^vlOS-ANGElfj 
 
 AfclOS-ANGElfj 
 
 2 g 
 
 3 
 
 ^ i 
 
 "^n O 
 
 ^IIBRARY^ 
 
 >*3 
 
 m t>5 
 
 | 2 
 
 %OJITV3-JO 
 
 ^ 
 
 I! 
 
 5 s 
 
 ^* ** 
 
 - 
 
 S g 
 
 ^AavaaiHN 
 
 5 
 
 ^lOSANCEIfj 
 
 V/O i nvjunn -|\\X ^'Jr\ t 
 
 ^ 
 
 g I 
 
 I i 
 I %.
 
 ?i ivr/u^ 
 
 0^ %OJI1V3'JO :
 
 T H 
 
 EXAMINED, 
 
 BY 
 
 COMPARING THE NEW TESTAMENT WITH 
 THE OLD. 
 
 BY GEORGE BETHUNE ENGLISH, A.M. 
 
 " First understand then judge." 
 
 " Bring forth the people blind, although they have eyes ; 
 And deaf, although they have ears. 
 
 Let them produce their witnesses, that they may be justified ,- 
 Or let them hear in their turn, and say, THIS is TRUE." 
 
 ISAIAH. 
 
 RE-PRINTED FOR THE SUBSCRIBERS. 
 
 1839.
 
 TO 
 
 THE INTELLIGENT AND THE CANDID, 
 
 WHO ARE 
 
 WILLING TO LISTEN TO EVERY OPINION 
 
 THAT IS SUPPORTED BY REASON J 
 
 f m 
 
 NOT AVERSE TO BRINGING THEIR OWN OPINIONS 
 
 TO THE TEST OF EXAMINATION; 
 
 THIS BOOR 
 
 IS RESPECTFULLY DEDICATED 
 BY 
 
 THE AUTHOR. 
 
 2111212
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 Introductory Chapter. 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 Statement of the question in dispute. 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 The characteristics of the Messiah, as given by the Hebrew 
 Prophets. 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 The character of Jesus tested by those characteristic marks of 
 the Messiah, given by the Prophets of the Old Testament. 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 
 Examination of the arguments from the Old Testament adduced 
 in the New, to prove that Jesus of Nazareth was the Mes- 
 siah. 
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 
 Examination of the meaning of the phrase " this was done that 
 it might be fulfilled." 
 
 CHAPTER VII. 
 
 Examination of the arguments alleged from the Hebrew Pro- 
 phets, 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 of truth in 
 this question.
 
 CHAPTER X. 
 
 Miscellaneous. 
 
 CHAPTER XI. 
 
 Whether the Mosaic Law be represented in the Old Testa- 
 ment as a temporary 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 
 from the Cabbala, the Oriental Philosophy, and the tenets of 
 Zoroaster. 
 
 CHAPTER XIV. 
 
 A consideration of " the Gift of Tongues," and other miracu- 
 lous powers ascribed to the Primitive Christians ; and whe- 
 ther recorded miracles are infallible proofs of the Divine 
 authority of Doctrines said to have 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 XVII. 
 
 On the peculiar morality of the New Testament, as it affects 
 individuals. 
 
 CHAPTER XVIII. 
 
 On the same, as it affects nations and Political Societies. 
 CHAPTER XIX. 
 
 A consideration of some supposed advantages attributed to the 
 New, over the Old 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.
 
 PREFACE. 
 
 THE celebrated Dr. Price, in his valuable " Observations 
 on the Importance of the American Revolution," addressed to 
 the people of the United States, observes, that " It is a com- 
 mon 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 per- 
 secution that has ever been practised would Be justified. For if 
 it is a part of the duty of civil magistrates to prevent the dis- 
 cussion 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 a right to prevent the dis- 
 cussion 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 ca- 
 pable of exercising it ; " by inflicting penalties upon all who 
 oppose sacred Doctrines, or who maintain pernicious opinions." 
 In Mahometan 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 na- 
 ture. The like is true of the doctrines of transubstantiation, 
 worship of the Virgin 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 men- 
 tioned 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, uader 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 themselves bound 
 to take care, not of the future, but the present interest of man ; 
 not of their souls, and of their faith, but of their persons and 
 property ; not of any ecclesiastical, but secular matters only ? 
 
 'All the experience of past time proves, that the conse- 
 quence of allowing civil power to judge of the nature and ten- 
 dency of Doctrines, must be making it a hindrance to the pro- 
 gress 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 reasonable can 
 suffer by discussion. All Doctrines, really sacred, must be 
 clear, and incapable of being opposed with success.' 
 
 ' 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 na- 
 ture will resist them, and the advocates of them will be soon 
 disgraced. 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 Armenians, 
 Trinitarians and Socinians, fatalists and Free- Willers, are 
 continually exclaiming against one another's opinions, as dan- 
 gerous 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 Ru- 
 lers 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 perse- 
 cution. There will be no doctrine, however true, or important, 
 the avowal of which will not, in some country or other, be sub- 
 jected 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 honor of the United States, that in conformity with 
 the principles of these observations, 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 of establishing the ascendency 
 of one set of religious opinions, and persecuting, or tolerating
 
 IX 
 
 all others ; and which does not permit any man lo harrass his 
 neighbour because he thinks differently from himself. In con- 
 sequence 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 endeavours to get informa- 
 tion. 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 a 
 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 allow- 
 ed freely to bring forward, and defend his opinions, and to en- 
 deavour, 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 communica- 
 tion with other minds, can make no great progress in know- 
 ledge ; and besides, an individual is indisposed to use his own 
 strength, when an undisturbed laziness, ignorance, and preju- 
 dice 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 him- 
 self with all that can be known from others. And many for 
 their own satisfaction will make enquiries, and in order to as- 
 certain 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 sup- 
 ported 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 opinions when different from ours, is to distrust 
 the truth of our own opinions, and to fear the light. Such 
 conduct must, in a country of sense, and learning, increase the 
 number of unbelievers, already so greatly complained of: who, 
 if they see matters of opinion not allowed to be professed, and 
 impartially debated, think, justly perhaps, that they have foul 
 play, and therefore reject many things as false, and ill ground- 
 ed, which otherwise they might perhaps receive as truths. 
 
 The grand principle of men considered as having relation to 
 the Deity, and under an obligation to be religious, is, that they 
 ought to consult their reason, and seek every 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 principles, 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 say ; and to profess, and 
 act openly, according to what they are convinced they say ? 
 How can we become better informed with regard to religion, than 
 by using the best means of information ? which consist in con- 
 sulting 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 apprehend any ill consequences to 
 truth, (for which alone he ought to have any concerr) from 
 free enquiry and debate. For truth is not a thing to dread exa- 
 mination, but \rhenfairly proposed to an unbiassed understand- 
 ing, 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 theieof, 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 the 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 tradition, or 
 interest, or passion, can never recommend a man to God. For 
 those ways have no merit iu 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 mo- 
 tives which induced me to submit to the consideration of the in- 
 telligent, the contents of this volume. The author has spared, 
 he thinks, no pains to arrive at certain Truth in matters of Re- 
 ligion ; the sense of which is what distinguishes man from the 
 brute ; and in this most important subject that can employ the 
 human understanding, he has been particularly desirous to be- 
 come acquainted with the Grounds and Doctrines of the Chrit- 
 tian Religion ; and nothing but the difficulties, which he in 
 this volume lays before the public, stagger his faith in it 
 
 It may perhaps add to the interest the Reader may take 
 in this work, to inform him, that the Author was a believer in 
 the Religion of the New Testament, 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 atten- 
 tion to the consideration of the ancient, and obscure contro- 
 versy 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 pre- 
 vented a people more interested in the truth of Christianity than 
 any other from believing it : and he sat down to the subject 
 without any suspicion that the examination would not terminate 
 in convincing him still more in favour of what were then his 
 opinions. After a long, thorough, and startling 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 
 Testaments 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 flatly contradicts a for- 
 mer, by them acknowledged, Revelation i because it cannot be
 
 supposed that God will contradict himself. On the other hand 
 if the Old Testament be not from God, still the New Testa- 
 ment 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 fail, how can the house stand ? The 
 Author pledges himself to the Reader, to prove that they esta- 
 blish this dilemma completely. And he cannot help thinking, 
 that there is reason to believe, that if both sides of this strangely 
 neglected controversy 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. 
 
