of Popery, and Brachinanism, but of every, eventhe most monstrous system that ever disgraced the humanunderstanding. There have been martyrs for Atheism itself. 

This argument of martyrdom has been more particularly applied tothe Apostles and first Christians. “How can it be imagined, (sayChristian Divines, ) that simple men like the Apostles could beinduced to leave their employment, and wander up and down, toteach the doctrines, and testify to the facts of the New Testament, and expose themselves to persecution, imprisonment, scourging, and untimely and violent death: unless they certainly knew, thatboth the doctrines, and the facts were true? Besides, what honours, what riches, could they expect to get by supporting false doctrine, and false testimony?”

To this argument 1 might reply as in the preceding pages, for Iwould ask, have we not seen simple and honest men quit theiremployments, and wander up and down to preach doctrines whichthey not only had no means of certainly knowing to be true, butwhich they did not even understand? Have we not seen suchmen submit to deprivations of every kind, and exposed toimprisonment, and the whipping post? And do we not certainlyknow that some such have cheerfully suffered a most cruel death?

Is it possible that any sensible man, after reading the History of theRoman Catholic Missionaries, the Baptists, the Quakers, and theMethodists, can be convinced of the certain truth of the Christianreligion, or seriously endeavour to convince another of it, by suchan argument as the above?

But, much more than this can be said upon this topic; for it can beshown, that the Apostles in preaching Christianity, did not suffernear so much as some well meaning enthusiasts in modern timeshave suffered, to propagate religious tenets, notoriously false andabsurd. And that the Apostles could expect to get neither fame, norhonour, nor riches by their preaching is doubtful. This is certainthat they could not lose much. For they were confessedly men ofthe lowest rank in society, and of great poverty--poor fishermen, who could not feel a very great regard for their own dignity, orrespectability. And it was by no means a small thing for such mento be considered as divine Apostles, and “in exchange forheavenly things, ” to have the earthly possessions of their convertslaid at their feet. Peter left his nets, his boat, and boorishcompanions, and after persuading his disciples to receive his wordsfor oracles, go where he would, he found ample hospitality fromthem. This, at least, was an advantageous change, and though theydid not acquire fame, or respect from the higher ranks of society, they were at least had in great respect by their followers. NeitherGeorge Fox, nor Whitfield, nor Westley were honoured by thenobility, or gentry, or scholars of England; nor Ann Lee, by themost respectable citizens of the United States. Yet among theirdisciples, the Quakers, the Methodists, and the Shakers they wereheld by the most implicit veneration and can any man believe thatthey did not think themselves thus well payed for the trouble ofmaking converts?

It is true that the Apostles did not acquire riches, for they wereconversant only with the poor. But neither had they any to lose, bytaking up the profession of Apostles, and Preachers. At least bypreaching the gospel, they obtained food, and clothing, andcontributions; as is evident from many places in the Epistles, where they write to their converts, “It is written, ‘thou shalt notmuzzle the ox when he treadeth out the corn;’” and Paul tells them, that they must not think from this place, that God takes care foroxen, “for, (says he, ) it was undoubtedly written for our sakes. ”Thus we see that the gospel was by no means altogetherunprofitable, and many men daily risk their lives for less gain thanthe Apostles did. 

As to the dangers to which it is said they exposed themselves, theyhad none to fear, except in Judea, which they quickly quitted, finding the Jews too stubborn, and went to the Greeks. From theGreeks, and likewise from the Romans, they had not much to fear, who were not very difficult or scrupulous in admitting new gods, and new modes of worship. Besides this, the Romans for a greatwhile seem to have considered the Christians merely as a Jewishsect who differed from the rest of the Jews in matters not worthnotice; as is to be gathered from Tacitus and Suetonius. And if theApostles did speak against the Pagan gods, it was no more thanwhat the Roman poets and philosophers did; and the magistrateswere not then very severe about it. And it is evident from the Actsof the Apostles, that the Roman praetors considered theaccusations against Paul and his companions, as mere trifles. Butin Judea, where the danger was evident, it was otherwise. WhenPaul was in peril there, on account of his transgressions against thelaw, after being delivered from the Jews by the Roman garrison atJerusalem, he pleaded before Festus and Agrippa, that he wasfalsely accused by the Jews; and he asserted that he had taughtnothing against the Law of Moses, and his country, but that he onlypreached about the resurrection of the dead; and that it was for thisthat the Jews persecuted him; and ended by appealing to Caesar. When yet he knew that this was not the reason of the hatred of theJew against him; but that it was because he taught thatcircumcision, and the Law of Moses were abolished, and no longerbinding: which is evident to any one who will read the Acts, andthe Epistle to the Galatians. So you see by what manoeuvre he gotout of the difficulty: first, by at least equivocating, and then byrefusing to be tried by his own countrymen, and appealing toCaesar; thus securing himself a safe conduct out of Judea, whichwas too dangerous for him. Among the Gentiles, their doctrine hada better chance of success, for they taught them marvellousdoctrines, such as they had been accustomed to listen to, viz. Howthe Son of God was born of a virgin, and was cruelly put to death;and that his Divine Father raised him from the dead. The idea ofGod’s having a son of a woman did not shock them, for all theirdemigods they believed had been so begotten; and a great part oftheir poems are filled with the exploits and the sufferings of theseheroes, who are at length rewarded by being raised from earth toheaven, as Jesus is said to have been. These doctrines were notdisrelished by the common people, but were rejected by the wiseand learned. Accordingly we see that Paul could make nothing ofthe philosophers of Athens, who derided him, and considered himas telling them a story similar to those of their own mythology, when he preached to them Jesus and the resurrection. And inrevenge, we see Paul railing against both the stubborn Jews, andthe incorrigible philosophers, as being unworthy of knowing “thehidden wisdom, ” which was to the one “a stumbling block, ” andto the other, “foolishness, ” and which he thought fit only for “thebabes, ” and “the devout women, ” with whom he principally dealt. 

That the New Testament inculcates an excellent morality, cannotbe denied; for its best moral precepts were taken from the OldTestament. And if the Apostles had not preached good morals, howcould they have expected to be considered by the Gentilesas messengers from God? For if they had inculcated anyimmoralities, such as rebellion, murder, adultery, robbery, revenge, their mission would not only have been disbelieved, but theywould have undergone capital punishment by the sentence of thejudge, which it was their business to avoid. Mahomet, throughoutthe Koran, inculcates all the virtues, and pointedly reprobates viceof all kinds. His morality is merely the precepts of the Old andNew Testaments, modified a little, and expressed in Arabic. Theyare good precepts, and always to be listened to with respect, wherever, and by whomsoever, inculcated. But surely that will notprove Islamism to be from God, nor that Mahomet was hisprophet!

That the Apostles suffered death on account of their preaching thegospel, if allowed to be fact, as said before, proves nothing. Manyhave suffered death for false and absurd doctrines. “But whetherany of the Apostles, (besides James who was slain by Herod, ) dieda natural, or a violent death, the learned Christians do not certainlyknow. For there is extant no authentic history of the Apostles, besides the Acts. There are indeed many fabulous narrationspublished by the Papists, called Martyrologies, stuffed with themost extravagant lies, which no learned man now regards; and whotherefore will credit what such books say of the Apostles? Peter issaid in them to have been put to death at Rome by Nero, nevertheless most of the learned men of the Protestants assert, thatPeter never was in Rome, and as for Paul, no one certainly knowswhere, when, or how ho finished his days. So that if we were evento allow the feeble argument of Martyrdom, all the influence andweight given to it, it would not apply to the Apostles, who, we aresure, derived some benefit, by preaching the gospel, and are notsure that they came to any harm by it. 

I will conclude this long chapter, by laying before my reader someextracts from the book written by Celsus, a heathen philosopher, against Christianity, preserved by Origen in his work againstCelsus. That the entire work of Celsus is lost, is to be regretted; ashe appears to have been a man of observation, though too sarcasticto please a fair inquirer; and from the picture given by him of thefirst Christians, their maxims, and their modes of teaching, and thesubjects they chose for converts, it appears, that they were theexact prototypes of the Methodists and Shakers of the present day, both sects which contain excellent people, with hardly any faultbut credulity. 

“If they (i. E. The teachers of Christianity, ) say ‘do not examine, ’and the like: it is however incumbent on them to teach what thosethings are which they assert, and whence they are derived. ”

“Wisdom in life is a bad thing, but folly is good. ”

“Why should Jesus, when an infant, be carried into Egypt, lest heshould be murdered? God should not fear being put to death. ”

“You say that God was sent to sinners: but why not to those whoare free from sin? What harm is it not to have sinned?

“You encourage sinners, because you are not able to persuade anyreally good men: therefore you open the doors to the most wickedand abandoned. ”

“Some of them say ‘do not examine, but believe, and thy faithshall gave thee. ’”

“These are our institutions, say they, let not any man of learningcome here, nor any wise man, nor any man of prudence: for thesethings are reckoned evil by us. But whoever is unlearned, ignorant, and silly, let him come without fear! Thus they own that they cangain only the foolish, the vulgar, the stupid slaves, women, andchildren. ”

“At first, when they were but few, they agreed. But when theybecame a multitude, they were rent, again and again, and each willhave their own factions: for factious spirits they had from thebeginning. ”

“All wise men are excluded from the doctrine of their faith; theycall to it only fools, and men of a servile spirit. ”

“The preachers of their divine word only attempt to persuade silly, mean, senseless persons, slaves, women, and children. What harmis there in being well-informed; and both in being, and appearing aman of knowledge? What obstacle can this be to the knowledge ofGod? Must it not be an advantage?”

“We see these Itinerants shewing readily their tricks to the vulgar, but not approaching the assemblies of wise men, nor daring thereto show themselves. But wherever they see boys, a crowd ofslaves, and ignorant men, there they thrust in themselves, and showoff their doctrine. ”

“You may see weavers, tailors, and fullers, illiterate and rusticmen, not daring to utter a word before persons of age, experience, and respectability; but when they get hold of boys privately, andsilly women, they recount wonderful things; that they must notmind their fathers, or their tutors, but obey them; as their fathers, or guardians are quite ignorant, and in the dark; but themselvesalone have the true wisdom. And if the children obey them, theypronounce them happy, and direct them to leave their fathers, andtutors, and go with the women, and their play-fellows, into thechambers of the females, or into a tailor’s, or fuller’s shop, thatthey may learn perfection. ”

Celsus compares a Christian teacher to a quack--“who promisesto heal the sick, on condition that they keep from intelligentpractitioners, lest his ignorance be detected. ”

“If one sort of them introduces one doctrine, another another, andall join in saying, ‘Believe if you would be saved, or depart:’ whatare they to do, who desire really to be saved? Are they todetermine by the throw of a die, where they are to turn themselves, or which of these demanders of implicit faith they are to believe. ”

Omitting what Celsus says reproachfully of the moral characters ofthe Apostles, and the first teachers of Christianity, for which wecertainly shall not take his word; it is easy to perceive from theabove quotations, that they had more success among simple, andcredulous people, than among the intelligent, and well-informed. Their introductory lesson to their pupils, was, “Believe, but do notexamine;” and their succeeding instructions seem to have been acontinued repetition, and practice of the dogma of implicit faith*. 

CHAPTER X. 

MISCELLANEOUS

In Matthew, ch. V. Jesus says, “ye have heard that it was said, thatshalt love thy neighbour and hate thine enemy. '” But this is nowhere said in the Law, or the Prophets; but, on the contrary, weread directly the reverse. For it is written, Ex. Xxiii. “If thou findthe ox of thine enemy or his ass going astray, thou shalt certainlybring him back to him. ” “If thou meet the ass of him that hateththee, lying under his burden, and wouldest forbear to help him, thou shalt surely help him. ” Again, Levit. Xix. “Thou shalt nothate thy brother in thine heart; rebuke thy neighbour, nor suffer sinupon him. Thou shalt not revenge, nor keep anger, (or bear anygrudge, ) against the children of thy people; but thou shalt love thyneighbour as thyself; I am the Lord. ” So also in Prov. Xxxiv. “When thine enemy falleth, do not triumph, and when he stumbleth, let not thine heart exult. ” So also in ch. Xxv. “If thy enemy hunger, give him food; if he thirst, give him to drink. ” These precepts areto the purpose, and are practicable; but this command of Jesus, “Love your enemies, ” if by loving he means, “do them good, ” it iscommanded in the above passages in the Hebrew Law. But if by “love, ” he means to look upon them with the same affection that wefeel for those who love us, and with whom we are connected by thetenderest ties of mature, and friendship, the command isimpracticable; and the fulfillment of it contrary to nature, andthose very instincts given us by our Creator. And therefore, whoever thinks he fulfills, really fulfills this command, does in factplay the hypocrite unknown to himself; for though we can, andought to do good to our enemy, yet to love him is as unnatural as tohate our friends. 

In Mark ch. Ii. 25, Jesus says to the Pharisees, “Have ye not readwhat David did when he hungered, and those that were with him. How that he entered into the house of the Lord, in the time ofAbiathar the High Priest, and did eat of the shew-bread, &c. ” Seethe same also in Matthew, ch. Xii. 3. Luke vi. 3. Now here is agreat blunder; for this thing happened in the time of Achimelech, not in the time of Abiathar; for so it is written, 1 Sam. Xxi. “AndDavid came to Nob, to Achimelech the Priest, &c. ” And in the 22dchapter it is said that Abiathar was his son. 

In Luke ch. I. 26, The angel Gabriel is said to have come from Godto Mary, when she was yet a virgin, espoused to Joseph, who wasof the house of David, and announced to her that she shouldconceive, and bear a son, and should call his name Jesus; that herholy offspring should be called the Son of God, and that Godshould give unto him “the throne of David his father, and that heshould rule the house of Jacob for ever, and that to his kingdomthere should be no end. ” Now this story is encumbered with manydifficulties, which I shall not consider; but confine myself toasking wherefore, if these things were true, did not the Mother ofJesus? and his brethren, knowing these extraordinary things, obeyhis teachings. For it is certain, that they did not at first believe him, but, as appears from the 7th chap. Of John, derided him. Besides, neither did his mother nor his brethren, when they came to thehouse where he was preaching to simple and credulous men, comefor the purpose of being edified, but “to lay hold of him, ” to carryhim home, for said they he is mad, or “beside himself [Mark iii. 24] which certainly they would not have dared to do, if this storyof Luke’s were true. For their mother would have taught them ofhis miraculous conception, and extraordinary character. Moreover, how was it that God did not give him the throne of David, as waspromised by the Angel to his Mother? For he did not sit upon thethrone of David, nor exercise any authority in Israel. Moreover, how comes it that David is called the Father of Jesus, since Jesuswas not the son of Joseph, who, according to the Evangelists drewhis origin from that king. Finally, the saying “that to his kingdomthere should be no end, ” is directly contradicted by Paul in the 1stEpis. To the Cor. Ch. Xv: for he says therein, that “Jesus shallrender up his kingdom unto the Father, and be himself subject untohim. ” Here you see, that the kingdom of Jesus is to have an end;for when he renders up his kingdom to the Father, he certainlymust divest himself of his authority. How then can it be said, that “to his kingdom there shall be no end?

Jesus says, John v. 39, “And the Father himself which hath sentme, hath borne witness of me; ye have neither heard his voice atany time, ” &c. But how does this agree with Moses, who says, Deut. Iv. 33, “Did ever people hear the voice of God speaking outof the midst of fire, as thou hast heard?”--“And we heard hisvoice out of the midst of the fire; we have seen this day, that Goddoth talk with man, and he liveth. ” Deut. V. 24. 

Luke, ch. 4, 17, “And they gave to Jesus the Book of Isaiah theProphet, and he opened the Book, and found this place, where itwas written, ‘The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, therefore hath heanointed me to preach the Gospel; to the poor hath he sent me, thatI should bind up the broken in heart, proclaim liberty to thecaptives, and sight to the blind; that I should preach the acceptableyear of the Lord. ’ And shutting the Book, he gave it to theminister, and afterwards addressed them, saying ‘This day is thisScripture fulfilled in your ears. ” Here you see the words whichgave offence; and by turning to Is. In loco. Ch. Lxi. You may see thereason why the inhabitants of Nazareth arose up in wrath againsthim. For these words alledged in Luke, are somewhat pervertedfrom the original in Isaiah; for these words, “and sight to theblind, ” are not in Isaiah, but are inserted in Luke for purposes veryobvious. And 2. He neglects the words following, “and the day ofvengeance of our God, and of consolation to all who mourn. Togive consolation to the mourners of Zion; to give them beautyinstead of ashes, and the oil of joy instead of grief; a garment ofpraise instead of a broken heart, ” &c. To the end of the chapter. From this it is very clear, that this prophecy has no reference toJesus: but Isaiah speaks these things of himself; and the words “the Lord hath anointed me, ” signify, “God hath chosen, established me to declare”--what follows. This exposition ofanointing is confirmed from these passages;--1 Kings, xix ch. 

“Anoint a prophet in thy stead, ” where the sense is, “constitute aprophet in thy place. ” Again, “touch not mine anointed ones, anddo my prophets no harm, ” i. E. “Touch not my chosen servants”;and so in several other places. The meaning, therefore, of Isaiah is, that God had appointed, and constituted him a prophet to announcethese consolations to the Israelites, who were to be in captivity, inorder that they should not dispair of liberation; and that theyshould have hope, when they read those comfortable words spokenby the mouth of Isaiah, at the command of God. For he calls thesubjects of his message “the broken in heart, ” “the captives, ” “the mourners of Zion, ” &c. All which terms are applicable only tothe Israelites. That this is the true interpretation, will be madefurther evident to any impartial person, by reading the contextpreceding, and following. 

Jo. Ch. Ii. V. 18. “The Jews said to Jesus, what sign showest thou tous, that thou doest these things? Jesus answered and said untothem, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up. TheJews answered, saying, forty and six years was this temple inbuilding, and wilt thou build it in three days?” The Jews couldnever have spoken these words, here related; for the temple thenstanding was built by Herod, who reigned but thirty-seven years, and built it in eight years. This, therefore, must be a blunder of theEvangelist’s. 

Jo. Xiii. V. 21. Jesus says to his Disciples, “a new commandment Igive unto you, that ye love one another. ” This is not true, for thelove of man towards his neighbour, was not a new precept, but atleast as ancient as Moses, who gives it, Levit. Xix. As the commandof God, “Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. ”

Acts vii. V. 4. “When he (Abraham) went out of the land of theChaldees, he dwelt in Charran; from thence after his father wasdead, he led him into this land in which ye dwell. ” This directlycontradicts the chapter in Genesis where the story of Abraham'sleaving Haran is related; for it is certain from thence, that Abrahamleft his father Terah in Haran alive, when he departed thence. Andhe did not die till many years afterwards. This chronologicalcontradiction has given much trouble to Christian Commentators, as may be seen in Whitby, Hammond, &c. &c. 

V. 14, Stephen says, “Jacob therefore descended into Egypt, andour Fathers, and there died. And they were carried to Sichem, andburied in the sepulchre which Abraham bought from the Sons ofHemor the Father of Sichem. ” Here is another blunder; for thispiece of land was not purchased by Abraham, but by Jacob. Gen. Xlix. 29; so also see the end of Joshua. But it is evident, thatStephen has confounded the story of the purchase of the field ofMachpelah, recorded in Gen. Xxiii. With the circumstances relatedconcerning the purchase by Jacob. 

In v. 43 of the same chapter, there is another disagreement betweenStephen's quotation from Amos, and the original. [In the Acts thequotation is, --“Yea, ye took up the tabernacle of Moloch, andthe Star of your God. Remphan, figures which ye made to worshipthem, and I will carry you away beyond Babylon. ” In Amos, ch. V. 26--“But ye have borne the tabernacle of Moloch and Chinn yourimages, the Star of your God which ye made, ” &c. ]

So also there is in the speech of James, Acts xv. A quotation fromAmos, in which to make it fit the subject, (which after all it doesnot fit, ) is the substitution of the words, “the remnant of men, ” forthe words, “remnant of Edom, ” as it is in the original. 

All these mistakes, besides others to be met with in almost--I wasgoing to say in every page, of these Histories of Jesus and hisApostles, sufficiently show how superficial was the acquaintanceof these men with the Old Testament, and how grossly, eitherthrough design or ignorance, they have perverted it. Indeed fromthese mistakes alone, I should be led strongly to suspect, that theBooks of the New Testament were written by Gentiles, as I canhardly conceive that any Jew could have quoted his Bible in such ablundering manner. 

CHAPTER XI. 

WHETHER THE MOSAIC LAW BE REPRESENTED IN THEOLD TESTAMENT AS A TEMPORARY, OR A PERPETUALINSTITUTION. 

A very great part of Dogmatic Theology among Christians isfounded upon the notion that the Jewish Law was a temporarydispensation, only to exist till the coming of Jesus, when it was tobe superseded by a more perfect dispensation. 

On the contrary, the Jews are persuaded that their Law is ofperpetual obligation, and the Doctrine of the Trinity itself is hardlymore offensive to them, and, as they think, more contradictory tothe Scriptures, than the notion of the abrogation of it. Now, that theJews are on the right side of this question, i. E. , arguing from theOld Testament, I shall endeavour to prove by several arguments. They are all comprised in these positions, 1. That the MosaicInstitutions are most solemnly, and repeatedly declared to beperpetual; and we have no account of their being abrogated, or tobe abrogated in the Old Testament. 2. They are declared to beperpetual by Jesus himself, and were adhered to by the twelveapostles. 

1. Nothing can be more expressly asserted in the Old Testamentthan the perpetual obligation of those rites which were todistinguish the Jews from other nations. It appears, for instance, (from the 17th ch. Of Genesis, ) in the tenor of the covenant madewith Abraham, that circumcision was to distinguish his posterity, to the end of time. It is called “an everlasting covenant” to be keptby his posterity through all their generations. See the ch. Where thecondition of the covenant is, that God would give to Abraham andhis posterity, the perpetual inheritance of the promised land withwhatever privileges were implied in his being their God, oncondition that their male children were circumcised in testimony ofputting themselves under that covenant. There is no limitation withrespect to time; nay it is expressly said that the covenant should beperpetual. 

The ordinance of the Passover is also said to be perpetual, Ex. Xii. 14, &c. “And this day shall be unto you for a memorial, and youshall keep it as a feast to the Lord throughout your generations. You shall keep it a feast by an ordinance for ever. ” This is repeatedafterwards, and the observance of this rite is confined to Israelites, Proselytes, and slaves who should be circumcised, v. 48. 

The observance of the Sabbath was never to be discontinued, Ex. Xxxi. 16. “Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the Sabbaththroughout their generations, for a perpetual covenant. It is a signbetween me and the children of Israel for ever. ”

The appointment of the Family of Aaron to be Priests, was tocontinue as long as the Israelites should be a nation. See Lev. Vii. 35. 

The Feast of Tabernacles was to be forever. Lev. Xxiii. 41. “Itshall be a statute for ever, in your generations. ” The observance ofthis Festival is particularly mentioned in the prophecies, whichforetell a future settlement of the Jews in their own land, asobligatory on all the world; as if an union of worship at Jerusalemwas to be, according to them, effected among all nations by theunited observance of this Festival there, see Zech. 14; what hethere says is confirmed by what Isaiah prophecied concerning thesame period. Is. 2. “It shall come to pass in the last days, that themountain of the Lord's house shall be established in the top of themountains, and shall be exalted above the hills, and all nationsshall flow unto it. And many people shall go, and say, Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, to the house of theGod of Jacob, and He will teach us of his ways, and we will walkin his paths. For out of Zion shall go forth the Law, and the wordof the Lord from Jerusalem. And he shall judge among the nations, and rebuke many people, and they shall beat their swords intoploughshares, and their spears into pruning hooks. Nation. Shall notlift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war anymore. ”

With respect to all the Laws of Moses, it is evident from themanner in which they were promulgated, that they were intendedto be of perpetual obligation upon the Hebrew nation, and that bythe observance of them they were to be distinguished from theother nations, see Deut. Xxvi. 16. 

The observance of their peculiar Laws was the express conditionon which the Israelites were to continue in possession of thepromised land; and though on account of their disobedience theywere to be driven out of it, they had the strongest assurances giventhem that they should never be utterly destroyed, like many othernations who should oppress them; but that on their repentance Godwould gather them from the remote parts of the world, and bringthem to their own country again. And both Moses, and the laterProphets assure them, that in consequence of their becomingobedient to God in all things, which it is asserted they will, (andwhich may be the natural consequence of the discipline they willhave gone through, ) they shall be continued in the peaceableenjoyment of the land of promise, in its greatest extent to the endof time. See to this purpose Deut. Iv. 25, &c. ; also. Deut. 30, where it is thus written. 

“And it shall come to pass, when all these things are come uponthee, the blessing and the curse, which I have set before thee, andshalt call them to mind among all the nations whither the Lord thyGod hath driven thee; and shalt return unto the Lord thy God, andshall obey his voice according to all that I command thee this day, thou and thy children, with all thy heart, and with all thy soul; that, then, the Lord thy God will turn thy captivity, and havecompassion upon thee, and will return, and gather thee from all thenations whither the Lord thy God hath scattered thee. If any ofthine be driven out unto the utmost parts of heaven, from thencewill the Lord thy God gather thee, and from thence will he fetchthee. And the Lord thy God will bring thee unto the Land whichthy Fathers possessed, and thou shalt possess it, and He will dothee good, and multiply thee above thy Fathers. And the Lord thyGod will circumcise thy heart, and the heart of thy seed, to love theLord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, that thoumayest live; and the Lord thy God will put all these curses uponthine enemies, and on them that hate thee, which persecuted thee. And thou shalt return, and obey the voice of the Lord, and do allhis commandments which I command thee this day. " &c. 

“What an extent of prophecy, and how firm a faith in the whole ofit do we see here! (says Dr. Priestly. ) The Israelites were not thenin the land of Canaan. It was occupied by nations far morenumerous, and powerful than they; and yet it is distinctly foretoldin the 4th ch. That they would soon take possession of it, andmultiply in it: and that afterwards they would offend God by theiridolatry, and wickedness, and would in con-sequence of it bedriven out of their country; and without being exterminated orlost, be scattered among the nations of the world; that by thisdispersion, and their calamities, they would at length be reformed, and restored to the divine favour, and that then (as in the quotation)in the latter days they would be gathered from all nations, andrestored to their own country, when they would observe all thelaws which were then prescribed to them. Past history, and presentappearances, correspond with such wonderful exactness to whathas been fulfilled of this prophecy, that we can have no doubt withrespect to the complete accomplishment of what remains to befulfilled of it. ”

What was first announced by Moses, is repeated by Isaiah andother prophets, assuring them of their certain return whereverdispersed, to their own land in the latter days; and that they shouldhave the undisturbed possession of it to the end of time. 

It has been objected, that the term "for ever" is not always to beunderstood in its greatest extant, but is to be interpreted accordingto circumstances. This for the sake of saving time I willacknowledge. But the circumstances in which this phrase is used inthe passages already adduced, and in a number of others of similarimport which might be adduced, clearly indicate, that it is to beunderstood in those passages to mean a period as long as theduration of the Israelitish nation, which elsewhere is said tocontinue to the end of the world. 

For this reason, among others, this final return of the Jews fromtheir present dispersed state, cannot at any rate be said to havebeen accomplished at their return from the Babylonish captivity. 

