%1P^'/'1'^' lililliiiliiiiiill 
 
 '^•m^^.. *,i. -w p 000 939 661 5 
 
 THE 
 
 CtROUNDSOFCHRISTIANITY i 
 
 RZAMIMKD BY COHPARINO 
 
 THE NEW TESTAMENT WITH THE OLD, 
 
 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 ptoduce their witnesses, that they may be jastifled ; 
 
 Or let them hear in their turn, and say, this is TBrB," 
 
 ISAIAli. 
 
 TO WHICH IS ADDED; A REVIEW OF 
 
 THE. SERMON ON THE MOUNT, &a, 
 
 THE REV. DR. ZIPSER, 
 
 C1UEP RABBI or ALBA. (3TT7ULWEISSBMBURO), IN BL'NGARV, 
 
 h 
 
 ii 
 
 li 
 
 1868.
 

 
 \ '
 
 1^ 
 
 THE ^ . ^ 
 
 GROUNDS OF CHRISTIANITY 
 
 EXAMINED BY COMPARING 
 
 THE IE¥ TESTAMENT WITH THE OLD, 
 
 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 in their turn, and say, this is teue." 
 
 Isaiah. 
 
 TO WHICH IS ADDED, A REVIEW OF 
 
 THE SERMON ON THE MOUNT, &c.. 
 
 THE REV. DR. ZIPSER, 
 
 CHIEF BABBI OF ALBA (sTUHLWEISSENBURG), IN HUNOABT. 
 
 RE-PRINTED FROM THE BOSTON EDITION, 1813. 
 1852.
 
 TO 
 
 THE INTELLIGENT AND THE CANDID 
 
 ■WHO ARE 
 
 WILLING TO LISTEN TO EVERY OPINION 
 
 THAT IS SUPPORTED BY REASON; 
 
 AKD 
 
 NOT AVERSE TO BRINGING THEIR OWN OPINIONS 
 
 TO THE TEST OF EXAMINATION; 
 
 THIS BOOK 
 IS RESPECTFULLY DEDICATED 
 
 BY 
 
 THE AUTHOR.
 
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 INTBODUCTOBT, SHOWING THAT THE APOSTLES AND AUTHORS OP THE NEW TESTA- 
 MENT ENDEAVOUTl TO PROVE CnRISTIANITY FROM THE OLD. 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 STATEMENT OF THE QUESTION IN DISPUTE. 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 THE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE MESSIAH, AS GIVEN BY THE HEBREW FROPHETS. 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 THE CHARACTER OF JESUS TESTED BY THOSE CHARACTERISTIC MARKS OF THE MESSIAH, 
 GIVEN BY THE PHROPHETS OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 
 EXAMINATION OP THE ARGUMENTS FROM THE OLD TESTAMENT ADDUCED IN THE NEW, 
 TO PROVE THAT JESUS OF NAZARETH WAS THE MESSIAH. 
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 
 EXAMINATION OF THE MEANING OF THE PHRASE "THIS WAS DONE THAT IT MIGHT 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 THE MESSIAH OF THE 
 OLD TESTAMENT. 
 
 CHAPTER IX. 
 
 ON THE CHARACTER OF JESUS OF NAZARETH, AND THE WEIGHT TO BE ALLOWED TO 
 THE ARGUMENT OF MARTYRDOM, AS A TEST OP TRUTH, IN THIS QUESTION. 
 
 CHAPTER X. 
 
 MISCELLANEOUS. 
 
 2107116
 
 IV 
 
 CHAPTER XL 
 
 'WHETHER THE MOSAIC LAW BE REPRESENTED IN THE OLD TESTAMENT AS A 
 TEMPOBARY, 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 FROIf THE 
 CABBALA, THE ORIENTAL PHILOSCPHY, AND THE TENETS OF ZOROASTER. 
 
 CHAPTER XIV. 
 
 A CONSIDERATION OF THE " GIFT OF TONGUES," AND OTHER MIRACULOUS POWERS, 
 ASCRIBED TO THE PRIMITIVE CHRISTIANS; AND WHETHER RECORDED MIRACLES 
 ARE INFALLIBLE PROOFS OF THE DIVINE AUTHORITY OF DOCTRINES SAID TO 
 BATB BEEN CONFIRMED BY THEM. 
 
 CHAPTER XV. 
 
 APPLICATION OF THE TWO TESTS, SAID IN DEUTERONOMY TO HAVE BEEN GIVEN 
 BY GOD AS DISCRIMINATING A TRUE PROPHET FROM A FALSE ONE, TO THE 
 CHARACTER AND ACTIONS OF JESUS. 
 
 CHAPTER XVI. 
 
 EXAMINATION OF THE EVIDENCE, EXTERNAL AND INTERNAL, IN FAVOUR OF THE 
 CREDIBILITY OF THE GOSPEL HISTORY. 
 
 CHAPTER XVIL 
 
 «N THE PECULIAR MORALITY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT, AS IT AFFECTS INDIVIDUALS. 
 
 CHAPTER XVIII. 
 
 ON THE PECULIAR MORALITY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT, AS IT AFFECTS NATIONS AND 
 POLITICAL SOCIETIES. 
 
 CHAPTER XIX. 
 
 A CONSIDERATION OF SOME SUPPOSED ADVANTAGES ATTRIBUTED TO THE NEW, OVER 
 THE ODD, TESTAMENT; AND WHETHER THE DOCTRINE OF A RESURRECTION AND A 
 LIFE TO COME, IS NOT TAUGHT IN THE OLD TESTAMENT, IN CONTRADICTION TO 
 THE ASSERTION, THAT " LIFE AND IMMORTALITY WERE BROUGHT TO LIGHT BY 
 THE GOSPEL." 
 
 CONCLUSION. 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 ADDENDA. 
 
 Tffig SERMON ON TEE MOrNT, Ac. 
 
 FREFACE.
 
 PREFACE. 
 
 The celebrated Dr. Price, in his valuable " Observations on the Impor- 
 tance of the American Revolution," addressed to the people of the United 
 States, observes, that " It is a common opinion, that there are some doctrines 
 so sacred, and others of so bad a tendency, that no public discussion of them 
 ought to be allowed. Were this a right opinion, all the persecution that has 
 ever been practised would he justified ; for if it is a part of the duty of civil 
 magistrates to prevent the discussion of such doctrines, they must, in doing 
 this, act on their own judgments of the nature and tendency of doctrines ; and, 
 consequently, they must have aright to prevent the discussion of all doctrines 
 which they think to be too sacred for discussion, or too dangerous in their 
 tendency ; and this right they must exercise in the only way in which civil 
 power is capable of exercising it — « by inflicting penalties upon all who 
 oppose sacred docti'ines, or who maintain pernicious opinions.' In Maho- 
 metan countries, therefore, magistrates would have a right to silence and 
 punish all who oppose the divine mission of Mahomet, a doctrine there 
 reckoned of the most sacred nature. The like is true of the doctrines of 
 transubstantiation, worship of the Vii-gin Mary, &c. &c., in Popish countries; 
 and of the doctrines of the Trinity, satisfaction, &c., in Protestant countries. 
 All such laws are right, if the opinion I have mentioned is right. But, in 
 reality, civil power has nothing to do in such matters, and civil governors go 
 miserably out of their proper province, whenever they take upon them the 
 care of truth, or the support of any doctrinal points. They are not judges 
 of truth, and if they pretend to decide about it, they will decide wrong. 
 This all the countries under heaven think of the application of civil power to 
 doctrinal points in every country, but their own. It is indeed superstition, 
 idolatry, and nonsense, that civil power at present supports almost every 
 where, under the idea of supporting sacred truth, and opposing dangerous 
 error. Would not, therefore, its perfect neutrality be the greatest blessing ? 
 Would not the interest of truth gain unspeakably, were all the rulers of 
 states to aim at nothing but keeping the peace ; or did they consider them- 
 selves bound to take care, not of the future, but the present, interest of man ; 
 not of their soids and of \heix faith, but of their persons and property ; not of 
 any ecclesiastical, but sectdar, matters only ?" 
 
 "All the experience oi past time proves, that the consequence of allowing 
 civil power to judge of the nature and tendency of doctrines, 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, however sacred 
 they may be deemed. Nothing reasonalle can suffer by discussion. All 
 doctrines, really sacred, must be clear, and incapable of being opposed with 
 success."
 
 VI 
 
 " That immoral tendency of doctrines, which has been urged as a reason 
 against allowing the public discussion of them, may be either avowed and 
 direct ; or only a consequence with which they are charged. If it is avowed 
 and direct, such doctrines certainly will not spread ; the principles rooted in 
 human nature will resist them, and the advocates of them will bo soon dis- 
 graced. If, on the contrary, it is only a consequence with which a doctrine 
 is charged, it should be considered how apt all parties are to charge the 
 doctrines they oppose with bad tendencies. It is well known that Calvinists 
 and Arminians, Trinitarians and Socinians, Fatalists and Frce-Willers, are 
 continually exclaiming against one another's opinions, as dangerous and 
 licentious. Even Christianity itself could not, at its first introduction, 
 escape this accusation. The professors of it were considered as atheists, 
 because they opposed pagan idolatry ; and their religion was, on this account, 
 reckoned a destructive and pernicious enthusiasm. If, therefore, the rulers 
 of a state are to prohibit the propagation of all doctrines, in which they 
 apprehend immoral tendencies, an opening will be made, as I have before 
 observed, for every species of persecution. There will be no doctrine, 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 truth has 
 been abundantly confirmed by experience ; and it is the peculiar honour of 
 the United States, that in conformity with the principles of these observa- 
 tions, perfect freedom of opinion and of speech, are here established by law, 
 and are the birthright of every citizen thereof. Our country* is the only one 
 which has not been guilty of the folly ot establishing the ascendency of one 
 set of religious opinions, and persecuting or tolerating all others, and which 
 does not permit any man to harrass his neighbour, because he thinks 
 differently from himself. In consequence of these excellent institutions, 
 difference of religious sentiment makes here no breach in private friendship, 
 and works no danger to the public security. This is as it should be ; for, in 
 matters of opinion, especially with regard to so important a thing as religion, 
 it is every man's natural right and duty to think for himself, and to judge 
 upon such evidence as he can procure, after he has used his best endeavom-s 
 to get information. Human decisions are of no weight in this matter, for 
 another man has no more right to determine what my opinions shall be, 
 than I have to determine what another man's opinions shall be. It is amazing 
 that one man can dare to presume he has such a right over another ; 
 and that any man can be so weak and credulous, as to imagine, that 
 another has such right over him. 
 
 As it is every man's natural right and duty to think and judge for himself 
 in matters of opinion ; so he should be allowed freely to bring forward and 
 defend his opinions, and to endeavoui-, when he judges proper, to convince 
 others also of their truth. 
 
 For unless all men are allowed freely to profess their opinions, the 
 means of information, with respect to opinions, must, in a great measure, be 
 wanting ; and just inquiries into their truth be almost impracticable ; and, 
 by consequence, our natural right and duty to think and judge for ourselves, 
 must be rendered almost nugatory, or be subverted, for want of materials 
 whereon to employ our minds. A man by himself, without communication 
 with other minds, can make no great progress in knowledge ; and besides, 
 an individual is indisposed to use his own strength, when an undisturbed 
 
 * In the present day, various attempts, insidious and powerful, have been made, 
 even here, to coerce in matters of conscience, and to overthrow those wise barriers 
 to the destructive effects of sectarian fanaticism and intolerance, which the great 
 founders of the Republic, to their everlasting glory, erected.— D.
 
 Vll 
 
 laziness, ignorance, and prejudice give him full satisfaction as to the truth of 
 his opinions. But if there be a free, profession, or communication of senti- 
 ments, every man will have an opportunity of acquainting himself with all 
 that can be known from others ; and many for their own satisfaction will 
 make inquiries, and, in order to ascertain the truth of opinions, will desire to 
 know all that can be said on any question. 
 
 If such liberty of professing and teaching be not allowed, error, if 
 authorized, will keep its ground ; and truth, if dormant, will never be brought 
 to light ; or, if authorized, will be supported on a false and absurd foundation, 
 and such as would equally support error ; and, if received on the ground of 
 authority, will not be in the least meritorious to its professors. 
 
 Besides, not to encourage capable and honest men to profess and defend 
 their ojiinions when different from ours, is to distrust the truth of our owq 
 opinions, and to fear the light. Such conduct must, in a country of sense 
 and learning, increase the number of unbelievers already so greatly com- 
 plained of ; who, if they see matters of opinion not allowed to be professed, 
 and impartially debated, think, justly perhaps, that they hay q foul play, and, 
 therefore, reject many things as false and ill grounded, which otherwise they 
 might perhaps receive as truths. 
 
 The grand principle of men considei'ed as having relation to the Deity, 
 and under an obligation to be religious, is, that they ought to consult their 
 reason, and seek eveiy where for the best instruction ; and of Christians and 
 Protestants the duty, and professed principle is, to consult reason and the 
 Scripture, as the rule of their faith and practice. 
 
 But how can these, which are practical princii^les, be duly put in practice, 
 unless all be at liberty, at all times, and in all points, to consider, and debate 
 with others, (as well as with themselves,) what reason and Scripture says ; 
 and to profess, and act openly, according to what they are convinced they 
 say ? How can we become better informed with I'egard to religion, than by 
 using the best means of information? which consist in consulting reason 
 and scripture, and calling in the aid of others. And of what use is it to 
 consult 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 apprehehd any ill consequences to truth, (for 
 
 which alone he ought to have any concern,) ivoTtifree inquiry and debate 
 
 For truth is not a thing to dread examination, but when yatVZv proposed to an 
 unbiassed understanding, is like light to the eye ; it must distinguish itself 
 from error, as light does distinguish itself from darkness. For, while free 
 debate is allowed, truth is in no danger, for it will never want a professor 
 thereof, nor an advocate to offer some plea in its behalf. And it can never 
 be wholly banished, but where human decisions, backed by human power, 
 carry all before them. 
 
 We ought to examine ih.e foundations of opinions, not only, that we may 
 attain the discovery of truth ; but we ought to do so, on this account, because 
 that it is our duty ; and the way to recommend ourselves to the favour of 
 God. For opinions, how true soever, when the effect of education or tradi- 
 tion, or interest, or passion, can never recommend a man to God. For those 
 ways have no merit in them, and are the worst a man can possibly take to 
 obtain truth; and therefore, though they may be objects of forgiveness, they 
 can never be of reward from Him. 
 
 Having premised these observations in order to persuade, and dispose 
 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, no pains to arrive at certain Truth ia 
 matters of religion ; the sense of which is what distinguishes man from the
 
 VIU 
 
 brute. Anil in this most important subject that can employ the human 
 understanding, he has been particularly desirous to become acquainted with 
 the Grounds, and Doctrines of the Christian Religion ; and nothing but tho 
 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 work to 
 inform him, that the Author ivas a believer in the religion of tho New Testa- 
 ment, after what he conceived to be a sufficient examination of its evidence 
 for a divine origin. He had terminated an examination of the controversy 
 with the Deists to his own satisfaction, i. e. he felt convinced that their 
 objections were not insurmountable, when he turned his attention to tho 
 consideration of the ancient, and obscure controversy between the Christians 
 and the Jews. His curiosity was deeply interested to examine a subject in 
 truth so little known, and to ascertain the causes, and the reasons, which 
 had prevented a people more interested in tJie truth of Christianity than any 
 other from believing it : and he set down to the subject without any suspicion, 
 that the examination would not terminate in convincing him still more in 
 favour of Avhat were then his opinions. After a long, thorough, and start- 
 ling examination of their Books, together with all the answers to them he 
 could obtain from a Library amply furnished in this respect, he was finally 
 very reluctantly compelled to feel persuaded, by proofs he could neither 
 refute, nor evade, that how easily soever Christians might answer the Deists, 
 so called, the Jews were clearly too hard for them. Because they set the 
 Old and New Testament in opposition, and reduce Christians to this fatal 
 dilemma. — Either the Old Testament contains a Revelation from God ; or it 
 does not. If it does, then the New Testament connot be from God, because 
 it is palpably, and importantly repugnant to the Old Testament in doctrine, 
 and some other things. Now Jews, and Christians, each of them admit the 
 Old Testament as containing a divine Revelation; consequently the Jews 
 cannot, and Christians ought not to receive and allow any thing as a Revelation 
 from God which. JlatJy contradicts a former by them acknowledged Revelation: 
 because it cannot be sujiposed that God will contradict himself. On the other 
 hand — if the Old Testament be not from God, still the New Testament must 
 go down, because it asserts that the Old Testament is a revelation from God, 
 and builds upon it as a foundation. And if the foundation fails, how can 
 the house stand ? The Author pledges himself to the Reader, to prove, that 
 they establish this dilemma completely. And he cannot help thinking, that 
 there is reason to believe, that if both sides of this strangely neglected con- 
 troversy had been made public in times past, and become known, that the 
 consequences would have been long ago fatal at least to the New Testament. 
 
 The Author has been earnestly dissuaded from making public the 
 contents of this volume on account of apprehended mischievous conse- 
 quences. He thought, however, that the age of pious frauds ought to be 
 past, and their principle discarded, at least in Protestant countries. Decep- 
 tion 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, it ought to be known, if it is erroneous ; it can, 
 and will, be refuted. 
 
 The Author therefore makes it public, for these reasons, — because he 
 thinks, that the matter contained in the book, is true, and important, — 
 because he wished, and found it necessary to justify himself from contempt- 
 ible misrepresentations uttered behind his back ; and to give to those who 
 know him, good and sufficient reasons for past conduct, of which those to 
 whom he is known, cannot be ignorant ; and finally, he thought it right, and 
 proper, and humane, to give to the world a work which contained the
 
 IX 
 
 reasons for the unbelief of the countrymen of Jesus ; who for almost eighteen 
 hundred years have been made the unresisting victims of, as the reader will 
 find, groundless misrepresentation, and the most amazing cruelty ; because 
 they refused to believe what it was impossible that they should believe, on 
 account of reasons their persecutors did not know, and refused to be in- 
 formed of. 
 
 If the arguments and statements contained in this volume should be 
 found to be cori-ect, he believes that every honest and candid man, after his 
 first surprise that they should not have been made known before, will feel 
 for the victims of a mistake so singular and so ancient as the one which is 
 the subject of the following pages ; and will think with the author, that it is 
 time, high time, that the truth should be known, and justice be done to them.* 
 
 There is not in existence a more singular instance of the mischievous 
 mistakes arising from taking things for granted which require proof, than the 
 case before the reader. The world has all along been in total error with 
 regard to the reasons and the motives which have prevented the Hebrew 
 nation from receiving the system of the New Testament. They have been 
 successfully accused of incorrigible blindness and obstinacy ; and while 
 volumes upon volumes have been written against them, and the arguments 
 therein contained, supported and enforced by the power of the ; Inquisition, 
 and the oppressions of all Christendom, these unfortunate people have not 
 been willingly suffered to offer to the world one word in their own defence. 
 They have not been allowed, after hearing with patience both arguments, 
 and " railing accusations" in abundance, to answer in their turn ; but have 
 been compelled, through the fear of confiscation, persecution, and death, to 
 leave misapprehensions unexplained, and misrepresentations unrefuted. 
 
 Is it then to be wondered at, that mankind have considered their adver- 
 sai*ies as in the right, and that deserted by reason, and even their own 
 Scriptures, they were supported in their opinion only by a blind and perti- 
 nacious obstinacy, more worthy of wonder than curiosity ? Alas ! the world 
 did not consider, that nothing was more easy than to confute people whose 
 tongues were frozen by the terror of the Inquisition ! ! But, thanks to the 
 good sense of this enlightened age, those times are past and gone. There is 
 now one happy country where freedom of speech is allowed, where every 
 harmless religious opinion is protected by law, and where every opinion 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 be produced, and their reasons set forth, 
 without the fear of harm, and with the hope of a hearing from the intelli- 
 gent and the candid. They, we believe, will be fully convinced, that their 
 adversaries have for so long a time triumphed over them without measure, 
 only because they have been suffered to do so without contradiction. 
 
 The reader is assured, that, notwithstanding the subject, he will find 
 nothing in this volume but what is considered by the author to be fair and 
 
 * " Do you know (says Rousseau) of many Christians who have taken the pains 
 to examine, with care, what the Jews have to say against them ? If some persons 
 have seen any thing of the kind, it is in the books of Christians. A fine way, truly, 
 to get instructed in the arguments of their adversaries ! But what can they do ? 
 If any one should dare to publish among us, books, in which he openly favours their 
 opinions, we punish the author, the editor, the bookseller. This policy is convenient^ 
 and sure always to be in the right. There is a pleasure in refuting people who dars 
 not open their lips" — (Emilius.) In the same work he says that " he will never be 
 convinced that the Jews have not something strong to say, till they shall be permitted 
 to speak for themselves without fear, and vrithout restraint." It was this hint of 
 Rousseau which first excited the author's curiosity with regard to the subject of this 
 book— E.
 
 liberal argument ; and such no honest man ought to decline loolcing in the 
 face. Ho has endeavoured to discuss the important subject of the book in 
 the most inoffensive manner ; for he has no wish, and claims no right, to 
 wound the feelings of those who 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 the twelve Apostles ; and the utmost the author attempts to prove 
 is, that their system was founded, not upon fraud and imposture, but upon a 
 mistake. After the deaths of Christ and his Apostles, it was indeed aided 
 and supported by very bad means ; but its Jirst founders, the author believes, 
 were guilty of no other crime than that of being mistaken ; a very common 
 one indeed. 
 
 He hopes, therefore, that such a discussion as the one now laid before 
 the public, will he fairly met, and fairly answered, if answered at all, and 
 that recourse will not be had to dishonest and ungentlemanly misrepresenta- 
 tions, and calling names, in order to prevent people frem examining things 
 they have a right to know, and in order to blind and frighten the public, the 
 jury to which he appeals. It is infallibly true, that the knowledge of truth 
 is, and must be beneficial to mankind ; and that, in the long run, it never was, 
 and never can be, harmful. It is equally certain, that God would never give 
 a Revelation so slightly founded as to be endangered by any sophistry of man. 
 If the Christian system be from God, it will certainly stand, no human power 
 can overthrow it ; and, therefore, no sincere Christian who believes the New 
 Testament, ought to be afraid to meet half way the objections of any one 
 who offers them with fairness, and expresses them in decent language ; and 
 no sensible Christian ought to shut his ears against his neighbour, who 
 respectfully asks " a reason for the faith that is in him." 
 
 The author has been told, indeed, that, "supposing the Christian 
 system to be unfounded, yet that it is reasonable to believe, that the Supreme 
 Being would view any attempts to disturb it, with displeasure, on account of 
 its moral effects." But is not this something like absui-dity ? Can God have 
 made it necessary, that morals should be founded on delusion, in order that 
 they might be supported ? Can the God of Truth be displeased to have men 
 convinced that they have been mistaken, or imposed upon, by Revelations 
 pretended to be from Him, which if in fact not from him, must be the 
 offspring either of error or falsehood? And if the Christian system be, in 
 tinith, not from God, can we suppose, that in his eyes its doctrines with 
 regard to Him are atoned for, by a few good moral precepts ? Can we 
 suppose, that that Supreme and awful Being can feel .ffmise^/" honoured, in 
 having his creatures made to believe, that He was once nine months in the 
 womb of a woman ; that God, the Great and Holy, went through all the 
 nastiness of infancy ; that he lived a mendicant in a corner of the earth, and 
 was finally scourged, and hanged on a gibbet by his own creatures ? If these 
 things be, in truth, all mistakes, can we suppose, that God is pleased in 
 having them believed of Him ? On the contrary, can they, together with the 
 doctrine of the Trinity, I would respectfully ask, be possibly looked upon by 
 
 Him (if they are not true), otherwise, than as so many what I forbear to 
 
 mention. But this is not all. The reader is requested to consider, that the 
 Christian system is built upon the prostrate necks of the whole Hebrew 
 nation. It is a tree which flourished in a soil watered by their tears ; its 
 leaves grew green in an atmosphere filled with their cries and groans ; and 
 its roots have been moistened and fattened with their blood. The ruin, 
 reproach, and sufferings of that people, are considered, by its advocates, as 
 the most striking proofs of the Divine authority of the New Testament ; and 
 for almost eighteen hundred years the system contained in that book has 
 been the cause of miseries and afflictions to that nation, the most horrible 
 and unparalleled in the history of man.
 
 XI 
 
 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 a mistake ; if it be, 
 in truth, not from God ; will not, then, that system be justly chargeable with 
 all those shocking cruelties which, on account of it, have been inflicted on 
 that people ? 
 
 If that system be verily and indeed founded on a mistake, no language, 
 no indignation, can do justice to its guilt in this respect. All its good moral 
 eflfects are a mere drop of pure water in that ocean of Jewish and Gentile 
 blood it has caused to be shed by embittering men's minds with groundless 
 prejudices. And if it be not divine; if it be plainly and demonstrably 
 proved to have originated in error ; who is the man, that, after considering 
 what has been suggested, will have the heart to come forward, and cooly 
 Bay, " that it is better that a whole nation of men should continue, as here- 
 tofore, to be unjustly hated, reproached, cursed, and plundered, and massacred, 
 on account of it, rather than that the received religious system should be 
 demonstrated to be founded on mistake ?" No ! If it be, in fact, founded on 
 mistake, every man of honour, honesty, and humanity, will say, without 
 hesitation, " Let the delusion (if it is one) be done away, which must be 
 supported at the expense of ti'uth, of justice, and the happiness and respecta- 
 bility of a whole nation, who are men like ourselves, and more unfortunate 
 than any others, in having already suffered but too much affliction and 
 misery on account of it." No ! though the moral effects ascribed to this 
 system of religion were as good, as great, 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, 
 and oppression of a people who compose millions of the great family of 
 mankind. 
 
 It is remarkable, that the ablest modern advocates for the truth and 
 divine authority of the gospel, as if they knew of no certain, demonstrative 
 proof which could be adduced in a case of so much importance, seem to 
 content themselves, and expect their readers should be satisfied, with an 
 accumulation of probable arguments in its favour ; and it has been even said, 
 that the case admits of no other kind of proof. If it be so, the author 
 requests all so persuaded to consider, for a moment, whether it could be 
 reconciled to any ideas of wisdom in an earthly potentate, if he should send 
 an ambassador to a foreign state to mediate a negociation of the greatest 
 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 to the Omniscient, Omnipotent Deity, a 
 degree of weakness and folly, which was never yet imputed to any of his 
 creatures ? for unless men are hardy enough to pass so gross an affront upon 
 the tremendous Majesty of Heaven, the improbability that God should 
 delegate the Mediator of a most important covenant to be proposed to all 
 mankind, without enabling him to give them clear and, in reason, indisputable 
 proof of the divine authority of his mission, must ever infinitely outweigh 
 the aggregate sum of all the probabilities which can be accumulated in the 
 opposite scale of the balance. And to conclude, I presume it will not be 
 denied, that the authenticity and celestial origin of any thing pretending to 
 be a Divine Revelation, before it has any claims upon our faith, ought to be 
 made clear beyond all reasonable doubt ; otherwise, it can have no just claims 
 to a right to influence our conduct. 
 
 And as for the opinions and the arguments contained in this volume, I 
 have but trembling hopes that they will meet Avith favour, merely because 
 the author is sincere, and wishes to do right. Conscious that I make a 
 perilous attempt, in daring to defend myself by attacking ancient error
 
 xu 
 
 Bupportcd by multitudes, with no otlior seconds besides Truth and Reason, it 
 would be bootless for me to ask indulgence for them on account of my good 
 intentions ; and as they can derive no credit from the authority of the writer, 
 I am sensible they must fall by their own weakness, or stand by their own 
 strength. I must leave them, therefore, to their fate ; and I can cheerfully 
 do it, without fear for the issue, if the reader will only be candid, and will 
 comply with my earnest request — " first to understand, and then judge." 
 
 Before I conclude these prefatory remarks, I would observe, that as 
 the contents of this volume will be perfectly novel to nine hundred and 
 ninety-nine out of a thousand, it is but justice to the public, and to myself, 
 to avow, that I do not claim to have originated all the arguments advanced 
 in this book. A very considerable proportion of them were selected, and 
 derived, from ancient and curious Jewish Tracts, translated from Chaldee 
 into Latin, very little known even in Europe, and not at all known there to 
 any but the curious and inquisitive. And I reasonably hope, that discerning 
 men will be much more disposed to weigh with candour the arguments herein 
 offered, when they consider that they are, in many instances, the reasonings 
 of learned, ancient and venerable men, who, in times when the inquisition 
 was in vigour, suffered under the most bloody oppression, and whose writings 
 were cautiously preserved, and secretly handed down to the seventeenth 
 century in manuscript, as the printing of them would assuredly have brought 
 all concerned to the stake. Some few other arguments were derived from 
 other authors, and were taken from works not so much known as I hope 
 they will be. 
 
 Finally, I commit my work to the discretion of the good sense of the 
 reader, believing that if he is not convinced, he will at least be interested ; 
 and hoping that he will discover from the complexion of the book (what my 
 own heart bears witness to) that the author is a sincere inquirer after truth, 
 and perfectly willing to be convinced that he is in error by any one who can 
 remove the difficulties, and refute the arguments, now laid by him before the 
 public, with deference and respect. 
 
 September 28, 1813.
 
 THE 
 
 EVIDENCES OF CHRISTIANITY 
 
 EXAMINED, BY COMPARING THE 
 
 NEW TESTAMENT WITH THE OLD. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 INTRODUCTOKY, — SHOWING THAT THE APOSTLES AND AUTHORS Or THE NEW TESTAMENT, 
 ENDEAVOR TO PROVE CHEISTIANITT FROM THE OLD. 
 
 Christianitt is founded on Judaism, and the New Testament upon the 
 Old ; and Jesus of Nazareth is the person said in the New Testament to be 
 promised in the Old, under the character and name of the Messiah of the 
 Jews, and who as such only claims the obedience, and submission of the 
 world. Accordingly, it is the design of the authors of the New, to prove 
 Christianity from the Old, Testament ; which is said Jo. 5 : 39, to contain 
 the words of eternal life : and it repi'esents Jesus and his Apostles, as 
 fulfilling by their mission, doctrines, and works, the predictions of the 
 Prophets, and the Law : which last is said to prophecy of, or to typify 
 Christianity. 
 
 Matthew, for example, proves several parts of Christianity from the Old 
 Testament, either by asserting them to be things foretold therein as to come 
 to pass under the gospel dispensation ; or to be founded on the notions of 
 the Old Testament. 
 
 Thus he proves Mary's being with child by the Holy Spirit, and the 
 Angel's telling her she " shall bring forth a son, and call his name Jesus ;" 
 and the other circumstances attending his miraculous birth ; Jesus' birth at 
 Bethlehem; his flight into Egypt; the slaughter of the infants; Jesus 
 dwelling at Nazareth, and at Capernaum, in the borders of Zabulon, and 
 Napthali; his casting out devils, and healing the sick; his eating with 
 Publicans and sinners ; his speaking in parables that the Jews might not 
 understand him ; his sending his disciples to fetch an ass, and a colt ; the 
 children's crying in the Temple ; the resurrection of Jesus from the dead ; 
 Jesus' being betrayed by Judas, and Judas' returning back the thirty pieces of 
 silver, and the Priest's buying the. Potters' Field with them; and his hanging 
 himself; &c. &c. All these events, and many more, are said to hQ fulfillments
 
 of the Prophecies of the OUl Testament, see Mat. 1, 2 : and 4 chapters, and 
 ch. 8: V. 10, 17, and ch. 9: 11, 13, and ch. 13: 13, ch. 21 : 2—7. 15, 1(3, ch. 
 22 : 31, 32, ch. 2G : 54, 56, ch. 27 : 5—10. 
 
 Jesus himself is represented as proving the ti-uth of Christianity thus. 
 He, joining himself to two of his Disciples, (Luke 28: 15 — 22,) after his 
 resurrection, who knew him not, and complaining of their mistake about his 
 pei"son, whom they now took not to be the Messiah, because he had been 
 condemned to death, and crucified ; he, observing their disbelief of his 
 resurrection, which had been reported to them by '• certain ivomen of their 
 acquaintance," upon the 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 suft'ercd. these things, and to 
 enter into his Glory ? and beginning at Moses, and all the Prophets, ho 
 expounded unto them in all the Scriptui'es the things concerning himself." 
 
 Again he discoursed to all his Disciples, putting them in mind, that, 
 before his Death, he told them (Luke 24 : 44, 40, 47,) that "all things 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 
 bohoveth Christ (i. e. the Messiah) to suffer, and to rise from the dead the 
 third day ; and that repentance, and remission of sins should be preached in 
 his name, beginning at Jerusalem." 
 
 When the people of several nations. Acts 2 : 12, were amazed at the 
 Apostles speaking in their several tongues, and when many mocked the 
 Apostles, saying they were full of new wine, Peter makes a speech in public, 
 wherein, after saying they were not drunk, because it was but the third hour 
 of the day, he endeavours to show them, that this was spoken of by the 
 Prophet Joel, and he concludes with proving the resurrection of Jesus from 
 the book of Psalms. 
 
 Peter, and John, tell the people assembled at the Temple, "Ihat God 
 had showed b>/ the mouth of all his Prophets, that Christ should suffei'," 
 Acts 3 : IS. 
 
 Peter to justify his preaching to the Gentiles, concludes his discourse 
 with saying, Acts 10 : 43 — "' To Jesus gave all the Prophets luitness, that 
 through his name whosoever (i. e. Jew, or Gentile) believeth in him, shall 
 receive remission of sins." 
 
 Paul also endeavours to prove to the Jews in the Synagogue of Antioch, 
 (Tb. V. 13) that the history of Jesus was contained in the Old Testament, 
 and that ho, and Barnabas were commanded in the Old Testament, to preach 
 the gospel to the Gentiles. 
 
 On the occasion of a dispute among the Christians whether the Gentile 
 converts were to be circumcised after the Law of Moses, and to observe the 
 Law, we find, that after much disputing, the point was settled by James by 
 quotation from Amos. 
 
 The Bereans are highly extolled (Acts 17 : ll,)/'or searching the Scrijjtures, 
 i. e. the Old Testament, dail>/, in order to find out whether the things 
 preached to them by the Apostles were so, or no : who if they had not proved 
 tJiese things, i. e. Christianity from the Old Testament, ought, according to 
 their own principles, to have been rejected by the Bereans, as teachers of false 
 doctrine. 
 
 Paul, when accused before Agrippa by the Jews, said (Acts 26 : 0.) " I 
 stand, and am judged for the hope of the promise made of God unto our 
 fathers," i. e. for teaching Christianity, or the true doctrine of the Old 
 Testament, and to this accusation he pleads guilty, by declaring in the fullest 
 manner, that he taught nothing but the Doctrines of the Old Testament. 
 "Having therefore (says he) obtained help of God, I continue unto this day,
 
 Tvitnessing both to small, and great, saying none other things than those which 
 the Prophets, and Moses did say shoidd come, that the Christ should suffer, and 
 that he should he the first who shoidd rise from the Dead, and should show light 
 unto the People, and unto the Gentiles." 
 
 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 the Scriptures," that is, 
 according to the Old Testament, and he is supposed to gi'ound this on the 
 history of the prophet Jonas, who was three days and three nights in the 
 fish's belly : though the cases do not seem to be parallel, for Jesus being 
 buried on Friday evening, and rising on Sunday morning, was in the tomb 
 but one day and two nights. 
 
 But most singular is the argument of the Apostle Paul (in his Epistle to 
 the Galatians) to prove Christianity from the Old Testament. " Tell me 
 (says he, Gal. 4 : 21.) ye that desire to be under the Law, do ye not hear the 
 Law ? For it is written, that Abraham had two Sons, the one by a bondmaid, 
 the other by a free woman. But he who was of the bond woman, was bom 
 after the flesh ; but he who was of the free woman was by promise. Which 
 things are an Allegory. For these are the two covenants, the one from 
 Mount Sinai which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar. But this Agar is 
 Mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem that now is, and is in 
 bondage with her Children. But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is 
 the Mother of us all. For it is written (Isiah 54 : 1.) " Rejoice thou Ban-en 
 that bearest not, break forth, and cry thou that travailest not, for the 
 desolate hath many more children than she which hath an husband." Now, 
 we Brethren, as Isaac was, are children of the Promise. But as then he that 
 was born after the flesh persecuted him that was bom after the spirit, 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 bond woman shall not be heir 
 with the son of the free woman. So then. Brethren, we are not the childi'en 
 of the bond woman, but of the free. Stand fast, therefore, in the Liberty 
 wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the 
 yoke of bondage." 
 
 In fine, the Author of these Epistles reasons in the same singular manner 
 from the Old Testament throughout ; which is, according to him, (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," (2 Cor. iii : 6.) That is, of the Old Testament, spiritually 
 understood; and endeavoui-ing 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 he considers as 
 types and shadows of Chi'istianity. 
 
 CHAPTER n. 
 
 STATEMENT OF THE QUESTION IN DISPUTE. 
 
 How Christianity depends on the Old Testament, or what proofs are to 
 be met with therein in behalf of Christianity, are the subjects of almost all 
 the numerous books written by divines, and other apologists for Chiistianity ; 
 but the chief and principal of these proofs may be justly supposed to be 
 urged in the New Testament itself, by the authors thereof ; who relate the 
 history of the first preaching of the Gospel, and profess themselves to bo 
 apostles of Jesus, 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 and invincibly established 
 on its true foundations. 
 
 It is established upon its true foundations, because Jesus and his 
 Apostles 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 perfectly conclusive. And prophecies 
 delivered in an inspired book are, when fulfilled, such as may be justly 
 deemed sure, and demonstrative proof; and which Peter (2 Peter 1:19) 
 prefers as an argument for the truth of Cliristianitij, to that miraculous 
 attestation (whereof he, and two other Apostles are said to have been 
 ■witnesses,) given by God himself to the mission of Jesus of Nazareth. His 
 argument appears to be as follows. " Laying this foundation, that Prophecy 
 proceeds from the Holy Spirit, it is a stronger argument than a miracle, 
 which depends upon eternal evidence, and testimony." And this opinion of 
 Peter's is corroborated by the words of Jesus himself, who, in Mat. xxiv : 23, 
 24, Mai'k xiii : 21, 22, affirms, that miracles wrought in confirmation of a 
 pretender's being the Messiah, are not to be considered as proof of his being 
 so — " though they show great signs and wonders, believe it not," is his 
 command to his disciples. 
 
 Besides, prophecies fulfilled, seem the most proper of all arguments to 
 evince the truth of a new revelation which is designed to be universally 
 promulgated to men. For a man who has the Old Testament put into his 
 hands, which contain prophecies, and the New Testament afterward, which 
 is said to contain their completions, and is once satisfied, as he may be with, 
 the greatest ease, that the Old Testament existed before the New, may have 
 a complete, internal, divine, demonstration of the truth of Christianity, 
 without long, and laborious enquiries. Whereas, arguments of another 
 nature, such, for instance, as relate to the authority and genuineness of the 
 books, and the persons, and characters of authors, and witnesses, require 
 more application, and understanding, than falls to the share of the bulk of 
 mankind ; or else are very precarious in themselves, since we know that in 
 the first centuries there were numberless forged Gospels, and Apocryphal 
 writings imposed upon the credulous as apostolic and authentic ; and 
 there were in the Apostles times, as many, and as great heresies and 
 schisms as perhaps have been since in any age of the Chiu'ch. So that, 
 setting aside the before mentioned internal proofs from prophecy, (which 
 were the Apostle's proofs and in their nature sufficient of themselves) we 
 should have no certain proof at all for the Eeligion of the New Testament. 
 
 On the other Hakd, if the proofs for Christianity from the Old 
 Testament, are not valid, if the arguments founded on that Book be not 
 conclusive, and the Prophecies cited from thence be not fulfilled, then has 
 Christianity no just foundation ; for the foundation on which Jesus and his 
 Apostles built it is then invalid, and Jalse. Nor can miracles, said to have 
 been wrought by Jesus, and his Apostles in behalf of Christianity, avail any 
 thing in the case. For miracles can never render a foundation valid, which 
 is in itself invalid ; can never make a false inference true ; can never make 
 a prophecy fulfilled, which is not fulfilled ; and can never designate a 
 Messiah, or Jesus for the Messiah, if both are not marked out in the Old 
 Testament ; no more than they could prove the earth to be the sun, or a 
 mouse a lion. 
 
 Besides, miracles said to have been wa-ought, may be often justly deemed 
 false reports, when attributed to persons who claim an authority from the 
 Old Testament, which they impertinently alledge to support their pretentions. 
 God can never be supposed often to permit miracles to be done for the
 
 confirmation of a false, or pretended. mission. And if at any time he does 
 permit miracles to be done in confirmation of a pretended mission, we have 
 express directions from the Old Testament (acknowledged by Christians to 
 be 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 or wonders ;" which^ 
 under the circumstance of attesting something contrary to an antecedant 
 revelation, we are forewai'ned of as being no test of truth. No new 
 revelation, however supported by miracles, ought ever to be received as 
 coming from God, unless it confii-ms, or at least does not contradict, the 
 preceding standing revelation, acknowledged to be from God. 
 
 Accordingly, we find from the New Testament, that all the recorded 
 miracles of Jesus could not make the Jews believe him to be the Messiah 
 when they thought that he did not answer the description of that character 
 given by the Prophets ; on the contrary, they procured him to be crucified 
 for pretending to be what to them he appeared plainly not to be. 
 
 Nor had his miracles alone any eff"ect on his own brethren, and kindred, 
 who seem (Mark vi. 4 ; Jo. vii. 5,) to have been more incredulous in him 
 than other Jews. Nor had they the eff'ect, they are supposed to have been 
 fitted to produce, among his immediate followers, and Disciples ; some of 
 whom did not believe in him, but deserted him, and particularly had no faith 
 in him when he spake of his suff'erings ; and thought that he could not be 
 their Messiah when they saw him suffer, nowithstanding his miracles, and 
 his declaration to them that he was the Messiah. And so rooted were the 
 Jews in the notion of the Messiah's being a temporal Prince, a conquering 
 Pacificator, and Deliverer, even after the death of Jesus, and the progress of 
 Christianity grounded on the belief of his being the Messiah, that they have 
 in all times of distress, particularly in the apostolic a;ra, in great numbers 
 followed impostors giving themselves out as the Messiah, with force, and 
 arms, as the way to restore the kingdom of Isi-ael. So that the Jews, who it 
 seems mistook in this most important matter, and after the most egregious 
 manner, the meaning of their own Books, might, till they were set right in 
 their interpretation of the Old Testament, and Avere convinced from tltence 
 that Jesus was the Messiah, might I say, as justly reject Jesus asserting his 
 mission, and Doctrines with miracles, as they might reject any other person, 
 who in virtue of miracles would lead them into Idolatry, or any other breach 
 of their law. 
 
 In fine, the miracles said to have been wrought by Jesus, ai'e, according 
 to the Old Testament, the gospel scheme, and the words of Jesus himself, no 
 absolute proof of his being the Messiah, or of the truth of Christianity ; and 
 Jesus laid no great stress upon them as proving doctrines, for he foi-ewarned 
 his disciples, that " signs and wonders" would be performed, so great and 
 stupendous, as to deceive, if possible, the very elect, and bids them not to give 
 any heed to them* 
 
 * There are a great many persons who conceive that Christianity is sufficiently 
 proved to be true, if the miracles of Jesus are true ; even without any regard to the 
 'prophecies, so often appealed to by him. But supposing the miracles to be true ; yet 
 no miracles can prove that which k false in itself to be true. If therefore Jesus be not 
 foretold as the Messiah in the Old Testament, no miracles can prove Jesus to be the 
 Messiah foretold. Nay, it would be a stronger argument to prove Jesus to be 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 means imposed upon the ignorant people ; that 
 it would be, that he came from God, merely because he worked miracles : for " False 
 Christs and false prophets may arise, and niaij show such great sig^s ako wonders 
 as to deceive, if it were possible, the very elect." Matt. xxiv. 24. Yet no Christian
 
 6 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 THE rnARACTERISTICS OF THE MESSIAH, AS GIVEN BV THE HEBREW PROrHETS. 
 
 Having shewn from the New Testament, and proved from the nature 
 of the case, that the whole credit and authority of the Christian rehgion, rests 
 and depends upon Jesus' being tlio Messiah of the Jews ; and, having stated 
 the principles which ought to govern the decision of this question, and 
 established the fact, that the pretensions of any claiming to be considered as 
 
 would allow it to be argued from thence, that those false Christs were true ones : nor 
 would any one conclude, that a man came from God, (notwithstanding any miracle he 
 might do) if he appealed to Scripture for that iv/iich is no tvhere in it. In fine, if 
 miracles would prove the Messiahship of Jesus, so also they would prove the 
 Messiahship of the false Chi-ists, and false prophets spoken of above. Nay more, they 
 would demonstrate the Divine mission of Antichrist himself ; who, according to th& 
 epistle to the Thessalonians, (2 Thes. ch. ii. 8, 9, 10) and the Revelations, ch. xiii. 13, 
 14, was to perform "great signs and wonders," equal to any wrought by Jesus, for 
 the same Greek words are used to express the wonderful works or "great signs and 
 wonders" of Antichrist, which are elsewhere used to express the miracles, or " great 
 signs and wonders" of Jesus himself. 
 
 It is a striking circumstance, that the earliest apologists for Christianity laid httle 
 stress upon the miracles of its founder. 
 
 Justin Martyr, in his Apology, is very shy of appealing to the miracles of Jesus in 
 confirmation of his pretentions ; he lays no stress upon them, but relies entirely upon 
 the prophecies he quotes as in his favor. Jerome, ui his comment on the eighty-first 
 Psalm, assures us, " that the performance of miracles was no extraordinary thing : 
 and that it was no more than what AppoUonius, and Apidius, and innumerable 
 impostors had done before.'' 
 
 Lactantius saw so little force in the miracles of Christ, exclusive of the prophecies, 
 that he does not hesitate to affirm their utter inability to support the Christian religion 
 fc_y themselves. [Lactan. Div. Inst. L. v. c. 3.] 
 
 Celsus, observing upon the words of Jesus, that " false prophets and false Christs 
 shall arise, and show great signs and wonders," sneeringly observes, " A fine thing 
 truly ! that miracles done by him should prove him to be a God, and when done by 
 others should demonstrate them to be false prophets and impostors." 
 
 Tertullian, on the words of Jesus, here referred to by Celsus, says as follows : 
 « Christ, toretelling that many imposters should come and perform many wonders, 
 shews, that our faith camiot luithov.t great temeritu be founded on miracles, since they 
 were so early wrought by false Christians! themselves." [Tertul. in Marc. L. ii. c. 3.J 
 
 Indeed, miracles in the two first centuries were allowed very little weight in 
 proving doctrines. Since the Christians did not deny, that the heathens performed 
 miracles in behalf of their gods, and that the heretics performed them as well as the 
 orthodox. This accounts for the perfect indifference of the heathens to the miracles 
 said to have been performed by the founders of Christianity. Hierocles speaks with 
 great contempt of what he calls " the little tricks of Jesus." And Origen, in his 
 reply to Celsus, waves the consideration of the Christian mu-acles : " for (says he) the 
 very mention of these things sets you heathens upon the broad grin." Indeed, that 
 they laughed very heartily at what in the eighteenth century is read with a grave 
 face, is evident from the "few fragments of their Avorks written against Christianity 
 which has escaped the burninr/ zeal of the fathers, and the Christian emperors ; who 
 piously sought for, and burned up, these mischievous volumes to prevent their doing 
 mischief to posterity. This conduct of theirs is very suspicious. Why burn writings 
 they could so triuimphantly refute, if they were refutable ? They should have 
 remembered the just reflection of Arnobius, their own apologist, against the heathens, 
 who were for abolishing at once such writings as promoted Christianity. — " Inter 
 cipere scripta et publicatam velle submergere lectionem, non est Deos defendere, sed 
 veritatis testificoAionem timere." [Arnob. contra Gentes. Liber iii.] — E. 
 
 1 Christs?— D.
 
 this Messiah, must be tested solely by the coincidence of the character, and 
 circumstances of the pretender with the descriptions given by the prophets 
 as the means by which he may be known to be so — it is proper, in order that 
 we may be enabled to form a correct opinion, to lay before the reader those 
 passages of the Old Testament wliich contain the promise of the appearing, 
 and expi-ess the characteristics of this "hope of Israel," this beneficent 
 savioiu', and august monarch, in whose time a suftering world, was, according 
 to the Hebrew prophets, to become the abode of hapjjy beings. 
 
 Leaving out for the present the consideration of the Shiloh mentioned in 
 Gen. xlis., the fii'St prophecy we meet with, supposed to 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 out of Israel, shall smite the corners of Moab, 
 and destroy the children of Seth." Geddes interprets the latter clause — 
 " shall destroy the sons of esdition ;" but it probably means, according to the 
 common interpretation, that this monarch was to govern the whole race of 
 men, i. e. the children of Seth; for Noah, according to the Old Testament, 
 was descended from him ; and of the posterity of Noah, was the whole earth 
 overspread. And in verse 19, it is added " out of Jacob shall come he that 
 shall have dominion."* 
 
 God says to David, 2 Sam. vii. 12, " And when thy days shall be fulfilled, 
 and thou shall sleep with thy fathers, I will set up thy seed after thee, which 
 shall proceed out of thy bowels ; and I will establish his kingdom. He shall 
 build a house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom for 
 ever. I will be his Father, and he shall be my Son — if he commit iniquity, 
 I will chasten him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the children 
 of men. But my mercy shall not depart from him, as I took it from Saul, 
 whom I put away before thee. And thy house, and thy kingdom shall be 
 established before me, and thy throne shall be established for ever." Mention 
 is made of this promise in several of the Psalms, but it certainly suggests no 
 idea of such a person as Jesus of Nazai-eth, but only that of a temporal prince 
 of the posterity of David. It implies, that his family would never entirely 
 fail, for though it might be severely punished, it would recover its lustre 
 again. And connecting this promise with that of the glory of the nation in 
 general, foretold in the books of Moses, it might be inferred by the Hebrews, 
 who behoved them to be of Divine authority, that after long and great 
 calamities (the consequences of their sins,) the people of Israel would be 
 restored to their country, and attain the most distinguished felicity under a 
 prince of the family of David. This is the subject of numberless prophecies 
 throughout the Old Testament. 
 
 Passing over all those prophecies in which the national glory is spoken of 
 luithout any mention of a i^rince or head ; I shall recite, and remark upon the 
 most eminent of those in which mention is made of any particular person, 
 under whom, or by means of whom, the Israelitish nation, it is said, would 
 enjoy the transcendent prosperity elsewhere foretold. 
 
 The second Psalm is no doubt well known to my readers, and supposing 
 it to refer to the Messiah, it is evident, that it describes him enthroned upon 
 
 * Before going into the consideration of the foUo'W'ing prophecies, the author 
 would wai*n the reader to bear in mind, that whether these prophecies ever will be 
 fulfilled, is a question of no vnport in the ivorld to the question under consideration, 
 which is — whether they ho.ve been fulfilled eia^hteeu hundred years ago, in the person 
 of Jesus Christ, who is asserted by Chi'istians to be the person foretold in these 
 prophecies, and to have fulfilled their predictions. This question can be easily decided, 
 and only, we think, by appealing to past history, and to the scenes passing around us, 
 and comparing them with these predictions. — E.
 
 8 
 
 mount Zion, the favorite of God, and the resistless conqueror of his enemies. 
 
 The next prophecy of this distinguished individual is Recorded in Isaiah 
 ix. 6 — " Unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given, and the government 
 shall be upon his shoulder : and the Wonderful, the Counsellor, the mighty 
 God, the everlasting Father shall call his name,* the Prince of Peace." [For 
 thus it is pointed to be read in the original Hebrew, and this is the meaning 
 of the passage, and not as in the absurd translation of this verse in the 
 English version.] " Of the increase of his government there shall be no end, 
 upon the throne of David, and his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it 
 ■with judgment, and with justice from lienceforth and for ever : the zeal of the 
 Lord of Hosts will do this." Here again we have a mighty monarch, sitting 
 upon the throne of David, upon earth ; and not a spiritual king placed in 
 heaven, upon the throne of '-'the mighty God, the everlasting Father." 
 
 The next passage which comes under notice, is in the eleventh chapter 
 of Isaiah, in which a person is mentioned, under whom Israel, and the 
 whole earth Avas to enjoy great prosperity and felicity. He is described as 
 an upright prince, endued with the spirit of God, under whose reign there 
 would be universal peace, which was to take place after the return of tho 
 Israelites from their dispersed state, when the whole nation would be united 
 and happy. 
 
 " There shall spring forth a rod from the trunk of Jesse, and a scion 
 from his roots shall become fruitful. And the spirit of the Lord shall rest 
 upon him ; the spirit of wisdom, and understanding ; the spirit of counsel, 
 and strength ; the spirit of knowledge, and the fear of the Lord. And he 
 shall be quick of discernment in the tear of the Lord ; so that not according 
 'to the sight of his eyes shall he judge, nor according to the hearing of the 
 ears shall he reprove. With righteousness shall he judge the poor, and with 
 equity shall he work conviction'!' on the meek of the earth. And he shall 
 smite the earth with the blast of his mouth ; and with the breath of his lips 
 shall he slay the wicked one. And righteousness shall be the girdle of his 
 lions, and faithfulness the cincture of his reins. Then shall the wolf take up 
 his abode with the lamb ; and the leopard shall lie down with the kid ; and 
 the calf, and the young lion, and the fatling shall come together, and a little 
 child shall lead them. And the heifer, and the she bear shall feed together, 
 and the lion shall eat straw like the ox. And the suckling shall play upon 
 the hole of the asp ; and upon the den of the basilisk shall the new weaned 
 child lay 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 the waters cover 
 the sea. And it shall come to pass in that day, the root of Jesse which 
 standeth for an ensign to the people, unto him shall the nations X'epau*, and 
 his resting place shall be glorious." 
 