 But though he believes that the New Testament cannot 
 stand a close examination, when its pretensions are tested by 
 the Old Testament, yet he is not prepared to affirm, that the 
 Old Testament itself is invulnerable. In fact, so much can 
 be said, and such a strong case can be made out of both sides of 
 the question relating to its supernatural claims, that though he 
 shall always respect the Old Testament as the venerable mother 
 of the doctrine of the Unity of God, and the source from whence 
 arose Christianity and Mahometanism, and as undoubtedly the 
 most ancient, and curious monument of antiquity we possess in 
 the shape of a Book ; yet, with regard to its supernatural claims, 
 he has not as yet been able to come to a decision satisfactory 
 to himself. Whether however the Old Testament be of divine 
 authority or not, the argument he carries on is just as strong in 
 one case as the other ; since it is believed to be of divine autho- 
 rity by both Jews and Christians ; and the reasoning in the vo- 
 lume sets out with taking for granted this, which is acknow- 
 ledged on both sides of the controversy, that is the subject of 
 the Book.* 
 
 * There is nothing which can more readily induce a man of feel- 
 ing, and benevolence, to hope that the supernatural claims of the Old 
 Testament may be true, than the promises contained in its Prophe- 
 cies. The splendid descriptions contained in the Old Testament of 
 the renovation of the earth, and its restoration to a paradisiacal state ; 
 and the promises it holds oat of the happiness of the human race upon 
 it, " when the earth is to be all Paradise, far more blessed than that 
 of Eden, and far happier days," are prospects, however remote, or 
 problematical, so delightful to the mind grieved with the misery and 
 sufferings of the present state of things, that the good man will cer- 
 tainly wish that it might be so. The Philosopher, while he asset ts 
 that such things may happen, (because an eternity is to come ; be- 
 cause there is no repugnance nor impossibility in the nature of things 
 to prevent; and because the attributes of God seem to require that 
 something like them should take place some time or other,) yet must 
 feel sorry, that the ancient Book which holds out such splendid pros- 
 pects should not be attended with demonstrative evidence of its 
 divine authority.
 
 xin 
 
 The Author has been earnestly dissuaded from making pub- 
 lic the contents of this volume on account of apprehended mis- 
 chievous consequences. He thought, however, that the age of 
 pious frauds ought to be past, and their principle discarded, at 
 least in Protestant countries. Deception and error are always, 
 sooner or later, discovered ; and truth, in the long run, both in 
 politics and religion, will never be ultimately harmful. If what 
 the Book states is true, it ought to be known, if it is erroneous, 
 it can, and will be refuted. 
 
 It is certainly a great pity that the Old Testament is a subject that 
 admits of such a strong case being made out of either side of the 
 question with regard to its supernatural claims. A very great deal 
 indeed (besides what is about to b? mentioned) can be alleged in fa- 
 vour of its claims to a Divine Origin. The vast antiquity of the Book 
 itself the correct state in which it has been preserved, and handed 
 down, through a series of so many ages the interesting nature of its 
 contents the venerable simplicity of its style the solemn sublimity 
 of its poetry the manifest and unrivalled excellence of its moral pre- 
 cepts (from whence was derived all that is practicable in the morality 
 of the New Testament and the Koran) the foresight and sagacity 
 displayed in its political and ceremonial arrangements, in order to 
 keep the Hebrews district from other nations, that they might for 
 ages continue to answer the avowed and grand purpose of giving them 
 their law, viz. " that they might be to all nations the witnesses of 
 the unity of God, that sublime and peculiar distinction of their reli- 
 gious creed. the fact that the only nations on the globe which pro- 
 fess to believe in the Unity of God derived that belief from the pos- 
 terity cf ABRAHAM, viz. from Moses, Jesus Christ, and Mahomet ; 
 and the equally certain fact, that Christianity and Mahometanism, 
 the only established Religions, besides the Mosaic, that have the 
 least claims to rationality, were derived from the Old Testament and 
 were founded by descendants from that Patriarch. the singular, and per- 
 fectly unique character, and history of the Hebrew nation, that it 
 has subsisted from times of such immense antiquity, and has survived 
 to many horrible catastrophes ,- and that it still subsists one and the 
 same, wherever scattered, or however oppressed. Add to this the 
 numerous prophecies of their sacred books, with regard to some of 
 which it certainly /oo&sas if they had been fulfilled. All these things 
 are so singular, unparalleled, and astonishing, that I should not think 
 much of that man's understanding, nor of his knowledge of the subject, 
 who could dogmatically decide, that all these circumstances can be 
 entirely and easily accounted for, by referring them to the sagacity of 
 their Lawgiver. 
 
 On the other hand, however, when we are almost disposed to credit 
 the supernatural claims of the Old Testament ; when we read 
 of the speaking of Balaam's ass : Joshua's stopping the sun ; Jonah's 
 living in the belly of a great fish, &c. ; the man of sound judgment 
 would, I should think, be apt to hesitate, and then perhaps settle into 
 persevering doubt. 
 
 Since however, neither reason, nor, to do it justice, the Old Testa- 
 ment itself, intimates such scepticism to be criminal in a Gentile, we 
 may, without uneasiness, to use the words of Josephus, say " of 
 these things let every one think as he pleases."
 
 11V 
 
 The Author therefore makes it public, for these reasons, be- 
 cause he thinks, that the matter contained in the Book, is true 
 and important because he wished, and found it necessary to 
 justify himself from contemptible 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 reasons for the unbelief of the countrymen of 
 Jesus Christ; who for almost eighteen hundred years have been 
 made the unresisting victims of, as the reader will find, ground- 
 less 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 informed of. 
 
 If the arguments and statements contained in this volume 
 should be found to be correct, 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 sub- 
 ject 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 mis- 
 chievous mistakes arising from taking things^r 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 receiv- 
 ing the System of the New Testament. They have been suc- 
 cessfully accused of incorrigible blindness and obstinacy ; anf 
 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 
 
 * " 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 nan they do 1 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 
 it a pleasure in refuting people who dare 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 without restraint." It was 
 this hint of Rousseau's which first excited the Author's curiosity with 
 regard to the subject of this Book.
 
 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 consider- 
 ed their adversaries 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 pertinacious obstinacy, more worthy 
 of wonder, than of curiosity ? Alas ! the world did not con- 
 sider, that nothing was more easy than to confute people, whose 
 tongues were frozen by the terror of the Inquisition / f 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 intelligent and candid. They, we 
 believe, will be fully convinced, that their adversaries have for 
 so long a time triumphed over them without measure, only be- 
 cause 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 liberal argument ; and such, no honest 
 man ought to decline looking in the face. He has endeavoured 
 to discuss the important subject of the Book in the most inof- 
 fensive 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 Christ, or the twelve Apos- 
 tles ; 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 first 
 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 nowr 
 laid before the public, will be fairly met, and fairly answered, 
 if answered at all; and that recourse will not be had to dishonest 
 and ungentlemanly misrepresentations, and calling names, in
 
 order to prevent people from 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 fair- 
 ness, 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 Chris- 
 tian System to be unfounded, yet that it is reasonable to be- 
 lieve, that the Supreme Being would view any attempts to dis- 
 turb it with displeasure, on account of its moral effects.' But 
 is not this something like absurdity ? 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 mis- 
 taken, 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 truth 
 not from God, can we suppose, that in his eyes its Doctrines 
 with regard to Him are atoned for by a few good moral pre- 
 cepts ? Can we suppose that that Supreme and awful Being 
 can feel Himself honoured in having his creatures made to be- 
 lieve, that He was once nine months in the womb of a woman ; 
 that God, the Great and Holy, went through all the impurities 
 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 consider- 
 ed, 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 hor- 
 rible, and unparalleled in the history of man. 
 
