Jews had very good reason, from their prophecies, to expect no
Messiah but a Messiah who should sit on the throne of David, and
confer liberty and happiness upon them, and spread peace and
happiness throughout the earth, and communicate the knowledge
of God, and virtue, and the love of their fellow-men to every
people. Whether this (carnal or not,) would have been better than a
spiritual kingdom, and a throne in heaven; together with the ample
list of councils, dogmas, excommunications, proscriptions,
theological quarrels, and frauds, and an endless detail of blood and
murder, I leave to the judgment of those capable of deciding for
themselves.

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 a
low estate. On the contrary, did they not ask him not to evade, but
to speak plainly? “How long (said they) dost thou mean to keep us
in suspense? If thou be the Messiah, tell us plainly.” These very
men were willing to hazard, in his favour, their fortunes, their
families, and their lives, in his cause, against the whole power of
the Roman empire. Nay, so urgent were they, that they were going
to make him their king by force, and he concealed himself from the
honour. The evasions he used to avoid their pressing questions
upon the subject, are known to all who have read the evangelists;
and so timed was he in acknowledging himself as the Messiah, that
he did not do so, till Simon Peter told him that he was. And can
any candid man, after all this, wonder at, or condemn, “the
blindness,” as it is called, of the Jews? or can he refrain from
smiling at the frothy declamations in which divines load that nation
with so much unmerited reproach? These Jews had just reason, we
think, to doubt his Messiahship; and they had a right to satisfactory
and unambiguous proof of his being so: even the proofs laid down,
by their prophets. And this, it must be now acknowledged, they
wanted; and, certainly, the wise and learned of the Jewish nation,
might be allowed to have understood their sacred books upon the
subject, 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 of
those books; but contrary to the sense of the Jewish nation. And
for this scepticism they might plead the example of the apostles
themselves, who, at first, like other unbelieving Jews, expected a
temporal prince; and did disbelieve Jesus to be the Messiah on
account of his death, notwithstanding his miracles. And they
continued in these thoughts, till it seems they come to understand
the spiritual sense of the scriptures; which spiritual sense, it is said,
they obtained by “the traditionary rules of interpretation in use
among the Jews.” Yet, it is rather inconsistent and singular, that
they should place so much dependence upon these traditionary
rules, and yet pay so little regard to the traditionary explication of
the scriptures, with respect to the temporal kingdom of the
Messiah--inconsistent and singular is it, that they should "cry
aloud" for that which would support their peculiar views, but reject
it when militating against these views.*



CHAPTER IX.

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

I am now about to consider a subject, to which, notwithstanding
the harsh ness of my language in some of the preceding chapters, I
approach with feelings of great respect. Far be it from me to
reproach the meek, the compassionate, the amiable Jesus; or to
attribute to him, the mischiefs occasioned by his followers*. No, I
look upon his character with the respect which every man should
pay to purity of morals: though mingled with something like the
sentiments which we naturally feel for the mistaken enthusiast.
Jesus of Nazareth appears to have been a man of irreproachable
purity, of great piety, and of great mildness of disposition. Though
the world has never beheld a character exactly parallel with his, yet
it has seen many, greatly similar. Contemplative, and melancholy,
it is said of him by his followers, “he was often seen to weep, but
never to laugh.” He retired to solitary places, and there prayed: he
went into the wilderness to sustain and to vanquish the assaults of
the devil: In a word, he appears by such means to have persuaded
himself, as hundreds have done since, that he was the chosen
servant of God, raised up to preach righteousness to the hypocrites,
and sinners of his day. It is remarkable, that he never claimed to be
the Messiah, till encouraged to assume that character by Peter’s
declaration. And it is observable, that in assuming that name, he
could not assume the characteristics of the august personage to
whom it belongs; but infused into the character all that softness,
meekness, humility, and passive fortitude, which were so
eminently his own. The natural disposition, and character of Jesus,
could not permit him to attempt the character of a princely
Messiah, a mighty monarch, the saviour of an oppressed people,
and the benefactor of the human race. He could not do this, but he
could act as much of the character as was consistent with his own.
He could not indeed bring himself to attempt to be the saviour of
his countrymen from the Romans, their fleshly foes; but he
undertook to save them from the tyranny of their spiritual enemies.
He could not undertake to set up his kingdom upon earth; but he
told them that he had a kingdom in another world. He could not
pretend to give unto his followers the splendid rewards of an
earthly 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 he
was, from his mildness, and compassionate temper, worthy of their
esteem, at least, of their forbearance. The only actions of his life
which betray any marks of character deserving of serious
reprehension, are his treatment of the woman taken in adultery;
and his application of the prophecy of Malachi concerning Elias, to
John the Baptist.