 As the scion here spoken of is said to s])ring from the root of Jesse, it 
 looks as if it were intended to intimate, that the tree jYse//" would be cut downy 
 or that the power of David's Family would he for some time extinct ; but that 
 it would revive in "the latter days." 
 
 The same Prince is again mentioned, chap xxxiii. 1, 3, where the people 
 are described to be both virtuous, and flourishing, and to continue to be so. 
 (v. 15—17.) 
 
 " Behold a king shall reign in righteousness, and princes shall rule with 
 equity. And the man shall be a covert from the storm, as a refuge from the 
 flood, as canals of waters in a dry place, as the shadow of a great rock in a 
 
 * The word in the original being Vayikra in the Kal or Active form of the 
 verb, and not Vayikare the Niphal or Passive form. — D. 
 t n-Dim reprove or argue. — D.
 
 land of fainting with heat. And him the eyes of those that see shall regard, 
 and the ears of them that hear shall harken, * * . * * till the spirit from 
 on high be poured out upon us, and the wilderness become a fruitful field, 
 and the fruitful field be esteemed a forest. And judgment shall dwell in the 
 wilderness, and in the fruitful field shall reside righteousness. And the 
 work of righteousness shall be peace, and the effect of righteousness perpetual 
 quiet, and security. And my people shall dwell in a peaceful mansion, and in 
 habitations secure, and in resting places undisturbed." 
 
 The same Prophet, chap. Ixii 1, speaks of a person under the title of 
 " God's Servant," of a meek disposition, raised up by God to enlighten the 
 world, even the Gentile part of it ; to bring prisoners out of their 
 confinement, and to open their eyes ; alluding, probably, to the custom too 
 common in the East ; of sealing up the eyes, by sewing or fastening together 
 the eyelids of persons, and then imprisoning them for life. It is ■doubted, 
 however, Avhether the Prophet meant, or had in view, in this passage, the 
 Messiah, or his own nation. 
 
 " Behold my servant whom I will uphold, mine elect in whom my soul 
 delighteth ; I will make my spirit rest upon him, and he shall publish 
 judgment to the nations. He shall not cry aloud, nor raise a clamour, nor 
 cause his voice to be heard in the public places. The bruised reed shall he 
 not break, and the dimly burning flax he shall not quench, he shall publish 
 judgment so as to establish it perfectly. His force shall not be abated, nor 
 broken, until he has firmly seated judgment in the earth, and the distant 
 nations shall earnestly 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 the produce thereof, 
 who giveth breath to the people upon it, and spirit to them that tread 
 thereon. I the Lord have called thee for a righteous purpose,* and I will 
 take hold of thy hand, and I will preserve thee ; and I will give thee for a 
 covenant to the people, for a light to the nations ; To open the eyes of the 
 blind, to bring the captive out of confinement, and from the dungeon those 
 that dwell in darkness. I am the Eternal, that is my name, and my glory 
 will I not, give to another, nor my praise to the graven images. The former 
 predictions, lo ! they are to come to pass, and new events I now declare ; 
 before they spring forth, behold I make them known unto 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 Avithout a king, and without 
 a prince, and without sacrifice, and without a statue, and without an ephod, 
 and without Teraphim. Afterward shall the sons of Israel return, and shall 
 seek the Lord their God, and David their King, and shall fear the Lord, and 
 his goodness in the latter days." 
 
 Micah chap. v. speaks of tho Messiah thus, " And thou Bethlehem 
 Ephratah, art thou, too little to be among the leaders of Judah ? Out of 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 hidden ages. Therefore will He 
 (God) deliver them up, until the time -when she that bringeth forth, hath 
 brought forth, and until the residue of his brethren shall return together 
 with the sons, of Israel. And he shall stand and feed his flock, in the 
 strength of the Lord, in the majesty of the name of the Lord his God, and 
 they shall abide, for now shall he be great unto the ends of the earth, and he 
 shall be Peace." 
 
 * Or, in righteousness. — D. 
 B
 
 10 
 
 Jeremiah also speaks of the restoration of the Israelites uader a Princa 
 of the family of David, chap, xxiii. 5, 8. 
 
 " Behold the days are coming, saith the Lord, that I will raise up unto 
 David a righteous branch, and a king shall reign, and act wisely, and shall 
 execute justice, and judgment in the earth. In his. days Judah shall be 
 saved, and Israel shall dwell in security, and this is the name by which the 
 Eternal shall call him, our righteousness."* [Heb.] The same is mentioned 
 in chap. xxx. 8, 9. "And it shall be in that day, saith the Lord of Hosts, I 
 will break his yoke from off his neck, and his bands will I burst asunder, 
 and strangers, shall no more exact service of him. But they shall sen'e the 
 Lord their God, and David their King, whom I will raise up for (or to) them. 
 * * * The voice .of joy, and the voice of 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 the Lord is gracious, for his mercy enduroth for ever, of 
 them that bring praise to the house, of the Lord. Thus saith the Lord of 
 Hosts, }X't again shall there l)e in this place that is desolate ('Jerusalem and 
 Palestine.) without man and beast, and in all the cities thereof, an habitation 
 of shephei'ds folding sheep, in the cities of the hill country, and in the cities 
 of the plain, and in the cities of the south, and in the land of Benjamin, awl in 
 the environs of Jerusalem. * * * Behold the days come, saith the Lord, 
 that I will pei'form the good thing which I have spoken concerning the house 
 of Israel, and concerning the house of Judah. In those dai/s, and at that time, 
 [he that readeth, let him observe] I will cause to grow up of the line of David a 
 branch of righteousness, and he shall execute judgment and justice in the 
 earth. In those days Judah shall be saved, and Jerusalem shall dwell securely, 
 and this is he whom the Lord shall call — 'our righteousness.' [Heb.] 
 Surely, thus saith the Lord, there shall not be a failure in the line of David, 
 one to sit upon the throne of the house of Israel, neither shall there be 
 a failure in the line of the Priests, the Levites, of one to offer before mo 
 burnt offerings, and to perform sacrifice continually." See ch. xxxiiii. 14. 
 In this place, the perpetuit;/ of the tribe of Levi; as well as that of the house of 
 David, is foretold. See also Jer. ch. xxx. 0. 
 
 Cotemporary with Jeremiah was Ezekiel. He likewise describes this 
 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. Andl will set up one Shepherd over 
 them, and he shall feed them', even, my servant David : he shall feed them, 
 and he shall be their shepherd, and I the Lord will lie their God, and my 
 servant David a Prince among them. I the Lord have spoken it. And I wifl 
 make with them a covenant of peace, and will cause the, evil beasts to cease 
 out of the land : and they shall dwell safely in the wilderness, and sleep in 
 the woods. And I will make them, and the places round about my hill, a 
 blessing, and I will cause the shower to come down in the season : there shall 
 be showers of blessing. And the tree of the field shall yield her fruit ; and 
 the earth shall yield her increase; and they shall be safe in their land; and 
 shall know that lam the Lord, &c." 
 
 In another passage this prophet says, that the two nations, Israel and 
 Judah, shall have one king, and that t"liis king shall be named David, who 
 shall reign for ever, chap, xxxvii. 21—28. "Say unto them, thus saith the 
 Lord God, behold I will take the chrldren of Israel from among the heathen, 
 whither they be gone, and will gather them on every side, and bring them 
 
 * Mr. English very properly takes notice of the disjunctive accent (Pasek) 
 occurring here in the text. — D.
 
 11 
 
 into their own land. And I will make them one nation in the land, upon the 
 mountains of I^"ael, and one king shall be king to them all, and they shall 
 be no more two nations, neither shall they be divided into two kingdoms any 
 more at all. Neither shall they defile themselves any more Avith their idols, 
 nor with their detestable things, nor with any of their transgressions ; but I 
 will save them out of all their dwelling places wherein they have sini\ed, and 
 will cleanse them, so shall they be my people, and I will be their God. And 
 David my servant shall be king over them, and there shall be one shepherd. 
 They shall also loalk in my judgments, and observe my statutes and do them. 
 And they shall dwell in the land that I have given unto Jacob my servant, 
 wherein your fathers have dwelt, and they shall dwell therein, even they, and 
 their childi'en, and their children's children for ever, and my servant David 
 shall be their prince forever. Moreover I will make a covenant of peace with 
 them : it shall be an everlasting covenant Avith them, and I will place them, 
 and multiply them, and will set my sanctuary in the midst of them, for 
 evei-more. My tabernacle also shall be with them, and I will be their God, 
 and they shall be my people. And the heathen shall know, that I the Lord 
 do sanctify Israel, when my sanctuary shall be in the midst of them ybr 
 evermore." 
 
 The natural construction of this seems to be this, " that a descendant of 
 David, called hy that name, should reign over the Israelites for ever." 
 
 In the very circumstantial description which Ezekiel gives of the state of 
 the Israelites in their own country, yet expected by the Jews, he speaks of 
 the prince, and the portion assigned him, chap. xlv. 78. And in his 
 description of the temple service, he moreover speaks 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 of Daniel, 
 who, in the first year of Belshazzar king of Babylon, had a vision of four 
 beasts, representing the four great Empires. At the close of his account of 
 which, he speaks of " one like the son of man'"' being brought into the 
 presence of God, and receiving from the Eternal an everlasting kingdom 
 (chap. vii. 13) — " I saw in the night visions, and behold one like the son of 
 man came with the clouds of heaven, and come to the ancient of days ; and 
 th^y brought him near before him. And there waff given him dominion, 
 and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve 
 him : his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and 
 his kingdom that Avhich shall not be destroyed." 
 
 I have now gone through the prophecies which are allowed both hy Jews 
 and Christians to relate to one person whom they call the Messiah. It must 
 be evident from all these passages, that the characteristics of this, to both 
 parties, highly interesting personage, as described by the Hebrew prophets, 
 are these : — 
 
 1. That ho was to be a just, beneficent, ivise, and mighty monarch, raised 
 up and upheld, and established by God, to be the means of promoting 
 universal peace, and happiness. That Israel should be gathered to him, and 
 established in their own laud ; which was to be the seat of dominion, and the 
 centre of union, and of worship to all the people, and nations of the earth ; 
 who were to live under the government, and receive, and obey the law of this 
 beneficent prince ; and enjoy unspeakable felicities on the earth, then changed 
 to a universal paradise. And lor all this happiness, they were to worship, 
 and glorify the true God only, and glorify- the Eternal, and give thanks to Him, 
 " because He is good, and his mercy endureth forever." 
 
 2. That this prince was to be of the line of David, and as it should seem, 
 called by that naine, and was to reign on his throne in Jerusalem. 
 
 3. That according to Micah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel, (see the quotations)
 
 12 
 
 his mant/estation, and the restoration of Israel were to be contemporaneous. 
 See Hosca, chap. iii. 4, 5. And from Jeremiah xxxiii. 15, and from Micahv^ 
 2, it should seem also,, that he %vas not to be born, till tluD time of that 
 restoration should be nearly arrived. 
 
 The prophecies concerning the Messiah of the Jews being now laid before 
 the reader, we have only to apply these descriptions to know whether an 
 individual be their Messiah, or not. For, (according to the principles laid 
 down, and established in the preceding chapter) where the foregoing 
 characteristics given by the prophets do centre and agree, that person is the 
 Messiah foretold ; but where they are not found in any one claiming that 
 character, miracles are nothing to the purpose, and nothing he, more certain, 
 than that he has no right to be considered as such ; and could he with a word 
 turn the sun black in the face, in proof of 'his being the Messiah, he is, 
 nevertheless, not to be regarded ; for, whether such a person has yet 
 appeared, can certainly only be known by considering, whether the world has 
 ever yet seen such a person as this Messiah of the Hebrew prophets. 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 THE CHAKACTER OF JESUS TESTED BY THOSE CHAKACTERISTIC MARKS OF THE MESSIAH 
 GIVEN BY THE PROPHETS OF THE OLD TESTA.MENT. 
 
 Had Jesus of Nazareth come into the world merely as a person sent with 
 a revelation from God, he would have had a right to be attended to, and 
 tried upon that ground. And if his doctrines and precepts were consistent. 
 Avith reason, consistent with one another, and with prior revelations, really 
 such, and all tending to the honour of God, and the good of men ; his 
 miracles, with these circumstances, ought to have detex'mined men to believe 
 in him. 
 
 But since he claimed to be the Messiah of the J eyv?,, foretold hy their 
 propliets, it is requisite, that that claim should be made out ; and it is reasonable 
 in itself, and just to him, and necessary to all those who will not take their 
 religion upon trust, that he should be tried, by examining whether this claim 
 can be made out, or not. The argument from prophecy becomes necessary 
 to establish the claim of the Gospel : and as truth is consistent with itself> 
 so this claim must be true, or, it destroys all others. 
 
 Besides, what notions of common morality must he have, who pretends 
 to come from God, and declares (Jo. v. 37.) " that the Scriptures testify of 
 him," if, in fact, the Scriptures do not testify of him ? What honesty, or 
 sincerity could he have, who could " begin at Moses, and all the prophets, and 
 expound unto his disciples in all the Scriptures the things concerning 
 himself," if neither Moses nor the prophets ever spake a word about him ? 
 The prophets, therefore, must decide this question, and the foundation of 
 Christianity must be laid upon them; or else, to avoid one difficulty. 
 Christians will be forced into such absurdities, as no man can palliate, 
 much less can extricate himself out of. 
 
 Furthermore, this claim must be made out to the satisfaction of the 
 Gentile, as well as the Jew. For since the fundamental article of Christianity 
 is, that Jesus is the Christ ; (Jo. xx. 31) that is to say, that he is the Messiah 
 prophecied of in tho Old Testament ; whoever comes into the world as such, 
 must come as the Messiah of the Jews, because no other nation did expect, 
 or pretend to, the promise of a Messiah. Moreover, whoever comes as this 
 Messiah of the Jews, must at least pretend to answer the character of their 
 Messiah plainly delivered in the writings of their prophets. And tbe Jews
 
 13 
 
 I 
 
 themselves receiving those writings as divine, were not bound to, neither 
 could they consistently with their duty, receive, any, who did not answer in 
 all points to the description therein given. 
 
 Let us now test the character of Jesus of Nazareth by the description 
 of the Messiah given by the Hebrew prophets. If his character corresponds 
 in all respects with that given by those prophets, he is undoubtedly to be 
 acknowledged 'as the king of Israel foretold ; but if they do not exactly 
 correspond, if there be the slightest incongruity, he certainly was not this 
 Messiah. For it is evident, that some of the chai'acteristic marks given may 
 belong to many illustrious individuals, but the vjiole can belong to, and be 
 found in, onli/ one person. 
 
 The first characteristic of the Messiah, the reader will recollect, was, 
 according to the prophets, that he was to be " the Prince of Peace," in whose 
 times righteousness Avas to flourish, and mankind be made happy. That he 
 was to sit upon the throne of David judging right ; and that to him, and their 
 own land, was Isi-ael to be gathered, and all nations serve and obey him ; 
 and worship one God, even Jehovah. 
 
 But of Jesus we read, that he asserted, that his kingdom was "not of this 
 world." Instead of effecting peace among the nations, he said, " Think not 
 that I am come to send peace on earth, I have come to send a sword, I have 
 come to put division between a son, and his father ; the mother, and the 
 daughter ; th6 daughter-in-law, and her mother-in-law." " Think ye, (said 
 he to his disciples) that I have come to put peace on earth, I tell you nay, 
 but rather division." Again, " I have come to put /re on the earth.'' These 
 are not the chai'acteristics of the Messiah of the prophets of the Old 
 Testament. For of him Zechariah (ch. ix.) says, that " He shall speak peace 
 to the nations ;" and of him Isaiah says, " Nation shall not lift up sword 
 against nation, neither shall they learn war any more." And so far fi'om 
 being the author of division, sword, and fire ; according to Malachi, in 
 the times of the Messiah, " the-heart of the parents was to be converted to 
 the children, and the heart of the children to their parents." 
 
 In the times of the Messiah, wars were to cease, righteousness was to 
 flourish, and mankind be happy. Whether this has yet taken jilace, the 
 experience of almost nineteen centuries, and the j^resent state of the world, 
 can enable every one to determine for himself. 
 
 In the times of the Messiah, Israel was to be gathered, and planted iu 
 their own land, in honour, and prosperity. But not many years after the 
 death of Jesus of Nazai'eth, the Jewish nation underwent the most dreadful 
 calamities ; and to this day, so far are they from being gathered, they are 
 scattered to the four quarters of the globe. Instead of being in honour and 
 prosperity, their history, since his time, is one dreadful record of unparalleled • 
 sufferings, -sVritten in letters of blood by the hands of murder, rapine, and 
 cruelty. 
 
 Again ; the true Messiah was, it seems, to be called David, and was to 
 reign at Jerusalem, on the throne of David ; but the name " Jesus" is not the 
 same as "David," and Christians have assigned him a spiritual kingdom, 
 and a throne in heaven ! But was the thi-one of David in heaven ? No ! it 
 ■was in Jerusalem, and no more in Heaven, than that of the Cajsars. 
 
 Lastly, it appears fi'om the prophecies of Hosea, Micah, and Jeremiah, 
 Isaiah, and Ezekiel, quoted in the last chapter, that the manifestation of their 
 Messiah was to be contemporaneous with the restoration of Israel, and from 
 the quotations adduced from the three first mentioned prophets, it should 
 seem that his birth ivas not to take place many years before that glorious event. 
 But Jesus of Nazareth was born almost two thousand years ago; and the 
 children of Israel yet expect a deliverer. And to conclude, it was foretold
 
 14 
 
 by Malachi, and believed by the Jews then, and ever since, that Eliai tht 
 prophet, who did not die, but was removed from the earth, shonld precede 
 the coming of tlio Messiah, and prepare them for his reception. But the 
 prophet Elias certainly has not yet appeared ! 
 
 Indeed, notliing appears to be more dissimilar than the character of the 
 Messiah as given by the Hebrew prophets, and that of Jesus of Nazareth. It 
 seems scarcely credible, that a man who, though amiable and virtuous, yet 
 lived in a low state, was poor, living upon alms, without wealth, and without 
 power ; and who (though .by misfortune) died the death of a malefactor, 
 crucified between two robbers, (a death exactly parallel with being hanged at 
 the public gallows in the present day) should ever be taken for that mighty 
 prince, that universal potentate, and benefactor of the human race, foretold 
 in the splendid language of the prophets of the Old Testament. 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 
 EXAMINATION OF THE ARGUMENTS FROM THE OLD TEg.TAMENT ADDUCED IN THE NEW, 
 TO PHOVE THAT JESUS OF NAZAKETH WAS THE MESSIAH. 
 
 But since one would esteem it almost incredible, that the apostles could 
 persuade men to believe Jesus to be this Messiah, unless they had at least 
 some proof to offer to their conviction, let us next consider, and examine, the 
 prgofs adduced bj the apostles- and their folloAvers, from the Old Testament 
 for that purpose. 
 
 Of the strength or weakness of the proofs for Christianity out of the 
 Old Testament, we are well qualified to judge, as we have the Old and New 
 Testament in our hands ; the first containing what are offered as proofs of 
 Christianity, and the latter the application of- those proofs, and we should 
 seem to have nothing more to do, but to compare the Old and New 
 Testament together. 
 
 But these proofs taken out of the Old Testament, and urged in the 
 New, being sometimes not to be found in the Old, nor urged in the NeAv, 
 according to the literal and obvious sense, which they appear to bear in their 
 supposed places in the Old, and, therefore, not proofs according to the rules 
 of interpretation established by reason, and acted uiion in interpreting every 
 other ancient book — almost all christian commentators on the Bible, and 
 advocates for the religion of the New Testament, both ancient, and modern, 
 have jvidgcd them to be applied in a secondary, or typical, or mystical, or 
 allegorical, or enigmatical sense ; that is, in a sense different from the 
 obvious and literal sense which they bear in the Old Testament. 
 
 Thus, for example, Matthew, after having given an account of the 
 conception of Mary, and the birth of Jesus, says (ch. i.,) " All this was done 
 that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying. Behold 
 a virgin shall bo with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call 
 his name Immanuel.'' But the words as 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 the days of Ahaz, King of judah, as will appear, considering 
 the context. 
 
 When Rezin, King of Syria, and Pekah, King of Israel, were confederates 
 in arms together, against Ahaz, King of Judah, Isaiah the prophet was 
 sent by God, fii'st to comfort Ahaz and the nation, and then to assure 
 them by a sign, that his enemies should in a little time be confounded. 
 — But Aliaz refusing a sign at the prophet's hand, the prophet said 
 (see the chapter,) "The Lord shall give you a sign. Behold a virgin, or
 
 15 
 
 * young woman' (for the Hebrew word means both as was truly and justly- 
 asserted by the Jews in the primitive ages against the christians, and is 
 now acknowledged, and established beyond dispute by the best Hebrew 
 scholars of this age,) shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name 
 Immanuel. Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse tho 
 evil and choose the good. For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, 
 and choose the good, the land which thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both 
 her kings." And this sign is accordingly given Ahaz by the prophet, who, 
 ch. viii. V. 2, 18, took two witnesses and went to the said young woman, who 
 in due time conceived, and bare a son, after whose birth the projects of 
 Rezin and Pekah wei'«, it appears, soon confounded, according to the 
 prophecy and sign given by the prophet. 
 
 And the prophet himself, puts it beyond dispute, that this is the proper 
 interpretation of the prophecy, by ex2)ress words, as well as by his whole 
 narration ; for he says, " Behold I, and the children whom the Lord hath 
 given me, are for signs, and for wonders in Israel from the Lord of Hosts, 
 that dwelleth in mount Zion." Isaiah viii. 19. 
 
 This is the plaii\ drift and design of the prophet, literally, obviously, 
 and primarily understood : and thus he is understood by one of the most 
 judicious of interpreters, the great Grotius. Indeed, to understand the 
 prophet as having the conception of Mary, and the birth of her son Jesus 
 from a virgin mother literally, and primarily in view, is a- very great 
 absurdity, and contrary to the very intent and design of the sign given by 
 the prophet. 
 
 For the sign being given by Isaiah to convince Ahaz that he brought a 
 message from God to him, to assure him that the two kings should not succeed 
 in their attempt -against him, how. could a virgin's conception and bearing a 
 son seven hundred years afterwards, be a sign to Ahaz, that the prophet came 
 to him, with the said message y>-OHi Godf And how useless Avas it to Ahaz, as 
 well as absurd in itself iov the prophet, to say, "Before the child, born seven 
 hundred years hence, shall distinguish between good and evil, the land which 
 thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings," which would be a 
 banter, instead of a sign. 
 
 But a prophecy of the certain birth of a male child, by a particular 
 female within a short time, seems a proper sign, as being not only what could 
 not ivith certainty, be foretold, except by a person inspired, but considered 
 as soon coming to pass, it, consequently, evidences itself to be a divine sign, 
 and answers all the purposes of a sign. And such a sign is agreeable to God's 
 conduct on -like occasions ; witness his conduct to Gideon and Hezekiah. 
 Jud.'vi. ; 2 Kings xx. " > 
 
 This prophecy, therefore, not being fulfilled in Jesus, according to the 
 literal and obvious sense of the words as they stand in Isaiah, it is supposed 
 that this, like the other prophecies cited in the New Testament, is fulfilled 
 in a secondary, or typical, or mystical sense ; that is, tho said prophecy, 
 which was literally fulfilled by the birth of the son foretold by the prophet, 
 was again fulfilled by the birth of Jesus, as being an event of the same kind, 
 and intended to be secretly and mystically signified either by the prophet or 
 by God, who directed the prophet's speech. If the reader desires further 
 satisfaction that the literal and obvious sense of this prophecy relates to a 
 son to be born in Isaiah's time, and not to Jesus, he is referred to tho 
 commentator Grotius, and to Huetius' Demonstrat. Evang. in loc, to the 
 ancient fathers, and to the most respectable of the modern christian 
 commentators, who all allow and show, that the words of Isaiah are not 
 applicable to the birth of Jesus in their literal sense, but only in a mystical, 
 vor figm-ative, or allegorical sense.
 
 16 
 
 A^ain, Matthew gives us another prophecy, which he says was fulfilled. 
 He tell us, that Jesus was carried into Egypt ; from'whence he returned after 
 the death of Herod, (Mat. ii.) " that it might he fuJfiUecJ, which was spoken 
 of the Lord by the prophet, saying, ' out of Egypt have I called my son.'" 
 Which, being word for word in Hosea, (ch. xi. 1) and no where else to bo 
 found in the Old Testament, are supposed to be taken from thence ;. where, 
 according to their obvious sense they are no prophecy at all! but relate and 
 refer to a. past action, viz., to the calling of the childi'en of Israel out of 
 Egypt, whicli will, I think, be denied by few. This passage, therefore, or, 
 as it is styled, prophecy, of Hosca, is said by learned men among christians, 
 to be mystically, or allegorically, applied, in order to render Matthew's 
 application of it, fust ; and they say all other methods of some learned men 
 to solve the difficulty arising from Matthew's citation of this passage, hare 
 proved unsuccessful. 
 
 Again, Matthew says, (ch. ii.) "Jesus came, and dwelt at Nazareth, that 
 it might \>(i fulfilled, which was spoken by the prophet, saying, ' he shall be 
 called a Nazarene ;' " but as this passage does not occur in the Old 
 Testament at all, we are precluded from ascertaining whether it be literal, 
 mystical, or allegorical. 
 
 Jesus says of John the Baptist, (Mat. xi. 14) " This is Elias that was for 
 to come," wherein he is supposed to refer to these words of Malachi, (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, that Elijah or Elias was to come mperson (which 
 we know from the New Testament, as well as elsewhere, was the constant 
 expectation of the Jews.) Besides, this Elijah was to come " befoi'e the 
 great and terrible day of the Lord," which has not yet arrived ; and, 
 therefore, this prophecy of Malachi, referred to by the evangelist, was 
 certainly not literally, but only mystically, fulfilled in John the Baptist. 
 
 Again, Jesus (^Iat. xiii.) cites the prophecy of Isaiah (Is. vi. 9,) " By 
 hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand;" and he assures "us, that it 
 was fulfilled in his time in those to whom he spake in parables, (which, by 
 the way, he did, it is said, in order to fulfil a passage of the Psalms) though 
 it is manifest that the prophecy of Isaiah quoted, according to its literal 
 sense, undoubtedly relates to the obstinate Jews who lived in the time of 
 Isaiah. 
 
 In fine, fliese, and the many other passages cited as prophecies from the 
 Old Testament by the authors of the New, do so plainly relate, in their 
 obvious and primary sense to other matters than those which they are 
 adduced to prove, that it is allowed by the most learned defenders of 
 Christianity, that to pretend that they prove in a literal sense what they are 
 adduced to prove, is to give up with both hands the cause of Christianity to 
 the enemies thereof, who can so easily show in so many undoubted instances, 
 the Old and New Testament to have no manner of connection in that respect, 
 but to be in an irreconcilable state. 
 
 These proofs from the prophets being so different from what we should 
 expect, it behoves us to enquire what could induce Jesus and his apostles to 
 quote the Old Testament in such a manner? 
 
 The Jews shortly answer tliis question, by saying, that they did so, 
 because they did not understand the meaning of the books they quoted. 
 But it has been answered by some learned christians, that Jesus and the 
 apostles did not quote in the manner they did through caprice or ignorance, 
 but according to certain methods of interpretation, which were in their times 
 4)f established authority among the Jews. 
 
 . The rules of interpretation, which were supposed to be irrecoverably
 
 17 
 
 lost, were afterwards recovered to the world by the learned Surenhusius, 
 professor of the Hebrew language in the illustrious school of Amsterdam. 
 He made an ample discovery to the world of the rules by which the apostles 
 cited the Old Testament, and argued from thence, wherein the whole 
 mystery of the apostles applying scripture in a secondary, or typical, or 
 allegorical sense, seems to be unfolded. I shall, therefore, state this matter 
 from Surenhusius. 
 
 He (Surenhusius) says, " that when he considered the various opinions 
 of the learned about the passages of the Old Testament quoted in the New, 
 he was filled with grief, not knowing where to set his foot ; and was much 
 concerned, that what had been done with good success upon profane authors, 
 could not be so happily performed upon the sacred." 
 
 He tells us, " that having had frequent occasions to converse with the 
 Jews, (on account of his application to Hebrew literature from his youth) 
 who insolently reflected upon, the New Testament, affirming it to be plainly 
 corrupted, because it seldom or never agreed with the Old Testament, some 
 of whom were so confident in this opinion, as to say, they would profess the 
 Christian religion, if any one could reconcile the New Testament with the Old. 
 " I was the more grieved, because, (says this honest and well meaning man) I 
 knew not how to apply a remedy to this evil." But the matter being of great 
 importance, he " discoursed with several learned men about it, and read the 
 books of others, being persuaded that the authors of the books of the New 
 Testament had written nothing but what was suited to the time wherein they 
 lived, and that Christ and his apostles had constantly followed the method 
 of their ancestors. After he had long revolved this hypothesis in his mind, 
 at last he met with a Rabbi well skilled in the Talmud, the Cabbala, and the 
 allegorical books of the- Jews. This Rabbi had once embraced the Christian 
 religion, but was again 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 
 Old Testament quoted in the New, whether they were rightly quoted or not, 
 and whether the Jews had any just reason to cavil at them, and at the same 
 time proposed to him two or three passages, which had very much exercised 
 the most learned christian commentators. 
 
 The Rabbi having admirably explained those passages, to the great 
 surprise of Surenhusius, and confirming his explications by several places of 
 the Talmud, and other writings of the Jewish commentators, and allegorical 
 writers, Surenhusius asked him what would be the best method to write a 
 treatise in order to vindicate the passages of the Old Testament quoted in 
 the New ? The Rabbi answered, that he " thought the best way of succeeding 
 in such an undertaking would bo to peruse a great part of the Talmud, and 
 the allegorical and literal commentators ; to observe their several ways of 
 quoting and interpreting scripture, and to collect as many materials of that 
 kind, as would be sufficient for that purpose." 
 
 Surenhusius took the hint immediately: he read such books as were 
 recommended, observed every thing that might be subservient to his design, 
 and made a book upon the subject. And in the third part of that book he 
 gives us the rules so long sought after, viz., the ten ways* used, he says, by 
 the Jewish doctors in citing scripture. And here they are : — 
 
 1. The first rule is — "reading the words of the Hebrew bible, not 
 according to the points placed under them, but according to other points 
 
 * For a more correct enumeration of the thirteen cabalistic rules of exposition, • 
 the English reader is referred to vol. 1, page 209, of the "Conciliator" of R. 
 Menasseh ben Israel, translated by E. H. Lindo, Esqr. — D. 
 C
 
 18 
 
 s\ibstitut4:d in their stead," as is done by Peter, Acts iii. 3 ; by Stephen, Acta rii. 
 43, and by Paul, 1 Cor. xv. 54 ; 2 Cor' yiii. 15, and Ileb. iii'. 10 ; ix. 21 ; xii. 6. 
 
 2. The second rule is — " changinr/ the letters, whether those letters bo of 
 the same organ (as the Hebrew grammarians speak,) or not," as is dono by 
 Paul, Rom. ix. 33; 1 Cor. xi. 9; Ileb. viii. 9, and x. 5; and by Stephen, 
 Acts vii. 43. 
 
 3. The third is — *• changing both Utters and x)oints" as is done by Paul, 
 Acts xiii. 41, and 2 Cor. viii. 15. 
 
 4. The fourth is^ — " adding some letter, 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, in order to 
 make the sense more clear, and to accommodate it to the subject they are 
 upon." 
 
 8. The eighth is—" changing the order of words." 
 
 9. The ninth is — " changing the order of words, and addiug other words." 
 
 10. The tenth is — "changing the order Of wor<ls, adding words, and 
 retrenching words," which, (says he) is a method often used by Paid. Of tho 
 application of all these rules, he gives examples taken from tlie New 
 Testament. 
 
 It is not necessary to make many observations upon those rules, thoy 
 sjieak for themselves most significantly : for what is there that cannot bo 
 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 ; and transposing, and cutting words in 
 two," as is stated above by a learned and good man, and sincere Christian 
 who found out, and brought forward, these rules, as the best means of 
 getting tho authors of the New Testament out of a difficulty, which had long 
 shocked and grieved their best friends. 
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 
 KXAMINATION OF TUB MEANING OF THK PHRASE "THIS WAS DONE THAT IT MIGnV 
 
 BE FULFILLED." 
 
 It may be objected from divers learned authors, who have been very 
 sensible of the difficulties stated in the preceding chapters, and have, 
 therefore, taken other ground than their predecessors, in order to defend 
 themselves the better; I saj-, it may be objected to what I have advanced, 
 that Christianity is not in fact grounded on the prophetical, or other, 
 quotations made from the Old, in the New, Testament ; but that those 
 quotations being allegorically ai)plied by the authors of the New Testament, 
 are merely arguments ad hominem, to convince the Jews of the truth of 
 Christianity, 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 of those 
 who make the objection, and not only has no foundation in the New 
 Testament, but is utterly subverted by its express declarations; for the 
 authors of the books of the New Testament always argue absolutely from the 
 quotations they cite as prophecies out of the books of the Old Testament. 
 Moses and the prophets are every where represented to be a just foundation 
 for Christianity ; and the author of tho Epistle to the Romans expressly says, 
 ch. xvi. 25, 26, " The gospel, which was kept secret since the world began, 
 was now made ma^ii^fest by the scriptures of the prophets (wherein that gospel 
 was secretly contained) to all nations," by the means of the preachers of Hie
 
 19 
 
 gospel who gave the secret or spiritual sense of those scriptures ; for to the 
 ancient Jews, according to them, the gospel was preached by the types of 
 their law, and, therefore, must have been considered as truly contained in it. 
 
 Besides, the authors of the books of the New Testament were convinced 
 long before the publication of them, that the gospel was to be preached to 
 the Gentiles as well as the Jews, to both of whom, therefore, they reasoned 
 allegorically in their books, as Peter and others did in their sermons, though 
 with greater success- on Gentiles than on Jews ; and as Paul did before Felix, 
 when he said ho took his heresy, or Christianity, from the law, and the 
 prophets, Acts xxiv., as also he did before Agrippa. It would, therefore, 
 seem strange, that books written to all the world by men equally concerned 
 to convert Gentiles as well as Jews, and that discourses made expressly to 
 Gentiles as well as to Jews, should be designed to be pertinent only to Jews, 
 much less to a very few Jews! Indeed, lam ashamed at. being thus long 
 engaged in showing what must be self evident ; and did I not fear being 
 further tedious to my i-eaders, I would undertake to bring together passages 
 from the New Testament, where the meaning and intention of the writers is 
 obvious, in such abundance, as would immediately and entirely put the 
 hypothesis of our opponents out of countenance. 
 
 These quotations from the Old Testament are certainly urged, and 
 spoken of as direct proofs, as absolute proofs in themselves, and not as mere 
 proofs ad hominem to the Jews ; for if these prophecies are only urged by 
 the apostles as proofs to the Jews, and intended only as proofs founded on 
 the mistaken meanings of the Old Testament of some Jews of their time, 
 what sense is there in appealing upon all occasions to the prophets, and 
 recommending the reading and search of the Old Testament for the trial and 
 proof of what was preached ? for that M'as. to jiroceed on weakness itself, 
 knowing it to bo so. Certainly nothing, but a real persuasion, that the 
 prophecies of the Old Testament were really fulfilled in Jesus, could make 
 them every where inculcate and appeal to the fulfilling of prophecy. In 
 order to support their hypothesis. Christians have been forced to seek 
 evidence to prove, that the phrase — " this was done that it might be fulfilled," 
 so frequent in the New Testament, meant no such thing, but was only a habit 
 the Jews had got of introducing by such jjlirases a handsome quotation, or 
 allusion, from the Old Testament. But this evasion must be given up, upon 
 two accounts. 1. Because most of the European biblical critics of the 
 present day (the learned annotator on Michaelis' Introduction to the New 
 Testament, Dr. Marsh, among others) frankly acknowledge it not to bo 
 tenable ; and 2. Because it can be proved not to be so from the New 
 Testament itself. For example, when John represents (Jo. xix. 28,) Jesus 
 upon the cross saying, " ' / thirst,' that the scripture might be fulfilled" doth 
 he not plainly represent Jesus as fulfilling a prophecy which foretold that the 
 Messiah should thirst, or say, "J thirst," upon the cross? Nay, does he not 
 suppose him to say so, in order to fulfil, or that he might fulfil, a prophecy ? 
 Is it not also suitable to the character of Jesus, who founded his Messiahship 
 on the prophecies in the Old Testament, and could not but have the 
 accomplishment of those prophecies constantly in view to fulfil, and to intend 
 to fulfil them ? And is it not unsuitable in John, in describing his master 
 dying upon the cross, to represent him as saying things, whereby he only 
 gave occasion tO' observe, that he fulfilled, i. e., accommodated a phrase! not 
 a prophecy ! ! 
 
 Besides, they who set up this accommodating principle of accommodation, 
 do, in some cases, take the term fulfilled in its proper sense, and do allow it, 
 (when convenient) to relate to a prophecy really fulfilled. But I would ask 
 them, what rule they have to know when the apostles mean a prophecy
 
 20 
 
 fulfilled, and when a phrase accommodated, since they are acltnowlcdged to 
 use the strong expression of fulfilling in the latter case no less than in the 
 former ? 
 
 In a word, unless it be granted, that the citations were intended by the 
 authors of the New Testament, to be adduced, and applied, as prophecies 
 fulfilled ; if you do suppose them not intended to be adduced, and applied, as 
 prophecies ; then, the whole aflair of Jesus being foretold as the Alessiah, is 
 reduced to an accommodation of phrases ! and it will, assuredly, follow, that 
 the citations of Jesus and his apostles out of the Old Testament, are like, 
 and no better than the work of, the Empress Eudoxia, who wrote the History 
 of Jesus in verses put together, and borrowed out of — Homkr ! or that of Proba 
 Falconia, who did the same, in verses, and words taken out of — Virgil ! 
 
 .In fine, one of two things must be allowed, either (which is most 
 probable) the authors of the New Testament conceived their citations to 
 be indeed prophecies concerning Jesus, and then they were ignorant and 
 blundered, and, therefore, were not inspired ; or, they knowingly used them 
 as means to deceive the simple and credulous into a belief of their being 
 testimonies sufficient to prove Mhat they themselves knew they had no 
 relation to ; — and then they Avere deceivers : there is no other alternative, and 
 each hoi'n of the dilemma, must prove as fatal as the other. 
 
 Perhaps it may be said, " It is to no purpose for you to object to the 
 quotations or the arguments of Jesus and his apostles, for God was with them, 
 confirming their doctrine by signs following, they had from God the power 
 of working miracles, and, consequently, their interpretations of Scripture, 
 however strange they may appear to your minds, must be infallible, they 
 being men inspired." 
 
 To this argument it can be justly answered, first, that the question, 
 whether Jesus be the Messiah, entirely depends, as proved before, upon his 
 answering the characteristics given of that personage by the Jewish 
 prophets ; and all the miracles in the world could never, from the nature of 
 the case, prove him to be so, unless his character does entirely agree with the 
 archetype laid down by them, as had been already abundantly proved. 
 
 Secondly, — That whether these miracles were really performed, or not, 
 depends entirely upon the credibility of the authors themselves who have 
 thus quoted ! which, as shall be shown hereafter, may be disputed ; and, 
 thirdly, it could be retorted upon Protestants^ that this same argument is the 
 same in principle with the often refuted popish argumentation. The Papists 
 pretend to derive all their new invented and absurd doctrines and practices 
 from the scriptures by their interpretations of them ; but yet, when their 
 interpretations are attacked from scripture, they immediately fly from thence 
 to the miracles wrought in their church, and to the visions of their holy men 
 aijd saints, for the establishment of their interpretations, by which they 
 support those very doctrines and practices. And particularly they endeavour 
 to prove thus the doctrine of transubstantiation, from the numerous miracles 
 afl&rmed to have been wrought in its behalf, which reasoning Protestant 
 Christians assert to he an argument absurd and inconclusive, therefore, they 
 should not use it themselves. 
 
 We allow, that if these interpretations of the sense of tlie Old Testament 
 had been in existence before the christian era^ it might be something. But 
 we beg leave to remind them, that it is certain, that these interpretations 
 were not published till after the events to which they are referred took place, 
 which is a circumstance of obvious signifcaney. 
 
 In fine, to this argument I would answer, as in Cicero (de Natura Deor. 
 Ed. Dav. p. 209) Cotta did to Balbus — " rtimoribus mecum pugnas, ego autem 
 a te rationcs require."
 
 21 
 
 CHAPTER VII. 
 
 EXAMINATION OF THE ABGUMENTS ALLEGED FROM THE HEBREW rKOrHETS, TO PROVE 
 THAT JESCS WAS THE MESSIAH. 
 
 But it may be asked, how it Avas possible, that wise aud good men could 
 hare been led to embrace the religion of the New Testament, if there were 
 BOt in the Old Testament some prophecies which might be conceived by 
 them to supply, at least, plausible arguments to prove that Jesus of Nazareth 
 ■was the Messiah ? Are there no other passages in the prophets besides 
 those quoted in the New Testament, and are there not a few passages quoted 
 in the New Testament, which appear more to the purpose than those we 
 have 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 from Daniel, 
 are thought by the advocates of Christianity, (because they conceive them to 
 point out and to limit the time of the coming of the Messiah,) to be stronger 
 in their favour than any of those quoted in the New Testament. If so, it is 
 a very singular circumstance, that the inspired authors of the New Testament 
 did not make use of them instead of others not so much to the purpose. This 
 circumstance of itself should teach us to examine the prophecies in question 
 with caution, and also with candour, since many worthy and religious men 
 have thought them sufficient to prove that Jesus was indeed the Messiah. 
 These prophecies I shall reserve last for consideration, and shall now begin 
 with the others usually adduced, taking them up pretty much in the order 
 in which they stand in the Old Testament. 
 
 The first passage is taken from Deut. xviii. 15, " The Lord thy God will 
 raise up unto thee a prophet from the midst of thee, like unto me, unto him 
 ye shall hearken. According to all that thou desiredst of 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 me see his great fire any more, that I die not. 
 And the Lord said unto me, they have well spoken that which they have 
 spoken. I will raise them up a prophet from among their brethren, like 
 unto thee, and I will put my words into his mouth, and he shall speak 
 unto them all that I command him. And it shall come to pass, that 
 whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, 
 I will require it of him." 
 
 This passage is pertinaciously and solely applied to Jesus, by many 
 Christian writers, because it is so applied by Peter in the 2 chap, of Acts, in 
 his sermon to the Jews, just after he had received the full inspiration of the 
 Holy Spirit, and of course must be considered as infallible. Nevertheless, 
 these words of Moses are supposed by many learned men, both Jews and 
 Christians, to be spoken of Joshua, whom Moses himself afterwards, at the 
 command and appointment of God, declared to be his successor, and who 
 was endowed Avitli 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 others imderstand 
 them to be a promise of a succession of prophets, to whom the Jews might 
 upon all occasions have recourse ; and one or tlie other of these seems to be 
 the certain meaning of the place. From this consideration, that from the 
 context it appears Moses was giving the Jews directions of fwmcciirt^e use ; 
 and, thei-efore, in promising a prophet to them, to whom they should hearken, 
 he seems to intend an immediate prophet who might be of use to the Jews, 
 and answer their common exigencies, and noi di, ^vo^hei two thousand years 
 to come.
 
 22 
 
 But I take the words to promise a mccession of prophets, and for that 
 BenBO -wherein Grotius and Lo Clerc, and most of the Jews, take them. I 
 shall give my reasons for this, and show that they do not 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 they came into 
 Canaan, they should not learn to do after the abominations of the people 
 thereof; and, particularly, that there should not be found among them any 
 one that useth divination, or an observer of times, &c., or a consulter with 
 familiar spirits, &c. For all, says he, " that do these things are an abomination 
 to the Lord ; and because of these abominations the Lord thy God doth 
 drive these people out from before thee. For these nations which thou shalt 
 possess hearkened unto observers of times, and unto diviners. But as for thee, 
 the Lord thy God hath not suffered thee to do so."^ Then follow the words 
 about the prophet, " The Lord thy God will raise unto thee a prophet from 
 the midst of thee of thy brethren like unto me, unto him ye shall hearken." 
 All which is as much as to say, " "When you come into Canaan, do not hearken 
 to a diviner, &c., as the Canaanites do, for the Lord will give yoii a prophet 
 of your own brethren inspired like me, to guide any instruct you, to whom 
 ye shall hearken." Or rather, "Do not hearken to diviners, &c., but to 
 prophets, who shall be raised up among you." 
 
 Now that the words cited must relate to a succession of prophets, to 
 begin upon the Israelites taking possession of the land of Canaan, is manifest; 
 because, the raising up of a prophet, to whom they were to hearken, is the 
 reason given why they should not hearken to a diviner, &c., when they came to 
 that land ; which reason could have no force imlcss they were to have, 1st, — 
 an immediate prophet in Canaan; for what sense is there, or would there be, 
 in saying, "Don't hearken to such diviners as are in Canaan, when you come 
 there, for you shall have a prophet of your own, to whom 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 singular number here stands/or 
 the plural, according to the frequent custom of the Hebrew language, as is 
 shown by Le Clerc and Stillingfleet, in loco ; for one single prophet to be 
 raised up immediateh', who might soon die, could not be a reason why Jews 
 of succeeding generations should not barken to diviners in Canaan. 
 
 Finally, — The words of God by Moses, which follow the promise of a 
 prophet, evidently show that by that promise prophets were intended, in 
 laying down a rule for the test or trial of the prophets before mentioned, 
 in such a manner as implies, that that rule was to be applied to all prophets 
 pretending to come from him. See the words in Deut. xviii., 19 — 22. 
 
 I shall conclude this explication, by adducing, in confirmation of it, the 
 paraphrase of the words given in the Targura of Jonathan. " The nations 
 you are about to possess, (says the Jewish paraphrast) hearken to jugglers and 
 diviners; but you shall not be like them ,- for yoxir priests shall enquire by 
 Urim and Thummim, and the Lord your God shall give you a true pro- 
 phet." And this explication is the one adopted by Origen, — [Contra 
 Celsum, p. 28.] 
 
 As to the difficulty that is raised against this explication from the words 
 at the end of Deuteronomy — " that there arose not a prophet since 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 common language, to signify similarity in some, though not 
 in every, particular; and every prophet, who speaks by God's direction, is a
 
 23 
 
 prophet " like unto Moses," who did the same, though he be not like, or 
 equal to, him ••' in doing signs and wonders," which is all that is affirmed in 
 the last chapter of Deuteronomy. 
 
 And, finally, there is nothing to limit this prophecy to Jesus of Nazareth, 
 if wo allowed (what we reject) the christian interpretation ; since God might 
 to-morrow, if such were his will, raise up a prophet like unto Moses in every 
 respect, which Jesus certainly was not ; therefore, it cannot be applied and 
 restrained to the purpose for which it is quoted by Peter. 
 
 ^ There is in the same sermon, in the 2 chap, of Acts, another passage 
 quoted by Peter from the Psalms, and applied by him to prove the 
 resurrection of Jesus, and on which he lays very great stress, which after all 
 seems to be nothing to the purpose. Peter says, "Him(i. e., Jesus) God 
 hath raised up, having loosed the pains [or bands] of death, because it waa 
 not possible that ho should be holden of it.' And why ? " For [because] 
 David speaketh concerning him, ' I foresaw the Lord always before my face, 
 for he is on my right hand, that I should not be moved. Therefore did my 
 heart rejoice, and my tongue was glad : moreover also my flesh shall rest in 
 hope. Because thou wilt not leave my soul in Hades, [the place of departed 
 spirits] nor suffer thy holi/ one to see corruption, thou hast made known to me 
 the ways of life ; thou shalt make me full of joy with thy countenance.' Men 
 and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is 
 both dead and buried, and his sepulclire is with us unto this day. Therefore, 
 being a prophet, and knowing th^it God had sworn with an oath to him, that 
 of the fruit of his loins according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit 
 upon his throne. He, seeing this before, spake of the, resurrection of Ch-ist, 
 that his soul was not left in Hades, neither did his flesh see corruption." 
 
 How imposing is this argument ! How plausible it appears! And yet it 
 is irrelevant, as Dr. Priestly frankly confesses, who tries to save the credit of 
 the apostle by the convenient principle of accommodation ! The whole force 
 of Peter's reasoning depends upon the word " corruption." David did see 
 corruption ; therefore, he could not mean himself, but " being a prophet," 
 &c., he meant Jesus Christ. Now, the whole of Peter's argument is 
 grounded upon two mistakes ; for, 1st, the Hebrew word translated 
 " corruption," here signifies " destruction, perdition ;" and in the next place, 
 instead of being "thy holy one," in the singular, it is in the Hebrew "thy 
 saints," in general. The passage is quoted from the 16th Psalm ; and I will 
 give a literal translation of it from the original, which will make the propriety 
 or impi-opriety of Peter's quotation perfectly obvious. The contents and 
 import of the Psalm, according to the English version, are as follow : 
 " David, in distrust of his merits, and hatred of idolatry, fleeth to God for 
 preservation, He showeth the hope of his calling, of the resurrection, and of 
 life everlasting." And the passage in question, according to the original, 
 reads thus : — " I have set the Lord always before me : Because he is on my 
 right hand, I shall not be moved : Therefore my heart is glad, and my glory 
 [i. e., tongue] rejoiceth: My flesh also shall rest in hope. For thou wilt not 
 leave my soul in Hades, neither wilt thou sufi"er thy saints to see destruction. 
 Thou wilt show me the path of life : In thy presence is fullness of joy, and at 
 thy right hand are pleasures for evermore." That is — "Because I have erer 
 trusted in thee, and experienced thy constant protection, therefore I will not 
 fear death ; because thou wilt not for ever leave my soul in the place of 
 departed spirits, nor suff'er thy saints to perish from existence. Thou wilt 
 raise me from the dead, and make me happy for ever in thy presence."* 
 
 * Mr. E. was, doubtless, aware that this is an exposition given by Jewish 
 Commentators. — D.
 
 24 
 
 In the 4th chap, of the Acts, the apostles are represented as praying to 
 God, and referring in their prayer to the 2d Psalm " why did the heatnen 
 rage," &.C., as being a prophecy of the opposition of the Jews to Jesus ; with 
 how much justice may bo seen from these circumstances. 
 
 1. That "the nations," as it is in the original, did not assemble together 
 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 nothing about it. And 3rdly, Those 
 who were concerned did by no means " form vain designs," since they 
 effected their, cruel purpose. And lastly, From that time to the present, 
 God has not set Jesus as his king upon the " holy hill of Sion," as the Psalm 
 imports, nor given him " the nations for his inheritance, nor the uttermost 
 parts of the earth for a possession." 
 
 The next prophecy usually adduced to prove that Jesus is the Messiah, is 
 the passage quoted from Micah v. 2, in the 2d chapter of Mat. — " But from 
 Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the chiefs of Judah, yet 
 out of thee shall he come forth unto me, that is, to be ruler in Israel, whose 
 goings forth have been from old, from the days of hidden ages." This 
 
 Sassage probably refers to the Messiah, but by no means signifies that this 
 [essiah was to be born in Bethlehem, as asserted by Matthew ; but only, that 
 he was to be derived from Bethlehem, the city of Jesse, the father of David of 
 famous memory, whose family was venerable for its antiquity, " being of the 
 days of hidden ages." And this interpretation is kno^^Ti, and ackrtowledged, 
 by Hebrew scholars. But in order to cut short the dispute, Ave will permit 
 the passage to be interpreted as signifying that Bethlehem was to be the 
 birth place of the Messiah. What then? Will a man's being born in 
 Bethlehem be sufficient to make him to be the Messiah foretold by the 
 Hebrew prophets ? Surely it has been made plain in the beginning of this 
 work, that many more characteristic mai-ks than this iiiust meet in one person 
 in order to constitute him the Messiah described by them ! 
 
 In Zechariah ix. 9, it is written, " Rejoice greatly, O Daughter of Sion, 
 Shout, O Daughter of Jerusalem ! Behold thy king cometh unto thee, the 
 righteous one, and saved, or preserved [according to the Hebrew] lowly, and 
 riding upon an ass, and upon a colt, the foal of an ass." This has been 
 applied by the evangelists to Jesus, Avho rode upon an ass into Jerusalem. 
 