 Now, if that system be indeed Divine, all this may be very 
 well, and as it should be. But r 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 cruel- 
 ties, 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 effects are a mere drop of pure wa- 
 ter 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 errer, who is the man, that after consider- 
 ing what has been suggested, will have the heart to come for- 
 ward, and coolly say, " that it is better, that a whole nation of 
 men should continue, as heretofore, to be unjustly hated, re- 
 proached, cursed, and plundered, and massacred on account of 
 it, rather than that the received religious System should be de- 
 monstrated to be founded on mistake ?" No ! if it be in fact 
 founded on mistake, every man of honour, honesty, and huma- 
 nity, will say without hesitation " Let the Delusion (if it is 
 one) be done away ! which must be supported at the expense, 
 of Truth, of Justice, and the happiness and respectability of a 
 whole nation, who are men like ourselves, and more unfortunate 
 than any others in having already suffered but too much afflic- 
 tion and misery on account of it." No ! though the moral ef- 
 fects 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 w ho compose millions of the Great Family of Man- 
 kind. 
 
 It is remarkable that the ablest modern advocates for the 
 Truth, and divine authority of the Gospel, a* if they knew of 
 no certain demonstrative proof which could be adduced in a 
 case of so much importance, seem to content themselves, an<l 
 expect their readers should be satisfied, with an accumulation 
 of probable arguments in its favour. And it has even been said, 
 that the case admits of no other hind of proof. If it be so, the 
 Author requests all, so persuaded, to consider fora moment, 
 whether it could be reconciled to any ideas of wisdom in an, 
 earthly Potentate, if he should send an Ambassador to a foreign 
 
 B
 
 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 con- 
 sider 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 human 
 Creatures ? for unless men are hardy enough to pass so gross 
 an affront upon the tremendous Majesty of Heaven, the im- 
 probability 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 Re- 
 velation, 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. 
 
 As for the opinions and the arguments contained in this vo- 
 lume, I have but trembling hopes that they will meet with fa- 
 vour, 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, supported by multi- 
 tudes, with no other 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 au- 
 thority 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 com- 
 ply with my earnest request " first to understand, and then 
 judge." 
 
 Before I conclude these prefatory remarks, I would ob- 
 serve, that as the contents of this volume will be petfectlv no- 
 vel 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 portion 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 rea- 
 sonably 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 in-
 
 XIX 
 
 quisition was in vigour, suffered under the most bloody oppres- 
 sion, and whose writings were cautiously preserved, and secret- 
 ly 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 per- 
 fectly willing to be convinced that he is in an error, by any one 
 who can remove the difficulties, and refute the arguments, now 
 laid by him before the public, with deference and respect.
 
 THE 
 
 GROUNDS OF CHRISTIANITY EXAMINED, 
 
 BY COMPARING THE 
 
 NEW TESTAMENT WITH THE OLD. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 CHRISTIANITY is founded on Judaism, and the New Tes- 
 tament upon the Old ; and Jesus of Nazareth is the per- 
 son 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 represents 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 prophesy 
 of, or to typify Christianity. 
 
 Matthew, for example, proves several parts of Chris- 
 tianity from the Old Testament, either by asserting 
 them to be things foretold therein as to come to pass un- 
 der the Gospel Dispensation ; or to be founded on the no- 
 tions of the Old Testament. 
 
 Thus he proves Mary's being with child by the Holy 
 Spirit, and the Angel's telling her " she shall briny 
 forth a Son, and call his name Jesus," and the other circum- 
 stances attending his miraculous birth ; Jesus's 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 De- 
 vils, 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 Re- 
 surrection of Jesus from theDead; Jesus's being betrayed by
 
 Judas, and Judas's returning back the thirty Pieces of Sil- 
 ver, 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 be fulfillments of the Prophecies of 
 the Old Testament, see Mat. 1, 2, and 4 chapters, and ch. 
 8, v. 16, 17, and ch. 9 ; 11, 13, and ch. 18 ; 13, ch. 21 ; 
 27, 15, 16, ch. 22 ; 31, 32, ch. 26 ; 54, 56, ch. 27 ; 510. 
 
 Jesus himself is represented as proving the Truth of 
 Christianity thus. He joining himself to two of his Dis- 
 ciples, (Luke 28 : 15 22) after his resurrection, who knew 
 him not, and complaining of their mistake about his per- 
 son, whom they now took not to be the Messiah, because 
 he had been condemned to Death, and crucified ; he ob- 
 serving their disbelief of his resurrection, which had been 
 reported to them by " certain women 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 Mes- 
 siah) to have suffered these things, and to enter into his 
 Glory ? and beginning at Moses, and all the Prophets he 
 expounded unto them in all the Scriptures the things con- 
 cerning himself." 
 
 Again he discoursed to all his Disciples, putting them 
 in mind, that before his Death, he told them (Luke 24 
 44, 46, 47,) that " 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 behoveth Christ (L e. the Messiah) to suffer, 
 and to rise from the dead the third day ; and that repen- 
 tance, and remission of sins shpuld 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 con- 
 cludes with proving the resurrection of Jesus from the 
 Book of Psalms. 
 
 Peter and John tell the people assembled at the Tern-
 
 pie, " that God had showed by the mouth of all his Pro- 
 phets, that Christ should suffer." Acts 3: 18. 
 
 Peter to justify his preaching to the Gentiles, concludes 
 his Discourses with saying, Acts 10, 43" To Jesus gave 
 all the Prophets witness that through his name whosoever 
 (i. e. Jew or Gentile) belie veth in him, shall receive remis- 
 sion of sins." 
 
 Paul also endeavours to prove to the Jews in the Syna- 
 gogue of Antioch, (Ib. v. 13,) that the History of Jesus 
 was contained in the Old Testament, and that he, and Bar- 
 nabas were commanded in the Old Testament to preach the 
 gospel to the Gentiles. 
 
 On the occasion of a dispute among the Christians whe- 
 ther 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 quota- 
 tion from Amos. 
 
 The Bereans are highly extolled (Acts 17: 11,) for 
 searching the Scriptures, i. e. the Old Testament daily t in 
 order to find out whether the things preached to them by 
 the Apostles, were so, or no ; who if they had not proved 
 these things, i. e. Christianity from the Old Testament, 
 ought, according to their own principles, to have been re- 
 jected by the Bereans, as teachers of false Doctrine. 
 