For that captivity was not by any means such a total dispersion ofthe people among all nations, as Moses, and the later prophetshave foretold. Nor does their possession of the country subsequentto it, at all correspond to that state of peace, and prosperity, whichwas promised to succeed this final return. 

Figures of speech must, no doubt, be allowed for. But if the wholeof the Jewish polity was to terminate at the destruction ofJerusalem by Titus, (as is maintained by Christians, ) while theworld is still to continue, the magnificent promises made toAbraham, and his posterity, and to the nation, in general, afterwards, have never had any proper accomplishment of all. Because with respect to external prosperity, which is contained inthe promises, many nations have hitherto been more distinguishedby God, than the Jews. Hitherto the posterity of Ishmael has had amuch happier lot than that of Isaac. To say, as Christians do, thatthese prophecies have had a spiritual accomplishment in the spreadof the Gospel, when there is nothing in the phraseology in whichthe promises are expressed, that could possibly suggest any suchideas, nay, when the promise itself in the most definite languageexpresses the contrary, is so arbitrary a construction as nothingcan warrant. By this mode of interpretation, any event may be saidto be the fulfillment of any prophecy whatever. 

Besides, it is perfectly evident, that these prophecies, whether theywill be fulfilled, or not, cannot yet have been fulfilled. For all thecalamity that was ever to befall the Jewish nation is expressly saidto bear no sensible proportion to their subsequent prosperity:whereas, their prosperity has hitherto borne a small proportion totheir calamity; so that had Abraham really foreseen the fate of hisposterity, he would on this idea, have had little reason to rejoice inthe prospect. 

It may be said, that the prosperity of the descendants of Abraham, was to depend on a condition, viz. , their obedience, and that thiscondition was not fulfilled. But, besides that the Divine Being musthave foreseen this circumstance, and therefore must have knownthat he was only tantalizing Abraham with a promise which wouldnever be accomplished; this disobedience, and the consequences ofit are expressly mentioned by Moses, and the other Prophets, onlyas a temporary thing, and what was to be succeeded by an effectualrepentance, and perpetual obedience, and prosperity. 

Among others, let the following prophecy of Isaiah (in which thefuture security of Israel is compared to the security of the worldfrom a second deluge) be considered, and let any impartial personsay, whether the language does not necessarily lead those whobelieve the Old Testament, to the expectation of a much moredurable state of Glory, and Happiness, than has, as yet, fallen to thelot of the posterity of Abraham. 

Is. 54, 7. “For a small moment have I forsaken thee, but with greatmercies will I gather thee. In a little wrath I hid my face from theefor a moment, but with everlasting kindness will I have mercy onthee, saith the Lord, thy Redeemer. For this is as the waters ofNoah unto me. For as I have sworn that the waters of Noah shouldno more go over the earth, go have I sworn, that I would not bewroth with thee, nor rebuke thee. For the mountains shall [or“may”] depart, and the hills be removed, but my kindness shall notdepart from thee, neither shall the covenant of my peace beremoved, saith the Lord that hath mercy on thee. --All thychildren shall be taught of the Lord, and great shall be the peace ofthy children. In righteousness shalt thou be established. Thou shaltbe far from oppression, for thou shalt not fear; and from terror, forit shall not come nigh thee. No weapon formed against thee, shallprosper, and every tongue that shall rise against thee in judgment, thou shalt condemn. This is the heritage of the servants of theLord, and their righteousness is of me, saith the Lord. ”

Here, as also in Moses, and other Prophets, an establishment inrighteousness is promised to the Israelites, such as shall securetheir future prosperity; and this promise has not yet been fulfilled. The promise of future virtue as connected with their futurehappiness, is also clearly expressed in Jer. Ch. Iii. 18. 

Had the Jewish nation become extinct, or likely to become so, itmight, with some plausibility, have been said by Christians, thatthe purposes of God concerning them were actually fulfilled, and, therefore, that the words of the promise must have had some othersignification than that which was most obvious. But the Jews are asmuch a distinct people as they ever were, and therefore seemreserved for some future strange destination. 

On the whole, it must be allowed, that the settlement of Israel inthe land of Canaan, foretold with such emphasis by the Prophets, isa settlement which has not yet taken place, but may take place inthat period so frequently, and so emphatically, distinguished by thetitle of “the latter days;” and therefore that whatever is said ofJewish customs, or modes of worship in “the latter days?” is aproof of the meant restoration of their ancient religious rites. 

That the institutions of the Mosaic Law are to be continued on therestoration of the Jews to their own land after their utter dispersion, is asserted by Moses himself in one of the passages already quoted;but is more clearly expressed by the subsequent Prophets. In someof their prophecies, particular mention is made of the observanceof Jewish festivals, and of sacrifices; and in Ezechiel we find adescription of a magnificent Temple, which being closelyconnected with his prophecy of the future happy state of theIsraelites in their own land, cannot be understood of any other thana Temple which is then, according to the Hebrew Prophets, to bereared with greater magnificence than ever. Mention is also madeof “the Glory of the Lord, ” or that effulgent Shechinah which wasthe symbol of the divine presence, filling this Temple, as it did thatof Solomon. 

Ezech. Xliii. 1, &c. “Afterward he brought me to the gate, even thegate that looketh toward the East; and behold the glory of the Lordcame from the way of the East, and his voice was like the noise ofmany waters, and the Earth shined with his Glory. --And the Gloryof the Lord came into the house by the way of the gate, whoseprospect is toward the East. So the Spirit took me up, and broughtme into the inner court, and behold the Glory of the Lord filled thehouse. --And he said unto me, Son of man, the place of myThrone, and the place of the soles of my feet, where I will dwell inthe midst of the children of Israel for ever, and my holy name shallthe house of Israel no more defile, ” &c. 

Towards the end of the same chapter we read an account of thededication of this new Temple by sacrifices; and particulardirections are given in the succeeding chapters for the Priests, andfor the Prince. If, therefore, there be any truth in these prophecies, the Jews are not only to return to their own country, and to bedistinguished among the nations, but are to rebuild the Temple, andto restore the ancient worship. 

Having proved that the Old Testament declares the perpetuity ofthe Mosaic Law, I proceed, 2dly, to prove that it is declared to beperpetual by Jesus himself. 

But before I adduce my proofs, I beg leave to premise, that whenany Law is solemnly enacted, we expect that the abrogation of itshould be equally solemn, and express, in order that no room fordispute may remain upon the subject. Accordingly, it is thecustom, I believe, in all countries, not to make any new Law, contradictory to another before subsisting, without a previousexpress abrogation of the old one. And certainly it appears to me astrange notion to suppose, that the elaborate and noble Law givenfrom mount Sinai amidst circumstances unexampled, awful, andtremendously magnificent, and believed to have been declared bythe voice of God to be a perpetual and everlasting Code, shouldvanish, perish, and be annihilated by the mere dictum of twelvefishermen!!

But the fact is otherwise, for Jesus was so far from teaching theabrogation of that law, that he expressly says--” Think not that Iam come to destroy the law, or the Prophets, I am not come todestroy, but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, till heaven andearth pass, one jot, or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. ” This is a most explicit declaration that not thesmallest punctilio in the law of Moses was intended to be set asideby the Gospel. Nay more, he expressly commanded his disciples tothe same purpose--“The Scribes and Pharisees (says he, ) sit inMoses’ seat; all therefore whatsoever they command you, thatobserve, and do. ”

It is said in answer to this by Christian Divines, that his discourserelates to things of a moral nature, and that he only meant, that nopart of the Moral Law was to be abolished. But besides that theexpression is general, there could be no occasion to make sosolemn a declaration against what he could not have beensuspected of intending, viz. Of abolishing the moral law. He seemsin his discourse to have had in view the additions that had beenmade to the law. These he sets aside, but no part of the original lawitself. 

It has also been urged that by fulfilling, may be meant such anaccomplishment of it as would imply the superseding of it whenthe purposes for which it was instituted should be answered. Tosilence this explication it will be sufficient to produce a few out ofmany passages of the New Testament where the term fulfil occursin connexion with the term law. Thus Paul says, Gal. V. 14, “Allthe law is fulfilled in one word, even in this, thou shalt love thyneighbour as thyself, ” and again. Rom. Xiii. 8, “He that lovethanother, hath fulfilled the law. ” But certainly, notwithstanding thisfulfilment of the moral law, it remains in as full force as ever. 

The Apostles understood Jesus to mean as we have asserted. For itis evident from the Acts, that the Christians at Jerusalem werezealous in attachment to the law of Moses; this is evident fromtheir surprise at Peter's conduct with regard to Cornelius; and inthe dispute about imposing circumcision upon the Gentiles;observe there was no dispute about its being obligatory upon Jews. 

Paul was indeed vehemently accused of teaching a contrarydoctrine, as we find in the history of the transactions respectinghim in his last journey to Jerusalem. Acts xxi. 21, ” They (i. E. TheChristians) are informed of thee (says James to Paul) that thouteachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles, to forsakeMoses, saying that they ought not to circumscise their children, neither to walk after the custom. ” Here James gives Paul tounderstand that he considered the report as a calumny, andaccordingly, to convince the Jewish Christians that it was a falsereport, he advises Paul to be at charges with some JewishChristians, who were under a vow of Nazaritism, (which is aninstance in point to prove that the first Christians kept the law, ) andthus publicly manifest that he himself “walked orderly, and keptthe law. ” Paul complies with this advice, and purified himself inthe temple, and did what was done in like cases by the strictestJews. He also circumcised Timothy, who was a convert toChristianity, because he was the son of a Jewish Mother. And hesolemnly declared in open court. Acts xxv. 8, “Against the law ofthe Jews, neither against the Temple, have I offended any thing atall, ” and again, to the Jews at Rome, Acts xxviii. , 7, he assuresthem that “he had done nothing against the people, or the customsof the fathers. ”

But some men will say, ” did not Paul expressly teach theabrogation of the law, in his Epistles, especially in that to theGalatians?” I answer, he undoubtedly did; and in so doing hecontradicted the Old Testament, his master Jesus, the twelveApostles, and himself too. But how can this be? I answer, it isnone of my concern to reconcile the conduct of Paul; or to defendhis equivocations. It is pretty clear, that he did not dare to preachthis doctrine at Jerusalem. He confined this “hidden wisdom, ” tothe Gentiles. To the Jews he became as a Jew; and to theuncircumcised as one uncircumcised, he was “all things to allmen!” and for this conduct he gives you his reason, viz. “that hewas determined at any rate to gain some. ” If this be doubledealing, dissimulation, and equivocation, I cannot help it; it is noneof my concern, I leave it to the Commentators, and thereconciliators, the disciples of Surenhusius; let them look to it;perhaps they can hunt up some “traditionary rules of interpretationamong the Jews, ” that will help them to explain the matter. 

Lastly, it has been said that there was no occasion for Jesus, or hisApostles to be very explicit with respect to the abolition of thelaws of Moses, since the Temple was to be soon destroyed, whenthe Jewish worship would cease of course. 

This argument, flimsy as it is, is nevertheless the instar omnium ofthe Christian Divines to prove the abolishment of this Law: (for theother arguments adduced by them as prophecies of it from the 1ch. Of Isaiah, and some of the Psalms, are nothing, to the purpose;they being merely declarations of God, that he preferred obediencein the weightier matters of the Law; Justice, Mercy, and Holiness, to ceremonial observances; and that repentance was of more availwith him than offering thousands of rams, and fed beasts, ) and thisargument like so many others, when weighed in the balance, willbe “found wanting. ”

For, as the destruction of the Temple by Nebuchadnezzar certainlydid not abolish the Law, so neither did the destruction by Titus, doit. And as it would be notoriously absurd to maintain the first, so itis equally so to maintain the last, position. Besides, a veryconsiderable part of that Law can be, and for these seventeenhundred years, has been kept without the Temple. As for example, circumcision, distinction of meats, and many others. And when, ifever, they shall return to their own land, and rebuild the Temple, they will then, according to the Old Testament, observe the whole, and with greater splendour than ever. 

CHAPTER XII. 

ON THE CHARACTER OF PAUL AND HIS MANNER OFREASONING. 

As Christians lay great stress upon their argument for the truth oftheir Religion, derived from the supposed miraculous conversionof Paul; and since almost the whole of Systematic Christianity isbuilt upon the foundation of the Epistles ascribed to him, we shallpay a little more attention to his character and writings. 

Paul was evidently a man of no small capacity, a fiery temper, great subtilty, and considerably well versed in Jewish Traditionary, and Cabbalistic Learning, and not unacquainted with the principlesof the Philosophy called the “Oriental. ” He is said by Luke to havebeen converted to Christianity by a splendid apparition of Jesus, who struck him to the ground by the glory of his appearance. Butby the Jews and the Nazarene Christians, he is represented ashaving been converted to Christianity from a different cause. Theysay that being a man of tried abilities and of some note, hedemanded the High Priest’s daughter in marriage, and beingrefused, his rash and rageful temper, and a desire of revenge, drovehim to join the “sect of the Nazarenes, ” at that time beginning tobecome troublesome to the Sanhedrim. However this may be, whether he became a Christian from conviction, or from ambition;it is certain from the Acts that he always was considered by theJewish Christians, as a suspected character; and it is evident that hetaught a different doctrine from that promulgated by the twelveapostles. And this was the true cause of the great difficulty he wasevidently under of keeping steady to him, his Gentile converts. Forit is evident from the Epistles to the Galatians, and the Corinthians, that the Jewish Christians represented Paul to them as not “soundin the Faith, ” but as teaching a different doctrine from that of theTwelve, and so influential were these representations, that Paul hadthe greatest difficulty in keeping them to his System. 

That there were two Parties, or Schools in the first Christianchurch, viz. The adherents of the Apostles, and the Disciples ofPaul, is evident from the New Testament, and has been fully, andunanswerably proved by the learned Semler, the greatest scholarcertainly in Christian Antiquities, that ever lived. The knowledgeof this secret, accounts for the different conduct of Paul whenamong his Gentile converts, from that which he pursued when withthe apostles at Jerusalem. He had a difficult part to act, and hemanaged admirably. He was indeed, as he says, himself, “allthings to all men, ” a Jew with the Jews, and as one uncircumcisedamong the uncircumcised. To the Jews, he asserted, that he “taught nothing contrary to the Law, and the Prophets, ” and whenbrought before the Sanhedrim for teaching otherwise than he said, he dexterously got himself out of tribulation, by throwing a bone ofcontention among the Council, and setting his Judges together bythe ears. “And when Paul perceived that the one part (of theCouncil) were Sadducees, and the other, Pharisees, he cried out inthe Council: Brethren, I am a Pharisee, and the son of a Pharisee;concerning the hope of the resurrection of the dead, I am nowjudged. And when he had said this, a dissension arose between thePharisees and the Sadducees, and the multitude was divided. Forthe Sadducees say there is no resurrection, neither angel, nor spirit;but the Pharisees confess both. And there was a great cry, and theScribes that were on the part of the Pharisees, arose and strove, saying, “We find no evil in this man” &c. This, indeed, was amasterly manoeuvre, and produced the desired effect; and Paul bythis shows his knowledge of the human heart, in trusting to makehis Judges forget what he was accused of, by making an appeal totheir sectarian passions. For, in truth, he was not accusedconcerning his opinion about “the hope, and the resurrection of thedead, ” but for the following cause, as his accusers vociferated (inthe xxi. Ch. ) when they seized him in the Temple, “Men of Israel, Help! This is the man, who teacheth all men every where against, the people, and the Law, and this place. ”

These strokes of character enable us to understand the man; and Ishall now go into the consideration of some of the arguments hehas deduced from passages in the Old Testament in support of hisopinions; after premising, that the truth of the story of the mannerof his conversion depends entirely upon his own assertion; andwhether his credibility be absolutely unimpeachable, can be easilydetermined by an impartial consideration of the history of hisconduct already mentioned. I will only add upon this subject, thatin telling the story of his conversion, he ought to have had a bettermemory; for in telling it once in xxvi. Ch. Of Acts, he says, indescribing his miraculous vision, that “those that were with me, saw indeed the light, and were afraid, but heard not the words ofhim that spake to me;” and thus he directly contradicts the story ofit recorded in Acts ix. , where it is said, “that the men whojourneyed with him stood speechless, hearing the voice, but seeingno one. ”

In the 9th chapter of the Epistle to the Romans, v. 24, he thusproves; that the Old Testament prophecied of the conversion of theGentiles, to the Gospel--“Even us whom he hath called, not of theJews only, but also of the Gentiles, as he saith also in Hosea “Iwill call them my people, which were not my people; and herbeloved, which was not beloved. And it shall come to pass, that inthe place where it was said unto them, you are not my people, thereshall they be called the sons of the living God. ”--Is not this to thepurpose? yet, in applying this passage to the Gentiles, Paul haswilfully, (yes wilfully, for Paul was a learned man, and knew better)perverted the original from its proper reference, and has passedupon his simple converts. , who did not know so much of theJewish Scriptures, as he did, a prophecy relating entirely to theJews, as referring to the Gentiles!! By turning to Hosea, Reader, you will find this to be verily the case; here is the passage, “Thensaid God, call his name (Hosea’s son) Loammi, for ye (theIsraelites) are not my people, and I will not be your God, yet thenumber of the children of Israel shall be as the sand of the sea, which cannot be measured, nor numbered. And it shall come topass, that in the place where it was said unto them, ye are not mypeople, there shall it be said unto them, ye are the sons of the livingGod. ” Hosea chapter i

“Again v. 33. “As it is written, Behold I lay in Zion a stone ofstumbling, and a rock of offence, and every one who believeth inhim shall not be ashamed. ” Here Paul has pieced two passagestogether, which in the originals are disconnected. For in the 8thchapter of Isaiah it is written, “Sanctify the Lord of Hostshimself, and let him be your fear, and let him be your dread. Andhe shall be for a sanctuary; but for a stone of stumbling, and for arock of offence, to both the houses of Israel; for a gin, and for asnare to the inhabitants of Jerusalem. ” And in the 28th chapter it iswritten, “therefore, thus saith the Lord God, behold I lay in Zionfor a foundation, a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner stone, asure foundation, he that believeth shall not be ashamed, ” (ordisappointed) Here “you see, reader, that he jams two distantpassages together no ways related; and alters some words, andapplies them to Jesus, with whom, it appears from the context ofIsaiah, they have no concern. 

Ch. X. V. 6. “The scripture saith, ‘say not in thine heart, who shallascend into Heaven? (that is, that he may bring down Jesus fromabove. ) Again, ‘who shall descend into the abyss?’ (that is, that hemay bring up Jesus from the dead. ) But what saith it? ‘ The wordis very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart. ’ (that is theword of Faith which we speak. ) For if thou confess Jesus with thymouth, and believe in thine heart that God raised him from thedead, thou shalt be saved. ” Here you will see another instance ofmisapplication of Scripture by Paul, in order to dazzle the eyes ofhis simple and credulous converts, for let any one took at the placein the Scripture whence the quotation is taken, arid he willimmediately see the inapplicability of the words, and theadulteration of those of the original, in order to make them apply. For the Scripture quoted speaks of, and refers to penitence, and. Not at all about believing on, or bringing down Jesus from Heaven, or up from the dead; for here are the words, Deut. 30. --“If thoube converted to the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with allthy mind. ”--Immediately is subjoined--“For this Law which Icommand you this day is not far from thee; neither is it afar off. Itis not in Heaven, that thou shouldst say, who shall ascend for usinto Heaven, that he may bring it unto us, and declare it to us thatwe might do it, ” &c. The sense of the whole is, that God wills us torepent of sin; and that you may know when you have sinned, youhave only to look at his Law, which is not in Heaven, nor afar off, but is put in your own hands, and is perfectly familiar with yourheart, and lips. 

1 Cor, ch. V. 1. Paul accuses one of the Christians of the church ofCorinth of the crime of incest, because he had married hisstep-mother, and orders them to excommunicate him. But Paul, in allhis Epistles and teachings to the Gentiles, pronounced them freefrom the Law of Moses. Wherefore then for the violation of one ofthose Laws interdicting such a marriage, does he so vehemently, blame them? Such a marriage is not forbidden in the Gospel: it wasforbidden to them no where in the Scriptures but in the MosaicCode. Therefore, Paul must have founded his judgment against thecriminal upon the dictum of that law in such cases. Paul puts theman under a curse; and it is the Mosaic Law which says, Deut. 27, “Cursed is he who lieth with his father’s wife. ” It seems, therefore, that Jesus did not deliver his followers from “the curseof the law, ” as Paul taught them it did in Gal. Iii. 13. 

1 Cor. Ch. X. :--“And let us not pollute ourselves with fornication, as some of them were polluted, and fell in one day to the numberof twenty-three thousand. ” Here is a blunder, for it is written “twenty-four thousand. ”--Num. 25. 

Gal. Iii. , 13, Paul says, “Christ hath redeemed us from the curse ofthe law, being made a curse for us; for it is written, cursed is everyone that hangeth on a tree. ” What he says of the Christ, or theMessiah redeeming from the curses written in the law, that by nomeans agrees with truth; for no Jew can be freed from the curses ofthe law, but by repenting of his sins, and becoming obedient to it. And in alledging the words “cursed is every one that hangeth on atree, ” from Deut. Xxi. , he, as usual, applies them irrelevantly. 

Paul says, Gal. Iii, 10:--“For as many as are of the works of thelaw, are under the curse; for it is written, Deut. Xxvii. 26, ‘ Cursedis every one that continueth not in all things written in the book ofthe law to do them. ’” And he interprets this to mean that allmankind, Jews and Gentile, are liable to damnation, (except thosewho are saved by faith) because no man ever did continue in allthings written in the law. Now, in the first place I would observe, that Paul has inserted the word “all” in the passage he quotes fromDeuteronomy, (in the original of which it is not) in order to make itsupport his system; for the whole of his argument is built upon thisone surreptitiously inserted word. 2. The words according to theoriginal are simply these:--“Cursed is he that continueth not thewords of this law to do them;” i. E. , --He who disobeys, or neglectsto fulfil the commands of the law, shall be under the cursedenounced upon the disobedient. But who would conclude fromthis that repentance would not remove the curse? Does not Godexpressly declare in the xxx. Ch. Of Deut. , that if they repent, thecurses written shall be removed from them? And have we notinnumerable instances recorded in the Old Testament, of sinners, and transgressors of this very law, received to pardon and favour, upon repentance and amendment? So that this argument foundedupon an unwarrantable undeniable interpolation, and supported bybad logic, is every way bad, and insulting to God and his (by Paulacknowledged) word. 

Gal ch. Iii. 16:--“To Abraham, and his seed were the promisesmade, He saith not ‘ and to seeds, ’ (as of roomy) but as of one, ‘and to thy seed, ’ which is Christ. ” Here is an argument which onewould think too far-fetched, even for Paul; and it is built on aperversion of a passage from Genesis, which Paul, bold as he wasin these matters, certainly would not have ventured, if he had notthe most assured confidence in the blinking credulity of hisGalatian converts. His argument in this place is drawn from theuse of the word “seed” in the singular number, in the passage ofGenesis, from whence he quotes. And because the word seed is inthe singular number, fag tells the “foolish Galatians, ” as he justlycalls them, that this “seed” must mean one individual (and notmany, ) “which, ” says he, “is Christ. ” Now, let us look at the xv. Ch. Of Gen. , from whence he quotes, and we shall see the force ofthis singular argument, derived from the use of the singularnumber. “And He (God) brought him (Abraham) forth abroad, andsaid. Look now towards heaven, and tell the stars if thou be able tonumber them, and He said unto him, so shall thy seed be. --And Hesaid, know of a surety that thy seed shall be a stranger in a land thatis not theirs, and they shall afflict them, &c. , afterwards they shallcome out with great substance. --In that same day the Lord made acovenant with Abraham, saying, unto thy seed have I given thisland, ” &c. Again, ch. Xxii. , God said to Abraham by his Angel, “Iwill multiply thy seed as the stars of heaven, and as the sand whichis upon the sea shore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his (orits) enemies, and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth beblessed, because thou hast obeyed my voice! Reader, what do youthink now of Paul’s argument from the use of the singular number?Which is most to be admired? His offering such an argument tothe Galatians; (for being a learned man, he certainly knew that theargument was nought, ) or their credulity in receiving suchreasoning as Divine? Really, I fear there is some reason foradmitting as true what Celsus maliciously says of the simplicity ofthe Primitive Christians, if Paul could with impunity feed his“spiritual babes” with such pap as this!

I intended to have concluded this subject, by bringing underexamination some of the arguments and quotations in the Epistleto the Hebrews; but upon looking over that Epistle, andcontemplating my task, I confess I shrink from it. That Epistle is soreplete with daring, ridiculous, and impious applications of thewords of the Old Testament, that I am glad to omit it; and I thinkafter the specimens which have been already brought forward, thatmy reader is quite as much satiated as myself. I will, therefore, bring forward only one quotation, which is alledged in that Epistleto prove the abolition of the law of Moses; and as for the rest, Icontent myself with referring those who want to know more of it, to the pieces written by the celebrated Dr. Priestley upon Paul’sarguments in general, and those in that Epistle in particular, preserved in his Theological Repository, where he will seeabsurdity in reasoning, and, something worse, in quotation, exposed in a masterly manner. Indeed, some learned Christians areso sensible of the insuperable difficulties attending every attemptto reconcile that Epistle to the Doctrine of inspiration, or even tocommon sense, that they avoid the trouble, by denying that Paulcould have been the author of such a work, and attribute it to thesame, or a similar, hand, with that which forged the marvellousEpistle ascribed to Barnabas. 

The quotation brought forward in the Epistle to the Hebrews, toprove the abrogation of the Mosaic Law, and the substitution of anew one, is taken from Jer. Xxxi. 31, &c. --“Behold the dayscome saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with thehouse of Judah. Not according to the covenant which I made withthey fathers, in the day that I took them by the hand to bring themout of the land of Egypt, (which my covenant they brake, althoughI was an husband unto them, saith the Lord. ) But this shall be thecovenant that I will make with the house of Israel. After those dayssaith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write itin their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people;and they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, sayingknow the Lord, for they shall all know me from the least of themunto the greatest of them, saith the Lord, for I will forgive theiriniquity, and will remember their sins no more. ” Upon this passagethe author of the Epistle observes “in that he saith ‘a newcovenant, ’ he hath made the first old;” and he sagely concludes “now that which decayeth, and waxeth old, is ready to vanish away!!”and takes the quotation to be a prophecy of the abolition of theold law, and the introduction of the Gospel Dispensation. 

Now, I would observe on his reasoning, in the first place, that, allowing for a moment his interpretation of the prophecy to becorrect, (i. E. , that it signifies the abolishment of the old, and anintroduction of a new law) the prophecy, at any rate, cannot refer toJesus, or the Gospel; for so far from having been fulfilled in thetime of Jesus, or his Apostles, it has not been fulfilled to this day;for certainly God has not yet made a new covenant with the Jews, to whom the prophecy refers, nor has he yet “put his law in theirhearts;” nor “caused them to walk in it;” neither has he yet “forgiven their sins, or forgotten their iniquities, ” since they areeven now suffering, the consequences of them. 