As to his conduct to the woman, it was the conduct of a mild, and
merciful man, but not that of one who declared, “that he came to
fulfil the law.” For God commanded concerning such, “that they
should surely be put to death.” Now though Jesus was not her
judge, and had no right to pronounce her sentence; yet the
contrivance by which he deterred the witness from testifying
against her, was a contrivence directly calculated totally to
frustrate the ends of justice; and which, if acted upon at this day, in
Christian countries, would infallibly prevent the execution of the
criminal law: For what testimony would be sufficient to prove a
fact, 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! who
made me a judge, or a ruler over you? carry the accused to the
proper tribunal.’

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

Now certainly no one will pretend that John was the Elias
prophecied of by Malachi, as to come before “the great, and
terrible day of the Lord,” which has not yet taken place. And
besides, that he was not Elias is testified of, and confirmed by,
John himself, who in the gospel of John, chapter 1, to the question
of the Scribes, asking him, “if he was Elias?” answers “I am
not.” It is pretty clear that Jesus was embarrassed by the question
of the Apostles, “how say the Scribes, that Elias must come first?”
for his answer is confused; for he allows the truth of the
observation of the Scribes, and then refers them to John, and
insinuates that he was “the Elias to come.” However, it must be
acknowledged, that he does it with an air of hesitation, “If you
will 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 be
considered as an object of religious homage, if not to be God
himself? Do you consider these impieties as nothing? I answer by
asking--the following questions: What would you think of a man
who, in our times, should set up those extraordinary claims? and
who should assert, that “eating his flesh, and drinking his blood”
were necessary to secure eternal life? Who should say, that “he
and God were one?” and should affirm (as Jesus does in the last
chapters of John) that “God was inside of him, and dwelt in him;
and that “he who had seen him, had seen God?” What should we
think of this? Should we consider such a man an object of wrath, or
of pity? Should we not directly, and without hesitation, attribute
such extravagancies to hallucination of mind? Yes, certainly! and
therefore the Jews were to blame for crucifying Jesus. If Christians
had put to death every unfortunate, who after being frenzied by
religious fasting and contemplation, became wild enough to assert,
that he was Christ, or God the Father, or the Virgin Mary, or even
the Holy Trinity, they would have been guilty of more than fifty
murders; for I have read of at least as many instances of this
nature; and believe that more than two hundred such might be
reckoned up from the hospital records of Europe alone. And that
the founder of the Christian religion was not always in one
coherent consistent mind, I think will appear plain to every
intelligent physician who reads his discourses; especially those in
the gospel of John. They are a mixture of something that looks like
sublimity, strangely disfigured by wild, and incoherent words. So
unintelligible indeed, that even the profoundest of Christian
divines have never been able to fathom all their mysteries. To
prove that I do not say these things rashly, wickedly, or out of any
malignity towards the character of Jesus, which I really respect and
venerate, I will establish my assertions by examples. For
instance--