 Paul, when accused before Agrippa by the Jews, said 
 (Acts 26: 6,) " I stand, and am judged for the hope of 
 the promise made of God unto our Fathers" i. e. for 
 teaching Christianity, or the true Doctrine of the Old Tes- 
 tament, and to this accusation he pleads guilty, by declaring 
 in the fullest manner, that he taught nothing but the Doc- 
 trines of the Old Testament. Having, therefore, says he, 
 obtained help of God, I continue unto this day, witnessing 
 both to small and great, saying none other thinys than those, 
 which the Prophets and Moses did say should come, that the 
 Christ should suffer, and that he should be the jirst who 
 should rise from tJie 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
 
 accroding to the Scriptures," that is according to the Old 
 Testament ; and he is supposed to ground this on the his- 
 tory 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 bond-maid, the other by a free-woman. But he who 
 was of the bond-woman, was born 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 an- 
 swereth 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 (Isaiah 54 1,) 
 " Rejoice thou Barren 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 born after the spirit, even so it is now. But what 
 saith the Scripture (Gen. 21, v. 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 Bre- 
 thren we are not the children 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 endeavouring to prove, especially in the Epistle 
 to the Hebrews, that Christianity was veiled and con-
 
 tained in the Old Testament, and was implied in the 
 Jewish History and Law, both which he considers as Types 
 and Shadows of Christianity. 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 How Christianity depends on the Old Testament, or 
 what proofs are to be met with therein in behalf of Chris- 
 tianity, are the subjects of almost all the numerous Books 
 written by Divines, and other Apologists for Christianity; 
 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 preach- 
 ing of the Gospel, and profess themselves to be 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 esta- 
 blished 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 i, 19,) prefers as an argument for the 
 truth of Christianity, 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 external evidence, and testimony." 
 And this opinion of Peter is corroborated by the words 
 of Jesus himself, who, in Mat. xxiv, 23, 24. Mark xiii, 
 21, 22, affirms, that miracles wrought in conjirmation 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 contains Prophecies, and the New Testament after- 
 wards, 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. Where- 
 as, arguments of another nature, such, for instance, as re- 
 late to the authority and genuineness of the Books, and the 
 Persons, and Characters of Authors, and witnesses, require 
 more application and understanding than fall 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 Church. So that, setting aside the 
 before mentioned internal proofs from prophecy, (which 
 were the Apostles' proofs, and in their nature sufficient of 
 themselves) we should have no certain proof at all for the 
 Religion of the New Testament. 
 
 ON THE OTHER HAND, 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 andhis Apos- 
 tles built it, is then invalid and false. Nor can miracles said 
 to have been wrought by Jesus and his Apostles in behalf 
 of Christianity, avail anything in the case. For miracles 
 can never render a foundation valid, which is in itself in- 
 valid ; 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 wrought, may be often 
 justly deemed false reports, when attributed to persons who 
 claim an authority from the Old Testament, which they im- 
 pertinently allege to support their pretensions. 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 mira- 
 cles ; 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 an- 
 tecedent Revelation, we are forewarned of, as being no 
 test of truth. No New Revelation, however supported by 
 miracles, ought ever to be received as coming from God, un- 
 less it confirms, 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 cru- 
 cified for pretending to be, what to them he appeared plainly 
 not to be. 
 
 Nor had his miracles alone any effect on his own bre- 
 thren and kindred, who seem (Mark vi. 4, Jo. vii. 5,) to 
 have been more incredulous in him than other Jews. Nor 
 had they the effect 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 sufferings ; and thought that he could not be their 
 Messiah when they saw him suffer, notwithstanding 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 era, in great numbers follow- 
 ed imposters giving themselves out as the Messiah, with
 
 force, and amis, as the way to restore the kingdom of 
 Israel. So that th Jews, who it seems, mistook in this 
 most important matter, and after the most egregious man- 
 ner, the meaning of their own Books, might, till they were- 
 set right in their interpretation of the Old Testament, and 
 were convinced from thence that Jesus was the Messiah, 
 might I say, as justly reject Jesus asserting his mission, and 
 Doctrines with miracles, as they might reject any other per- 
 son, who in virtue of miracles, would lead them inta 
 Idolatry, or any other breach of their law. 
 
 In fine, the miracles said to have been wrought by Jesus, 
 are, 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 fore- 
 warned 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 is 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 is 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 ; than it would be that he cams 
 from God, merely because he worked miracles ; for " Iblse Christt 
 and false prophets may arise, and may show tuch great SIGNS AND WON- 
 DERS as to deceive, if it were possible, the very elect." Mat. xxiv. 
 24. Yet no Christian would allow it to be argued from thence, thai 
 ihose false Christs were true ones ; nor would any one conclude, that 
 a man came from God, (notwithstanding any miracles he might do) 
 jf he appealed to Scripture for that which is no where in it. In fine, if 
 miracles would prove the Messiahship of Jesus, so also they would 
 prove the Messiahship of the false Christs, and false prophets spoken 
 of above. Nay more, they would demonstrate the Divine mission of 
 Antichrist himself', who, according to the epistle to the Thessalonians, 
 (J 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 
 Jftus ; for the same Greek words are used to express the wonderful 
 works, or " great signs and wonders" of Antichrist, which are else- 
 where used to express the miracles, or " great signs and wonders" ot 
 Jetus himself, 
 
 It is a striking circumstance, that the earliest apologists foi Christi- 
 anity laid little stress upon the miracles of its founder.
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 HAVING shewn from the New Testament, and proved 
 from the nature of the case, that the whole credit and autho- 
 rity of the Christian religion, rests and depends upon 
 Jesus' being the 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 this Messiah, must be test- 
 ed solely by the coincidence of the character, and circum- 
 stances 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 which contain the promise of the 
 appearing, and express the characteristics of this ' hope of 
 Israel,' this beneficent Saviour, and august monarch, in 
 whose time a suffering world, was, according to the He- 
 brew prophets, to become the abode of happy beings. 
 
 Justin Martyr, in his apology, is very shy of appealing to the mira- 
 cles of Jesus in confirmation of his pretensiens ; he lays no stress upon 
 them, but relies entirely upon the prophecie* he quotes as in his favour. 
 Jerom, in 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 Appollonius and Apulius, and innumerable im- 
 posters 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 iy themselves. [Lactan. Div. Inst. L. 
 
 T. C. 3-3 
 
 Celsus observing upon the words of Jesus, that " false prophets, and 
 false Christs shall arise, and show great signs and wonders :" sneer- 
 inglj 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 foretelling, that many impostors should come and 
 perform many wonders, shews, that our faith cannot without great te- 
 merity be founded on miracles, since they were so early wrought by 
 false Christians themselves." [Tertul. in Marc. L. ii. s. 3.] 
 
 Indeed miracles in the two first centuries were allowed very little 
 weight in proving doctrines. Since the Christians did dot 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 hava
 
 10 
 
 Leaving out for the present the consideration of the 
 Shiloh mentioned in Gen. xlix. the first prophecy we meet 
 with, supposed to relate to this great character, is contain- 
 ed in Num. xxiv. 17, 19. " There shall come a star out 
 of Jacob, and a sceptre shall rise out of Israel, and shall 
 smite the corners of Moab, and destroy the children of 
 Seth." Geddes interprets the latter clause " shall des- 
 troy the sons of Sedition ;" but it probably means, accord- 
 ing 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 
 Jocob 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 
 
 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 toCelsus, waves the consideration ofthe Christian 
 miracles, " for (says he) the very mention of these things sets you 
 Heathens upon the broad' grin." Indeed, that they laughed very hear- 
 tily at what in the eighteenth century is read with a grave face, is evi- 
 dent from the few fragments of their works written against Christian- 
 ity which have escaped the burning zeal of the fathers, and the 
 Christian emperors ; who piously sought for, and burned up these 
 mischevons volumes to prevent their doing mischief to posterity. This 
 conduct of theirs is very suspicious, "Why burn writings they could 
 so triumphantly refute, if they were refutable ? They should hare 
 remembered the just reflection of Arnobius, their own apolegist, 
 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 testiftca- 
 tionem timere." [Arnob. contra Gentes. Liber iii.] 
 
 * Before going into the consideration of the following prophecies, 
 the author would warn the reader to bear in mind, that whether these 
 prophecies ever will be fulfilled is a question of no import in the world 
 to the question under consideration, which is whether they have been 
 fulfilled eighteen hundred years ago, in the person of Jesus Christ, who 
 is asserted by Christians to he 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.
 