I will now retract what I granted, and assert that the prophet did notmean an abolition of the Mosaic, and the introduction of a new, law; for though the prophet speaks of a new covenant, he saysnothing of a new law; but on the contrary, asserts that this newcovenant would be effectual to make them obey the law. Godpromised to put his law within their hearts (not out ofremembrance, as the catechisms say;) and in this alone thiscovenant differs from the one entered into at Mount Sinai. For, then, though the law was given them, it was not “put within theirhearts, ” but they were apt, to their own controul, to obey it, or not, being assured, however, that happiness should be the reward ofobedience, and death and excision the punishment for revoltand disobedience. And you will moreover observe, that, notwithstanding what is here called a new covenant, nothing ishere said of the abrogation of any former covenant, or constitution, or of any new terms, that would be required by God on the part ofthe Israelites. The prophet, by expanding his idea, sufficientlyexplains his whole meaning, which is evidently this, viz. : That Godwould make a new, and solemn promise to the Israelites, that theyshould be no more out of favor with him; that their hearts would behereafter so right with God, that in consequence of it, they wouldcontinue in the quiet possession of their country to the end of time;and all this is intimated by Moses, in the quotation fromDeuteronomy, quoted in the last chapter. 

Thus is the passage perfectly consistent with those in the OldTestament, which affirm, (whether right or wrong is not myconcern) the perfection and perpetuity of the Mosaic Law. “Remember, ” are the last words of the last of the prophets, Malachi, --“Remember the Law of Moses, my servant which Icommanded unto him in Horeb, with the Statutes, and Judgments. ”Also in the Psalms:--“The Law of the Lord is perfect, convertingthe soul. The Testimony of the Lord is faithful, bringing wisdomto the simple. The Precepts of the Lord are right, rejoicing theheart, and enlightening the eyes. ” “The works of his hands areTruth, and Judgment. All his Precepts are sure. They stand fast forever and ever: being done in Truth and Uprightness. ”

CHAPTER XIII. 

EXAMINATION OF SOME DOCTRINES IN THE NEWTESTAMENT DERIVED FBOM THE CABALLA, THEORIENTAL PHILOSOPHY, AND THE TENETS OFZOROASTER. 

I have said in the preceding chapter, that Paul was well versed inCabbalistic Learning, and not unacquainted with the principles ofthe Philosophy styled “the Oriental;” and to prove and exemplifythis assertion, is the subject and intention of this chapter. None butthe learned know, how much of Systematic Christianity is derivedfrom the Cabbalism of the Jews; the Religion of the Magi ofPersia; and the Philosophy of the Bramins of Indostan. I shallattempt to lay open these Theological Arcana, and make themknown to those who ought to know what they have been kept inignorance of. 

Many of my readers have, no doubt, frequently puzzled themselvesover these words of Paul’s, Eph. V. 30:--“For we are members ofhis (Christ’s) body, of his flesh, and of his bones. Because of this, a man shall leave his father, and mother, and shall cleave to hiswife, and they two shall be one flesh. This mystery is great, but I speak concerning Christ and the Church. ” This passageexemplifies the connexion between Christ and the Church, by thatwhich subsists between a man and his wife; and this Paul calls “agreat mystery;” and it no doubt must be a very mysterious passageto all those who are unacquainted with the cabbalistic notion towhich it alludes, and refers. To illustrate the passage, and to provethat Paul raised his Cabbalism with his religion, I shall set downhere the note of Dr. Whitby, the Christian Commentator, upon thetext of Paul. 

“The learned Dr. Allix saith, The first match between Adam andEve, was a type of that between Christ and his Church; and in this, saith he, the Apostle follows the Jewish notions. The Jews say, themystery of Adam, is the mystery of the Messiah, who is theBridegroom of the Church. These two persons, therefore, confirmthe observation of Munster, that the creation of the woman fromthe rib of the man, was made by the Jews to signify the marriage ofthe celestial man who is blessed, or of the Messiah, with theChurch; whence the Apostle applies the very words which Adamsaid concerning Eve his spouse, to the Church, who is the spouseof Christ; saying, “for we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones. ” For the explanation of these words, take whatfollows:--“The profoundest of the Jewish Divines, whom theynow call Cabbalists, having such a notion as this among them, thatsensible things are but an imitation of things above, conceivedfrom thence, that there was an original pattern of love and union, which is between a man and his wife in this world. This beingexpressed by the kindness of Tipheret and Malchut, which are thenames they give to the invisible Bridegroom and Bride in the upperworld. And this Tiphiret, or the celestial Adam, is so called inopposition to the terrestrial Adam; as Malchut also (i. E. , thekingdom) they call by the name of Chinnereth Israel theCongregation of Israel, who is, they say, united to the celestialAdam as Eve was to the terrestrial. ” So that in sum, they seem tosay the same that Paul doth, when he tells us, that “marriage is agreat mystery, but he speaks concerning Christ and his Church. ”For the marriage of Tipheret and Malchuth, is the marriage ofChrist, “the Lord from Heaven, ” (“the first man was of the Earthearthly, the second man is the Lord from Heaven, ” says Paul I Cor. Xv. , ) with his spouse the Church, which is the conjunction of Adamand Eve, and of all other men and women descended from them. Origen also seems to have had some notion of the relation of thispassage to Adam and Eve, when he speaks thus:--“If any manderide us for using the example of Adam and Eve in these words, ‘and Adam knew his wife, ’ when we treat of the knowledge ofGod, let him consider these words--‘This is a great mystery. ’”Tertullian frequently alludes to the same thing, saying--“This is agreat sacrament, carnally in Adam, spiritually in Christ, because ofthe spiritual marriage between Christ and the Church. ”

Thus far Dr. Whitby, and the intelligent reader, who is acquaintedwith the dogmas and philosophy of Indostan, will not fail to seethrough this cloud, of words the origin of this analogy of Paul. Thefact is, that in India and in Egypt, the Divine creative power whichproduced all things and energizes in everything, was symbolizedby the Phallus; and to this day, in Hindostan, the operation ofDiety upon matter is symbolized by images of the same; and in thedarkest recesses of their Temples, which none but the initiatedwere permitted to enter: the Phallus of stone is the solitary idol, before which the illuminated bowed. This symbol, thoughshameful and abominable, is yet looked upon in India with theprofoundest veneration, and is not with them the occasion ofshame or reproach. It is, however, a blasphemous abomination; andthe marriage between Christ and the Church ought not to havebeen thus illustrated by Paul, who reproached the heathenmysteries as “works of darkness, ” which mysteries, in fact, consisted principally in exhibiting these symbols, and similarabominations. 

But, it may be asked, what is the meaning of the other clause of theverse--what could Paul mean by the strong language, “We aremembers of his body? of his flesh, and of his bones?” Why, myreader, he meant, that Christians were really part of the body ofChrist and if you desire to know How he imagined this union to beeffected, I request you to see the 10th ch. Of the 1st Epistle to theCorinthians, where at the 16th verse he thus writes to them:--”Thecup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation of the bloodof Christ? The loaf (according to the Greek original) which webreak, is it not a participation of the body of Christ? for, Becausethe loaf is one, we, though many, are one body, for we all partakeof that one loaf. ” Again, ch. Xi. 19, “For he that eateth, anddrinketh unworthily eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, notdistinguishing (or discovering) the Lord’s body;” and in ch. Xii. 27, he says to them, “Ye are the body of Christ, and his membersseverally. ” (See the original of these passages in Griesbach’sGreek Testament. ) Thus you see, reader, that Paul consideredChristians “as members of his (Christ’s) body, of his flesh, and ofhis bones, ” because they partook of one loaf, which was the bodyof Christ. The Papists are in the right, and have been muchslandered by the Protestants, for the doctrine of Transubstantiation, or at least the Real Presence, is as plainly taught in the NewTestament, as the doctrine of the Atonement. You have seen whatPaul believed upon this subject, and I shall corroborate the sense Iput upon his words, by the words of Jesus, his master, and byquotations from the earliest Fathers. 

Jesus says, John vi. --“I am the living bread which came downfrom Heaven; if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever, and the bread which I will give is my flesh, which I will give forthe life of the world. ” The Jews, therefore, contended amongthemselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”Jesus, therefore, said unto them, “Verily, verily, I say unto you, unless ye eat the flesh of the son of man, and drink his blood, yehave not life in you. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh myblood, hath everlasting life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is verily food, and my blood is verily drink. He thateateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, and I inhim. As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father, (here is an oath) so he likewise that eateth me shall live by me. ”

This strange doctrine was the faith of the Primitive Christians, as iswell known to the learned Protestants, though they do not like tosay so to their “weaker brethren. ”

Ignatius says, “There is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, andone cup in the unity of his blood;” and of certain heretics he says, “they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour JesusChrist. ”

Justin Martyr, in his Apology, asserts that the consecrated bread“is, some how or other, the flesh of Christ. ”

In the dispute with Latimer about Transubstantiation, it isacknowledged by the most candid writers, that the RomanCatholics had much the advantage. It must have been so, wherequotations from the Fathers were allowed as arguments. For whatanswer can be made to the following extracts?--” What a miracleis this! He who sits above with the Father, at the same instant, ishandled by the hands of men. ” [Chrysostom. ] Again, from thesame, “That which is in the cup, is the same which flowed fromthe side of Christ. ” Again, “Because we abhor the eating of rawflesh; therefore, it appeareth bread, though it be flesh. ”[Theophylact. ] Or to this?--“Christ was carried in his own hands, when he said ‘this is my body. ’” [Austin, ] Or to this?--“We aretaught, that when this nourishing food is consecrated, it becomesthe body and blood of our Saviour. ” [Justin Martyr. ] Or, lastly, tothis? [from Ambrose]--” It is bread before consecration, but afterthat ceremony, it becomes the flesh of Christ. ”

Another doctrine which Paul derived from the Oriental Philosophy, and Which makes a great figure in his writings, is the notion, thatmoral corruption originates in the influxes of the body upon themind. 

“It was one of the principal tenets of the Oriental Philosophy, thatall evil resulted from matter, and its first founder appears to haveargued in the following manner:--“There are many evils in theworld, and men seem impelled of a natural instinct to the practiceof those things which reason condemns. But that eternal mind, from which all spirits derive their existence, must be inaccessibleto all kinds of evil, and also of a most perfect and beneficentnature; therefore, the origin of these evils with which the worldabounds, must be sought somewhere else, than in the Deity. Itcannot abide in him who is all perfection, and, therefore, it must bewithout him. Now, there is nothing without or beyond the Deity butmatter; therefore, matter is the centre and source of all evil, of allvice. ”

One of the consequences they drew from this hypothesis was, thatsince All evil resulted from matter, the depravity of mankind arosefrom the pollution derived to the human soul, from its connexionwith the material body which it inhabits; and, therefore, the onlymeans by which the mind could purify itself from the defilement, and liberate itself from the bondage imposed upon it by the body, was to emaciate and humble the body by frequent fasting, and toinvigorate the mind to overcome and subdue it by retirement andcontemplation. 

The New Testament, though it does not recognise this principle ofthe Oriental Philosophy, “that evil originates from matter, ” yetcoincides with it in strenuously asserting that the corruption of thehuman mind is derived from its connexion with the human body. 

To prove this proposition, I shall show that Paul calls all crimes theworks of the flesh. ” “Now, the works of the flesh are manifest, (says he, Gal. V. 19, ) which are these: adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, sorcery, hatred, contentions, rivalries, wrath, disputes, divisions, heresies, envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like. ” He also describes theconflict between the flesh and the spirit, or mind, in these terms:--“For I know that in me, that is, in my flesh, dwelleth no good, forto will is present with me, but to perform that which is good, I findnot, but the evil which I would not, that I do. For I delight in thelaw of God according to the inner man, but I see another law in mymembers warring against the law of my mind, and bringing meinto captivity to the law of my sin in my members. O wretchedman that I am! who will deliver me from the body of this death?”(or this body of death. ) And he goes on to observe, “That I, thesame man, with my mind serve the law of God, but with my fleshthe law of sin. ”--Rom. Vii. “For the flesh desireth against (or inopposition to) the spirit, and the spirit against “the flesh, and theseare contrary the one to the other, so that ye cannot do the thingsthat ye would. ”

“Those that are Christ’s (says Paul, Gal. V. 24) have crucified theflesh, with its passions and desires. ” And they are commanded(Rom. Vi. 12 and viii. 13) “to mortify, ” or, according to theoriginal, “put to death or “kill their members;” and Paul himselfuses language upon this subject exceeding strong. He represents (1Cor. Ix. 27) his mind and body as engaged in combat, and says, “Ibuffet my body, and subject it. ” The word here translated “subject, ” in the original, means “to carry into servitude, ” and is aterm taken from the language of the olympic games where theboxers dragged off the arena, their conquered, disabled, andhelpless antagonists like slaves, in which humbled condition theApostle represents his body to be with respect to his mind. 

From this notion of the sinfulness of “the flesh, ” we are enabled toapprehend Paul’s reasonings about the sufferings of Jesus “in theflesh. ” “Since the children are partakers of flesh and blood, Christhimself also in like manner partook of them”--Heb. Ii. 14. “For(says Paul) what the law could not do in that it was weak throughthe flesh, God hath done, who by having sent his own son in thelikeness of sinful flesh, and on account of sin, hath condemned sinin the flesh. ”--Rom. Viii. 3. “But now, through Christ Jesus, yewho formerly were far off, are brought near by the blood of Christ. For he is our Peace who hath made both one, and hath brokendown the middle wall of partition between us, having abolished byhis flesh the cause of enmity. ”--Ephes. Ii. 16. “You that wereformerly aliens, and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet hehath now reconciled by his fleshly body, through his death. ”--Col. I. 20. 

Though these notions are sufficiently strange, yet they are not sovery remarkable as the one I am about to consider. It is a singular, and a demonstrable fact, that the fundamental scheme ofChristianity was derived from the religion of the ancient Persians, The whole of the New Testament scheme is built upon thehypothesis, that there is a powerful and malignant being, called theDevil and Satan, the chief of unknown myriads of other evil spirits;that he is, by the sufferance of God, the Prince of this world, and isthe Author of sin, woe and death; the Tempter, the Tormentor ofmen, and the Tyrant of the Earth; that the Son of God, to delivermankind from the vassalage of this monster, descended fromheaven, and purchased their ransom of the Tyrant, at the price ofhis blood; for observe, my reader, that the idea of the death ofJesus being an atonement to God for the sins of men, is a modernnotion; for the Primitive Christians, all of them, considered thedeath of Jesus as a ransom paid to the Devil, as may be provedfrom Origen and other Fathers. That the New Testament representsthis character as the sovereign of this world, may be proved by thefollowing passages:--“All this power will I give thee, and theglory of them, (said the Tempter to Jesus, when he showed him allthe kingdoms of the earth, ) for it is delivered unto me, and towhomsoever I will, I give it. ” Luke iv. , Jesus calls him “the Princeof this world;” John xii. , and elsewhere. In his commission to Paul, he calls embracing his religion, “turning from darkness unto light, and from the power of Satan to God. ”--. Acts xxvi. 18. Accordingly we find, that to become a Christian was considered asbeing freed from the tyranny of Satan. “God hath given life toyou, (says Paul) who were dead in offences, and sins; in which yeformerly walked, according to the course (or constitution) of thisworld, according to the Prince of the Power of the air. ”--Ephesians ii. , 1. And again:--“If our gospel be covered, (or hid)it is covered among those that are lost, among those unbelievers, whose minds the God of this world hath blinded, to the end that theglorious gospel of Christ should not enlighten them. ”--2 Cor. Iv. 4. John says in his Epistle, that “the whole world lieth in thepower of the wicked one;” and Jesus in the gospels compares himto “a strong man armed, keeping his goods;” and himself to onestronger than he, who strippeth him of the arms in which hetrusted, and spoileth his goods. “For this purpose was the Son ofGod manifested, that he might destroy the works of the Devil. ”--1John iii. 8. And it is said, “that he came to send forth the captiveinto liberty, and to heal those who were oppressed of the Devil. ”Men are also said to have been “taken captive of the Devil, tofulfil his will. ”--2 Timothy ii. 26. And we find that the Christiansattributed all their sufferings to the opposition of this Being. “Puton (says Paul) the whole armour of God, that ye may be able tostand against the wiles of the Devil. For we struggle not againstflesh and blood only; but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against wickedspirits in high places. ”--Ephesians vi. 12. Christians are also saidto be delivered by God from the power of darkness, and to betranslated into the kingdom of his dear son. That is, as Christianswere considered as being the subjects of Jesus, and the rest of theworld as being of the kingdom of Satan, when a man became aChristian he was translated from the kingdom of one, to thekingdom of the other. Jesus accused the Devil as being the authorof all evil, as a liar, and the father of lies, and a murderer of men, and of women, too, as appears in the Gospel, from the account ofthat one, whose back the Devil had bowed down for eighteenyears--Luke xiii. 10--(on what account it does not appear. ) Inshort, the New Testament represents to him as being the source ofall evil and mischief, and the promoter of it; and the whole worldas being his subjects, and combined with him against all good. 

But how does all this prove that these notions were derived fromthe religion of the ancient Persians? I answer by requesting you, my reader, to peruse, attentively, the following account of thefundamental principles of the religion of Zoroaster, the prophet ofthe Persians. 

The doctrine of Zoroaster was, that there was one Supreme Being, independent, and self-existing from all eternity; that inferior tohim, there were two Angels, one the Angel of Light, who is theAuthor and Director of all Good; and the other, the Angel ofDarkness, who is the Author and Director of all Evil; that thesetwo are in a perpetual struggle with each other; and that where theAngel of Light prevails, there the most is good; awl where theAngel of Darkness prevails, there the most is evil. That thisstruggle shall continue to the end of the world; that then there shallbe a general resurrection, and a day of judgment, wherein justretribution shall be rendered to all according to their works; afterwhich, the Angel of Darkness, and his followers, shall go into aworld of their own, where they shall suffer in darkness, thepunishment of their evil deeds. And the Angel of Light, and hisfollowers, shall also go into a world of their own, where they shallreceive, in everlasting light, the reward due to their good deeds. 

It is impossible but that the reader must see the agreement of thedoctrines of the New Testament with all this; and since it isundoubted, that these tenets of Zoroaster are far more ancient thanthe New Testament, and since, as we have seen, that that book ismuch indebted to oriental notions for many of its dogmas, there isno way of accounting for this coincidence (that I know of), besidessupposing the Devil of the New Testament to be of Persian origin. It is, however, in my power to make this coincidence still morestriking from the words of Jesus himself, who says, (Matthew xiii. 24), “The kingdom of Heaven is like a man who sowed good seedin his field, but while men slept, his enemy (mark the expression)his enemy came, and sowed tares among the wheat; but when theblade sprung up, and brought forth fruit, then appeared the taresalso. So the servants of the householder came near, and said untohim, ‘ Sir, didst thou not sow good seed in thy field? whence, then, hath it tares?’ And he saith unto them, an enemy hath donethis. ” You know the rest of the parable. The explanation of it is asfollows:--“He who soweth the good seed is the Son of Man, andthe field is the world; and the good seed are the sons of thekingdom, and the tares are the sons of the Evil One, and the enemywho sowed them is the Devil. ” Here you see, as far as it goes, aprecise agreement with the doctrine of Zoroaster; and to completethe resemblance, you need but to recollect, that at the day ofJudgment, according to the words of Jesus, the wicked go into thefire prepared for the Devil and his angels; and the righteous go intolife eternal with the Son of God. 

But is there not a Satan mentioned in the Old Testament, and is henot there represented as an evil and malevolent angel? I think not. This notion probably arises from the habit of interpreting the OldTestament by the New. The Satan mentioned in the Old Testament, is represented as God’s minister of punishment, and as much hisfaithful servant as any of his angels. The prologue to the book ofJob certainly supposes that this angel of punishment, by office, appeared in the court of Heaven, nay, he is ranked among “theSons of God. ” This Satan is merely the supposed chief of thoseministers of God’s will, whose office is to execute his orderedcommands upon the guilty, and who may be sometimes, as in thecase of Job, the minister of probation only, rather than ofpunishment; and there is no reason why he should be ashamed ofhis office more than the General of an army, or the Judges of thecriminal courts, who, though they are not unfrequently ministers ofpunishment are not, therefore, excluded the royal presence; but onthe contrary, their office is considered as honourable;--i. E. , punishment without malevolence, does not pollute the inflictor. Consider the story of the destruction of Sodom, Genesis xix. ; ofEgypt; Exodus xxii. ; of Sennacherib, 1 Kings xxix. 35; also Joshuav. 13. The term Satan signifies an adversary, and is applied to anyangel sent upon an errand of punishment For example, Numbersxxii. 23, “The Angel of the Lord stood in the way, for an adversary(literally, for a Satan) against Balaam, with his sword drawn in hishand. ” “Curse ye Meroz, saith the Angel of the Lord, ” whoseoffice is to punish. So also Psalms xxxv. 5, “Let the Angel (ofpunishment) of the Lord chase them, (i. E. , drive them before himin a military manner; pursue them:) let their way be dark andslippery, and the Angel of the Lord following them. ”

2 Samuel xxiv. 16:--“The Lord sent a pestilence upon Israel--theangel (of punishment) stretched forth his hand and smote thepeople. ”--1 Chronicles xxi. 16:--“David saw the angel (ofpunishment) having a drawn sword in his hand. ”

This notion is referred to, in the Apocryphal History of Susannah, verse 69. “The Angel of the Lord waiteth with his sword that hemay cut thee in two. ”

Thus we see, that the term Satan is in the Old Testament applied toany Angel of the Lord sent upon an errand of punishment. And theterm itself is so far from being reproachful (for David is said, 1Samuel xxix. 4, to have been “a Satan to the Philistines, ”) that Iam not sure, that if I had by me a Hebrew concordance, but I couldpoint out places, where God himself is represented as saying, thathe would be an adversary or a Satan to bad men and wickednations. And though there is in the Old Testament a particularangel styled, by way of eminence, “The Satan, ” it is so far frombeing evident that he is an evil being, that I would undertake togive good reasons to prove that this distinguished angel is the realprototype, from whence the impostor Mahomet took the idea of his“Azrael, ” the “Angel of Death;” who, in the Koran, is certainlyrepresented as being as much the faithful servant of God, as any ofthe Angelic Hosts. 

In fine, the doctrine of the Old Testament upon this matter may bethus expressed:--“These be spirits created for vengeance, whichin their fury lay on sore strokes; in the time of destruction, theypour out their force, sad appease the wrath of him that made them. They shall rejoice in his (God’s) commandment, and they shall beready upon earth, when need is: and when their time is come, theyshall not transgress his word. ” Ecclesiasticus xxxix. 28. 

CHAPTER XIV. 

A CONSIDERATION OF THE “GIFT OF TONGUES, ” ANDOTHER MIRACULOUS GIFTS ASCRIBED O THE PRIMITIVECHRISTIANS; AND WHETHER RECORDED MIRACLES AREINFALLIBLE PROOFS OF THE DIVINE AUTHORITY OFDOCTRINES SAID TO HAVE BEEN CONFIRMED BY THEM. 

Paul, in his 1st Epistle to the Corinthians, speaks to them aspossessing several spiritual gifts, conferred on them by hisministration; such as the gift of prophecy, discerning of spirits, andspeaking in unknown tongues. He gives them directions about theproper use of their gifts, and speaks to them as absolutelypossessing those gifts, with the utmost confidence. Dr. Paley, in hisDefence of Christianity, lays great stress upon the manner in whichPaul addresses the Corinthians upon these miraculous powers; andhe considers it as an absolute proof of the truth of Christianity--because, he says, it is not conceivable that Paul could have had theboldness and presumption to speak to these men concerning theuse and abuse of these gifts, if they really had them not. 

I am ready to confess, that this argument of Dr. Paley puzzled me;for though I was satisfied that Paul had imposed upon theircredulity many irrelevant passages from the Scriptures as proofs ofChristianity, yet I could not imagine that he could presume somuch upon their stupidity, as to give them directions about themanagement of their miraculous powers, which being matters offact known to themselves, therefore, if false, I conceived mustplace Paul in their minds in the light of a banterer, when he toldthem of gifts, which their own consciousness, I thought, mustmake them sensible they had not. I say I was puzzled with thisargument, until I happened to meet with some extracts fromBrown’s “History of the Shakers, ” which convinced me at once, from the obvious likeness between these Shakers and the primitiveChristians, that Paul might have written to the Corinthians “concerning their spiritual gifts, ” with perfect impunity. 

This Brown had been a Shaker himself, and while with them, hewas as great a believer in his own and their gifts, as the Corinthianscould be; and since it must be obvious, that the gifts of theseShakers are mere self-delusions, there is, then, in our own times anexample of the gifts of the primitive Christians, which enables usto comprehend their nature and character perfectly well. 

“Many of them, ” (the Shakers) says Mr. Brown, “professed to havevisions, and to see numbers of spirits, as plain as they saw theirbrethren and sisters, and to look into the invisible world, and toconverse with many of the departed spirits, who had lived in thedifferent ages of the world, and to learn and to see their differentstates in the world of spirits. Some they saw, they said, werehappy, and others miserable. Several declared, that they often werein dark nights surrounded with a light, sometimes in their rooms, but more often when walking the road, so strong, that they couldsee to pick up a pin, which light would continue a considerabletime, and enlighten them on their way. Many had gifts to speaklanguages, and many miracles were said to be wrought, andstrange signs and great wonders shown, by the believers. 

And these poor creatures believed, and at this day do believe, allthis. They are not, you will observe, artful impostors, for theShakers are, certainly, a harmless and a moral people, and yet theyconfidently asserted (and continue to assert), that they had thesemiraculous powers of “discerning spirits, speaking with tongues, and doing great signs and wonders” Nevertheless, it must beevident, that these powers were conferred upon them only by theirenthusiasm and heated imaginations. 

I have heard of the Shakers before, and have been informed, thatthose in New England are so convinced of their miraculouscapabilities, that they have been known, in order to save theirneighbours the trouble of applying to the tinman, charitably tooffer to join the gaping seams of their worn-out tin coffee-pots, andother vessels, “without the carnal aid of solder, ” merely by atouch of their wonder-working fingers. 

Mr. Brown, in describing their mode of conduct, in their religiousassemblies, unwittingly gives a striking exposition of the 1stEpistle to the Corinthians. He describes “the brethren and sisters”praying, singing, dancing, and preaching in known and unknowntongues, and sticking out their arms, and extatically following theirnoses round the church. 