 But in the first place, it is to be observed, that there seems to have been 
 a blunder in this transaction ; for according to the Hebrew idiom of the 
 passage quoted above, the personage there spoken of, was to ride upon " an 
 ass' colt ;" whereas, the apostles, in order to be sure of fulfilling the prophecy, 
 represent Jesus as riding upon an ass, and the colt, too ! " They spread their 
 garments \x\}Oi\ them, and set him upon tliem." [See the evangelists in loc] 
 In the next place, a man may ride into Jerusalem upon an ass, without 
 being thus necessarily demonstrated to be the Messiah. And unless, as said 
 before, everi/ tittle of the marks given by the prophets to designate their 
 Messiah, be found in Jesus, and in any other claiming to be that Messiah, 
 his being born in Bethlehem, and riding upon an ass into Jerusalem, will by 
 no means prove him to be so. Besides, those who will take the trouble to 
 look at the context in Zechariah, will find, that the event spoken of in the 
 quotation, is spoken oi as coiitemporaneoiis with the restoration of Israel, and 
 the establishment of peace ancl happiness, M'hich seems to cut up by the 
 roots the interpretation of the evangelists. And to conclude the argument, 
 — Jesus being born in Bethlehem, and riding into Jerusalem, allowing it to 
 be true, would not, we think, frustrate these prophecies of a future fulfilment 
 — for no one can disprove, that if so be the will of God, such a person as the 
 Messiah is described to be, might be born in Bethlehem to-morrow, and ride 
 in triumph into Jerusalem, twenty years afterwards.
 
 25 
 
 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 has been misquoted 
 by John. " And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the 
 inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and supplications, and they 
 shall look on me whom they have pierced." So it stands in the English 
 version; but, before I state what it ought to be, I would observe, that 
 before the evangelist, (who in his accout of the crucifixion applies this passage 
 as referring to Jesus' being pierced with a spear) could make this passage fit 
 his purpose, he had to substitute the word " him" for " me," as it is in the 
 Hebrew ; confirmed by, I believe, all the versions, ancient and modem, 
 without exception. Yet, with this change, it will by no means answer his 
 purpose ; for the Hebrew word here translated " pierced," in this place 
 signifies " blasphemed," or " insulted," as it is understood by Grotius, who 
 confirms this rendering from the Hebrew of Levit. xxiv. 11, where in this 
 passage " the Israelitish woman's son blasphemed the name of the Lord." 
 The Hebrew word translated "blasphemed" is from the same root with the 
 Hebrew woi'd translated "pierced" in the passage in Zechariah quoted above. 
 So that the passage ought to be translated thus: — "I will pour upon the 
 house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the sjiirit 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 well understood.] Now, to enable us to understand more perfectly this 
 passage, let us consider the context, where we shall find that it states, that 
 there was to be a war in Judea, and a seige of Jerusalem, and then a 
 deliverance of the Jews, by the destruction of all the nations, that should 
 come up at that time, against Jerusalem. Immediately after which matters, 
 follows the prophecy under consideration — " I will pour upon the house of 
 David," &c. Now, from these things thus laid together, I crave leave to 
 argue in the words of Dr. Sykes [Essay, &c., p. 268] — "Did any one 
 circimxstance of all this happen to the Jews about the time of the death of 
 Jesus ? Or rather, was not every thing the reverse of what Zechariah says ; 
 and instead of all nations being destroyed that came about Jerusalem, 
 Jerusalem itself was destroyed : instead of a spirit of grace and supplications, 
 the Jews have had their hearts hardened against the Christ ; instead of 
 mourning for him whom they have pierced, they condemn him and his 
 followers even until this day." 
 
 But it is tiresome thus to waste time in proving that part§ and ends of 
 verses, disjointed from their connexion, and even the words quoted, some of 
 them changed and some transposed, (though even done according to the 
 rules given by the venerable Surenhusius) prove nothing. We must, 
 therefore, devote the remainder of this long chajjter to the consideration of 
 the three famous prophecies, on which Christians have not hesitated, with 
 triumphing confidence, to rest the issue of their cause. These are the pro- 
 phecy of Shiloh, Gen. 49 ; the 53d ch. of Isaiah ; and Daniel's prophecy of the 
 " seventy weeks." I will consider them in order, and thus wind up the chapter. 
 
 I have some where read in a catechism, the following question and 
 answer : — Q. " How can you confound the Jews, and prove from prophecy, 
 that the Messiah is already come ?" A. " From these two prophecies — ' 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 stubborn Jews 
 refuse to be confounded ! on the contrary, they in fact laugh at Christians 
 for being so easily imposed upon. 
 
 The prophecy concerning Shiloh, the Jews acknowledge, refers to their 
 Messiah. But they do not allow that it defines or limits the time of his coming. 
 D
 
 26 
 
 And that it in fact does not, will be perfectly evident to all who will look 
 at the place in the Hebrew bible, which they will find pointed to read not 
 — " The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, and a lawgiver from between 
 his feet, until Shiloh come," &c. ; but thus — " The sceptre shall not depai-t 
 from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his {eet,Jbr ever ; for Shiloh shall 
 come, and to him shall the gathering of the people be." So that tho 
 prophecy does not intimate that the Messiah should come before the sceptro 
 be departed from Judah ; but that it should not depart for ever, but shall bo 
 restored when Shiloh comes. This is the plain and obvious sense of the 
 prophecy ; and, moreover, is tho only one that is consistent with historical 
 fact. For, in truth, the sceptre had departed from Judah several hundred 
 years before Jesus of Nazareth was born. For from the time of the 
 Babylonish captivity " Judah" has never been free, but in subjection to tho 
 Persians, the Syrians, the Romans, and all the world. 
 
 If my readers desire fui'ther satisfaction with regard to this interpre- 
 tation of this famous prophecy, I refer them to the dispute upon this subject 
 between the celebrated Rittangelius, and a learned Jew, (preserved in 
 Wagenseils' '•' Tela Ljnea,") where he will find Rittangelius first amicably 
 inviting the Hebrew to discuss the point, who does so most ably and 
 respectfully toward his Christian antagonist,- and unanswerably establishes 
 the interpretation above stated, by the laws of the Hebrew language, by tho 
 ancient interpretation of the Targum, by venerable tradition, and by 
 appealing to history. Rittangelius begins his defence by shuttling, and ends 
 by getting into a passion, and calling names ; which his opponent, who is 
 cool, because confident of being able to establish his argument, answers by 
 notifying to Rittangelius his compassion and contempt. 
 
 The next prophecy proposed to be considered, is tho celebrated 
 prophecy of Isaiah, consisting of part of the 52nd, and the whole of the 
 5ord, chapter. It is the only prophecy which Paley thinks M'orth bringing 
 forward in his elaborate defence ; and it must be confessed, that if this 
 prophecy relates to the Messiah, it is by far the most plausible of any that 
 ai'O brought forward in favour of Jesus Christ. It merits, therefore, a 
 thorough discussion, and I shall endeavour that it shall be a candid one. 
 This prophecy is quoted by Jesus himself in Luke xxii. 39, and by Philip, 
 Tvhen he converted the Eunuch, (Acts 8,) for "beginning at this prophecy, 
 he i^reached unto him Jesus." 
 
 It will not be necessary to cite the passage at length, it being one 
 perfectly familiar to every Christian. I will, then, before I consider it, 
 first premise, that since it has been heretofore abundantly made evident, 
 that the Messiah of the Old Testament was not to sutler, and die, but to 
 live and reign, it is according to the rules of sound criticism, and I think 
 sound theology too, to interpret this solitary passage, so that it may not 
 contradict very many others of a directly contrary import. Now, if this 
 passage can relate only to the Messiah, it will throw into utter confusion 
 the whole scheme of the prophetical scriptures. But if it can be made to 
 appear, that it does not necessarily relate to him ; if it can, consistently with 
 the context, be otherwise applied, the whole difficulty vanishes. Now, tho 
 authors of the New Testament have applied this prophecy to the Messiah, 
 and to Jesus as the Messiah ; and for doing so, they have been accused of 
 misapplication of it from the earliest times ; since we know from Origen, 
 that tho Jews of his time derided the Christians for relying upon this 
 prophecy ; alleging that it related to their own nation, and was a prophecy 
 of their suffering and persecuted state, and of their ultimate emancipation and 
 happiness. And this interpretation of the prophecy the learned Vitringa, in
 
 27 
 
 his commentarj' upon Is. in loc, allows to be the most respectable he had met 
 with among the Jews, and, according to him, " to he by no means dispised." 
 
 In order that the fitness or unfitness of this application of the prophecy 
 may be made apparent, and evident, we will now lay before the reader this 
 famous prophecjV part by pai-t, each part accompanied by the Jewish 
 interpretation. 
 
 Isaiah lii. 13, " Behold my servant shall prosper, he shall be exalted, 
 and extolled, and be very high." Interpretation — My servant Israel, though 
 he be in great affliction for a time, yet hereafter shall be released from 
 captivity, and be honoured and raised to elevation very high among the 
 nations of the earth. [That the Jewish nation is spoken of, in the singular 
 number and under the title of God's servant frequently in the Old Testament, 
 is well known, and will be here made. certain by a few examples. Isaiah xli. 
 {the chapter preceding the prophecy,) " But thou Israel my servant, thou 
 Jacob, whom I have chosen," presently afterwards, " saying to thee, tJioic art 
 my servant." Again, chapter xliv. — " Now, therefore, hear Jacob my servant," 
 and so frequently in the same 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 marred more than 
 any man, and his form more than the sons of men.)" That is — And many 
 were astonished at thee, on account of thy abject state, and miserable 
 condition, being squalid with misery, and sutfering more than any men. 
 
 " So shall he sprinkle many nations, the kings shall shut their mouths 
 at him ; for that which had not been told them, shall they see, and that 
 which they had not heard, shall they consider." 
 
 Interpretation — As the Gentiles wondered at their abject state, so as to 
 make them a proverb of reproach, so shall they admire at their wonderful 
 change of circumstances, from the depth of degradation to the height of 
 prosperity and honour. So that they shall lay their hands upon their mouths, 
 which had beforotime reproached them, when they shall see their felicity to 
 be so far beyond what had been told them, and they shall attentively consider 
 it, and they shall say to each other — 
 
 " Who hath believed our report, and the arm of the Lord to whom was 
 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 a root out of a dry soil ; 
 he had no form nor comeliness ; and when we saw him, there was no beauty 
 that we should desire him." 
 
 The sense is — The Gentiles shall say to each other in wonder, " ^Vho 
 believed what we heard concerning them ? And to whom was the interest the 
 Lord took in them made known : For it Avas a dispised people, feeble, and 
 wretched, like a tender plant springing up out of a thirsty soil. Their 
 appearance was abject, and there was nothing attractive in their manners." 
 
 "He was despised and rejected of men, a man of sorrows and acquainted 
 with grief: and we hid, as it were, oui' faces from him ; he was despised, and 
 we esteemed him not." 
 
 That is — They were dispised, and held in abhorrence : they were men 
 of sorrow, and familar with suffering. We looked upon them with dislike : 
 we hid our faces from them, and esteemed them not. 
 
 " Surely he hath borne ooir griefs, and carried our sorrows." 
 
 Intepretation — Sui-ely their sufferings are as great as if they had borne 
 the sins of the whole world ; or, they are, nevertheless, the means appointed 
 to remove the suft'erings of an afflicted world, for God hath connected 
 universal happiness with their prosperity ; and the end of their suft'erings, is 
 the beginning of our joys. 
 
 " Yet did we esteem him smitten of Ood, and afflicted."
 
 28 
 
 Interpretation — Nevertheless, we considerod them as a God-ahandomd 
 race, and devoted to wretchedness by him, for having crucified their king. 
 
 " But he was wounded for [or hi/] our transgressions, he was bruised for 
 [or by] our iniquities : the chastisement of our peace was upon him ; and 
 through his stripes we are healed." 
 
 ■ That is — But, instead of being the victims of God's wrath, they were 
 wounded through our cruelty, they were bruised by our iniquitous treatment, 
 we being suffered to do so, to chastise them for their sins, and to prove their 
 obedience ; and this chastisement is that by which our peace is to be effected; 
 for their chastisement and probation being finished, God will by them impart 
 and diffuse peace and happiness. 
 
 " All we like sheep have gone astray, we have turned every one to his 
 own way, and the Lord hath caused to meet upon him the iniquity of us all." 
 
 But it is we who have sinned more than they : we have all gone astray 
 in our ignorance, being without the knowledge of God, or of his law. Yet the 
 Lord hath permitted us to make them the subjects of our oppressive iniquity. 
 
 " He was oiipresscd, [or " exposed to pecuniary/ ea;actipns"] and he was 
 afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth : he was brought as a lamb to tho 
 slaughter ; and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he opened not his 
 mouth. He was taken from prison and from judgment, and who shall declare 
 his generation, [" into his manner of life, who stoopeth to look ?" according 
 to the Hebrew] for he was cut off out of the land of the living ; for [or by] 
 the transgression of my people was he stricken. And he made his grave with 
 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 j^assive and unresisting were they, when oppressed ! 
 — They were afflicted, and they complained not; when through false 
 accusations, and mistaken cruelty they were plundered, and condemned to 
 die, they went like a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her 
 shearers is dumb, so they opened not their mouth. They were taken from 
 the dungeon to be slain, they were wantonly massacred, and every man was 
 their foe ; and the cause of the sufferers who condescended to examine ; for 
 by the thoughtless crimes of my people, they suffered. Yet notwithstanding 
 their graves were appointed with the wicked ; yet they were rich in their 
 deaths. This did God grant thein, because they had not done iniquity. 
 
 Rabbi Isaac, author of the famous Munimen Fidei,* renders the original 
 — " on account of impieties was he given to his sepulchre, and on account of 
 his riches was his death, because he did no violence, neither was deceit in 
 his mouth" — which he interprets thus : — We (the former speakers) raised 
 against them false accusations of impiety, on account of their religion, and 
 refusing to worship our idols ; but their riches was the real cause why we 
 put them to death. Nevertheless, they used no violence in opposition to our 
 oppressions, neither would they forsake their religion, and deceitfully assent 
 to ours in hypocrisy. t 
 
 " 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 see his seed, 
 he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in his 
 hands." [This proves that this prophecy cannot refer to any individual, but 
 may refer to the Jewish nation, because one individual cannot be put to 
 death, and yet "see his seed," and "prolong his days."]t "After [or on 
 
 * There exists an English translation of this work by Abraham de Sola D. 
 
 f The person here spoken of by Isaiah is said to make his grave with the wicked, 
 and be with the rich in his death. Whereas Jesus did exactly the contrary. 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. In the original, the words may be translated that
 
 29 
 
 account of] the travail of his soul, seeing he shall be satisfied, by his 
 knowledge shall my righteous servant make many righteous [or show them 
 righteousness,] and he shall bear the burden of their iniquities." 
 
 That is — After and for their sufferings, they shall be abundantly 
 rewarded ; by their superior knowledge of religious truth, shall they make 
 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 the God of Jacob, that he 
 may teach us his ways" — Mic. iv. ch. • 
 
 '•'Wherefore, I will give him a portion with the great, and with the 
 mighty shall he divide the spoil, because he poured out his life unto death, 
 and was numbered with the transgressors, and himself bear 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 exposed themselves to death, and 
 were accounted as transgressors, and bore the ci-uel afflictions inflicted by 
 many, and made intercession for them who afflicted them. 
 
 Such is the explication given by the Jews of this prophecy. I have 
 made no important alterations of the common English translation ; except, 
 that in some passages, I have made it more conformable to the oi'iginal by 
 substituting a verb in the past tense, instead of leaving it in the future, as ia 
 the English version. Those translators have taken certain liberties in this 
 respect to make this prophecy (and several others) more accordant to their 
 own views, which are not supported by the Hebrew : many of these 
 expressions, hoAvever, we have left unaltered, as they are quite harmless. 
 But if any of our readers desire further information with regard to the 
 propriety of this interpretation of this prophecy of Isaiah, we refer him to 
 the " Munimen Fidei," contained in Wagcnseil's "Telalgnea" where he will 
 find it amply illustrated, and defended. Here, in this work, we shall 
 content ourselves with proving, that this prophecy can by no means relate 
 to Jesus, frOm these circumstances : — 1. Jesus certainly was not exalted and 
 magnified, and made very great upon earth, which, as has been shown, was to 
 be the scene of the exaltation of the Old Testament Messiah ; but was put to 
 a cruel and disgraceful death. 2. He was not oppressed hy pecuniary 
 exactions, as is sai^ of the subject of this prophecy. 3. He was never taken 
 from prison to die, for he was never in one. 4. He did not "see his seed," 
 nor " prolong his days," since he died childless ; and we will not permit the 
 word " seed" to be spiritualized on this occasion, for the word " seed" in the 
 Old Testament, means nothing else than literally " children," which it is not 
 pretended he ever had ; and how could he " prolong his days," when he was 
 cut off in his 33d year. 5. Besides, who were " the strong and mighty," 
 ■with whom he divided the spoil ? Were they the twelve fishermen of Galilee ? 
 and what was the spoil divided ? In a word, the literal application of this 
 prophecy to Jesus is now given up by the most learned Hebrew scholars, who 
 allow, that the literal sense of the original can never be understood of him. 
 
 *' he shall avenj^e, or recompence upon the wicked his grave, and his death upon the 
 rich." Thus does the Targum and the Arabic version interpret the place; and 
 Ezekiel ix. 10, uses the verb in the verse in Isaiah under consideration translated (in 
 the English version)—" He made," &c— in the same sense, given to this place in 
 Isaiah, by the Targum, and the Arabic, as said above. See the place in Ezekiel, where 
 it is translated — " I will recompence their way upon their head." See also Deut. xxi. 
 8, in the original. The Syriac has it — " The wicked contributed to his burial, and the 
 rich to his death." The Arabic—" I will punish the wicked for his burial, and the 
 rich for his death " The Targum—" He shall send the wicked into hell, and the rich 
 who put him to a cruel death." — E.
 
 30 
 
 [Seo Priestley's notes on the scriptures, in loco ; and the context before and 
 after.] 
 
 Wc have now come to the last subject proposed to be considered in this 
 chapter, viz., Daniel's prophecy of the seventy weeks, the *' instar omnium" 
 of the prophetical proofs of Christianity, and which was for ages held up to 
 the view of " the unbelieving race," as cutting off beyond doubt their " hope 
 of Israel" ^om ever appearing, since the time so distinctly foretold had 
 elapsed. But such is the instability of human opinions, that it was at length 
 suspected, and at last ascertained by the learned, that "the stubborn 
 Israelites" had some reason for denying that propliecy, any voice in the 
 affair. 
 
 During many years, one learned man after another, had .amused himself 
 with destroying the system of his predecessor, and replacing it with his own, 
 not a whit better, but tending to the same end, viz., to make the prophecy 
 of the seventy weeks tally and fit with the event of the crucifixion. At length 
 Marsham, a learned Englishman, declared, and demonstrated, that his 
 predecessors, in this enquiry, had been gi'ossly mistaken, for that the 
 prophecy in all its parts was totally irrelevant and irreconcileable with the 
 time of the crucifixion. The appearance of his book put all the theologians 
 of that age in an uproar ! But many learned Christians in the last, and 
 present, century, now freely acknowledge, that Daniel is not on their side, 
 but as much a Jew as his brethren. 
 
 This celebrated prophecy, literally translated from the original, is as 
 follows: — Dan. ix. 24, &c. — " Seventy weeks are determined upon 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 and prophecy, and to anoint the most 
 Holy, [i. e., the sanctum sanctorum, or Holy of Holies.] Know, therefore, 
 and understand, that from the going forth of the word to restore and build 
 Jerusalem, unto the anointed prince, shall be seven weeks ; and (in) 
 threescore and two weeks, the street shall be built agaiuj and the wall, even 
 in troublous times. And after threescore and two weeks shall the anointed 
 (one) be cut off, and be without a successor ; (Heb. i' and not, or none to 
 liim") and the city and the sanctuary shall 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 the war desolations are determined. And he shall confirm tho 
 covenant with many for one week, and half the week (i. e., in the midst of 
 the week) he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the 
 overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until tho 
 consummation, and that (is) determined, be poured upon the desolate." 
 
 This is the prophecy on which such stress has been laid, as pointing out 
 the precise time of the coming of the Messiah ; and I shall fully demonstrate 
 that it hath not the most distant reference to that event. And for the better 
 explanation of the prophecy, it is proper that we attend a little to the 
 context. 
 
 t In the preceding chapter of Daniel it is said, that when Daniel was 
 informed of the vision of the two thousand and three hundred days, he sought 
 for the meaning ; but not rightly understanding it, he judged, that that great 
 number was a contradiction to the word of God as dehvcred by Jeremiah, 
 concerning the redemption at the end of seventy years; (Jer. xxv. 11,12, 
 and ch. xxix. 10) and from thence he concluded that the captivity was 
 prolonged on account of the sins of the nation. This doubt arose from his 
 
 * Or, shall destroy. — D. 
 
 f The remainder of this chapter is taken from Levi and Wagenseil. — E.
 
 31 
 
 not understanding the prophecy, and, therefore, the angel said unto him, — 
 "I am now come forth to give thee skill and understanding." And he 
 proceeds to inform him, that as soon as he hegan to pray, and God saw his 
 perplexity, the royal command went foi'th from him, that he should come to 
 Daniel to make him understand the truth of those matters, that were to come 
 to pass in future time. And as the angel Gabriel had explained to him the 
 vision from whence his doubt arose, it was incumbent on liim to pei-fect the 
 explanation; and that is what is meant by the expression "to show," i. e., 
 as I began the explanation, the commandment was, that I should finish it. 
 
 Before I proceed to give the Jewish explanation of the prophecy, it is 
 proper to show in what manner the answer of the angel in it, agi-eed to 
 Daniel's question, and also the reason of his using the term weeks, aud not 
 years, or times, as in the other visions. 
 
 It appears, that Daniel, from the words of Jeremiah, perceived that God 
 ■would visit all the nations, and punish them for their sins, as may be 
 observed from the following words: — "Thus saith the Loi"d God of Israel 
 unto me. Take the wine cup of this fury at my hand, and cause all the 
 nations to whom I send thee, to drink it" — Jer. xxv. 15. -He then mentions 
 fii'st Jerusalem, afterwai'ds the king of Egypt, Tyre, Sidon, and all the Isles 
 "beyond the sea, and many others ; and at last the king of Sheshak, or 
 Babylon. 
 
 He also further perceived, that the visitation of each nation would be 
 at the end of seventy years, as Isaiah observes of Tyre : " And it shall come to 
 pass in that day, that Tyre shall be forgotten scventij years." Isaiah xxiii. 15, 
 the same of Babylon : " And it shall come to pass, when seventy years are 
 accomplished, I will punish the king of 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 tlie nations." From whence it appears, that as 
 the visitation of Babylon was to be seventy years, so was that of the other 
 nations to be ; for so had the wisdom of God decreed to wait according to this 
 number. For which reason, and because the prophets say that the 
 restoration of Israel is to be contemporaneous with the destruction of their 
 enemies, Daniel appears to have judged, that the sins of his nation would be 
 done away by the seventy years of the captivity of Babylon ; and, therefore, 
 the angel informed him of his error, by telling him, that this was not to be 
 the case with his nation, for that their wickedness was come up before God, 
 and their sin was very gi'ievous ; and that, therefore, their sins would not 
 be atoned for by seventy years, as in the case of the rest of the nations, to 
 whom he allowed seventy years to see if they would repent; and if not, then 
 he would punish them. But as for Israel, he would not only wait seventy 
 years, hni seven times seventy years ; (for thus it is literally, in the Hebrew, 
 the words translated "seventy weeks," are, literally, " seventy sevens") after 
 which, if they had not repented and reformed, their kingdom should be cut 
 off, and they return into captivity, to finish an atonement for their trans- 
 gressions. Hence the caitse of Daniel's question is evident ; and the propriety 
 of the angel's answer to the question, is manifest ; as also the expression of 
 weeks or sevens. 
 
 These seventy weeks are, without doubt,ybMr hundred and ninety years, 
 the time elapsed from the destruction of the first temple, till the destruction 
 of the second. 
 
 This, it seems, was the more necessary for the angel to inform him of; 
 because Daniel judged, that after their return from Babylon, by means 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 gemral collection of all
 
 32 
 
 that were in captivity, even all the tribes, save only a few of Judali and 
 Benjamin, and those not the most respectable. And after their return, they 
 were not free, hut were under the dominion of tlie Persians, Greeks and 
 Romans. And although they, at one time, threw off their yoke, and had 
 kings of the Asmonean and Herodean families, yet was there no king among 
 them of the seed of David, neither had they the Sheohinah, nor the Urim 
 and Thummim, all which is a manifestation that it was not a perfect 
 redemption, but only a visitation, with which God was pleased to visit them; 
 so that they were allowed to build a temple to the Lord, by the permission 
 of Cyrus, and according to the measure given by him. This was that they 
 might be the better enabled to do the works of repentance during the time 
 allowed, and thus " make atonement, and thus finish the transgression, and 
 make an end of sins, and make reconciliation for iniquity ;" an4 thus, at the 
 end of the time assigned, even " seventy weeks," they would bring in 
 "everlasting righteousness," i. e., universal virtue and felicity, throughout 
 the world, when the Eternal should be known, worshipped, and obeyed by all 
 mankind. But if they did not repent, and amend, if they did evil, as their 
 fathers, then their kingdom was to be cut otf at the expiration of the seventy 
 weeks; which, in fact, took place.] 
 
 After the angel had thus expressed himself in general terms, he descended 
 to particulars ; and laid down three propositions (if I may be allowed the 
 term,) or periods. 
 
 First. " Know, therefore, and understand, (that) from the going forth 
 of the word to restore and build Jerusalem, unto the anointed prince, (shall 
 be) seven weeks." 
 
 That is, it shall be seven weeks or forty-nine years from the destructibn 
 of the first temple, to Cyrus, " the anointed prince," who shall give leave to 
 build the second. [With regard to the import of the phrase "the going 
 forth of the word," I refer the reader to Levi's Letters to Priestley, and 
 shall here only concern myself with settling the meaning of the expression 
 of " the anointed prince."] Many Christians have objected to the term 
 Messiah, or anointed, being applied, as in our interpretation to Cyrus a 
 heathen prince ; and they apply it themselves to Jesus of Nazareth. But 
 that the term, or a25pellation, Messiah, can be applied to Cyrus, is evident ; 
 since we find it so applied by God himself in the xlv. ch. of Isaiah. " Thus 
 saith the Lord to his anointed, to C'l/rns. 2. It is a singulai- fact, that the 
 appellation " Messiah" is never applied to the expected deliverer of the 
 Israelites in the whole bible, except, perhaps, tn ii. Psalm. It is an 
 ai>pellation indifferently applied to kings, and priests, and propliets ; to all 
 who were anointed, as an induction into their office, and has nothing in it 
 peculiar and exclusive ; but the application of it to the expected deliverer of 
 Israel, originated in and from the Tai'gums. 3. In order to make this 
 prophecy, and this phrase, " Messiah the prince," or " the anointed prince," 
 apply to Jesus of Nazareth, Christians connect, and join together, this first 
 member of the prophecy with the 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 to 
 Jesus, in this place, at any rate ; because he certainly was no prince 6r 
 " Nagid," a word which in the Hebrew bible always, without eicception, denotes 
 a prince, or ruler, one invested with temporal authority, or supreme command. 
 Now, as it is allowed on all hands, that Jesus had no such temporal power, 
 as a prince, or ruler ; it, consequently, follows, that he •an by no means bo 
 the " anointed prince" mentioned in the prophecy. 
 
 Second Period. " And (in) threescore and two weeks, the street shall 
 be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times."
 
 33 
 
 Here the angel gave him to understand, that after the seven weeks 
 before mentioned, there vs^ould come a time in which the building would be 
 hindered, (and which was on account of the letter written by Rheum and 
 Shimshai to Artaxerxes, who, in consequence thereof, made the building to 
 cease — See Ezra and Nehemiah) till the second year of Darius, who gave 
 leave to finish the building: which continued till the destruction by the 
 Romans, sixty-two weeks, beside the last week, at the beginning of which, the 
 Romans came, and warred against them, and at length entirely destroyed 
 the cities of Judah, Jerusalem, and the temple. For, from the time that 
 Cyrus first gave leave to build the temple, till its completion, was twenty-one 
 years ; and its duration, four hundred and twenty ; in the whole, sixty-three 
 weeks, or four hundred and forty one years. But the angel made bis 
 division at sixty-two Aveeks, as he afterwards described what was to come to 
 pass in the last week (and with reason, for the horrible Jewish war lasted 
 seven years!) And by the Avords, '"'in troublous times," he informed Daniel, 
 that during the building of the temple, they would have continual trouble 
 and alarms from their enemies, as is mentioned in Ezra and Nehemiah, where 
 we find, that while some worked, the others held the shield and spear. And 
 even after finishing it, they were almost continually in trouble, and perse- 
 cuted, as is evident from the books of Maccabees, and from Josephus. 
 
 Third Period. " And after threescore and two weeks shall the anointed 
 be cut off, and have no successor— [Heb. "and not, or, none, to him"]-r-and the 
 city and the sanctuary shall 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 
 the war desolations are determined." 
 
 That is, and after that period, shall the High Priest (or " the anointed 
 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 the temple shall be destroyed by Titus and the 
 Romans, and until the end of the war, your country shall be swept with the 
 besom of destruction. 
 
 The angel finishes the prophecy with these words : — '•' And he (the 
 prince that shall come) shall strengthen the covenant with many, for one 
 week. And in the midst of the week (i. e., the seventieth and last weei,) 
 he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease." 
 
 This prediction was fully accomplished; for 1. Titus, " the prince that 
 should come," was continually offering peace to the Jews, and tried to 
 " strengthen the covenant" — i. e., their old treaties made with the Romans, 
 and in fact did bring over many. 2. On account of the distress of the siege, 
 the daily sacrifice did in fact cease to be off'ered in the temple some time 
 before its destruction ; and the angel further observes, that all this was to 
 come upon them for their sins, " for the overspreading of abominations, it 
 should be made desolate." 
 
 This is what appears to be a plain and fair explication of this prophecy; 
 but since Christians, seeing mention made in it of a Messiah to be cut off, 
 have eagerly endeavoured to press it into their service, it remains for me to 
 show, that it is impossible to make this prophecy refer to " the cutting off" 
 of Jesus. 
 
 The difiiculty that learned Christians have met with, in their attempts to 
 do this, will be easily conceived by any person, when he knows, that more than 
 a dozen different hypotheses have been framed by them for that purpose ; 
 but that they have lost their labour, will be obvious from this single 
 observation, that " the anointed one, or Messiah," who, the prophet says, was 
 to be " cut off," was to be cut off " after the threescore and two weeks," 
 i. e., at the destrwtion of Jerusalem, or within the seven years preceding thicCt
 
 34 
 
 ewnt ! Now, we know from the Evangelists, and from profane hiistory, that 
 Jesus was crucified more than forty years before the destruction of Jerusalem. 
 In addition to this, nothing need be said, for this circumstance lays flat their 
 interpretation at one stroke. 
 
 Those who desire to see a more elaborate discussion of this prophecy^ 
 and an ample defence of this interpretation, are referred to " Levi's Letters, 
 to Priestly ;" and those who are desirous of seeing an account of the various, 
 contradictory, perplexed and multitudinous contrivances, by which it has 
 been endeavoured to apply this prophecy to Jesus, are referred to Prideaux, 
 Michsclis, and Blayney. 
 
 We have now gone through an examination of the evidence adduced 
 from the prophets of the Old Testament, to prove that Jesus is the Messiah 
 of the Old Testament; and those of our readers who love truth, are, w« 
 trust, now made sensible that the religion of the New Testament, if built 
 upon such proofs as these, is, evidently, founded on — a mistake. 
 
 CHAPTER VIII. 
 
 STATEMENT OF ARGUMENTS WHICH PROVE THAT JESUS WAS NOT THE MESSIAH OF THE 
 
 OLD TESTAMENT. 
 
 Many of our readers have, no doubt, heard from the pulpit many 
 exclamations and declamations against the " blindness of the Jews," in not 
 recognizing their Messiah in Jesus of Nazareth. The reasons of this 
 " blindness" are made, I think, by this time pretty intelligible. 
 
 Nevertheless, for the further satisfaction of the I'eader, I will here set 
 down the principal reasons given by Rabbi Isaac, in his " Munimen Fidei," 
 which cause the Jews to deny the Messiahship of Jesus. 
 
 " At a certain time, (says he,) a certain learned man of the wise men of 
 the Christians said unto me : — ' Wherefore are you Jews unwilling to believe 
 Jesus of Nazareth to be the Messiah, when yet your veritable prophets 
 testified of him, whose words you profess to have faith in.' 
 
 " I gave him this answer. ' How, I require, could we believe him to he 
 ^e Messiah, when you can produce no genuine proof from the prophets in 
 his favour, since all those things adduced by the evangelists from them, to 
 prove Jesus the Messiah, are nothing to the purpose ? And we have many 
 and evident reasons to prove that he 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 time of his appearing. 4. From the prophecies of the 
 things to take place in the time of the Messiah not having been fulfilled in his 
 age. And in these things are contained the genuine marks characteristic 
 of our Messiah.' 
 
 "1. As to what concerns his genealogy; it does not prove this necessary 
 thing, that Jesus was the son of David, because he was not begotten by 
 Joseph, as the Gospel of Matthew testifies ; for in the first chapter of it, it is 
 written, that Jesus was born of Mary when she was yet a virgin, and had not 
 been known by Joseph ; which things being so, the genealogy of Joseph has 
 nothing to do with Jesus. The descent and origin of Mary, is still less 
 known, but it seems from Luke's calling Elizabeth, who was of Levi, her 
 cousin, that Mary was of the tribe of Levi, and not of Judah, and, conse- 
 quently, not of David ; and, if she were, still Jesus is not the more the son 
 of David; descents being reckoned from the males only. Neither is the 
 genealogy of Joseph rightly deduced from David, but labours under great 
 difficulties. Matthew, and Luke also, not only disagree, but irreconcilably 
 and fatly contradict each other, in their genealogies of Joseph. Now, it 
 
 1
 
 35 
 
 cannot be that the testimony of two witnesses, who directly contradict each 
 other in the matter to he proved by them, can be I'eceived as true. But the pro- 
 phets have directed us to expect no Messiah but one born of the seed of David. 
 
 "2. As to the works of Jesus, we object to what he said concerning 
 himself: — 'Do not consider me as come to establish peace on earth, for I 
 have come to send a sword, and to separate the son from the father, and the 
 daughter from her mother, and the daughter-in-law from her mother-in-law,* 
 which words are written in Mat. ch. x. But we find the prophecies con- 
 cerning the Messiah to attribute to him very different works from these ; 
 nay, the very opposite. For, whereas Jesus testifies concei*ning himself, that 
 he did not come to establish peace in the earth, but ' division,' ' fire,' and 
 •sword,' Zechariah says, concerning the expected Messiah, ch. ix. :-r-'He 
 shall speak peace to the nations.' Jesus says he came to send 'fire and sword' 
 upon the earth, but Micah says, ch. ii., that in the times of the true Messiah 
 ' they shall beat their swords into ploughshares, -and their spears into pruning 
 hooks, nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they 
 learn war any more.' Jesus says that he came ' to put division between the 
 father and the son,' &c. But in the time of the true Messiah, Elias, the 
 prophet, shall come, of whom Malachi prophecied ' that he shall convert the 
 heart of the fathers unto the children, and the heart of the children to the 
 fathers.' Jesus says ' that he came to serve others, not to be served by 
 them' — Mat. xx. 28. But of the true Messiah it is said. Psalm Ixxii. : — ' All 
 kings shall bow themselves before him, all nations shall serve him.' The 
 same also is said by Zechariah, ch. ix. : — ' His dominion shall be, from one 
 sea to the other, and from the river mito the ends of the earth ;' and so 
 Dan., ch. vii. : — 'AH dominions shall serve and obey him.' 
 
 " 3. As to the time, we object to the Christians, that Jesus did not come 
 at the time designated by the prophets; for the prophets testify, that the 
 coming of the Messiah should be ' in the end of days,' or, in the latter days, 
 (which, surely, have not yet arrived) as it is in Isaiah ch. ii. : — ' It shall come 
 to pass 171 the latter days, that the mountain of the Lord's house shall be 
 established in the top of the mountains, and all nations shall flow unto it ;' 
 and it immediately follows, concerning the king Messiah, ' that he shall judge 
 among the nations, and rebuke many peoples, and they shall beat their 
 swoi'ds into ploughshares, and their spears into pruning hooks.' See also 
 Hosea, ch. iii , and also Dan., ch. ii., where it is written : — ' God hath made 
 known unto king Nebuchadnezzar what 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 of those kings, (i. e., of the kingdoms that arose out of the 
 ruins of the Roman Empire) the God of heaven will raise up a kingdom, 
 which shall never be destroyed.' Thus you see, that the prophets predicted, 
 that the kingdom of the Messiah should be after the desti-uction of the 
 Roman Empire, not while it was in its vigour ; when Jesus came ; in ' the 
 latter days,' and not before.* 
 
 * The reader is requested to consider the reasoning in the last paragraph. The 
 prophecy in the second chapter of Daniel, is commonly supposed 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 latter days of these kingdoms,' (which are now subsisting) God would 
 set up a kingdom which would never be destroyed, — that of the Messiah. Of course, 
 accordhig to this interpretation, the kingdom of the Messiah was not to be not only 
 not till after the destruction of the Roman Empire, but not till 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 when the Roman Empire itself was in the highest of its 
 splendour and vigour. This is a remarkable, and very striking, repugnance, to the 
 claims of the New Testament, and, if substantiated, must overset them entirely. — E.
 
 36 
 
 " 4. Besides all these difficulties, neither were the promises made to ua 
 by the prophets, concerning the things to come to pass at the coming of the 
 Messiah, fulfilled in the time of Jesus. For examples, take the following : — 
 *1. In the time of the king Messiah, there was to be one kingdom only, and 
 one only king upon earth, viz., the king Messiah — see Daniel, ch. ii. ; but 
 behold, we see with our eyes, many independent kingdoms, distinct, and 
 distinguished by different laws and customs, religious and political, which 
 things being so, it follows, that the Messiah is not yet come. 
 
 " 2. In the time of the king Messiah, there was to be only one religion 
 and one law throughout the world ; for, it is wi;itten in Isaiah, ch. lii. and 
 Ixvi., that all nations shall come at stated times to 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 oflP, and 
 utterly 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 shall utterly pass 
 away;' and so in Zephaniah, ch. ii., 'The Lord shall be terrible among 
 them, when he shall make lean (i. e., bring to nothing) all the gods of the 
 earth ; and all the countries of the nations shall bow themselves to Him, each 
 out of his place.' 
 
 " 4. In the times of the Messiah, there shall obtain no more sins and 
 crimes in the earth, especially among the children of Israel, as is affirmed in 
 Deut. XXX., Zephaniah, ch. iii., and in Jeremiah, ch. iii. and 1., and so in 
 Ezekiel, ch. xxxvi. and xxxvii. 
 
 " 5. In the times of the Messiah, there shall be peace between man and 
 beast, and between the tiger and the tame beast ; and the little child shall 
 stroke, with impunity, the variegated skin of the serpent, and, — as one of our 
 own poets has beautifully said, — ' and with his forked tongue shall innocently 
 play.' See in Isaiah, ch. xi. and Ixv., 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 the inhabitants thereof 
 are to lead joyful lives in gratitude to the good God, and in the enjoyment 
 of his bounties. See Isaiah Ixv. 
 
 " Lastly. In the time of the king Messiah, the glory of God was again to 
 return to Israel, and the spirit of the most High God was to be liberally 
 poured out upon them, and they were to be endowed with the spirit of 
 prophecy, and with wisdom, and knowledge, and understanding, and virtue; 
 and God v/ill no more hide his face from them ; but will bless them, and give 
 them a ready heart and a willing mind to obey his laws, and enjoy the 
 felicities consequent thereupon. And the Shechinah shall inhabit the temple 
 for ever, and the glory of God shall never depart from Israel ; but they shall 
 walk amid the splendours of the glory of the Eternal, and all the earth 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 his prophecies, and in Jer. xxxi." 
 
 And now, reader, let me ask you this question, has any one of the fore- 
 going prophecies been yet fulfilled, either in the days of Jesus, or ever siiice f 
 Thou canst not say it ! Now, then, hear the conclusion, which, in sincerity, 
 and with the hand upon the heart, I am compelled to draw from these 
 precedents. " Since these distinctive characteristics predicted by the 
 Hebrew prophets, as to be found in their Messiah, were certainly, and 
 evidently, never found in Jesus ; and since these conditions and circumstances, 
 and many others beside, which, to avoid prolixity, have been omitted, most 
 assm'edly did not take place in the tiniQ of Jesus, nor ever since, and since
 
 37 
 
 they were according to those prophets, certainly to be expected in the time 
 of their Messiah; therefore, from all this, it seems to be demonstrable 
 (allowing the prophets to be true,) that Jesus of Nazareth was not this true 
 Messiah." And I would ask the candid Christian, in which link of this chain 
 of proofs he can find a flaw? And I would ask him, too, as a moral and 
 honest man, whether any Jew, in his right mind, could, without setting at 
 nought what he conceived to be the word of God, receive him as the 
 Messiah ? The honest and upright answer, I believe, will be, that he could 
 not. And, accordingly, it is very well known, that the Jewish nation have 
 never done so. And this their obstinacy, as it is called, will not by this time, 
 I think, appear unreasonable to any sensible man ; and he will now be able to 
 appreciate the justice of that idle cant about "the carnal Jews," and their 
 " worldly-minded" expectation of a temporal prince, as their Messiah. 
 Certainly, the 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 illitei'ate 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 them- 
 selves, who, at first, like other unbelieving Jews, expected a temporal pi'ince ; 
 and did disbelieve Jesus to be the Messiah on account of his death, notwith- 
 standing 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 i-ather inconsistent and singular, that they 
 should place so much dependance 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
 
 38 
 
 they should " cry aloud" for that which would support thoir peculiar views, 
 but reject it when militatiug against these views.* 
 
 * The sum of our argument may be expressed thus. God is represented in the 
 prophecies of the Old Testament as designinf^ to send into the world an eminent 
 deliverer, descended from David, the peace and prosperity ot whose reign should far 
 exceed all that went before him, in whom all the glorious things foretold by the 
 prophets should receive their entire completion ; and who should be distinguished by 
 the character of the Messiah or Christ. This is an article of faith common to 
 Christians and Jews. But that Jesus of Nazareth should be esteemed this Messiah, 
 and that Christians can support that opinion, by alledging the prophecies of the 
 Hebrew scriptures as belonging to, and fulfilled in, him, is what we can by no means 
 allow, and that especially on account of these inconsistencies. 
 
 1. Because, these prophecies, acknowledged on both sides to point out the 
 Messiah, could not otherwise answer the end of inspiring them than bi/ an accomplish- 
 ment so plain and sensible, as miglit sufficiently distinr^uish the person meant by them 
 to be that Messiah. But no such accomplishment, 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, are wrested to a 
 meaning which quite destroys the historical sense of scripture, and breaks the 
 connexion of the passages from whence they are taken. Thus many shreds and loose 
 sentences are culled out for this purpose, which do not appear to have any relation to 
 Jesus, or to the Messiah either ; but to have received their proper and intended com- 
 pletion in some other person, whom the prophet, as is manifest, had then only in view. 
 
 3. Because, in their forced applictitions 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; ily to hyperboles and strained 
 metaphors, and thus expound the true meaning and importance of the prophecies 
 quite away; the intent whereof being to instruct men in so necessary a point of faith 
 as that relating to the Messiah, it is reasonable to think they would be delivered in the 
 most perspicuous and intelligible terms. Since ambiguous expressions (capable of such 
 strange meanings as they pretend,) would be too slippery a foundation to build such a 
 point of faith upon ; would be of no use, or worse than none ; woiild be unable to teach 
 the clear truth, and apt to ensnare men into dangerous errors, by leaving too great a 
 latitude for fanciful interpretations, and introducing darkness and confusion, and 
 contradiction inexplicable. 
 
 4. Because, admitting (as indeed it never was, or can be denied) that many 
 passages of scripture, and of prophetical scripture especially, must be figuratively 
 taken; yet, we must always put a wide difference between a sense not just as the 
 words in their first signification import, and a sense directli/ the contrary of what they 
 import. And yet we complain that this latter is the sense which Christians labom* to 
 obtrude upon the gainsayers. We say, that a kingdom of this Avorld, and not 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 everlastingdominionof a universal monarch, must \ic reconciled, 
 and mean the self same thing, before the prophecies appealed to, can do their cause any 
 service. Granting, then, the goodness of God (according to them,) to have been 
 better than his word, by giving spiritual blessings, instead of temporal ; yet, what will 
 become of the truth of God, if He act contrary to his word, even when it would be for 
 our advantage, if He misleads 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 concern with the 
 predictions of the Old Testament, it could not have taken more effectual care to justify 
 the unbelief and obstinacy of the Jews, than by ordering matters so, that the life and 
 death of Jesus should be so exacthj, and so entirely, the very reverse of all those 
 ideas under which their prophets had constantly described, and the Hebrew nation 
 as constantly expected of their Messiah, and his coming ; and to suppose that the Su- 
 preme Being meant to describe and point out such a person as Jesus by such descrip- 
 tions of the Messiah as are contained in the Old Testament, is certainly substantially 
 to accuse him of the most unjustifiable prevarication, and mockery of his creatures.
 
 39 
 CHAPTER IX, 
 
 OP THE CHARACTER OF JESUS OF NAZARETH AND THE WEIGHT TO BE ALLOWED TO THB 
 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 gi*eat 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 followerst No, I look upon his character with the 
 
 In order that the subject we are examining, and the arguments we make use of, 
 may be clearly understood by the reader, he is requested to bear in mind, that the 
 author reasons all along upon the supposed Divine authority of the Old Testament, 
 which is admitted by both Jews and Christians. Whether the supernatural claims of 
 the Old Testament be just, or not, is of no consequence in the world to the contro- 
 versy we are considering. For the dispute of the Jew with the Christian is one 
 thing, and his dispute with the sceptic is another, totally different. For whether such a 
 personage as the Messiah is described to be, has appeared eighteen hundred years ago, 
 is quite a different thing from the question, whether such a personage will appear at 
 all. The Christian says, that he has appeared in the person of Jesus of Nazareth. 
 This the Jew denies, but looks forward to the future fulfilment of the promises in his 
 Bible. While the Sceptic denies that the Messiah has come, or ever wiU. 
 
 But the subject at present under consideration is the dispute of the Jew with the 
 Christian, who acknowledges the Old Testament to be a Revelation, upon which a 
 new Revelation, that of the New Testament, is founded and erected. To him the 
 Jew argues, that if the Old Testament be a Divine Revelation, then the New 
 Testament cannot be a Revelation, because it contradicts, and is repugnant to, the 
 Old Testament, the more ancient, and acknowledged Revelation. Now God cannot 
 be the author of two Revelations, one of which is repugnant to the other. One of 
 them is certainly false. And if the Christian, conscious of the difficulty of reconciling 
 the New, with the Old, Testament, attempts to support the New, at the expense of the 
 Old, Testament, upon which the former is, and was, built by the founders of Christian- 
 ity ; then the Jew would tell him, that he acts as absurdly as would the man who 
 should expect to make his house the firmer, by undermining, and weakening its 
 foundation. 
 
 So that whether the Christian affirms, or denies, he is ruined either way. For he 
 is reduced to this fatal dilemma. If the Old Testament contains a Revelation from 
 God, then the New Testament is not from God, for God cannot contradict himself: 
 and it can be proved abundantly, that the New Testament is contradictory, and 
 repugnant to the Old and to itself too. If, on the other hand, the Old Testament 
 contains no Revelation from God, then the New Testament must go down at 
 any rate ; because it asserts that the Old Testament does contain a Revelation from 
 God, and builds upon it, as a foundation. — E. <• 
 
 f There was nothing which gave the author, in writing this Book, so much 
 uneasiness, at the apprehension of being supposed to entertain disrespectful sentiments 
 of the Founder of the Christian Religion. I would most earnestly entreat the reader 
 to believe my solemn assurances, that by nothing that I have said, or shall be under 
 the necessity of saying, do I think, or mean to intimate the slightest disparagement 
 to the moral character of one, whose purity of morals, and good intentions, deserve 
 any thing else but reproach. That he was an enthusiast, I do not doubt ; that he was 
 a wilful impostor I never will believe. And I protest before God, that from the 
 apprehensions above-mentioned alone, I would have confined the contents of this 
 volume to myself, did I not feel compelled to justify myself for h£fving quitted a 
 profession : and did I not, above all, think it my duty, to make a well meant attempt, 
 which I hope will be seconded, to vindicate the" unbelief of an unfortunate nation, 
 who, on that account, have for almost eighteen hundred years, been made the victims 
 of rancorous prejudice, the most infernal cruelties, and the most atrocious wickedness. 
 If the Christian religion be, in truth, not well founded, surely it is the duty of every
 
 40 
 
 respect which every man should pay to purity of morals : though mingled 
 Tfith something like the sentiments which we naturally feel for the 
 mistaken enthusiast. Jesus of Nazareth appears to have been a man of 
 irreprochable 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." 
 Heretiredtosolitary places, and there pi-ayed : he w-ent into the wilderness to 
 sustain and to vanrjuish 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 hypo- 
 crites, and sirtners 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 monai-ch: 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 concern- 
 ing 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 frustate 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? 
 can-y the accused to the proper tribunal.' 
 
 As to his conduct about the jaiatter of Elias, it was as follows; It is said 
 in the 17th chapter of Matthew, that at his transfiguration, as it is called, 
 
 honest and every humane, man, to endeavour to dispel an illusion, which certainly 
 has been, notwithstanding any thing that can be said to the contrary, the bona fide, 
 and real cause of unspeakable misery, and of repeated, and remorseless plunderings, 
 and massacres, to an unhappy people ; the journal of whose sufferings, on account of 
 it, forms the blackest page in the history of the human race, and the most detestable 
 one in the history of human superstition. — E,
 
 41 
 
 Moses, and Elias appeared to his disciples on the mounts talking with Jesus. 
 Upon coming down from the mount, the disciples asked Jesus, " how say 
 the scribes that Elias must come fii'st, (that is, before the Messiah.) Jesus 
 answered, Elias truly comcth 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 xi. 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 teri'ible day of the Lord," 
 which has not yet taken place. And besides, that he was not Elias is tes- 
 tified 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 bo acknowledged, that he does it with an air of 
 hesitation, " If ye will receive it," &c. 
 
 But are these all the accusations you have to bring against him? may be 
 Baid by some of my readers. Do you account as nothing, his claiming to 
 forgive sins ? his speeches wherein he 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 extra- 
 ordinary 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 exti'avagan- 
 cies to hallucination of mind ? Yes, certainly ! and therefore the Jews were 
 to blame for crucifying Jesus. If Christians had put to death every unfor- 
 tunate, 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 Chi'istian divines 
 have never been able to fathom all their mysteries. To prove that I do not 
 Bay 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 he spake to this very 
 multitude of poor and iguorant people in parables, lest they might under- 
 stand him, and be converted from their sins, and God should heal, or pardon
 
 43 
 
 them. In the 26th chapter of Matthew, Jesus says to his disciples, in the 
 garden of Gethsemano, these strange words, " Sleep on now, and take your 
 rest — Arise ! let us be going." The commentators endeavour to get rid of 
 the strange contradictorinoss of those words, by turning the command into 
 the future ; and rendering the Grook 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, vorily (said Jesus) I say unto you, if a man keep my 
 Baying, 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 sai<l 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 tho 
 Pharisees, Luke xi. 47, 4«, for building and adorning the sepulchi-es of tho 
 Prophets, whom their wicked fathers slew ; and says to them, " "Your 
 fathers slew them, and ye build their sepukhres," and he adds, " that thus 
 they showed that they approved the deeds of their fathers !" Surely this is 
 absurd ! Bid the Athenians by setting up a statue to Socrates after his unjust 
 death, show to tho 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 tho 
 righteous, to the blood of Zechariah," &c. Now, herein is a marvellous 
 thing! how could a man really sent from God, ;xssert to the Jews, that of 
 thehi 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 alter tho 
 murder, the guilt of it; nay more, "of all the righteous blood that had 
 been shed upon tlie earth," were thoy 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, ]>roved tho 
 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. Aro 
 there no instances upon record of mild, zealous, and amia\)le men who 
 preached to the savages of America that they ought to worship tho 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 tho 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 tho 
 Papists upon tho aigument of martyrdom ? We all know the power of 
 enthusiasm upon a susceptilde mind ; and wo haven^ad of, and perhaps seen, 
 its effects in producing martyrdoms amorg 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 husl)ands, to prove, as they say, their love for them, and their 
 determination to accompany them to the other world ; when it is well
 
 43 
 
 known, that they bum themselves from the impulse of vanity, and the fear 
 of disgrace, if they shouhl 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 Ilindostan, 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 mishapen idols prostrate their bodies 
 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 
 bod 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 Christiaa 
 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 I 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 wo 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 ihe 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 expoct 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 tho higher ranks of 
 society, they were at least had in great respect by their followers. Neither 
 George Fox, nor Whitfield, nor Weatley were honoured by the nobility, or
 
 44 
 
 gentry? or scholars of England ; nor Ann Lee, by the most respocfcalile citizens 
 of the United States. Yet among tlioir disciples, the Quakers, the Methodists, 
 and the Shakers they were held in 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 wore 
 conversant only with the poor. But neither had they any to lose, by taking 
 up the profession of Apostles, and Preachers. At least by prcar^hing the 
 gospel, they obtained food, and cloathing, 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 com ;'" 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 U)ss gain than the Apostles did. 
 