 11 
 
 with the rod of a man, 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 sug- 
 gests no idea of such a person as Jesus of Nazareth, 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 believed 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, without any mention of a prince 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 reader, 
 and supposing it to refer to the Messiah, it is evident, that 
 it describes him enthroned upon mount Zion, the favorite 
 of God, and the resistless conqueror of his enemies. 
 
 The next prophecy of this distinguished individual is re- 
 corded 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, tiie 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 ver- 
 sion.) " 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 henceforth and for ever : the zeal of the Lord of*
 
 12 
 
 Hosts will do this." Here again we have a mighty mo* 
 narch, sitting upon the throne of David, upon earth ; and 
 not a spiritual king placed by idolatrous superstition in 
 heaven., upon the throne of" the mighty God, the everlast- 
 ing 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 was 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 af- 
 ter the return of the 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 friutful, and the 
 spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him ; the spirit of wis- 
 dom, and understanding ; the spirit of counsel and strength ; 
 the spirit of knowledge, and the fear of the Lord ; and he 
 shall be quick of discerment in the fear 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 ; 
 but 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 loins, and faith- 
 fulness 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 fat- 
 ling shall come together, and a little child shall lead them. 
 And the heifer, and the she bear shall feed together. To- 
 gether shall their young ones lie down. 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 
 depth of 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 repair, and his resting place shall 
 be glorious." 
 
 As the scion here spoken of is said to spring from the
 
 13 
 
 root of Jesse, it looks as if it were intended to intimate, that 
 the tree itself would be cut down, or that the power of Da- 
 vid's family would be for some time extinct ; but that it would 
 revive in ' the latter days.' 
 
 The same Prince is again mentioned, chap, xxxii. 1, 
 3, where the people are described to be both virtuous, and 
 flourishing, and to continue to be so. 
 
 " 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 land of faint- 
 ing with heat; and him the eyes of those that see shall re- 
 gard, and the ears of them that hear shall harken till 
 
 the spirit from on high be poured out upon us, and the wil- 
 derness become a fruitful field, and the fruitful field be es- 
 teemed 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 peo- 
 ple 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 un- 
 der 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 impri- 
 soning them for life. It is doubted however whether 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 na- 
 tions shall earnestly wait for his Law.
 
 14 
 
 Thus saith the Lord, even Jehovah, 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 na- 
 tions ; 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 Jehovah, 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 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 3rd chapter of Hosea, verses 4 and 5 ; it is said 
 by the Prophet, that " the sons of Israel shall abide many 
 days without a King, and without a Prince, and without 
 sacrifice, and without a statue, and without an Ephod, and 
 without Teraphim. Afterward shall the sons of Israel re- 
 turn, and shall seek the Lord their God, and David their 
 King, and shall fear the Lord, and his goodness in the lat- 
 ter days." 
 
 Micah ch. v. 2, speaks of the 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 of 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 
 their 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." 
 
 Jeremiah also speaks of the restoration of the Israelites, 
 under a Prince 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,
 
 15 
 
 and Israel shall dwell in security, and this is the name by 
 which Jehovah shall call him, OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS." (Heb.) 
 The same is mentioned 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 serve 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 endureth forever, of them that bring praise to the house 
 of the Lord. Thus saith the Lord of Hosts, yet again shall 
 there be in this place that is desolate (Jerusalem and Pa- 
 lestine,) without man and beast, and in all the cities there- 
 of, an habitation of shepherds 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, and in 
 the environs of Jerusalem. Behold the days come, saith 
 the Lord, that I will perform the good thing which I have 
 spoken concerning the house of Israel, and concerning the 
 house of Judah. In those days, and at that time, ( He that 
 readeth, let him observe.} I will 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 Jehovah shall call OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS,' 
 (Heb.) Surely thus saith the Lord, there shall not be a 
 failure in the line of David, of 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 me 
 burnt offerings, and to perform sacrifice continually." See 
 ch. xxxiii. 14. In this place, the perpetuity of the tribe of 
 Levi, as well as that of the house of David, is foretold. See 
 also Jer. ch. xxx. 9. 
 
 Cotemporary with Jeremiah was Ezechiel. 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, and 
 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 be their God, and
 
 16 
 
 my servant David a Prince among them. I, the Lord, have 
 spoken it, and I will 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 I am the Lord." 
 
 In another passage, this Prophet says, that the two na- 
 tions, Israel and Judah, shall have one King, and that this 
 King shall be named David, who shall reign forever, chap, 
 xxxvii. 21, 28. " Say unto them, thus saith the Lord 
 God, behold I will take the children of Israel from among 
 the Heathen whither they be gone, and will gather them on 
 every side, and bring them into their own land. And I will 
 make them one nation in the land, upon the mountains of 
 Israel, 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 with their Idols, nor with their detes- 
 table things, nor with any of their transgressions. But I will 
 save them out of all their dwelling places wherein they have 
 sinned, 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 walk 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 chil- 
 dren, and their children's children forever. 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 with them, and I will place them, and multiply 
 them, and will set my sanctuary in the midst of them, for 
 evermore. 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 for evermore." 
 
 The natural construction of this seems to be this, " that 
 a descendant of David, called by that name, should reign 
 aver the Israelites forever."
 
 17 
 
 In the very circumstantial description which Ezechiel 
 gives of the state of the Israelites in their own country, yet 
 expected by the Jews, he speaks of the Prince, and the por- 
 tion 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 Belshaz&ar 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 ever- 
 lasting 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 they brought 
 him near before him. And there was given him dominion, 
 and Glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and lan- 
 guages should serve him. His dominion is an everlasting do- 
 minion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that 
 which shall not be destroyed." 
 
 I have now gone through the prophecies which are allow- 
 ed both by 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 he was to be a just, beneficent, wise, 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 land ; 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 govern- 
 ment, and receive, and obey the laws of this beneficent 
 Prince ; and enjoy unspeakable felicities on the earth, then 
 changed to an universal paradise. And for all this happiness, 
 they were to worship and glorify the true God only, and 
 glorify Jehovah, 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 name, and was to reign on 
 his throne in Jerusalem.
 
 18 
 
 3. That according to Micah, Jeremiah, and Ezechiel, 
 (see the quotations) his manifestation, and the restoration of 
 Israel were to be contemporaneous. See Hosea, chap. iii. 4, 
 5. And from Jeremiah xxxiii. 15, and from Micah v. 2, it 
 should seem also, that he was not to be born, till the time of 
 that restoration should be nearly arrived. 
 
 The Prophecies concerning the Messiah of the Jews be- 
 ing 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 is 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. 
 
 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 with reason, 
 consistent with one another, and with prior revelations, 
 really such, and all tending to the honor of God, and the 
 good of men, his miracles, with these circumstances, ought 
 to have determined men to believe in him. 
 
 But since he claimed to be the Messiah of the Jews, 
 foretold by their Prophets, 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
 
 19 
 
 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 Scrip- 
 tures do not testify of him ? What honesty or sincerity 
 could he have, who could " begin at Moses and all the Pro- 
 phets, 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 dif- 
 ficulty, 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 satis- 
 faction 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 
 prophesied of in the 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 pro- 
 mise 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 the Jews 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 Pro- 
 phets. If his character corresponds in all respects with that 
 given by those prophets, he is undoubtedly to be acknowledg- 
 ed 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 
 characteristic marks given, may belong to many illustrious 
 individuals, but the whole can belong to, and be found in only 
 one person, 
 
 The first characteristic of the Messiah, the reader will 
 recollect, was, according to the prophets, that he was to be 
 " the Prince of Peace," in whose times righteousness was 
 to flourish, and mankind be made happy. That he was to
 
 20 
 
 sit upon the throne of David, judging right ; and that to him, 
 and their own land was Israel to be gathered, and all na- 
 tions serve and obey him ; and worship one God, even Je- 
 hovah. 
 