--Many instances might be adduced of conduct directly
subversive of the very design, to promote which, he said that he
was sent into the world. For example, he said that he came to
preach glad tidings to the poor, and uninformed; and yet he
declares to his disciples, that ho spake to this very multitude of
poor and ignorant people in parables, lest they might understand
him, and be converted from their sins, and God should heal, or
pardon them. In the 26th chapter of Matthew, Jesus says to his
disciples, in the garden at Gethsemane, these strange words, “
Sleep on now, and take your rest--Arise! let us be going,” The
commentators endeavour to get rid of the strange contradictoriness
of these words, by turning the command into the future; and
rendering the Greek word translated “now” thus--“for the rest of
your time,” or “for the future.” And that he asked them “whether
they slept for the future”? which appears to be just as rational as
to have asked, “how they do to-morrow”?!!

Jo. viii. 51, “Verily, verily.(said Jesus) I say unto you, if a man
keep my saying, he shall never see death “Reader, what dost thou
think of this saying? Has believing in the Christian religion, at all
prevented men from dying as in afore time? And should we be at
all astonished at what the Jews said to him, when they heard this
assertion--“Then said the Jews unto him. Now we know that thou
hast 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 of
death?” So said the Jews, and if in our times, a man was to make a
similar assertion, should we not say the same?

Many instances might also be given of strange and inconsequent
reasoning; but I shall only adduce the following. He reproaches the
Pharisees, Luke xi. 47, 48, for building and adorning the
sepulchres of the Prophets, whom their wicked fathers slew; and
says to them, “Your fathers slew them, and ye build their
sepulchres,” and he adds, “that thus they showed that they
approved the deeds of their fathers!” Surely this is absurd! Did
the Athenians by setting up a statue to Socrates after his unjust
death, show to the world that they “approved” the deed of them
who slew him? did it not show the direct contrary? and was it not
intended as a testimony of their regret, and repentance?

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

It is said, that Jesus, by giving himself up to suffer death, proved
the truth of his mission and doctrines, by his readiness to die for
them. But this is an argument which will recoil upon those who
advance it. Are there no instances upon record of mild, zealous,
and amiable men who preached to the savages of America that
they ought to worship the Virgin Mary? and did they not
cheerfully die by the most excruciating torments to prove it? Yes
certainly! and let any Protestant Christian read the accounts of the
preaching, sufferings, deaths, aye! and miracles too, of the Roman
Catholic missionaries in Asia, and America; and then let him
candidly answer whether he is willing to rest the issue of his
controversy with the Papists upon the argument of martyrdom? We
all know the power of enthusiasm upon a susceptible mind; and we
have read of, and perhaps sees, its effects in producing martyrdoms
among people of all religions, in all parts of the world. Nay, more,
such is the power of this principle, that even now, women in India
burn themselves alive on the funeral piles of their husbands, to
prove, as they say, their love for them, and their determination to
accompany them to the other world; when it is well known, that
they burn themselves from the impulse of vanity, and the fear of
disgrace, if they should not do so. Nay, more still, so little support
does martyrdom yield to truth, that there are more martyrdoms in
honour 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 out
with pain. You may see in that country, the misguided enthusiastic
worshippers of misshapen idols prostrate their bodied before the
enormous wheels of the car of Seeva, and piously suffering
themselves to be crushed in pieces by the rolling mass. And any
man who has been upon the banks of the Ganges, can tell you of
the Yoguis, and of their self-inflicted torments, compared to which,
even the cross is almost a bed of roses. Indeed the argument of
martyrdom will support any religion; and it has, in fact, been
cheerfully undergone by enthusiasts and zealots of all religions, in
testimony of the firm belief of the sufferers not only in the
absurdities of Popery, and Brachinanism, but of every, even
the most monstrous system that ever disgraced the human
understanding. There have been martyrs for Atheism itself.