He says, respecting such as speak in unknown tongues, “they havea strong faith in this gift, and think a person greatly favoured whohas the gift of tongues; and at certain times, when the mind isoverloaded with a fiery, strong zeal, it must have vent some way orother; their faith, or belief, at the time being in this, gift, and a willstrikes the mind according to their faith, and then such break out ina fiery, energetic manner, and speak they know not what, as I havedone several times. Part of what I spake at one time was--

“Liero devo jerankemango, ad sileambano, durem subramo, deviranto diacerimango, jasse vah pe cri evanigalio; de vom gromseb crinom, os vare cremo domo. ”

“When a person runs on in this manner for any length of time, Inow thought it probable that he would strike into differentlanguages, and give some words in each their right pronounciation, as I have heard some men of learning, who were present, say a fewwords, were Hebrew, three or four Greek, and a few Latin. ”

In another place he gives an account of his maiden speech in anunknown tongue; and it is easy to conjecture how he came by hisgift, by attending to what passed before he broke out. Here it is:--“We danced for near an hour, several turned round like tops, and, to crown all, I had a gift to speak in some other language; but thegreatest misfortune was, that neither I, nor any other, understoodwhat I said. ”

My reader will not be surprized after this, at hearing them say, thatthe spectators of “these signs and wonders, ” instead of beingproperly affected, considered the performers as “out of their wits. ”

Let us, now, compare this account with what Paul says uponsimilar subjects, in the 14th chapter of the 1st Epistle to theCorinthians. He advises them, in exercising their gifts, to a discreetuse of them, as follows:--“He who speaketh in an unknowntongue, speaketh not to men, but to God, for no man understandethhim; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries. ” Again: “For ifthe trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself tobattle? So, likewise, unless ye utter by the tongue words to beunderstood, how shall it be known what is spoken, for ye willspeak to the air?” And as others did not understand theCorinthians speaking in unknown tongues, so it seems, too, that theCorinthians themselves were in the same unfortunate predicamentwith the Shakers, in not knowing the meaning of what theythemselves said on these occasions. This is clear from thisargument of Paul:--“Wherefore, let him that speaketh in anunknown tongue, pray that he may interpret. ” Why, pray that hemay interpret, if he understood himself? Does a man who speakswith understanding a foreign language, need to pray that he may beenabled to interpret what he says in his mother tongue? Surelyevery man who understands himself, can naturally do this? Aftermore to the same purpose, Paul wisely concludes his argument bydeclaring, “that he would rather speak in the church five wordswith understanding, (i. E. , knowing what he said) that he mightinstruct others also, than ten thousand words in an unknowntongue. ” And he fortifies his reasoning by this sensible remark, “If, therefore, the whole church come together into one place, and allspeak in unknown tongues, and those that are unlearned, orunbelievers, come in, will they not say, that ye are mad?” as thespectators said of the Shakers. 

He advises them, therefore, to conduct their assemblies with lessuproar than formerly, and exhorts them as follows:--“How is it, then, brethren, when you come together, hath each of you a psalm, hath he a doctrine, hath he an unknown tongue, hath he arevelation? Let all things be done to edifying. Now, if any manspeak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at most by three, and that in succession, and let one interpret; but if there be nointerpreter, let such keep silence in the church, and let him speak tohimself and to God. And let two or three prophets speak, and letthe others discern. But if any thing be revealed to another whositteth by, let the first keep silence. For ye may all prophecy, oneby one, that all may learn, and all may be exhorted. ”

I presume it will be needless to point out more particularly, theperfect correspondence between “the spiritual gifts” of theCorinthians, and those of the Shakers. And I would ask thevenerable Paley, if it were now possible, whether an apostolicalepistle of Ann Lee, William Lee, or Whitaker, (the spiritualmother and. Fathers of the Shakers, ) addressed to them, andseriously giving directions about the use of “their gifts of workingmiracles, and speaking with tongues, ” would be sufficient to provethat they really had those gifts? And, moreover, (to make the casesmore analogous) suppose that the Shakers from this time becomethe dominant sect throughout the religious world, and kept theupper hand during a series of a thousand or two thousand years, taking especial care to collect and burn up every writing of theirenemies and opposers. How should we, (supposing ourselves allthe while invisible spectators of the thing), how should we pity ourposterity, who, at the end of that period, should be gravely told bythe learned and mitred advocates of Shakerism, that the miracles ofthe founders, and first followers of their religion were certainlytrue, for that they were honest and good men, with no motive todeceive, and had addressed letters to their first converts, whereinthey make express mention of their possessing these gifts; and givein the simplest and most unassuming manner, directions for usingthem. Suppose, then, that our posterity, having been deprived bythe prudential care of the old fathers of the then established church, of the means of detecting the fallacy which we possess; supposethat they should believe all this, and devoutly praise God every dayfor confirming the doctrines of his servants Lee and Whitaker, “with signs following”--how should we pity their delusion, and. What should we think of the unlucky authors of it. 

From all this, I think my reader must be sensible how extremelyfallacious are all proofs of doctrines, pretended to be from God, derived from Miracles said to have been wrought in proof of theirDivine authority. 

Miracles are related to have been performed in support of allreligions without exception; even the followers of Mahomet, though he did not claim the power of working miracles, have saidthat he did. And they will tell you, that in proof of his mission, he, in the presence of hundreds, divided the moon with his finger, andput half of it in his pocket!*

Speaking of the gift of healing diseases, which the PrimitiveChristians claimed. Dr. Middleton, in his Free Inquiry, observes--“But be that as it will the pretence of curing diseases, by amiraculous power, was so suc-cessfully maintained in the heathenworld by fraud, and craft, that when it came to be challenged bythe Christians, it was not capable of exciting any attention to itamong those who themselves pretended to the same power; which, although the certain effect of imposture, was yet managed with somuch art, that the Christians could neither deny nor detect it; butinsisted always that it was performed by demons, or evil spirits, deluding mankind to their ruin; and from the supposed reality ofthe fact, they inferred the reasonableness of believing what wasmore credibly affirmed by the Christians, to be performed by thepower of the true God. “We do not deny says Athenagoras, “that, in different places, cities, and countries, there are someextraordinary works performed in the name of idols, from whichsome have received benefit, others harm. ” And then he goes on toprove that they were not performed by God, but by demons. Doctor Middleton then proceeds, (p. 77. ) “whatever proof, then, the primitive Church had among themselves, yet it could have butlittle effect towards making proselytes among those who pretendedto the same gift; possessed more largely, and exerted more openly, than in the private assemblies of the Christians. For in the Templeof Esculapius, all kinds of diseases were believed to be publiclycured by the pretended help of that deity: in proof of which, therewere erected in each temple columns, or tables of brass, andmarble, on which a distinct narrative of each particular cure wasinscribed. ” He also observes that--“Pausanias writes, ‘ that in thetemple at Epidauras there were many columns anciently of thiskind, and six of them remaining in his time inscribed with thenames of men and women cured by the god, with “an account oftheir several cases, and the method of their cure; and that there wasan old pillar besides, which stood apart, dedicated to the memoryof Hippolytus, who had been raised from the dead!’ Strabo, also, another grave writer, informs us, that these temples wereconstantly filled with the sick, imploring the help of the god: andthat they had tables hanging around them, in which all themiraculous cures were described. ” Dr. Middleton then proceedsthus--“There is a remarkable fragment of one of these tables stillextant, and exhibited by Gruter, in his collection, as it was found inthe ruins of Esculapius’ Temple, in the island of the Tyber, atRome, which gives an account of two blind men restored to sight, by Esculapius, in the open view, and with loud declamations of thepeople, acknowledging the manifest power of the god!!” Uponwhich he remarks, that “the learned Montfaucon makes thisreflection, ‘ that in this, are seen either the wiles of the Devil, orthe tricks of Pagan priests, suborning men to counterfeit diseases, and miraculous cures. ’” He then proceeds, (p. 79)--“Now, thoughnothing can support the belief, or credit of miracles moreauthentically than public monuments erected in proof, and memoryof them at the time they were performed, yet, in defiance of thatauthority, it is certain all these Heathen miracles were pureforgeries, contrived to delude the multitude; and, in truth, thisparticular claim of curing diseases miraculously, affords greatroom for such a delusion, and a wide field for the exercise ofcraft. ”

I need not observe, that by far the greater part of the miraclesrecorded in the New Testament, are casting out devils, and healingdiseases, powers claimed by the heathens as well as theseChristians: and these miracles, (undoubtedly false) are as well, ifnot far better authenticated than those of the New Testament: forbooks may be forged, but public monuments of brass and marbleare not so capable of being so: and these are always con-sideredas better evidence for facts than books. What then will theChristian say to this? for since these miracles, recorded on brassand marble, inscribed with the narratives of them almostimmediately after the occurrence of them, are unquestionably Lies;what can he pretend to say of those recorded in books certainlywritten many years after the events they record, and, as will beproved hereafter, more than suspected to be apocryphal?And what would become of truth? and who would be able todistinguish truth from falsehood, in matters of religion, if attestedmiracles, such as these, are sufficient to establish the divineauthority of doctrines said to be confirmed by them? Miracles areas numerous, and better authenticated on the part of Jupiter, Apollo, and Esculapius, than on the part of Christianity. They arestrong on the part of Popery against Protestantism: for the RomanCatholic Churches in Europe are full of monumental records ofmiracles wrought by the Virgin Mary and the Saints, in favour oftheir worshippers. Nay, there never were miracles better proved, asfar as human testimony could prove them, than the famous miraclementioned by Gibbon in his History of the Roman Empire, wherehe relates the story of the Arian Vandals cutting out the tongues ofa great number of orthodox Athanasians, who, strange to tell, preached as much to the purpose, in favour of the Trinity, withouttheir tongues, as they did with them! Never was there a miraclebetter authenticated by testimony than this. It is mentionedby all the Christian writers of that age. It is mentionedby two contemporary Roman historians, one of whom lived inConstantinople, and who says he looked into the mouths of someof these confessors, who had in fact their tongues cut out entirelyby the roots; and it is recorded in the archives of the EasternEmpire. 

Is not this testimony enough; and yet, is it sufficient to prove thedoctrine of the Trinity? Is it adequate to prove, that “the ancient ofdays” became a little child; was born of a woman, suckled, *******, &c. , &c. ; and that “He who liveth for ever and ever, ”was whipped, was hanged, and died upon the cross, and was buried?Can this miracle, well attested as it is, prove for truths, suchstrange, such shocking things as these?

The miracles of the Abbe Paris, too, are proved to be true, as far astestimony can prove any thing of the kind. For they happenedwithin a hundred years, were seen by many, and were sworn tobefore the magistrates; by some of the most respectable inhabitantsof the city of Paris. How can men, who pretend to believe themiracles of the New Testament upon such meagre evidence as theyhave in their favour, consistently reject the miracles of the AbbeParis? attested by evidence recent, respectable, and so strong, thatto this day, the juggle, and the means by which so manyrespectable people were imposed upon, have never yet beenthoroughly developed, and explained. 

CHAPTER XV. 

APPLICATION OF THE TWO TESTS, SAID, INDEUTERONOMY, TO HAVE BEEN GIVEN BY GOD, ASDISCRIMINATING A TRUE PROPHET FROM A FALSE ONE, TO THE CHARACTER AND ACTIONS OF JESUS. 

In the 18th chapter of Deuteronomy God says, --“The Prophetwhich shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have notcommanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of othergods, even that Prophet shall die. And if thou say in thine heart, how shall we know (or distinguish, ) the word which the Lord hathnot spoken?” Here is the criterion. “When a Prophet speaketh inthe name of the Lord, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass; thatis the thing which the Lord hath not spoken. That Prophet hathspoken presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him. ”

Again, Deuteronomy 13, “If there arise among you a Prophet, or adreamer of dreams, and give you a sign or a wonder (i. E. Amiracle, ) and the sign or wonder come to pass, whereof he spakeunto thee saying, let us go after other gods, which thou hast notknown, and let us serve them: thou shalt not hearken unto thewords of that Prophet, or that dreamer of dreams; for the Lordyour God proveth (or tryeth) you, to know whether ye love theLord your God with all you heart, and with all your soul. ”

And now Christian reader, I ask you what you think of miracles, or“signs and wonders, ” as proof of a divine mission, to teachdoctrines novel and innovating, after such clear and unequivocallanguage as this, from such high authority? I am sure, that if youare a sincere lover of truth, you must certainly abandon that groundas untenable. For, from these direc-tions, the Jews werecommanded these things#. 1. That the Prophet who presumes tospeak a word, as from God, which God hath not commanded himto speak, must be put to death. 2. That the test, or criterion bywhich they are to discern a false prophet from a true one, is this:not his miracles, but the fulfillment of his words. If what he sayscomes to pass, he is a true prophet; if the event foretold does nottake place, he has spoken presump-tuously, and must die thedeath. 3. “If any man arise in Israel, ” and advise, or teach them toworship any other besides the Eternal; and in proof of the divinityof his mission promise a sign, or a wonder, and in fact does bringto pass the sign or wonder promised, he is nevertheless, not to behearkened to; but to be put to death. And these criteria given byGod, or Moses, as the means whereby they might know a trueProphet from a false one, most exquisitely prove his wisdom andforesight. For if he had not expressly excluded miracles, or “signsand wonders, ” from being proof of the divinity of doctrines, thebarriers which divided his religion from those of idolaters, musthave been broken down; since, as we have seen, well attestedmiracles (meaning always by miracles, “signs and wonders, ”brought to pass by human agency, ) are related to have beenperformed in proof of the divinity of every religion under Heaven. But veritable prophecy is, and can he a proof proper only to a trueRevelation, because none can know what is to come but God, andthose sent by him. Accordingly, we find that the Jewish Prophetswere not acknowledged as such, but on account of their foretellingthe truth, or being supposed to do so. 

Thus, it is said, 1 Samuel iii. 20, “And all Israel, from Dan evento Beersheba, knew, that Samuel was established to be a Prophetof the Lord. ” Why? Because he performed miracles? No! heperformed none. But he was known as a Prophet because “theLord was with him, and let none of his words fall to the ground, ” i. E. Fail of their accomplishment. The same, may be said of all theHebrew Prophets, from Nathan to Malachi. For though Elijah andElisha performed miracles, yet it was not in proof of their mission, for that was established before; but these miracles were occasionalacts of beneficence, or protection, but were never considered, oroffered by them as proofs of their being sent from God. 

These things being by this time, it is hoped, made plain andevident, let us now test the character of Jesus as a true Prophet, bythe criteria, by Christians, and by the Jews, believed to be given byGod. If his prophecies were fulfilled, and if he taught the worshipof no other being besides the Eternal, he was, according to the OldTestament, a true Prophet. But if any of his prophecies were notfulfilled, or, if he taught the worship of any other Being besides theEternal, he was not a true Prophet. 

And here it must be recollected, that those prophecies of Jesusonly, can be brought forward in this question, which werecommitted to writing, before the event foretold came to pass; andtherefore all Jesus’ prophecies concerning the manner andcircumstances of his death, &c. , must be set aside, as all thoseevents are allowed to have taken place before any of the Gospelswere written; and of course it is not certain that Jesus did actuallyforetell them. This is acknowledged by Christians; and accordinglythey confine themselves to bringing forward as conclusiveevidence in their favour, his Prophecy of the Destruction ofJerusalem, and the events following. Here it is. Luke xxi. 21. “When ye shall see Jerusalem com-passed with armies, thenknow, that the desolation thereof is nigh. Then let them which arein Judea flee to the mountains, and let them which are in the midstof it, depart out, and let not them which are in the counter, enterthereinto. For these be the days of vengeance, that all things whichare written may be fulfilled. But woe unto them that are with child, and to them which give suck in those days. For there shall be greatdistress in the land, and wrath upon this people. And they shall fallby the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into allnations, and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, untilthe times of the Gentiles be fulfilled. And there shall be signs inthe sun, and in the moon, and in the stars, and upon the earthdistress of nations with perplexity, the sea and waves roaring, man’s hearts failing them for fear, and for looking after thosethings which are coming on the earth: for the powers of theheavens shall be shaken. And then, shall they see the Son of Mancoming in a cloud, with power, and great glory. And when thesethings begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads;for your redemption draweth nigh. And he spake to them a parable, Behold the fig tree and all the trees. When they now shoot forth, yesee, and know of your own selves, that summer is now nigh athand. So likewise ye, when ye see these things come to pass, knowye that the kingdom of God is nigh at hand. Verily I say unto you, this generation shall not pass away till all be fulfilled. Heaven andearth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away. ”

Such is the prophecy, and on it I would remark, first, that whatJesus here foretells concerning Jerusalem did in fact come to pass. But that was not a fulfillment of his prophecy, but of Daniel’s, whodid, as is set down in the 7th chapter of this work, expresslyforetell the utter destruction of the city and the temple. And it wasfrom Daniel that Jesus obtained his know-ledge of the approach ofthat event. For he expressly cites Daniel, Matthew xxiv. 15; Markxiii. 14; and you will please to observe reader, that he refers to himin this quotation from Luke, in the words, “these be the days ofvengeance that all things which are written, may be fulfilled. Sothat in foretelling the destruction of Jerusalem he did no more thanany Jew of that age, who attentively read their Scriptures, couldhave done, and. Been no prophet either. 

2. It would have been better for his reputation as a Prophet, if hehad stopped short where Daniel stopped. For what he goes on toforetell has not been fulfilled. For he proceeds to say, that “thereshall be signs in the sun, and the moon, and the stars, ” &c. All thisis taken from the 2nd chapter of Joel, who says that such thingsshall take place; not, however, at the destruction of Jerusalem, butin “the latter days, ” at the time of the restoration of Israel. So thathere Jesus has been rather unlucky. For, in truth, there were nosigns in the sun, and the moon, and the stars, at that time; neitherwas there upon earth any “great distress of nations, ” except inJudea. Nor were “the powers of heaven” shaken. Certainly, theydid not see Jesus “coming in the clouds of heaven, with power, and great glory;” and most assuredly, that generation did passaway, and many others since, and “all these things” have not beenfulfilled. 

I know very well, and have very often smiled over the contrivancesby which learned Christians have endeavoured to save the credit ofthis prophecy. They say that--it is a figurative prophecy relatingentirely to the destruction of Jerusalem, which did in fact takeplace in that generation; that the expressions about the “distress ofnations, ” and “the sea and waves roaring, ” the “signs in heaven, ”&c. , are merely poetical; and that the shaking of the powers ofheaven was merely the shaking and pulling-down the stones of thetemple, figuratively called heaven; and that the glorious coming ofJesus “in the clouds of heaven, with power, and great glory, ”meant merely, that he sent Titus, and the Romans to destroy, Jerusalem, or perhaps might have been an invisible spectatorhimself. 

The reader will easily see, that all this is nonsense. And theCommentator Grotius, after meddling a great while in thistroublesome business, at length ventures to insinuate, that Godmight have suffered Jesus to be in a mistake about the time of hissecond coming, and to tell the Apostles what he did, for the sake ofkeeping up their spirits!

But to annihilate the figurative hypothesis of these well-meaningCommentators at once, it will be only necessary to bring forwardthe testimony following. 1. The other Evangelists make an expressdistinction between the destruction of Jerusalem and the coming ofJesus; and not only so, but represent him as saying, that after thatevent, (i. E. , the destruction of Jerusalem, “in those days, ” i. E. , inthe same era in which that event took place, ) “the son of man shallcome, ” &c. Witness for me, Mark, chapter xiii. 24:--“But in thosedays, after that tribulation, (i. E. , the destruction of Jerusalem)shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars of heaven shall fall, and the powers that are in heavenshall be shaken. And then shall they see the son of man coming inthe clouds, with power and glory; and-then shall he send hisangels, and shall gather his elect from the four winds, from theuttermost part of the earth, to the uttermost part of heaven Verily, Isay unto you, that this generation shall not pass, till all these thingsbe accomplished. ” This is decisive, and cannot be evaded. 

2. The Apostles and Primitive Christians believed that Jesus wouldcome in that generation, as is evident from many passages of theNew Testament. Paul’s Epistles to the Thessalonians prove this, and contain an argument to them, intended to allay their terrors, ortheir impatience. John says in his first Epistle, chapter ii. 18, “Little children, it is the last hour; and as ye have heard thatAntichrist should come, even now (or already) there are manyAntichrists, whereby know that it is the last hour. ” Many passagesof similar import might be brought forward. The meaning of it isthis--It appears from Paul’s 2nd Epistle to the Thessalonians, thatjust before the second coming of Jesus, there was a personage toappear who was to be called Antichrist, i. E. , an enemy to theMessiah. (This notion they got from the interpretation given by theangel of the vision of the “little horn” in Daniel. ) John, therefore, seeing many Antichrists, i. E. , opposers of the pretensions of Jesus, considered the sign, and thus knew that it was ‘‘the last hour, ” andthat his master was soon to appear. 

It appears from the 2nd Epistle of Peter, chapter iii. , that therewere many in his days who scoffed at his master, saying, contemptuously, “where is the promise of his coming?” And Peterreplies by telling them that their contempt is misplaced, for that“one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousandyears as one day. ” John, in the 1st chapter of Revelations, says, concerning the coming of Jesus, “Behold he cometh with clouds, and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him, andall kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. ” And in the lastchapter of Revelations he represents Jesus, as saying, “Surely Icome quickly”!

In short, the Apostles, when they wanted to encourage theirdesponding proselytes, they usually did it with such words asthese, --”Be anxious for nothing, the Lord is at hand. ”--”Behold!the Judge standeth before the day. ”--“Be patient, therefore, brethren, (says James) for the coming of the Lord cometh nigh. ”And this persuasion did not end, as might be expected, with thatcentury; for we find that the heathens frequently laughed at theexpec-tations of the Primitive Christians, who, till the fourthcentury, never gave up the expectation of the impending advent oftheir master. Nay, so rooted was the idea in their minds, that, understanding the words of Jesus concerning John, “if I will thathe tarry till I come, what is that to thee, ” to mean that that discipleshould not die, but survive till the glorious appearance of his lord, so far were they from being convinced of the vanity of theirexpectations by that Apostle’s actual decease, that they insisted, that, though he was buried, he was not dead, but only slept, andthat the earth over his body rose and fell with the action of hisbreathing!!

It is now hardly necessary to add, that Jesus did not at all answerthe character of a true prophet, when tested by the criterion laiddown in Deuteronomy for ascertaining the truth of the claims of aprophet to a divine mission. 

Let us now see, whether he taught the worship of other beingsbeside the Eternal, for if he did, the other test laid down inDeuteronomy will also decide against him. Now, did he notcommand the worship of himself in these words, “All men shouldhonour the Son, even as they honour the Father?” This, certainly, commands to render to Jesus the same homage which is renderedto God. I might prove that his disciples did worship him, byreferring to many passages in the New Testament, especially in theRevelations, in the latter part of which, Jesus is represented assaying, “I am the Alpha, and the Omega, the beginning, and theend, the first, and, the last, ” terms applied to the Eternal in Isaiah, where God says, (as if in express opposition to such doctrine) that“there is no God with him: He knows not any; there was nonebefore him, neither shall there be any after him. ” I could alsoadduce many passages relating to the Eternal of Hosts, quotedfrom the Old Testament, and applied in the New to Jesus. Witness“the following:--John xii. 41, alludes to Isaiah vi. 5; Revelationsi. 8, . 11, 17, and ii. 8, to Isaiah xli. 4, xliii. 11, and xliv. 6; Johnxxi. 16, 17, and Revelations ii. 23, to 1st Kings viii. 39; John vii. 9, Jeremiah xi. 20, and xvii. 20, Revelations xx. 12, . To Isaiah xl. 10; and, to crown all, Jesus, in Revelations i. 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, isdescribed in almost the same words as is the Supreme God; “theAncient of Days” in Daniel, 7th chapter; and were there not otherproofs in abundance to this purpose, this resemblance alone woulddecide me. 

I now leave it to the cool judgment of the reader, whether Jesusprophecied truly, or did, or did not, teach the duty of payingreligious homage to other beings besides God? and, if so, it isconsequent, according to the tests by Christians acknowledged tobe given by God himself in Deuteronomy, that if Jesus was notsent by, or from, him; for if he was--God’s own words would becontradicted by God’s own deeds. 

CHAPTER XVI. 

EXAMINATION OF THE EVIDENCE, EXTERNAL ANDINTERNAL, IN FAVOR OF THE CREDIBILITY OF THEGOSPEL HISTORY. 

In the preceding chapters, I have taken the New Testament as Ifound it, and have argued upon the supposition that Jesus and theapostles really said, and reasoned, as has been stated. I will nowendeavour to show, by an examination of the authenticity of thefour gospels, that it is not certain that they were really guilty ofsuch mistakes as are related of them in those books. 

*The life and doctrines of Jesus, and his followers, are contained inthe pieces composing the volume called the New Testament. Thegenuineness of the books, i. E. , whether they were written by thoseto whom they are ascribed, must be judged of, from the externaltestimony concerning them, and from internal marks in the booksthemselves; for the miraculous acts therein, and therein only, contained and related, cannot prove the truth and authenticity ofthe books, because the authority and credibility of the booksthemselves must be firmly established, before the miracles relatedin them can reasonably be admitted as real facts. 

Now, the external evidence in favour of these books, is thetestimony of those men called “the fathers;” and as the value oftestimony depends upon the character of the witnesses, it would beproper, first, to state as much as, can be learned of these men. Astime will not permit me to adduce all that might be said upon thissubject, I shall here only take upon me to assert, that they weremost credulous, superstitious, and weak men, and, what is worse, made no scruple of falsifying, to support and favour what theycalled “the cause of truth;” for they were writers of apocryphalbooks, attributing them to the apostles, and, moreover, greatmiracle-mongers, who vamped up stories of prodigies to deludetheir followers, and which they themselves knew to be false. I say, I take upon me to assert this; and to confirm and establish thisaccusation, I refer the reader to Dr. Middleton’s “Free Enquiry, ” alearned Christian, who, therefore, had no interest to misrepresentthis matter; and he will there find these accusations amply verified, and traits of character proved upon them. By no means favourableto the credibility of their testimony. 

The first of these Fathers whose testimony is usually adduced toprove the authenticity of the Gospels, is Papias, a Disciple of John. The character given of him by Eusebius is, that “he was asuperstitious, and credulous man. ” And this is easily proved byrecording some of the stories, concerning Jesus, and his followers, written by this Papias in a book extant in the time of Eusebius. Oneof these stories is mentioned by Irenoeus, who says, that Papiashad it from John; who, according to Papias, said, that Jesus said, that--” The days shall come, in which there shall be vines, whichshall severally have ten thousand branches; and every one of thesebranches shall have ten thousand lesser branches; and every one ofthese branches shall have ten thousand twigs; and every one ofthese twigs shall have ten thousand clusters of grapes; and everyone of these grapes being pressed shall yield two hundred andseventy-five gallons of wine. And when a man shall take hold ofany of these sacred bunches, another bunch shall cry out “I am abetter bunch, take me, and bless the Lord by me!” There’s aMunchausen for you, reader! Well! this Papias is the first witnesswho lived after Matthew, who has spoken of his Gospel. He livedabout the year 116 after Jesus. And what does he say of it? Whythis. “Matthew composed a writing of the Oracles (meaningwithout doubt the Doctrines of the Gospel, ) in the HebrewLanguage, and every one interpreted them as he was able. ” So faras this Testimony goes it is positive evidence, that the only Gospelof Matthew extant in 116, was extant in Hebrew; and there wasthen no translation, of it, for “every one interpreted as he wasable. ” The present gospel called of Matthew was then not writtenby him, for it is in Greek. And that it has not at all the air of beinga translation is asserted by most of the learned. As it stands then, itwas not written by Matthew: and that it cannot be a translation ofMatthew’s Hebrew, is not only plain from the circumstance of itsstyle, and other marks understood by Biblical Critics, but can alsobe proved by another story related by this same Papias concerningthe manner of the death of Judas. “His body, and head (saysPapias) became so swollen, that at length he could not get througha street in Jerusalem, where two chariots might pass abreast, andhaving fallen to the ground, he--burst asunder. 