 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 ; the 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 divi- 
 sion" Again, " I have come to put fire on the earth." 
 These are not the characteristics of the Messiah of the pro- 
 phets of the Old Testament. For of him Zechariah (ch. ix.) 
 says, that " He shall speak peace to the nations ;" and of 
 him Isaiah says, ch. ii. " Nation shall not lift up sword 
 against nation, neither shall they learn war any more." 
 And so far from 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 chil- 
 dren, and the heart of the children to their parents." 
 
 In the times of the Messiah, wars were to cease, righte- 
 ousness was to flourish, and mankind be happy. Whether 
 this has yet taken place, the experience of almost nineteen 
 centuries, and the present 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 in their own land, in honor and prosperity. 
 But not many years after the death of Jesus of Nazareth, 
 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 honor and prosperity, their history, since his time, 
 is one dreadful record of unparalleled sufferings, written 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 Da- 
 vid ; but the name " Jesus" is not the same as "David" and 
 Christians have assigned him a spiritual kingdom, and a
 
 21 
 
 throne in Heaven ! But was the throne of David in Hea- 
 ven 9 No ! it was in Jerusalem, and no more in Heaven 
 than that of the Ccesars. 
 
 Lastly, it appears from the prophecies of Hosea, Micah, 
 Jeremiah, Isaiah, and Ezechiel, quoted in the last chapter, 
 that the manifestation of their Messiah, was to be contempo- 
 raneous with the restoration of Israel, and from the quota- 
 tions adduced from the three first mentioned Prophets, it 
 should seem, that his birth was 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 by 
 Malachi, and believed by the Jews, then, and ever since, 
 that Elias the Prophet, who did not die, but was removed 
 from the earth, should precede the coming of the Messiah, 
 and prepare them for his reception. But the Prophet 
 Elias certainly has not yet appeared ! 
 
 Indeed, nothing appears to be more dissimilar than the 
 character of the Messiah, as given Jby the Hebrew Prophets, 
 and that of Jesus of Naxareth. It seems scarcely credi- 
 ble, 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. 
 
 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 
 proofs, adduced by the Apostles, and their followers, 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 Testaments 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 Testaments 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 New, according to the literal and ob- 
 vious 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 upon 
 in interpreting every other ancient book : almost all Chris- 
 tian commentators on the Bible, and advocates for the re- 
 ligion of the New Testament, both ancient and modern, 
 have judged 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 ac- 
 count 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 be with Child, and shall bring forth a son, and they 
 shall call his name Immanuel." But the words as they 
 stand in Is. 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, consider- 
 ing the context. 
 
 When Rezin, King of Syria, and Pekah, King of Israel, 
 were confederates in arms together, against Ahaz, King
 
 23 
 
 of Judah, Isaiah the prophet was sent by God, first to com- 
 fort Ahaz, and the nation, and then to assure them by a 
 sign, that his enemies should, in a little time, be confounded. 
 &ut Ahaz 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 " 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 ac- 
 knowledged, and established beyond dispute by the best He- 
 brew 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 the 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 accord- 
 ingly 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 were it appears soon con- 
 founded, 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 express 
 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 
 Etosts, that dwelleth in mount Zion." Isai. viii. 19. 
 
 This is the plain drift, and design of the prophet, liter- 
 aily, 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 from 
 God ? And how useless was it id Ahaz, as well as absurd'
 
 24 
 
 in itself for 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, of a 
 particular female within a short time, seems a proper sign, 
 as being not only what could not with 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 ; wit- 
 ness his conduct to Gideon, and Hezechiah, (Jud. vi., 2 
 Kings xx.) 
 
 This prophecy therefore not being fulfilled in Jesus, ac- 
 cording to the literal, and obvious se^ise of the words as 
 they stand in Isaiah ; it is supposed that this, like the 
 other prophecies cited in the New Testament, is fulfil- 
 led in a secondary, or typical, or mystical sense. That is, 
 the 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 in- 
 tended 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 the com- 
 mentator 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, or figu- 
 rative, or allegorical sense. 
 
 Again, Matthew gives us another prophecy, which he 
 says was fulfilled. He tells us, that Jesus was carried into 
 Egypt; from whence he returned after the death of Herod, 
 (Mat. ii.) "that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of 
 the Lord by the Prophet, saying, * out of Egypt have I 
 called my sou.'" Which being word for word in Hosea, 
 (ch. xi. 1.) and no where else to be found in the Old Testa- 
 ment, are supposed to be taken from thence : where, ac- 
 cording to their obvious sense they are no prophecy at all'
 
 but relate and refer to a past action, viz. to the calling of 
 the children of Israel out of Egypt ; which will, I think, 
 be denied by few. This passage therefore, or, as it is styled, 
 prophecy, of Hosea, is said, by learned men among Chris- 
 tians, to be mystically, or allegorically applied, in order to 
 render Matthew's application of it just ; and they say, all 
 other methods, of some learned men to solve the difficulties 
 arrising from Matthew's citation of this passage, have 
 proved unsuccessful. 
 
 Ag*in, Matthew says, (ch, ii.) "Jesus came, and dwelt 
 at Nazareth, that it might be fulfilled, which was spoken by 
 the Prophet saying, 'he shall be called a Nazarene;'" but 
 as this passage does 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 re- 
 fer to these words of Malachi, (ch. iv. 4.) " Behold 1 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 in person (which we know from the New 
 Testament, as well as elsewhere, was the constant expecta- 
 tion of the Jews.) Besides, this Elijah was to come " before 
 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, (Mat. xiii.) cites the prophecy of Isaiah, 
 (Is. vi. 9.) " By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not under- 
 stand :" and he assures us, that it was fulfilled in Ids 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 ob- 
 stinate Jews, who lived in the time of Isaiah. 
 
 In fine, these, 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 ia allowed by the most learned defenders
 
 '26 
 
 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 in- 
 stances, 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 this 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 igno- 
 rance, but according to curtain methods of interpretation^ 
 which were in their times, of established authority among 
 the Jews. 
 
 These rules of interpretation, which were supposed to be 
 irrecoverably lost, were afterwards recovered to the world, 
 by the learned Surenhusius, professor of the Hebrew lan- 
 guage 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 scrip- 
 ture in a secondary, or typical, or allegorical sense, seems to 
 be unfolded I shall therefore state this matter from 
 Surcnhusius. 
 
 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 concern- 
 ed, that what had been done with good success upon pro- 
 fane authors, could not be so happily performed upon the 
 sacred." 
 
 He tells us, " that having had frequent occasions to con- 
 verse with the Jews, (on account of his application to He- 
 brew literature from his youth) who insolently reflected 
 upon the New Testament, affirming it to be plainly cor-
 
 27 
 
 rupted, because it seldom, or never agreed with the Old 
 Testament ; some of whom were so confident in this opi- 
 nion, 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 Rabbin, well skilled in the 
 Talmud, the Cabbala, and the Allegorical books of the Jews. 
 This Rabbin had once embraced the Christian religion, 
 but was again relapsed to Judaism on account of the ido- 
 latry of the Papists, yet not perfectly disbelieving the inte- 
 grity 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 exercisepl the most 
 learned Christian commentators. 
 
 The Rabbin having admirably explained those passages, 
 to the great surprise of SurenhusLus, and confirming his ex- 
 plications 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 Rabbin 
 answered, that he thought the best way of succeding in 
 such an undertaking, would be 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
 
 28 
 
 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 substituted in their stead," as is 
 done by Peter, Acts iii. 3 ; by Stephen, Acts vii, 43, and 
 by Paul, 1 Cor. xv. 54 ; 2 Cor. viii. 15, and Heb. iii. 10 ; 
 ix. 21; xii. 6. 
 