This argument of martyrdom has been more particularly applied to
the Apostles and first Christians. “How can it be imagined, (say
Christian Divines,) that simple men like the Apostles could be
induced to leave their employment, and wander up and down, to
teach 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, that
both 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 I
would ask, have we not seen simple and honest men quit their
employments, and wander up and down to preach doctrines which
they not only had no means of certainly knowing to be true, but
which they did not even understand? Have we not seen such
men submit to deprivations of every kind, and exposed to
imprisonment, and the whipping post? And do we not certainly
know that some such have cheerfully suffered a most cruel death?

Is it possible that any sensible man, after reading the History of the
Roman Catholic Missionaries, the Baptists, the Quakers, and the
Methodists, can be convinced of the certain truth of the Christian
religion, or seriously endeavour to convince another of it, by such
an argument as the above?

But, much more than this can be said upon this topic; for it can be
shown, that the Apostles in preaching Christianity, did not suffer
near so much as some well meaning enthusiasts in modern times
have suffered, to propagate religious tenets, notoriously false and
absurd. And that the Apostles could expect to get neither fame, nor
honour, nor riches by their preaching is doubtful. This is certain
that they could not lose much. For they were confessedly men of
the lowest rank in society, and of great poverty--poor fishermen,
who could not feel a very great regard for their own dignity, or
respectability. And it was by no means a small thing for such men
to be considered as divine Apostles, and “in exchange for
heavenly things,” to have the earthly possessions of their converts
laid at their feet. Peter left his nets, his boat, and boorish
companions, and after persuading his disciples to receive his words
for oracles, go where he would, he found ample hospitality from
them. This, at least, was an advantageous change, and though they
did not acquire fame, or respect from the higher ranks of society,
they were at least had in great respect by their followers. Neither
George Fox, nor Whitfield, nor Westley were honoured by the
nobility, or gentry, or scholars of England; nor Ann Lee, by the
most respectable citizens of the United States. Yet among their
disciples, the Quakers, the Methodists, and the Shakers they were
held by the most implicit veneration and can any man believe that
they did not think themselves thus well payed for the trouble of
making converts?

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

As to the dangers to which it is said they exposed themselves, they
had none to fear, except in Judea, which they quickly quitted,
finding the Jews too stubborn, and went to the Greeks. From the
Greeks, 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 great
while seem to have considered the Christians merely as a Jewish
sect who differed from the rest of the Jews in matters not worth
notice; as is to be gathered from Tacitus and Suetonius. And if the
Apostles did speak against the Pagan gods, it was no more than
what the Roman poets and philosophers did; and the magistrates
were not then very severe about it. And it is evident from the Acts
of the Apostles, that the Roman praetors considered the
accusations against Paul and his companions, as mere trifles. But
in Judea, where the danger was evident, it was otherwise. When
Paul was in peril there, on account of his transgressions against the
law, after being delivered from the Jews by the Roman garrison at
Jerusalem, he pleaded before Festus and Agrippa, that he was
falsely accused by the Jews; and he asserted that he had taught
nothing against the Law of Moses, and his country, but that he only
preached about the resurrection of the dead; and that it was for this
that the Jews persecuted him; and ended by appealing to Caesar.
When yet he knew that this was not the reason of the hatred of the
Jew against him; but that it was because he taught that
circumcision, and the Law of Moses were abolished, and no longer
binding: which is evident to any one who will read the Acts, and
the Epistle to the Galatians. So you see by what manoeuvre he got
out of the difficulty: first, by at least equivocating, and then by
refusing to be tried by his own countrymen, and appealing to
Caesar; thus securing himself a safe conduct out of Judea, which
was too dangerous for him. Among the Gentiles, their doctrine had
a better chance of success, for they taught them marvellous
doctrines, such as they had been accustomed to listen to, viz. how
the 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 of
God’s having a son of a woman did not shock them, for all their
demigods they believed had been so begotten; and a great part of
their poems are filled with the exploits and the sufferings of these
heroes, who are at length rewarded by being raised from earth to
heaven, as Jesus is said to have been. These doctrines were not
disrelished by the common people, but were rejected by the wise
and learned. Accordingly we see that Paul could make nothing of
the philosophers of Athens, who derided him, and considered him
as telling them a story similar to those of their own mythology,
when he preached to them Jesus and the resurrection. And in
revenge, we see Paul railing against both the stubborn Jews, and
the incorrigible philosophers, as being unworthy of knowing “the
hidden wisdom,” which was to the one “a stumbling block,” and
to the other, “foolishness,” and which he thought fit only for “the
babes,” and “the devout women,” with whom he principally dealt.