 As to the dangers to which it is said they exposed thomselves, they had 
 none to fear, except in Judca, which they quickly quitted, finding the Jews 
 too stubborn, and went to the Greeks. Fi'oni the Greeks, and likewise from 
 the Romans, they had not much to foar, 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 fi-om 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 wore not then 
 very severe about it. And it is evident from the Acts of the Apostles, that 
 the Roman pra?tors considered the accusations against Paul and his 
 companions, as mere trifles. But in Judea, where the danger Avas evident, 
 it was otherwise. When Paul was in peril there, on account of his 
 transgressions against the law, after being deliverc(I 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 Cfcsar. 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 th(! 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 Cresar ; thus 
 securing himself a safe conduct out of Judea, which was too dangerous for 
 him. Among- the Gentiles, their doctrine bad 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 Fatlicr 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 iihilosophers of Athens, who derided him, and 
 considered him as telling them a story similar to those of their owa 
 mythology, when he preached to them Jesus and the resurrection. And ia
 
 45 
 
 revenge, we see Paul railing against both the stubborn Jews, and the 
 incorrigable philosophers, as being unworthy of knowing " the hiddea 
 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 havd 
 expected to be considered by the Gentiles as messengers from God ? For if 
 they had inculcated any immoralities, such as rebellion, mui'der, adulteiy, 
 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 pi-ecepts 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, stuft'ed with the most extravagant lies, which no learned mau 
 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 he 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 Apostle'fe, 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 teacb 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 earned 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 : thei'efore you open the doors to the most wicked and abandoned."
 
 46 
 
 " Some of thom say * do not examine, but believe, and tby faitb sball 
 save 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 aro 
 reckoned evil by us. But whoever is uidearned, ignorant, and silly, let bim 
 come without fear ! Thus they own that they can gain only the foolisli, tho 
 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 owa 
 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 tho 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 oflT their doctrine." 
 
 " You may see weavers, tailOrs, and fidlers, 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 fathei-s, 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 diiect 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 iloteimine 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 quotation?, that they 
 had more success among simple, and credulous people, than among the 
 intelligent, and well-informed. Their introductory lesson to their pupils, 
 was, " Beleive, but do not examine :" and their succeeding instructions seem 
 to have been a continued repetition, and practice of the dogma of implicit 
 faith* 
 
 * 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 tho 
 lowest of the people." [Vili Plebecula.J And Coecilius,in Minutius PVii.x, says, that 
 the Christian assemblies were made up " de ultima faeee coUectis, Imperitioribus, et 
 mulieribus credulis sexu.s suae facilitate labentibu.s," i. e. " that they consisted of the 
 lowest of the mob, simple and unlearned men, and credulous women." 
 
 The president of a province b introduced by Prudcntiua as thus addressing » 
 martyr: —
 
 47 
 
 CHAPTER X. 
 
 MISCELI.ANEOUS. 
 
 In Matthew, ch. v. Jesus says, " ye have heard that it was said, 'thou 
 ahalt 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 cei-tainly bring him back to him." " If" thou 
 see'st 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 
 Bhalt 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 Pi-ov. 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 
 nature, and friendship, the command is impracticable ; and the fulflUinent of it 
 contrary to nature, and those very instincts given us by our Creator. And 
 therefore, whoever thinks he fulfills, really falfills this command, does in fact 
 play the hypocrite unknown to himself; for though we can, and otight 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 Phai isecs, " 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 Abiaihar the High P iest, 
 and did eat of the shew-broad, &c." See the same also in Matthew, ch. xii. 
 3. Luke vi. 3. Now hero is a great blunder ; for this thing happened in the 
 time of Achimelech, not in the time of Abiathar ; for so it is Mritten, 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 ihe house 
 of David, and announced to her that she should conceive, and bear a son, 
 and should call his name Jesus; that her holy off"spring 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 
 
 " Tu qui Doctor, ait, seris novellum 
 Commenti genus, ut Leves Puell^e, 
 Lucos destituuut, Jovem relinquant; 
 Damnes, si sapias, Anile Dogma." 
 
 The Christian Fathers confess, and glory in it, that the greater part of their 
 congregations consisted of women and children, slaves, beggars, and vagabonds. 
 
 The Jewish Christians were, as apjiears evidently from the New Testament, 
 exceedingly poor, and therefore there is frequent mention made of contributions for 
 '* the poor Saints at Jerusalem." From thence it was that the Jewish Christians got 
 the name of Ebioniles, i. e. Poor. The Jewish 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, 
 except Paul ; after the destruction of Jerusalem they gradually dwindled in numher, 
 and became extinct. — E.
 
 48 
 
 kingdom there should be no end." Now this story is encumbered with many 
 diflBculties, 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 ho 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 tlie throne of David, as was promised by the 
 Angel to his Mother? For he did not sit upon the throne of David, nor 
 exei'cise 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 cntl ; for when ho 
 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 docs 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 mc, 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 tliem, saying. This day 
 is this Scripture fulfilled in your ears." Here you see the words which gave 
 ofi^ence ; and by turning to Is. in loco. ch. Ixi. you may see the reason 
 why the inhabitants of Nazareth arose up in wrath against him. For 1. 
 these words alledged in Luke, arc somewhat perverted from the original ia 
 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 hinnelf; and tlie 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 ia 
 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
 
 49 
 
 constituted" film a pvopliet to announce these consolations to the Israelites, 
 who were to be in captivity, in order that they shouUl not dispair of 
 liberation ; and tliat tiicy 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," &e. all which terms are applicable onJj/ to the 
 Isi'aelites. That this is the true interpretation, Avill 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 showost 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 bo 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 storj- 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 ^lachpelah, recorded in Gen. xxiii. with the circumstances 
 related concerning the pvn-chase 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, figui'es which ye made to worship them, and I will carry you away 
 beyond Babylon." In Amos, ch. . v. 26 — " But yehave 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 co'iiccive that any Jew could have quoted his Bible in such a 
 blundering manner. 
 
 G
 
 50 
 
 CHAPTER XI. 
 
 ITHETHEB THE MOSAIC LAW BE REPRESENTED IN THE OLD TESTAMENT AS A TEMPORABT^ 
 OB A FERPETCAL INSTITUTION. 
 
 A very great part of Dogmatic Theology among Christians is founded 
 upon tho 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 pursuaded 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. JNow, 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 i-epeatedly declared 
 to be perpetual ; and Ave 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, to the end of time. It is called " an everlasting 
 covenant" to be kept by his posterity through all their generations. See the 
 ch. where the condition of the covenant is, that God would give to Abraham 
 and his posterity, the perpetual inheritance of the promised laud with 
 ■whatever privileges were implied in his being their God, on condition that 
 their male children were circumcised in testimony of putting themselves 
 under that covenant. There is no limitation with respect to time; nay it is 
 expressly said that the convenant should be perpetual. 
 
 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 you shall keep it 
 as a feast to the Lord throughout your generations. You shall keep it a feast 
 by an ordinance for ever." This is repeated afterwards, 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 Sabbath throughout their 
 generations, for a perpetual covenant. It is a sign between me and the 
 children of Israel yb>- ever." 
 
 The appointment of the Family of Aaron to be Priests, was to continue 
 as long as the Israelites should be a nation. See Lev. vii. 35. 
 
 The Feast of Tabernacles was to hejbr'ever, Lev. xxiii. 41. '•' It shall be 
 a statute for ever, in your generations." The observance of this Festival 
 is particularly mentioned in the prophecies, which foretell a future settlement 
 of the Jews in their own land, as obligatory on all the world ; as if an union 
 of worship at Jerusalem Avas to be, according to them, effected among 
 all nations by the united observance of this Festival there, see Zech. 
 14 ; Avhat he there says is confirmed by what Isaiah prophecied concerning 
 the same period. Is. 2. '• It shall come to pass in the last days, that 
 the mountain of the Lord's house shall bo established in the top of 
 the mountains, and shall he exalted above the hills, and all stations shall 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 the God of Jacob, and He
 
 51 
 
 will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths. For out of Zion shall 
 go forth the Law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem. And he 
 shall judge among the nations, and rebuke many people, and they shall beat 
 their swords into ploughshares, and their spears into pruning hooks. Nation 
 shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any 
 more." 
 
 With respect to all the Laws of Moses, it is evident from the manner in 
 which they were promulgated, that they were intended to be of perpetual 
 obligation upon the Hebrew nation, and that by the observance of them they 
 were to be distinguished from the other nations, see Deut. xxvi. 16. 
 
 The observance of their peculiar Laws was the express condition 
 on which the Israelites were to continue in possession of the promised land ; 
 and though on account of their disobedience they were to be driven out of 
 it, they had the strongest assurances given them that they should never be 
 utterly destroyed, like many other nations who should oppress them ; but 
 that on their repentance, God would gather them from the remote parts of 
 the world, and bi'ing them to their own country again. And both Moses, 
 and the later Prophets assure them, that in consequence of their becoming 
 obedient to God in all things, which it is asserted they will, (and which may 
 be the natural consequence of the discipline they will have gone through,) 
 they shall be continued in the peaceable enjoyment of the land of promise, 
 in its greatest extent to the end of 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 upon thee, the 
 blessing and the curse, which I have set before thee, and shalt call them to 
 mind among all the nations whither the Lord thy God hath driven thee ; 
 and shalt return unto the Lord thy God, and shalt 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 -have compassion upon thee, and will return, and gather thee 
 from all the nations whither the Lord thy God hath scattered thee. If any of 
 thine be driven out unto the utmost parts of heaven, from thence will the 
 Lord thy God gather thee, and from thence will he fetch thee. And the 
 Lord thy God will bring thee unto the Land which thy Fathers possessed, 
 and thou shalt possess it, and He will do thee good, and multiply thee above 
 thy Fathers. And the Lord thy God will circumcise thy heart, and the 
 heart of thy seed, to love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all 
 thy soul, that thou may est live ; and the Lord thy God will put all these 
 curses upon thine enemies, and on them that hate thee, which persecuted 
 thee. And thou shalt return, and obey the voice of the Lord, and do all his 
 commandments ivhich I command thee this day." &;c. 
 
 " What an extent of pi'ophecy, and how firm a faith in the whole of ifc 
 do we see here! (says Dr. Priestly.) The Israelites were not then in the 
 land of Canaan. It was occupied by nations far more numerous, and pow- 
 erful than they ; and yet it is distinctly foretold in the 4th ch. that they 
 would soon take possession of it, and multiply in it : and that afterwards 
 they would offend God by their idolatry, and wickedness, and would in con- 
 sequence of it be driven out of their country ; and without being exterminated 
 or lost, be scattered among the nations of the world ; that by this 
 dispersion, 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, and restored to their own 
 country, when they would observe all the laws which were then prescribed to 
 them. Past history, and present appearances, correspond with such wonder- 
 ful exactness to what has been fulfilled of this prophecy, that we can have no
 
 52 
 
 doubt with respect to the complete accomplishment of what remains to be 
 fulfilled of it." 
 
 What was first announced by Moses, is repeated by Isaiah and other 
 prophets, assuring them of their certain return wherever dispersed, to their 
 own land in the latter da^/s ; and that they should have the undisturbed 
 possession of it to the end of time. 
 
 It has been objected, that the term "for ever" is not always to be under- 
 stood in its greatest extent, but is to bo interpreted according to circum- 
 stances. This for the sake of saving time I will acknowledge. But the 
 circumstances in which this phrase is used in the passages already adduced, 
 and in a number of others of similar import which might be adduced, clearly 
 indicate, that it is to be understood in those passages to mean a period aa 
 long as tlie duration of the IsraeUtlsh nation, which elsewhere is said to continue 
 to tlie end of the world. 
 
 For this reason, among others, this final return of the Jews from their 
 present dispersed state, cannot at any rate be said to have been accomplished 
 at their return from the Babj-lonish captivity. 
 
 For that captivity was not by any means such a total dispersion of the 
 people among all nations, as Rloses, and the later prophets have foretold. 
 Nor does their possession of the country subsequent to it, at all correspond 
 to that state of peace, and prosperity, which was promised to succeed this 
 final return. 
 
 Figures of speech must, no doubt, be allowed for. But if the whole of 
 the Jewish polity was to terminate at the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus, 
 (as is maintained by Christians,) while the world is still to continue, the 
 magnificent promises made to Abraham, antl his posterity, and to the 
 nation, in general, afterwards, have never had any proper accomplishment at 
 all. Because with respect to external prosperity, which is contained in the 
 promises, many nations have hitherto been more distinguished by God, than 
 the Jews. Hitherto the posterity of Ishmael has had a much happier lot 
 than that of Isaac. To say, as Christians do, that these prophecies have had 
 a spiritual accomplishment in the spread of the Gospel, when there is 
 nothing in the phraseology in which the promises are expressed, that could 
 possibly suggest any such ideas, nay, when the promise itself in the most 
 definite language expresses the contraiy, is so arbitrary a construction as 
 nothing can warrant. By this mode of interpretation, any event may be said 
 to be the fulfillment of any prophecy ichatever. 
 
 Besides, it is perfectly evident, that these prophecies, whether they 
 vjill be fulfilled, or not, cannot yet have been fulfilled. For all the calamity 
 that was ever to befall the Jewish nation is expressly said to bear no sensible 
 proportion to their subsequent prosperity : whereas, their prosperity has 
 hitherto borne a small proportion to their calamity ; so that had Abraham 
 really foreseen the fate of his posterity, he would on this idea, have had little 
 reason to rejoice in the prospect. 
 
 It may be said, that the prosperity of the descendants of Abraham, was 
 to depend on a condition, viz., their obedience, and that this condition was not 
 fulfilled. But, besides that the Divine Being must have foreseen this 
 circumstance, and therefore must have known that he was only tantalizing 
 Abraham with a promise which would never be accomplished ; this 
 disobedience, and the consequences of it are expressly mentioned by Moses, 
 and the other Prophets, only as a temporary thing, and what was to be suc- 
 ceeded by an effectual repentance, and perpetual obedience, and prosperity. 
 
 Among others, let the following prophecy of Isaiah (in which the future 
 security of Israel is compared to the security of the world from a second 
 deluge) be considered, and let any impartial person say, whether the language
 
 53 
 
 does not necessarily lead those who believe the Old Testament, to tho 
 expectation of a much more durable state of Glory, and Happiness, than has, 
 as yet, fallen to the lot of the posterity of Abraham. 
 
 Is. 54, 7. '•' For a small moment have I forsaken thee, but with great 
 mercies will I gather thee. In a little wrath I hid my face from thee for a 
 moment, but with everlasting kindness will I have mercy on thee, saith the 
 Lord, thy Redeemer. For this is as the waters of Noah unto me. For as I 
 have sworn that the waters of Noah should no more go over the earth, so 
 have I sworn, that I would not be wroth with thee, nor rebuke thee. For the 
 mountains shall [or "may "] depart, and the hills be removed, but my kind- 
 ness shall not depart from thee, neither shall the covenant of my peace be 
 removed, saith the Lord that hath mercy on thee. — All thy children shall 
 be taught of the Lord, and great shall be the peace of thy children. lu 
 righteousness shalt thou be established. Thou shalt be far from oppression, 
 for thou shalt not fear ; and from terror, for it shall not come nigh thee. No 
 weapon formed against thee, shall prosper, and every tongue that shall rise 
 against thee in judgment, thou shalt condemn. This is the heritage of the 
 servants of the Lord, and their righteousness is of me, saith the Lord." 
 
 Here, as also in Moses, and other Prophets, an establishment in 
 righteousness is promised to the Israelites, such as shall secure their future 
 prosperity ; and this promise has not yet been fulfilled. The promise of 
 future virtue as connected with their future happiness, is also clearly expressed 
 in Jer. ch. iii. 18. 
 
 Had the Jewish nation become extinct, or likely to become so, it might, 
 with some plausibility, have been said by Christians, that the purposes of God 
 concerning them were actually fulfilled, and, therefore, that the words of the 
 promise must have had some other signification than that which was most 
 obvious. But the Jews are as much a distinct people as they ever were, and 
 therefore seem reserved for some future strange destination. 
 
 On the whole, it must be allowed, that the settlement of Israel in the land 
 of Canaan, foretold with such emphasis by the Prophets, is a settlement which 
 has not yet taken place, but may take place in that period so frequently, and 
 so emphatically, distinguished by the title of '• the latter days ;" and therefore 
 that whatever is said of Jewish customs, or modes of worship in " the latter 
 days" is a, proofof the meant restoration of their ancient religious rites. 
 
 That the institutions of the Mosaic Law are to be continued on the 
 restoration 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 some of their prophecies, 
 particular mention is made of the observance of Jewish festivals, and of 
 sacrifices ; and in Ezeehiel we find a description of a magnificejit Temple, 
 which being closely connected with his prophecy of the future happy state of 
 the Israelites in their own land, cannot be understood of any other than a 
 Temple which is then, according to the Hebrew Prophets, to bo reai-ed with 
 greater magnificence than ever. Mention is also made of '• the Glory of the, 
 Lord," or that effulgent Shechinah wliich was the symbol of the divine 
 presence, filling this Temple, as it did that of Solomon. 
 
 Ezech. xliii. 1, &c. " Afterward he brought me to the gate, even the 
 gate that looketh toward the East : and behold the glory of the Lord came 
 from the way of the East, and his voice was like the noise of many waters, 
 and the Earth shined with his Glory. — And the Glory of the Lord came into 
 the house by the way of the gate, whose prospect is toward the East. So the 
 Spirit took me up, and brought me into the inner court, and behold the 
 Glory of the Lord filled the house.— And he said unto me. Son of man, the 
 place of my Throne, and the place of the soles of my feet, where I will dwell
 
 54 
 
 ia the midst of the children of Israel ybr ever, and my holy name shall the 
 house of Israel no more defile," &c. 
 
 Towards the end of the same chapter we read an account of the dedication 
 of this new Temple hy sacrifices ; and particular directions are given in the 
 succeeding chapters for the Priests, and for the Prince. If, therefore, there 
 be any truth in these prophecies, the Jews ar£ not only to return to their 
 own country, and to be distinguished among the nations, but are to rebuild 
 the Temple, and to restoi'e the ancient worship. 
 
 Haviftg proved that the Old Testament declares the perpetuity of the 
 Mosaic Law, I proceed, 2dly, to prove that it is declared to be perpetual 
 by Jesus himself. 
 
 But before I adduce my proofs, I beg leave to premise, that when 
 any Law is solemnly enacted, we expect that the abrogation of it should 
 be equally solemn, and express, in order that no room for dispute may remain 
 upon the subject. Accordingly, it is the custom, I believe, in all countries, 
 not to make any new Law, contradictory to another before subsisting, without 
 2k previous express abrogation of the old one. And certainly it appears to me 
 a strange notion to suppose, that the elaborate and noble Law given from 
 mount Sinai amidst circumstances unexampled, awful, and tremendously 
 magnificent, and believed to have been declared by the voice of God to be a 
 perpetual and everlasting Code, should vanish, perish, and be annihilated by 
 the mere dictum of twelve fishermen ! ! 
 
 But the fact is otherwise, for Jesus was so far from teaching the 
 abrogation of that law, that he expressly says — " Think not that I am come to 
 destroy the law, or the Prophets, I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. 
 For verily I say unto you, till heaven and earth 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 the smallest punctilio in the law of Moses was intended 
 to be set aside by the Gospel. Nay more, he expressly commanded his 
 disciples to the same purpose — " The Scribes and Pharisees (says he,) sit in 
 Moses' seat ; all • therefore whatsoever they command you, that observe, and 
 do." 
 
 It is said in answer to this by Christian Divines, that his discourse relates 
 to things of a moral nature, and that he only meant, that no part of the 
 Moral Law was to be abolished. But besides that the expression is general, 
 there could be no occasion to make so solemn a declaration against what he 
 could not have been suspected of intending, viz. of abolishing the moral law. 
 He seems in his discourse to have had in view the additions that had been 
 made to the law. These he sets aside, but no part of the original law itself. 
 
 It has also been urged that by fulfilling, may be meant such an 
 accomplishment of it as would imply the superceding of it when the purposes 
 for which it was instituted should be answered. To silence this explication 
 it will be sufficient to produce a few out of many passages of the New 
 Testament where the term fulfil occurs in connexion with the term law. 
 Thus Paul says, Gal. v. 14, " All the law i?, fulfilled in one word, even in this, 
 thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself," and again, Rom. xiii. 8, " He that 
 loveth another, hath fulfilled the law." But certainly, notwithstanding this 
 fulfillment of the moral law, it remains in as full force as ever. 
 
 The Apostles understood Jesus to mean as we have asserted. For it is 
 evident from the Acts, that the Christians at Jerusalem were zealous in 
 attachment to the law of Moses ; this is evident from their surprise at 
 Peter's conduct with regard to Cornelius ; and in the 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 contrary doctrine, as
 
 55 
 
 we find in the history of the transactions respecting him in his last journey 
 to Jerusalem. Acts xxi. 21, " They (i. e. the Christians) are informed of thee 
 (says James to Paul) that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the 
 Gentiles, to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumscise their 
 children, neither to walk after the custom." Here James gives Paul to 
 understand that he considered the report as a calumny, and accordingly, to 
 convince the Jewish Christians that it was a false report, he advises Paul to 
 be at charges witli some Jewish Christians, who were under a vow of 
 Nazaritism, (which is an instance in point to prove that the first Christians 
 kept the law,) and thus publicly manifest that he himself " walked orderly, 
 and kept the law." Paul complies with this advice, and purified himself in 
 the temple, and did what was done in like cases by the strictest Jews. He 
 also circumcised Timothy, who waf a convert to Christianity, because he was 
 the son of a Jewish Mother. And he solemnly declared in open court. Acts 
 XXV. 8, " Against the law of the Jews, neither against the Temple, have I 
 oflfended any thing at all," and again, to the Jews at Rome, Acts xxviii., 7, he 
 assures them that " he had done nothing against the people, or the customs 
 of the Fathers." 
 
 But scfme men will say, " did not Paul expressly teach the abrogation of 
 the law, in his Epistles, especially in that to the Galatians ?" I answer, 
 he undoubtedly did; and in so doing he contradicted the Old Testament, his 
 master Jesus, the twelve Apostles, and himself too. But how can this be ? 
 I answer, it is none of my concern to reconcile the conduct of Paul ; or 
 to defend his equivocations. It is pretty clear, that he did not dare to 
 preach this doctrine at Jerusalem. He confined this " hidden wisdom," to the 
 Gentiles. To the Jews he became as a Jew ; and to the uncircumcised as one 
 uncircumcised, he was " all things to all men!" and for this, conduct he gives 
 you his reason, viz. " that he was determined at any rate to gain some." If 
 this be double dealing, dissimulation, and equivocation, I cannot help it ; it is 
 none of my concern, I leave it to the Commentators, and the reconciliators, 
 the disciples of Surenhusius ; let them look to it ; perhaps they can hunt up 
 some " traditionary rules of interpretation among the Jews," that will help 
 them to explain the matter. 
 
 Lastly, it has been said that there was no occasion for Jesus, or his 
 Apostles to be very explicit with respect to the abolition of the laws of 
 Moses, since the Temple was to be soon destroyed, when the Jewish worship 
 would cease of course. 
 
 This argument, flimsy as it is, is nevertheless the instar omniimi of the 
 Christian Divines to prove the abolishment of this Law : (for the other 
 arguments adduced by them as prophecies of it from the 1 ch. of Isaiah, and 
 some of the Psalms, are nothing to the purpose ; they being merely 
 declarations of God, that he preferred obedience in the weightier matters of 
 the Law ; Justice, Mercy, and Holiness, to ceremonial observances ; and that 
 repentance was of more avail with him than offering thousands of rams, and 
 fed beasts,) and this argument like so many others, when weighed in the 
 balance, will be " found wanting." 
 
 For, as the destruction of the Temple by Nebuchadnezzar certainly did 
 not abolish the Law, so neither did the destruction by Titus, do it. And as it 
 would be notoriously absurd to maintain the first, so it is equally so to 
 maintain the last, position. Besides, a very considerable part of that Law can 
 he, and for these seventeen hundred years, has been kept without the Temple. 
 As for example, circumcision, distinction of meats, and many others. And 
 when, if ever, 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.
 
 56 
 CHAPTER XII. 
 
 ON THE CHARACTER OF I'AVL AND UIS M.\jr.NEB OF REASON'ING. 
 
 As Christians lay great stress upon their argument for the truth of their 
 Religion, derived from the supposed miraculous conversion of Paul ; and 
 since almost the whole of Systematic Christianity is huilt upon the foundation 
 of the Epistles ascrihcd to him, wo shall pay a little more attention to his 
 character and writings. 
 
 Paul was evidently a man of no small capacity, a fiery temper, great 
 Buhtilty, and considerahly well versed in Jewish Traditionary, and Cahbalistic 
 Learning, and not unacquainted with the principles of the Philosophy called 
 the " Oriental." He is said by Luke to have been converted to Christianity 
 by a splendid apparition of Jesus, who struck him to the ground by the glory 
 of his appearance. But by the Jews and the Nazarcne Christians, he is 
 represented as having been converted to Christianity from a different cause. 
 They say that being a man of tried abilities and of some note, he demanded 
 the High Priest's daughter in marriage, and being refused, his rash and 
 rageful temper, and a desire of revenge, drove him to join the " sect of tho 
 Nazarenes," at that time beginning to become troublesome to the Sanhedrim. 
 However this may be, whether ho became a Cln-istian from cojiviction, or 
 from ambition ; it is certain from the Acts that he always was considered by 
 the Jewish Christians, as a suspected character ; and it is evident that he 
 taught a different doctrine from that promulgated by the twelve apostles. 
 And this was the true cause of the great difficulty he was evidently under of 
 keeping steady to him, his Gentile converts. For it is evident from the 
 Epistles to the Galatiaus, and the Corinthians, that the Jewish Christians 
 represented Paul to them as not " sound in tho Faith," but as teaching 
 a dilferent doctrine from that of the Twelve, and so influential were these 
 representations, that Paul had the greatest difficulty in keeping them to his 
 System. 
 
 That thei'e were two Parties, or Schools in the first Christian church, viz. 
 the adherents of the Apostles, and the Disciples of Paid, is evident from the 
 New Testament, and has been fully, and unanswerably j>^'oved by the learned 
 Semler, the greatest scholar certainly in Christian Antiquities, that ever lived. 
 The knowledge of this secret, accounts for the diff"erent conduct of Paul when 
 among his Gentile converts, from that which he pursued when with the 
 the apostles at Jerusalem. He had a difficult part to act, and he managed 
 admirably. He was indeed, as he says, himself, " all things to all men," a 
 Jew with the Jews, and as-one uncircumcise(/ among the uncircumcised. To 
 the Jews, he asserted, that he " taught nothing contrary to the Law, and the 
 Prophets," and when brought before the Sanhedrim for teaching otherwise 
 than he said, he dexterously got himself out of tribulation, by throwing 
 a bone of contention among the Council, and setting his Judges together by 
 the ears. " And when Pfiul perceived that the one part (of the Council) were 
 Sadducees, and the other, Pharisees, he cried out in the Council : Brethren, / 
 <im a Pharisee, and the son of a Pharisee ; concerning the hope of the 
 resurrection of the dead, I am noio judged. And when he had said this, a 
 dissension arose between the Pharisees and the Sadducees, and the multitude 
 was divided. For the Sadducees say there is no resurrection, neither angel, 
 nor spirit ; but the Pharisees confess both. And there was a great cxy, and 
 the Scribes that were on the part of the Pharisees, arose and strove, saying, 
 " We find no evil in this man," &c. This, indeed, was a masterly manoeuvre, 
 and produced the desired effect; and Paul by this shows his knowledge of
 
 67 
 
 tTie htmian heart, in trusting to make his judges forget what he was accused 
 of, by making an appeal to their sectarian passions. For, in truth, he was 
 not accused concerning his opinion about " the hope, and the resurrection 
 of the dead ;" but for the following cause, as his accusers vociferated (in the 
 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 tJie 
 Law, and this place." 
 
 These strokes of character enable us to understand the man ; and I 
 shall now go into the consideration of some of the arguments he has 
 deduced from passages in the Old Testament in support of his opinions ; 
 after premising, that the truth of the story of the manner of his conversion 
 depends entirely upon his own assertion; and whether his credibility be 
 absolutely unimpeachable, can be easily determined by an impartial conside- 
 ration of the history of his conduct already mentioned. I will only add upon 
 this subject, that in telling the story of his conversion, he ought to have had 
 a better memory ; for in telling it once in xxvi. ch. of Acts, he says, in 
 describing his miraculous vision, that " those that wei'e with me, saw indeed 
 the light, and were afraid, but heard not the words of him that spake to me ;" 
 and thus he directly contradicts the story of it recorded in Acts ix., where it 
 is said, "that the men who journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing the 
 voice, but seeing no one." 
 
 In the 9th chapter of the Epistle to the Romans, v. 24, he thus proves 
 that the Old Testament prophecied of the conversion of the Gentiles, to the 
 Gospel — " Even us whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of 
 the Gentiles, as he saith also in Hosea " I will call them my people, which 
 were not my people; and her beloved, which was not beloved. And it shall 
 come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, ye are not my 
 people, there shall they be called the sons of the living God." — Is not this 
 to the purpose ? yet, in applying this passage to the Gentiles, Paul has xoilfidly, 
 (yes wilfully, for Paul was a learned man, and knew better) perverted the 
 original from its proper reference, and has passed upon his simple converts, 
 who did not know so much of the Jewish Scriptures, as he did, a prophecy 
 relating entirely to the Jews, as referring to the Oentiles ! ! By turning to 
 .Hbsea, Reader, you will find this to be verily the case ; here is the passage, 
 " Then said God, call his name (Hosea's son) Loammi, for ye (the Israelites) 
 are not my people, and I will not be your God, yet the number oithe children 
 of Israel shall be as the sand of the sea, which cannot be measured, nor 
 numbered. And it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said 
 unto them, ye are not my people, there shall it be said unto them, yo are the 
 sons of the living God." Hosea chapter i. 
 
 Again v. 33. " As it is written. Behold I lay in Zion a stone of stumbling, 
 and a rock of offence, and every one who believeth in him shall not be 
 ashamed.". Here Paul has pieced two passages together, which in the original 
 are disconnected. For in the 8th chapter of Isaiah it is written, " Sanctify the 
 Lord of Hosts himself, and let him be your fear, and let him be your dread. 
 And he shall be for a sanctuary ; but for a stone of stumbling, and for a roCK 
 of offence, to both the houses of Israel ; for a gin, and for a snare to the 
 inhabitants of Jerusalem." And in the 28th chapter it is written, "there- 
 fore, thus saith the Lord God, behold I lay in Zion for a foundation, a stone, 
 a tried stone, a precious coi'ner stone, a sure foundation, he that believeth 
 ifehall not be ashamed," (or disappointed ) Here you see, reader, that he 
 jams two distant passages together no ways related ; and alters some 
 words, and applies them to Jesus, with whom, it appears from the context of 
 Isaiah, they have no concern. 
 
 Ch. X. V. 6. " The scripture saith, * say not in thine heart, who shall 
 
 H
 
 58 
 
 ascend into Heaven ?' (that is, that he may bring down Jesus from above.)' 
 Again, ' who shall descend into the abyss ?' (that is, that he may bring up 
 Jesus from the dead.) But what saith it ? ' The word is very nigh unto 
 thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart.' (that is the word of Faith which 
 we speak.) For if thou confess Jesus with thy mouth, and believe in thino 
 heart that God raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved " Here you 
 will see another instance of misapplication of Scripture by Paul, in order to 
 dazzle the eyes of his simple and credulous converts, for let any one look at 
 the place in the Scripture whence the quotation is taken, and he will 
 immediately see the inapplicability of the words, and the adulteration 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 thou be converted to the Lord thy God with all thy 
 heart, and with all thy mind." — Immediately is subjoined — " For this Law 
 which I command you this day is not far from thee ; neither is it afar off. 
 it is not in Heaven, that thou shouldst say, who shall ascend for us into 
 Heaven, that he may bring it unto us, and declare it to us that we might do 
 it," &c. The sense of the whole is, that God wills us to repent of sin ; and 
 that you may know when you have sinned, you have only to look at his 
 Laiv, which is not in Heaven, nor afar off, but is put in your own hands, 
 and is perfectly familiar with your heart, and lips. 
 
 1 Cor, ch. V. 1. Paul accuses one of the Christians of the church of 
 Corinth of the crime of incest, because he had married his step-mother, and 
 orders them to excommunicate him. But Paul, in all his Epistles and 
 teachings to the Gentiles, pronounced them free from the Law of Moses. 
 Wherefore then for the violation of one of those Laws interdicting such a 
 marriage, does he so vehemently blame them ? Such a marriage is not 
 forbidden in the Gospel : it was forbidden to them no where in the Scriptures 
 but in the Mosaic Code. Therefore, Paul must have founded his judgment 
 against the criminal upon the dictum of that law in such cases. Paul puts 
 the man 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 curse of 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 number of twenty -three thou- 
 sand." 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 of the 
 law, being made a curse for us ; for it is written, cursed is every one that 
 hangeth on a tree." What he says of the Christ, or the Messiah redeeming 
 from the curses written in the law, that by no means agrees with truth ; for 
 no Jew can be freed from the curses of the law, but by repenting of his sins, 
 and becoming obedient to it. And in alledging the words " cursed is every 
 one that hangeth on a tree," from Deut. xxi., he, as usual, applies them 
 irrelevantly. 
 
 Paul says, Gal. iii , 10 : — "For as many as are of the works of the law, 
 are under the curse ; for it is written, Deut. xxvii. 26, ' Cursed is every one 
 that continueth not in all things written in the book of the law to do them.'" 
 And he interprets this to mean that all mankind, Jews and Gentiles, are 
 liable to damnation, (except those who are saved by faith) because no m&n 
 ever did continue in all things written in the law. Now, in the first place I 
 would observe, that Paul has inserted the word "all" in the passage 
 he quotes from Deuteronomy, (in the original of which it is not) in order 
 to make it support his system ; for the luhole of his argument is built upon
 
 59 
 
 this one surreptitiously inserted word. 2. The words according to the 
 original are simply these : — " Cursed is he that confirmeth not the words of 
 this law to do them ;" i. e., — He who disobeys, or neglects to fulfil the com- 
 mands of the law, shall be under the curse denounced upon the disobedient. 
 But who would conclude from this that repentance would not remove the 
 curse ? Does not God expressly declare in the xxx. ch. of Deut., that if they 
 repent, the curses written shall be removed from them ? And have we not 
 innumerable instances recorded in the Old Testament, of sinners, and trans- 
 gressors of this very law, received to pardon and favour, upon repentance 
 and amendment ? So that this argument founded upon an unwarrantable 
 undeniable interpolation, and supported by bad logic, is every way had, and 
 insulting to God and his (by Paul acknowledged) word. 
 
 Gal. ch. iii. 16 : — " To Abraham, and his seed were the promises made. 
 He saith not ' and to seeds,' (as of many) but as of one, ' and to thy seed* 
 which is Christ." Here is an argument which one would think too far-fetched, 
 even for Paul; and it is built on a perversion of a passage from Genisis, 
 which Paul, bold as he was in these matters, certainly Avould not have 
 ventured, if he had not the most assured confidence in the blinking credulity 
 of his Galatian converts. His argument in this place is drawn from the use 
 of the woi'd "seed" in the singidar number, in the passage of Genisis, from 
 whence he quotes. And because the word seed is in the singidar number, 
 he tells the "foolish Oalatians," as he justly calls them, that this " seed" 
 must mean one individual (and not many,) "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 of this singular argument, derived from the use of the singular 
 number. "And He (God) brought him (Abraham) forth abroad, and said. 
 Look now towards heaven, and tell the stars if thou be able to number them, 
 and He said unto him, so shall thy seed he. — And He said, know of a surety 
 that thy seed shall be a stranger in a land that is not theirs, and they shall 
 afiiict them, &c., afterwards they shall come out with great substance. — In 
 that same day the Lord made a covenant with Abraham, saying, unto thy 
 seed have I given this land," &:c. Again, ch. xxii., God said to Abraham by 
 his Angel, " I will multiply thy seed as the stars of heaven, and as the sarid 
 which is upon the sea shore ; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his (or its) 
 enemies, and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed, because 
 thou hast obeyed my voice ! Reader, what do you think now of Paul's 
 argument from the use of the singular number ? Which is most to be 
 admired ? His otFering such an ai>guraent to the Galatians ; (for being 
 a learned man, he certainly knew that the argument was nought,) or their 
 credulity in receiving such reasoning as Divine? Really, I fear there is 
 some reason for admitting as true what Celsus maliciously says of the 
 simplicity of the 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 under examination 
 some of the arguments and quotations in the Epistle to the Hebrews ; but 
 ■upon looking over that Epistle, and contemplating my task, I confess I 
 shrink from it. That Epistle is so replete with daring, ridiculous, and 
 impious applications of the words of the Old Testament, that I am glad to 
 omit it ; and I think after the specimens which have been already brought 
 forward, that my reader is quite as much satiated as myself. I will, therefore, 
 bring forward only one quotation, which is alledged in that Epistle to prove 
 the abolition of the law of Moses ; and as for the rest, I content myself with 
 referring those who want to know more of it, to the pieces written by the 
 celebrated Dr. Priestley upon Paul's arguments in general, and those in that 
 Epistle in particular, preserved in his Theological Repository, where he will
 
 60 
 
 gee absurdity in reasoning, and, something worse, in quotation, exposed in a 
 masterly manner. Indeed, some learned Christians are so sensible of tho 
 insuperable difficulties attending every attempt to reconcile that Epistle to 
 the Doctrine of inspiration, or even to common sense, that they avoid the 
 trouble, by denying that Paul could have been the author of such a work, 
 and attribute it to the same, or a similar, hand, with that which forged tho 
 marvellous Epistle ascribed to Barnabas. 
 
 The quotation brought forward in the Epistle to the Hebrews, to provo 
 the abrogation of the Mosaic Law, and the substitution of a new one, is taken 
 from Jer. xxxi. 31, &c. — "Behold the days come saith the Lord, that I will 
 make a new covenant with the house of Judah. Not according to the covenant 
 which I made with their fathers, in the day that I took them by the hand to 
 bring them out of the land of Egypt, (which my covenant they brake, 
 although I was an husband unto them, saith the Lord ) But this shall be 
 the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel. After those days 
 saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in tJieir 
 liearts ; and will be their God, and they shall be my people ; and they shall 
 teach no more every man his neighbour, saying know the Lord, for they 
 shall all know me from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the 
 Lord, for I will forgive their iniquity, and will remember their sins no more." 
 Upon this passage the author of the Epistle observes " in that he saith ' a 
 iiew covenant,' 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 the old law, and tho 
 introduction of the Gospel Dispensation. 
 
 Now, I would observe on his I'easoning, in the first place, that, allowing 
 for a moment his interpretation of the prophecy to bo correct, (i. e., that it 
 signifies the abolishment of the old, and an introduction of a new law) tho 
 prophecy, at any rate, cannot refer to Jesus, or the Gospel ; for so far from 
 having been fulfilled in the time 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 their 
 hearts ;" nor " caused them to walk in it ;" neither has he yet " forgiven 
 their sins, or forgotten their iniquities," since they are even now suffering 
 the consequences of them. 
 
 I will now retract what I granted, and assert that the prophet did not 
 mean an abolition of the Mosaic, and the introduction of a new, law ; for 
 though the prophet speaks of a new covenant, he says nothing of a new law ; 
 but on the contrai'y, asserts that this new covenant would be effectual to 
 make them obey the law. God promised to put his law within their hearts 
 (not out of remembrance, as the catechisms say ;) and in this alone this 
 covenant differs from the one entered into at Mount Sinai. For, then, 
 though the law was given them, it was not " put within their hearts," but 
 they were apt, to their own controul, to obey it, or not, being assured, 
 however, that happiness should be the reward of obedience, and death and 
 excision the punishment for revolt and disobedience. And you will moreover 
 observe, that, notwithstanding what is here called a new covenant, nothing 
 is here said of the abrogation of any former covenant, or constitution, 
 or of any new terms, that would be required by God on the part of 
 the Israelites. The prophet, by expanding his idea, sufficiently ex- 
 plains his whole meaning, which is evidently this, viz. : That God would 
 make a new, and solemn promise to the Israelites, that they should 
 be no more out of favor with him ; that their hearts would be here- 
 after so right with God, that in consequence of it, they would continue 
 in the quiet possession of their country to the end of time ; and all this
 
 61 
 
 is intimated by Moses, in the quotation from Deuteronomy, quoted in the 
 last chapter. 
 
 Thus is the passage perfectly consistent with those in the Old Testament, 
 which affirm, (whether right or wrong is not my concern) 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 
 I commanded unto him in Horeb, with the Statutes, and Judgments." Also 
 in the Psalms : — " The Law of the Lord is 'perfect, converting the soul. The 
 Testimony of the Lord is faithful, bringing wisdom to the simple. The 
 Precepts of the Lord are riglit, rejoicing the heart, and enlightening the 
 eyes." "The works of his hands are Truth, and Judgment. All his Precepts 
 are sure. They stand fast for ever and ever: being done in Truth and 
 Uprightness." *■ 
 
 CHAPTER XIII, 
 
 EXAMINATION OF SOMK DOCTKINES IN THE NEW TESTAMENT DERIVED FBOM THB 
 CABALLA, THE OBIENTAL PniLOSOPHY, AND THE TENETS OF ZOEOASTEB. 
 
 I HAVE said in the preceding chapter, that Paul was well versed in 
 Cabbalistic Learning, and not unacquainted with the principles of the 
 Philosophy styled " the Oriental ;" and to jirove and exemplify this assertion, 
 is the subject and intention of this chapter. None but the learned know, 
 how much of Systematic Christianity is derived from the Cabbalism of the 
 Jews ; the Religion of the Magi of Persia ; and the Philosophy of the 
 Bramins of Indostan. I shall attempt to lay open these Theological Arcana, 
 and make them known to those who ought to know what they have been 
 kept in ignorance of. 
 
 Many of my readers have, no doubt, frequently puzzled themselves over 
 these words of Paul's, Eph. v. 30 : — " For we are members of his (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 his wife, and they two shall be one 
 flesh. This mystery is great, but I speak concerning Chi'ist and the Church." 
 This passage exemplifies the connexion between Christ and the Church, by 
 that which subsists between a man and his wife ; and this Paul calls " a 
 great mystery ;" and it no doubt must be a very mysterious passage to all 
 those who are unacquainted with the cabbalistic notion to which it alludes, 
 and refers. To illustrate the passage, and to prove that Paul mixed his 
 Cabbalism with his religion, I shall set down here the note of Dr. Whitby, 
 the Christian Commentator, upon the text of Paul. 
 
 " The learned Dr. AUix saith. The first match between Adam and Eve, 
 iras a type of that between Christ and his Church ; and in this, saith he, 
 the Apostle foUows the Jewish notions. The Jews say, the mystery of 
 Adam, is the mystery of the Messiah, who is the Bridegroom of the Church. 
 These two persons, therefore, confirm the observation of Munster, that the 
 creation of the woman from the rib of the man, was made by the Jews to 
 signify the marriage of the celestial man who is blessed, or of the Messiah, 
 with the Church ; whence the Apostle applies the very words which Adam 
 said concerning Eve his spouse, to the Church, who is the spouse of Christ ; 
 saying, " for we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones." 
 For the explanation of these words, take what follows : — " The profoundest of 
 the Jewish Divines, whom they now call Cabbalists, having such a notion as 
 this among them, that sensible things are but an imitation of things above, 
 conceived from thence, that there was an original pattern of love and union.
 
 62 
 
 which is between a man and his wife in this world. This being expressed by 
 the kindness of Tiphiret and Malchuth, which are the names they give to the 
 invisible Bridegroom and Bride in the upper world. And this Tiphiret, or 
 the celestial Adam, is so called in opposition to the terrestial Adam ; as 
 Malchuth also, (i. e., the kingdom) they call by the name of Chinnereth Isradt 
 the Congregation of Israel, who is, they say, united to the celestial Adam, as 
 Eve was to the terrestial." So that in sum, they seem to say the same that 
 Paul doth, when he tells us, that " marriage is a great mystery, but ho speaks 
 concerning Christ and his Church." For the marriage of Tiphiret and 
 Malchuth, is the marriage of Christ, " the Lord from Heaven," (" the first man 
 was of the Earth earthly, the second man is the Lord from Heaven," says Paul, 
 1 Cor. XV.,) with his spouse the Church, which is the conjunction of Adam 
 and'Eve, and of all other men and women descended from them. Origen 
 also seems to have had some notion of the relation of this passage to Adam 
 and Eve, when he speaks thus : — " If any man deride us for using the example 
 of Adam and Eve in these words, 'and Adam knew his wife,' when we treat 
 of the knowledge of God, let him consider these words — ' This is a great 
 mystery.' " TertuUian frequently alludes to the same thing, saying — " This 
 is a great saci*ament, carnally in Adam, spiritually in Christ, because of the 
 spiritual marriage between Christ and the Church." 
 
 Thus far Dr. Whitby, and the intelligent reader, who is acquainted with 
 the dogmas and philosophy of Indpstan, will not fail to see through this cloud 
 of words the origin of this analogy of Paul. The fact is, that in India and 
 in Egypt, the Divine creative power which produced all things and energizes 
 in everything, was symbolized by the Phallus ; and to this day, in Hindostau, 
 the operation of Diety upon matter is symbolized by images of the same ; 
 and in the darkest recesses of their Temples, which none but the initiated 
 were permitted to enter: the Phallus of stone is the solitary idol, before which 
 the illuminated bowed. This symbol, though shameful and abominable, is 
 yet looked upon in India with the profoundest veneration, and is not with them 
 the occasion of shame or reproach. It is, however, a blasphemous abomina- 
 tion ; and the marriage between Christ and the Church ought not to have 
 been thus illustrated by Paul, who reproached the heathen mysteries as 
 *' works of darkness," which mysteries, in fact, consisted principally in 
 exhibiting these symbols, and similar abominations. 
 
 But, it may be asked, what is the meaning of the other clause of the verse 
 — what could Paul mean by the strong language, " We ai'e members of his 
 body, of his flesh, and of his bones ?" Why, my reader, he meant, that 
 Christians were really part of the body of Christ ; and if you desire to know 
 how he imagined this union to be effected, I request you to turn to the 10th 
 eh. of the 1st Epistle to the Corinthians, where at the 16th verse he thus 
 writes to them : — *' The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a partici- 
 pation of the blood of Christ ? The loa.f (according to the Greek original) 
 which we break, is it not a participation of the body of Christ ? for. Because 
 the loaf is one, we, though many, are one body, for we all partake of that one 
 loaf." Again, ch. xi. 19, "For he that eateth, and drinketh unworthily, 
 eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not distinguishing (or discovering) 
 the Lords body;" and in ch. xii. 27, he says to them, "Ye are the body of 
 Christ, and his members severally." (See the original of these passages in 
 Griesbach's Greek Testament.) Thus you see, reader, that Paul considered 
 Christians " as members of his (Christ's) body, of his flesh, and of his bones," 
 because they partook of one loaf, which was the body of Christ. The Papists 
 are in the right, and have been much slandered by the Protestants ; for the 
 doctrine of Transubstantiation, or at least the Real Presence, is as plainly 
 taught in the New Testament, as the doctrine of the Atonement. You have
 
 63 
 
 Been -what Paul believed upon this subject, and I shall corroborate the sens© 
 I put upon his words, by the words of Jesus, his master, and by quotations 
 from the earliest Fathers. 
 
 Jesus says, John vi. — " I am the living bread which came down from 
 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 for the life of the world." 
 The Jews, therefore, contended among themselves, 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, ye have not life in you. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my 
 blood, hath everlasting life, and I will raise him up at the last day. . For my 
 flesh is verili/ flood, and my blood is verily drink. He that eateth my flesh, 
 and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, and / in him. 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 is 
 well known to the learned Protestants, though they do not like to say so to 
 their " weaker brethren." 
 
 Ignatius says, " There is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one 
 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 Jesus Christ." 
 
 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 is acknow- 
 ledged by the most candid writers, that the Roman Catholics had much the 
 advantage.- It must have been so, where quotations from the Fathers were 
 allowed as arguments. For what answer can be made to the following 
 extracts ? — " What a miracle is this ! He who sits above with the Father, at 
 the same instant, is handled by the hands of men." [Chrysostom.] Again, 
 from the same, " That which is in the cup, is the same which flowed from 
 the side of Christ." Again, " Because we abhor the eating of raw flesh ; 
 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 are taught, that when this nourishing food is 
 consecrated, it becomes the body and blood of our Saviour." [Justin Martyr.] 
 Or, lastly, to this ? [from Ambrose] — " It is bread be/ore consecration, but 
 after that 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, that moral corrup- 
 tion originates in the influence of the body upon the mind. 
 
 It was one of the principal tenets of the Oriental Philosophy, that all 
 evil resulted from matter, and its first founder appears to have argued in the 
 following manner : — " There are many evils in the world, and men seem 
 impelled by a natural instinct to the practice of those things which reason 
 condemns. But that eternal mind, from which all spirits derive their 
 existence, must be inaccessible to all kinds of evil, and also of a most perfect 
 and benificent nature ; therefore, the origin of these evils with which the 
 world abounds, must be sought somewhere else, than in the Deity. It cannot 
 reside in him who is all perfection, and, therefore, it must be without him. 
 Now, there is nothing without or beyond the Deity but matter; therefore, 
 matter is the centre and source of all evil, of all vice." 
 
 One of the consequences they di'ew from this hypothesis was, that since 
 all evil resulted from matter, the depravity of mankind arose from the pollu- 
 tion derived to the human soid, from its connexion with the material body 
 which it inhabits ; and, therefore, the only means by which the mind could
 
 64 
 
 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 to invigorate the mind to overcome and subdue it by 
 retirement and contemplation. 
 
 The New Testament, though it does not recognise this principle of the 
 Oriental Philosophy, " that evil originates from matter," yet coincides with 
 it in strenuously asserting that the corruption of the human mind is derived 
 from its connexion with the human body. 
 
 To prove this proposition, I shall show that Paul calls all crimes "the 
 works of the flesh." "Now, the works of the flesh are manifest, (says he, 
 Gal. V. 19,) which are these : adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lacivious- 
 ness, idolatry, sorcery, hatred, contentions, rivalries, wrath, disputes, 
 divisions, heresies, envyings, mm'ders, drunkenness, revellings, and such 
 like." He also describes the conflict between the flesh and the spirit, or 
 mind, in these terms: — :" For I know that in me, that is, in nv/ flesh, dwelleth 
 no good, for to will is present with me, but to perform that which is good, I 
 find not, but the evil which I would not, that 1 do. For I delight in the law 
 of God according to the inner man, but I see another law in my members 
 warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the 
 law of my sin in my members. O wretched man 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, the same man, with my mind sei've the law of God, but 
 with m,y flesh the law of sin." — Rom. vii. " For the flesh desireth against 
 (or in opposition to) the spirit, and the spirit against the flesh, and these are 
 contrary the one to the other, so that ye cannot do the things that ye would." 
 — " Those that are Christ's (says Paul, Gal. v. 24) have criicifled the flesh, 
 with its passions and desires." And they are commanded (Rom. vi. 12 and 
 viii. 13) "to mortify," or, according to the original, "put to death," or 
 "kill their members;" and Paul himself uses language upon this subject 
 exceeding strong. He represents (1 Cor. ix. 27) his mind and body as 
 engaged in combat, and says, "I bufet my body, and subject it." The word 
 here translated " subject,'* in the original, means " to carry into servitude," 
 and is a term taken from the language of the Olympic games, where the 
 boxers dragged ofi" the arena, their conquered, disabled, and helpless 
 antagonists like slaves, in which humbled condition the Apostle represents 
 his body to be with respect to his mind. 
 
 From this notion of the sinfulness of " the flesh," we are enabled to 
 apprehend Paul's reasonings about the suff"erings of Jesus " in the flesh." 
 " Since the children are partakers of flesh and blood, Christ himself also in 
 like manner partook of them " — Heb. ii. 14. " For (says Paul) what the 
 law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, God hath done, who, 
 by having sent his own son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and on account of 
 sin, hath condemned sin in the flesh." — Rom. viii. 3. "But now, through 
 Christ Jesus, ye who formerly were far ofi", are brought near by the blood of 
 Christ. For he is our Peace who hath made both one, and hath broken 
 down the middle wall of partition between us, having abolished by his flesh 
 the cause of enmity." — Ephes. ii. 16. "You that were formerly aliens, and 
 enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet he hath now reconciled by his 
 fleshly body, through his death." — Col. i. 20. 
 