 2. The second rule is " changing the letters, whether 
 those letters be of the same organ, (as the Hebrew gram- 
 marians speak,) or not," as is done by Paul, Rom. ix. 33; 
 1 Cor. xi. 9 ; Heb. viii. 9, and x. 5 ; and by Stephen, Acts 
 vii. 43. 
 
 3. The third is " changing both letters and points," as 
 is done by Paul, Acts xiii. 41, and 2 Cor. viii. 15. 
 
 4. The fourth is " adding some letters, and taking away 
 
 others." 
 
 5. The fifth is " transposing words and letters." 
 
 6. The sixth is " dividing one word into two," 
 
 7. The seventh is " adding other words to those in the 
 text, in order to make the sense more clear, and to accom- 
 modate 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 ad- 
 ding other words." 
 
 10. The tenth is " changing the order of words, adding 
 words, and retrenching words," which, (says he) is a method 
 often used by Paul Of the application of all these rules he 
 gives examples taken from the New Testament. 
 
 It is not necessary to make many observations upon 
 these rules, they speak for themselves most significantly : 
 for what is there that cannot be proved from the Old Tea-
 
 lament, 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 the 
 authors of the New Testament out of a difficulty, which 
 had long shocked, and grieved, their best friends. 
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 
 It may be objected from divers learned authors, who 
 liave been very sensible of the difficulties stated in the pre- 
 ceding chapters, and have, therefore, taken other ground 
 than their predecessors, in order to defend themselves the 
 better ; I say, it may be objected to what I have advanced, 
 that Christianity is not, in fact, grounded on the propheti- 
 cal, or other quotations made from the Old, in the New 
 Testament ; but that those quotations being allegorically 
 applied 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 sub- 
 verted 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 the Epistle to the Romans, expressly 
 says, ch. xvi. 25, 26, "The gospel which was kept se- 
 cret since the world began, was now made manifest by the 
 Scriptures of the Prophets (wherein that gospel was secretly 
 contained) to all nations :" by the means of the preachers 
 of the 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
 
 30 
 
 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 he took his 
 heresy, or Christianity, from the law, and the Prophets, 
 Acts xxiv., as also he did before Agrippa. It should there- 
 fore 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 I am ashamed at being thus, 
 long engaged in showing what must be self-evident ; and 
 did I not fear being further tedious to my reader, I would 
 undertake to bring together passages from the New Testa- 
 ment, where the meaning and intention, of the writers, are 
 obvious, in such abundance, as would immediately, and en- 
 tirely, put the hypothesis of our opponents out of counte- 
 nance. 
 
 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 oc- 
 casions, to the Prophets, and recommending the reading, and 
 search of the Old Testament, for the trial, and proof oi' what 
 was preached ? For that was to proceed on weakness it- 
 self, knowing it to be so. Certainly nothing but a real per- 
 fuasion, that the prophecies of the Old Testament were 
 really fulfilled in Jesus, could make them every where in- 
 culcate, 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 phrases a handsome quotation or al- 
 lusion from the Old Testament. But this evasion must be 
 given up on 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,
 
 31 
 
 among others) frankly acknowledge it not to be 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, "I thirst, that the 
 Scripture might be fulfilled '," doth he not plainly represent Je- 
 sus as fulfilling a prophecy which foretold that the Messiah 
 should thirst, or say, " I 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 un- 
 suitable 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. B ut I would ask them, what rule 
 they have to know when the Apostles mean a prophecy 
 fulfilled, and when a phrase accommodated, since they are 
 acknowledged to use the strong expression of fuljilling 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 ad- 
 duced, and applied as prophecies fulfilled ; if you do sup- 
 pose them not intended to be adduced, and applied as pro- 
 phecies ; then the whole affair of Jesus being foretold as the 
 Messiah 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 
 HOMER ! 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
 
 32 
 
 as means to deceive the simple and credulous, into a belief 
 of their being testimonies sufficient to prove what they 
 themselves knew they had no relation to, and then they 
 were Deceivers : there is no other alternative, and each 
 horn 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 work- 
 ing 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 de- 
 pends, as proved before, upon his answering the characteris- 
 tics 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 has 
 been already abundantly proved. 
 
 Secondly, That whether these miracles were really per- 
 formed, 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 argu- 
 mentation. The Papists pretend to derive all their new in- 
 vented and absurd Doctrines, and Practices, from the Scrip- 
 tures by their interpretations of them ; But yet, when their 
 interpretations are attacked from Scripture, they immedi- 
 ately fly from thence to the miracles wrought in their 
 Church, and to the visions of their holy men and saints, 
 for the establishment of their interpretations, by which they 
 support those very doctrines and practices ; and particu- 
 larly, they endeavour to prove thus the doctrine of Tran- 
 subsiantiation, from the numerous miracles affirmed to have 
 been wrought in its behalf, which reasoning Protestant 
 Christians assert, to be an argument absurd and inconclu- 
 sive, therefore they should not use it themselves. 
 
 We allow, that if these interpretations of the sense of 
 the Old Testament, had been in existence Iffvre the Chris-
 
 33 
 
 tian Era, it might be something. But we beg leave to re- 
 mind them, that it is certain, that these interpretations were 
 not published till after the events to which they are re- 
 ferred took place, which is a circumstance of obvious signi- 
 Jicancy. 
 
 In fine, to this argument, I would answer as in Cicero 
 [de Natura, Deor. Ed. Dav. p. 209.] Cotta did to Balbus, 
 " rumoribus mecum pugnas, ego autem a te rationes requiro." 
 
 CHAPTER VII. 
 
 But it may be asked, how was it possible, that wise and 
 good men could have been led to embrace the Religion of the 
 New Testament, if there were not 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 Testa- 
 ment, 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 cir- 
 cumstance, of itself, should teach us to examine the pro- 
 phecies 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.
 
 34 
 
 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 this 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 word into his 
 mouth, and he shall speak unto them all that I command 
 him. And it shall come to pass, that whoever 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 ch. 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. Never- 
 theless, 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 ap- 
 pointment of God, declared to be his successor, and who was 
 endowed with the spirit which was upon Moses : See Deut. 
 xxxi. 33; xxxiv. 17: and to whom the Jews then promised 
 to hearken, and pay obedience as they had done before 
 to Moses. But others understand them to be a promise of 
 a succession of Prophets, to whom the Jews might, upon 
 all occasions, have recourse. And one, or the 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 immediate use : and therefore, 
 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 
 not a Prophet two thousand years to come. 
 
 But I take the words to promise a succession of Prophets, 
 and for that sense wherein Grotius, and Le 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,
 
 35 
 
 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 up 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 
 you a Prophet of your own Brethren, inspired like me, to 
 guide, and 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 into that land ; which reason could have no force un- 
 less 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 
 pome there ?"J 
 
 2dly. 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 for the plural, according to the 
 frequent custom of the Hebrew language, as is shewn by 
 Le Clerc and Stillingfleet, in loco. For one single Prophet 
 to be raised up immediately, who might soon die, could not 
 be a reason why Jews of succeeding generations should not 
 hearken to Diviners, in Canaan. 
 
 Finally, the words of God by Moses, which follow the 
 promise of a Prophet, evidently shew that by that pro-
 
 30 
 
 tnise, Prophets were intended, in laying down a 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., 1922. 
 
 I shall conclude this explication, by adducing in confirm- 
 ation of it, the paraphrase of the words given in the Targum 
 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 your Priests shall en- 
 quire by Urim and Thummim, and the Lord your God 
 shall give you a true Prophet." 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 fre- 
 quently 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 
 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 Deuter- 
 onomy. 
 