That the New Testament inculcates an excellent morality, cannot
be denied; for its best moral precepts were taken from the Old
Testament. And if the Apostles had not preached good morals, how
could they have expected to be considered by the Gentiles
as messengers from God? For if they had inculcated any
immoralities, such as rebellion, murder, adultery, robbery, revenge,
their mission would not only have been disbelieved, but they
would have undergone capital punishment by the sentence of the
judge, which it was their business to avoid. Mahomet, throughout
the Koran, inculcates all the virtues, and pointedly reprobates vice
of all kinds. His morality is merely the precepts of the Old and
New Testaments, modified a little, and expressed in Arabic. They
are good precepts, and always to be listened to with respect,
wherever, and by whomsoever, inculcated. But surely that will not
prove Islamism to be from God, nor that Mahomet was his
prophet!

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

I will conclude this long chapter, by laying before my reader some
extracts from the book written by Celsus, a heathen philosopher,
against Christianity, preserved by Origen in his work against
Celsus. That the entire work of Celsus is lost, is to be regretted; as
he appears to have been a man of observation, though too sarcastic
to please a fair inquirer; and from the picture given by him of the
first Christians, their maxims, and their modes of teaching, and the
subjects they chose for converts, it appears, that they were the
exact prototypes of the Methodists and Shakers of the present day,
both sects which contain excellent people, with hardly any fault
but 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 those
things 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 he
should be murdered? God should not fear being put to death.”

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

“You encourage sinners, because you are not able to persuade any
really good men: therefore you open the doors to the most wicked
and abandoned.”

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

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

“At first, when they were but few, they agreed. But when they
became a multitude, they were rent, again and again, and each will
have their own factions: for factious spirits they had from the
beginning.”

“All wise men are excluded from the doctrine of their faith; they
call 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 harm
is there in being well-informed; and both in being, and appearing a
man of knowledge? What obstacle can this be to the knowledge of
God? 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 there
to show themselves. But wherever they see boys, a crowd of
slaves, and ignorant men, there they thrust in themselves, and show
off their doctrine.”

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

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

“If one sort of them introduces one doctrine, another another, and
all join in saying, ‘Believe if you would be saved, or depart:’ what
are they to do, who desire really to be saved? Are they to
determine 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 of
the Apostles, and the first teachers of Christianity, for which we
certainly shall not take his word; it is easy to perceive from the
above quotations, that they had more success among simple, and
credulous people, than among the intelligent, and well-informed.
Their introductory lesson to their pupils, was, “Believe, but do not
examine;” and their succeeding instructions seem to have been a
continued 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, that
shalt love thy neighbour and hate thine enemy.'” But this is no
where said in the Law, or the Prophets; but, on the contrary, we
read directly the reverse. For it is written, Ex. xxiii. “If thou find
the ox of thine enemy or his ass going astray, thou shalt certainly
bring him back to him.” “If thou meet the ass of him that hateth
thee, lying under his burden, and wouldest forbear to help him,
thou shalt surely help him.” Again, Levit. xix. “Thou shalt not
hate thy brother in thine heart; rebuke thy neighbour, nor suffer sin
upon him. Thou shalt not revenge, nor keep anger, (or bear any
grudge,) against the children of thy people; but thou shalt love thy
neighbour 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 are
to the purpose, and are practicable; but this command of Jesus, “
Love your enemies,” if by loving he means, “do them good,” it is
commanded in the above passages in the Hebrew Law. But if by “
love,” he means to look upon them with the same affection that we
feel for those who love us, and with whom we are connected by the
tenderest ties of mature, and friendship, the command is
impracticable; and the fulfillment of it contrary to nature, and
those very instincts given us by our Creator. And therefore,
whoever thinks he fulfills, really fulfills this command, does in fact
play the hypocrite unknown to himself; for though we can, and
ought to do good to our enemy, yet to love him is as unnatural as to
hate our friends.