 Though these notions are sufficiently strange, yet they are not so very 
 remarkable as the one I am about to consider. It is a singular, and a 
 demonstrable fact, that the fundamental scheme 6f Christianity Avas derived 
 from the religion of the ancient Persians. The whole of the New Testament 
 Scheme is built upon the hypothesis, that there is a powerful and malignant 
 being, called the Devil and Satan, the chief of unknown myi'iads of other
 
 65 
 
 evil spirits ; that he is, by the sufferance of God, the Prince of this 
 world, and is the Author of sin, woe and death; the Tempter, the Tor- 
 mentor of men, and the Tyrant of the Earth ; that the Son of God, to 
 deliver mankind from the vassalage of this monster, descended from heaven, 
 and purchased their ransom of the Tyrant, at the price of his blood ; for * 
 observe, my reader, that the idea of the death of Jesus being an atonement 
 to Ood for the sins of men, is a modern notion ; for the Primitive Christians, 
 all of them, considered the death of Jesus as a ransom paid to the Devil, 
 as may be proved from Origen and other Fathers. That the New Testament 
 represents this character as the sovereign of this world, ihay be proved by 
 the following passages : — " All this power will I give thee, and the glory of 
 them, (said the Tempter to Jesus, when he showed him all the kingdoms of 
 the earth,) for it is delivered unto me, and to whomsoever I will, I give it." 
 Luke iv., Jesus calls him "the Prince of 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 Ood." — 
 Acts xxvi. 18. Accordingly we find, that to become a Christian was con- 
 sidered as being freed from the tyranny of Satan. " God hath given life to 
 you, (says Paul) who were dead in offences, and sins ; in which ye formerly 
 walked, according to the course (or constitution) of this woi'ld, 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 ivorld hatb blinded, to the 
 end that the glorious gospel of Christ should not enlighten them." — 2 Cor. 
 iv. 4. John says in his Epistle, that " the whole world lieth in the power of 
 the wicked one ;" and Jesus in the gospels compares him to " a strong man 
 armed, keeping his goods ;" and himself to one stronger than he, who strip- 
 peth him of the arms in which he trusted, and spoileth his goods. " For 
 this purpose was the Son of God manifested, that he might destroy the works of 
 the Devil." — 1 John iii. 8. And it is said, " that he came to send forth the 
 capitive into liberty, and to heal those who were oppressed of the Devil." 
 Men are also said to have been " taken captive of the Devil, to fulfil his will." 
 — 2 Timothy ii. 26. And we find that the Christians attributed all their 
 Bufferings to the opposition of this Being. " Put on (says Paul) the whole 
 armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the Devil. 
 For we struggle not against flesh and blood only ; but against principalities, 
 against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against 
 wicked spirits in high places." — Ephesians vi. 12. Christians are also said 
 to be delivered by God from the power of darkness, and to be translated into 
 the kingdom of his dear son. That is, as Chi-istians were considered as 
 being the subjects of JeSVis, and the rest of the world as being of the king- 
 dom of Satan, when a man became a Christian he was translated from the 
 kingdom of one, to the kingdom of the other. Jesus accused the Devil as 
 being the author of 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 of 
 that one, whose back the Devil had bowed down for eighteen years — Luke 
 xiii. 10 — (on what account it does not appear.) In short, the New Testa- 
 ment represents to him as being the source of all evil and mischief, and the 
 promoter of it ; and the whole woi'ld as being his subjects, and combined with 
 him against all good. 
 
 But how does all this prove that these notions were derived from the 
 religion of the ancient Persians ? I answer by requesting you, my reader, 
 to peruse, attentively, the following account of the fundamental principles 
 of the religion of Zoroaster, the prophet of the Persians, 
 I
 
 66 
 
 The doctrine of Zoroaster was, that there was one Supreme Being, 
 independent, and self-existing from all eternity ; that inferior to him, there 
 ■were two Angels, one the Angel of Light, who is the Author and Director of 
 all Good ; and the other, the Angel of Darkness, who is the Author and 
 Director of all Evil ; that these two are in a perpetual struggle with each 
 other ; and that where the Angel of Light prevails, there the most is good ; 
 and where the Angel of Darkness prevails, there the most is evil. That this 
 struggle shall continue to the end of the world ; that then there shall be a 
 general resurrection, and a day of judgment, wherein just retribution shall 
 be rendered to all according to their works ; after which, the Angel of 
 Darkness, and his followers, shall go into a world of their own, where they 
 shall suffer in dai-kness, the punishment of their evil deeds. And the Angel 
 of Light, and his followers, shall also go into a world of their own, where 
 they shall receive, in everlasting light, the reward due to their good deeds. 
 
 It is impossible but that the reader must see the agreement of the 
 doctrines of the New Testament with all this ; and since it is undoubted, 
 that these tenets of Zoroaster are far more ancient than the New Testament, 
 and since, as we have seen, that that book is much indebted to oriental 
 notions for many of its dogmas, there is no way of accounting for this 
 coincidence (that I know ot), besides supposing the Devil of the New 
 Testament to be of Persian origin. It is, however, in my power to make 
 this coincidence still more striking from the words of Jesus himself, who 
 says, (Matthew xiii. 24), " The kingdom of Heaven is like a man who sowed 
 good seed in his field, but while men slept, his enemy (mark the expression^ 
 Ms enemy came, and sowed tares among the wheat ; but when the blade 
 sprung up, and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares also. So the 
 servants of the householder came neai', and said unto him, ' Sir, didst thou 
 not sow good seed in thy field ? whence, then, hath it tares ?' And he saith 
 •unto them, an enemy hath done this." You know the rest of the parable. 
 The explanation of it is as follows : — " He who soweth the good seed is the 
 Son of Man, and the field is the world ; and the good seed arc the sons of the 
 kingdom, and the tares are the sons of the Evil One, and the enemy who 
 sowed them is the Devil." Here you see, as far as it goes, a precise agree- 
 ment with the doctrine of Zoroaster ; and to complete the resemblance, you 
 need but to recollect, that at the day of Judgment, according to the words 
 of Jesus, the wicked go into the fire prepai'ed for the Devil and his angels; 
 and the righteous go into life eternal with the Son of God. 
 
 But is there not a Satan mentioned in the Old Testament, and is he not 
 there represented as an evil and malevolent angel ? I think not. This 
 notion probably arises from the habit of interpreting the Old Testament by 
 the New. The Satan mentioned in the Old Testament, is represented as 
 God's minister of punishment, and as much his faithful servant as any of his 
 angels. The prologue to the book of Job certainly supposes that this angel 
 of punishment, by office, appeared in the court of Heaven, nay, he is ranked 
 among " the Sons of God."' This Satan is merely the supposed chief of 
 those ministers of God's will, whose office is to execute his ordered com- 
 mands upon the guilty, and who may be sometimes, as in the case of Job, 
 the minister of probation only, rather than of punishment ; and there is no 
 reason why he should be ashamed of his office more than the General of an 
 army, or the Judges of the criminal courts, who, though they are not 
 unfrequently ministers of punishment, are not, therefore, excluded the 
 royal presence : but on the 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. ; of Egypt, 
 Exodus xxii. ; of Sennacherib, 1 Kings xxix. 35 ; also Joshua v. 13. The
 
 67 
 
 term Satan signifies an adversary, and is applied to any angel sent upon an 
 errand of punishment For example, Numbers xxii. 23, " The Angel of the 
 Lord stood in the way, for an adversary (literally, for a Satan) against 
 Balaam, with his sword drawn in his hand." " Curse ye Meroz, saith the 
 Angel of the Lord," whose office is to punish. So also Psalms xxxv. 5, " Let 
 the Angel (of punishment) of the Lord chase them, (i. e., drive them before 
 him in a military manner; pursue them:) let their way be dark and slippery, 
 and the Angel of the Lord following them." 
 
 2 Samuel xxiv. 16 : — " The Lord sent a pestilence upon Israel — the 
 angel (of punishment) stretched forth his hand and smote the people." — 
 1 Chronicles xxi. 16: — "David saw the angel (of punishment) having a 
 drawn sword in his hand." 
 
 This notion is referred to, in the Apocryphal History of Susannah, verse 
 59. " The Angel of the Lord waiteth with his sword that he may cut thee 
 in two." 
 
 Thus we see, that the term Satan is in the Old Testament applied to 
 any Angel of the Lord ?,ent upon an errand of punishment. And the term 
 itself is so far from being reproachful (for David is said, 1 Samuel xxix. 4, to 
 have been " a Satan to the Philistines,") that I am not sure, that if I had by 
 me a Hebrew concordance, but I could point out places, whei'e God himself 
 is represented as saying, that he would be an adversary or a Satan to bad men 
 and wicked nations. And though there is in the Old Testament a particular 
 angel styled, by way of eminence, " The Satan," it is so far from being 
 evident that he is an evil being, that I would undertake to give good reasons 
 to prove that this distinguished angel is the real prototype, from whence the 
 imposter Mahomet took the idea of his " Azrael," the " Angel of Death ;" 
 who, in the Koran, is certainly represented as being as much the faithful 
 servant of God, as any of the Angelic Hosts. 
 
 In fine, the doctrine of the Old Testament upon this matter may be 
 thus expressed : — " These be spirits created for vengeance, which in their 
 fury lay on sore strokes ; in the time of destruction they pour out their force, 
 and appease the wrath of him that made them. They sh^ rejoice in his 
 {God's) commandment, and they shaU be ready upon earth, when need is ; 
 and when their time is come, they shall not transgress his word." — 
 Ecclesiasticus xxxix. 28. 
 
 CHAPTER XIV. 
 
 / 
 
 A CONSIDEKATION OF THE " GIFT OF TONGUES," AND OTHER MIRACULOUS GIFTS 
 ASCRIBED TO THE PRIMITIVE CHRISTIANS; AND WHETHER RECORDED MIRACLES 
 ARE INFALLIBLE PROOFS OF THE DIVINE AUTHORITY OF DOCTRINES SAID TO 
 HAVE BEEN CONFIRMED BY THEM. 
 
 Paul, in his 1st Epistle to the Corinthians, speaks to them as possessing 
 •several spiritual gifts, conferred on them by his ministration; such as the 
 gift of prophecy, discerning of spirits, and speaking in unknown tongues. 
 He gives them directions about the proper use of their gifts, and speaks to 
 them as absolutely possessing those gifts, with the utmost confidence. Dr. 
 Paley, in his Defence of Christianity, lays great stress upon the manner in 
 which Paul addresses the Corinthians upon these miraculous powers ; and 
 he considers it as an absolute proof of the truth of Christianity — because, he 
 says, it is not conceivable that Paul could have had the boldness and 
 presumption to speak to these men concerning the use and abuse of these 
 gifts, if they really had them not.
 
 6S 
 
 I am ready to confess, that this argument of Dr. Paley puzzled me"; 
 for though I was satisfied that Paul had imposed upon their credulity many 
 irrelevant passages from the Scriptures as proofs of Christianity, yet I could 
 not imagine that he could presume so much upon their stupidity, as to give 
 them directions about the management of their miraculous powers, /vyhich 
 being matters of fact known to themselves, therefore, if false, I conceived 
 must place Paul in their minds in the light of a banterer, when he told them 
 of gifts, which their own consciousness, I thought, must make them sensible 
 they had not. I say I was puzzled with this argument, until I happened to 
 meet with some extracts from Brown's " History of the Shakers," which 
 convinced me at once, from the obvious likeness between these Shakers and 
 the primitive Christians, 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, he was as 
 great a believer in his own and their gifts, as the Corinthians could be ; and 
 since it must be obvious, that the gifts of these Shakers are mere self- 
 delusions, there is, then, in our own times an example of the gifts of the 
 primitive Christians, which enables us to comprehend their nature and 
 character perfectly well. 
 
 "Many of them," (the Shakers) says Mr. Brown, "professed to have 
 Tisions, and to see numbers of spirits, as plain as they saw their brethren and 
 sisters, and to look into the irivisible woi'ld, and to converse with many of the 
 departed spirits, who had lived in the different ages of the world, and to 
 leai'nand to see their different states in the world of spirits. Some they savr, 
 they said, were happy, and others miserable. Several declared, that they often 
 were in dark nights surrounded with a light, sometimes in their rooms, but 
 more often when walking the road, so strong, that they could see to pick up 
 a pin, which light would continue a considerable time, and enlighten them on 
 their way. Many had gifts to speak languages, and many miracles were said 
 to be wrought, and strange signs and great wonders shown, by the believers. 
 
 And these poor creatures believed, and at this day do believe, all this. 
 They are not, you will observe, artful impostors, for the Shakers are, 
 certainly, a harmless and a moral people, and yet they confidently asserted 
 (and continue to assert), that they had these miraculous powers of " discern- 
 ing spirits, speaking with tongues, and doing great signs and wonders." 
 Nevertheless, it must be evident, that these powers were conferred upon 
 them only by their enthusiasm and heated imaginations. 
 
 I have heard of the Shakers before, and have been informed, that those 
 in New England are so convinced of their miraculous capabilities, that they 
 have been known, in order to save their neighbours the trouble of applying 
 to the tinman, charitably to offer to join the gaping seams of their worn-out 
 tin coffee-pots, and other vessels, " without the carnal aid of solder," merely 
 by a touch of their wonder-working fingers. 
 
 Mr. Brown, in describing their mode of conduct, in their religious 
 assemblies, unwittingly gives a striking exposition of the 1st Epistle to the 
 Corinthians. He describes " the brethren and sisters" praying, singing, 
 dancing, and preaching in known and unknown tongues, and sticking out 
 their arms, and extatically following their noses round the church. 
 
 He says, respecting such as speak in unknown tongues, " they have a 
 strong faith in this gift, and think a person greatly favoured who has the gift 
 of tongues ; and at certain times, when the mind is overloaded with a fiery, 
 strong zeal, it must have vent some way or other ; their faith, or belief, at the 
 time being in this gift, and a will strikes the mind according to their faith, 
 and then such break out in a fiery, energetic manner, and speak they know not 
 what, as / have done several times. Part of what I spake at one time was
 
 69 
 
 '' Liero devo jerankemango, ad silecunbano, durem subranw, deviranto diaceri- 
 mango, jasse vahpe cri evanigalio ; de vom grom seb crinom, os vare cremo dotno." 
 
 " When a person runs on in this manner for any length of time, I now 
 thought it probable that he would strike into different languages, and give 
 some words in each their right pronounciation, as I have heard some men of 
 learning, who were present, say a few words, were Hebrew, three or four 
 Greek, and a few Latin." 
 
 In another place he gives an account of his maiden speech in an 
 unknown tongue ; and it is easy to conjecture how he came by his gift, 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 the greatest misfortune was, that 
 neither I, nor any other, understood what I said." 
 
 My reader will not be surprized after this, at hearing them say, that the 
 spectators of " these signs and wonders," instead of being properly affected, 
 considered the performers as " out of their wits." 
 
 Let us, now, compare this account with what Paul says upon similar 
 subjects, in the 14th chapter of the 1st Epistle to the Corinthians. He advises 
 them, in exercising their gifts, to a discreet use of them, as follows : — " He 
 who speaketh in an unknown tongue, speaketh not to men, but to God, for 
 no man understandeth him ; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries." 
 Again : — " For if the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare 
 himself to battle ? So, likewise, unless ye utter by the tongue words to bg 
 understood, how shall it be known what is spoken, for ye will speak to the 
 air ?" And as others did not understand the Corinthians speaking ia 
 unknown tongues, so it seems, too, that the Corinthians themselves were in 
 the same unfortunate predicament with the Shakers, in not knowing the 
 meaning of what they themselves said on these occasions. This is clear from 
 this argument of Paul :' — " Wherefore, let him that speaketh in an unknown 
 tongue, ^ray that he may interpret." Why, pray that he may interpret, if he 
 understood himself? Does a man who speaks with understanding a foreign 
 language, need to pray that he may be enabled to interpret what he says in 
 his mother tongue ? Surely every man who understands himself, can 
 naturally do this ? After more to the same purpose, Paul wisely concludes 
 his argument by declaring, " that he would rather speak in the church five 
 words with understanding, (i. e., knowing what he said) that he might instruct 
 others also, than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue." And he 
 fortifies his reasoning by this sensible remark, "If, therefore, the whole 
 church come together into one place, and all speak in unknown tongues, and 
 those that are unlearned, or unbelievers, come in, will they not say, that ye 
 are mad ?" as the spectators said of the Shakers. 
 
 He advises them, therefore, to conduct their assemblies with less uproar 
 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 a revelation ? Let all things be done to 
 edifying. Now, if any man speak 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 no interpreter, let such keep silence in the church, and let him speak to 
 himself and to God. And let two or three prophets speak, and let the others 
 discern. But if any thing be revealed to another who sitteth by, let the first 
 keep silence. For ye may all prophecy, one by one, that all may learn, and 
 all may be exhorted." 
 
 I presume it will be needless to point out more particularly, the perfect 
 coiTespondence between " the spiritual gifts" of the Corinthians, and those 
 of the Shakers. And I would ask the venerable Paley, if it were now
 
 70 . 
 
 possible, whether an apostolical epistle of Ann Lcc, William Lee, or 
 Whitaker, (the spiritual mother and fathers of the Shakers,) addressed to 
 them, and seriously givin» directions about the use of " their gifts of working 
 miracles, and speaking with tongues," would be sufficient to prove that they 
 really had those gifts ? And, moreover, (to make tho cases more analogous) 
 suppose that the Shakers from this time become the dominant sect through- 
 out the religious world, and kept the upper hand during a series of a 
 thousand or two thousand years, taking especial care to collect and burn up 
 every writing of their enemies and opposers. How should we, (supposing 
 ourselves all the while invisible spectators of the thing), how should we pity 
 our posterity, who, at the end of that period, should be gravely told by the 
 learned and mitred advocates of Shakerism, that the miracles of the founders, 
 and first followers of their religion were certainly true, for that they wore 
 honest and good men, with no motive to deceive, and had addressed letters 
 to their first converts, wherein they make express mention of their possessing 
 these gifts ; and give in the- simplest and most unassuming manner, 
 directions for using them. Suppose, then, that our posterity, having been 
 deprived by the prudential care of the old fathers of the then established 
 church, of the means of detecting the fallacy which we possess; suppose that 
 they should believe all this, and devoutly praise God every day for 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 extremely 
 fallacious are all proofs of doctrines, pretended to be from God, derived from 
 miracles said to have been wrought in proof of their Divine authority. 
 
 Miracles are related to have been performed in support of all religions 
 without exception ; even the followers of Mahomet, though he did not claim 
 the power of working miracles, have said that 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, and put half of it in his pocket !* 
 
 * I will here lay before the reader the argiunents advanced by the Mahometans 
 in behalf of the miracles of their prophet, extracted from the learned Reland's 
 account of Mehometanism. They say that — " the miracles of Mahomet and his 
 followers have been recorded in innumerable volumes of the most famous, learned, 
 pious, and subtle Doctors of the JNJahometan Faith, who let nothing pass without the 
 strictest and severest examination, and whose tradition, therefore, is unexceptionable 
 among them ; that they were known throughout all the regions of Arabia, and 
 transmitted by common and universal tradition from father to son, from generation 
 to generation. That the books of Interpreters and Commentators on the Koran, the 
 books of Historians, especially such as give an account of Mahomet's life and actions, 
 the books of annalists and lawyers, the books of mathematicians and philosophers, 
 and, last of all, the books of both Jews and Christians concerning Mahomet, are full 
 of his miracles. That if the authority of so many great and wise doctors be denied, 
 then, for their part, they cannot see but that a universal scepticism as to all other 
 accounts of miracles must obtain among people of all persuasions. For authority 
 being the only proof of facts done out of our time, or, out of our sight, if that be 
 denied, there is no way to come to the certainty of any such, without immediate 
 inspiration ; and all accounts of matters recorded in history, must be doubtful and 
 precarious." 
 
 " And these witnesses would not have dared to assert these miracles unless they 
 were true ; for such as forged any miracles for his, which he really did not, lay under 
 a hearty curse from the prophet. For it was a received tradition among the faithful, 
 that Mahomet denounced hell and damnation to all those who should tell any lies of 
 him. So that none who believed in Mahomet, durst attribute miracles to him which 
 he was not concerned in ; and those who believed not in him, would certainly never
 
 71 
 
 Speaking of the gift of healing diseases, which the Primitive Christians 
 claimed, Dr. Middleton, in his Free Inquiry, observes— "But be that as it 
 will, the pretence of curing diseases, by a miraculous power, was so suc- 
 cessfully maintained in the heathen world by fraud, and craft, that when it 
 came to be challenged by the Christians, it was not capable of exciting any 
 attention to it among those who themselves pretended to the same power ; 
 which, although the certain effect of imposture, was yet managed with so 
 much art, that the Christians could neither deny nor detect it ; but insisted 
 always that it was performed by demons, or evil spirits, deluding mankind 
 to their ruin ; and from the supposed reality of the fact, they inferred the 
 reasonableness of believing what was more credibly affirmed by the Chris- 
 tiana, to be performed by the power of the true God. " We do not deny"' 
 says Athenagoras, " that, in different places, cities, and countries, there are 
 Eome extraordinary works performed in the name of idols, from which 
 some have received benefit, others harm." And then he goes on to prove 
 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 nave but little effect towards making 
 
 {)roselytes among those who pretended to the same gift; possessed more 
 argely, and exerted more openly, than in the private assemblies of the 
 Christians. For in the Temple of Esculapius, all kinds of diseases were 
 believed to be publicly cured by the pretended help of that deity : in proof 
 of which, there were erected in each temple columns, or tables of brass, and 
 marble, on which a distinct narrative of each particular cure was inscribed." 
 He also observes that — " Pausanias writes, ' that in the temple at Epidaurus 
 there were many columns anciently of this" kind, and six of them remaining 
 in his time, inscribed with the names of men and women cured by the god, 
 with an account of their several cases, and the method of their cure ; and 
 that there was an old pillar besides, which stood apart, dedicated to the 
 memory of Hippolytus, who had been raised from the dead!' Strabo, also, 
 another grave writer, informs us, that these temples were constantly filled 
 
 have given him the honour of working any, unless he had done so." Christian reader, 
 thou seest how much can be said, and how many respectable witnesses and authorities 
 can be adduced to prove that Mahomet wrought miracles. Canst thou adduce 
 more, or better, authorities in behalf of the miracles of the New Testament ? Art 
 thou not rather satistied 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 Apostles converted the Roman 
 world from idolatry, that they overthrew one system of idolatry, only to build up 
 another, since the worship of Jesus, the Virgin Mary, and the Saints, and their 
 images, was established in a few hundred years after Jesus, and continues to this day ; 
 an idolatry as rank, and much more inexcusable than the worship of the ancient 
 Greeks and Romans. Whereas, Mahomet cut up root and branch, both Christian 
 and Pagan 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, but that Islamism made more progress 
 in one hundred years, than Christianity did in a thousand; that it was embraced by 
 the noble, the great, the wise, and the learned, almost as soon as it appeared; 
 whereas, Christianity was skulking and creeping among the mob of the Roman 
 Empire for some hundred years before it dared to raise its head in pubhc view. If 
 the Christian should reply to this, by ascribing the success of Mahometanism to the 
 sword, the Mahometan might reply, with truth, that it was a vulgar error ; for that 
 vastly more nations embraced Islamism voluntarily, than there were who freehj 
 received Christianity ; and he might remind him, how much Christianity owed to the 
 accession of Constantine ; to Charlemagne ; and the Teutonic Knights ; and bid him 
 recollect that the monks were assisted by soldiers to convert to Christianity almost 
 every nation in Modern Europe. — E.
 
 72 
 
 with the sick, imploring the help of the god : and that they had tables 
 hanging around them, in >vhich all the miraculous cures were described." 
 Dr. Middlcton then proceeds thus — " There is a remarkable fragment of 
 one of these tables still extant, and exhibited by Gruter, in his collection, as 
 it was found in the ruins of Esculapius' Temple, iii the island of the Tyber, 
 at Rome, which gives an account of two blind men restored to sight, by 
 Esculapius, in the open view, and with loud acclamations 0/ the people, acknow- 
 ledging the manifest power of the god ! !" Upon which he remarks, that " the 
 learned Montfaucon makes this reflection, ' that in this, are seen either the 
 wiles of the Devil, or the tricks of Pagan priests, suborning men to counter- 
 feit diseases, and miraculous cures.'" He then proceeds, (p. 79) — "Now, 
 though nothing can support the belief, or credit of miracles more authenti- 
 cally than public monuments erected in proof, and memory of them at the 
 time they were performed, yet, in defiance of that authority, it is certain all 
 these Heathen miracles were pure forgeries, contrived to delude the 
 multitude ; and, in truth, this particular claim of curing diseases miracu- 
 lously, affords great room for such a delusion, and a wide field for the 
 exercise of craft." 
 
 I need not observe, that by far the greater part of the mii;acles recorded 
 in the New Testament, are casting out devils, and healing diseases, powers 
 claimed by the heathens as well as these Christians : and these miracles, 
 (undoubtedly false) are as ivell, if not far better authenticated than those of 
 the New Testament : for books may be forged, but public monuments of 
 brass and marble are not so capable of being so : and these are always con- 
 sidered as better evidence for facts than books. What then will the Christian 
 say to this ? for since these miracles, recorded on brass and marble, inscribed 
 with the narratives of them almost immediately after the occurrence of them, 
 ai*e unquestionably Lies ; what can he pretend to say of those recorded in 
 books certainly written many years after the events they record, and, as will 
 be proved hereafter, more than suspected to be apocryphal? And what would 
 become of truth ? and who would be able to distinguish truth from false- 
 hood, in matters of religion, if attested miracles, such as these, are sufficient 
 to establish the divine authority of doctrines said to be confirmed by them ? 
 Miracles are as numerous, and better authenticated on the part of Jupiter, 
 Apollo, and Esculapius, than on the part of Christianity. They are strong 
 on the part of Popery against Protestantism : for the Roman Catholic 
 Churches in Europe are full of monumental records of miracles wrought by 
 the Virgin Mary and the Saints, in favour of their worshippers. Nay, there 
 never were miracles better proved, as far as human testimony could prove 
 them, than the famous miracle mentioned by Gibbon in his History of the 
 Roman Empire, where he relates the story of the Arian Vandals cutting out 
 the tongues of a great number of orthodox Athanasians, who, strange to tell, 
 preached as much to the purpose, in favour of the Trinity, without their 
 tongues, as they did with them ! Never was there a miracle better authenti- 
 cated by testimony than this. It is mentioned by all the Christian writers of 
 that age. It is mentioned by two contemporary Roman historians, one of 
 ■whom lived in Constantinople, and who says he looked into the mouths of 
 some of these confessors, who had in fact their tongues cut out entirely by 
 the roots ; and it is recorded in the archives of the Eastei-n Empire. 
 
 Is not this testimony enough ; and yet, is it sufficient to prove the doc- 
 trine of the Trinity? Is it adequate to prove, that "the ancient of days" 
 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, such strange, such shocking things as these ?
 
 73 
 
 The miracles of the Abbe Paris, too, are proved to be true, as far as 
 testimony can prove any thing of the kind. For they happened within a 
 hundred years, were seen by many, and were sworn to before the magistrates, 
 by some of the most respectable inhabitants of the city of Paris. How can 
 men, who pretend to believe the miracles of the New Testament upon such 
 meagre evidence'as they have in their favour, consistently reject the miracles 
 of the Abbe Paris ? attested by evidence recent, respectable, and so strong, 
 that to this day, the juggle, and the means by which so many respectable 
 people were imposed upon, have never yet been thoroughly developed, and 
 explained. 
 
 CHAPTER XV. 
 
 APPLICATION OF THE TWO TESTS, SAID, IN DECTEBONOMY, TO HAVE BEEN GIVEN BT 
 GOD, AS DISCRIMINATING A TRUE PROPHET FROM A FALSE ONE, TO THE 
 CHARACTER ANt> ACTIONS OF JESUS. 
 
 In the 18th chapter of Deuteronomy God says, — " The Prophet which 
 shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded 
 him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that 
 Prophet shall die. And if thou say in thine heart, how shall we know (or 
 distinguish,) the word which the Lord hath not spoken?" Here is the 
 criterion. " When a Prophet speaketh in the name of the Lord, if the thing 
 follow not, nor come to pass; that is the thing which the Lord hath not 
 spoken. That Prophet hath spoken presumptuously : thou shalt not be 
 afraid of him." 
 
 Again, Deuteronomy 13, "If there arise among you a Prophet, or a 
 dreamer of dreams, and give you a sign or a wonder (i. e. a miracle,) and 
 the sign or wonder come to pass, whereof he spake unto thee saying, let us go- 
 after other gods, which thou hast not known, and let us serve them : thou 
 shalt not hearken unto the words of that Prophet, or that dreamer of dreams ; 
 for the Lord your God proveth (or tryeth) you, to know whether ye love 
 the Lord your God with all you heart, and with all your soul." 
 
 And now Christian reader, I ask you what you think of mkacles, or 
 " signs and wonders," as proof of a divine mission, to teach doctrines novel 
 and innovating, after such clear and unequivocal language as this, from such 
 high authority ? I am sure, that if you are a sincere lover of truth, you 
 must certainly abandon that ground as untenable. For, from these direc- 
 tions, the Jews were commanded these things.* 1. That the Prophet who 
 presumes to speak a word, as from God, which God hath not commanded 
 him to speak, must be put to death. 2. That the test, or criterion by which 
 they are to discern a false prophet from a true one, is this : not his miracles, 
 but the fidfillment of his words. K what he says comes to pass, he is a true 
 prophet ; if the event foretold does not take place, he has spoken presump- 
 tuously, and must die the death. 3. '.' If any man arise in Israel," and 
 advise, or teach them to worship any other besides the Eternal ; and in proof 
 of the divinity of his mission promise a sign, or a wonder, and in fact does 
 bring to pass the sign or wonder promised, he is nevertheless, not to be 
 hearkened to ; but to be put to death. And these criteria given by God, or 
 Moses, as the means whereby they might know a true Prophet from a false 
 one, most exquisitively prove his wisdom and foresight. For if he had not 
 
 * Compare the above with Maimonides, Hilchot Yessode Hattorah, from 
 chapter 7. — D, 
 i
 
 74 
 
 expressly excluded miracles, or " signs and wonders," from being proof of 
 the divinity of doctrines, the barriers which divided his religion from those 
 of idolaters, must have been broken 4own; since, as we have seen, well 
 attested miracles (meaning always by miracles, " signs and wonders," brought 
 to pass by human agency,) are related to have been performed in proof of 
 the divinity of every religion under Heaven. But veritable prophecy is, and 
 can be a proof proper only to a true Revelation, because none can know 
 ■what is to come but God, and those sent by him. Accordingly, we find that 
 the Jewish Prophets were not acknowledged as such, but on account of tJt^ir 
 foretelling the truth, or being supposed to do so. 
 
 Thus, it is said, 1 Samuel iii. 20, " And all Israel, from Dan even to 
 Beersheba, knew, that Samuel Avas established to be a Prophet of the Lord." 
 Why ? Because he performed miracles ? No ! he performed none. But he 
 was known as a Prophet because " the Lord 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 the Hebrew Prophets, from Nathan to Malachi. For 
 though Elijah and Elisha performed miracles, yet it was iiot in proof of their 
 mission, for that was established before ; but these miracles were occasional 
 acts of beneficence, or protection, but were never considered, or oftered by 
 them as proofs of their being sent from God. 
 
 These things being by this time, it is hoped, made plain and evident, 
 let us now test the character of Jesus as a true Prophet, by the ci'iteria, by 
 Christians, and by the Jews, believed to be given by God. If his prophecies 
 were fulfilled, and if ho taught the worship of no other being besides 
 the Eternal, he was, according to the Old Testament, a true Prophet. But if 
 any of his prophecies were not fulfilled, or. if he taught the worship of any 
 other Being besides the Etei'nal, he was not a true Prophet. 
 
 And here it must be recollected, that those prophecies of Jesus only, 
 can be brought forward in this question, which were committed to writing, 
 before the event foretold came to pass ; and therefore all Jesus' prophecies 
 concerning the manner and circumstances of his death, &c., must be set 
 aside, as all those events are allowed to have taken place before any of the 
 Gospels were written ; and of course it is not certain that Jesus did actually 
 foretell them. This is acknowledged by Christians ; and accordingly they 
 confine themselves to bringing forward as conclusive evidence in their 
 favour, his Prophecy of the Destruction of _ Jerusalem, and the events 
 following. Here it is. Luke xxi. 21. " When ye shall see Jerusalem com- 
 passed with armies, then know, that the desolation thereof is nigh. Then 
 let them which are in Judea flee to the mountains, and let them which are 
 in the midst of it, depart out, and let noi? them which are in the country, 
 enter thereinto. For these be the days of vengeance, that all things which 
 are 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 great distress in 
 the land, and wrath upon this people. And they shall fall by the edge of 
 the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations, and Jerusalem shall 
 be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled. 
 And there shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars, and 
 upon the earth distress of nations with perplexity, the sea and waves roaring, 
 man's hearts failing them for fear, and for looking after those things which 
 are coming on the earth : for the powers of the heavens shall be shaken. 
 And then shall they see the Son of Man coming in a cloud, with power, and 
 great glory. And when these things begin to come to pass, then look wp, 
 and lift tip 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, ye see, and know of your own selves, that summer is now nigh at
 
 75 
 
 hand. So likewise ye, when ye see these things come to pass, know ye that 
 the kingdom of God is nigh at hand. Verily I say unto yon, this generation 
 shall not pass away till all he falfilled. Heaven and earth shall pass away, 
 but my words shall not pass away." 
 
 Such is the prophecy, and on it I would remark, first, that what Jesus 
 here foretells concerning Jerusalem did in fact come to pass. But that was 
 not a fulfillment of Ms prophecy, but of Daniel's, who did, as is set down in 
 the 7th chapter of this work, expressly foretell the utter destruction of the 
 city and the temple. And it was from Daniel that Jesus obtained his know- 
 ledge of"the approach of that event. For he expressly cites Daniel, Matthew 
 xxiv. 15 ; Mark xiii. 14 ; and you will please to observe reader, that he refers 
 to him in this quotation from Luke, in the words, " these be the days of 
 vengeance that all things which are written may be fulfilled. So that in 
 foretelling the destruction of Jerusalem he did no more than any Jew of 
 that age, who attentively read their Scriptures, could have done, and beea 
 no prophet either. 
 
 2. It would have been better for his reputation as a Prophet, if he had 
 stopped short where Daniel stopped. For what he goes on to foretell has 
 not been fulfilled. For he proceeds to say, that " there shall be signs in the 
 sun, and the moon, and the stars," &c. All this is taken from the 2nd 
 chapter of Joel, who says that such things shall take place ; not, however, at 
 the destruction of Jerusalem, but in " the latter days," at the time of the 
 restoration of Israel. So that here Jesus has been rather unlucky. For, in 
 truth, there were no signs in the sun, and the moon, and the stars, at thai 
 time ; neither was there upon earth any " great distress of nations," except; 
 in Judea. Nor were " the powers of heaven" shaken. Certainly, they did 
 not see Jesus " coming in the clouds of heaven, with power, and great 
 glory ;" and most assuredly, that generation did pass away, and many others 
 since, and " all these things" have not been fulfilled. 
 
 I know very well, and have very often smiled over the contrivances by 
 •which learned Christians have endeavoured to save the credit of this 
 prophecy. They say that — it is a figurative prophecy relating entirely to 
 the destruction of Jerusalem, which did in fact take place in that generation ; 
 that the expressions about the " distress of nations," and " the sea and 
 waves roaring," the " signs in heaven," &c., are merely poetical; and that 
 the shaking of the powers of heaven was merely the shaking and pulling 
 down the stones of the temple, figuratively called heaven; and that the 
 glorious coming of Jesus " 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 spectator himself. 
 
 The reader will easily see, that all this is nonsense. And the Commen- 
 tator Grotius, after meddling a great while in this troublesome business, at 
 length ventures to insinuate, that God might have suffered Jesus to be in a 
 mistake about the time of his second coming, and to tell the Apostles what he 
 did, for the sake of keeping up their spirits ! 
 
 But to annihilate the figurative hyijothesis of these well-meaning Com- 
 mentators at once, it will be only necessary to bring forward the testimony 
 following. 1. The other Evangelists make an express distinction between 
 the destruction of Jerusalem and the coming of Jesus ; and not only so, but 
 represent him as saying, that after that event, (i. e., the destruction of 
 Jerusalem, " in those days," i. e., in the same era in which that event took 
 place,) " the son of man shall come," &c. Witness for me, Mark, chapter 
 xiii. 24: — "But in those days, 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 heaven shall bo
 
 76 
 
 shaken. And then shall thoy sec the son of man coming in the clouds, with 
 power and glory ; and then shall he send his angels, aud shall gather his 
 elect from the four winds, from the uttermost part of the earth, to the 
 uttermost part of heaven Verily, I say unto you, that this generation shall 
 not pass, till all these things be accomplished." This is decisive, and cannot 
 be evaded. 
 
 2. The Apostles and Primitive Christians believed that Jesus would 
 come in that (joieration, as is evident from many passages of the New 
 Testament. Paul's Epistles to the ThessaloUians prove this, and contain an 
 argument to them, intended to allay their terrors, or their impatience. 
 John says in his first Epistle, chapter ii. 18, "Little children, it is the last 
 hour; and as ye have heard that Antichrist should come, even now (or 
 already) there are many Antichrists, whereby knoiv that it is the last hour." 
 Many passages of similar import might be brought forward. The meaning 
 of it is this — It appears from Paul's 2nd Epistle to the Thessalonians, that 
 just before the second coming of Jesus, there was a personage to appear who 
 was to be called Antichrist, i. e., an enemy to the Messiah. (This notion 
 they got from the interpretation given by the angel 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" and that his master was soon to appear. 
 
 It appears from the 2nd Epistle of Peter, chapter iii., that there were 
 many in his days who scoffed at his master, saying, contemptuously, " where 
 is the promise of his coming ?" And Peter replies by telling them that their 
 contempt is misplaced, for that " one day is with the Lord as a thousand 
 years, and a thousand years 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 ivhich pierced him, and all 
 kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him." And in the last chapter 
 of Revelations he represents Jesus, as saying, " Surely I come quickly" ! 
 
 In short, the Apostles, when they wanted to encourage their desponding 
 proselytes, they usually did it with such words as these, — " Be anxious for 
 nothing, the Lord is at hand." — "Behold! the Judge standeth before the door." 
 — "Be patient, therefore, brethren, (says James) for the coming of the Lord 
 draweth nigh." And this persuasion did not end, as might be expected, with 
 that century; for we find that the heathens frequently laughed at the expec- 
 tations of the Primitive Christians, who, till the fourth century, never gave 
 up the expectation of the impending advent of their master. Nay, so rooted 
 was the idea in their minds, that, understanding the woi'ds of Jesus concern- 
 ing John, " if I will that he tariy till I come, what is that to thee," to mean 
 that that disciple should not die, but survive till the glorious appearance of 
 his lord, so far were they from being convinced of the vanity of their expec- 
 tations by that Apostle's actual decease, that they insisted, that, though he vjoi 
 buried, he was not d^ad, but only slept, and that the earth over his body rose 
 Bind fell with the action of his breathing ! ! 
 
 It is now hardly necessary to add, that Jesus did not at all answer the 
 character of a true prophet, when tested by the criterion laid down in Deu- 
 teronomy for ascertaining the truth of the claims of a prophet to a divine 
 mission. 
 
 Let us now see, whether he taught the worship of other beings beside 
 the Eternal, for if he did, the other test laid down in Deuteronomy will also 
 decide against him. Now, did he not command the worship of himself in 
 these words, " All men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father?" 
 This, certainly, commands to render to Jesus the same homage which is 
 rendered to God. I might prove that his disciples did worship him, by
 
 77 
 
 referring to many passages in the New Testament, . especially in the 
 Revelations, in the latter part of which, Jesus is represented as saying, 
 " I am the Alpha, and the Omega, the beginning, and the end, 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 none before him, neither shall there be any after 
 him." I could also adduce many passages relating to the Eternal of Hosts, 
 quoted from the Old Testament, and applied in the New to Jesus. Witness 
 the following : — John xii. 41, alludes to Isaiah vi. 5 ; Revelations i. 8, 11, 
 17, and ii. 8, to Isaiah xli. 4, xliii. 11, and xliv. 6 ; John xxi. 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, is described in almost the same words as is 
 the Supreme God; "the Ancient of Days" in Daniel, 7th chapter; and were 
 there not other proofs in abundance to this purpose, this resemblance alone 
 would decide me. 
 
 I now leave it to the cool judgment of the reader, whether Jesus 
 prophecied truly, or did, or did not, teach the duty of paying religious homage 
 to other beings besides God ? and, if so, it is consequent, according to the 
 tests by Christians acknowledged to be given by God himself in Deuteronomy, 
 that Jesus was not sent by, or from, him ; for if he was — god's own words 
 
 WOULD BE contradicted BY GOD's OWN DEEDS. 
 
 CHAPTER XVI. 
 
 EXAMINATION OF THE EVIDENCE, EXTERNAL AND INTERNAL, IN FAVOR OF THE CREDIBIUTT 
 OF THE GOSPEL HISTORY. 
 
 In the preceding chapters, I have taken the New Testament as I found 
 it, and have argued upon the supposition that Jesus and the apostles really 
 said, and reasoned, as has been stated. I will now endeavour to show, by 
 an examination of the authenticity of the four gospels, that it is not certain 
 that they were really guilty of such mistakes as are related of them in those 
 books. 
 
 * The life and doctrines of Jesus, and his followers, are contained in the 
 pieces composing the volume called the New Testament. The genuineness of 
 the books, i. e., whether they were written by those to whom they are 
 ascribed, must be judged of, from the external testimony concerning them, 
 and from internal marks in the books themselves ; for the miraculous acts 
 therein, and therein onli/, contained and related, cannot prove the truth and 
 authenticity of the books, because the authority and credibility of the books 
 themselves must be firmly established, before the miracles related in them 
 can reasonably be admitted as real facts. 
 
 * 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 in this chapter on the 
 histories of the four evangelists, to reflect upon, or to disparage, the characters of 
 Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, under whose names they go ; because he believes, 
 and thinks it is proved in this chapter, that the real authors of these histories were 
 very different persons from the Apostles of Jesus ; and that, in fact, the accounts 
 were not written till the middle of the second century, about a hundred years after 
 the supposed authors of them were dead. Of course, none of the observations con- 
 tained in the chapter relative to these histories, ware considered, or intended, to 
 apply to any of the twelve apostles, who were not men who could make such mistakes 
 as will be pointed out. These mistakes belong entirely to the authors who have 
 assumed their names. — E,
 
 78 
 
 Now, the external evidence in faTour of these books, is the testimony of 
 those men called " the fathers ;" and as the value of testimony depends upon 
 the character of the witnesses, it would be proper, first, to state as much as 
 can be learned of these men. As time will not permit me to adduce all that 
 might be said upon this subject, I shall here only take upon me to assert, 
 that they were most credulous, superstitious, and weak men, and, what is 
 woi*se, made no scruple of falsifying, to support and favour what they called 
 " the cause of truth ;" for they were writers of apocryphal books, attributing 
 them to the apostles, and, moreover, great miracle-mongers, who vamped up 
 stories of prodigies to delude their followers, and which they themselves 
 knew to be false. I say, I take upon me to assert this ; and to confirm and 
 establish this accusation, I refer the reader to Dr. Middleton's " Free 
 Enquiry," a learned Christian, who, therefore, had no interest to misre- 
 present this matter ; and he will there find these accusations amply verified, 
 and traits of character proved upon them, by no means favourable to the 
 credibility of their testimony. 
 
 The first of these Fathers whose testimony is usually adduced to prore 
 the authenticity of the Gospels, is Papias, a Disciple of John. The cha- 
 racter given of him by Eusebius is, that " he was a superstitious, and 
 credulous man." And this is easily proved by recording some of the stories, 
 concerning Jesus, and his followers, written by this Papias in a book extant 
 in the time of Eusebius. One of these stories is mentioned by Irenoeus, who 
 says, that Papias had it from John ; who, according to Papias, said; that 
 Jesus said, that — " The days shall come, in which there shall be vines, which 
 shall severally have ten thousand branches ; and every one of these branches 
 shall have ten thousand lesser branches ; and every one of these branches shall 
 have ten thousand twigs ; and every one of these twigs shall have ten thousand 
 clusters of grapes ; and every one of these grapes being pressed shall yield two 
 hundred and seventy-Jive gallons of wine. And when a man shall take hold of 
 any of these sacred bunches, another bunch shall cry out " I am a better 
 bunch, take me, and bless the Lord by me!" There's a Munchausen for you, 
 reader! Well! this Papias is the first witness who lived after Matthew, 
 who has spoken of his Gospel. He lived about the year 116 after Jesus. 
 And what does ho say of it ? Why this. "Matthew composed a writing of 
 the Oracles (meaning without doubt the Doctrines of the Gospel,) in the 
 Hebrew Language, and every one interpreted them as he was able." So far 
 as this Testimony goes it is positive evidence, that the only Gospel of 
 Matthew extant in 116, was extant in Hebrew ; and there was then no trans- 
 lation of it, for "every one interpreted as he was able." The. present gospel 
 called of JNIatthew was then not written by him, for it is in Greek. And that 
 it has not at all the air of being a translation is asserted by most of the 
 learned. As it stands then, it was not written by Matthew : and that it 
 cannot be a translation of Matthew's Hebrew, is not only plain from the 
 circumstance of its style, and other marks understood by Biblical Critics, 
 but can also be proved by another story related by this same Papias concern- 
 ing the manner of the death of Judas. " His body, and head (says Papias) 
 became so swollen, that at length he could not get through a street in Jerusa- 
 lem, where two chariots might pass abreast, and having fallen to the ground, 
 he — burst asunder. 
 
 Now though this ridiculous story is undoubtedly false, yet it is not 
 credible that Papias, who had so great a reverence for the Apostles as to 
 collect and gather all " their sayings," would so flatly by his story of the 
 death of Judas contradict the story of Matthew, if the Hebi-ew Gospel of 
 Matthew contained that part of the Greek Gospel of Matthew which relates 
 the manner of Judas' Death.
 
 79 
 
 Justin Martyr lived afUr Papias, in the middle of the second century ; 
 and though he relates many circumstances agreeing in the main with those 
 recorded in the Gospels, and appears to quote sayings of Jesus from some 
 book or books ; yet it is substantially acknowledged by Dr. Marsh, the 
 learned annotator on Michaelis's Introduction, that these quotations are so 
 unlike the words, and circumstances in the received Evangelists to which 
 they appear to correspond, that one of two things must be true ; either, that 
 Justin, who lived 140 years after Jesus, had never seen any of the present 
 Gospels ; or else, that they were in his time in a very different state from what 
 t?ier/ now are. 
 
 The next Christian father who mentions the Gospel of Matthew is 
 Irenoeus, who says also that "Matthew wrote his gospel in the Hebrew 
 Language." The character of Irenjeus is discoverable from his work against 
 the Heresies of his time, to that I refer the Reader, who will find him to 
 have been a zealous, though a very credulous, and ignorant man ; for he 
 believed the story of Papias just quoted, and many others equally absurd. 
 He however furnishes this important intelligence, that in the second century, 
 the Christian world was overrun with heresy, and a swarm of apocryphal, 
 and spurious Books were received by many as genuine. 
 
 The next witness in favour of the Gospel is Tertullian, who lived in the 
 latter end of the second centuiy. And the soundness of his Judgment, and 
 his capability to distinguish the genuine Gospels from among a hundred 
 apocryphal ones, and above all his regard for truth, may be judged of from 
 these proofs given by himself. He asserts upon his own knowledge, " / know 
 it," says he — " that the corpse of a dead Christian, at the first breath of the 
 prayer made by the priest, on occasion of its own funeral, removed its 
 hands from its sides, into the usual posture of a supplicant ; and when the 
 service was ended, restored them again to their former situation." (Tertul. 
 de anima c, 51.) And he relates as a fact, which he, and all the orthodox 
 of his time credited, that— " the body of another Christian already interred 
 moved itself to one side of the grave to make room for another corpse which 
 was going to be laid by it." And it is on the testimony of such men as these, 
 that the authenticity of the gospels entirely' depends as to external evidence; 
 for these are all the witnesses that can be produced as speaking of them, 
 who lived within two hundred years after Jesus : Three men, (for Justin 
 cannot be reckoned as a witness in favour of the gospels.) Three men, who 
 are all of them evidently credulous, and two of whom ai'e certainly *****. 
 
 To convince a thinking man that histories recording such very extraor- 
 dinary, ill supported, improbable facts as are contained in the gospels are 
 divine, or even really written by the men to whom they are ascribed ; and are 
 not either some of the many spurious productions with which (as we learn 
 from Irena^us) that early age abounded, calculated to astonish the credulous, 
 and superstitious, or else writings of authors who were themselves infected 
 with the grossest superstitious credulity ; of what use can it be to adduce 
 the testimony of the very few writers, of the same, or next succeeding age, 
 when the very reading of their works shews him that they themselves were 
 tainted with that same superstitious credulity, of which are accused the real 
 authors of the New Testament ? 
 
 It is an obvious rule in the admission of evidence in any cause whatso- 
 ever, that the more important the matter to be determined by it is, the more 
 unsullied and unexceptionable ought the characters of tjie ivitnesses to be. And 
 when no court of Justice, in determining a question of fraud to the amount 
 of six pence, will admit the testimony of witnesses who are themselves 
 notoriously convicted of the same offence of which the defendant is accused ; 
 how can it be expected, that any reasonable, unprejudiced person, should
 
 80 
 
 admit similar evidence to be of weight, in a case of the greatest importance 
 posstbh, not to himself only, but to the whole human race ? 
 
 But there is still a greater defect in the testimony of those early writers, 
 than their superstitious credulity, I mean their disregard of honour, and 
 veracity, in whatever concerned the cause of their particular system. 
 
 Though Luke asserts, that mariT/ (even before he wrote his histories for 
 the use of Theophilus,) had written upon the same subject : (who of course 
 must have been of the Jewish nation,) and many more must have been 
 written afterwards, whose writings must have been particularly valuable ; 
 yet so singularly industrious have the fathers, and succeeding sons of the 
 orthodox church been, in destroying every writing upon the subject of 
 Christianity, which they could not by some means, or other, apply to the 
 support of their own unholy superstition, that no work of importance 
 of any Christian writer, within the three first centuries, hath been permitted to 
 come down to us, except those books which they have thought fit to adopt, 
 and transmit to us as the canon of apostolic scripture ; and the works of a 
 few other writers, who were all of them, not only converts from Paganism, 
 but men who had been educated and well instructed in the Philosophic 
 Schools of the latter Platonists, and Pythagoreans. 
 
 The established maxim of these schools was, that it was not lawful only, 
 but commendable to deceive, and assert falsehoods for the sake of promoting 
 what they considered as the cause of truth and piety, and the effects of this 
 maxim, which was fully acted upon by both orthodox Christians, and 
 heretics, produced a multiplicity of false, and spurious writings wherewith 
 the second century abounded. 
 
 Nay, they did not spare from the operation of this maxim, the scriptures 
 themselves. For they stuffed their copies of the Scptuagint with a number 
 of interpolated pretended prophecies concerning Jesus, and his death upon 
 the cross ; forgeries as weak, and contemptible, and clumsy in themselves, as 
 they were impious and wicked. Whoever desires to see a number of them, 
 may find them in the dispute, or dialogue of Justin with Trypho the Jew ; 
 where he will see the simple Justin bringing them out passage after passage 
 against the stubborn Israelite, who contents himself with cooly answering, 
 that these marvellous prophecies were not to be found in his Hebrew bible ! 
 
 There is also another well known, incontrovertible proof of the deceit 
 and falsehood of the leading Christians of early times, of which every person 
 in the least conversant with the ecclesiastical history of those times must be 
 convinced — theh" pretended power of working miracles ! On this subject I 
 shall say nothing, but refer the reader to the work of Dr. Middleton already 
 mentioned, for an ample account of their lying wonders, which they imposed 
 as miraculous upon the simple people. 
 
 With regard to the internal evidence for the authenticity of the writings 
 composing the New Testament, it is still less satisfactory than the external 
 evidence. And this may be well believed, when the reader is informed that 
 the great Sender, after spending his life in the study of ecclesiastical history, 
 and antiquities, which he is allowed to have understood better than any 
 before him, affirmed to his astonished coreligionists, that, except the Gospel 
 of John, and the Apocalypse, the whole New Testament was a collection of 
 forgeries written by the partizans of the Jewish and Gentile parties in the 
 Christian church, and entitled apostolic, in order the better to answer their 
 purpose. This opinion has been in part adopted in England, by a learned 
 and shrewd clergyman named Evanson, who has almost demonstrated, that 
 the Greek Gospel of Matthew Avas written 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 oi geographical mistakes, and manifest ignorance of Jewish
 
 81 
 
 mutoms. He also gives good reasons for rejecting the authenticity of some 
 of the epistles. In short, he has poured such a flood of light upon the eyes 
 of his terrified brethren, as will, ere long, no doubt enable them to see a little 
 «learer than heretofore. 
 
 He gives several instances of geogi'aphical blunders in Matthew. I 
 •ball mention only one. Matthew says, in the 2nd chapter, that whea 
 Joseph, the husband of Mary, returned from Egypt, " hearing that Archelaus 
 reigned in Judea, he was afraid to go thither, and therefore turned aside, into 
 the parts of Galilee." Now this, as will appear from a map of Palestine, is 
 Just like saying, " a man at Philadelphia, intending to go to the State of New 
 York, on his route heard something which made him afraid to go thither, 
 and therefore he turned aside — into Boston !" 
 
 That the author of that Gospel was ignorant of Jewish customs will be 
 •Tident from the following circumstances. He says Jesus told Peter, that 
 before the cock crew he would deny him thrice ; and that afterwards, when 
 Peter was cursing and swearing, saying " I know not the man ! immediately 
 4he cock crew." Now it is unfortunate for the ci-edit of this story, that it is 
 well known, that in conformity with Jewish customs, at that time subsisting, 
 no cocks were allowed to be in Jerusalem, where Jesus was apprehended. 
 This is known, and acknowledged by learned Christians, who have extricated 
 themselves from this difficulty, by proving that the crowing of the cock, here 
 mentioned, does not mean, as it appears to mean, absolutely the ci'owing of 
 * cock, but that it means — what dost thou think reader ? why it means — 
 the sound of a trumpet!!* 
 
 According to Luke, as soon as Jesus was dead, Joseph of Arimathea went 
 to Pilate, and begged his body, and hasted to buiy it, because the Sabbath 
 (which began at sunset,) drew on ; that his female disciples attended the 
 burial ; observed how the body was placed in the sepulchre, and returned and 
 prepared spices and ointments to embalm it with, be/or-e the Sabbath com- 
 menced ; and then rested the Sabbath day, according to the commandment. 
 