Now though this ridiculous story is undoubtedly false, yet it is notcredible that Papias, who had so great a reverence for the Apostlesas to collect and gather all “their sayings, ” would so flatly by hisstory of the death of Judas contradict the story of Matthew, if theHebrew Gospel of Matthew contained that part of the GreekGospel of Matthew which relates the manner of Judas’ Death. 

Justin Martyr lived after Papias, in the middle of the secondcentury; and though he relates many circumstances agreeing in themain with those recorded in the Gospels, and appears to quotesayings of Jesus from some book or books; yet it is substantiallyacknowledged by Dr. Marsh, the learned annotator on Michaelis’sIntroduction, that these quotations are so unlike the words, andcircumstances in the received Evangelists to which they appear tocorrespond, that one of two things must be true; either, that Justin, who lived 140 years after Jesus, had never seen any of the presentGospels; or else, that they were in his time in a very different statefrom what they now are. 

The next Christian father who mentions the Gospel of Matthew isIrenoeus, who says also that “Matthew wrote his gospel in theHebrew Language. ” The character of Irenoeus is discoverablefrom his work against the Heresies of his time, to that I refer theReader, who will find him to have been a zealous, though a verycredulous, and ignorant man; for he believed the story of Papiasjust quoted, and many others equally absurd. He however furnishesthis important intelligence, that in the second century, the Christianworld was overrun with heresy, and a swarm of apocryphal, andspurious Books were received by many as genuine. 

The next witness in favour of the Gospel is Tertullian, who lived inthe latter end of the second century. And the soundness of hisJudgment, and his capability to distinguish the genuine Gospelsfrom among a hundred apocryphal ones, and above all his regardfor truth, may be judged of from these proofs given by himself. Heasserts upon his own knowledge, “I know it, ” says he--“that thecorpse of a dead Christian, at the first breath of the prayer made bythe priest, on occasion of its own funeral, removed its hands fromits sides, into the usual posture of a supplicant; and when theservice was ended, restored them again to their former situation. ”(Tertul. De anima c. 51. ) And he relates as a fact, which he, and allthe orthodox of his time credited, that--“the body of anotherChristian already interred moved itself to one side of the grave tomake room for another corpse which was going to be laid by it. ”And it is on the testimony of such men as these, that theauthenticity of the gospels entirely depends as to externalevidence; for these are all the witnesses that can be produced asspeaking of them, who lived within two hundred years after Jesus:Three men, (for Justin cannot be reckoned as a witness in favour ofthe gospels. ) Three men, who are all of them evidently credulous, and two of whom are certainly *****. 

To convince a thinking man that histories recording such veryextraordinary, ill supported, improbable facts as are contained inthe gospels are divine, or even really written by the men to whomthey are ascribed, and are not either some of the many spuriousproductions with which (as we learn from Irenoeus) that early ageabounded, calculated to astonish the credulous, and superstitious, or else writings of authors who were themselves infected with thegrossest superstitious credulity; of what use can it be to adduce thetestimony of the very few writers, of the same, or next succeedingage, when the very reading of their works shews him that theythemselves were tainted with that same superstitious credulity, ofwhich are accused the real authors of the New Testament?

It is an obvious rule in the admission of evidence in any causewhatsoever, that the more important the matter to be determinedby it is, the more unsullied and unexceptionable ought thecharacters of the witnesses to be. And when no court of Justice, indetermining a question of fraud to the amount of six pence, willadmit the’ testimony of witnesses who are themselves notoriouslyconvicted of the same offence of which the defendant is accused;how can it be expected, that any reasonable, unprejudiced person, should admit similar evidence to be of weight, in a case of thegreatest importance possible, not to himself only; but to the wholehuman race?

But there is still a greater defect in the testimony of those earlywriters, than their superstitious credulity, I mean their disregard ofhonour, and veracity, in whatever concerned the cause of theirparticular system. 

Though Luke asserts, that many (even before he wrote his historiesfor the use of Theophilus, ) had written upon the same subject:(who of course must have been of the Jewish nation, ) and manymore must have been written afterwards, whose writings must havebeen particularly valuable yet so singularly industrious have thefathers, and succeeding sons of the orthodox church been, indestroying every writing upon the subject of Christianity, whichthey could not by some means, or other, apply to the support oftheir own unholy superstition, that no work of importance of anyChristian writer, within the three first centuries, hath beenpermitted to come down to us, except those books which they havethought fit to adopt, and transmit to us as the canon of apostolicscripture; and the works of a few other writers, who were all ofthem, not only converts from Paganism, but men who had beeneducated and well instructed in the Philosophic Schools of thelatter Platonists, and Pythagoreans. 

The established maxim of these schools was, that it was not lawfulonly, but commendable to deceive, and assert falsehoods for thesake of promoting what they considered as the cause of truth andpiety, and the effects of this maxim, which was fully acted upon byboth orthodox Christians, and heretics, produced a multiplicity offalse, and spurious writings wherewith the second centuryabounded. 

Nay, they did not spare from the operation of this maxim, thescriptures themselves. For they stuffed their copies of theSeptuagint with a number of interpolated pretended propheciesconcerning Jesus, and his death upon the cross; forgeries as weak, and contemptible, and clumsy in themselves, as they were impiousand wicked. Whoever desires to see a number of them; may findthem in the dispute, or dialogue of Justin with Trypho the Jew;where he will see the simple Justin bringing them out passage afterpassage against the stubborn Israelite, who contents himself withcoolly answering, that these marvellous prophecies were not to befound in his Hebrew bible!

There is also another well known, incontrovertible proof of thedeceit and falsehood of the leading Christians of early times, ofwhich every person in the least conversant with the ecclesiasticalhistory of those times must be convinced--their pretended powerof working miracles! On this subject I shall say nothing, but referthe reader to the work of Dr. Middleton already mentioned, for anample account of their lying wonders, which they imposed asmiraculous upon the simple people. 

With regard to the internal evidence for the authenticity of thewritings; composing the New Testament, it is still less satisfactorythan the external evidence. And this may be well believed, whenthe reader is informed that the great Semler, after spending his lifein the study of ecclesiastical history; and antiquities, which he isallowed to have understood better than any before him, affirmed tohis astonished coreligionists, that, except the Gospel of John, andthe Apocalypse, the whole New Testament was a collection offorgeries written by the partizans of the Jewish and Gentile partiesin the Christian church, and entitled apostolic, in order the better toanswer their purpose. This opinion has been in part adopted inEngland, by a learned and shrewd clergyman named Evanson, whohas almost demonstrated, that the Greek Gospel of Matthew waswritten in the second century after the birth of Jesus by a Gentile. For he proves that it could not be written by a Jew, on account ofgeographical mistakes, and manifest ignorance of Jewish customs. He also gives good reasons for rejecting the authenticity of someof the epistles. In short, he has poured such a flood of light uponthe eyes of his terrified brethren, as will, ere long, no doubt enablethem to see a little clearer than heretofore. 

He gives several instances of geographical blunders in Matthew. Ishall mention only one. Matthew says, in the 2nd chapter, thatwhen Joseph, the husband of Mary, returned from Egypt, “hearingthat Archelaus reigned in Judea, he was afraid to go thither, andtherefore turned aside, into the parts of Galilee. ” Now this, as willappear from a map of Palestine, is just like saying, “a man atPhiladelphia, intending to go to the State of New York, on his routeheard something which made him afraid to go thither, andtherefore he turned aside--into Boston!”

That the author of that Gospel was ignorant of Jewish customs willbe evident from the following circumstances. He says Jesus toldPeter, that before the cock crew he would deny him thrice; and thatafterwards, when Peter was cursing and swearing, saying “I knownot the man! immediately the cock crew. ” Now it is unfortunatefor the credit of this story, that it is well known, that in conformitywith Jewish customs, at that time subsisting, no cocks wereallowed to be in Jerusalem, where Jesus was apprehended. This isknown, and acknowledged by learned Christians, who haveextricated themselves from this difficulty, by proving that thecrowing of the cock, here mentioned, does not mean, as it appearsto mean, absolutely the crowing of a cock, but that it means--whatdost thou think reader? why it means---the sound of a trumpet!!*

According to Luke, as soon as Jesus was dead, Joseph ofArimathea went to Pilate, and begged his body, and hasted to buryit, because the Sabbath (which began at sunset, ) drew on; that hisfemale disciples attended the burial; observed how the body wasplaced in the sepulchre, and returned and prepared spices andointments to embalm it with, before the Sabbath commenced; andthen rested the Sabbath day, according to the commandment. 

The pretended Matthew, however, tells us, that “when the evenwas come (i. E. , when the Sabbath day was actually begun, ) Josephwent to beg the body--took it down, wrapped it in linen, andburied it; and that Mary Magdalene and the other Mary, weresitting over against the sepulchre. From the time that this writer hasthought fit to allot for the burial of Jesus, it is evident, that he wasnot only no Jew, but so ignorant of the customs of the Jews, thathe did not know that their day always began with the evening, orhe would never have employed, Joseph in doing what no Jewwould, nor dared to have done, after the commencement of theSabbath. He takes no notice at all of the preparation made by thewomen, mentioned by Luke; for that would not have agreed withthe sequel of his story. But to make up for that omission, heinforms us of a circumstance not mentioned at all by the otherEvangelists. For he tells us that “on the next day which followeththe day of preparation, the Chief Priests, and Pharisees cametogether unto Pilate, ” &c. “The next day which followeth the dayof preparation!!”--such is the periphrasis that he uses for theSabbath day! It is well known that among the Jews it was, and is, customary to prepare, and set out, in the afternoon of the Friday, all the food and necessaries for every family during the Sabbathday. Because they were forbidden to light a fire, or do any servilework, on that day; and therefore Friday was very properly called“the day of preparation. ” But it appears to me next to impossible, that any Jew would call the sabbath “the day that followeth the dayof the preparation. ” Yet this singular historian so denominates it, and moreover, goes on to inform us, that the chief priests, andPharisees went to Pilate to ask for a guard to place round thesepulchre, till the third day, to prevent his disciples from stealingaway his body, and then saying, that he was risen from the dead;and that after obtaining the governor’s permission, “they, went, and secured the sepulchre by sealing the stone that was rolledagainst it; and setting a watch. ” Though there appears nothing verystrange in this account to a Christian, yet, I assure my reader, thatto the Jews, it ever did, and must appear utterly incredible. For it iswonderful! that the Jewish rulers, and the rigorous Phariseesshould in so public a manner thus violate the precept for observingthe Sabbath day; for the penalty of this action of theirs was no lessthan death! More wonderful still is it that they should have somuch better attended to, and comprehended the meaning of theprediction of Jesus to his disciples, than his own disciples did; andmost wonderful of all, that a Roman Proconsul should consent tolet his troops keep watch round a tomb, for fear it should bethought that a dead man was come to life again. 

But though our author’s history of these extraordinary facts isneither consistent with reason, and probability, nor with the otherhistories of the same event; it proceeds in pretty strict conformityto the manner in which it sets out. For to convince us still morefully that the author was totally ignorant of the mode of computingtime in use among the Jews, and habituated to that in use amongthe Greeks and Romans? He reckons the Sabbath to last till daylight on Sunday morn, and says, (chapter xxviii. ), “that in the endof the Sabbath, as it began to dawn, towards the first day of theweek, ” the two Marys before mentioned, came, (not as in Luke, toembalm the body, for, with a guard round the sepulchre, that wouldhave been impracticable, but) to see the sepulchre. “Whilst theywere there, the author tells us, there was another great earthquake, and an angel descended, rolled away the stone, and sat upon it, atwhose sight, the soldiers trembled, and were frighted to death. Butto prevent the like effect of his appearance upon the women, hesaid unto them, fear not ye, for I know that ye seek Jesus who wascrucified. That the women as well as the soldiers were present atthe descent of this angel, appears not only from there being nobodyelse, by whom these uncommon circumstances could have beenrelated, but also by the pronoun personal ye, inserted in the originalGreek, which in that language is never done, unless it beemphatically to mark such a distinction, or antithesis, as there wason this occasion, between them and the Roman guard. Here, however, the author is inadvertently inconsistent with himself, aswell as with the other evangelists; and forgetting that the soleintent of rolling away the stone, was to open a passage, absolutelynecessary to the body of Jesus to come forth out of the sepulchre;and that if he had risen and come forth after the angel had rolled itaway, both the women and the soldiers must have seen him rise, hemakes the angel bid them look into the sepulchre, to see--that hewas not there! and tell them that he was already risen; and that hewas gone before them into Galilee, where they should see him! Intheir way, the author adds, Jesus himself met the women, and said, “be not afraid, go tell my brethren to go into Galilee, and thereshall they see me. ” He says that the eleven apostles wentinto Galilee, to an appointed mountain, and saw him there;notwithstanding that some of them were so incredulous, as notto believe even the testimony of their own senses. 

In the interim, whilst the women were going to the apostles, theauthor tells us, “some of the watch;” some strictly disciplinedRoman soldiers left their station to bring an account of what hadpassed, not to the Governor their General, nor to any of their ownofficers--but to the chief priests of the Jews! that they assembled acouncil of the elders upon the occasion, and after deliberating whatwas to be done, induced the soldiers, by large bribes, to run the riskof being put to death themselves, upon the highly improbablechance of the Jewish rulers having influence sufficient with theRoman Proconsul to prevail on him to submit to the indelibleinfamy of neglecting the discipline of the army under hiscommand, to such a degree, as to suffer an entire guard of soldiersavowedly to sleep upon their station, without any notice beingtaken of it! and to say “his disciples came and stole him awaywhilst we slept. ” This incredible story is another instance hownecessary it is, that those who do not adhere closely to the truth, should have extraordinary good memories to enable them to keepclear of absurdities, or palpable contradictions in their narrations. For, consider the circumstances. How were the tongues of thesesoldiers to be restrained among the inquisitive inhabitants of alarge city, (at that time too, greatly crowded on account of thepaschal feast, ) not only in their way to the chief priests; but alsoduring the whole time while the priests assembled the Sanhedrim, and were deliberating what was to be done? And if that part of thewatch, who, the author says, came to inform the chief priests, werepoltroons enough for the sake of a bribe to undergo so shameful adisgrace to themselves, as well as to hazard the resentment of theirGeneral, how could they undertake that all their comrades whoremained at the sepulchre would do the same? and to whatpurpose could the Jewish council bribe some, without a possibilityof some one knowing how the rest of the corps would act? Andeven supposing all these difficulties surmounted, and that thewhole guard had agreed, and persisted in saying, “his disciplesstole him away while we slept, ” of what service could that be tothe Jewish rulers? For if the guards were asleep, they could be noevidence to prove that the body was taken away; and it might bejust as probable that he might rise to life again while the watch wasasleep, as it was if no watch had been set. 

In a word, it appears from the numbers of Latin words in Greekcharacters, which this book contains; from the numerousgeographical blunders; and the author’s evident ignorance of thecustoms of the Jews: from the form of Baptism enjoined at theconclusion, which was not in use in the first century, as appearsfrom the form mentioned as then used in the Acts; from the RomanCenturion’s being made to call Jesus “a Son of a God, ” whichwords in the mouth of a Pagan could only mean that he must be aDemigod, like Bacchus, Hercules, or Esculapius: it is clear that thisGospel is the patched work composition of some convert from thePagan schools. At any rate, his gospel flatly contradicts the othersin several important particulars in the history of the Resurrection. For he represents the apostles as being commanded by the Angeland by Jesus, to go to Galilee, in order to see him; and that theywent there, and saw him on a mountain. Yet it is said by the otherEvangelists, see Luke, ch. 24, and Acts 1, that he appeared on thesaw day of the resurrection to Peter at Jerusalem; to two otherdisciples as they went to Emmaus; and on the succeeding night tothis whole congregation of the Disciples, not in Galilee, but inJerusalem, and that by his express command the apostles did notgo into Galilee, but remained at Jerusalem till the feast ofPentecost. 

But as this author differs from the other Evangelists, so they alsodiffer among themselves. And the latter part of the last chapter ofMark is so irreconcilable to the other historians of the resurrection, that in many Manuscripts it is found omitted. And that gospel endsin them, at the eighth Terse of the last chapter. And Mr. West, inhis attempted reconciliation of their accounts of the resurrection, isobliged to make a number of postulates, to take a number of thingsfor granted, which might be denied: and after elaborately arrangingthe stage for the performance, he sets the women, and the disciplesa driving backwards, and forwards, from the city to the sepulchre, and from the sepulchre to the city, and so agitated that theyforgot to know each other when they cross in their journeys. Notwithstanding his great ingenuity in reconciling contradictions, in which he beats Surenhusius himself, he makes but a sorry pieceof work of it after all. He had much letter have let it alone; for hiswork upon the resurrection which he calls “the main fact ofChristianity, ” displays these contradictions in so glaring a light, that the very laboured ingenuity of his methods of reconciliation, inevitably, suggests “confirmation strong” to the keen-eyedreader, of that irreconcilability which the author endeavors torefute. What rational man therefore can reasonably be required tobelieve the story of a resurrection pretended to have been seen andknown, only by the party interested in making it believed! when intheir testimony even, they do not agree but contradict each other?

There is really an immense number of discrepancies andcontradiction in the New Testament which the acumen of learnedChristians has of late discovered, and pointed out to the world. And Mr. Evanson, in his work on “the Dissonance of the fourEvangelists, ” has collected a mass enough, I should think, to terrifythe most determined Reconciliator that ever lived. It is a littleremarkable, that Mr. Evanson has asserted, and has proved, thespuriosness of the Gospel ascribed to John, which Semler spared, in the general wreck which he made of the authenticity of theother books of the New Testament. Mr. Evanson says, in hisexamination of it, what has been said before, that the speechesascribed to Jesus in it, are most incoherent, contradictory, andfalsified by well known facts. And indeed the author of the bookitself, sterns to be sensible of this; for he very naturally representsthe Jews repeatedly accusing Jesus of being mad. “He hath adevil, and is mad, (say they to the multitude) why hear ye him?”and so in other places. Mr. Evanson considers this work as thecomposition of a converted Platonist or of a” Platonizing Jew; thelatter we think to be the most correct opinion; since it is evidentthat the author of that gospel had the works of Philo at his fingers’ends, which is more than can be supposed of John. As Semlerexcepted the Gospel of John only, so Mr. Evanson excepts theGospel of Luke only from the charge of spuriousness: though hesays that it is grossly corrupted, and interpolated. From thesecorruptions and interpolations, he endeavours to purify it; in whichattempt wo think he has had very indifferent success. In short, hiswork has proved, (what he did not himself contemplate) that theprovidence of the God of truth has taken care, that so manyabsurdities and contradictions, should be contained in these booksof the New Testament which were written to establish a mistake, asmust I conceive, satisfy any man, who has them once pointed outto him, that the doctrine of those books is not, and cannot be fromGod. 

But it may be still asked, “how did this notion of the resurrectionof Jesus become current?” “How can you account for the apostlesbelieving such a thing?” We answer sincerely--we cannotabsolutely ascertain. The Jews of that age have left no documentsupon this business. The origin of the Christian religion is soextremely obscure, that Josephus takes no notice of it at all, (forthe passage relating to Christian affairs now found in Josephus arenotorious interpolations. ) And it is evident from the Chronological, and other mistakes about Jesus, in the Talmud, that the curiosity ofthe learned Jews had never been interested by Christianity, till solong after Jesus, that the memory of him, and his, was almostentirely lost among that nation. And it appears from the lastchapter of the Acts, that when Paul was received by the Jews atRome, he had not been considered by the Jews of Jerusalem as ofsufficient importance, as to cause them to warn their brethren ofthe Dispersion concerning him; for these Jews tell Paul, on hisenquiring, that they had not received any letters concerning himfrom Jerusalem. So that we can offer nothing but conjecture, tosolve the difficulty. 

It has been said by some, (and it is by no means an hypothesisdestitute of plausibility) that Jesus was indeed crucified, but didnot actually die on the cross. It is evident that Pilate was extremelydesirous to save his life; and is it impossible that the Romansoldiers, who crucified him, had secret orders? Consider theciscumstances. He was crucified at our nine in the morning, andwas taken from the cross at about three in the afternoon. Now, crucifixion is not a death which kills men in six hours, and menhave been known to have lived fastened to the cross for more thantwo days. Consider, besides, that when the soldiers gave the coupde grace to the two robbers, that they did not break the legs ofJews. This, the author of the Gospel according to John says, theydid, in order to fulfill a prophecy; but I leave it to my reader, whether it is not more likely that they did so in order to fulfillsecret orders? But to make up for that omission, the author adds, that they pierced Jesus with a spear. Now, besides that this is notmentioned by the other Evangelists, the very manner in which thiscircumstance is mentioned, and eagerly affirmed by him, looks asif the author was aware of the likelihood of a suspicion of the factwe are trying to prove probable, and that he wrote this in order toobviate it. And after all, the gospel according to John was certainlynot written by him, and, therefore, what the author of it observes, may be true, or not. You will observe also, reader, that the body ofJesus was given by Pilate to his friends immediately; a favournever vouchsafed by the Romans in such a case, except “specialigratia. ” You will observe also, that the body was taken down byhis friends, no doubt with great care; probably was washed fromthe blood, and rubbed perfectly dry; and was deposited in the caveor sepulchre, with a large quantity of spices, and aromatics. Nowsuppose that Jesus only swooned on the cross, and that his nakedbody, after being cleansed as aforesaid, was laid in the newsepulchre where the air was cool and fresh, wrapped in aconsiderable quantity of dry linen, together with many spices, andaromatics, what could be more opportune, or proper, to stimulatehis drowsed senses, and recall the unfortunate sufferer to life?Suppose then, that on awaking from his trance, he disengagedhimself, and took himself away as secretly as possible, might notall this have happened? Is it impossible? And does it not lookplausible? It is not improbable that he might after this haveshewed himself privately to his particular disciples; for you willrecollect, reader, that the appearances of Jesus to his disciples afterhis crucifixion were to them, only, and for the most part in thenight. And it is by no means impossible, that the twelve apostles, who were, I doubt not, well meaning men, though extremelysimple and credulous; I say it is thus by no means impossible, thatthey might have believed sincerely, that their master had risenfrom the dead. This hypothesis must not be considered only as thebrain work of an unbelieving sceptic; for it has been (in its mainprinciple) advanced, and elaborately defended by Dr. Paulus theprofessor of divinity in the principal University in Bavaria. 

It is true, that it may be said, that this is all hypothesis, and mereconjecture. We allow it; it is true; and we assert that the accountgiven by the Evangelists is no better, nay, worse than conjecture, as it is a mere forgery of the second century! For no man, we think, who knows all that has been made known by biblical critics, inlater years, will now seriously contend for the literal truth of thataccount. [See Appendix A. ]

If all this will not satisfy the man that “believeth all things, ” ourlast resource is to demy the act of this resurrection. And this wecan do with perfect sang froid, as we know very well that it cannotbe proved; for the only testimony in favour of it, are the fourevangelists; four witnesses, the like of whose written testimony, with reference thereto, (being as contradic-tory as that is, ) to sayno more, certainly would not, we believe, be received in a moderncourt of justice, to settle the fact about a debt of five dollars. And ifit be still urged, that such a story is unparalleled, and thereforerespectable; we say that it is not unparalleled; as we have anaccount of a false Messiah, who applied the prophecies to himself, had a forerunner, and more than two hundred thousand followers, who publicly acknowledged him for the Messiah, raisedcontributions, and supported him magnificently. He too, quoted theprophets as speaking concerning him, and was said to have workeddivers miracles, and was ultimately put to death by the order of theGrand Seignor at Constantinople; yet nevertheless was said to havebeen, seen again by certain of his followers, who wrote books infavour of that fact, and of his Messiahship. Many learned Rabbinsenrolled themselves as his disciples, and wrote controversial worksin his cause, as Paul did. And to conclude, his party was notentirely extinct within a very few years. Yet, notwithstanding allthis, he was an impostor; and no man now believes the stories ofhis miracles, or his resurrection; notwithstanding that both areaffirmed by more recent, more learned, and more respectabletestimony than is, or can be, offered, in favour of the Messiahshipof Jesus. The name of this famous impostor was Shabathai Tzevi, and his history is given by Basnage, in his history of the Jews, [andby other writers of Jewish history. See on this subject the SepherTorath Hakenaoth, page 2. The learned Mr. Zedner has extractedthe life of Shabetai Tsebi from tins book, and published it, with aGerman translation, in his Auswahl historischer Stucke ausHebraischen Schriftstellern, Berlin, 1840. --D. ]

I wish the Christian reader to peruse carefully, and cooly, thataccount; and if he then persists in believing the history given bythe evangelists; with such faith as his, he certainly ought to be ableto move mountains; and I have no doubt at all, that with such agood natured understanding as his, if he had found in his NewTestament the story of Jonah misquoted, and and by a smalltransposition a la mode de Surenhusius, representing that “Jonahswallowed the whale!” this sturdy “confidence in things not seen, ”would, I doubt not have enabled him without difficulty to swallowthe prophet with the whale in his belly. 

CHAPTER XVII. 

OF THE PECULIAR MORALITY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT, AS IT AFFECTS INDIVIDUALS. 

I have already expressed my respect for the character of Jesus. AndI again declare, that I request it may be distinctly understood, thatby nothing that I have said do I intend to impeach, or to deprecatehis moral character. Whatever may have been his defects, orwhatever were his foibles, they must have been the faults of hismind, not of his heart. For, though he may hare been a mistakenenthusiast; yet I do firmly believe, That, with such a character ashe is represented to have possessed, he could not have been eithera hypocrite, or a wilful impostor. And if it be replied, that I have, by some observations on his conduct, indirectly impeached theperfection of his moral character; I answer, that if so, it is certainlymy misfortune, but it may not be his fault. To explain thisobservation, I request the reader to recall to mind, that Jesus wrotenothing himself! that the only accounts we have of him, arecontained in books, probably apocryphal, certainly not generallyknown till after the middle of the second-century from his birth. The gospels now extant do not appear to have been known toJustin Martyr; and the earliest fathers, in their writings, generallyquote traditions concernng Jesus, instead of histories. Since thesethings are so, who knows, but that the authors of the histories ofhim now extant, have attributed to him words and actions of whichhe was guiltless. We know how prone mankind are to inventfalsehoods concerning eminent men; for instance, Mahometexpressly disclaimed the power of working miracles, and yet thewritings of his early followers ascribe hundreds to him. Why mayit not be possible then, since Jesus wrote nothing himself, thatthese books ascribe to him words and actions he neither spake norperformed? God grant that this may one day be proved! For Ishould rejoice to find the meek, gentle, and amiable man ofNazareth proved guiltless of the follies and impieties attributed tohim in the New Testament as I find it, and to reason concerning theworks and words of Jesus, as I find them there expressed, yet Iwould earnestly request the reader to consider me willing anddesirous to exempt the author, or rather the cause of the Christianreligion, from the reproach of the sentiments I am bound by myregard for one God, and his attributes, to express for the systemitself. Yes! I can in my own mind separate Jesus from his religionand his followers. I read with admiration many of his beautifulparables. I shall ever contemplate his mildness, and benevolencewith respect; and I peruse, with pity, the recital of his sufferings, and cruel death. All this I have done, and I believe I shall ever do;but I cannot! I cannot, in effect, deny the one living and true God, and renounce my reason, and common sense, by believing all thecontradictory and strange doctrines contained in the NewTestament. 