In Mark ch. ii. 25, Jesus says to the Pharisees, “Have ye not read
what David did when he hungered, and those that were with him.
How that he entered into the house of the Lord, in the time of
Abiathar the High Priest, and did eat of the shew-bread, &c.” See
the same also in Matthew, ch. xii. 3. Luke vi. 3. Now here is a
great blunder; for this thing happened in the time of Achimelech,
not in the time of Abiathar; for so it is written, 1 Sam. xxi. “And
David came to Nob, to Achimelech the Priest, &c.” And in the 22d
chapter it is said that Abiathar was his son.

In Luke ch. i. 26, The angel Gabriel is said to have come from God
to Mary, when she was yet a virgin, espoused to Joseph, who was
of the house of David, and announced to her that she should
conceive, and bear a son, and should call his name Jesus; that her
holy offspring should be called the Son of God, and that God
should give unto him “the throne of David his father, and that he
should rule the house of Jacob for ever, and that to his kingdom
there should be no end.” Now this story is encumbered with many
difficulties, which I shall not consider; but confine myself to
asking wherefore, if these things were true, did not the Mother of
Jesus? and his brethren, knowing these extraordinary things, obey
his 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 the
house where he was preaching to simple and credulous men, come
for the purpose of being edified, but “to lay hold of him,” to carry
him home, for said they he is mad, or “beside himself [Mark iii.
24] which certainly they would not have dared to do, if this story
of Luke’s were true. For their mother would have taught them of
his miraculous conception, and extraordinary character. Moreover,
how was it that God did not give him the throne of David, as was
promised by the Angel to his Mother? For he did not sit upon the
throne of David, nor exercise any authority in Israel. Moreover,
how comes it that David is called the Father of Jesus, since Jesus
was not the son of Joseph, who, according to the Evangelists drew
his origin from that king. Finally, the saying “that to his kingdom
there should be no end,” is directly contradicted by Paul in the 1st
Epis. to the Cor. ch. xv: for he says therein, that “Jesus shall
render up his kingdom unto the Father, and be himself subject unto
him.” Here you see, that the kingdom of Jesus is to have an end;
for when he renders up his kingdom to the Father, he certainly
must 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 sent
me, hath borne witness of me; ye have neither heard his voice at
any time,” &c. But how does this agree with Moses, who says,
Deut. iv. 33, “Did ever people hear the voice of God speaking out
of the midst of fire, as thou hast heard?”--“And we heard his
voice out of the midst of the fire; we have seen this day, that God
doth talk with man, and he liveth.” Deut. v. 24.

Luke, ch. 4, 17, “And they gave to Jesus the Book of Isaiah the
Prophet, and he opened the Book, and found this place, where it
was written, ‘The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, therefore hath he
anointed me to preach the Gospel; to the poor hath he sent me, that
I should bind up the broken in heart, proclaim liberty to the
captives, and sight to the blind; that I should preach the acceptable
year of the Lord.’ And shutting the Book, he gave it to the
minister, and afterwards addressed them, saying ‘This day is this
Scripture fulfilled in your ears.” Here you see the words which
gave offence; and by turning to Is. in loco. ch. lxi. you may see the
reason why the inhabitants of Nazareth arose up in wrath against
him. For these words alledged in Luke, are somewhat perverted
from the original in Isaiah; for these words, “and sight to the
blind,” are not in Isaiah, but are inserted in Luke for purposes very
obvious. And 2. he neglects the words following, “and the day of
vengeance of our God, and of consolation to all who mourn. To
give consolation to the mourners of Zion; to give them beauty
instead of ashes, and the oil of joy instead of grief; a garment of
praise instead of a broken heart,” &c. to the end of the chapter.
From this it is very clear, that this prophecy has no reference to
Jesus: 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 of
anointing is confirmed from these passages;--1 Kings, xix ch.