 The pretended Matthew, however, tells us, that " tvhen the even was come," 
 (i. e., when the Sabbath day was actually begun,) Joseph went to beg the body 
 — took it down, wi-appcd it in linen, and buried it ; and that Mary Magdalene 
 and the other Mary, were sitting over against the sepulchre. From the time 
 that this writer has thought fit to allot for the burial of Jesus, it is evident, 
 
 * That the pretended Gospel of Matthew was not written by Matthew, or by an 
 inhabitant of Palesdne, may also be inferred, I think, from the blundering attempts 
 of the author of it to give the meaning of some expressions uttered by Jesus, and 
 used by the Jews, in the language of the country, which was the Syro Chaldaic; and 
 which the real Matthew could hardly be ignorant of. For instance, he says that 
 Golgotha signifies — "the 2}lace of a skidl." Matthew xxvii. 33. Now, this is 
 not true, for Golgotha, or as it should have been written, Golgoltha, does not 
 signify *•' the place of a skull," but simply " a skull." The Gospels according to 
 Mark, and John, are guilty of the same mistake, and thus betray the same marks of 
 Gentilism. Again, the pretended Matthew says, that Jesus cried on the cross, " Eli 
 Eli lama, sabackthani," which he says meant, "My God, My God, why hast thou 
 forsaken me?" (Matthew xxvii. 46.) If the reader will look at what Michaelis, in 
 his introduction to the New Testament, says upon this subject, he will find the real 
 Syro Chaldaic expression which must have been used by Jesus, to be so different from 
 the one given by the supposed Matthew, that he will, (and the observation is not 
 meant as a disparagement to the real Matthew, who certainly had no hand in the 
 composition of the Gospel covered with his name) I suspect be inclined to believe, 
 that this pretended Matthew's knowledge of the vulgar language of the Jews, used in 
 Christ's time, must have been about upon a par with the honest sailor's knowledge of 
 French ; who assured his countrymen, on his return home, that the French called a 
 horse a shovel, and a hat a chopper ! — E. 
 K
 
 82 
 
 that he was not only oio Jew, but so ignorant of the customs of the Jews, that 
 he did not know that their day always began with the evening, or he would 
 never have employed Joseph in doing what no Jew would, nor dared to have 
 done, after the commencement of the Sabbath. He takes no notice at all of 
 the preparation made by the women, mentioned by Luke ; for that would 
 not have agreed with the sequel of his story. But to make up for that 
 omission, he informs us of a circumstance not mentioned at all by the other 
 Evangelists. For he tells us that " on the next day which foUoweth the day 
 of preparation, the Chief Priests, and Pharisees came together unto Pilate, 
 &c. " The next day which foUoweth the day of preparation ! !" — such is 
 the periphrasis that he uses for the Sabbath 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 Sabbath day. Because they were forbidden to light a fire, or do any 
 servile work 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 foUoweth the day of the prepara- 
 tion." Yet this singular historian so denominates it, and moreover, goes on 
 to inform us, that the chief priests, and Pharisees went to Pilate to ask for 
 a guard to place round the sepulchre, till the third day, to prevent his 
 disciples from stealing away 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 rolled against it, 
 and setting a watch." Though there appears nothing very strange in this 
 account to a Christian, yet, I assure my reader, that to the Jews, it ever did, 
 and must appear utterly inci'edible. For it is wonderful ! that the Jewish 
 rulers, and the rigorous Pharisees should in so public a m,anner thus violate 
 the precept for observing the Sabbath day ; for the penalty of this action of 
 theirs was no less than death ! More wonderful still is it that they should 
 have so much better attended to, and comprehended the meaning of the 
 prediction of Jesus to his disciples, than his own disciples did ; and most 
 wonderful of all, that a Roman Proconsul should consent to let his troops 
 keep watch round a tomb, for fear it should be thought that a dead man was 
 come to life again. 
 
 But though our author's history of these exti'aordinary facts is neither 
 consistent with reason, and probability, nor with the other histories of the 
 same event ; it proceeds in pretty strict conformity to the manner in which 
 it sets out. For to convince us still more fully that the author was totally 
 ignorant of the mode of computing time in use among the Jews, and 
 habituated to that in use among the Greeks and Romans ; he reckons the 
 Sabbath to last till day light on Sunday morn, and says, (chapter xxviii.), 
 " that in the end of the Sabbath, as it began to dawn, towards the first day of 
 the week," the two Marys before mentioned, came, (not as in Luke, to 
 embalm the body, for, with a guard round the sepulchre, that would have 
 been impracticable, but) to see the sepulchre. Whilst they wore there, the 
 author tells us, there was another great earthquake, and an angel descended, 
 rolled away the stone, and sat upon it, at whose sight the soldiers trembled, 
 and were frighted to death. But to prevent the like efteet of his appearance 
 upon the women, he said unto them,, fear not ye, for I know that ye seek 
 Jesus who was crucified. That the women as well as the soldiers were 
 present at the descent of this angel, appears not only from there being 
 nobody else, by whom these uncommon circumstances could have been 
 related, but also by the pronoun personal ye inserted in the original Greek, 
 which in that language is never done, unless it be emphatically to mark 
 such a distinction, or anithesis, as there was on this occasion, between them
 
 88 
 
 and the Roman guard. Here, however, the author is inadvertently incon- 
 sistent with himself, as well as with the other evangelists; and forgetting 
 that the sole intent of rolling away the stone, was to open a passage, 
 absolutely necessary 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 it away, 
 both the women and the sokliers must have seen him rise, he makes the angel 
 bid them look into the sepulchre, to see — that he was not there! and tell 
 them that he was already risen; and that he was gone before them, into 
 Oalilee, where they shoidd see him,! In their way, the author adds, Jesus 
 himself met the women, and said, " be not afraid, go tell my brethren to go 
 into Galilee, and there shall they see me : " He says that the eleven apostles 
 went into Galilee, to an appointed mountain, and saw him there ; notwith- 
 standing that some of them were so incredulous, as not to believe even tho 
 testimony of their own senses. 
 
 • In the interim, whilst the women were going to the apostles, the author 
 tells us, "some of the watch;" some strictly disciplined Roman soldiers left 
 their station to bring an account of what had passed, not to the Governor 
 their General, nor to any of their own officers — but to the chief priests of the 
 Jews ! that they assembled a council of the elders upon the occasion, and 
 after deliberating what was to be done, induced the soldiers, by large bribes, 
 to run the risk of being put to death themselves, upon the highly improbable 
 chance of the Jewish rulers having influence sufficient with the Roman 
 Proconsul, to prevail on him to submit to the indelible infamy of neglecting 
 the discipline of the army under his command, to such a degree, as to suffer 
 an entire guard of soldiers avowedly to sleep upon their station, without any 
 notice being taken of it ! and to say " his disciples came and stole him away 
 whilst we slept." This incredible story is another instance how necessary it 
 is, that those who do not adhere closely to the truth, should have extraor- 
 dinary good memories to enable them to keep clear of absurdities, or 
 palpable contradictions in their narrations. For, consider the circumstances. 
 How were the tongues of these soldiers to be restrained among the 
 inquisitive inhabitants of a large city, (at that time too, greatly crowded on 
 account of the paschal feast,) not only in their way to the chief priests ; but 
 also during the whole time while the priests assembled the Sanhedrim, and 
 were deliberating what was to be done ? And if that part of the watch, who, 
 the author says, came to inform the chief priests, were poltroons enough for 
 the sake of a bribe to undergo so shameful a disgrace to themselves, as well 
 as to hazard the resentment of their General, how could they undertake that 
 all their comrades who remained at the sepulchre would do the same ? and to 
 what purpose could the Jewish council bribe some, without a possibility of 
 some one knowing how the rest of the corps would act ? And even 
 supposing all these difficulties surmounted, and that the whole guard had 
 agreed, and persisted in saying, " his disciples stole him away while we 
 slept," of what service could that be to the Jewish rulers? For if the guards 
 were asleep, they could be no evidence to prove that the body was taken away; 
 and it might be just as probable that he might rise to life again while the 
 ■watch was asleep, as it was if no watch had been set. 
 
 In a word, it appears from the numbers of Latin words in Greek char- 
 acters, which this book contains ; from the numerous geographical blunders ; 
 and the author's evident ignorance of the customs of the Jews : from the 
 form of Baptism enjoined at the conclusion, which was not in use in the first 
 century, as appears from the form mentioned as then used in the Acts ; from 
 the Roman Centurion's being made to call Jesus " a Son of a God," which 
 words in the mouth of a Pagan could only mean that he must be a Demi- 
 god, like Bacchus, Hercules, or Esculapius : it is clear that tills Gospel is the
 
 84 
 
 patched work composition of some convert from tho Pagan schools. At any 
 rate, his gospel flatly contradicts the others in several important particiilari 
 in the history of the Resurrection. For ho represents the apostles as being 
 commanded by the Angel and by Jesus, to go to Galilee, in order to see himj 
 and that they went their, and saw him on a mountain. Yet it is said by tho 
 other Evangelists, see Luke, ch. 24, and Acts 1, that he appeared on tho sain^ 
 day of the resurrection to Peter at Jeruselem; to two other disciples as thoy 
 went to Emmaus ; and on the succeeding night to this whole congregation of 
 the Disciples, not in Galilee, but in Jerusalem, and that by his express com- 
 tnand the apostles did not go into Galileo, but remained at Jerusalem till tho 
 feast of Pentecost. 
 
 But as this author difters froln the other Evangelists, so they also difiFer 
 among themselves. And the latter part of the last chapter of Mark is so 
 irreconcilable to the other historians of tho resurrection, that in many 
 Manuscripts it is foun'd omitted. And that gospel ends in them, at the eighth 
 verse of the last chapter. And Mr. West, in his attempted reconciliation of 
 their accounts of the resurection, is obliged to make a number of postulates, 
 to take a number of things for granted, which might be denied : and after 
 elaborately arranging the Stage for tho performance, he sets the women, and 
 the disciples a driving backwards, and forwards, from • tho city to tho 
 sepulchre, and from the sepulchi-e to the city, and so agitated that they 
 forgot to know each other when they cross in their journeys. Notwith- 
 standing his great ingenuity in reconciling contradictions, in which he beats 
 Surenhusius himself, he makes but a sorry piece of work of it after all. He 
 had much better have let it alone ; for his work upon the resurrection which 
 he calls " the main fact of Christianity," displays these contradictions in so 
 glaring a light, that the very laboured ingenuity of his methods of reconci- 
 liation, inevitablj, suggests "confirmation strong" to the keen-eyed reader, 
 of that irreconcilability which the author endeavors to refute. Whai 
 rational man therefore can reasonably be required to believe the story of a 
 resurrection pretended to have been seen and known, only by the party 
 interested in making it believed ! when in their testimony even, they do not 
 agree but contradict each other ? 
 
 There is really an immense number of discrepancies and contradictions 
 in the New Testament which the acumen of learned Christians has of late 
 discovered, and pointed out to the world. And Mr. Evanson, in his work on 
 " the Dissonance of tho four Evangelists," has collected a mass enough, I 
 should think, to terrify the most determined Reconciliator that ever lived. 
 It is a little remarkable, that Mr. Evanson has asserted, and has proved, tho 
 spuriousness of the Gospel ascribed to John, which Semler spared, in tho 
 general wreck which he made of the authenticity of the other books of tho 
 New Testament. Mr. Evanson says, in his examination of it, what has been 
 said before, that the speeches ascribed to Jesus in it, are most incoherent, 
 contradictory, and falsified by well known facts. And indeed the author of 
 the book itself, seems to be sensible of this ; for he very naturally represents 
 the Jews repeatedly accusing Jesus of being mad. " He hath a devil, and is 
 mad, (say they to the multitude) why hear ye him ?" and so in other places. 
 Mr. Evanson considei's this work as the composition of a converted Platonist 
 or of a Platonizing Jew ; the latter we think to be the most correct opinion; 
 since it is evident that the author of that gospel had the works of Fhilo at 
 his fingers' ends, which is more than can be supposed of John. As Semler 
 excepted the Gospel of John only, so Mr. Evanson excepts the Gospel of 
 Luke only from the charge of spuriousness : though he says that it is grossly 
 corrupted, and interpolated. From these corruptions and interpplations, ho 
 endeavours to purify it ; in which attempt wo think he has had very indif-
 
 85 
 
 ferent success. la short,- his work has proved, (what he did not himself 
 contemplate) that the providence of the God of truth has taken care, that so 
 many absurdities and contradictions, should be contained in these books of 
 the New Testament which were written to establish a mistake, as must I 
 conceive, satisfy any man, who has them once pointed out to him, that th© 
 doctrine of those books is not, and cannot be from God. 
 
 But it may be still asked, " how did this notion of the resurrection of 
 ^esus become current?" " How can you account for the apostles believing 
 such a thing ?" We answer sincerely — we cannot absolutely ascertain. The 
 Jews of that age have left no documents upon this business. The origin of 
 the Christian religion is so extremely obscure, that Josephus takes no notice 
 of it at all, (for the passage relating to Christian affairs now found iu 
 Josephus are notorious interpolations.) And it is evident from the Chrono- 
 logical, and other mistakes about Jesus in the Talmud, that the curiosity of 
 the learned Jews had never been interested by Christianity, till so long after 
 Jesus, that the memory of him, and his, was almost entirely lost among that 
 nation. And it appears from the last chapter of the Acts, that when Paul 
 ■was received by the Jews at Romfe, he had not been considered by the Jews 
 of Jenisalem as of sufficient importance, as to cause them to warn their 
 brethren of the Dispersion concerning him ; for these Jews tell Paul, on his 
 enquiring, that they had not received any letters concerning him from 
 Jerusalem. So that we can offer nothing but conjecture, to solve the difficulty. 
 
 It has been said by some, (and it is by no means an hypothesis destitute 
 of plausibility) that Jesus was indeed crucified, but did not actually die oa 
 the cross. It is evident that Pilate was exti'emely desirous to save his life ; 
 and is it impossible that the Roman<6oldiers, who crucified him, had secret 
 orders f Consider the ciscumstances. He was crucified at our nine in the 
 morning, and was taken from the Cfoss at about three in the afternoon. 
 Now, crucifixion is not a death which kills men in six hours ; and men have 
 been known to have lived fastened to the cross for more than two days. 
 Consider, besides, that when the soldiers gave the coup de grace to the two 
 robbers, that they did not break the legs of Jesus. This, the author of the 
 Gospel according to John says, they did, 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 fidfill secret orders "? But to make up for that omission, the author adds, 
 that they pierced Jesus with a spear. Now, besides that this is not mentioned 
 by the other Evangelists, the very manner in which this circumstance is 
 mentioned, and eagerly affirmed by him, looks as if the author was aware of 
 the likelihood of a susjjicion of the fact we are trying to prove probable, and 
 that he wrote this in order to obviate it. And after all, the gospel according 
 to John was certainly not written by him, and, therefore, what the author of 
 it observes, may be true, or not. You will observe also, reader, that the body 
 of Jesus was given by Pilate to his friends immediately ; a favour never vouch- 
 safed by the Romans in such a case, except "speciali gratia." You will 
 observe also, that the body was taken down by his friends, no doubt with great 
 care ; probably was washed from the blood, and rubbed perfectly dry ; and waa 
 deposited in the cave or sepulchre, with a large quantity of spices, and 
 aromatics. Now suppose that Jesus only swooned on the cross, and that his 
 naked body, after being cleansed as aforesaid, was laid in the new sepulchre 
 where the air was cool and fresh, wrapped in a considerable quantity of dry 
 linen, together with many, spices, and aromatics, what could be mora 
 opportune, or proper, to stimulate his drowsed senses, and recall the unfor- 
 tunate sufferer to life ? Suppose then, that on awaking from his trance, he 
 disengaged himself, and took himself away as secretly as possible. Might 
 not all this have happened? Is it impossible? And does it not look
 
 86 
 
 plausible ? It is not improbable that he might after this hare shewed himself 
 privately to his particular disciples ; for you will recollect, reader, that the 
 appearances of Jesus to his disciples afttr his crucifixion were to them only^ 
 and for the most part in M« night. And it is by no means impossible, that 
 the twelve apostles, who were, I doubt not, well meaning men, though 
 extremely simple and credulous ; I say it is thus by no means impossible, 
 that they might have believed sincerely, that their master had risen from tho 
 dead. This hypothesis must not be considered only as the brain work of an 
 unbelieving sceptic ; for it has been (in its main principle) advanced, and 
 elaborately defended by Dr. Paulus tho professor of divinity in the principal 
 University in Bavaria. 
 
 It is true, that it may be said, that this is all hypothesis, and men 
 conjecture. We allow it; it is true; and we assert that the account given by 
 the Evangelists is no better, nay, worse than conjecture, as it is a mere 
 forgery of the second century ! For no man, wo think, who knows all that 
 has been made known by biblical critics, in later years, will now seriously 
 contend for the literal truth of that account. [See Appendix A.] 
 
 If all this will not satisfy the man that " believeth all things," our last 
 resource is to deny the fact of this resurrection. And this we can do with 
 perfect sang froid, as we know very well that it cannot be proved; for tho 
 only testimony in favour of it, are the four evangelists ; four witnesses, tho 
 like of whose written testimony, with reference thereto, (being as contradict 
 tory as that is,) to say no more, certainly would not, we believe, be received in 
 a modern court of justice, to settle titefact about a debt of five dollars. And 
 if it be still urged, that such a story is unparalleled, and therefore respectable ; 
 we say that it is not unparalleled; as we have an account 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, raised contributions, and. supported him magnificently. He too 
 quoted the prophets as speaking concerning him, and was said to have worked 
 divers miracles, and was ultimately put to death by the order of the Grand 
 Seignor at Constantinople ; yet nevertheless was said to have been seen again 
 hy certain of his followers, who wrote books in favour of that fact, and of his 
 Messiahship. Many learned Rabbins enrolled themselves as his disciples, and 
 wrtfe controversial works in his cause, as Paid did. And to conclude, his 
 party was' not entirely extinct within a very few years. Yet, notwithstanding 
 all tills, he was an impostor ; and no man now believes the stories of his 
 miracles, or his resurrection ; notwithstanding that both are affirmed by more 
 recent, more learned, and more respectable testimony than is, or can be, 
 oflFered, in favour of the Messiahship of Jesus. The name of this famous 
 impostor was Shabathai Tzevi, and his history is given by Basnage, in his 
 history of the Jews, [and by other writers of Jewish history. See on this 
 subject the Sepher Torath Uakenaoth, page 2. The learned Mr. Zedner has 
 extracted the life of Shabetai Tsebi from this book, and published it, with 
 a German translation, in his Auswahl historischer Stucke aus Hebraischen 
 Schriftstellern, Berlin, 1840.— D.] 
 
 I wish the Christian reader to peruse carefully, and cooly, that account; 
 and if he then persists in believing the history given by the evangelists, — 
 with such faith as his, he certainly ought to.be able to move mountains; 
 and I have no doubt at all, that with such a good natured understanding as 
 his, if he had found in his New Testament the story of Jonah misquoted, and 
 and by a small transposition a la mode de Surenhusius, representing that 
 "Jonah swallowed the whale f" this sturdy "confidence in things not seen," 
 would, I doubt not have enabled him without difficulty to swallow the 
 prophet rvith the whale in his belly.
 
 87 
 CHAPTER XVII. 
 
 on IHE PECULIAB MOBALITY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT, AS IT AFFECTS INDIVIDCAM. 
 
 I HAVE already expressed my respcet for the character of Jesus. 
 And I again declare, that I request it may be distinctly understood, that 
 by nothing that I have said do I intend to impeach, or to deprecate hig 
 moral character. Whatever may have been his defects, or whatever were 
 his foibles, they must have been the faults of his mind, not of his heart. 
 For, though he may have been a mistaken enthusiast ; yet I do firmly believe, 
 that, with such a character as he is represented to have possessed} he could 
 not have been either a hypocrite, or a wilful impostor. And if it be replied, 
 that I have, by some observations on his conduct, indirectly impeached the 
 perfection of his moral character ; I answer, that if so, it is certainly my 
 misfortune, but it may not be his fault. To explain this observation, I 
 request the reader to recall to mind, that Jesus wrote nothing himself; that 
 the only accounts we have of him, are contained in books, probably 
 apocryphal, certainly not generally known till after the middle of the second 
 century from his birth. The gospels now extant do not appear to have been 
 known to Justin Martyr ; and the earliest fathers, in their writings, generally 
 quote traditions concerning Jesus, instead of histories. Since these things 
 are so, who knows, but that the authors of the histories of him now extant, 
 have attributed to him words and actions of which he was guiltless. We 
 know how prone mankind are to invent falsehoods concerning eminent men ; 
 for instance, Mahomet expressly disclaimed the power of working miracles, 
 and yet the writings of his early followers ascribe hundreds to him. Why 
 may it not be possible then, since Jesus wrote nothing himself, that these 
 books ascribe to him words and actions he neither spake nor performed ? 
 God grant that this may one day be proved ! For I should rejoice to find 
 the meek, gentle, and amiable man of Nazareth proved guiltless of the 
 follies and impieties attributed to him in the New Testamept as I find it, and 
 to reason concerning the works and Avords of Jesus, as I find them there 
 expressed, yet I would earnestly request the reader to consider me willing 
 and desirous to exempt the author, or rather the cause of the Christian 
 religion, from the reproach of the sentiments I am bound by my regard for 
 one God, and his attributes, to express for the system itself. Yes ! I can in 
 my own mind separate Jesus from his religion and his followers. I read 
 ■with admiration many of his beautiful parables. I shall ever contemplate 
 his mildness, and benevolence with 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 aU the 
 contradictory and strange doctrines contained in the New Testament. 
 
 Having unburthened my mind upon this subject, and frankly expressed 
 my sentiments and feelings with regard to the character of Jesus ; I hope I 
 miay now be allowed (without incurring the charge of maliciously exposing 
 him, or the twelve apostles, to reproach) to state my opinions with regard to 
 the merit of the moral maxims, ascribed to him and them, in the New Testa- 
 ment. And I again caution the reader, that he is not obliged to lay to his, 
 or their, charge, the mischievous consequences that originated from acting 
 upon these maxims and principles, since it is by no means impossible that 
 they may have been_/a?se^3i( ascribed to him and to them. 
 
 Now then, let us attend to the subject of the chapter, viz., the moral 
 maxims ascribed to Jesus. These moral maxims consist of 1st, Those which
 
 88 
 
 were adopted by him from the Old Testament. 2d, Those of which ho 
 himself is described as the author. With the consideration of those of the 
 first class I shall not trouble the reader, but shall devote this chapter to the 
 examination of those which are supposed to have originated from him. 
 These are, Ist, ' 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 one cheek, 
 turn to him the other also.' 3d, ' K a man ask thy cloak, give him thy coat 
 also.' 4th, ' If thou wouldest be perfect, sell all that thou hast, and give to 
 the poor ; and come follow me.' 5th, ' Unless a man hate his father, and 
 mother, and wife, and children, and possessions, yea, and his own Ufa also, he 
 «aunot be my disciple.' 6th, ' Take no thought for the morrow.' 
 
 With, regard to the first of these maxims, it does hot belong to Jesus» 
 (U 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 in the Talmud verbatim. 
 " What thou wouldest not have done to thee, do not thou to another." 
 (Tal. Bab. Schabbat. fol. 31.) So also Hillel addressed a proselyte thus, 
 " What is hateful to thee, do not thou to thy neighbour." Several other 
 expressions of Jesus wpre, it appears from the Talmud, proverbial expressions 
 in use among the Jews. For instance, the original of that saying recorded 
 Matthew vii. 2. " With whatsoever measure ye mete," &c., is found in the 
 Talmud of Babylon (Sanhedrim fol. 100, Sotah, chapter 4, 7, 8, 9.) " With 
 whatsoever measure any one metes it shall be measured to him." So also 
 the original of that expression of " Cast out the beam out of thine own eye, 
 and then thou shalt see clearly to cast the mote 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 few 
 clauses taken from Jewish prayers, and put together. Very many instances 
 of a similar nature to these might be produced; but, as I must be brief, the 
 reader is referred for further satisfaction to the works of Lightfoot, where he 
 will learn, by extracts from Jewish writings, the source, and meaning of many 
 more of the sayings of Jesus. 
 
 I now proceed to the most disagreeable part of the subject, viz. : The 
 consideration of the other maxims mentioned, which, it must be allowed, do 
 belong to Jesus, or at least to the New Testament, since they are the peculiar 
 moral principles of Cliristianity, and the honour of them can be challenged by, 
 I believe, no other religion. 
 
 These precepts are so QxiYcmGXj hyperbolical, that they are 7io<, and cannot 
 be ptrfectly observed by any Christian, who does not detach himself com- 
 pletely from the business of society ; and these maxims, (which, as I said 
 befoi'e, are the only parts of the morality of the New Testament, which are 
 not borrowed,) never have been obeyed by any but the primitive Christians ; 
 and by the Monks, and Anchorets ; for even the Quakers and Shakers, 
 eminent as they are in Christian morality,' have never been able to come 
 quite up to the self denial required by the New Testament. 
 
 Indeed, the moral maxims peculiar to Christianity are impracticable, 
 except by one who confines his wealth to the possession of a suit of clothes, 
 and wooden platter, and who ]iv6s in a cave, or a monastery. They bear the 
 stamp of enthusiasm upon their very front, and we have always seen, and 
 ever shall see, that they are not fit for man : that they lift him out of the 
 sphere in which God designed him to move ; that they are useless to society, 
 and frequently produce the most dangerous consequences to it. In a word, 
 in these maxims we find commands, the fulfillment of which, is impossible by 
 any man who is a husband, ^father, or a citizen. <. 
 
 * Bee Addenda, No. 2.
 
 89 
 
 It is an outrage to human nature, and to common eense, to order a 
 Tirtuous man, in order to reach perfection, to strip himself of his property; 
 to offer the other cheek to receive a new outrage ; not to resist the most 
 unjust violence, injury, and insult; not to defend himself, or his property, 
 when " sued at the law ;" to quit his house and goods, and to hate his 
 parents, and brethren, and wife, and children, for the sake of Jesus; to refuse 
 and reject innocent pleasures ; to deny himself lawful enjoyments, appointed 
 by the Creator to make the existence of man a blessing to himself and others. 
 Who does not see in these commands the language of enthusiasm 
 of hyperbole ? These maxims ! are they not directly fitted to dis- 
 courage, and debase a man ? to degrade him in his own eyes, and those 
 of others ? to plunge him into despair ? And would not the literal fulfillment 
 of them prove destructive to society? What shall we say of that -morality 
 ■which orders the heart to detach itself from objects, which God, and reason, 
 and nature order it to love? To refuse to enjoy innocent and lawful 
 happiness, —what is it but to despise the benefits of God ? What real good 
 can result for society from these melancholy virtues, which Christianity 
 regards as perfections ? Will a man become more useful to society when 
 his mind is perpetually inquieted by imaginary terrors, by mournful thoughts, 
 trhich prevent him from fulfilling the duties he owes to his family, his 
 country and those with whom he is connected ? 
 
 It may be safely said, that enthusiasm is the base of the morality of 
 Christianity ; I say, the morality of Christianity, meaning thereby, not the 
 morality of those called Christians, but the morality expressed, and required 
 in the New Testament. The virtues it recommends, are the virtues carica- 
 tured, and rendered extravagant ; virtues which divide a man from his 
 neighbour, and plunge him in melancholy, and render him useless, and 
 unhappy. In this world we want human virtues, not those which make a 
 man a misanthrope. Society desires, and wants virtues that help to main- 
 tain it, which gives it energy and activity. It wants virtues which render 
 families industrious, and united ; and which incite, and enable every one to 
 obtain lawful pleasures, and to augment- the general felicity. But the 
 peculiar virtues of the New Testament, either debase the mind by over- 
 whelming fears, or intoxicate it with visionary hopes, both which, are equally 
 fitted to turn away men from their proper duties. 
 
 In truth, what advantages can society derive from those virtues styled 
 by Christians, Evangelical? which they prefer to the social virtues, the real 
 and the useful, and without which, they assert, a man cannot please God, 
 Let us examine these vaunted perfections, and let us see of what utility they 
 can be to society, and whether they really merit the preference which is 
 given them by their advocates. 
 
 The first of these Christian virtues, which serves as a base for all tho 
 others, is faith. It consists in believing the truth of dogmas, of absurd 
 fables, which Christianity (according to the catechisms) orders its disciples 
 to believe — dogmas, as absurd and impossible as a square circle, or a round 
 triangle ! — from which we see, that this virtue exacts an entire renunciation 
 of common sense : an assent to incredible facts, and a blind credulity in 
 absurd dogmas, which, yet, every Christian is required to believe, under pain 
 of damnation. 
 
 This virtue, too, though necessary to all men, is, nevertheless, the gift o£ 
 heaven ! tho eftect of special grace. It forbids doubt and examination ; it 
 forbids a man the right to exercise his reason ; it deprives him of the liberty 
 of thinking, and degrades him into a bearded baby. 
 
 This faith vanishes when a man reasons.: this virtue cannot sustain a 
 tranquil scrutiny. And this is the reason why all thorough going ChristianB 
 L
 
 90 
 
 are naturally, and, consequently, tlio enemies of ecicnco. This miraculous 
 faith, which •• believeth all things," is not given to persons enlightened by 
 science and reflection, and accustomed to think. It is not given but to those 
 i»ho are afraid to think, lest they should otfend God. 
 
 The next Christian virtue which flows from the first, is hope, founded 
 upon the promises which the New Testament makes to those who render 
 themselves miserable in this life. It nourishes their enthusiasm, it makes 
 them " forget the things that are on earth, and reach forward unto the 
 things" which are in another world. It renders them useless here below, 
 and makos them firmly believe that God will recompense in heaven, the 
 pains they have taken to make themselves miserable on earth. How can a 
 roan, occupied with such expectations of heavenly happiness, concern himself 
 at all with, or for the actual and present happiness of those around him, 
 while he is indiferent as to his ownf And how can lie help this, when he 
 believes that "friendship with the world is enmity with Godf" 
 
 The third virtue is charity. We have elsewhere said, that if universal 
 love or charity means only general benevolence, and a desire to makes others 
 happy, and to do them good, all this is commanded by reason and the 
 ancient revelation; but if by this precept it is commanded to love those who 
 hate, oppress or insult us, we do not at all scruple to assert, that the thing is 
 impossible, and unnatural. For, though we can abstain from hxirting our 
 enemy ; or even can do him good, we cannot really love him. Love is a 
 movement of the heart, which is governed and directed by the laws of our 
 nature, to those whom we think worthy of it, and to those only. 
 
 Charity, considered as general benevolence of disposition, is virtuous 
 and necessary. It is nothing more than a feeling which interests us in 
 favour of our fellow beings. But how is this feeling consistent with the 
 peculiar doctrines of the gospel ? According to its maxims, it is a crime to 
 offer God a heart, whose affections are shared by terrestrial objects. And 
 besides, does not earpcrience show, that devotees obliged by principle to hate 
 themselves, are little disposed to give better treatment to others? 
 
 Wo should not be surprised that maxims, originating with enthusiasm, 
 should aim at, and have the efi'ect of, driving man out of himself. In the 
 delirium of its enthusiasm, this religion forbids a man to love himself. It 
 commands him to hate all pleasures but those of religion, and to cherish a 
 long face. It attributes to him as meritorious, all the voluntary evils he 
 inflicts upon himself. From thence originate those austerites, those pen- 
 ances, destructive to health ; those cruel privations by which the inhabitants 
 of the monastic cell kill themselves by inches, in order to merit the joys of 
 heaven. Now, how can good sense admit that God delights in seeing his 
 creatures torment themselves? 
 
 It may be said to all this, perhaps, that this is mere declamation, for 
 Christians now a days do not torment themselves, but live as comfortable as 
 others. To this I answer that Christianity is to bo judged not by what 
 Christians do, but by what it commands them to do. Now, I presume it will 
 not be denied that the New Testament commands its professors to renounce 
 the world, to be dead to the world, to "crucify the flesh with its passions and 
 desires." Certainly these directions were literally complied with by the 
 primitive Christians; and, in doing so, they acted consistently. In those 
 times, the deserts, the mountains, the forests were peopled with perfect 
 Christians ; who withdrew from the world, deprived their families of support, 
 and their country of citizens, in order to lead unmolested " the divine life." 
 It was the New Testament morality that spawned those legions of mo^ks 
 and cenobites, who thought to secure the favour of heaven, by burying their 
 talents in the deserts, and' devoting themselves to inaction and ceUbacy,
 
 91 
 
 • 
 And at this very day we sec thepe very same things in those Christian 
 countries, which are truly faithful to the principles of their religion. 
 
 In fine, Christianity seems from the first, tu have taken pains to set itself 
 \n point blanc opposition to nature, and reason. If it admits and includes 
 some virtues ordered and appointed by Cod, good sense, and universal 
 experience ; it drives them beyond their bounds into extravagance. It 
 preserves no just medium, which is the point of perfection. Vi)luptuou8- 
 ness, adultery and debauchery are forbidden by the Uvws of God and rt^ason. 
 But Christianity not content with commanding, and encouraging marringe, 
 as did the Old Testament, must forsooth go beyond it, and therefore 
 encourages celibacy, as the state of perfection God says, in Genesis, " it is 
 not good that man should be alone. I will make a companion for him." 
 And he blessed all his creatures, saying, " increase and multiply." But the 
 gospel annuls this law, and represents a single life to be most pleasing, to the 
 Tery being, whose very first command was, " increase and multiply" ! It 
 advises a man to die without posterity, to refuse citizens to the state, and to 
 himself, a support for his old age. 
 
 It is to no purpose to deny that Christianity recommends all this ; I say, 
 it substantially does ! and I boldly appeal, — not to a few Protestant Divines, 
 —but to the New Testament ; to the Homilies of the Fathers of the Church; to 
 the History, and Practice of the Prim.itive Christians; to the innumerable 
 Monasteries of Europe, and Asia ; to the immense multitudes who have lived, 
 and died hermits; and, finally, (because I know very well, the Protestant 
 <iivines attribute these follies to the influence of Platonism, Pythagoranism^ 
 and several other isms upon pure Christianity) I appeal to living evidence 
 now in the world, to the only thorough going Christians in it, viz., to the 
 Society of the Shakers, who I maintain, and can prove, to be true, genuine 
 imitators of the Primitive Christians, and a perfect exemplification of their 
 manners, and modes of thinking. I adduce them the more confidently, 
 hecause, being simple, and unlearned, their character has been formed by 
 the spirit of the New Testament, and perfectly represents the effects of its 
 principles yu^i/ carried out, and acted upon. They never heard of Platonism, 
 or of Pythagoras in their lives, and, consequently, the polemic tricks, and 
 evasions, which have been, as hinted just now, resorted to by Protestant 
 divines, to shift from the shoulders of Christianity to those of Plato or 
 Pythagoras, the obnoxious principles we have been considering, are of no 
 use in this case, as, whatever the characters of these Shakers may be, they 
 were formed by the New Testament, and by nothing else; and I believe, 
 that every scholar in ecclesiastical history, who reads Brown's history of the 
 Shakers, will be immediately and powerfully struck with the resemblance 
 eubsisting between them, and the Christians of the two first centuries. 
 
 As examples of the effects of those precepts of Christian morality, which 
 command us to hate father, and mother, and sister, and brother, for the 
 sake of Jesus, take the following extracts from the histoiy referred to. 
 
 "According to their faith, natural affection must be eradicated; and 
 they say they must love all equally alike, as brothers, and sisters in the 
 gospel. It would exceed the limits of this work to give a particular account 
 of the various schemes that have been contrived, to destroy all natural 
 affection and social attachment between man and wife, parent and child, 
 hrothers and sisters ; especially towards such as have left the society. Two 
 instances that occurred about this time, as specimens of others, may suffice. 
 A mother, who had renounced the faith, (i e. left the society,) come to 
 Niskeuna to see her daughter. Eldross Hannah Matterson told the daughter 
 to go into the room to her carnal mother, and say, ' What do you come hero 
 for ? I don't want you to come and see me with your carnal affections/'
 
 92 
 
 * Tho mother being grieved, replied, ' I did not expect that a daughter of 
 mine would over address mo in that manner.' 
 
 « Tho daughter, in obedience to what she was taught, replied again, 
 * You have come here with your carnal fleshly desires, and I do'nt vjant to aee 
 you,' and loft her mother." 
 
 " Sonio time after, one Duncan Shaploy, who had belonged to tbo 
 Bociety, called to see Abigail, his -sister, at Niskeuna, whom ho had not soon 
 for sTx or seven years; but he was not admitted: ho waited some time, 
 being loath to go away without seeing her. At last she was ordered to go 
 to the window and address him in the language of abuse and scurrility. The 
 words she made uso of, it would be indecent to mention. For this sho was 
 applauded, and that in the author's hearing, when he belonged to the 
 society." 
 
 This man gives a very curious account how the elders treated " thoir 
 babes," in their spiritual nursery ; but I shall notice only one or two 
 examples, which illustrate what I have advanced concerning the natural 
 hostility of the spirit of tho New Testament towards science. " I know of 
 several, who, soon after they joined the Church, have been counselled by the 
 Elders to dispose of their books ; and have accordingly done it. Elder Ebea- 
 ezer being at my house one day, on seeing a number of books, he said — 
 •Ah! Thomas must put away his books if ho intends to become a good 
 believer.' 
 
 As an instance of its eflfects upon the human understanding, take the 
 following: — "A short time after, being at a believer's house, at eleven 
 o'clock at night, they all having retired to rest, and I laying awake in a dry 
 well finished room, in which was a stove and fire, there fell a large drop of 
 water on my temples ; on examination, I could not discover where the water 
 came from. I told 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 might h»T© 
 become formed in tho room, and its falling.". 
 
 " One replied, ' Ah ! that is the way you render a natural reason for 
 the cause of every thing, and so reason away your faith and yourself out of 
 the gospel.' " 
 
 As another proof, that genuine Christianity discourages marriago, and 
 considers celibacy as the only state of perfection, the Shakers allow of w> 
 marriages at all. 
 
 Thus you see that, among these people, to become a " good believer," 
 you must insult your parents, revile your brother, depise learning, and never 
 render a '' natural reason' for any thing, lest you should "reason away your 
 faith, and yourself out of the gospel." 
 
 CHAPTER XVIII. 
 
 OH THB PECDLIAE MORALITT OF THE NEW TESTAMEMT, AB IT AFTECT8 NATI0II9 !■• 
 
 POLITICAL SOCIETIES. 
 
 After having seen tho uselessness, and even the danger, to individuals, 
 of the perfections, the virtues, and the duties, which Christianity peculiarly 
 commands; let us now see whether it has a more happy influence upon 
 politics; or whether it produces real happiness among the nations with whom 
 this religion is established, and the spirit of it faithfully observed. Let us do 
 80, and we shall find, that wherever Christianity is established and obeyed. It
 
 03 
 
 ©staVllshcs a sot of laws directly opposed to those of a well ordered national 
 Bocicty ; nnd it soon makes this disagreement and incompatibility distinctly 
 to be felt. 
 
 rolitics are intended to maintain union and concord among the citizens. 
 Christianity, though it preaches universal love, and commuiuls its followers 
 to live in peace ; yet, by a strange inconsistency, consequentially annihilates 
 tho effect of these excellent precepts, by the ivevitable divisions it causes 
 among its followers, who necessariltj understand differently the Old and New 
 Testaments, because the latter is not only irreconcilably contradictory to the 
 former, but it is even inconsistent with itself. From the vrry commencement 
 of Christianity, we perceive very violent disputes among its founders and 
 teachers ; and through every succeeding century, we find, in the history of 
 the Church, nothing but schism and heresy. These are followed by perse- 
 cutions and quarrels, exceedingly well adapted to destroy this vaunted spirit 
 of concord, said hy its defenders to be peculiar to Christianity ; and the 
 existence of which is, in fact, impossible in a religion which is one entire chaos 
 of obscure doctrines and impracticable precepts. In every religious disputo, 
 both parties thought that God was on their side, and, consequently, they 
 •were obstinate and irreconcilable. And how should it have been otherwise, 
 since they confounded the cause of God with the miserable interests of their 
 own vanity ? Thus, being little disposed to give way on one part or the 
 other, they cut one another's throats; they tormented, they burnt each 
 Other ; they tore one another to pieces ; and having exterminated or put down 
 the obnoxious sects, they sung Te Deum. 
 
 It is not my intention to pursue, in this place, tho horrid detail of 
 ecclesiastical history, as connected with that of the Roman empire. Mr. 
 Gibbon has exhibited in such colours this dreadful record of follies, and of 
 crimes, that it is diCBcult to see how the maxim of judging the tree by its 
 fruit, will not fatally afFect the cause of the Christian religion. I refer to 
 Mr. Gibbon's history as a cool and impartial narrative ; for I am well satisfied 
 that, so far from having reason to complain of him, the advocates of 
 Christianity have very great reason, indeed, to thank him for hi?, forbearance, 
 since, with his eloquence, he might have drawn a picture that would have 
 made humanity shudder. For, throughout tho whole history, if a man had 
 wished to know what was then the orttiodox faith, the best method of ascer- 
 taining it, would have been, undoubtedly, to ask, " What is the catechism of 
 ths public executioner." 
 
 The Christian religion was, it is evident from his history, the principal, 
 though by no means the only cause of tho decline and fall of the Roman 
 empire. Because it degraded the spirit of the people, and because it pro- 
 duced monks and hermits in abundance, but yielded no soldiers. The 
 heathen adversaries of Christianity were in tho right when they said, that 
 " if it prevailed, Rome was no more 1" The Christians would not serve in 
 the armies of tho emperor, if they could possibly avoid it. They justly 
 considered the profession of a soldier, and that of a Christian, as incompatible. 
 Celsus accuses them of abandoning the empire, under whose laws they lived, 
 to its enemies. And what is the answer of Origen to this accusation ? Look 
 at his pitiful reply 1 Ho endeavours to palliate this undutiiul refusal by 
 representing that — •• the Christians had their peculiar camps, in which they 
 incessantly combatted for the safety of the emperor and emiiire, by lifting up 
 their right hands — in prayer ! •" (See Origen contra Celsum, Lib. 8, 
 p. 427.) This is a sneaking piece of business truly! But Origen could 
 have given another answer, if he had dared to avow it, which is, that 
 his co-religionists, in his time, had not ceased to expect their master 
 momentarily to appear; and, of course, it little mattered what became
 
 04 
 
 of tho cmporor, or the empire. This notion was the principal engine for 
 inakin<r proselytes ; and it was by this expectation that many wore frightened 
 into baptism. 
 
 That Christianity was considered incompatible with the military profes- 
 sion, is evident from many passages of tho fathers. And one of them, I 
 believe, Tertullian, ventures to insinuate to tho Christians in the legions, 
 the expediency of deserting, to rid themselves of "their carnal employment." 
 Nay, to such a height did this spirit prevail, that it never stopped till it 
 taught tho Roman youth in Italy tho expedient of cutting off the thumbs of 
 their right hands in order to avoid the conscription, and that they might be 
 allowed to count their beads at home in quiet. 
 
 If wo examine, in detail, the precepts of this religion, as they a^ect 
 nations, we shall see, that it interdicts every thing which can make a nation 
 flourishing. We have seen already the notion of imperfection which Chris- 
 tianity attaches to marriage, and the esteem and preference it holds out to 
 celibacy. These ideas certainly 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 religion whose 
 founder is represented as denouncing an anathema against the rich, and as 
 excluding them from the kingdom of heaven. All industry is equally inter- 
 dicted to perfect Christians, who are to spend their lives " as strangers, and 
 pilgrims upon earth," and who are " not to take care of the morrow." 
 
 Chrysostom says, that " a mercliant cannot please God, and that such a 
 one ought to be chased out of the church." 
 
 No Christian, also, without being inconsistent, can serve in tho army. 
 For a man, who is never sure of being in a state of grnce, is tho most extra- 
 vagant of men, if, by the hazard of battle, he exposes himself to eternal 
 perdition. And a Christian who ought to love his enemies, is he not guilty of 
 the greatest of crimes, when he inflicts death upon a hostile soldier, of whose 
 disposition he knows nothing : and whom he may, at a single stroke, precipi- 
 tate into hell? A Christian soldier is a monster! a non-descript! and 
 Lactantius affirms, that " a Christian cannot be either a soldier, or an accuser 
 in a criminal cause." And, at this day, the Quakers and Mennonites refuse 
 to carry arms, and, in so doing, they are consistent Christians. 
 
 Christianity declares war against the sciences; they are regarded as an 
 obstacle to salvation. " Science puffeth up," says Paul. And the fathers of 
 the church, St. Gregory, St. Ambrose, and St. Augustine denounce vehemently 
 astronomy, and geometry. And Jerom declares, that he was whipped by an 
 angel only for reading that Pagan Cicero. 
 
 It has been often remaiked, that the most enlightened men are com- 
 monly bad Christians. For independent of its effects on faith, which science 
 is exceedingly apt to subvert, it diverts the Christian from the work of his 
 salvation, which is the only thing needful. In a word, the peculiar principles 
 of Christianity literally obeyed, would entirely subvert from its foundations 
 every political society now existing. If this assertion is doubted, let the 
 doubter read the works of tho early Fathers, and he will see that their 
 morality is totally incompatible with the preservation and prosperity of a 
 state. He will see according to Lactantius, and others, that " no Christian 
 can lawfully be a soldier." That according to Justin, "no Christian can be 
 a magistrate." That according to Chrysostom, " no Christian ought to be a 
 merchant" And that according to several, "no Christian ought to study." 
 In fine, joining these maxims together with those of the New Testament, it 
 ■will follow, that a Christian, who as ho is commanded, aims at perfection, 
 is a useless member of the community, useless to his family, and to all 
 around him. He is an idle dreamer, who thinks of nothing but futurity ;
 
 95 
 
 who has nothing in common with the interests of the world, and 
 according to Tertullian "has no other business but to get out of it as quickly 
 as possible." 
 
 Let us hearken to Esebius of Ceesarea, and we shall abundantly discover 
 the truth of what has been said. 
 
 " The manner of life, (says he,) of the Christian church, surpasses our 
 present nature, and the common life of men. It seeks neither marriage, nor 
 ehildren, nor riclies. In fine, it is entirely a stranger to human modes o/living. 
 It is entirely absorbed in an insatiable love of heavenly things. Those who 
 follow this course of life, have only their bodies upon earth, their whole souls 
 are in heaven, and they already dwell among pure and celestial intelligences, 
 and they despise the manner af life of other men," Demonstrat, Evang. vol. 
 ii. p. 29. 
 
 Indeed a man firmly persuaded of the truth of Christianity cannot attach 
 himself to any thing here below. Every thing here is "an occasion of 
 stumbling, a rock of offence." Every thing here, diverts him from thinking 
 of his salvation. If Christians in general, happily, for society, were not 
 inconsistent, and did not neglect the peculiar precepts of iheir religion, no 
 large society of them could exist ; and the nations enlightened by the gospel 
 would turn hermits, and nuns. All business, but fasting and prayer, would 
 be at an end. There would be nothing but groaning in " this vale of tears ;" 
 and they would make themselves, and others, as miserable as possible, from 
 the best of motives, viz : the desire to fulfill what they mistakenly conceived 
 to be the will of God. 
 
 Is this a picture taken from the life, or is it a fanciful representation of 
 something different from the peculiar morality of the New Testament ? This 
 serious question demands a serious answer. If it be such as it is represented 
 above, and such it really appears to me, and such I have unfortunately 
 experienced its operation to bo on my own mind — I would respectfully ask — 
 can such a religion, whose peculiar principles tend to render men hateful, 
 and hating one another : which has often rendered sovereigns, persecutors, 
 and subjects, either rebels, or slaves : a religion, whose peculiar moral 
 principles and maxims, teach the mind to grovel, and humble, and break 
 down the energies of man; and which divert him from thinking of his true 
 interests, and the true happiness of himself and his fellow men. Can such 
 a religion, I would respectfully ask, be from God, since where fully obeyed, 
 it would prove utterly destructive to society ? 
 
 CHAPTER XIX. 
 
 A 0«l»fiII>EKATION OF SOME SUPPOSED ADVANTAGES ATTRIBUTED TO THE NEW, OVER 
 THE OLD, testament; AND WHETHEB THE DOCTRINE OF A RESURRECTION, AND 
 A LIFE TO COME, IS NOT TAUGHT IN THE OLD TESTAMENT, IN CONTRADICTION 
 SO THE ASSERTION, THAT " LIFE AND IMMORTALITY WERE BBOUUUT TO LIGHT 
 BY THE GOSPEL." 
 
 From the preceding chapters, you may judge, reader, of the justice and 
 truth of the opinion, that "the yoke of Christian morality is easy, audits 
 burthen light;" and also of the veracity and fairness of that constant 
 assertion of divines, "that Jesus came to remove the heavy yoke of the 
 Mosaic Law, and to substitute in its room one of easier observance." — 
 Whether this, their assertion, be not rash, and ill founded, I will cheerfully 
 leave to be decided by any cool and thinking man, who knows human nature, 
 and is acquainted with the human heart. I say, I would cheerfully leave it
 
 96 
 
 to BDch a man, whether the Mosaic Law, ^ith all its numorouB rites, and 
 ceremonial observances, nay, with all " the (ridiculous) traditions of the 
 Elders," superadded, would not bo much more bearable to human nature, 
 and much easier to bo observed and obeyed, than such prcrcpts as these, 
 " Sell all thou hast, and give it to 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 one cheek, turn to him the other also." " Extirpate and destroy all 
 carnal affection, and love nothing, but religion." « Take no thought for 
 to-morrow;" — I am confident that the decision would be given in my favour; 
 and have no doubt, that with thinking men, the contrary opinion would be 
 instantly rejected with the contempt it merits. 
 
 Whether the Mosaic Code be tho best possible, or really divine, is of 
 no consequence in this inquiry, and is with me another question from that of 
 its inferiority to that of the New Testament. I do Dy no means assert the 
 former ; but have no hesitation to give my opinion, after a pretty thorough 
 examination of the subject, that the reflections of Paul, and those usually 
 thrown out against the Mosaic Code by Theologians, when comparing it with 
 that of the New Testament, in order to deprecate the former, appear to me 
 extremely p'artial and unjust ; and so far from true, that I think, that the 
 ancient law has the advantage over the precepts of the New Testament, in 
 being, at least, practicable and consistent.* 
 
 * Another unfounded reproach which Theologians, in order to magnifj 
 the importance of the New Testament, cast upon the Old, is this : 'i'hey say, 
 that the Old Testament represents God only as the tutelary Deity of the 
 Israelites, and as not so much concerned for the rest of mankind. To show 
 that thi.s is a very mistaken notion, and to manifest that the Eternal of the 
 Old Testament is represented therein, not as the God of the Jews only, but 
 also of the Gentiles, I refer to these words : — " The Lord thy God is God of 
 gods, and Lord of lords, a great God, a mighty and a terrible ; who regardeth 
 not persons, nor taketh rewanl. He doth execute the judgment of tho 
 fatherless, and widow, and lovetk the stranger,\n giving him food and raiment. 
 Love ye, therefore, the stranger. Thou shalt neither vex a stranger, nor 
 oppress him, for ye know the heart of a stranger, seeing ye were strangers in 
 the laud of Egypt. Hear the causes between your brethren, and judge 
 righteously between 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 that 
 Bojourneth among you. The stranger that dwellelh with you shall be as 
 one born among you, and thou skalt love him as thyself. I am the Lord your 
 God." 
 
 Indeed, so little truth is there in tho notion, that the law and religion of 
 the Old Testament were established with the intention of confining them to 
 one people, exclusive of all others, that the Old Testament certainly represents 
 them in such manner, as shows, that they were intended to be as unconfined 
 as the Christian, or Mahometan ; its religion, in fact, admitted everj 
 one who would receive it. And what is more, it can be proved that the Old 
 Testament dispensation claims, as appears from itself, to have been given 
 for the common advantage of all mankind. And it is asserted in it, (whether 
 truly or not, is not tho question ; it is sufficient for my purpose, that 
 it asserts it), that tho religion contained in it, will one day be tho 
 
 * The author liad prcparef), in order to subjoin in this place, an < xamination of 
 the Mosaic Code, and a develop anient of its principles, which he thinks would have 
 satisfied the reader of the truth of what he has said in th«! last paragraph. But as it 
 would have too much increased the hulk of the volume, it has been omitted. It isaa 
 institution however curious enough to be the subject of an interesting diseuesion, 
 which he should be happy to see from the hands of oue able to do it justice. — E.
 