Having unburthened my mind upon this subject, and franklyexpressed my sentiments and feelings with regard to the characterof Jesus; I hope I may now be allowed (without incurring thecharge of maliciously exposing him, or the twelve apostles, toreproach) to state my opinions with regard to the merit of themoral maxims, ascribed to him and them, in the New Testament. And I again caution the reader, that he is not obliged to lay to his, or their, charge, the mischievous consequences that originatedfrom acting upon these maxims and principles, since it is by nomeans impossible that they may have been falsely ascribed to himand to them. 

Now then, let us attend to the subject of the chapter, viz. , the moralmaxims ascribed to Jesus. These moral maxims consist of 1st, Those which were adopted by him from the Old Testament. 2d, Those of which he himself is described as the author. With theconsideration of those of the first class I shall not trouble thereader, but shall devote this chapter to the examination of thosewhich are supposed to have originated from him. These are, 1st, ‘Do to others what you would that others should do to you. ’ 2d, ‘Resist not the injurious person; but if a man smite thee on onecheek, turn to him the other also. ’ 3d, If a man ask thy cloak, givehim thy coat also. ’ 4th, ‘ If thou wouldest be perfect, sell all thatthou hast, and give to the poor; and come follow me. ’ 5th, ‘ Unlessa man hate his father, and mother, and wife, and children, andpossessions, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple. ’6th, ‘ Take no thought for the morrow. ’

With regard to the first of these maxims, it does not belong toJesus, as the author. It is found in the book of Tobit, chapter iv. 15, and it was a maxim well known to the Rabbins. It is found inthe Talmud verbatim. “What thou wouldest not have done to thee, do not thou to another. ” (Tal. Bab. Schabbat. Fol. 31. ) So alsoHillel addressed a proselyte thus, “What is hateful to thee, do notthou to thy neighbour. ” Several other expressions of Jesus were, itappears from the Talmud, proverbial expressions in use among theJews. For instance, the original of that saying recorded Matthewvii. 2. “With whatsoever measure ye mete, ” &c. , is found in theTalmud of Babylon (Sanhedrim fol. 100, Sotah, chapter 4, 7, 8, 9. )“With whatsoever measure any one metes it shall be measured tohim. So also the original of that expression of “Cast out the beamout of thine own eye, and then thou shalt see clearly to cast themote out of thy brother’s eye is to be found in the Talmud*. 

What is called by Christians “the Lord’s Prayer, ” is merely a fewclauses taken from Jewish prayers, and put together. Very manyinstances of a similar nature to these might be produced; but, as Imust be brief, the reader is referred for further satisfaction to theworks of Lightfoot, where he will learn, by extracts from Jewishwritings, the source, and meaning of many more of the sayings ofJesus. 

I now proceed to the most disagreeable part of the subject, viz. :The consideration of the other maxims mentioned, which, it mustbe allowed, do belong to Jesus, or at least to the New Testament, since they are the peculiar moral principles of Christianity, and thehonour of them can be challenged by, I believe, no other religion. 

These precepts are so extremely hyperbolical, that they are not, and cannot be perfectly observed by any Christian, who does notdetach himself completely from the business of society; and thesemaxims, (which, as I said before, are the only parts of the moralityof the New Testament, which are not borrowed, ) never have beenobeyed by any but the primitive Christians; and by the Monks, andAnchorets; for even the Quakers and Shakers, eminent as they arein Christian morality, have never been able to come quite up to theself denial required by the New Testament. 

Indeed, the moral maxims peculiar to Christianity areimpracticable, except by one who confines his wealth to thepossession of a suit of clothes, sad wooden platter, and who livesin a cave, or a monastery. They bear the stamp of enthusiasm upontheir very front, and we have always seen, and ever shall see, thatthey are not fit for man: that they lift him out of the sphere inwhich God designed him to move; that they are useless to society, and frequently produce the most dangerous consequences to it. In aword, in these maxims we find commands, the fulfillment ofwhich, is impossible by any man who is a husband, a father, or acitizen. 

It is an outrage to human nature, and to common sense, to order avirtuous man, in order to reach perfection, to strip himself of hisproperty; to offer the other cheek to receive a new outrage; not toresist the most unjust violence, injury, and insult; not to defendhimself, or his property, when “sued at the law;” to quit his houseand goods, and to hate his parents, and brethren, and wife, andchildren, for the sake of Jesus; to refuse and reject innocentpleasures; to deny himself lawful enjoyments, appointed by theCreator to make the existence of man a blessing to himself andothers. 

Who does not see in these commands the language of enthusiasmof hyperbole? These maxims! are they not directly fitted todiscourage, and debase a man? to degrade him in his own eyes, andthose of others? to plunge him into despair? And would not theliteral fulfillment of them prove destructive to society? What shallwe say of that morality which orders the heart to detach itself fromobjects, which God, and reason, and nature order it to love? Torefuse to enjoy innocent and lawful happiness, --what is it but todespise the benefits of God? What real good can result for societyfrom these melancholy virtues, which Christianity regards asperfections? Will a man become more useful to society when hismind is perpetually inquieted by imaginary terrors, by mournfulthoughts, which prevent him from fulfilling the duties he owes tohis family, his country and those with whom he is connected?

It may be safely said, that enthusiasm is the base of the morality ofChristianity; I say, the morality of Christianity, meaning thereby, not the morality of those called Christians, but the moralityexpressed, and required in the New Testament. The virtues itrecommends, are the virtues caricatured, and rendered extravagant;virtues which divide a man from his neighbour, and plunge him inmelancholy, and render him useless, and unhappy In this world wewant human virtues, not those which make a man a misanthrope. Society desires, and wants virtues that help to maintain it, whichgives it energy and activity. It wants virtues which render familiesindustrious, and united; and which incite, and enable every one toobtain lawful pleasures, and to augment the general felicity. Butthe peculiar virtues of the New Testament, either debase the mindby overwhelming fears, or intoxicate it with visionary hopes, bothwhich, are equally fitted to turn away men from their proper duties. 

In truth, what advantages can society derive from those virtuesstyled by Christians, Evangelical? which they prefer to the socialvirtues, the real and the useful, and without which, they assert, aman cannot please God, Let us examine these vaunted perfections, and let us see of what utility they can be to society, and whetherthey really merit the preference which is given them by theiradvocates. 

The first of these Christian virtues, which serves as a base for allthe others, is faith. It consists in believing the truth of dogmas, ofabsurd fables, which Christianity (according to the catechisms)orders its disciples to believe--dogmas, as absurd and impossibleas a square circle, or a round triangle--from which we see, thatthis virtue exacts an entire renunciation of common sense; anassent to incredible facts, and a blind credulity in absurd dogmas, which, yet, every Christian is required to believe, under pain ofdamnation. 

This virtue, too, though necessary to all men, is, nevertheless, thegift of heaven! the effect of special grace. It forbids doubt andexamination; it “forbids a man the right to exercise his reason; itdeprives him of the liberty of thinking, and degrades him into abearded baby. 

This faith vanishes when a man reasons; this virtue cannot sustaina tranquil scrutiny. And this is the reason why all thorough goingChristians are naturally, and, consequently, the enemies of science. This miraculous faith, which “believeth all things, ” is not given topersons enlightened by science and reflection, and accustomed tothink. It is not given but to those who are afraid to think, lest theyshould offend God. 

The next Christian virtue which flows from the first, is hope, founded upon the promises which the New Testament makes tothose who render themselves miserable in this life. It nourishestheir enthusiasm, it makes them “forget the things that are on earth, and reach forward unto the things” which are in another world. Itrenders them useless here below, and makes them firmly believethat God will recompense in heaven, the pains they have taken tomake themselves miserable on earth. How can a man, occupiedwith such expectations of heavenly happiness, concern himself atall with, or for, the actual and present happiness of those aroundhim, while he is indifferent as to his own? And how can he helpthis, when he believes that “friendship with the world is enmitywith God?”

The third virtue is charity. We have elsewhere said, that ifuniversal love or charity means only general benevolence, and adesire to makes others happy, and to do them good, all this iscommanded by reason and the ancient revelation; but if by thisprecept it is commanded to love those who hate, oppress or insultus, we do not at all scruple to assert, that the thing is impossible, and unnatural. For, though we can abstain from hurting ourenemy; or even can do him good, we cannot really love him. Loveis a movement of the heart, which is governed and directed by thelaws of our nature, to those whom we think worthy of it, and tothose only. 

Charity, considered as general benevolence of disposition, isvirtuous and necessary. It is nothing more than a feeling whichinterests us in favour of our fellow beings. But how is this feelingconsistent with the peculiar doctrines of the gospel? According toits maxims, it is a crime to offer God a heart, whoso affections areshared by terrestrial objects. And besides, does not experienceshow, that devotees obliged by principle to hate themselves, arelittle disposed to give better treatment to others?

We should not be surprised that maxims, originating withenthusiasm, should aim at, and have the effect of, driving man outof himself. In the delirium of its enthusiasm, this religion forbids aman to love himself. It commands him to hate all pleasures butthose of religion, and to cherish a long face. It attributes to him asmeritorious, all the voluntary evils he inflicts upon himself. Fromthence originate those austerites, those penances, destructive tohealth; those cruel privations by which the inhabitants of themonastic cell kill themselves by inches, in order to merit the joysof heaven. Now, how can good sense admit that God delights inseeing his creatures torment themselves?

It may be said to all this, perhaps, that this is mere declamation, forChristians now a days do not torment themselves, but live ascomfortable as others. To this I answer that Christianity is to bejudged not by what Christians do, but by what it commands themto do. Now, I presume it will not be denied that the New Testamentcommands its professors to renounce the world, to be dead to theworld, to “crucify the flesh with its passions, and desires. ”Certainly these directions were literally complied with by theprimitive Christians; and, in doing so, they acted consistently. Inthose times, the deserts, the mountains, the forests were peopledwith perfect Christians; who withdrew from the world, deprivedtheir families of support, and their country of citizens, in order tolead unmolested “the divine life. ” It was the New Testamentmorality that spawned those legions of monks and cenobites, whothought to secure the favour of heaven, by burying their talents inthe deserts, and devoting themselves to inaction and celibacy. 

And at this very day we see these very same things in thoseChristian countries, which are truly faithful to the principles oftheir religion. 

In fine, Christianity seems from the first, to have taken pains to setitself in point blanc opposition to nature, and reason. If it admitsand includes some virtues ordered and appointed by God, goodsense, and universal experience; it drives them beyond theirbounds into extravagance. It preserves no just medium, which isthe point of perfection. Voluptuousness, adultery and debaucheryare forbidden by the laws of God and reason. But Christianity notcontent with commanding, and encouraging marriage, as did theOld Testament, must forsooth go beyond it, and thereforeencourages celibacy, as the state of perfection God says, inGenesis, “it is not good that man should be alone. I will make acompanion for him. ” And he blessed all his creatures, saying, “increase and multiply. ” But the gospel annuls this law, andrepresents a single life to be most pleasing, to the very being, whose very first command was, “increase and multiply”! It advisesa man to die without posterity, to refuse citizens to the state, and tohimself, a support for his old age. 

“It is to no purpose to deny that Christianity recommends all this; Isay, it substantially does! and I boldly appeal, --not to a fewProtestant Divines, --but to the New Testament; to the Homiliesof the Fathers of the Church; to the History, and Practice of thePrimitive Christians; to the innumerable Monasteries of Europe, and Asia; to the immense multitudes who have lived, and diedhermits; and, finally, (because I know very well, the Protestantdivines attribute these follies to the influence of Platonism, Pythagoranism, and several other isms upon pure Christianity) Iappeal to living evidence now in the world, to the onlythoroughgoing Christians in it, viz. , to the Society of the Shakers, who I maintain, and can prove, to be true, genuine imitators of thePrimitive Christians, and a perfect exemplification of theirmanners, and modes of thinking. I adduce them the moreconfidently, because, being simple, and unlearned, their characterhas been formed by the spirit of the New Testament, and perfectlyrepresents the effects of its principles fully carried out, and actedupon. They never heard of Platonism, or of Pythagoras in theirlives, and, consequently, the polemic tricks, and evasions, whichhave been, as hinted just now, resorted to by Protestant divines, toshift from the shoulders of Christianity to those of Plato orPythagoras, the obnoxious principles we have been considering, are of no use in this case, as, whatever the characters of theseShakers may be, they were formed by the New Testament, and bynothing else; and I believe, that every scholar in ecclesiasticalhistory, who reads Brown’s history of the Shakers, will beimmediately and powerfully struck with the resemblancesubsisting between them, and the Christians of the two firstcenturies. 

As examples of the effects of those precepts of Christian morality, which command us to hate father, and mother, and sister, andbrother, for the Bake of Jesus, take the following extracts from thehistory referred to. 

“According to their faith, natural affection must be eradicated; andthey say they must love all equally alike, as brothers, and sisters inthe gospel. It would exceed the limits of this work to give aparticular account of the various schemes that have been contrived, to destroy all natural affection and social attachment between manand wife, parent and child, brothers and sisters; especially towardssuch as have left the society. Two instances that occurred aboutthis time, as specimens of others, may suffice. A mother, who hadrenounced the faith, (i. E. Left the society, ) come to Niskeuna tosee, her daughter. Eldress Hannah Matterson told the daughter togo into the room to her carnal mother, and say, ‘ What do youcome here for? I don’t want you to come and see me with yourcarnal affections!’ ‘The mother being grieved, replied, ‘I did notexpect that a daughter of mine would ever address me in thatmanner. ’

‘The daughter, in obedience to what she was taught, replied again, ‘You have come here with your carnal fleshly desires, and I don'twant to see you, ’ and left her mother. ”

“Some time after, one Duncan Shapley, who had belonged to thesociety, called to see Abigail, his sister, at Niskeuna, whom he hadnot seen for six or seven years; but he was not admitted: he waitedsome time, being loath to go away without seeing her. At last shewas ordered to go to the window and address him in the languageof abuse and scurrility. The words she made use of, it would beindecent to mention. For this she was applauded, and that in theauthor’s hearing, when he belonged to the society. ”

This man gives a very curious account how the elders treated “their babes, ” in their spiritual nursery; but I shall notice only one ortwo examples, which illustrate what I have advanced concerningthe natural hostility of the spirit of the New Testament towardsscience. “I know of several, who, soon after they joined theChurch, have been counselled by the Elders to dispose of theirbooks; and have accordingly done it. Elder Ebenezer being at myhouse one day, on seeing a number of books, he said--‘Ah!Thomas must put away his books if he intends to become a goodbeliever. ’

As an instance of its effects upon the human understanding, takethe following:--“A short time after, being at a believer’s house, at eleven o’clock at night, they all having retired to rest, and Ilaying awake in a dry well finished room, in which was a stove andfire, there fell a large drop of water on my temples; onexamination, I could not discover where the water came from. Itold the believers of it in the morning. ”

“One said, ‘ Ah! it is a warning to you respecting your unbelief. ’

“I then assigned some inconclusive reason, how the drop mighthave become formed in the room, and its falling. ”

“One replied, ‘Ah! that is the way you render a natural reason forthe cause of every thing, and so reason away your faith andyourself out of the gospel. ’”

As another proof, that genuine Christianity discourages marriage, and considers celibacy as the only state of perfection, the Shakersallow of no marriages at all. 

Thus you see that, among these people, to become a “goodbeliever, ” you must insult your parents, revile your brother, depiselearning, and never render a “natural reason” for any thing, lestyou should “reason away your faith, and yourself out of thegospel. ”

CHAPTER XVIII. 

ON THE PECULIAR MORALITY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT, AS IT AFFECTS NATIONS AND POLITICAL SOCIETIES. 

After having seen the uselessness, and even the danger, toindividuals, of the perfections, the virtues, and the duties, whichChristianity peculiarly commands; let us now see whether it has amore happy influence upon politics; or whether it produces realhappiness among the nations with whom this religion isestablished, and the spirit of it faithfully observed. Let us do so, and we shall find, that wherever Christianity is established andobeyed, it establishes a set of laws directly opposed to those of awell ordered national society; and it soon makes this disagreementand incompatibility distinctly to be felt. 

Politics are intended to maintain union and concord among thecitizens. Christianity, though it preaches universal love, andcommands its followers to live in peace; yet, by a strangeinconsistency, consequentially annihilates the effect of theseexcellent precepts, by the inevitable divisions it causes among itsfollowers, who necessarily understand differently the Old and NewTestaments, because the latter is not only irreconcilablycontradictory to the former, but it is even inconsistent with itself. From the very commencement of Christianity, we perceive veryviolent disputes among its founders and teachers; and throughevery succeeding century, we find, in the history of the Church, nothing but schism and heresy. These are followed by persecutionsand quarrels, exceedingly well adapted to destroy this vauntedspirit of concord, said by its defenders to be peculiar to Christianity;and the existence of which is, in fact, impossible in a religionwhich is one entire chaos of obscure doctrines and impracticableprecepts. In every religious dispute, both parties thought that Godwas on their side, and, consequently, they were obstinate andirreconcilable. And how should it have been otherwise, since theyconfounded the cause of God with the miserable interests of theirown vanity? Thus, being little disposed to give way on one part orthe other, they cut one another’s throats; they tormented, they burnteach other: they tore one another to pieces; and havingexterminated or put down the obnoxious sects, they sung Te Deum. 

It is not my intention to pursue, in this place, the horrid detail ofecclesiastical history, as connected with that of the Roman empire. Mr. Gibbon has exhibited in such colours this dreadful record offollies, and of crimes, that it is difficult to see how the maxim ofjudging the tree by its fruit, will not fatally affect the cause of theChristian religion. I refer to Mr. Gibbon’s history as a cool andimpartial narrative; for I am well satisfied that, so far from havingreason to complain of him, the advocates of Christianity have verygreat reason, indeed, to thank him for his forbearance, since, withhis eloquence, he might have drawn a picture that would havemade humanity shudder. For, throughout the whole history, if aman had wished to know what was then the orthodox faith, the bestmethod of ascertaining it, would have been, undoubtedly, to ask, “What is the catechism of this public executioner. ”

The Christian religion was, it is evident from his history, theprincipal, though by no means the only cause of the decline andfall of the Roman empire. Because it degraded the spirit of thepeople, and because it produced monks and hermits in abundance, but yielded no soldiers. The heathen adversaries of Christianitywere in the right when they said, that “if it prevailed, Rome was nomore!” The Christians would not serve in the armies of theemperor, if they could possibly avoid it. They justly considered theprofession of a soldier, and that of a Christian, as incompatible. Celsus accuses them of abandoning the empire, under whose lawsthey lived, to its enemies. And what is the answer of Origen to thisaccusation? Look: at his pitiful reply! He endeavours to palliatethis undutiful refusal by representing that--“the Christians hadtheir peculiar camps, in which they incessantly combatted for thesafety of the emperor and empire, by lifting up their right hands--IN PRAYER!!” (See Origen contra Celsum, Lib. 8, p. 437. ) This isa sneaking piece of business truly! But Origen could have givenanother answer, if he had dared to avow it, which is, that hisco-religionists, in his time, had not ceased to expect their mastermomentarily to appear; and, of course, it little mattered whatbecame of the emperor, or the empire. This notion was theprincipal engine for making proselytes; and it was by thisexpectation that many were frightened into baptism. 

That Christianity was considered incompatible with the militaryprofession, is evident from many passages of the fathers. And oneof them, I believe, Tertullian, ventures to insinuate to theChristians in the legions, the expediency of deserting, to ridthemselves of “their carnal employment. ” Nay, to such a height didthis spirit prevail, that it never stopped till it taught the Romanyouth in Italy the expedient of cutting off the thumbs of their righthands in order to avoid the conscription, and that they might beallowed to count their beads at home in quiet. 

If we examine, in detail, the precepts of this religion, as they affectnations, we shall see, that it interdicts every thing which can makea nation flourishing. We have seen already the notion ofimperfection which Christianity attaches to marriage, and theesteem and preference it holds out to celibacy. These ideascertainly do not favour population, which is, without contradiction, the first source of power to every state. 

Commerce is not less obnoxious to the principles of a religionwhose founder is represented as denouncing an anathema againstthe rich, and as excluding them from the kingdom of heaven. Allindustry is equally interdicted to perfect Christians, who are tospend their lives “as strangers, and pilgrims upon earth, ” and whoare “not to take care of the morrow. ”

Chrysostom says, that “a merchant cannot please God, and thatsuch a one ought to be chased out of the church. ”

No Christian, also, without being inconsistent, can serve in thearmy. For a man, who is never sure of being in a state of grace, isthe most extravagant of men, if, by the hazard of battle, he exposeshimself to eternal perdition. And a Christian who ought to love hisenemies, is he not guilty of the greatest of crimes, when he inflictsdeath upon a hostile soldier, of whose disposition he knowsnothing: and whom he may, at a single stroke, precipitate into hell?A Christian soldier is a monster! a non-descript! and Lactantiusaffirms, that “a Christian cannot be either a soldier, or an accuserto a criminal cause. ” And, at this day, the Quakers, andMennonites refuse to carry arms, and, in so doing, they areconsistent Christians. 

Christianity declares war against the sciences; they are regarded asan obstacle to salvation. “Science puffeth up. ” says Paul. And thefathers of the church, St. Gregory, St. Ambrose, and St. Augustinedenounce vehemently astronomy, and geometry. And Jeromedeclares, that he was whipped by an angel only for reading thatPagan Cicero. 

It has been often remarked, that the most enlightened men arecommonly bad Christians. For independent of its effects on faith, which science is exceedingly apt to subvert, it diverts the Christianfrom the work of his salvation, which is the only thing needful. Ina word, the peculiar principles of Christianity literally obeyed, would entirely subvert from its foundations every political societynow existing. If this assertion is doubted, let the doubter read theworks of the early Fathers, and he will see that their morality istotally incompatible with the preservation and prosperity of a state. He will see according to Lactantius, and others, that “no Christiancan lawfully be a soldier. ” That according to Justin, “no Christiancan be a magistrate. ” That according to Chrysostom, “no Christianought to be a merchant” And that according to several, “noChristian ought t study. ” In fine, joining these maxims togetherwith those of the New Testament, it will follow, that a Christian, who as he is commanded, aims at perfection, is a useless memberof the community, useless to his family, and to all around him. Heis an idle dreamer, who thinks of nothing but futurity; who hasnothing in common with the interests of the world, and accordingto Tertullian “has no other business but to get out of it as quietly aspossible. ”

Let us hearken to Esebius of Caesarea, and we shall abundantlydiscover the truth of what has been said. 

“The manner of life, (says he, ) of the Christian church, surpassesour present nature, and the common life of men. It seeks neithermarriage, nor children, nor riches. In fine, it is entirely a strangerto human modes of living. It is entirely absorbed in an insatiablelove of heavenly things. Those who follow this course of life, haveonly their bodies upon earth, their whole souls are in heaven, andthey already dwell among pure and celestial intelligences, and theydespise the manner of life of other men” Demonstrat. Evang. Vol. Ii. P. 29. 

Indeed a man firmly persuaded of the truth of; Christianity cannotattach himself to any thing here below. Every thing here is “anoccasion of stumbling, a rock of offence. ” Every thing here, divertshim from thinking of his salvation. If Christians in general, happily, for society, were not inconsistent, and did not neglect thepeculiar precepts of their religion, no large society of them couldexist; and the nations enlightened by the gospel would turnhermits, and nuns. All business, but fasting and prayer, would be atan end. There would be nothing but groaning in “this vale” oftears;” and they would make themselves, and others, as miserableas possible, from the best of motives, viz; the desire to fulfill whatthey mistakenly conceived to be the will of God. 

Is this a picture taken from the life, or is it a fanciful representationof something different from the peculiar morality of the NewTestament? This serious question demands a serious answer. If itbe such as it is represented above and such it really appears to me, and such I have unfortunately experienced its operation to be onmy own mind--I would respectfully ask--can such a religion, whose peculiar principles tend to render men hateful, and hatingone another: which has often rendered sovereigns, persecutors, andsubjects, either rebels, or slaves: a religion, whose peculiar moralprinciples and maxims, teach the mind to grovel, and humble, andbreak down the energies of man; and which divert him fromthinking of his true interests, and the true happiness of himself andhis fellow men. Can such a religion, I would respectfully ask, befrom God, since where fully obeyed, it would prove utterlydestructive to society?

CHAPTER XIX. 

A CONSIDERATION OF SOME SUPPOSED ADVANTAGESATTRIBUTED TO THE NEW, OVER THE OLD, TESTAMENT;AND WHETHER THE DOCTRINE OF A RESURRECTION, AND A LIFE TO COME, IS NOT TAUGHT IN THE OLDTESTAMENT; IN CONTRADICTION TO THE ASSERTION, THAT “LIFE AND IMMORTALITY WERE BROUGHT TOLIGHT BY THE GOSPEL. ”

From the preceding chapters, you may judge, reader, of the justiceand truth of the opinion, that “the yoke of Christian morality iseasy, and its “burthen light;” and also of the veracity and fairnessof that constant assertion of divines, “that Jesus came to removethe heavy yoke of the Mosaic Law, and to substitute in its roomone of easier observance. ”--Whether this, their assertion, be notrash, and ill founded, I will cheerfully leave to be decided byany cool and thinking man, who knows human nature, and isacquainted with the human heart. I say, I would cheerfully leave itto such a man, “whether the Mosaic Law, with all its numerousrites, and ceremonial observances, nay, with all “the (ridiculous)traditions of the Elders, ” superadded, would not be much morebearable to human nature, and much easier to be observed andobeyed, than such precepts as these, “Sell all thou hast, and give itto the poor. ” “If a man ask thy cloak, give him thy coat also. ”“Resist not the injurious person, but if a man smite thee on onecheek, turn to him the other also. ” “Extirpate and destroy all carnalaffection, and love nothing, but religion. ” “Take no thought forto-morrow;”--I am confident that the decision would be given inmy favour; and have no doubt, that with thinking men, the contraryopinion would be instantly rejected with the contempt it merits. 