“Anoint a prophet in thy stead,” where the sense is, “constitute a
prophet in thy place.” Again, “touch not mine anointed ones, and
do 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 announce
these consolations to the Israelites, who were to be in captivity, in
order that they should not dispair of liberation; and that they
should have hope, when they read those comfortable words spoken
by the mouth of Isaiah, at the command of God. For he calls the
subjects of his message “the broken in heart,” “the captives,” “
the mourners of Zion,” &c. all which terms are applicable only to
the Israelites. That this is the true interpretation, will be made
further evident to any impartial person, by reading the context
preceding, and following.

Jo. ch. ii. v. 18. “The Jews said to Jesus, what sign showest thou to
us, that thou doest these things? Jesus answered and said unto
them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up. The
Jews answered, saying, forty and six years was this temple in
building, and wilt thou build it in three days?” The Jews could
never have spoken these words, here related; for the temple then
standing was built by Herod, who reigned but thirty-seven years,
and built it in eight years. This, therefore, must be a blunder of the
Evangelist’s.

Jo. xiii. v. 21. Jesus says to his Disciples, “a new commandment I
give unto you, that ye love one another.” This is not true, for the
love of man towards his neighbour, was not a new precept, but at
least as ancient as Moses, who gives it, Levit. xix. as the command
of God, “Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.”

Acts vii. v. 4. “When he (Abraham) went out of the land of the
Chaldees, he dwelt in Charran; from thence after his father was
dead, he led him into this land in which ye dwell.” This directly
contradicts the chapter in Genesis where the story of Abraham's
leaving Haran is related; for it is certain from thence, that Abraham
left his father Terah in Haran alive, when he departed thence. And
he did not die till many years afterwards. This chronological
contradiction 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, and
our Fathers, and there died. And they were carried to Sichem, and
buried in the sepulchre which Abraham bought from the Sons of
Hemor the Father of Sichem.” Here is another blunder; for this
piece of land was not purchased by Abraham, but by Jacob. Gen.
xlix. 29; so also see the end of Joshua. But it is evident, that
Stephen has confounded the story of the purchase of the field of
Machpelah, recorded in Gen. xxiii. with the circumstances related
concerning the purchase by Jacob.

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

So also there is in the speech of James, Acts xv. a quotation from
Amos, in which to make it fit the subject, (which after all it does
not fit,) is the substitution of the words, “the remnant of men,” for
the words, “remnant of Edom,” as it is in the original.

All these mistakes, besides others to be met with in almost--I was
going to say in every page, of these Histories of Jesus and his
Apostles, sufficiently show how superficial was the acquaintance
of these men with the Old Testament, and how grossly, either
through design or ignorance, they have perverted it. Indeed from
these mistakes alone, I should be led strongly to suspect, that the
Books of the New Testament were written by Gentiles, as I can
hardly conceive that any Jew could have quoted his Bible in such a
blundering manner.



CHAPTER XI.

WHETHER THE MOSAIC LAW BE REPRESENTED IN THE
OLD TESTAMENT AS A TEMPORARY, OR A PERPETUAL
INSTITUTION.

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

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

1. Nothing can be more expressly asserted in the Old Testament
than the perpetual obligation of those rites which were to
distinguish the Jews from other nations. It appears, for instance,
(from the 17th ch. of Genesis,) in the tenor of the covenant made
with Abraham, that circumcision was to distinguish his posterity,