 «7 
 
 religion of all mankind. For it declares that Jerusalem will be the centre of 
 worship for all nations, and the temple there, be " the house of prayer for all 
 nations ;" that the Eternal will be the only God worshipped ; and his laws the 
 only laws obeyed. It i-epresents Abraham and his posterity as merely the 
 instruments of the Eternal to bring about these ends ; it is repeatedly declared 
 therein, that the reason of God's dispensations towards them was, " that all 
 the earth might know that the Eternal is God, and that there is no other but 
 Him." According to its history, when God threatened to destroy the 
 Israelites for their perverseness in the wilderness, and oifei'S Moses, interceding 
 for them, to raise up his seed to fulfil the purposes for which he designed 
 the posterity of Abraham ; he tells Moses that his purpose should not be 
 frustrated through the perverseness of the chosen instruments ; " but, (saith 
 He), as surely as I live, all the earth shall be filled with the glory of the Lord," 
 Numbers xiv. 21. Many passages of similar import are contained in the 
 Psalms, and the Prophets. In fact, there is no truth at all in the statement 
 of the Catechisms, that the Old Testament was merely preparatory, and 
 intended merely to prepare the way for " a better covenant," as Paul says ; 
 even for another religion, (the Christian) which was to convert all nations ; 
 for, (if the Old Testament be suffered to tell its own story,) we shall find, 
 that it claims, and challenges the honour of beginning, and completing, this 
 magnificent design solely to itself. I was going to overwhelm the patience of 
 the reader with quotations from it, to this purpose ; but being willing to 
 spare him and myself, I will only produce one, which, as it is direct and per- 
 emptory to this effect, is as good as a hundred, to demonstrate that 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, that there shall come people, 
 and the inhabitants of many cities ; and the inhabitants of one city shall go 
 to another, saying: "Let us go speedily to pray before the Eternal, and to 
 seek the Eternal of Hosts : I will go also. Yea, many people, and strong 
 nations shall come to seek the Eternal of Hosts in Jerusalem, and to pray 
 before the Eternal. Thus saith the Eternal ot Hosts : In those days it shall 
 come to pass, that ten men shall take hold out of all the languages of the 
 nations, even shall take hold of the skirt of him that is a Jew, saying, we will 
 go with you." 
 
 Bo it so, it may be said; — " Still, it is to Christianity the world owes the 
 consoling doctrine of a life to come. Life and iminortality were brought to 
 light by the Gospel," say the Chi'istian divines ; and they assert, that the 
 doctrine of a resun-ection was not known to Jew or Gentile, till they learned 
 it from Jesus' followers. The Old Testament, (say they,) taught the Jews 
 nothing of the glorious truths concerning " the resui'rection of the 
 body, and the life everlasting," their " beggarly elements" confined 
 their views to temporal happiness, only." These assertions I shall prove 
 from the Old Testament itself, to be contrary to fact; for the Jews 
 both knew, and were taught by their Bibles to expect a resurrection, and 
 believed it as firmly as any Christian can, or ever did. For proof hereof, 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, and carried mo out in the 
 spirit of the Lord, and set me down in the midst of the valley, which was 
 full of bones. And caused me to pass by them round about, and behold 
 there were very many in the open valley, and behold they were dry. — 
 And he said unto me, Son of man, can these bones live? and I an- 
 swered, 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 
 cause breath to enter into you, and ye shall live, and I will lay sinews upon
 
 98 
 
 you, and will bring up flesh upon you ; and cover you with slcin, and put 
 breath into you; and yo shall live, and know that I am the Lord. So I 
 prophesied as J was conunanded, and, as I prophesied, there was a noise, and 
 behold, a shaking, and the bones came together, bone to his bone. And 
 ■when I beheld, lo, the sinews and the flesh came up upon them, and the skia 
 covered them above ; but there was no breath in them. Then said he unto 
 me, Prophcpy son of man, and say unto the wind, thus saith the Lord God, 
 come from the four winds, O breath ! and breathe upon these slain, that they 
 may live. So I prophesied as ho commanded me, and the breath came into 
 them, and they lived, and stood up again upon their feet, an exceeding 
 great army." 
 
 A plainer resurrection than this is, I think never was preached either by 
 Jesus or his followers. Again, Daniel the prophet says, " Many of theuti 
 that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and 
 Bome to shame and everlasting contempt," Daniel xii. 2. Now Ezckiel lived 
 almost six hundred years before Jesus, and Daniel was cotemporary with tho 
 former; and is it not a little surprising, that the Jews should learn, for the 
 jfirst time, the doctrine of a resurrection of tho followers of Jesus Christ, 
 when they knew of the resurrection almost six hundred years before he was 
 born ? Isaiah also, (who lived before either Ezekiel or Daniel), in the 26th 
 chapter of his prophesies, (exciting the Jews to have confidence in God, and 
 not to despair on account of their captivity, and the troubles and afflictions 
 which they should suff'er therein), foretells to them that death would not 
 deprive them of the reward of their piety and virtue ; for God woidd 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! 
 and sing ! 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 in Oriental 
 countries becomes brown and shrivelled by the heat of the sun ; from the 
 eff"ects of the dew it changes and springs up, as it were, in a moment, green and 
 fresh and beautiful ; so, by the instantaneous influence of the word of God, 
 the dry and decayed remains of mortality shall become blooming with 
 immortal freshness and beauty. See also Hosea xiii. 14. I might easily 
 multiply passages from the Old Testament, to prove that the doctrine of a 
 resurrection was familiar to the ancient Israelites, but I 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 work lately published in Europe, highly honourable to 
 the author. See also a Tract upon this subject, published by Dr. Priestley, 
 in 1801. 
 
 I shall only add one observation more on this subject, viz., that it is very 
 singular that Christian divines should assert, that " life and immortality were 
 first brought to light by the Gospel," when the New Testament {^se// represents 
 the resurrection of the dead as being perfectly well known to the Jews, and 
 describes Jesus himself as proving it to the Sadducees out of tlie Old 
 Testament ! ! ! 
 
 * Mr. English, it will be perceived, differs in his translasion of the Hebrew word 
 *' nebelati," whirh is, certainly, in the sinj^ular number, and not plural. The correct 
 rendering is, doubtless, "with my dead body they," &c. ; but this weakens not at all 
 his argument, which is essentially a Jewish onel See the Commentators, Cbizzook 
 Emunah, &.c. &.c. — D.
 
 99 
 
 CONCLUSION. 
 
 I HAVE now finished my work, which I have written in order to excul- 
 pate myself, and to do justice to others ; and having re-examined every link 
 of the chain of my argument, I think it amply strong to support the con- 
 clusions attached to it. Though there might have been drawn from the Old 
 and New Testaments, many additional arguments corroborative of what 
 has been said, yet, at present, I shall add no more ; as I think that what 
 has been brought forward has just claims to be considered by the impartial 
 as quite sufficient to prove these two points — that the New Testament can 
 neither subsist with the Old Testament, nor without it ; and that the New 
 Testament system was built first upon a mistake, and afterwards buttressed 
 up with forged and apocryphal documents. 
 
 Let the candid now judge, whether the author, knowing these things, or, 
 at least persuaded of their truth, could have persisted in affirming, (in a 
 place where sincerity is expected), in the name of the 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 a satisfac- 
 tory refutation of the objections contained in this volume, his resigning a 
 profession whose duties obliged him to say what he was convinced was talse, 
 was conduct to be repiehended. And lastly, he appeals to the good sense 
 of the public, for a decision, whether, with such objections and difficulties 
 weighing upon his mind, as he has now exposed, his conduct in that respect 
 can reasonably be atributed to the unmanly influence of caprice and fickle- 
 ness, (as has been circulated by some who had an interest in making it 
 believed ;) or to the just influence of motives deserving a better name. 
 
 With regard to the unfortunate people whose arguments have been 
 brought forward in this volume, we tiave, reader, now gone over, and 
 distinctly felt, the whole ground of the controversy between them and their 
 persecutors, mentioned in the Preface. And as they make use of the Old 
 Testament as a foundation, admitted, and necessarily admitted by Christians, 
 to be of divine authority, and are surx'ounded bj the bulwai'ks they have raised 
 out of the demolished entrenchments of their adversaries, I do not see but 
 that " their castle's strength may laugh a siege to scorn." And after reviewing, 
 and revolving, over and over in my own mind the arguments oyi both sides, I 
 am obliged to believe, that the stoutest Polemical GoUah who may venture 
 to attack it, especially their strong hold — their arguments about the 
 Messiahship, will find to his cost, that when his weak point is but known, the 
 mightiest Achilles must fall before the feeblest Paris, whose arrow is — aimed 
 at his Heel. 
 
 The author hopes, and thinks he has a right to expect, that whoever 
 may attempt to answer his book, will do it fairly, like a man of candour ; 
 without trying to evade the main question — that of the Messiahship of Jesus. 
 Ho fears, that he shall see an answer precisely resembling the many others 
 he has seen upon that subject. Except two — those of Sukes, and Jeff"ries 
 (who acknowledge that miracles have nothing to do with the question of the 
 Messiahship, which can be decided by the Old Testament only ;) — all that he 
 has ever met with, evade this question, and slide over to the ground of 
 miracles. Such conduct in an answerer of this book would be very unfair, 
 and also very absurd. For the case is precisely resembling the following — 
 A father informs by letter his sou 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 the mathematics, and the physical sciences ; acquainted with the 
 learned languages, and an excellent physician ; of a dark complexion ; six
 
 100 
 
 feet high, and with a voice loud, and commanding." By and by, a maa 
 comes to the young man, professing to be this tutor sent to him by his . 
 father. On examining the man, and comparing him with the description in 
 his father's letter, he finds him totally unlike the person he had been taught 
 to expect. Instead of being acquainted with the sciences, therein mentioned, 
 ho knows nothing about them ; instead of being " six feet high, of a dark 
 complexion, and with a voice loud and commanding," he is a diminutive 
 creature of five feet, of a light complexion, with a voice like a woman's. 
 
 The young man, with his father's letter in his hand, tells the pretended 
 tutor, that he certainly cannot be the person he has been told to expect. 
 The man persists, and appeals to certain " wonderful works" he performs in 
 order to convince the young man, that he is acquainted with the sciences 
 aforesaid, and that he is also six feet high; of a dark complexion; and talks 
 like an Emperor ! The young man replies. " Friend, you are either an 
 enthusiast, a mad man, or something worse. As to your ' signs and wonders,* 
 I have been warmd in my father's letter to pay no regard to anr/ such things 
 in this case. Besides, you ought to be sensible, that your identity with the 
 person I am taught by my father's letter to expect, can be only determined 
 by companng you with the description of him given therein. Whether your 
 'wonderful works' are real miracles or not, I neither know, nor care. At 
 <tny rate, they cannot, in the nature of things, 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 ; you might as well, and as reasonably, pretend, that they could 
 prove Aristotle to have been Alexander ; or the Methodist George Whitfield 
 to be the Emperor Napoleon Bonaparte !" 
 
 To conclude, if any person should feel inclined to attempt to refute this 
 book, let him do it like a man ; without evading the question, or equivo- 
 cating, or caviling about little things. Let him consider the principal 
 question, and the main arguments on which he perceives that the author 
 relies, and not pass over these silently, and hold up a few petty mistakes and 
 subsidiary arguments as specimens of the whole book. Such a mode of 
 defence would be very disengenuous, and with a discerning reader, perfectly 
 futile and insufficient. It would be as if a man prostrate, and bleeding 
 under a lion whose teeth and claws were infixed in his throat, should tear 
 a handful of hairs out of the animal's mane, and hold them up as proofs of 
 victory. 
 
 In fine, let him, before his undertaking, carefully consider these pungent 
 words of Bishop Beveridge, "Opposite answers, and downright arguments 
 advantage a cause ; but when a disputant leaves many things untouched, as if 
 they were too hot for his fingers; and declines the weight of other things, and 
 alters the true state of the question : it is a shrewd sign, either that he has not 
 weighed things maturely, or else (which is more probable,) that he maintaint 
 a desperate cause." 
 
 FINIS.
 
 APPENDIX A.* 
 
 As reasons for this assertion, (that "the account of the resurrection 
 given by the evangelists is no better, nay, xvorse, than conjecture, as it is a 
 mere forgeiy of the second century. — Vide page 86) take the following facts, 
 •which are now ascertained, and can be proved: — 1. Several sects of 
 Christians in the first century, in the apostolic era, denied that Jesus was 
 crucified, as the Basildeans, &c. The author of the epistle ascribed to 
 Barnabus, I think, denied it, and the author of the gospel of Thomas certainly 
 did. 2. The Jewish Christians, the desciples of the twelve apostles, never 
 received, but rejected every individual book of the present New Testament. 
 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 to James at Jerusalem, wherein he complains 
 bitterly of Paul, styling him " a lawless man," and a crafty misrepresenter 
 of him (Peter.) and his doctrine, in that Paul represented, every where, Peter 
 as being secretly of the same opinions with himself; against this he enters his 
 protest, and declares that he reprobates the doctrine of Paul. (See Appendix 
 B.) 3. It is certain, that from the beginning, the Christians were never 
 agreed as to points of faith ; and that the apostles themselves, so far from being 
 considered as inspired and infallible, were frequently contradicted, thwarted, 
 and set at naught by their own converts : and there were as many sects, 
 heresies, and quarrels, in the first century, as in the second or third. 4. 
 Jesus and his apostles were no sooner ofi" the stage, than forgeries of all kinds 
 broke in with irresistible force : Gospels, Epistles, Acts, Revelations without 
 number, published in the names, and under the feigned authority, of Jesus 
 and his apostles, abounded in the Christian church; and as some of these 
 were as early in time as any of the writings in the present canon of the New 
 Testament, so they were received promiscuously with them, and held in equal 
 credit and veneration, and read in the public assemblies as of equal authority 
 with those now received. 5. The very learned and pious Dodwell, in his Dis- 
 sertations on Irseneus avows, that he cannot find in ecclesiastical antiquities, 
 (which he understood better than any man of his age,) any evidence at all, 
 that the four Gospels were known or heard of, before the time of Trajan, and 
 Adrian, i. e. before the middle of the second century, i. e. nearly a hundred 
 years aJfter the apostles were dead. (See Appendix C.) Long before this time, 
 we know that there were extant numbers of spurious gospels, forged, and 
 ascribed to the apostles ; and we have not the least evidence to be depended 
 on, that those now i-eceived were not also apocryphal. For they were written 
 nobody certainly knows by whom, or where, or when. They first appeared in an 
 age of credulity, when forgeries of this kind abounded and were received with 
 avidity by those whose opinions they favoured, w^hile they were rejected as 
 Bourious by many sects of Christians, who asserted that they were possessed of 
 the genuine apostles, which, however, those who received " the four," denied. 
 6. All the different sects of Christians, without a known exception, altered, 
 interpolated, and without scruple garbled, their different copies of their various 
 
 * This was, originally, a note; but, in order not to divert too much the reader's 
 attention, it has been thought advbable to insert it here. — D.
 
 102 
 
 and discordant gospels, in order to adapt them to their jarring and whimsical 
 philosophical notions. Celsus accuses them of this, and they accuse each other. 
 And that they were continually tauiperiug with their copies of the books of the 
 New Testament, is evident from the immense number of various readings, and 
 from some whole jihrases, and even verses, which for knavish purposes wero 
 foisted into the text, but have been detected, and exposed by Griesbach, and 
 othei'S. They also forged certain rhapsodies under the name of " Si/bbilme 
 Oracles," and then adduce them as prophetic proofs of the truth of their re- 
 ligion. They also interpolated certain clumsy forgeries as prophecies of Jesus 
 into their copies of their Greek version of the Old Testament. 7. The present 
 canon of the New Testament has never been sanctioned by the general consent 
 of Christians. The Syrian church rejects some of its books; — some of its books 
 were not admitted until after long opposition, and not until several hundred 
 years after Jesus. The lists of what were considered as canonical books, dif- 
 fer in different ages, and some books now acknowledged by all Christians to bo 
 forgeries, were in the second and third centuries considered as equally 
 apostolic as those now received, and as such, were publicly read in tho 
 churches. 8. The reason why we have not now extant gospels, different 
 and contradictory to those now received, is, because that the sect or party 
 ■which finally got the better of its adversaries, and styled itself Catholic, or 
 orthodox, took care to burn and destroy the heretics, and their gospels 
 with them. They likewise took care to hunt up and burn the books of the 
 Pagan adversaries of Christianity, " because they were shockingly offensive 
 to pious ears." 9. Semler considered the New Testament as a collection of 
 pious frauds, written for pious purposes, in the latter part of the second 
 century, (the very time assigned for their first appearance by Dodwell.) 
 Evanson adopts, and gives good reasons for a similar opinion with regard to 
 most of the books which go to compose it. Lastly. The reason why the 
 New Testament canon has been so long respected, seems to have been purely 
 owing to the credulity of the ignorant, and the laziness, indifference, or/ears 
 of the learned. 
 
 Douglas, in his famous "Criterion," gives us, as infallible tests, by which 
 we may distinguish when written accounts of miracles are fabulous, the 
 following marks : — 
 
 1. "We have reason to suspect (he says) the accounts to he false, when 
 they are not published to the world till after the time when they are said to 
 have been performed." 
 
 2. " We have reason to suspect them to be false, when they are not 
 published in the place where it is pretended the facts were wrought, but are 
 propagated only at a great distance from the supposed scene of action." 
 
 3. " Supposing the accounts to have the two fore-mentioned qualifi- 
 cations, we still have reason to suspect them to be false, if in the time when, 
 and at the place where, they took their rise, they might be suffered to pass 
 without examination." 
 
 These arc the marks he gives us as infallible tests by which we may 
 distinguish the accounts of miracles in the New Testament to be trtie; and 
 accounts of miracles in other books (though supported by more testimony 
 than the former,) to be false ; with how much justice, may be evident from 
 tho following observations : — 
 
 1. If "we have reason to suspect the accounts to be false, when they 
 are not published to the world till long after the time when they are said to 
 have been performed," then we have reasons to suspect the accounts givea 
 in the four gospels ; for we have no proof in the world, that any of them 
 were written till nearly one hundred years after the supposed writers of 
 them were all dead.
 
 103 
 
 2. If "we have reason to suspect them to be false, when they are not 
 published in the place where it is pretended the facts were wrought, but are 
 propagated only at a great distance from the supposed scene of action," then 
 it is still further evident that the accounts in question are not true. For 
 they were apparently none of them published in Judea, the scene of the 
 events recorded in them. But it is pretty clear that they were written in 
 countries at a distance from Palestine. And the facts recorded in them were 
 no where so little believed as in Judea, among the people in whose sight they 
 are said to have been wrought, where they ought, if true, to have met with 
 most credit. It is, however, evident from the histories themselves, that 
 these stories were laughed at, by the learned and intelligent of the Jewish 
 nation, and disbelieved by the great body of the people. In truth the first 
 Christians were merely one hundred and twenty Galilaians, who asserted to 
 their co-religionists, that Jesus of Nazareth was the expected Messiah. It 
 was a mere national quarrel between the great body of the Jews, and a few 
 schismatics. This is evident from the Acts, where we find that for several 
 years they confined their preaching to Jews only. Till the conversion of 
 Cornelius, they do not appear to have thought the Gentiles any way interested 
 in their dispute with their countrymen. So that it is not improbable, (as the 
 Jewish Christians dwindled very rapidly,) that had it not been for the Gentile 
 proselytes to Judaism, Christianity would have perished in its cradle. These 
 people were very numerous, and formed the connecting link betweeen the 
 Jews and the Gentiles. And it was through the medium of these people, that 
 Christianity became known to the heathens. For we find that after the 
 apostles could make nothing of the stubborn Jews "they shook their 
 garments, and told them that from henceforth we go to the Gentiles." — 
 Accordingly, when the apostles preached in the synagogues, and the Jews 
 " contradicted, and blasphemed," and made fun of their mode of proving from 
 the prophets, "that Jesus was the Christ; yet the "proselytes and devout 
 twomen" listened, and believed. 
 
 3. If "supposing the accounts to have the two foregoing qualifications, 
 we still may suspect them to be false ; if, in the time when, and in the 
 place where, they took their rise, they might be suffered to pass without 
 examination," we have still less reason to believe the gospels. For one reason 
 why they might be suffered to pass without examination is, where the 
 miracles proposed coincided with the notions and superstitious prejudices 
 of those whom they were reported, and who, on that account, might be prone 
 to receive them unexamined. Now, we have documents in plenty, which 
 abundantly prove, along with the virtues, the extreme credulity and simplicity 
 of the Primitive Christians, whose maxim was, " believe, but do not examine, 
 and thy faith shall save thee." Another very good reason why they might 
 be suffered to pass without examination is, that the miracles of the gospels 
 were entirely unknown to, or at least acknowledged by, any heathen or Jew of 
 the age in which they are recorded to have happened. Nobody seems to have 
 known a syllable about them but the apostles and their converts. Even 
 the books of the New Testament were not generally known to the heathens 
 until some hundred years after the birth of Jesus ; and it seems from the 
 few fragments of their works come down to us, that the only notice they 
 did take of them, was to accuse them of telling lies and old wives fables. 
 And as for the Jews, the origin and early propagation of Christianity was so 
 Tery obscure, that those who lived nearest the times of the apostles, do not 
 Bcem to have known any thing about them, or their doctrines. 
 
 Though a little out of place, yet I will here adduce a fact which illustrates 
 and exemplifies the power of enthusiasm, to make people believe they saw 
 •what they did not see. Lucian gives an account of one Peregrinus, a philo-
 
 104 
 
 sophist very famous in his time, who had a great number of disciples. He 
 ended his life by throwing: himself, in the presence of assembled thousands, 
 into a burning pile. Yet such was the enthusiastic veneration of his 
 followers, that some of his disciples did solemenly aver, that they had seen 
 him after his death, clothed in white, and crowned ; and they were believed, 
 insomuch that altars and statues were erected to Pcregrinus 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 the Clementines. 
 " For, if this be not done, (says Peter, after entreating James not to com- 
 municate his preachings to any Gentile without previous examination,) our 
 speech of truth will be divided into many opinions, nor do I know this thing 
 as being a prophet, but as seeing even now the beginning of this evil. 
 For some from among the Gentiles have rejected my legal preaching, 
 embracing the trijling, and lawless doctrine of a man who is an enemy ; and 
 these things, some have endeavoured to do now in my own lifetime, transform- 
 ing my words by various interpretations, to the destruction o/theLaiv ; as if / 
 had been of the same mind, but dared not openly profess it, (see Galatians ii. 11, 
 12, &c.,) which be far from me! For this were to act against the law of 
 God, spoken by Moses, and which has the testimony of our Lord Jor its 
 perpetual duration; since he thus has said, "Heaven and earth shall pass 
 away, yet one jot, or one tittle, shall not pass from the law." But these, I 
 know not how, promising to deliver my opinion, (see Galatians as above,) 
 take upon them to explain the words they heard from me, better than I that 
 Bpoke them ; telling their disciples, my sense was that of which I had not so 
 much as thought. Now, if in my own life time, they dare feign such things, 
 how much more will those that come after, do the same." 
 
 APPENDIX C. 
 
 Extract from Dodwell's Dissertations on Irenseus, Diss. 1, p.p. 38, 39. 
 " " The Canonical writings (i. e. of the New Testament), lay concealed in the 
 coffers of private churches, or persons, till the latter times of Trajan, 
 or rather perhaps of Adrian ; so that they could not come to the knowledge 
 of the church. For if they had been published, they would have been over- 
 whelmed under such a multitude as were then of apocryphal and suppositious 
 books, that a new examination and a new testimony would be necessary to 
 distinguish them from these false ones. And it is from this new testimony 
 (whereby the genuine writings of the apostles were distinguised from the 
 spurious pieces which went under their names,) that depends all the authority 
 which the truly apostolic writings have formerly obtained, or which they 
 have at present in the Catholic Church. But this fresh attestation of the 
 canon is subject to the same inconveniences with those traditions of the 
 ancient persons that I defend, and whom Irenseus both heard and saw ; for it 
 is equally distant from the original, and could not be made except by such 
 only as bad reached those remote times. But it is very certain that before 
 the period I mentioned of Trajan's time, the canon of the sacred books was 
 not yet fixed, nor any certain number of books received in the Catholic 
 Church, whose authority must ever after serve to determine matters of faith; 
 neither were the spurious pieces of heretics yet rejected, nor were the faithful
 
 105 
 
 admonished to beware of them for the future. Likewise, the true writings 
 of the apostles used to be so bound up in one volume mth the apocryphal, 
 that it was not manifest by any mark of public censure which of them should 
 he preferred to the other. We have at this day, certain authentic writings of 
 ecclesiastical authors of those times, as Clemens Romanus, Barnabas, 
 Hermas, Ignatius, and Polycarp, who wrote in the same order wherein I 
 have named them, and after all the other writers of the New Testament, 
 except Jude, and the two Johns. But in Hermas you shall not meet with one 
 passage, or any mention of the Neiv Testament; nor in all the rest is any one of 
 the evangelists called by his own name. And if sometimes they cite any 
 passages like those we read in our gospels ; yet, you will find them so much 
 changed, and for the most part so interpolated, that it cannot he known, 
 whether they produced them out of oars, or some apocryphal gospels ; nay, 
 they sometimes cite passages which it is most certain are not in the present 
 gospels. From hence, therefore, it is evident that no difference was yet put 
 between the apocryphal and canonical books of the New Testament, especially 
 if it be considered, that they pass no censure on the apocryphal, nor leave 
 any mark whereby the reader mighti discei'n whether they attributed less 
 authority to the spurious than to the genuine gospels ; from whence it may 
 reasonably be suspected, that if they cite sometimes any passages conform- 
 able to ours, it was not done through any certain design, as if dubious things 
 were to be confirmed only by the canonical books, so as it is very possible 
 that both those and the like passages may have been borrowed from other 
 gospels besides these we now have. But what need I mention books that 
 are not canonical, when indeed it does not appear from those of our 
 canonical books which were last written, that the church knew any thing of 
 the gospels, or that the clergy made a common use of them. The writers of 
 those times do not chequer their works with texts of the New Testament, 
 ■which yet is the custom of the moderns, and was also theirs in such books 
 as they acknowledge for scripture ; for they most frequently cite the books 
 of the Old Testament, and would, doubtless, have done so by those of the 
 New, if they had then been received as canonical." 
 
 So far Mr. Dodwell, and (excepting the genuineness of the writings of 
 Barnabas and the rest, for they are incontestably ancient,) it is certain that 
 the matters of fact with regard to the New Testament are all true. Whoever 
 has an inclination to write on this subject, is furnished from this passage with 
 a great many curious disquisitions wherein to show his penetration and his 
 judgment, as — how the immediate successors and disciples of the apostles 
 could so grossly confound the genuine writings of their masters with such as 
 ■were falsely attributed to them ; or since they were in the dark about these 
 matters so early, how come such as followed them, by a better light ; why all 
 those books which are cited by the earliest fathers with the same respect as 
 those now received, should not be accounted equally authentic by them ; and 
 "what stress should be laid on the testimony of those fathers, who not only 
 contradict one another, but are often inconsistent with themselves, in relating 
 the very same facts ; with a great many other difficulties, which deserve a 
 clear solution from any capable person. 
 
 I have said the ancient heretics asserted that the present gospels were 
 forgeries. As an example of this, take the following, from the works of 
 Faustus, quoted by Augustine, contra Faustum Lib. 32, c. 2. " You think, 
 (says Faustus to his adversaries,) that of all the books in the world the 
 Testament of the Son only, could not be corrupted ; that it alone contains 
 nothing which ought to be disallowed ; especially when it appears, that it 
 was not written hy the apostles, but a long tinu after them, by certain obscure 
 persons, who, lest no credit should be given to the stories they told of what 
 
 N
 
 lOG 
 
 they could not know, did prefix, to their writings, the names of the apostles^ 
 and partly of those who succeeded the apostles, aflirniing, that what they 
 •wrote themselves, was written by these. Wherein they seem to me to have 
 been the more heinously injurious to the disciples of Christ, by attributing 
 to them what they wrote themselves so disso7ia7it and repugnavt ; and that 
 they pretended to write those gospels under their names, which are so full of 
 mistakes, of contradictor^/ relations and opiitions, that they are neither coherent 
 with themselves, nor consistent ivith one another. What is this, therefore, but 
 to throw a calumny on good men, and to fix the accusation of discord on the 
 unanimous society of Christ's digciples."
 
 ADDENDA. 
 
 There is, in the Gospel ascribed to John, a passage, quoted as a prophecy, 
 -which, as it has been looked on as a proof text, ought to have been mentioned 
 in the 7th chapter. It is this. The evangelist (John xix. 23) says, " Then 
 the soldiers, when they had crucified Jesus, took his garments, and made four 
 parts, to every soldier a part ; and also his coat — now the coat was without 
 seam, woven from the top throughout. They said, therefore, among them- 
 selves, ' Let us not rend it, but cast lots for it' ; that the Scripture might be 
 fulfilled, which saith, ' They parted my raiment among them, and for my 
 vesture they did cast lots.' " Now, however plausible this prophesy may 
 appear, it is one of the most impudent applications of passages from the Old 
 Testament that occurs in the New. Jt is taken from the 18th verse of the 
 22d Psahn, which Psalm was probably made by David, in reference to his 
 humiliating and wretched expulsion from Jerusalem by his son Absalom, and 
 what was done in consequence, viz., that he was hunted by ferocious enemies, 
 whom he compares to furious bulls, and roaring lions, gaping upon him to 
 devour him ; that his palace was plundered, and that they divided his treasured 
 garments, (in the East, where the fashions never change, every great man 
 has constantly presses full of hundreds and thousands of garments, many of 
 them very costly : they are considered as a valuable part of his riches), and 
 cast lots for hir robes. This is the real meaning of this passage quoted as a 
 prophecy. In the same Psalm, there is another verse, which has been from 
 time immemorial quoted as a prophecy of the crucifixion, (v. 16,) " They 
 pierced my hands and my feet." In tlie original, there seems to have been a 
 woi'd dropped importing "they tear," or something like it, for it is literally, 
 " Like a lion — my hands and my feet," and there is there no word answering 
 to " pierced." The meaning, however, of the verse is not diffcult to be 
 discerned, " dogs have compassed me ; the assembly of wicked men have 
 enclosed me ; like a lion— (they tear) my hands and my feet." The meaning 
 may be discovered from the context, where David represents himself as in 
 the utmost distress, helpless, and abandoned amidst his enemies, raging like 
 ■wild beasts around him ; then, by a strong, but striking Oriental figure, he 
 represents himself like a carcase surrounded by dogs, who are busied in 
 tearing the flesh from his bones ; their teeth Jixed in his hands and feet, and 
 pulling him asunder. This is the import of the place, and this interpreta- 
 tion is at last adopted, for the first time, I believe, by Christians, in the new- 
 version of the Psalms used by the Unitarian Church in London. 
 
 There is not a more palpable instance of the facility with which good 
 natured and voracious piety is made to swallow the most flimsy arguments, 
 if only agreeable to its wishes and wants, than the case under consideration. 
 This Psalm, containing these passages, " they parted my raiment among 
 them;" and " they pierced my hands and my i'eet," is read, and for ages has 
 been read, in the name of God, to the good people of the Church of England, 
 on every Good' Friday, as undoubtedly a prophesy of the Crucifixion ; when 
 yet the learned divines of the Church of England (and of these it can boast 
 a noble Catalogue indeed) certainly know, and are conscious that the Psalm, 
 which contains these passages, has no more relation to Jesus, than it has to 
 Nebuchadnezzar.
 
 108 
 
 A reference ought to have been subjoined at the end of the 10th chapter 
 to the dialogue, called " Philopatris" in Lucian's Works, for an account of 
 thr customs, habits, and personal appearance of the early Christians, cor- 
 roborative of what is said in the 17th and 18th chapters of this work. Lest, 
 however, Lucian's testimony in this mattershould be objected to, because he 
 was a satirist, and, of course, may have been guilty 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 of the domestic habits and personal appear- 
 ance and practices of the primitive Christians." Lami was a very learned and 
 sincere Christian, and of course his testimony cannot be objected to, and, 
 the reader will find, on a perusal of his work, that what I have asserted ia 
 the 17th and 18th chapters is altogether true, and not the whole ti'uth 
 neither. Indeed, that the statements in those chapters, as to the effects of 
 the pectdiar maxims of the New Testament upon the heart and understand- 
 ing, are substantially correct, will, I believe, be discovered by asking any 
 honest individual among the Methodists, who is an enthusiast, i. e sincere, 
 and thorough-going in his religion. I have no doubt that he or she will 
 avow, without hesitation, to the enquii'er, and glory in it, that chastity is 
 'more honourable than marriage ; that faith is every thing ; that doubt is 
 damnable, and a proof of " an unregenerated mind ;" that all the goods and 
 pleasures of this world are "trash;" that human institutions are mere 
 " carnal ordinances ;" and that human science and learning is a snare to faith 
 and an abomination to a true disciple of the cross. 
 
 [:^*^ As allusion has been made by Mr. English to the fact, that " the 
 expressions of Jesus were, as it appears from the Talmud, proverbial expres- 
 sions in use among the Jews" (vide page 88), we have thought that the 
 subjoined Essay would not prove unacceptable to the inquii'ing reader who 
 may wish to see some further proof of Mr. English's assertion than that to 
 which he has necessarily confined himself. The Essay, which presents a 
 comparative analysis of the " Sermon on the Mount," is the production of 
 the learned Dr. Zipser, Rabbi of Alba in Hungary, and appeared in conse- 
 cutive numbers in the London Jewish Chronicle. Its origin, as the reader 
 will find from the Rabbi's introductory remarks, was owing to the blind and 
 obstinate opposition of an uninformed and mistaken zealot in the House of 
 Commons, to the admission of Jews into Parliament.— D.]
 
 THE SERMON ON THE MOUNT 
 
 EXAMINED IN AN E3SAT ON THE 
 
 TALMUD AND THE GOSPELS. 
 
 BY M. ZIPSEB, BABBI OF ALBA (STUHLWEISSENBUBO), HUNaAET. 
 
 It is a common saying : there is nothing perfect under the sun ; and the 
 sages of old held the opinion, that the evil spirit of men rejoices in his 
 fiendish nature to spoil their best joy, by distilling a drop of gall into their 
 cup of pleasm-e. This our co-rellgionists of the English metropolis must 
 have felt on the ever-memorable 1st of May, 1851, on the day when the 
 Exhibition of the industry of all nations, opened, and when, on the same day, 
 Mr Newdegate, M.P., opened his unholy fire against the Jews of Great 
 Britain, poured forth his sallies of slander, discharged volleys of abuse of 
 rather a heavy calibre, and laboured industriously, to exhibit a multiplicity 
 of undigested reasons, in justification of his opposition to the admission of 
 Jews into Parliament. He maintains that the admission of Jews into the 
 legislature is incompatible with the Christian character of the house, nor 
 can their oath taken on the Old Testament, be considered sufficiently 
 binding, because the religion of the Jews as practised now, is' not the religion 
 of the Bible, but their canon is the Mishna and the Talmud, the moral 
 standard of which can neither be valued very high, nor be considered in 
 unison with the demands of our enlightened age. We will, since we are 
 unacquainted with the personal character of our assailant, ascribe his vitupera- 
 tion neither to personal animosity nor to religious intolerance; neither will 
 we accuse him of innate malevolence, nor call him a dogmatic or systematical 
 Jew-hater, but admit that Mr. N's aversion to Jewish M. P.'s sprung from 
 an honesty of conviction, that the welfare of the nation cannot, with safety, 
 be entrusted to men whose religion and morality are formed by the Talmud, 
 a book denounced for its corrupt precepts and dangerous tendencies. — 
 We must take it for granted (since Mr. N.'s attack is only directed against 
 Jews and the Talmud, decrying them and the latter as devoid of all morality) 
 that the gospel, and those who believe in it, are patterns of morality — which 
 we have no desire to dispute — and that those, who profess the religion 
 taught by the gospel, are qualified to sit in council, and deliberate on the 
 welfare of the nation ; for if such was not his con^ction, Ave doubt not that 
 he, as an honest man, and an honest Christian, would resign the mission 
 entrusted to him, before he could arrogate to himself the onerous and 
 thankless task of accusing the Jews. If we should succeed — and we are 
 sanguine to do so to the sartsfaction of all our readers — to prove that all the 
 moral precepts, parables, and ethics contained in the gospel, have been
 
 110 
 
 taught by the Talmud ; nay, more, that many precepts have been more 
 emphatically and cogently enjoined by the Talmud, even before the founder 
 of Christianity appeared, then wo think wo shall have ingratiated ourselves 
 with Mr. N., for having disabused him of his error; and shall expect to see 
 him publicly revoke his accusation, which, having been made in his place in 
 the House of Commons, went forth to all the world. 
 
 We will, in order not to trespass against the valuable space of this highly 
 appreciated periodical, restrict ourselves to a challenge of the 5th, 6th, and 
 7th chapters of Matthew, known as the Sermon on the Mount, and shall 
 endeavour to prove the antecedence of the morals promulgated therein, and 
 which can be called the quintessence of the gospel, as existing in the Talmud. 
 - Verse .3 of the 5th chapter runs thus ; " Blessed are the poor in spirit." 
 We cannot exactly comprehend the real meaning of this sentence, in order 
 to quote a corresponding one in the Talmud. The original has it thus : — 
 IItu>Xoi Tio Tlv(viJ.ari — and the vulgate "pauperes spiritii," — the Syriac trans- 
 lation nna k33dq. We, however, take the phrase " poor in spirit," to refer 
 to those who know the frailty and vanity of the human mind, who are free 
 from all presumption, haughtiness, and pride, and who resign themselves in 
 everything to the will of a higher power, and which is expressed in Hebrew 
 by nn xdt or nn baif " contrite, or humble, in spirit." But such a state of mind 
 is commended in the Talmud as pleasing to the Almighty. " Be exceedingly 
 humble of spirit" — (Ethics 5). " Be humble spirited before all men." — 
 (Ibid). The Talmud compares, moreover, the law of God to water ; as the 
 water seeketh its bed in a low country, and there pursues its course, thus the 
 law can only be preserved by those who are of a humble spirit. In another 
 simile, the law of God is compared to wine : like as wine is best preserved in 
 earthen vessels, and spoils when put into vessels of gold, thus the law abides 
 with the humble and lowly, and shuns the haughty and the proud (Taanith 7.). 
 The Talmud teaches in another place : " Men should endeavour to act in 
 concert and after the will of their Creator. When God gave the law, he 
 disregai'ded the high hills and mountains, and chose the lowly Mount Sinai ; 
 and when He first appeared unto Moses, He revealed Himself to him out of 
 the lowly thorn-bush, and disdained the stately and lofty trees." " Rabbi 
 Joshua said : ' Behold, how acceptable before the Lord ai"e the humble in 
 spirit : while the temple stood, meat-offerings and burnt sacrifices were 
 oflfered in expiation for the sins committed; but an humble spirit, such a one 
 as immolates the desires of the flesh and the inclination of the heart on the 
 altar of his duty to his God, is accepted in place of sacrifices, for the 
 Psalmist says (Psalm li. 17.): « The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit' " 
 — (Sotah 5). "This is the way of the wise, to be humble and of a contrite 
 spirit. Be like the bed of the ocean, which retains its water ; like the 
 earthen vessel, which preserves the wine ; like the threshold, over which 
 every one steps ; and like the peg on the wall, which everybody hangs his 
 cloak on" — (Masechet Derech Ei-ets Zotah). 
 
 Vez'se 4. — " Blessed are they that mourn, for they shall he comforted." 
 More, beautifully is this sentence expressed by the Royal David — " They 
 that sow in tears, shall reap in joy" — (Psalm cxxvi. 5.) In.the Talmud (Abotli 
 R. Nathan, ch. 28) we read the following passage : — " Rabbi Juda Hanasi says, 
 *He who pursues the pleasures of this world, abandons the joy of the world 
 to come ; but he, who resigns earthly enjoyments, shall partake of everlast- 
 ing bliss in future life.' Among the forty-eight qualifications necessary for 
 the student of the holy law, and for the acquiring a proficiency in the same, 
 is the S2>ontaneous resignation to sufferings and chastisement" — (Ethics 6.) 
 Another sentence of the Talmud teaches us : " In proportion to our suflFerings 
 in this world, will our reward be in the world to come" — (Ibid. 5.)
 
 Ill 
 
 Verse 5. — "'Blessed are, the meek, for they shall inherit the earth." 
 This is a passage in the Psalms : " The meek shall inherit the earth" — 
 (Psalms xxxvii. 11.) Who can be called a disciple of the patriarch Abraham, 
 and who a disciple of the wicked Balaam? "A benevolent eye, humility of 
 spirit, and a humble mind, characterise the disciples of Abraham ; but the 
 disciples of the wicked Balaam possess an evil eye, a haughty spirit, and an 
 insatiable mind. The first shall enjoy the fruit of their labour in this world, 
 and inherit likewise everlasting bliss : out the latter shall be doomed to 
 Gehinnom, and go down into the pit of destruction" — (Eth. 5). Four reasons, 
 says the Talmud, can be assigned for the declining position of the rich 
 proprietor, — the fourth and principal reason is, for being haughty and 
 domineering, but the meek shall continue in possession of their estates ; for 
 it is said, " The meek shall possess the land." 
 
 Verse 6.^" Blessed are they which do hungar and thirst after righteous- 
 ness, for they shall be filled." 
 
 " Those who aspire after what is holy and pure," teaches the Talmud, 
 " shall have assistance from above" 
 
 Verse 7. — Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy. 
 We read in Psalms xix. 17., " He that hath pity upon the poor, lendeth 
 unto the Lord." Rabbi Chaya enjoined his wife to meet the poor who 
 come to solicit alms on the way, and hand them over to them, that the Lord 
 might anticipate the desires of her children and fufill them, for it is written, 
 and the Lord shall bless thee for it — (Deuteronomy xv. 10.) Rabbi Gamliel 
 said : " It is written in the Bible (Deuteronomy xiii. 17), ' The Lord shall 
 give thee mercy, and shall have mercy upon thee.' He who is merciful 
 towards his fellow creatures, shall receive mercy from heaven above ; but he 
 who is unmerciful towads his fellow-creatures, shall find no mercy in heaven" 
 — (Shabbat 151 ) " Let thy door be wide open, that the poor may become 
 like the inmates of thy house" — (Ethics 1.) He who helpeth the poor in his 
 troubles, of him says the prophet (Isaiah Iviii. 9) : " Thou shalt call, and the 
 Lord shall answer"— (Mas; Derech Erets, ch. 2). 
 
 Verse 8. — "Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God." 
 " The Psalmist says: 'Truly, God is good to Israel' — (Psalm Ixxiii. 1.) 
 Remember, not to each, and every one, but only to those pure in heart" — 
 (Jalkut to Psalms.) "Preserve thy spirit immaculate, that thou mayest 
 return it to Him who gave it, in its purity, as He has given it" — (Shabbat 
 152.) Be diligent in practising purity, for then the Lord, in His purity, will 
 deal with thee accordingly, for it is said: "With the pure, Thou wilt shew 
 Thyself pure" (Nedarim 32.) " Rabbi Elcazar said, ' A good heart is the best 
 quality a man can possess ; and there is none so bad as an evil'heart' " (Eth. 2). 
 Verse 9. — "Blessed are the peace-niakers ; for they shall be called the 
 children of God." 
 
 " We read in Ethics 1, Hillel said : ' Be of the disciples of Aaron ; love 
 peace, and pursue peace ; love mankind, and bring them near unto the law.' 
 Rabbi Simeon ben Gamliel said: 'The moral condition of the world 
 depends on three things, viz., truth, justice, and peace' — (Ibid.) Among the 
 various laws, the observance of which ensures prosperity on earth, and a full 
 reward in heaven, promoting peace among men is reckoned" — (Peah 1). 
 Practising peace and promoting it, is recommended by the Talmud as one 
 among the most important laws. A full collection of all the Talmudical 
 sentences bearing on this subject, see in Jalkut to Parashath Nasoh, § 711. 
 
 Verse 10. — "Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake; 
 Jbr theirs is the kingdom, of heaveti." 
 
 Verse 11. — "Blessed are ye, wJien men shall revile you, and persecute you, 
 and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake."
 
 112 
 
 The Talmud teaches : " Those who are afflicted, and do not afflict in 
 return ; those who are reviled, and do not revile in return ; who suffer 
 everything for the love of God, and bear their burden with a gladsome heart, 
 will be rewarded according to the promise : ' Those who love the Lord shall 
 be invincible as the rising sun in his might," (Judges v. 32.) Vide Shabbat 
 8; Gittin 36; Yoma 23. 
 
 Verse 13. — " Ye are the salt of the earth." 
 
 The divine law is like the salt ; for as the woi'ld cannot exist without 
 salt, so it cannot exist without the divine law (Mas. Sopherim, ch, 15). 
 
 Verse 16. — " Let your light so shine before men." 
 
 The men of the great Synod taught : — " Train up many disciples, 
 ». e., instruct mankind"— (Ethics 1.) The Talmud, in another place, 
 has the following : — " Whoso undertaketh to instruct mankind, without 
 the necessary qualifications, of him it is said, many are the victims he has 
 slain ; but he who, though fully qualified, abstains from promoting knowledge 
 and instructing mankind, of him it is likewise said, Many are also his victims* 
 (Prov. vii. 26; 19). "He who, by his precepts, leads mankind to virtue, 
 will himself abstain from sin and increase in virtue ; yea, the virtue of the 
 public will be attributed to him, as we find it recorded of Moses" — (Ethics 5). 
 
 Verse 22. — " But I say unto you. That whosoever is angry with his brother 
 without a cause, shall be in danger of the judgment ; and whosoever shall say to 
 his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the Council ; hut whosoever shall gay. 
 Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire." 
 
 The injunctions of the Talmud on this head are as follow : " Rabbi Simeon 
 says. Whosoever lifts up his hand against his neighbour, although he do 
 not strike him, is called an oftender and sinnei-" — (Sanh. 58). " He who 
 calls his fellow-man slave, bastard, or villain, endangers his own life" — 
 (Kidushin 28). "He who publicly exposes his neighbom- to shame, has no 
 share in the future world" — (B. Meziah 58, and Eth. 3). 
 
 Verse 24. — "Leave thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; firtt he 
 reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift." 
 
 The Talmud teaches, " Sins committed against God, true repentance on 
 the day of atonement, can procure remittance for ; but sins committed 
 against our feJIow-creatures, neither repentance nor the day of atonement 
 can purge away, if amends have not been previously made, and the injured 
 brother appeased" — (Yoma 85). " Whoso restores what he has stolen before 
 he offers his trespass-offering, is absolved from his guilt ; but a trespass- 
 offering, without restoration, does not clear from sin" — (R. Kama 106). 
 
 Verse 25. — s" Agree with thins adversary quickly." 
 
 ^ " If thou hast done harm to any one," teaches the Talmud, " be it ever 
 so little, consider it as much ; if thou hast done him a favour, be it ever so 
 great, consider it as little. Has thy neighbour shewn thee kindness, do not 
 undervalue it ; and has he caused thee an injury, do not overrate it (Abot 
 B. Nathan, ch. 41). Have others calumniated thee, be it ever so much, 
 deem it lightly ; hast thou calumniated others, if ever so slightly, consider it 
 much"— (Mas. Derech Erets Zotah). 
 
 Verse 28. — " But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to 
 lust after her, has committed adultery ivith her already in his heart." 
 
 Similar to this are the following sentences : " We must not follow a 
 married woman on her way ; but whoso follows a married woman when she 
 crosses a river, endangers his future happiness. He who tendereth money 
 to a woman, in order to satisfy his lustful desires with her, will not escape 
 the doom of Gehinnon" (Berachot 61.) "Whoso looketh upon the wife of 
 another with a lustful eye is considered as if he had committed adultery" 
 (Mas. Calah.)
 
 113 
 
 Verse 32. — " But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, 
 saving for the cause of fornicatio'n, causeth her to commit adultery: and who- 
 soever shall marry Iter that is divorced, committeth adultery." 
 
 There was a controversy at issue between the school of Shamai and the 
 school of Hillel: the first maintained, that a divorce can only take place 
 when an actual breach of matrimonial faith, proved by witnesses, has been 
 committed ; but the latter considered moral faithlessness a sufficient cause 
 to sanction a divorce. " He who divorces his first wife," teaches the Talmud, 
 " even the altar of the Lord sheddeth tears on such doings. And to him 
 who marries a woman that has been divorced, can the passage be ap- 
 plied, ' And the second husband dies ;' and he is worthy of death, for he 
 admits the evil into his house which the fii'st husband has put away" — 
 (Gittin 90). 
 
 Verse 34. — " But I say unto you, Swear not at all." 
 
 A Talmudical sentence is pronounced in Toor, Orach Chayim, Sec. 156, 
 that even a true oath must be avoided as sinful. 
 
 Verse 37. — "But let your com,m,unication be. Yea, yea; Nay, nay." 
 
 The sanctity and inviolability of the oath is emphatically and repeatedly 
 enjoined by the Talmud, and we adduce the following instance from Shebuotn 
 39: "The whole universe shook and trembled when God pronounced on 
 Sinai, * Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.' The 
 punishment of other sins remains sometimes suspended ; but on perjury the 
 punishment follows immediately, for " the Lord will not let him go unpunished 
 who taketh his name in vain." All other oflPences are visited on him alone 
 who has committed them ; but he who forswears himself, loadeth guilt and 
 punishment upon his own head, and the heads of those who belong to him ; 
 yea, the punishment of his crime is so terrible, that it destroys all that 
 withstood the elementary ravages of fire and water." " Ferocious animals 
 overrun the world on account of false-swearing" (Eth. 5.) Rabbi Joshua 
 said, "Let thy * Yea' be just, and thy, ' Nay* be likewise just." With regard 
 to the introductory prayer of " Kol Nidre," read on the eve of the Day of 
 Atonement, and which is erroneously taken hold of and malignantly perverted 
 into an attack upon the Jews by the revilers of Judaism, and represented as 
 an absolution from all oaths taken in the past year, I have proved* that this 
 prayer bears only on self-imposed vows and personal abnegations, but in no 
 wise absolves from an oath taken in a court of justice. 
 
 He who is faithless in performing what he has promised, is compared to 
 an idolator (Mas. Kalah). 
 
 Verse 38. — " Ye have heard that it hath been said. An eye for an eye, and a 
 tooth for a tooth." 
 
 This Biblical passage, the Talmud explains in a milder and more con- 
 genial manner, and more in accordance with the character of the divine 
 lawgiver. " Eye for eye ;" this phrase cannot be taken in its literal sense, 
 for then it would not meet the exigencies of every case ; besides, its execu- 
 tion in every case would not be even-handed justice. Suppose a blind man, 
 or a man blind of one eye, has knocked out the eye of another ; in the first 
 case, the law as it stands, in its literal meaning, could not be carried out at 
 all ; and, in the second, its application would inflict a punishment that would 
 deprive the offender of his sight altogether. It can, therefore, only amerce 
 a fine, to be awarded to the injured party as a compensation. Hezekiah 
 said, " It is said, ' Eye for eye,' but not ' eye and life for eye ;' and it could 
 come to pass, that by depriving the offender of his eye, thou couldest endanger 
 his life" — (B. K. 84). To take this sentence in its literal sense, would be to 
 
 * Vide my work, " Rabbinical Desideratum," Vienna, 1845, p. 81. 
 o
 
 114 
 
 engraft the adage, " The htUr of the law kills," upon tho Bible. Only 
 the Sadducees, who did not recognise the tradition, explained this law 
 literally.* 
 
 Verse 39. — " Whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him tha 
 other also." 
 
 This is Scriptural phraseology. " I gave my back to the smiters, and 
 my cheeks to them that plucked off the haix'" (Isaiah 1.6.) "He giveth his 
 cheek to him that smiteth him ; he is filled full with reproach" (Lamenta- 
 tions iii. 30.) 
 
 Verse 42. — " Oive to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow 
 of thee, turn not thou away." 
 
 " There are ten things," says the Talmud, " the one stronger than tho 
 other. Strong is tho rock, but iron cleaves it asunder ; strong is the iron, 
 but fire melts it ; strong is tho fire, but water quenches it ; strong is the 
 water, but the clouds support it ; strong are the clouds, but tho wind dispels 
 them; strong is the wind, but the human body masters it; strong is the 
 body, but grief bends it; strong is grief, but wine conquers it ; strong is the 
 wine, but sleep overpowers it : the strongest of them all, however, is death ; 
 but stronger than the strongest of them is alms-giving, for it is said, ♦ Alms 
 deliver from death' " (Baba Bathra 10.) " Three friends man has in his life : 
 wealth is the first, family is the name of the second, and his good actions 
 are the third friend. When the hour of death approaches, man calls in all 
 his friends to deliver him from all-conquering death. He calls upon his 
 wealth to ransom him, but he receives the answer, ' Wealth avails nothing in 
 the day of wrath' (Prov. x. 2). He then appeals to his family ; they promise 
 to accompany him to the grave, but not beyond it, 'for none of them can by 
 any means redeem his brother' (Psalms xlix. 7.) At last he turns to his 
 good actions, that they may give him a safe conduct ; they readily respond, 
 * Even before thou hast asked us, we have preceded thee, and have smoothed 
 thy way ;' as it is said ' Thy righteousness shall go before thee' flsaiah Iviii. 
 8): and in another place, 'Righteousness delivers from death' ' (Medrash 
 Yalkut to Psalms Ixxxv. § 834). 
 
 Verse 43. — "Ye have heard that it has been said, Hum shalt love thy neigh- 
 bour and hate thine enemy." 
 
 « It has been said" ! Where ? Where, indeed is this precept to be found ? 
 The second part of this verse, even after the lapse of eighteen centuries, still 
 remains unproved. The Holy Bible does not contain anywhere an injunction 
 to hate our enemies ; and from the Talmud we shall adduce several sentences 
 where hatred against mankind, without distinction, is described as hateful to 
 God and derogatoiy to morality. " Rejoice not when thine enemy falleth, 
 and let not thine heart be glad when he stumbleth ; lest the Lord should 
 see it, and it be evil in His sight, and turn His wi-ath from him tipo7i thee" 
 (Ethics 5). Has it here been said, " Hate thine enemy?" 
 