Whether the Mosaic Code be the best possible, or really divine, isof no consequence in this inquiry, and is with me another questionfrom that of its inferiority to that of the New Testament. I do by nomeans assert the former; but have no hesitation to give my opinion, after a pretty thorough examination of the subject, that thereflections of Paul, and those usually thrown out against theMosaic Code by Theologians, when comparing it with that of theNew Testament, in order to deprecate the former, appear to meextremely partial and unjust; and so far from true, that I think, thatthe ancient law has the advantage over the precepts of the NewTestament, in being, at least, practicable and consistent. *

Another unfounded reproach which Theologians, in order tomagnify the importance of the New Testament, cast upon the Old, is this: They say, that the Old Testament represents God only asthe tutelary Deity of the Israelites, and as not so much concernedfor the rest of mankind. To show that this is a very mistakennotion, and to manifest that the Eternal of the Old Testament isrepresented therein, not as the God of the Jews only, but also of theGentiles, I refer to these words:--“The Lord thy God is God ofgods, and Lord of lords, a great God, a mighty and a terrible; whoregardeth not persons, nor taketh reward. He doth execute thejudgment of the fatherless, and widow, and loveth the stranger, ingiving him food and raiment. Love ye, therefore, the stranger. Thou shalt neither vex a stranger, nor oppress him, for ye know theheart of a stranger, seeing ye were strangers in the land of Egypt. Hear the causes between your brethren, and judge righteouslybetween a man and his brother, and the stranger that is with him. One law shall be to him that is home born, and to the stranger thatsojourneth among you. The stranger that dwelleth with you shallbe as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself. I amthe Lord your God. ”

Indeed, so little truth is there in the notion, that the law andreligion of the Old Testament were established with the intentionof confining them to one people, exclusive of all others, that theOld Testament certainly represents them in such manner, asshows, that they were intended to be as unconfined as theChristian, or Mahometan; its religion, in fact, admitted every onewho would receive it. And what is more, it can be proved that theOld Testament dispensation claims, as appears from itself, to havebeen given for the common advantage of all mankind. And it isasserted in it, (whether truly or not, is not the question; it issufficient for my purpose, that it asserts it), that the religioncontained in it, will one day be the religion of all mankind. For itdeclares that Jerusalem will be the centre of worship for allnations, and the temple there, be “the house of prayer for allnations;” that the Eternal will be the only God worshipped; and hislaws the only laws obeyed. It represents Abraham and his posterityas merely the instruments of the Eternal to bring about these ends;it is repeatedly declared therein, that the reason of God’sdispensations towards them was, “that all the earth might know thatthe Eternal is God, and that there is no other but Him. ” Accordingto its history, when God threatened to destroy the Israelites fortheir perverseness in the wilderness, and offers Moses, intercedingfor them, to raise, up his seed to fulfil the purposes for which hedesigned the posterity of Abraham; he tells Moses that his purposeshould not be frustrated through the perverseness of the choseninstruments; “but, (saith He), as surely as I live, all the earth shallbe filled with the glory of the Lord, ” Numbers xiv. 21. Manypassages of similar import are contained in the Psalms, and theProphets. In fact, there is no truth at all in the statement of theCatechisms, that the Old Testament was merely preparatory, andintended merely to prepare the way for “a better covenant, ” asPaul says; even for another religion, (the Christian) which was toconvert all nations; for, (if the Old Testament be suffered to tell itsown story, ) we shall find, that it claims, and challenges the honourof beginning, and completing, this magnificent design solely toitself. I was going to overwhelm the patience of the reader withquotations from it, to this purpose; but being willing to spare himand myself, I will only produce one, which, as it is direct andperemptory to this effect, is as good as a hundred, to demonstratethat the Old Testament at least claims what I have said. Zech. Viii. 20, “Thus saith the Eternal of Hosts: It shall yet come to pass, thatthere shall come people, and the inhabitants of many cities; and theinhabitants of one city shall go to another, saying: “Let us gospeedily to pray before the Eternal, and to seek the Eternal ofHosts: I will go also. Yea, many people, and strong nations shallcome to seek the Eternal of Hosts in Jerusalem, and to pray beforethe Eternal. Thus saith the Eternal of Hosts: In those days it shallcome to pass, that ten men shall take hold out of all the languagesof the nations, even shall take hold of the skirt of him that is a Jew, saying, we will go with you. ”

Be it so, it may be said;--“Still, it is to Christianity the worldowes the consoling doctrine of a life to come. Life and immortalitywere brought to light by the Gospel, ” say the Christian divines; andthey assert, that the doctrine of a resurrection was not known toJew or Gentile, till they learned it from Jesus’ followers. The OldTestament, (say they, ) taught the Jews nothing of the glorioustruths concerning “the resurrection of the body, and the lifeeverlasting, ” their “beggarly elements” confined their views totemporal happiness, only. ” These assertions I shall prove from theOld Testament itself, to be contrary to fact; for the Jews both knew, and were taught by their Bibles to expect a resurrection, andbelieved it as firmly as any Christian can, or ever did. For proofhereof, I shall, in the first place, quote the 37th chapter of Ezekiel, and which is as follows, “The hand of the Lord was upon me, andcarried me out in the spirit of the Lord, and set me down in themidst of the valley, which was full of bones. And caused me topass by them round about, and behold there were very many in theopen valley, and behold they were dry. --And he said unto me. Son of man, can these bones live? and I answered, O Lord God, thou knowest. Again he said unto me. Prophecy upon these bones, and say unto them, O ye dry bones, hear the word of the Lord. Thus saith the Lord God unto these bones, behold I will causebreath to enter into you, and ye shall live, and I will lay sinewsupon you, and will bring up flesh upon you; and cover you withskin, and put breath into you; and ye shall live, and know that I amthe Lord. So I prophesied as I was commanded, and, as Iprophesied, there was a noise, and behold, a shaking, and the bonescame together, bone to his bone. And “when I beheld, lo, thesinews and the flesh came up upon them, and the skin coveredthem above; but there was no breath in them. Then said he untome. Prophecy son of man, and say unto the wind, thus saith theLord God, come from the four winds, O breath! and breathe uponthese slain, that they may live. So I prophesied as he commandedme, and the breath came into them, and they lived, and stood upagain upon their feet, an exceeding great army. ”

A plainer resurrection than this is, I think never was preachedeither by Jesus or his followers. Again, Daniel the prophet says, “Many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, someto everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt, ”Daniel xii. 2. Now Ezekiel lived almost six hundred years beforeJesus, and Daniel was contemporary with the former; and is it not alittle surprising, that the Jews should learn, for the first time, thedoctrine of a resurrection of the followers of Jesus Christ, whenthey knew of the resurrection almost six hundred years before hewas born? Isaiah also, (who lived before either Ezekiel or Daniel), in the 26th chapter of his prophesies, (exciting the Jews to haveconfidence in God, and not to despair on account of their captivity, and the troubles and afflictions which they should suffer therein), foretells to them that death would not deprive them of the rewardof their piety and virtue; for God would raise them from the dead, and make them happy. “Thy dead men shall live, my dead bodies#(i. E. , the bodies of God’s servants) they shall arise. Awake! andsing! ye that dwell in the dust, for thy dew is as the dew of herbs, ”The meaning of the last clause is--that, as the grass, which inOriental countries becomes brown and shrivelled by the heat of thesun; from the effects of the dew it changes and springs up, as itwere, in a moment, green and fresh and beautiful; so, by theinstantaneous influence of the word of God, the dry and decayedremains of mortality shall become blooming with immortalfreshness and beauty. See also Hosea xiii. 14. I might easilymultiply passages from the Old Testament, to prove that thedoctrine of a resurrection was familiar to the ancient Israelites, butI suppose that what I have already produced, is sufficient. Those, however, who wish to see the subject more thoroughly examined, are referred to “Greave’s Lectures on the Pentateuch, ” a worklately published in Europe, highly honourable to the author. Seealso a Tract upon this subject, published by Dr. Priestley, in 1801. 

I shall only add one observation more on this subject, viz. , that it isvery singular that Christian divines should assert, that “life andimmortality were first brought to light by the Gospel, ” when theNew Testament itself represents the resurrection of the dead asbeing perfectly well known to the Jews, and describes Jesushimself as proving it to the Sadducees out of the Old Testament!!!

CONCLUSION. 

I have now finished my work, which I have written in order toexculpate myself, and to do justice to others; and havingre-examined every link of the chain of my argument, I think it amplystrong to support the conclusions attached to it. Though theremight have been drawn from the Old and New Testaments, manyadditional arguments corroborative of what has been said, yet, atpresent, I shall add no more; as I think that what has been broughtforward has just claims to be considered by the impartial as quitesufficient to prove these two points--that the New Testament canneither subsist with the Old Testament, nor without it; and that theNew Testament system was built first upon a mistake, andafterwards buttressed up with forged and apocryphal documents. 

Let the candid now judge, whether the author, knowing thesethings, or, at least persuaded of their truth, could have persisted inaffirming, (in a place where sincerity is expected), in the name ofthe Almighty, that the claims of the New Testament were valid, without being a hypocrite, and an impostor. 

Let them also consider, whether, after being unable to obtain asatisfactory refutation of the objections contained in this volume, his resigning a profession whose duties obliged him to say what hewas convinced was false, was conduct to be reprehended. Andlastly, he appeals to the good sense of the public, for a decision, whether, with such objections and difficulties weighing upon hismind, as he has now exposed, his conduct in that respect canreasonably be attributed to the unmanly influence of caprice andfickle-ness, (as has been circulated by some who had an interest inmaking it believed;) or to the just influence of motives deserving abetter name. 

With regard to the unfortunate people whose arguments have beenbrought forward in this volume, we have, reader, now gone over, and distinctly felt, the whole ground of the controversy betweenthem and their persecutors, mentioned in the Preface. And as theymake use of the Old Testament as a foundation, admitted, andnecessarily admitted by Christians, to be of divine authority, andare surrounded by the bulwarks they have raised out of thedemolished entrenchments of their adversaries, I do not see butthat “their castle’s strength may laugh a siege to scorn. ” And afterreviewing, and revolving, over and over in my own mind thearguments on both sides, I am obliged to believe, that the stoutestPolemical Goliath who may venture to attack it, especially theirstrong hold--their arguments about the Messiahship, will find tohis cost, that when his weak point is but known, the mightiestAchilles must fall before the feeblest Paris, whose arrow is--aimedat his heel. 

The author hopes, and thinks he has a right to expect, that whoevermay attempt to answer his book, will do it fairly, like a man ofcandour; without trying to evade the main question--that of theMessiahship of Jesus. He fears, that he shall see an answerprecisely resembling the many others he has seen upon thatsubject. Except two--those of Sukes, and Jeffries. (whoacknowledge that miracles have nothing to do with the question ofthe Messiahship, which can be decided by the Old Testament only;)--all that he has ever met with, evade this question, and slideover to the ground of miracles. Such conduct in an answerer of thisbook would be very unfair, and also very absurd. For the case isprecisely resembling the following--A father informs by letter hisson in a foreign country, that he is about to send him a Tutor, whom he will know by the following marks; “He is learned in themathematics, and the physical sciences; acquainted with thelearned languages, and an excellent physician; of a darkcomplexion; six feet high, and with a voice loud, andcommanding. ” By and by, a man comes to the young man, professing to be this tutor sent to him by his father. On examiningthe man, and comparing him with the description in his father’sletter, he finds him totally unlike the person he had been taught toexpect. Instead of being acquainted with the sciences, thereinmentioned, he knows nothing about them; instead of being “sixfeet high, of a dark complexion, and with a voice loud andcommanding, ” he is a diminutive creature of five feet, of a lightcomplexion, with a voice like a woman’s. 

The young man, with his father’s letter in his hand, tells thepretended tutor, that he certainly cannot be the person he has beentold to expect. The man persists, and appeals to certain “wonderfulworks” he performs in order to convince the young man, that he isacquainted with the sciences aforesaid, and that he is also six feethigh; of a dark complexion; and talks like an Emperor! The youngman replies. “Friend, you are either an enthusiast, a mad man, orsomething worse. As to your ‘ signs and wonders, ’ I have beenwarned in my father’s letter to pay no regard to any such things inthis case. Besides, you ought to be sensible, that your identity withthe person I am taught by my father’s letter to expect, can be onlydetermined by comparing you with the description of him giventherein. Whether your ‘wonderful works’ are real miracles or not, Ineither know, nor care. At any rate, they cannot, in the nature ofthings, be any thing to the purpose in; this case. For you to pretend, that they prove what you offer them to prove, is quite absurd; youmight as well, and as reasonably, pretend, that they could proveAristotle to have been Alexander; or the Methodist GeorgeWhitfield to be the Emperor Napoleon Bonaparte!”

To conclude, if any person should feel inclined to attempt to refutethis book, let him do it like a man; without evading the question, orequivocating, or caviling about little things. Let him consider theprincipal question, and the main arguments on which he perceivesthat the author relies, and not pass over these silently, and hold upa few petty mistakes and subsidiary arguments as specimens of thewhole book. Such a mode of defence would be very disengenuous, and with a discerning reader, perfectly futile and insufficient. Itwould be as if a man prostrate, and bleeding under a lion whoseteeth and claws were infixed in his throat, should tear a handful ofhairs out of the animal’s mane, and hold them up as proofs ofvictory. 

In fine, let him, before his undertaking, carefully consider thesepungent words of Bishop Beveridge, “Opposite answers, anddownright arguments advantage a cause; but when a disputantleaves many things untouched, as if they were too hot for hisfingers; and declines the weight of other things, and alters the truestate of the question: it is a shrewd sign, either that he has notweighed things maturely, or else (which is more probable, ) that hemaintains a desperate cause. ”

FINIS. 

APPENDIX A. #

As reasons for this assertion, (that “the account of the resurrectiongiven by the evangelists is no better, nay, worse, than conjecture, as it is a mere forgery of the second century. --Vide page 86) takethe following facts, which are now ascertained, and can beproved:--1. Several sects of Christians in the first century, in theapostolic era, denied that Jesus was crucified, as the Basildeans, &c. The author of the epistle ascribed to Barnabas, I think, deniedit, and the author of the gospel of Thomas certainly did. 2. TheJewish Christians, the disciples of the twelve apostles, neverreceived, but rejected every individual book of the present NewTestament. They held in especial abomination the writings of Paul, whom they called “an apostate;” and there is extant, in “Cotelerius’ Patres Apostolici, ” a letter ascribed to Peter, written toJames at Jerusalem wherein he complains bitterly of Paul, stylinghim “a lawless man, ” and a crafty misrepresenter of him (Peter, )and his doctrine, in that Paul represented, every where, Peter asbeing secretly of the same opinions with himself; against this heenters his protest, and declares that he reprobates the doctrine ofPaul. (See Appendix B. ) 3. It is certain, that from the beginning, the Christians were never agreed as to points of faith; and that theapostles themselves, so far from being considered as inspired, andinfallible, were frequently contradicted, thwarted, and set at naughtby their own converts: and there were as many sects, heresies, andquarrels, in the first century, as in the second or third. 4. Jesus andhis apostles were no sooner off the stage, than forgeries of all kindsbroke in with irresistible force: Gospels, Epistles, Acts, Revelations without number, published in the names, and under thefeigned authority, of Jesus and his apostles, abounded in theChristian church; and as some of these were as early in time as anyof the writings in the present canon of the New Testament, so theywere received promiscuously with them, and held in equal creditand veneration, and read in the public assemblies as of equalauthority with those now received. 5. The very learned and piousDodwell, in his Dissertations on Iraeneus avows, that he cannotfind in ecclesiastical antiquities, (which he understood better thanany man of his age, ) any evidence at all, that the four Gospels wereknown or heard of, before the time of Trajan, and Adrian, i. E. Before the middle of the second century, i. E. Nearly a hundredyears after the apostles were dead. (See Appendix C. ) Long beforethis time, we know that there were extant numbers of spuriousgospels, forged, and ascribed to the apostles; and we have not theleast evidence to be depended on, that those now received were notalso apocryphal. For they were written nobody certainly knows bywhom, or where, or when. They first appeared in an age ofcredulity, when forgeries of this kind abounded and were receivedwith avidity by those whose opinions they favoured, while theywere rejected as spurious by many sects of Christians, whoasserted that they were possessed of the genuine apostles, which, however, those who received “the four, ” denied. 6. All thedifferent sects of Christians, without a known exception, altered, interpolated, and without scruple garbled, their different copies oftheir various and discordant gospels, in order to adapt them to theirjarring and whimsical philosophical notions, Celsus accuses themof this, and they accuse each other. And that they were continuallytampering with their copies of the books of the New Testament, isevident from the immense number of various readings, and fromsome whole phrases, and even verses, which for knavish purposeswere foisted into the text, but have been detected, and exposed byGriesbach, and others. They also forged certain rhapsodies underthe name of “Sybbiline Oracles, ” and then adduce them asprophetic proofs of the truth of their religion. They alsointerpolated certain clumsy forgeries as prophecies of Jesus intotheir copies of their Greek version of the Old Testament. 7. Thepresent canon of the New Testament has never been sanctioned bythe general consent of Christians. The Syrian church rejects someof its books;--some of its books were not admitted until after longopposition, and not until several hundred years after Jesus. Thelists of what were considered as canonical books, differ in differentages, and some books now acknowledged by all Christians to beforgeries, were in the second and third centuries considered asequally apostolic as those now received, and as such, were publiclyread in the churches. 8. The reason why we have not now extantgospels, different and contradictory to those now received, is, because that the sect or party which finally got the better of itsadversaries, and styled itself Catholic, or orthodox, took care toburn and destroy the heretics, and their gospels with them. Theylikewise took care to hunt up and burn the books of the paganadversaries of Christianity, “because they were shockinglyoffensive to pious ears. ” 9. Semler considered the New Testamentas a collection of pious frauds, written for pious purposes, in thelatter part of the second century, (the very time assigned for theirfirst appearance by Dodwell. ) Evanson adopts, and gives goodreasons for a similar opinion with regard to most of the bookswhich go to compose it. Lastly. The reason why the NewTestament canon has been so long respected, seems to have beenpurely owing to the credulity of the ignorant, and the laziness, indifference, or fears of the learned. 

Douglas, in his famous “Criterion, ” gives us, as infallible tests, bywhich we may distinguish when written accounts of miracles arefabulous, the following marks:--

1. “We have reason to suspect (he says) the accounts to be false, when they are not published to the world till after the time whenthey are said to have been performed. ”

2. “We have reason to suspect them to be false, when they are notpublished in the place where it is pretended the facts werewrought, but are propagated only at a great distance from thesupposed scene of action. ”

3. “Supposing the accounts to have the two fore-mentionedqualifications, we still have reason to suspect them to be false, if inthe time when, and at the place where, they took their rise, theymight be suffered to pass without examination. ”

These are the marks he gives us as infallible tests by which wemay distinguish the accounts of miracles in the New Testament tobe true; and accounts of miracles in other books (though supportedby more testimony than the former, ) to be false; with how muchjustice, may be evident from the following observations:--

1. If “we have reason to suspect the accounts to be false, whenthey are not published to the world till long after the time whenthey are said to have been performed, ” then we have reasons tosuspect the accounts given in the four gospels; for we have noproof in the world, that any of them were written till nearly onehundred years after the supposed writers of them were all dead. 

2. If “we have reason to suspect them to be false, when they arenot published in the place where it is pretended the facts werewrought, but are propagated only at a great distance from thesupposed scene of action, ” then it is still further evident that theaccounts in question are not true. For they were apparently none ofthem published in Judea, the scene of the events recorded in them. But it is pretty clear that they were written in countries at adistance from Palestine. And the facts recorded in them were-nowhere so little believed as in Judea, among the people in whosesight they are said to have been wrought, where they ought, if true, to have met with most credit. It is, however, evident from thehistories themselves, that these stories were laughed at, by thelearned and intelligent of the Jewish nation, and disbelieved by thegreat body of the people. In truth the first Christians were merelyone hundred and twenty Galilaeans, who asserted to theirco-religionists, that Jesus of Nazareth was the ejected Messiah. Itwas a mere national quarrel between the great body of the Jews, and afew schismatics. This is evident from the Acts, where we find thatfor several years they confined their preaching to Jews only. Tillthe conversion of Cornelius, they do not appear to have thought theGentiles any way interested in their dispute with their countrymen. So that it is not improbable, (as the Jewish Christians dwindledvery rapidly, ) that had it not been for the Gentile proselytes toJudaism, Christianity would have perished in its cradle. Thesepeople were very numerous, and formed the connecting linkbetween the Jews and the Gentiles. And it was through the mediumof these people, that Christianity became known to the heathens. For we find that after the apostles could make nothing of thestubborn Jews “they shook their garments, and told them that fromhenceforth we go to the Gentiles. ”--Accordingly, when theapostles preached in the synagogues, and the Jews contradicted, and blasphemed, ” and made fun of their mode of proving from theprophets, “that Jesus was the Christ; yet the “proselytes and devoutwomen” listened, and believed. 

3. If “supposing the accounts to have the two foregoingqualifications, we still may suspect them to be false; if, in the timewhen, and in the place where, they took their rise, they might besuffered to pass without examination, ” we have still less reason tobelieve the gospels. For one reason why they might be suffered topass without examination is, where the miracles proposedcoincided with the notions and superstitious prejudices of thosewhom they were reported, and who, on that account, might beprone to receive them unexamined. Now, we have documents inplenty, which abundantly prove, along with the virtues, theextreme credulity and simplicity of the Primitive Christians, whosemaxim was, “believe, but do not examine, and thy faith shall savethee. ” Another very good reason why they might be suffered topass without, examination is, that the miracles of the gospels wereentirely unknown to, or at least acknowledged by, any heathen orJew of the age in which they are recorded to have happened. Nobody seems to have known a syllable about them but theapostles and their converts. Even the books of the New Testamentwere not generally known to the heathens until some hundred yearsafter the birth of Jesus; and it seems from the few fragments oftheir works come down to us, that the only notice they did take ofthem, was to accuse them of telling lies and old wives fables. Andas for the Jews, the origin and early propagation of Christianitywas so very obscure, that those who lived nearest the times of theapostles, do not seem to have known any thing about them, or theirdoctrines. 

Though a little out of place, yet I will here adduce a fact whichillustrates and exemplifies the power of enthusiasm, to makepeople believe they saw what they did not see. Lucian gives anaccount of one Peregrinus, a philosophist very famous in his time, who had a great number of disciples. He ended his life by throwinghimself, in the presence of assembled thousands, into a burningpile. Yet such was the enthusiastic veneration of his followers, that some of his disciples did solemnly aver, that they had seenhim after his death, clothed in white, and crowned; and they werebelieved, insomuch that altars and statues were erected toPeregrinus as to a demi-god. See Lucian’s account. 

APPENDIX B. 

See Cotelerius “Patres Apostolic, ” Tom. 1, p. 602. Extract of a letter from Peter to James, prefixed to theClementines. 

“For, if this be not done, (says Peter, after entreating James not tocommunicate his preachings to any Gentile without previousexamination, ) our speech of truth will be divided into manyopinions, nor do I know this thing as being a prophet, but as seeingeven now the beginning of this evil. For some from among theGentiles have rejected my legal preaching, embracing the trifling, and lawless doctrine of a man who is an enemy; and thesethings, some have endeavoured to do now in my own lifetime, transforming my words by various interpretations, to thedestruction of the Laws: as if I had been of the same mind, butdared not openly profess it, (see Galatians ii. 11, 12, &c. , ) whichbe far from me! For this were to act against the law of God, spokenby Moses, and which has the testimony of our Lord for itsperpetual duration; since he thus has said, “Heaven and earth shallpass away, yet one jot, or one tittle, shall not pass from the law. ”But these, I know not how, promising to deliver my opinion, (seeGalatians as above) take upon them to explain the words theyheard from me, better than I that spoke them; telling their disciples, my sense was that of which I had not so much as thought. Now, ifin my own life time, they dare feign such things, how much morewill those that come after, do the same. ”

APPENDIX C. 

Extract from Dodwell’s Dissertations on Irenaeus, Diss. 1, p. P. 38, 39. 

“The Canonical writings (i. E. Of the New Testament), layconcealed in the coffers of private churches, or persons, till thelatter times of Trajan, or rather perhaps of Adrian; so that theycould not come to the knowledge of the church. For if they hadbeen published, they would have been overwhelmed under such amultitude as were then of apocryphal and suppositious books, thata new examination and a new testimony would be necessary todistinguish them from these false ones. And it is from this newtestimony (whereby the genuine writings of the apostles weredistinguished from the spurious pieces which went under theirnames, ) that depends all the authority which the truly apostolicwritings have formerly obtained, or which they have at present inthe Catholic Church. But this fresh attestation of the canon issubject to the same inconveniences with those traditions of theancient persons that I defend, and whom Irenaeus both heard andsaw; for it is equally distant from the original, and could not bemade except by such only as had reached those remote times. Butit is very certain that before the period I mentioned of Trajan’stime, the canon of the sacred books, was not yet fixed, nor anycertain number of books received in the Catholic Church, whoseauthority must ever after serve to determine matters of faith;neither were the spurious pieces of heretics yet rejected, nor werethe faithful admonished to beware of them for the future. Likewise, the true writings of the apostles used to be so bound up in onevolume with the apocryphal, that it was not manifest by any markof public censure which of them should be preferred to the other. We have at this day, certain authentic writings of ecclesiasticalauthors of those times, as Clemens Romanus, Barnabas, Hermas, Ignatius, and Polycarp, who wrote in the same order wherein Ihave named them, and after all the other writers of the NewTestament, except Jude, and the two Johns. But in Hermas youshall not meet with one passage, or any mention of the NewTestament; nor in all the rest is any one of the evangelists called byhis own name. And if sometimes they cite any passages like thosewe read in our gospels; yet, you will find them so much changed, and for the most part so interpolated, that it cannot be known, whether they produced them out of ours, or some apocryphalgospels; nay, they sometimes cite passages which it is most certainare not in the present gospels. From hence, therefore, it is evidentthat no difference was yet put between the apocryphal andcanonical books of the New Testament, especially if it beconsidered, that they pass no censure on the apocryphal, nor leaveany mark whereby the reader might discern whether they attributedless authority to the spurious than to the genuine gospels; fromwhence it may reasonably be suspected, that if they cite sometimesany passages conformable to ours, it was not done through anycertain design, as if dubious things were to be confirmed only bythe canonical books, so as it is very possible that both those and thelike passages may have been borrowed from other gospels besidesthese we now have. But what need I mention books that are notcanonical, when indeed it does not appear from those of ourcanonical books which were last written, that the church knew anything of the gospels, or that the clergy made a common use ofthem. The writers of these times do not chequer their works withtexts of the New Testament, which yet is the custom of themoderns, and was also theirs in such books as they acknowledgefor scripture; for they most frequently cite the books of the OldTestament, and would, doubtless, have done so by those of theNew, if they had then been received as canonical. ”

So far Mr. Dodwell, and (excepting the genuineness of the writingsof Barnabas and the rest, for they are incontestably ancient, ) it iscertain that the matters of fact with regard to the New Testamentare all true. Whoever has an inclination to write on this subject, isfurnished from this passage with a great many curious disquisitionswherein to show his penetration and his judgment, as--how theimmediate successors and disciples of the apostles could so grosslyconfound the genuine writings of their masters with such as werefalsely attributed to them; or since they were in the dark aboutthese matters so early, how come such as followed them, by abetter light; why all those books which are cited by the earliestfathers with the same respect as those now received, should not beaccounted equally authentic by them; and what stress should belaid on the testimony of those fathers, who not only contradict oneanother, but are often inconsistent with themselves, in relating thevery same facts; with a great many other difficulties, whichdeserve a clear solution from any capable person. 

I have said the ancient heretics asserted that the present gospelswere forgeries. As an example of this, take the following, from theworks of Faustus, quoted by Augustine, contra Faustum Lib. 32, c. 2. “You think, (says Faustus to his adversaries, ) that of all thebooks in the world the Testament of the Son only, could not becorrupted; that it alone contains nothing which ought to bedisallowed; especially when it appears, that it was not written bythe apostles, but a long time after them, by certain obscure persons, who, lest no credit should be given to the stories they told of whatthey could not know, did prefix, to their writings, the names of theapostles, and partly of those who succeeded the apostles, affirming, that what they wrote themselves, was written by these. Whereinthey seem to me to have been the more heinously injurious to thedisciples of Christ, by attributing to them what they wrotethemselves so dissonant and repugnant; and that they pretended towrite those gospels under their names, which are so full ofmistakes, of contradictory relations and opinions, that they areneither coherent with themselves, nor consistent with one another. What is this, therefore, but to throw a calumny on good men, andto fix the accusation of discord on the unanimous society ofChrist’s disciples. ”

ADDENDA. There is, in the Gospel ascribed to John, a passage, quoted as aprophecy, which, as it has been looked on as a proof text, ought to havebeen mentioned in the 7th chapter. It is this. The evangelist (John xix. 23) says, “Then the soldiers, when they had crucified Jesus, took hisgarments, and made four parts, to every soldier a part; and also hiscoat--now the coat was without seam, woven from the top throughout. Theysaid, therefore, among themselves, ‘ Let us not rend it, but cast lotsfor it’; that the Scripture might be fulfilled, which saith, ‘Theyparted my raiment among them and for my vesture they did cast lots. ’“Now, however plausible this prophesy may appear, it is one of the mostimpudent applications of passages from the Old Testament that occurs inthe New. It is taken from the 18th verse of the 22d Psalm, which Psalmwas probably made by David, in reference to his humiliating and wretchedexpulsion from Jerusalem by his son Absalom, and what was done inconsequence, viz. , that he was hunted by ferocious enemies, whom hecompares to furious bulls, and roaring lions, gaping upon him to devourhim; that his palace was plundered, and that they divided his treasuredgarments, (in the East, where the fashions never change, every great manhas constantly presses full of hundreds and thousands of garments, manyof them very costly: they are considered as a valuable part of hisriches), and cast lots for his robes. This is the real meaning of thispassage quoted as a prophecy. In the same Psalm, there is another verse, which has been from time immemorial quoted as a prophecy of thecrucifixion, (v. 16, ) “They pierced my hands and my feet. ” In theoriginal, there seems to have been a word dropped importing “theytear, ” or something like it, for it is literally, “Like a lion--my handsand my feet, ” and there is there no word answering to “pierced. ” Themeaning, however, of the verse is not difficult to be discerned, “dogshave compassed me; the assembly of wicked men have enclosed me; like alion--(they tear) my hands and my feet. ” The meaning may be discoveredfrom the context, where David represents himself as in the utmostdistress, helpless, and abandoned amidst his enemies, raging like wildbeasts around him; then, by a strong, but striking Oriental figure, herepresents himself like a carcass surrounded by dogs, who are busied intearing the flesh from his bones; their teeth fixed in his hands andfeet, and pulling him asunder. This is the import of the place, and thisinterpretation is at last adopted, for the first time, I believe, byChristians, in the new version of the Psalms used by the UnitarianChurch in London. 

There is not a more palpable instance of the facility with which goodnatured and voracious piety is made to swallow the most flimsyarguments, if only agreeable to its wishes and wants, than the caseunder consideration. This Psalm, containing these passages, “theyparted my raiment among them;” and “they pierced my hands and my feet, ”is read, and for ages has been read, in the name of God, to the goodpeople of the Church of England, on every Good Friday, as undoubtedly aprophesy of the Crucifixion; when yet the learned divines of the Churchof England (and of these it can boast a noble Catalogue indeed)certainly know, and are conscious that the Psalm, which contains thesepassages, has no more relation to Jesus, than it has to Nebuchadnezzar. 

A reference ought to have been subjoined at the end of the 10th chapterto the dialogue, called “Philopatris” in Lucian’s Works, for an accountof the customs, habits, and personal appearance of the early Christians, corroborative of what is said in the 17th and 18th chapters of thiswork. Lest, however, Lucian’s testimony in this matter should beobjected to, because he was a satirist, and, of course, may have beenguilty of giving an overcharged picture of the subjects of his ridicule, I request the reader to peruse, if he can obtain it, “Lami’s Account ofthe domestic habits and personal appearance and practices of theprimitive Christians. ” Lami was a very learned and sincere Christian, and of course his testimony cannot be objected to, and the reader willfind, on a perusal of his work, that what I have asserted in the 17thand 18th chapters is altogether true, and not the whole truth neither. Indeed, that the statements in those chapters, as to the effects of thepeculiar maxims of the New Testament upon the heart and understanding, are substantially correct, will, I believe, be discovered by asking anyhonest individual among the Methodists, who is an enthusiast, i. Esincere, and thorough-going in his religion. I have no doubt that he orshe will avow, without hesitation, to the enquirer, and glory in it, that chastity is more honourable than marriage; that faith is everything; that doubt is damnable, and a proof of “an unregenerated mind;”that all the goods and pleasures of this world are “trash;” that humaninstitutions are mere “carnal ordinances;” and that human science andlearning is a snare to faith and an abomination to a true disciple ofthe cross. 

Published 1785. 

* In the present day, various-attempts, insidious and powerful, havebeen made, even here, to coerce in matters of conscience, and tooverthrow those wise barriers to the destructive effects of sectarianfanaticism and intolerance, which the great founders of the Republic, totheir everlasting glory, erected. --D. 

* Do you know (says Rousseau) of many Christians who have taken thepains to examine, with care, what the Jews have to say against them? Ifsome persons have seen any thing of the kind, it is in the books ofChristians, A fine way, truly, to get instructed in the arguments oftheir adversaries! But what can they do? If any one should dare topublish among us, books, in which be openly favours their opinions, wepunish the author, the editor, the bookseller. This policy isconvenient, and sure always to be in the right. There is a pleasure inrefuting people who dare not open their lips"--(Emilius. ) In the samework he says that “he will never be convinced that the Jews have notsomething strong to say, till they shall be permitted to speak forthemselves without fear, and without restraint. " It was this hint ofRousseau which first excited the author's curiosity with regard to thesubject of this book. --E. 

* There are a great many persons who conceive that Christianity issufficiently proved to be true, if the miracles of Jesus are true, evenwithout any regard to the prophecies, so often appealed to by him. Butsupposing the miracles to be true; yet no miracles can prove that whichis false in itself to be true. If therefore Jesus be not foretold as theMessiah in the Old Testament, no miracles can prove Jesus to be theMessiah foretold. Nay, it would be a stronger argument to prove Jesus tobe a false pretender, that he appealed to prophecies as relating to him, when in fact they had no relation whatever to him; and by that meansimposed upon the ignorant people; than it would be that he came fromGod, merely because he worked miracles; for “False Christs and falseprophets may arise, and may show such great signs and wonders as todeceive, if it were possible, the very elect. ” Matt. Xxiv. 24. Yet noChristian would allow it to be argued from thence, that those falseChrists were true ones: nor would any one conclude; that a man came fromGod, (notwithstanding any miracle he might do) if he appealed toScripture for that which is no where in it. In fine, if miracles wouldprove the Messiahship of Jesus, so also they would prove the Messiahshipof the false Christs, and false prophets spoken of above. Nay more, theywould demonstrate the Divine mission of Antichrist himself; who, according to the epistle to the Thessalonians, (2 Thes. Ch. Ii. 8, 9, 10)and the Revelations, ch. Xiii. 13, 14, was to perform "great signs andwonders, " equal to any wrought by Jesus, for the same Greek words areused to express the wonderful works or “great signs and wonders” ofAntichrist, which are elsewhere used to express the miracles, or “greatsigns and wonders” of Jesus himself. 

It is a striking circumstance, that the earliest apologists forChristianity laid little stress upon the miracles of its founder. 

Justin Martyr, in his Apology, is very shy of appealing to the miraclesof Jesus in confirmation of his pretentions; he lays no stress uponthem, but relies entirely upon the prophecies he quotes as in his favor. Jerome, in his comment on the eighty-first Psalm, assures us, “that theperformance of miracles was no extraordinary thing: and that it was nomore than what Appollonius, and Apulias, and innumerable impostors haddone before. ”

Lactantius saw so little force in the miracles of Christ, exclusive ofthe prophecies, that he does not hesitate to affirm their utterinability to support the Christian religion by themselves. [Lactan. Div. Inst. L. V. C. 3. ]

Celsus, observing upon the words of Jesus, that “false prophets andfalse Christs shall arise, and show grant signs and wonders, " sneeringlyobserves, "A fine thing truly! that miracles done by him should provehim to be a God, and when done by others should demonstrate them to befalse prophets and impostors. ”

Tertullian, on the words of Jesus, here referred to by Celsus, says asfollows;

“Christ, foretelling that many imposters should come and perform manywonders, shews, that our faith cannot without great temerity be foundedon miracles, since they were so early wrought, by false Christiansthemselves. ” [Tertul. In Marc. L. Ii. C. 3. ]

Indeed, miracles in the two first centuries were allowed very littleweight in proving doctrines. Since the Christians did not deny, that theheathens performed miracles in behalf of their gods, and that theheretics performed them as will as the orthodox. This accounts for theperfect indifference of the heathens to the miracles said to have beenperformed by the founders of Christianity. Hierocles speaks with greatcontempt of what he calls "the little tricks of Jesus, " And Origen, inhis reply to Celsus, waves the consideration of the Christian miracles:“for (says he) the very mention of these things sets you heathens uponthe. Broad grin. ” Indeed, that they laughed very heartily at what inthe eighteenth century is read with a grave face, is evident from thefew fragments of their works written against Christianity which hasescaped the burning zeal of the fathers, and the Christian emperors; whopiously sought for, and burned up, these mischievous volumes to preventtheir doing mischief to posterity. This conduct of theirs is verysuspicious. Why burn writing they could so triumphantly refute, if theywere refutable? They should have remembered the just reflection ofArnobius, their own apologist, against the heathens, who were forabolishing at once such writings as promoted Christianity. --"Interciperescripta et publicatam velle submergere lectionem, non est Deosdefendere, sed veritatis testificationem timere. "[Arnob. ContraGentes. Liber ni. ]--E. 

* Before going into the consideration of the following prophecies, theauthor would warn the reader to bear in mind, that whether theseprophecies ever will be fulfilled, is a question of no import in theworld to the question under consideration, which is--whether they havebeen fulfilled eighteen hundred years ago, in the person of JesusChrist, who is asserted by Christians to be the person foretold in theseprophecies, and to have fulfilled their predictions. This question canbe easily decided, and only, we think, by appealing to past history, andto the scenes passing around us, and comparing them with thesepredictions. --E. 

* The word in the original being Vayikra, in the Kal or Active form ofthe verb, and not Vayikare the Niphal or Passive form. --D. 

# reprove or argue. --D. 

* Or, in righteousness. --D. 

# Mr. English very properly takes notice of the disjunctive accent(Pasek) occurring here in the text. --D. 

# For a more correct enumeration of the thirteen cabalistic rules ofexposition, the English reader is referred to vol. 1, page 209, of the“Conciliator” of B. Menasseh ben Israel, translated by E, H. Lindo, Esqr. --D. 

# Mr. E. Was, doubtless, aware that this is an exposition given byJewish Commentators. --D. 

# There exists an English translation of this work by Abraham de Sola. --D. 

* The person here spoken of by Isaiah is said to make his grave with thewicked, and be with the rich in his death. Whereas Jesus did exactly thecontrary. He was with the wicked (i. E. , the two thieves) in his death, and with the rich (i. E. , Joseph of Arimathea) in his grave, or tomb. Inthe original, the words may be translated that “he shall avenge, orrecompence upon the wicked his grave, and his death upon the rich. ” Thusdoes the Targum and the Arabic version interpret the place, and Ezekielix. 10, uses the verb in the verse in Isaiah under considerationtranslated (in The English version)--“He made, ” &c--in the same sense, given to this place in Isaiah, by the Targum, and the Arabic, as saidabove. See the place in Ezekiel, where it is translated--“I willrecompence their way upon their head. ” See also Deut. Xxi. 8, in theoriginal. The Syriac has it--“The wicked contributed to his burial, andthe rich to his death. ” The Arabic--“I will punish the wicked for hisburial, and the rich for his death. ” The Targum--“He shall send thewicked into hell, and the rich who put him to a cruel death. ”--E. 

# Or, shall destroy. --D. 

* The remainder of this chapter is taken from Levi and Wagenseil. --E. 

* The reader is requested to consider the reasoning in the lastparagraph. The prophecy in the second chapter of Daniel, is commonlysupposed to relate to the four Great Empires, the Babylonian, Persian, Grecian and Roman. This last, it is (according to this interpretation, )foretold, should be divided into many kingdoms, and that ‘in the latterdays of these kingdoms, ’ (which are now subsisting) God would set up akingdom which would never be destroyed, --that of the Messiah. Of course, according to this interpretation, the kingdom of the Messiah was not tobe not only sustain after the destruction of the Roman Empire, but nottill the latter days of the kingdoms which grew up out of its ruins;whereas, Jesus was born in the time of Augustus, i. E. , precisely whenthe Roman Empire itself was in the highest of its splendour and vigour. This is a remarkable, and very striking, repugnance, to the claims ofthe New Testament, and, if substantiated, must overset them entirely. --E. 

* The sum of our argument may be expressed thus. God is represented inthe prophecies of the Old Testament as designing to send into the worldan eminent deliverer, descended from David, the peace and prosperity ofwhose reign should far exceed all that went before him, in whom all theglorious things foretold by the prophets should receive their entirecompletion; and who should be distinguished by the character of theMessiah or Christ. This is an article of faith common to Christians andJews. But that Jesus of Nazareth should be esteemed this Messiah, andthat Christians can support that opinion, by alledging the prophecies ofthe Hebrew scriptures as belonging to, and fulfilled in, him, is what wecan by no means allow, and that especially on account of theseinconsistencies. 

1. Because, these prophecies, acknowledged on both sides to point outthe Messiah, could not otherwise answer the end of inspiring them thanby an accomplishment so plain and sensible as might sufficientlydistinguish the person meant by them to be that Messiah. But no suchaccomplishment, we contend, can possibly be discerned in Jesus, and, consequently, he cannot be the person meant by them. 

2. Because, several predictions which Christians apply to Jesus, arewrested to a meaning which quite destroys the historical sense ofscripture, and breaks the connexion of the passages from whence they aretaken. Thus many shreds and loose sentences are culled out for thispurpose, which do not appear to have any relation to Jesus, or to theMessiah either; but to have received their proper and intendedcompletion in some other person, whom the prophet, as is manifest, hadthen only in view. 

3. Because, in their forced applications of the prophecies, Christians, finding themselves hard pressed by the simple and natural construction, forsake the literal, and take shelter in spiritual and mystical senses;fly to hyperboles and strained metaphors, and thus expound the truemeaning and importance of the prophecies quite away; the intent whereofbeing to instruct men in so necessary a point of faith as that relatingto the Messiah, it is reasonable to think they would be delivered in themost perspicuous and intelligible terms. Since ambiguous expressions(capable of such strange meanings as they pretend, ) would be tooslippery a foundation to build such a point of faith upon; would be ofno use, or worse than none; would be unable to teach the clear truth, and apt to ensnare men into dangerous errors, by leaving too great alatitude for fanciful interpretations, and introducing darkness andconfusion, and contradiction inexplicable. 

4. Because, admitting (as indeed it never was, or can be denied) thatmany passages of scripture, and of prophetical scripture especially, must be figuratively taken; yet, we must always put a wide differencebetween a sense not just as the words in their first significationimport, and a sense directly the contrary of what they import. And yetwe complain that this latter is the sense which Christians labour toobtrude upon the gainsayers. We say, that a kingdom of this world, andnot of this world; contempt and adoration; poverty and magnificence;persecution and peace; sufferings and triumph; a cross and a throne;the scandalous death of a private man upon a gibbet, and the everlastingdominion of a universal monarch, must be reconciled, and mean the selfsame thing, before the prophecies appealed to, can do their cause anyservice. Granting, then, the goodness of God (according to them, ) tohave been better than his word, by giving spiritual blessings, insteadof temporal; yet, what will become of the truth of God, if He actcontrary to his word, even when it would be for our advantage, if Hemisleads people by expressions, which, if they mean any thing at all, must mean what the Jews understand by them?

In short, it seems to me, that if Providence has, in truth, any concernwith the predictions of the Old Testament, it could not have taken moreeffectual care to justify the unbelief and obstinacy of the Jews, thanby ordering matters so, that the life and death of Jesus should be soexactly, and so entirely, the very reverse of all those ideas underwhich their prophets had constantly described, and the Hebrew nation asconstantly expected of their Messiah, and his coming; and to supposethat the Supreme Being meant to describe and point out such a person asJesus by such descriptions of the Messiah as are contained in the OldTestament, is certainly substantially to accuse him of the moatunjustifiable prevarication, and mockery of his creatures. 

In order that the subject we are examining, and the arguments we makeuse of, may be clearly understood by the reader, he is requested to bearin mind, that the author reasons all along upon the supposed Divineauthority of the Old Testament; which is admitted by both Jews andChristians. Whether the supernatural claims of the Old Testament bejust, or not, is of no consequence in the world to the controversy weare considering. For the dispute of the Jew with the Christian is onething, and his dispute with the sceptic is another, totally different. For whether such a personage as the Messiah is described to be, hasappeared eighteen hundred years ago, is quite a different thing from thequestion, whether such a personage will appear at all. The Christiansays, that he has appeared in the person of Jesus of Nazareth. This theJew denies, but looks forward to the future fulfilment of the promisesof his Bible, while the Sceptic denies that the Messiah has come, orever will. 

But the subject at present under consideration is the dispute of the Jewwith the Christian, who acknowledges the Old Testament to be aRevelation, upon which a new Revelation, that of the New Testament, isfounded and erected. To him the Jew argues, that if the Old Testament bea Divine Revelation, then the New Testament cannot be a Revelation, because it contradicts, and is repugnant to, the Old Testament, the moreancient, and acknowledged Revelation. Now God cannot be the author oftwo Revelations, one of which is repugnant to the other. One of them iscertainly false. And if the Christian, conscious of the difficulty ofreconciling the New, with the Old, Testament, attempts to support theNew, at the expense of the Old, Testament, upon which the former is, andwas, built by the founders of Christianity; then the Jew would tellhim, that he acts as absurdly as would the man who should expect to makehis house the firmer, by undermining, and weakening its foundation. 

So that whether the Christian affirms, or denies, he is ruined eitherway. For he is reduced to this fatal dilemma. If the Old Testamentcontains a Revelation from God, then the New Testament is not from God, for God cannot contradict himself: and it can be proved abundantly, thatthe New Testament is contradictory, and repugnant to the Old and toitself too. If, on the other hand, the Old Testament contains noRevelation from God, then the New Testament must go down at any ratebecause it asserts that the Old Testament does contain a Revelation fromGod, and builds upon it, as a foundation. --E. 

* There was nothing which gave the author, in writing this Book, so muchuneasiness, at the apprehension of being supposed to entertaindisrespectful sentiments of the Founder of the Christian Religion. Iwould most earnestly entreat the reader to believe my solemn assurances, that by nothing that I have said, or shall be under the necessity ofsaying, do I think, or mean to intimate the slightest disparagement tothe moral character of one, whose purity of morals, and good intentions, deserve any thing else but reproach. That he was an enthusiast, I do notdoubt, that he was a wilful impostor I never will believe. And I protestbefore God, that from the apprehensions above-mentioned alone, I wouldhave confined the contents of this volume to myself, did I not feelcompelled to justify myself for having quitted a profession: and did Inot, above all, think it my duty, to make a well meant attempt, which Ihope will be seconded, to vindicate the unbelief of an unfortunatenation, who, on that account, have for almost eighteen hundred years, been made the victim of rancorous prejudice, the most infernalcruelties, and the most atrocious wickedness. If the Christian religionbe, in truth, not well founded, surely it is the duty of every honestand every humane, man, to endeavour to dispel an illusion, whichcertainly has been, notwithstanding any thing that can be said to thecontrary, the bona fide, and real cause of unspeakable misery, and ofrepeated, and remorseless plunderings, and massacres, to an unhappypeople; the journal of whose sufferings, on account of it, forms theblackest page in the history of the human race, and the most detestableone in the history of human superstition. --E. 

* Jerome, in his Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians, says, that“The Church of Christ was not gathered from the Academy, or the Lyceum, but from the lowest of the people. ” [Vili Plebecula. ] And Coecilius, inMinutius Felix, says, that the Christian assemblies were made up “deultima faece collectis, imperitioribus, et mulieribus credulis sexussuae facilitate labentibus, ” i. E. “that they consisted of the lowestof the mob, simple and unlearned, men, and credulous women. ”

The president of a province is introduced, by Prudentius as thusaddressing a martyr:--“Tu qui Doctor, ait, seris novellum Commentigenus, ut Leves Puellae, Lucos destituunt, Jovem relinquant; Damnes, sisapias, ANILE DOGMA. ”

The Christian Fathers confess, and glory in it, that the greater part oftheir congregations consisted of women and children, slaves, beggars, and vagabonds. 

The Jewish Christians were, as appears evidently from the New Testament, exceedingly poor, and therefore there is frequent mention made ofcontributions for “the poor Saints at Jerusalem. ” From thence it wasthat the Jewish Christians got the name of Ebionites, i. E. Poor. TheJewish Christian Church consisted of the dregs of the Jewish people, simple and ignorant men, Samaritans, &c. No person in Judea of eminence, or learning, appears to have joined the sect of the Nazarenes, exceptPaul; after the destruction of Jerusalem they gradually dwindled innumber, and became extinct. --E. 

* I will here lay before the reader the arguments advanced by theMahometans in behalf of the miracles of their prophet, extracted fromthe learned Reland’s account of Mehometanism. They say that--“themiracles of Mahomet and his followers have been recorded in innumerablevolumes of the most famous, learned, pious, and subtle Doctors of theMahometan Faith, who let nothing pass without the strictest and severestexamination, and whose tradition, therefore, is unexceptionable amongthem; that they were known throughout all the regions of Arabia, andtransmitted by common and universal tradition from father to son, fromgeneration to generation. That the books of Interpreters andCommentators on the Koran, the books of Historians, especially such asgive an account of Mahomet’s life and actions, the books of annalistsand lawyers, the books of mathematicians and philosophers, and, last ofall, the books of both Jews and Christians concerning Mahomet, are fullof his miracles. That if the authority of so many great and wise doctorsbe denied, then, for their part, they cannot see but that a universalscepticism as to all other accounts of miracles must obtain among peopleof all persuasions. For authority being the only proof of facts done outof our time, or out of our sight, if that be denied, there is no way tocome to the certainty of any such, without immediate inspiration; andall accounts of matters recorded in history, must be doubtful andprecarious. ”

“And these witnesses would not have dared to assert these miraclesunless they were true; for such as forged any miracles for his, which hereally did not, lay under a hearty curse from the prophet. For it was areceived tradition among the faithful, that Mahomet denounced hell anddamnation to all those who should tell any lies of him. So that none whobelieved in Mahomet, durst attribute miracles to him which he was notconcerned in; and those who believed not in him, would certainly neverhave given him the honour of working any, unless he had done so. ”Christian reader, thou seest how much can be said, and how manyrespectable witnesses and authorities can be adduced to prove thatMahomet wrought miracles. Canst thou adduce more, or better, authoritiesin behalf of the miracles of the New Testament? Art thou not rathersatisfied how fallacious the evidence of testimony is in all such cases?

This is not all that the Mahometan might urge in behalf of his prophet, for he might tell the Christian, boasting that Jesus and his Apostlesconverted the Roman world from idolatry, that they overthrew one systemof idolatry, only to build up another, since the worship of Jesus, theVirgin Mary, and the Saints, and their images was established in a fewhundred years after Jesus, and continues to this day; an idolatry asrank, and much more inexcusable than the worship of the ancient Greeksand Romans. Whereas, Mahomet cut “up root and branch, both Christian andPagan idolatry, and proclaimed one only God as the object of adoration;and if the Christian should urge the rapid propagation of Christianity, the Mahometan might reply, that Mahomet was a poor camel-driver, butthat Islamism made more progress in one hundred years, than Christianitydid in a thousand; that it was embraced by the noble, the great, thewise, and the learned, almost as soon as it appeared; whereas, Christianity was skulking and creeping among the mob of the Roman Empirefor some hundred years before it dared to raise its head in public view. If the Christian should reply to this, by ascribing the success ofMahometanism to the sword, the Mahometan might reply, with truth, thatit was a vulgar error; for that vastly more nations embraced Islamismvoluntarily, than there were who freely received Christianity; and hemight remind him, how much Christianity owed to the accession ofConstantine; to Charlemagne; and the Teutonic Knights; and bid himrecollect that the monks were assisted by soldiers to convert toChristianity almost every nation in Modern Europe. --E. 

# Compare the above with Maimonides, Hilchot Yessode Hattorah, fromchapter 7. --D. 

* The reader is requested by the author to understand, and bear in mind, that it is not at all intended by any of the observations contained inthis chapter on the histories of the four evangelists, to reflect upon, or to disparage, the characters of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, underwhose names they go; because he believes, and thinks it is proved inthis chapter, that the real authors of these histories were verydifferent persons from the Apostles of Jesus; and that, in fact, theaccounts were not written till the middle of the second century, about ahundred year’s after the supposed authors of them were dead. Of course, none of the observations contained in the chapter relative to thesehistories, ware considered, or intended, to apply to any of the twelveapostles, who were not men who could make such mistakes as will bepointed out. These mistakes belong entirely to the authors who haveassumed their names. --E. 

* That the pretended Gospel of Matthew was not written by Matthew, or byan, inhabitant of Palestine, may also be inferred, I think, from theblundering attempts of the author of it to give the meaning of someexpressions uttered by Jesus, and used by the Jews, in the language ofthe country, which was the Syro Chaldaic; and which the real Matthewcould hardly be ignorant of. For instance, he says that Golgothasignifies--”the place of a skull. ” Matthew xxvii. 33. Now, this is nottrue, for Golgotha, or as it should have been written, Golgoltha, doesnot signify “the place of a skull, ” but simply “a skull. ” The Gospelsaccording to Mark, and John, are guilty of the same mistake, and thusbetray the same marks of Gentilism. Again, the pretended Matthew says, that Jesus cried on the cross, “Eli Eli lama, sabackthani, ” which hesays meant, “My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me?” (Matthewxxvii. 46. ) If the reader will look at what Michaelis, in hisintroduction to the New Testament, says upon this subject, he will findthe real Syro Chaldaic expression which must have been used by Jesus, tobe so different from the one given by the supposed Matthew, that hewill, (and the observation is not meant as a disparagement to the realMatthew, who certainly had no hand in the imposition of the Gospelcovered with his name) I suspect be inclined to believe, that thispretended Matthew’s knowledge of the vulgar language of the Jews, usedin Christ’s time, must have been about upon a par with the honestsailor’s knowledge of French; who assured his countrymen, on his returnhome, that the French called a horse a shovel and a hat a chopper!--E. 

* See Addenda, No. 2. 

* The author had prepared, in order to subjoin in this place, anexamination of the Mosaic Code, and a development of its principles, which he thinks would have satisfied the reader of the truth of what hehas said in the last paragraph. But as it would have too much increasedthe bulk of the volume, it has been omitted. It is an institutionhowever curious enough to be the subject of an interesting discussion, which he should be happy to see from the hands of one able to do itjustice. --E. 

# Mr. English, it will be perceived, differs in his translation of theHebrew word ‘nebelati, ’ which is, certainly, in the singular number, andnot plural. The correct rendering is, doubtless, “with my dead bodythey, ” &c. ; but this weakens not at all his argument, which isessentially a Jewish one. See the Commentators, Chizoook Emunah, &c. &c. --D. 

# This was, originally, a note; but, in order not to divert too much thereader’s attention, it has been thought advisable to insert it here. --D.