 " Who can deservedly be called a conqueror ? He who conquers his 
 rancorous passions, and endeavours to tm-n his enemy into a friend" — (Aboth 
 R. Nathan, ch. 23). Are we here commanded to hate our enemies? 
 
 " Rabbi Joshua said, 'An evil eye, evil passions, and hatred against man- 
 kind,'*' drive men out of the world.' What is called misanthropy ? Thou 
 shalt not say, 'I will love the wise, but the unwise I will hate;' but thou 
 shalt love all mankind alike"— (Ibid. 16). " God would not destroy the 
 
 * The " pound of flesh" of the "Merchant of Venice" would side well with a law 
 of this kind. 
 
 f Sinhat Haberioth. The wording of this sentence leaves no room for any 
 stickler for quibbling. — Teanslatok.
 
 115 
 
 generation who presumed to build the tower of Babel, because they prac- 
 tised charity towards each other; he dispersed them over the face of the 
 whole earth ; but the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah were utterly 
 destroyed, because of their enmity and hatred among themselves" — (Ibid. 12). 
 " ' Thou shalt love thy neighbour ;' even if he be a criminal, and has forfeited 
 his life ; practise charity towards him in the last moments, when he suffers 
 the extreme penalty of the law, and let his death be instantaneous, and the 
 least revolting to humanity" — (Pesachim 75; Chetuboth 37; Sotah 8; B. 
 Kamah 51 ; Sanh. 45, 52, 84). 
 
 When a certain heathen expressed his desire to Hillel to embrace 
 Judaism, but under the condition that he should teach him the whole law 
 •while he stood upon one leg, Hillel taught him, " What thou Avouldest not 
 like to be done to you, do not to others ; this is the fundamental law" 
 (Shabbat 31). Rabbi Akiba said, "Love thy neighbour as thyself; this is a 
 fundamental law in the Bible" (Talm. Jer. Nedarim 10). 
 
 " Let the honor of thy fellow-man be as dear to these as thine own ; be 
 as careful with his property as with thine own. He who practises the law 
 with sincerity, loves God, and loves mankind ; he rejoiceth the Creator, and 
 rejoiceth His creatui-es. True charity and love for mankind, must, in order 
 to brave every vicissitude of life, be free from all worldly considerations, 
 like the love Jonathan bore David" (Ethics 2, 6, 6). 
 
 We have, moreover, to meet and refute a misconceived and erroneous 
 idea. We have been charged with possessing a national God, and arrogating 
 to ourselves the Creator exclusively as our God, and ourselves as his exclu- 
 sive creatures. This is flatly contradicted by the Talmud in the following 
 sentence : " Rabbi Joshua said. When any one hears blasphemy, whether by 
 a Jew or a non-Jew, he is obliged to rend his garment ; for it is said, ♦ The 
 Eternal is the God of all flesh' (Jeremiah xxxii. 27), and also the God of the 
 heathen" (Talm. Jer., Moed Katan ch. 3). 
 
 Verse 44. — " But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse 
 you, do good to them that hate you, pray for them, which despitefidly use you and 
 persecute you." 
 
 A Scriptural passage runs as follows : " If thine enemy be hungry, give 
 him bread to eat ; and if he be thirsty, give him water to drink. For thou 
 heapest coals of fire upon his head, and the Lord shall reward thee" (Pror. 
 XXV. 21). "If any one striketh or woundeth thee, pray for grace and com- 
 passion for the aggressor, even if he should not ask it of thee. Thus did 
 Abraham, who prayed for Abimelech (Gen. xx. 17) ; and thus God restored 
 unto Job all his lost possessions, because he prayed for his assailants (Job 
 xlii. 10). Rabbi Juda said. It is written, * The Lord will give thee mercy, 
 and have mercy upon thee ;' let this be thy guide in life : if thou dealest 
 mercifully with thy fellow-creatures, the All-merciful will have mercy on 
 thee" (B. Kama 9. Tosephta). 
 
 Verse 45. — " That ye may he the children of your father that is in heaven ; 
 for he maketh the sun to rise on the evil and on the good." 
 
 The Talmud teaches us not to curse our enemies, for it is said, « God is 
 merciful to all his creatures" (Psalms cxlv. 9) ; and in another place it is 
 written, " It does not beseem the lughteous to invoke punishment" (Berach. 
 7). Once when Rabbi Meyer gave vent to his anger against a malicious 
 neighbour who had continually provoked him, his wife gently rebuked him 
 and said, " It is not written in Scripture, let the sinners, but sin, vanish from 
 the earth, and then there will be no more sinners. Pray not for the down- 
 fall of the sinner, but for his reclamation, that he may become penitent and 
 repenting." And Rabbi Meyer followed the virtuous admonition of his wife 
 (Berachoth 10).
 
 116 
 
 Vorse 48. — " Be ye therefore perfect, as your father which is in heaven is 
 perfect." 
 
 This is a passage in the Bible (Leviticus xi. 44 ; xix. 2). The Talmud 
 has the following : "'Ye shall walk after the Lord your Ood' (Deut. xiii. 4). 
 How can man walk after the Lord, of whom it is written, ' Ho is a consuming 
 fire ?' But walk after and imitate Him in His goodness. Be towards thy 
 fellow-creatures as He is towards the whole creation. God clotheth the 
 naked, endeavour to do likewise ; He hoaleth the sick, be a nursing-brother 
 to the children of thy Father ; Ho comforteth those whe are afflicted, go and 
 do lihewise" (Sotah 14). 
 
 MATTHEW, CHAPTER VI. 
 
 This chapter is contra-distinguished from the preceding one, inasmuch 
 as it contains no positive command, but its injunctions are more of a 
 negative nature — omissions. It can be divided into parts : the first from 
 Terse 1 to verse 19, and the second from verse 19 to the end of the chapter. 
 And while the first part alludes to moral laws, such as alms-giving, prayer, 
 and fasting, the efficacy of which is here, though silently, acknowledged, and 
 the many selfish purposes only for which they are employed, condemned — 
 still something positive, though indirectly expressed — the second part, with 
 the exception of the 20th and 33rd verses, contains nothing but negations. 
 The first part, which we shall call the positive-negative, can again be subdi- 
 vided into three sections : from verses 1 to 5, treating on alms ; from 5 to 16, 
 on prayers ; and from thence to verse 19, on fasting. 
 
 The Talmud has already noticed these three things as particularly meri- 
 torious, and recommended them as tending to the eternal salvation of man ; 
 and we. instance here the following passage : Rabbi Eliezer says, " Three 
 things there are which can arrest the impending evil, and turn it into good, 
 viz., prayer, alms, and fasting" (Taanith, Jer., sect. ii. p. 65 6, ed. Cracow). 
 The Koran teaches likewise : " Prayers lead us half way towards God ; fasting, 
 to the door of his mansion ; and alms open its portals." 
 
 We will now, verse by verse, consider these three subdivisions, and 
 compare them with corresponding passages in the Talmud. As touching 
 alms-giving, which the first five verses treat of, we must here remark, that 
 the Hebrew word Tsedakah and the radix Chak in Arabic, both of which denote 
 in their respective languages, works of charity and benevolence, do not, like 
 the eleemosune in the Gospel, express a gift which pity and commiseration 
 exact, but an assistance which of right belongs to the poor, to which they 
 have a rightful claim, which is their own. 
 
 This appellation of the virtue of benevolence must, in the adaptation of 
 the word, convey to us the high importance which the Old Testament 
 attaches to this virtue ; and we must find it in consonance with this view- 
 when wo read in the Talmud of laws which enforce the distribution ot alms ; 
 ■while in a Christian state, founded on the principle of right, this virtue is 
 enjoined as a duty for conscience' sake, and must therefore be rendered 
 voluntary, and cannot be compulsory. Thus the Talmud teaches, that alms 
 can be levied from the wealthy by means of execution, and that Rabba 
 compelled a certain Romi to distribute a sum of four hundred pieces of 
 money among the poor (Baba Bathra, p. 86). The following narrative 
 conveys as much instruction as it is aflfecting : Rabbi Tarphon was exceedingly 
 wealthy, but did not share his riches with the poor in proportion to his 
 wealth. One day, his disciple, Rabbi Akiba, so justly celebrated in after life, 
 came to him, and said, " Master, I can purchase a whole town at a very low 
 price ; ehali I conclude the bargain for you ?" Rabbi Tarphon expressed hi»
 
 117 
 
 consent, and handed over to him several thousand pieces of gold, which his 
 disciple, however, distributed forthwith among the poor. A little while 
 after. Rabbi Tarphon inquired of his obliging pupil after the purchased city. 
 The latter took him to the " Beth Hamidrash'' (college), opened the sacred 
 Tolume, and read to him the following passage from Psalms : " He hath dis- 
 
 Eersed, he hath given to the poor ; his righteousness endureth for ever, and his 
 orn shall be exalted with honour" (cxii. 9). " These are the cities," added 
 the pupil, " which I have purchased for you." Rabbi Tarphon kissed him, and 
 exclaimed, " Thou art my master in wisdom, and my friend in virtue ;" and 
 gave him still larger sums to distribute among the poor. The Talmud tells 
 of Rabbi Tarphon, that he was a very benevolent man, but he did not give 
 in proportion to his wealth ; and the proverb says, " according to his strength 
 the camel must bear the burden, even against his will" (Treatise Kallah, 26). 
 Verse 1. — " Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of 
 
 The injunctions of the Talmud run as follow : " God shall bring every 
 work of man unto judgment, whether it be good or whether it be evil" (Eccl. 
 xii. 14) ; which means, when man gives alms to the poor in the presence of 
 others. Thus said Rabbi Yanai, to a man who gave alms in such a public 
 manner : ' You had better not have given him anything ; in the way you 
 gave it him, you must have hurt his feelings' " (Hagiga, p. 6, a). 
 
 He who gives alms in secret stands higher than Moses. Of the latter it 
 is written, that he was afraid of the anger of the Lord ; while it is said of 
 the first (Prov. xxi. 24), " Secret alms pacify anger" (B. Bathra, p. 9, 6). 
 
 In the neighbourhood of Mar Hukba, there lived a poor man, who would 
 not accept alms. The benevolent Rabbi placed every day money at the 
 door of his indigent but bashful neighbour, and hurried away. The poor 
 man, who received alms in so unostentatious and magnanimous a manner, 
 was curious to know his benefactor. He waited behind the door, and as 
 Boon as he heard the sound of approaching footsteps, he tried to open it. 
 The Rabbi, guessing the reason, hastened away, and in his hurry ran into a 
 smith's forge, in order to avoid being known. " It is better," said he, after 
 he had thus concealed himself, " to take refuge in a smith's forge, than to 
 call forth a blush of shame on the face of the poor" (Ketuboth, p. 67, 6). 
 Rabbi Abba tied money in his handkerchief, and dropped it intentionally 
 when he passed a poor man, but took care that none others picked it up 
 (Ibid.). Rabbi Yonah had recourse to an innocent stratagem when he met 
 with a man who had bean reduced from affluence to poverty, in order to 
 make him accept his assistance. " My friend," he would then say, " I have 
 certain information that you may expect a large inheritance from a relative 
 in a distant land (" Mengeber Layam"). I lend you now this sum, which you 
 can then repay me, and will besides be enabled to return me this trifling 
 service" [Shekalim, Jer. 49, ed. Cr.]. 
 
 Verse 2. — " Therefore, when thou dost thine alms, do not sound a trumpet 
 before thee, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may 
 have glory of men. Verily I say unto you. They have their reward.'^ 
 
 The Talmud, which expounds every thing by the rule of exegesis, has 
 preserved us a very ingenuous illustration of the names and shape of tho 
 Hebrew alphabet. Gimel, Daleth, (the third and fourth letters) initially mean 
 " Gomel Dalim" (be benevolent to the poor). But why does the Daleth 
 turn its back upon the Gimel ? To convey a lesson to the benevolent to give 
 his alms secretly, and not to hurt tho feelings of the poor (Sabb., p. 104). 
 *♦ What good soever thou doest, do it for the sake of thy Maker, boast not of 
 it to thine own glory" (Nedarim 62). " Study not the law, that thou mayest be 
 •ftlled a wise man, a Rabbi, and a teacher, but study for love of the law (Ibid).
 
 118 
 
 Verso 3. — " But when tliou doest alms, let not thy left hand know what thy 
 right hand doeth." 
 
 A similar passage occurs in the Talmud, but more striking for the logic 
 it contains. " It is said, ' One hand cannot expiate the wrong of the other,* 
 (Prov. xi. 21), meaning, so man practises with one hand virtues of humanity, 
 and holds forth the other to receive their rewai'd, making it matter of traffic, 
 where the article is delivered with ono hand, and the price received with the 
 other; such a man will not go unpunished. Kabbi Johanan said: "God 
 has given man two hands, to dispense benevolence with both of them ; but 
 whoso giveth alms with his right hand, and steals with his left, his right hand 
 cannot change his left from the evil it has committed" (Yalkut to Prov.). 
 
 Verse 4. — " That thiiie alms may he in secret, and thy Father who seeth m 
 secret himself shall reward tliee openly." 
 
 " What thou hast done secretly," said the prophet to King David in the 
 name of the Lord, " I will bring openly before all Israel, and before the light 
 of the sun" (2 Sam. xii. 12.) Rabbi Benjamin said, "What is the meaning 
 of the passage : 'H man hides himself in secret, should I not see him' [Jer. 
 xxiii. 24]?" If man devotes his life to the study of the law, and the practice 
 of its precepts, or of virtue in secret, the Lord will bring it to light, and 
 likewise when man sins in secret. An architect once built a city with many 
 subterranean passages and secret caverns. When he came to collect his 
 rent, the inhabitants refused to pay, and hid all their valuables in these 
 secret places ; " Fools," exclaimed the landlord, " you mean to conceal your 
 treasures in the secret vaults from me who have huilt the city, and known 
 every hiding place in it above and below ground ?" In like manner said the 
 Lord : " I, who have formed all their hearts, know also all their thoughts" 
 (Yalkut to Jer. 23, sec. 305). 
 
 The following verses, from 5 to 16, refer to prayer. The Talmud 
 recommends prayer as meritorious, and we quote the following instances. — 
 What means the passage : " Ye shall not eat on the blood" (Lev. xix. 29) ? 
 It means : " Eat nothing, before you have given thanks to the Creator for 
 your blood" [life] (Berachoth 10). " He who salutes his neighbour, early in 
 the morning, before he has addressed his prayer to his Maker, commits 
 idolatry with man" (Ibid, p. 14). But, on the other hand, the Talmud con- 
 siders it essentially necessary, that a prayer, addressed to the Almighty, 
 must be accompanied by purity of heart, and devotion of the mind. — 
 " Prayer, without devotion, is like a body without soul," is the pithy 
 sentence of the Talmud. "He, who is engaged in prayer, shall turn 
 his eyes to the ground, but raise his heart to heaven" (Yebamoth, p. 
 108). " God is nigh unto all them that call upon him" (Psalms cxlv. 18). 
 Think not that God is nigh unto all that merely call upon him, for our verse 
 adds, "only to those who will call upon him in truth" (Yalkut to Psalms). 
 •'My prayer is pure," said Job (xvi. 17) ; but whose prayer is not pure ? 
 " His, whose hands are defiled by injustice." (Shemoth Rabba, Parasha 22). 
 
 Moreover, the Talmud is far from advocating the life of a recluse, 
 devoting all time and energy to life-long prayers, and does not consider a 
 life of seclusion frittered away in visionai'y enthusiasm and unprofitable 
 reverie as meritorious ; and we turn to the following passage in Menachoth, 
 p. 996, Siphri, in support of our assertion : It is said, " This book of the law 
 shall not depart out of thy mouth, but thou shalt meditate therein day and 
 night" (Joshua i. 8) ; but, on the other hand, we are commanded to work six 
 days, and to rest on the seventh. To reconcile these two conflicting injunc- 
 tions, our sages have ordained, that we shall say morning and evening the 
 prayer " Shemang," which shall be considered, equivalent to the study of 
 the law.
 
 119 
 
 Verse 5. — "And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are^ 
 for they love to pray standing in the synagogues." 
 
 True, the Talmud prefers and recommends congregational prayers in 
 the Temple, because it gives more solemnity to Divine service, and stimulates 
 the souls of the congregants to devotion, while private prayers within the 
 retirement of our four walls, where we are suiTounded by the busy life of 
 family concerns, must necessarily lack that elevation of soul, without which 
 prayers are only lip-devotion. " I address my prayer to Thee, O Lord, in an 
 acceptable time" (Psalms Ixix. 13). Which time can then be considered as 
 such ? — " The time when a whole congregation prays to God (Berachot ch. 8). 
 But with whom the right is, practice has decided long ago, and Christianity, 
 in erecting churches for public worship, has swerved from the injunctions of 
 its Master. 
 
 Verse 6. — " But when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast 
 shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret ; and thy Father which seeth 
 in secret shall reward thee openly." 
 
 The Talmud likewise teaches, that home devotion is acceptable to God. 
 Man ought to address his prayer to God in the temple ; if there is no temple 
 in the place where he resides, let him pray at home. If he is from home, he 
 may pray in the field ; and if there he be prevented from doing so, let him 
 offer up a mental prayer (Pesikte Yalkut to Psalms, ch. 4). 
 
 Verse 7. — "But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do." 
 
 The Talmud pronounces the following axiom : " Whatever man per- 
 forms, whether it be much or little, let it be with a pure heart for the glory 
 of God" (Menach. 110 ; Berachoth 17). A disciple read prayers publicly in 
 the presence of Rabbi Eliezer. His prayer was devout, but short. The 
 other pupils who attended were displeased thereat, and complained to the 
 Babbi, who sided with the disciple, by remarking that his prayer lasted still 
 as long as that which Moses uttered for Miriam, when he prayed, " Heal her 
 now, O God, I beseech thee" (Berachoth, p. 34). In his prayer, man ought 
 not to introduce too many praises of God, for it is said, " Silence is praise 
 unto Thee ;" and the Talmud proverbially says, " If speaking is worth a 
 gelang [a coin of Talmudical standard], silence is worth two" (Megillah, p. 18). 
 *♦ As excessive praises cannot enhance the value of the diamond, so too many 
 praises cannot add to the glory of God" [Jer. Ber. sect. 9, p. 12, ed. Cr.) 
 
 Verse 8. — " Your father knoxveth what things ye have need of." 
 
 King Solomon reared up the temple, that every one who was afflicted, 
 might address his prayer to God, and invoke his heavenly aid. But if his 
 supplication should ask of God anything that would be hurtful to him, in 
 that case it is said, " Thou, O Lord, knowest the heart :" grant him only 
 that which Thou in Thy wisdom knowest would be best for his good, and 
 nothing more" (Treat. Semachoth, sect. 6). 
 
 Verse 9. — " Our father, who art in heaven, hallowed be thy name." 
 
 This is the commencement of the Christian typical-prayer, but is origin- 
 ally taken from pre-existing Jewish prayers, which are still preserved in our 
 liturgy. Thus, every Jew, in his daily morning prayer, says, " Sanctify Thy 
 name, O Lord, in Thy world;" and in his evening prayer he repeats, "Our 
 Father, who art in heaven, proclaim the unity of Thy name, and establish 
 Thy kingdom perpetually, and reign over us in all eternity." 
 
 Verse 10. — " Thy kingdom come ; Thy vjill be done on earth as it is in 
 heaven." 
 
 The first part is contained in the prayer which forms the conclusion of 
 every divine service, and runs as follows: "We hope in Thee, O Lord, our 
 God, to make Thy glorious omnipotence speedily manifest, and to establish 
 Thy heavenly kingdom." With regard to the second, we read in the Talmud,
 
 120 
 
 ** If any one is on a journey, or otherwise pressed for time, let him repeat the 
 following short prayer : ' Our Father which art in heaven, Thy will be done 
 on high. Vouchsafe to bestow a peaceful and tranquil mind to those who 
 honour Thee on earth ; but do, O Lord, what seems good in Thy sighi' " 
 (Berachoth, p. 29). 
 
 Verse 11. — " Give us this day our daily bread." 
 
 This is a passage in Proverbs (xxx. 8). When the proselyte Aquila 
 Tisited Rabbi Eliezcr, he asked him, " Should the entire prospect of a prose- 
 lyte consist merely in the promise, * He loveth the stranger, to give him bread 
 and raiment?'" (Deut. x. 11.) Whereupon the Rabbi answered, "Seems 
 this so very little in thine eyes ? And yet it is what the patriarch asked of 
 God, when he had fled from his father's house, viz., ' Give me only bread to 
 eat, and raiment to put on' " (Bcreshith Rabba, Parasha 70 ) 
 
 Verse 12. — "And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors." 
 
 The introduction to night prayers runs as follows : " Lord of the uni- 
 yerse ! I forgive every one who has this day vexed or offended me, or who 
 has injured me, either bodily, or in my property or honour ; and may no on« 
 be punished by Thee for my sake." The conclusion of the same prayer 
 reiterates, "Fprgive, O Lord, those who have this day offended me." " Which 
 of thy noble qualities," asked the disciples of their Rabbi, " wouldst thou 
 particularly recommend us for imitation ?" " I never laid on my couch," 
 rejoined the truly pious Rabbi, " harbouring any ill-feeling in my breast 
 against any one" (Jer. Taanith, sect. ii. p. 67, a). 
 
 Verse 13. — "And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil; for 
 thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever." 
 
 Every Jew, in his morning prayer, addresses his supplication to God 
 in the following words ; " Let us, O Lord, not fall into the power of sin, 
 transgression, or iniquity, and lead us not into temptation. Subdue our 
 inclinations, that they may be subservient unto Thee." I will also quoto 
 here the soul-stirring prayer of a Jewish maiden, which the Talmud has 
 preserved, and which was couched in the following words : " Lord of tho 
 universe ! In this world there are wicked sinners and pious men ; for the one 
 thou hast in store the Oehinom, for the other the Paradise. Grant, O Lord, 
 that through me no man shall fall into temptation, which leads to Gehinom." 
 (Sota, p. 22). As for the other part of the verse, we meet with the identical 
 words in the morning service, and in the hymn chaunted at the opening of 
 the holy ark when the scroll of the law is taken out, " Thine, O Lord, is 
 the greatness, power, glory, and majesty," which is an original passage in 1 
 Chron. xxix. 11. 
 
 Verses 14 and 15. — " For if you forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly 
 Father will also forgive you. But if you forgive not men their trespasses, neither 
 will your Father forgive your trespasses." 
 
 " At the time of a great drought," relates the Talmud, " Rabbi Eliezer 
 ministered before the holy ark, and addressed prayers to God for rain ; but 
 no rain came, though he had recited twenty-four benedictions. Next to him 
 Rabbi Akiba took his place, and the Lord was entreated of him ; not because 
 the latter was more pious, but because ho pardoned those who had offended 
 him, God heard his prayer" (Taanith 25, b). Rabba said, " He who forgives 
 trespasses committed against him by man, his trespasses will also be for- 
 given by God; for it is said, ' He forgiveth iniquity' (Micah vii. 18), namely, 
 of him who himself pardoneth offences" (Rosh Hashana 17). 
 
 Verses 16 and 17 treat on fasting. The Talmud holds fasting, when 
 merely an abnegation, as very unprofitable, and of very little merit ; but con- 
 eiders it, when often and deliberately repeated, as sinful. Thus Samuel said, 
 " He who mortifies himself by fasting, is called a sinner ; for it is said (Numb.
 
 121 
 
 vi. 11), ' He shall make an atonement for him, for that he hath sinned against 
 his own body ;' although he [the Nazarite] had only abstained from drinking 
 wine, he was considered as having committed a sinful act" (Taanith 11). 
 
 Fasting is recommended by the Talmud as meritorious only, when it is 
 performed simultaneously with true repentance and other acts of expiation. 
 And the Talmud, in establishing divine service on a public fast, ordains that 
 "one of the elders shall exhort the congregation to repentance, and hold out 
 the example of the inhabitants of Nineveh, of whom it is not said, ' And God saw 
 their sackcloth and their fastings,' but ' God saw their works, and that they 
 turned from their evil ways ; and God repented of the evil, that he did it not' 
 (Jonah iii. 10). And it is said also, ' Tear your hearts, and not your gar- 
 ments' " (Taanith, sect, ii.) At the time of the holy temple, there was one 
 particular section of priests (Anshe Mahamad), who fasted four days in 
 every week: on the second day of the week, for the safety of those who 
 were bound on a voyage across the sea ; on the third day, for those who were 
 travelling in the desert ; on the fourth day, on account of the mortality among 
 children ; and on the fifth day, for the safe delivery of women with child. 
 But on Friday and Sabbath they did not fast, on account of the sanctity of 
 the Sabbath; nor on Sunday, that the surrounding nations should not 
 imagine that the Jews kept their weekly day of rest (which was at that time 
 also Sunday) as a day of mourning and fasting (Soph., sect, 17; Halacha 5). 
 
 Verse 16. — "Moreover, when ye fast, be not as the hypocrites, of a sad 
 countenance ; for they disfigure their faces, that they may appear unto men to 
 fast." 
 
 The Bible enumerates an opposite example of hypocrisy in the following 
 passage : " She (the hypocritical woman) indulges, and wipeth her mouth, and 
 saith, I have done no wickedness" (Prov. xxx. 20). 
 
 The holy ark was overlaid with gold both within and without (Exodus 
 XXV. 11), from which we may derive the lesson, that the outward man should 
 be in harmony with the inward man ; but of the hypocx'ite, whose artful heart 
 belies his sanctified mien, it is said, " He drinketh iniquity like water" (Job 
 XV. 16), which shows no exteraal mark in him who drinks it (Yoma 72, 6). 
 
 In conclusion, we must here remark — and we think we can do so without 
 being accused of partiality — that the taunt which in this chapter is levelled 
 against hypocrisy, cannot be addressed to the Pharisees ; for we can adduce 
 the testimony of their deadliest enemy, in exoneration of any such accusation. 
 King Janaeus, whom they refused to admit to the priesthood, because they 
 questioned the legitimacy of his birth, and who, to avenge this insult (Kydu- 
 shim 65, a), had massacred a great number of them ; when he was stretched on 
 the bed of sickness, and felt his end fast approaching, addressed to his incon- 
 solable queen the following memorable words : " Be not afraid of either 
 Pharisees or non-Pharisees; but beware of the hypocrites (hatsebungim), 
 who are capable of acting as Zimri did (Numb. xxv. 14,) and claim the 
 reward of a Phineas" (Sota 22, b). 
 
 Verses 19 and 20. — "Lay not up for yourself treasures on earth, where 
 moth and rust do corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal ; but lay up 
 for yourselves treasures in heaven, ivJiere neither moth nor rust does corrupt, and 
 where thieves do not break through and steal," 
 
 The Talmud enjoins this moral more strikingly and practically by 
 attributing it to the benevolent proselyte, Munbaz. This prince, at a time 
 of great famine, distributed his own treasures, and those Avhich his ancestors 
 had hoarded up, among the poor and needy. His brethren and relations 
 upbraided him with a conduct which, in their eyes, was as improvident as it 
 was unwarranted. " Your ancestors," said they, " did not only accumulate 
 treasures themselves, but increased those they inherited from their fore-
 
 122 
 
 fathers ; but you squander your own and those of your ancestors." Munbaz 
 magnanimously answered, " My fathers laid up treasures on earth, but I lay 
 up treasures in heaven. My fathers laid up treasures where they will not 
 profit them, but I lay up treasures where they will yield eternal fruits. My 
 fathers laid up treasures whore the rapacity of man could rob them, but I 
 lay them up iu a place where no human hand can reach them. My fathers 
 accumulated treasures of money, but I, ti-easures of souls. My fathers 
 collected riches which they had to leave to others, but I work for my own 
 salvation. My fathers laboured for this world, and I for a better world" 
 (Baba Bathra 11 ; Jer. Peah 16, ed. Cr. ; Tos. Peah, sect. i.). 
 
 Verso 21. — "For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.^* 
 
 "A wise man's heart is at his right, but a fool's heart at his left" (Eccl. 
 X. 2.) The first alludes to Moses, and the second to thie sons of Reuben and 
 Gad (Numb, xxxii. 16), because they considered earthly possessions above 
 precious souls (Medrash Rabba, to Matot). 
 
 Verses 22 and 23. — " The light of the body is tJie eye : if tlierefore thine eye 
 he single, thy whole body shall be full of light ; but if thine eye be evil, thy whole 
 body shall be full of darkness. If, therefore, the light that is in thee, be darkness, 
 how great is that darkness !" 
 
 I am not acquainted with the interpretation Christian theologians put 
 upon this passage, but I will endeavour to elucidate it by the following 
 quotation from the Talmud. At the time of a great drought, the ecclesiasti- 
 cal court of the spiritual prince ordered public prayers and fasting, to entreat 
 the Lord to send rain ; but no rain came (perhaps their piety was not of the 
 right sort). One of the disciples, Saeira the younger, who entertained such 
 an opinion, and was anxious to make the people sensible thereof, expoimded 
 the passage in the Bible in the following manner : " If ought be committed 
 through tfie eyes of the congregation" (Numb. xv. 24), which he explained by 
 the following simile : " If the eyes of the bride are sparkling and lustrous, it 
 is a sign of a healthy and vigorous constitution ; but if the eyes (and thereby 
 he metaphorically hinted at the guides and leaders of the community) are 
 dim and lustreless, then we may conclude that the body is sickly and 
 unhealthy" (Taanith 24, a). 
 
 Verse 24. — " No man can serve two masters. . . . Ye cannot serve 
 Ood and Mammon.'^ 
 
 Of Rabbi Mayei", the -(Esop of Talmudical celebrity, who had written 
 three hundred fables, which he put into the mouth of the fox, the Talmud 
 has preserved the following : The fox had taken up his abode in the vicinity 
 of the wolf. One day his rapacious neighbour came to him, and asked for a 
 meal, or else he would devour his young ones. To rid himself of his trouble- 
 some guest, the fox had recoui'se to tho following trick : He took the wolf, 
 under the promise of providing him with a dainty supper, on a clear moon- 
 shine night, to a neighbouring well, where there were two buckets suspended. 
 The fox seated himself in one of them, and by his own weight let himself down 
 to the bottom of the well. When his dull companion inquired the reason of 
 this, the sly old fox, pointing to the reflection of the moon on the water, 
 exclaimed, " What do I want down here ! Look, what i-ich cheese, what dainty 
 viands, and other good things are here in abundance ; how I do enjoy them !" 
 " Wont you share them with me ?" asked the voracious wolf. "By all means," 
 rejoined Reynard; "there is the other bucket; seat thyself in it, and it will 
 bring thee immediately within reach of all these delicacies." The wolf fol- 
 lowed the advice, and no sooner had he taken his seat in the bucket, than his 
 descending weight brought the fox back on terra firma, and he left the wolf 
 undisturbed, to feed on cheese made of moon-shine (Sanh. 39, a). This fable, 
 like all fables, contains a moral lesson, and we will now endeavour to trace it.
 
 123 
 
 The two worlds — the mundane and the celestial — are compared to two 
 buckets, the one of which is continually in the ascendancy, while the other 
 sinks. Man has his free choice to choose either the one or the other, but one 
 only. Hast thou, O man, given the preponderance to the scale which rises to 
 heaven ? Then thou must not marvel if thou be weighed in the scale of 
 earthly possessions, and be found wanting ; thou canst not possess both at the 
 same time. "If you have given yourselves up," teaches the Talmud, in 
 another place, " to the study of the holy law, or, on the other hand, neglect 
 it by seeking worldly lucre, then you resign, by the pursuit of the first, all 
 pleasure of this life, and by the restless striving after worldly possessions, you 
 lose sight of, and renounce, the imperishable treasures of a better world. You 
 have created for yourselves hell on earth, and hell after lite" (Yoma 72), 
 
 Verse 25. — " Therefore, I say unto you, take no thought for your life, what 
 ye shall eat or what ye shall drink ; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on ; 
 is not the life more than meat, and the body than raiment ?" 
 
 The Talmud tells us of Antoninus asking his friend, the profound Rabbi 
 Jehuda, for an explanation of the passage in Job (xxxviii. 14), " It is turned 
 as clay to the seal, and they stand as a garment ;" when Rabbi Jehuda 
 answered, " He who called man into existence, and created him with ' the 
 human face divine,' will also clothe and provide him with all necessaries" 
 (Jer. Kilayim, sect. 9, 32, b, ed. Cr.) 
 
 Verses 26 and 28. — "Behold thefowh of the air; for they sow not, neither 
 do they reap, nor gather into barns ; yet your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are 
 ye not much better than they f And why take ye thought for raiment f Consider 
 the lilies of the field, how they grow ; they toil not, neither do they spin." 
 
 A moral, similar to this, may be found in the Talmud. Rabbi Simeon 
 said, " Did you ever behold the lion bearing burdens, the stag holding harvest, 
 the fox engaged in traffic, or the wolf selling viands ? And yet they all find 
 their food without care. How much more should this be so with man, who 
 had been created to the service of the Almighty ; but our iniquities have 
 perverted our high destiny, and brought us sorrow and care" (Kidushin 82, b.) 
 Verse 30. — " Wherefore, if God so clothe the grass of the field, which to-day 
 is, and to-morroiv is cast into the oven, shall he not much more clothe you ?" 
 
 And God said, " Thou hast had pity on the gourd . . . and should 
 I not spare Nineveh?" (Jonah iv. 10). "To what purpose," asked a Tal- 
 mudist, " has God created insects and vennin ?" " They have been created 
 for a wise end," was the rejoinder ; "that the sinner may take a lesson, and 
 not despair of God's providence and His paternal love ; for since God gives 
 life to, and maintains, these useless creatm'es, how much more will he do so 
 to man" (Jer. Berachoth, sect. 9, p. 13, ed. Cr.) 
 
 Verse 31. — " Therefore, take no thought, saying. What shall we eat ? or what 
 shall we drink ? or wherewith shall we be clothed ?" 
 
 " He who makes supplication to God in an uncontrolled and ardent 
 spirit, is considered of little faith" (Berachoth, p. 24, b). 
 
 Verse 34. — " Take, therefore, no thought for the morrow ; for to-mofrow 
 shall take thought for the things of itself 
 
 Rabbi Eliezer said, " He who has bread in his basket for to-day, and 
 asks where he shall find some for to-morrow, is of little faith" (Sota 48, 6). 
 Shamai provided on the first day of the week for the Sabbath, that he 
 might not enter upon the sacred day unprovided; but Hillel's motto was, 
 " Blessed be the Lord, who provides for our necessities every day" (Beza, 
 p. 16, a). A pious man, in addressing an audience, asked his listeners the 
 following questions : " What would you think of a master who should 
 demand of his servants the labour, not only of days and years, but of a whole 
 life at once ? Would you not consider such a demand the more unreasonable,
 
 124 
 
 since the servant cannot know tlic term of his natural life ? Now, God has 
 vouchsafed unto us His paternal care, to deserve which, we have duties to 
 fulfil, which are incumbent upon us at certain times, and which we, conse- 
 quently, cannot fulfil beforehand. How, then, could we so um-easonably 
 ask his bounties for days and weeks beforehand, which we are not even sure 
 whether we shall live long enough to enjoy?" (Hobat Halebabot Shaar 
 Habetachon). 
 
 MA.TTHEW, CHAPTER VII. 
 
 Verse 1. — " Judgt not, that ye be not judged.'^ 
 
 "Whoso keepeth his mouth and his tongue, keepeth his soul froia 
 trouble" (Prov. xxi. 23) ; which means, he who does not condemn others, 
 will also not be condemned by the Lord; and the tongue it is which by 
 pronouncing guilt or innocence against others, pronounces its own verdict j 
 for in the measure we judge our fellow-creatures, either charitably or harshly, 
 we, in whom the same feelings are inherent, shall be judged by the Supreme 
 Judge of all mankind, as we find from King David, 2 Sam. xii. 7 (Yalkut). 
 Hillel taught the following doctrine : " Judge not thy fellow-man until thou 
 be similarly situated" (Ethics ii. 5) ; a sentence with which Leibnitz fully 
 coincides : " La place d'autrui est le vrai point de vue pour juger equitable- 
 ment lorsque on s'y met" (Nouv. Essai, p. 48). 
 
 Joshua Ben Perachyah (who, according to the Talmud, was the teacher 
 of the founder of the Christian religion), promulgated the following doctrine : 
 "Judge all men (in doubtful and uncertain cases) with leniency" (Ibid, sy, 
 Simeon Ben Shetach, his contemporary, went even so far as to assert, that 
 the guilty, as soon as he received the sentence and submitted to the punish- 
 ment of the court, should no longer be considered as criminal (Ibid. 8). 
 
 An itinerant trader in spices, who travelled in the vicinity of Ziporah (a 
 town in Palestine) to sell his commodities, called aloud, " Who will buy ? 
 buy the balm of life?" A crowd thronged around him to purchase such 
 elixir of life, and among them he observed Rabbi Yanai. " You, and those 
 who resemble you, do not stand in need of my arcanum ; but you," turning 
 to the crowd, " if you want to possess this life-prolonging balm, here it is." 
 And taking the Psalm from his pocket, he read aloud to them : " Where is 
 the man who desireth life ? who loveth many days to live happy ? Guard 
 thy tongue from speaking evil, and thy lips from uttering guile" (Psalm 
 xxxiv. 13, 14 ; Rabba to Lev. Parasha 16). 
 
 Verse 2. — " For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged ; and with 
 what measure ye meet, it shall be measured to you again.'' 
 
 A similar sentence we meet with in the Talmud. Rabbi Mayer said, 
 «' With what measure man metes, it shall be measured to him from heaven" 
 (Sanhedrin, p. 100, a). Rabbi Johanan said, "He who neglects to mourn 
 the death of a pious man, shall die unmourned for ; for with the measure we 
 mete, we shall be measured again" (Shabbat 105, b). " At the creation of the 
 world, God instituted this just retribution — measure for measure — and if all 
 the laws of nature should be reversed, this law should stand for ever" (Rabba 
 to Genesis, Parasha 10). 
 
 Verses 3 and 4. — " And why beholdest thou the mote* that is in thy brother's 
 eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye f Or how ivilt thou say 
 to thy brother, Let mepidl the mote out oj" thine eye, and behold a beam is in thine 
 ovun eye .?" 
 
 * Luther's German translation Las here " splinter," which the writer has fol- 
 lowed, and made his quotations accordingly.
 
 125 
 
 " Woe to that age in which the reproved retorts on him who reproves 
 him, in which the accused will sit in judgment upon those who judge him ! 
 Do they say, * Take the splinter out of thine eye ;' he will answer, ' Remove 
 the beam out of thine own eye.' Say they, ' Thy silver has become dross ;' 
 he continues, ' Thy diinks (doctrines) are mixed with water' " (Baba Bathra 
 15, b). Rabbi Tarphon said, " It would greatly astonish me, if there could 
 be any one found in this age who would receive an admonition ; if he be 
 admonished to take the splinter out of his eye, he would answer, * Take the 
 beam out of thine own' " (Erachin 16, b). Alphasi to Baba Meziah, at the 
 end of the second section, quotes the same passage, but he has it under the 
 following version : " Take the splinter from between thy teeth." And since 
 we have reason to believe that the Talmud and the Evangelists have drawn 
 from one and the same source in using this simile — viz., the literai-y fragments 
 preserved from the schools of the Pharisees — and since Matthew and Luke 
 (vi. 41) both have "ophthalno" (eyes), we should consider it but right to retain 
 also the Talmudical version, as quoted above. But the fact recommends the 
 adoption of the second version ; and I am at a loss to understand the sense of 
 the sentence, " Take the splinter, or beam, out of thine eye." How should 
 the splinter, or beam, come into the eye ? This would be tantamoimt to 
 "swallowing a camel," or "marching it through the eye of a needle." But 
 this simile appears quite different when we read it as Alpliasi does. The 
 Talmud treats repeatedly of a case, when any one has stolen a piece of 
 timber — a beam — and used it as a rafter in his house or in his room, whether, 
 on repenting of his act of depredation, he is obliged to return the identical 
 beam, or restore the value of the same. Now, in our allegory, the Talmud 
 presumes that such a piece of timber had been stolen by a person, and used 
 in building his house. While squaring this beam, another came and picked 
 up the splinters that were chopped off. He who now owns the beam, though 
 he dishonestly came in possession of it, perceives the chip in the hand of the 
 other, wherewith he picks his teeth. He taxes him with appropriating to 
 himself what does not belong to him : " Take the splinter out of your teeth, 
 that I may prove to you that it is a piece off my beam." The other man, 
 however, well aware of the dishonest possession of the beam by the moraliser, 
 tells him, with just indignation, "You reprove me for the sake of the splinter; 
 you had better remove the beam, which is continually before your eyes as a 
 witness of your theft and dishonest action." 
 
 Verse 5. — " TJiou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye, and 
 then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye?'' 
 
 Resh Lakish said, " What is the meaning of the passage, ' Examine your- 
 selves, and search' (Zephan. ii. 1)? He who will reprove others, must 
 himself be pm-e and spotless" (B. Meziah 107, b; B. Bathra 60, 6). 
 
 Verse 6. — " Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, tieither cast ye your 
 pearls before swine." 
 
 Hillel, the hoary-headed, said, "When thou seest a generation that 
 taketh delight in the law of God, be diligent in its promulgation, for it is 
 said, ' there is that scattereth, and yet increaseth' (Prov. xi. 24) ; but seest 
 thou a generation which makes light of the law of God, arrest it, for it is 
 said (Psalms cxix. 125), * there is a time when it is practicable, for the Lord's 
 sake, to make void the efficacy of the law' " (Ber. 63, a). " That there be no 
 wailing in our streets" (Psalms cxliv. 14), viz., that we should not send forth 
 disciples who burn their victuals; i. e., the spiritual food which they shall 
 dispense to the multitude ; in other words, who disseminate dangerous 
 doctrines (Ibid. 17, 6). Rabbi Hanina asked, "How can the apparent con- 
 tradiction in the two following passages be reconciled ? It is said in one 
 place, • Let thy fountains be dispersed abroad' (Prov. v. 16) ; and in another
 
 126 
 
 place we read, 'Let them be only thine own, and no strangers' with thee,' '* 
 (Ibid. V. 17) ; and explains it thus: " So thy pupils are well meaning and of 
 good principles, let thy fountains (of wisdom and of the law) pour forth 
 their supplies publicly ; and if not, restrain thyself, and be reserved" (Taanith 
 7, <i). Not so rigorous, however, is the Talmud in its restrictions when the 
 reverse is the case ; and it permits, at times, of receiving instruction even 
 from the man whose religious conduct is not entirely free from reproach ; 
 and Rabbi Mayer, whose instructor had been of that class, expressed himself 
 in the following manner : " I have sifted the kernel, but thrown away the 
 husk" (Hagiga 15, a); with which opinion Matthew (xxiii. 3) seems to 
 coincide. 
 
 Verses 7 and 8. — "Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall 
 find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you. For every one that ask«th, 
 receiveth; and he that seeketh, findeth; and to him that knocketh, it shall be 
 opened." 
 
 " And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of 
 the Lord, shall be delivered" (Joel ii. 32). Rabbi Pinchas said, " It once 
 happened, that a traveller, bound for Tiberias, arrived there late at night. 
 The Roman sentinels stopped him, and questioned him as to his whereabouts. 
 The stranger, apprehensive lest the unscrupulous soldiers should deal sum- 
 marily with him, gave himself out to be a relative of the Emperor Vespasian. 
 This procured him better ti'eatment at the hands of his jailers. In the 
 morning, a report was sent to the emperor, who happened to be present in 
 that town, when it was soon ascertained that the statement was not true — 
 that the stranger not only was no member of the imperial family, but proved 
 himself a son of that, at the time, so cruelly persecuted race — the Jews. 
 Many voices were raised to punish the daring outrage of the Jew, and urged 
 the emperor to visit this offence against his majesty, with condign punish- 
 ment. The magnanimous Vespasian, however, turned a deaf ear to his 
 blood-thirsty councillors, and replied, ' No one shall ever have occasion to 
 use my name in vain; release him.' "When such," adds the Talmud, "is the 
 case with man, who is subject to passions, how much more must it be the 
 case with the Supreme Being, of whom it is said, 'Whosoever calls upon the 
 name of the Lord, shall be delivered.'" Rabbi Alexander said, "During 
 the reign of Alexander (of Macedonia), a robber was caught, whose name 
 was also Alexandei", and sentence of death was pronounced against him. 
 When asked for his name, he give it, Alexander, which incident procured 
 him an acquittal at the hands of the emperor. " When mortal man," again 
 remarks the Talmud, " acts with so much mercy, how much more is to be 
 expected of Him who is the Father of mercy ; and therefore it is said, • He 
 who is called after the name of the Lord, shall be delivered' " (Jer. Bera- 
 choth 9, page 13, ed. Cr.) 
 
 Verse 9 " What man is tJiere of you, whom if his son ask bread, mil he 
 
 give him a stone V 
 
 " Unto Thee lift I up mine eyes, O Thou that dwellest in the heavens. 
 Behold, as the eyes of the servants look unto the hand of their master, and 
 as the eyes of a maiden unto the hand of her mistress, so our eyes wait upon 
 the Lord our God, until that He have mercy upon us" (Psalm cxxiii. 1, 2). 
 The life of man, said King David, is compared to the task of a day-labourer, 
 of whom it is said, " Man is as a servant who earnestly desireth the shadow, 
 and as a hireling who looketh for the reward of his work" (Job vii. 2) ; and 
 Thou, O Lord, hast commanded, " At his day thou shalt give him his hire, 
 neither shall the sun go down upon it, for he is poor, and his life may depend 
 on it" (Deut. xxiv. 15). "Can I, therefore, look for less from Thee, Lord, 
 on whom my whole life depends ?" (Yalkut to Psalms, sect. 701).
 
 127 
 
 Verse 11. — "If ye, then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your 
 children, how much more shall yovr father which is in heaven give good things to 
 them that ask him ?" 
 
 Turnus Rufus, the Roman general, once asked R. Akiba, " If your God 
 be the Father of the poor, why does he not give them all their necessaries ?" 
 The Rabbi answered, " This is done to give us an opportunity to practice 
 virtue, and to act meritoriously." "This must, on the contrary," rejoined 
 the other, "make you appear culpable in the sight of your God. Picture to 
 yourself a king who is wroth against a faithless servant. He put him in a 
 dreary prison, and ordered that no one should provide him with food. — 
 Would he not be justly incensed against those who, in spite of his express 
 command, furnished him with food ?" — " Your parable is hardly logical," 
 replied the Rabbi ; " it ought to run thus : ' A king was angry with his son, 
 and in the first ebullition of his anger, he ordered him to be imprisoned, and 
 kept without food. An intimate friend of the king provided the unhappy 
 son with such necessaries as were indispensable for the preservation of his 
 life. A few days after, when the king's anger was appeased, and parental 
 love again asserted its right, he inquired after the fate of his unhappy son, 
 and when he heard how his true friend had preserved the life of his child, 
 would he not bestow on him the highest reward ?' And we are called the 
 children of God, for it is written, * Ye are the cliildren of the Eternal, your 
 God' " (Baba Bathra 10, a). 
 
 Verse 12. — " Therefore, all things whatsoever ye would that nun should do 
 to you, do ye even so to them ; for this is the law and the prophets." 
 
 "Rabbi Akiba said, 'Love thy fellow-man as thyself (Num. xix. 18). 
 this is the basis of the Divine law'" (Jer. Nedarim 9, p. 41, ed. Cr,). Hillel 
 taught, " ' Whatever you should not like to be done unto you, do not to 
 others ;' this is the essence of the Divine law, all the rest is comment only" 
 (Sabbath, p. 31, a). If we consider this sentence attentively, we shall fiiid 
 that the injunction of Hillel is given in a negative sense, while Matthew 
 teaches his doctrine in a positive manner ; that the teacher in Israel makes 
 justice the rule to guide us in all our actions, while the Evangelist sets up 
 charity as an imperative duty. The first can be called perfect duties, i. e., 
 definite, and applying to all occasions and in all cases ; the latter imperfect 
 duties, or such as allow a certain latitude, a certain discretion, in the execu- 
 tion of the same. And when in any given case two such conflicting duties 
 present themselves, where the one must necessarily supersede the other, the 
 Talmud and moral philosophy teach that justice becomes imperative, and 
 supersedes charity. K, for instance, the life of a man is in danger, charity 
 commands as a duty that we exert ourselves to save human life ; but when 
 this can only be accomplished by sacrificing another life, the duty of justice 
 demands that this life should not be sacrificed ; for, as the Talmud very 
 justly remarks, " Who will tell me that the blood of the one, is redder (more 
 precious) than that of the other." Thus Hillel based his sentence on the 
 duty of justice, and adopts it as a rule which in all cases must be absolute 
 and inviolable. 
 
 Verses 13 and 14. — " Enter ye in at the strait gate; for wide is the gate 
 and broad is the way which leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go 
 in thereat. Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto 
 life, and few there be that find it." 
 
 The Talmud has a similar saying : " ' I have laid before you, life and death, 
 blessing and curse' (Deut. xxx. 19). Now any one might say, Since the 
 Lord has placed before me two ways, the way of life and the way of death, 
 is it left to my own free choice in which to walk ? Therefore, it is said, 
 " Choose Life." On a certain highway, two roads branched otf in opposite
 
 128 
 
 directions; the one, level and straight in the beginning, soon turned out 
 rugged, and over-grown with thorns and briers ; the other proved itself, 
 when first taken, to be narrow, and beset with many difficulties, but ulti- 
 mately led smoothly and without interruption, to the desired goal. Many 
 were led astray by the promising prospect of the first, but on taking it, they 
 would never have reached the desired end, had not a kind-hearted cicerone 
 stepped in, and directed them on their right course. Thus spake Moses to 
 Israel : ' You see that the path of the wicked is prosperous, and that the 
 sun of prosperity shines on their way , but be not deceived by appearances ; 
 life on earth is only as a few short steps when compared to life eternal. If 
 it presents itself as strewn with roses, they only conceal the abyss which they 
 cover, and which leads to destruction ; for it is said, ' the wicked have no 
 future' (Prov. xxiv. 20). You again behold the path of the righteous dismal 
 and dreary, and beset with many difficulties ; but this is only at the first 
 set-out, for in the end it will be lighted up by the light of eternal bliss, as it 
 is said, ' The path of the just is as the shining light, that shineth more and 
 more unto the perfect day' (Ibid. v. 18) ; choose, ye, therefore, the latter 
 path, it is the way that leads to life" (Yalkut to Deut. xi. 6). 
 
 Verse 16. — " Ye shall know them hy their fruits. ^^ 
 
 Not only has the Bible many instances where man is likened unto a 
 tree, and his actions unto the fruit thereof (Psalms i. 3 ; Isaiah iii, 10 ; brv. 
 21), but we repeatedly meet with this simile in the Talmud. The Medrash 
 explains the passage in Ezekiel xvii. 24, "And all the trees of the field shall 
 know that I, the Lord, have brought down the high tree, have exalted the 
 low tree" — " Alu Haberioth" as referring to man, as it is written, " For the 
 man is as the tree of the field" (Rabba to Exodus, Parasha 53). Why is the 
 foliage of the fruit-tree less exuberant and less noisy than that of the forest- 
 tree ? We can well dispense with both (answer the first) ; we are distin- 
 guished by the delicious fruits we bear, and need not noise about our 
 existence ; while the others only make themselves conspicuous by their noise 
 and rustling (Rabba to Ex., Parasha 16). 
 
 Verse 17. — "Even so every good tree hringeth forth good fruit; hut a 
 corrupt tree hringeth forth evil fruit." 
 
 The Talmud teaches as follows : " Virtue alone is productive of goodly 
 fruits, which yield abundance, not only for the time being, but also for the 
 future*; nay, bring blessings to posterity even after death. Sin, on the 
 contrary, is barren, gives only momentary gratification, and its offspring are 
 repentance and sorrow" (Kidushin 40; Jer. Peah i. p. 16, 6; Aboth of R. 
 Nathan 40 ; Yalkut to Psalm Ixii., Isa. iii.). 
 
 Verse 19. — "Every tree that hringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down and 
 cast into the fire." 
 
 Rabbi Johanan said, " What is the meaning of the Scriptural passage, 
 * For the man is as the tree of the field : for thou eatest thereof, and thou 
 shalt not cut it down' (Deut. xx. 19) ? So thy teacher is both pious and 
 virtuous, enjoy the fruit of his learning, and try assiduously to preserve him ; 
 but if not, it is said of him, ' That tree, however, of which thou knowest that it 
 beareth no fruit, thou mayest destroy and cut it down' " (Ibid. 20; Taan. 7). 
 
 Verse 21. — '•' Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the 
 kingdom of fieaven ; but he that doeth the will of the Father which is in heaven." 
 
 " The Lord is nigh unto all them that call upon him" (Psalms cxlv. 18). 
 Do not think that he is so to all who do so indiscriminately : for it is added, 
 " only to those who call upon him in truth " " Truly, the Lord is good unto 
 Israel" (Psalm Ixxiii. 1) ; but imagine not to all without distinction ; for it is 
 qualified by the conclusion of the same verse, " only to those who are of a 
 pure heart" (Yalkut to Psalms, chap. 73 ; Rabba to Lev., Parasha 17).
 
 
 ^^.-r^^w'^m^S 
 
 I