 And finally, there is nothing to limit this prophecy to 
 Jesus of Nazareth, if we 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 ch. of Acts, ano- 
 their passage quoted by Peter from the Psalms, and ap- 
 plied 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 had raised up, having loosed the pains (or bands) of 
 death, because it was not possible that he should be holden 
 of it." And why ? " For, (because) David speaketh con-
 
 37 
 
 cerning 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 Holy 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 sepulchre is with us unto 
 this day. Therefore being a Prophet, and knowing that 
 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 re- 
 surrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in Hades, 
 neither did his flesh see corruption. 
 
 How imposing is this argument ! How plausible it ap- 
 pears ! And yet it is irrelevant, as Dr. Priestly frankly con- 
 fesses, who tries to save the credit of the Apostle by the 
 convenient principle of accommodation ! The w r hole 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 trans- 
 lation of it from the Original, which will make the pro- 
 priety, or impropriety 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 perserva- 
 tion. He showeth the hope of his calling, of the resurrec- 
 tion, 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 suffer thy Saints to see destruction. Thou wilt 
 show me the path of Life ; in thy presence is fulness of
 
 38 
 
 joy, and at thy right hand are pleasures for evermore." 
 That is " Because I have ever trusted in thee, and ex-? 
 perienced thy constant protection, therefore I will not fear 
 death ; because thou wilt not forever leave my soul in the 
 place of departed spirits, nor suffer thy saints to perish 
 from existence. Thou wilt raise me from the dead, and 
 make me happy forever in thy presence." 
 
 In the 4 ch. of the Acts, the Apostles are represented as 
 praying to God, and referring in their Prayer to the 2d 
 Psalm " why did the Heathen rage, &c." as being a pro- 
 phecy of the opposition of the Jews to Jesus : with how 
 much justice may be seen from these circumstances : 
 
 1. That " the Nations" as it is in the original, did not as- 
 semble together to crucify Jesus, as this was done by a few 
 soldiers. 2ndly, The " Kings of the Earth" had no hand in it, 
 for they knew nothing about it. And 3dly, 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 utter- 
 most 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 second chapter of Mat. " But thou 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 of old, 
 from the days of hidden ages." This passage probably re- 
 fers to the Messiah, but by no means signifies that this 
 Messiah was to be born in Bethlehem, as asserted by Mat- 
 thew ; 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 known 
 and acknowledged by Hebrew scholars. But, in order to 
 cut short the dispute, we will permit the passage to be in- 
 terpreted as signifying that Bethlehem was to be the birth 
 place of the Messiah. What then ? Will a man's leing 
 born in Bethlehem be sufficient to make him to be the Mes- 
 siah foretold by the Hebrew Prophets ? Surely it has 
 been made plain in the beginning of this work, tnat many
 
 39 
 
 more characteristic marks than this must 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 ! Be- 
 hold thy king cometh unto thee, the righteous one, and 
 saved, or preserved (ac. to the Heb.) lowly, and riding upon 
 an ass, and upon a colt, the foal of an ass." This has been 
 applied by the Evangelists to Jesus, who rode upon an ass 
 into Jerusalem. 
 
 But, in the first place, it is to be observed, that there 
 seems to have been a blunder in this transaction ; for accord- 
 ing 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 up an ass, and the colt 
 too ! " They spread their garments upon them, and set him 
 upon them." See the Evangelists in loc. In the next place, 
 a man may ride into Jerusalem upon an ass, without be- 
 ing thus necessarily demonstrated to be the Messiah. And 
 unless, as said before, every 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 of as contem- 
 poraneous with the restoration of Israel, and the establish- 
 ment of peace and happiness, which seems to cut up by the 
 roots, the interpretation of 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. 
 
 The next passage which has been offered as a prophecy of 
 Jesus, is to be found in the 12th ch. 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
 
 40 
 
 version, but before I state what it ought to be, I would ob~ 
 serve, that before the Evangelist, (who, in his account of the 
 crucifixion, applies this passage as referring to Jesus's being 
 pierced with a spear,) could make this passage fit his pur- 
 pose, he had to substitute the word " Mm" for " me" as it 
 is in the Hebrew, confirmed by, I believe, all the versions, 
 ancient and modern, without exception. Yet, with this 
 change, it will by no means answer his purpose ; for the He- 
 brew 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 He- 
 brew word 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 spirit of grace, and supplica- 
 tions, and they shall look towards me whom they have 
 blasphemed" (To " look towards God" is a phrase fre- 
 quently 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 siege 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. Imme- 
 diately after which matters, follows the prophecy under con- 
 sideration, " I will pour upon the House of David, &c." 
 Now, from these things thus laid down together, I crave leave 
 to argue in the words of Dr. Sykes, (Essay, &c. p. 268.) 
 " Did any one circumstance 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 suppli- 
 cations, the Jews have had their hearts hardened against the 
 Christ; instead of mourning for him whom they have pierced, 
 they curse him and his followers, even until this day." 
 
 But it is tiresome thus to waste time in proving ihatorts and 
 ends of verses, disjointed from their connection, and even the 
 words quoted, borne of them changed, and some transposed, 
 (though even done according to the rules given by the vene- 
 rable Surenhitsius, J prove nothing. We must, therefore, de- 
 vote the remainder of this long chapter to the consideration
 
 41 
 
 of the three famous prophecies, on which Christians have not 
 hesitated, with triumphing confidence, to rest the issue of 
 their cause. These are the prophecy of Shiloh, Gen. xlix. ; 
 the 53d chap. Isaiah ; and Daniel's prophecy of the "Seventy 
 Weeks" I will consider them in order, and thus wind up 
 the chapter. 
 
 I have somewhere 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 prophechies, " The sceptre 
 shall not depart from Judah," &c , GCH. xlix. ; and this, 
 " Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people," &c. 
 Dan. ix. 24. 
 
 But notwithstanding these overwhelming proofs, the stub- 
 born 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 de- 
 Jines, or limits the time of his coming. 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 depart from 
 Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet for ever, for 
 Shiloh shall come, and to him shall the gathering of the 
 people be." So that the prophecy does not intimate that 
 the Messiah should come before the Sceptre be departed 
 from Judah ; but that it should not depart for ever, but 
 shall be restored when Shiloh comes. This is the plain 
 and obvious sense of the prophecy ; and moreover, is the 
 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, 'JuddK has never been 
 free, but in subjection to the Persians, the Syrians, the Ro- 
 mans, and all the world. 
 
 If my readers desire further satisfaction with regard to 
 this interpretation of this famous prophecy : I refer them 
 to the dispute upon this subject between the celebrated 
 Rittangclius, and a learned Jew, (preserved in Wagenseil's
 
 42 
 
 " Tela Ignea,") where he will find Rittangelius first amica- 
 bly inviting the Hebrew to discuss the point, who does so 
 most ably, and respectfully towards his Christian anta- 
 gonist ; and unanswerably establishes the interpretation 
 above stated, by the Laws of the Hebrew language, by 
 the ancient interpretation of the Targum* by venerable 
 tradition, and by appealing to history. Rittangelius begins 
 his defence by shuffling, and ends by getting in a passion, 
 and calling names ; which, his opponent who is cool, be- 
 cause confident of being able to establish his argument, an- 
 swers by notifying to Rittangelius his compassion, and con- 
 tempt. 
 
 The next prophecy proposed to be considered, is the 
 celebrated prophecy of Isaiah consisting of part of the 52nd 
 and the whole of the 53rd ch. It is the only prophecy 
 which Paley thinks worth 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 are 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, when he 
 converted the Eunuch, (Acts viii,) for " beginning at this 
 prophecy, he preached unto him Jesus." 
 
 It will not be necessary to cite the passage at length, it 
 being one perfectly familiar to every Christian. 1 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 suffer 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 pas- 
 sage, 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 the Authors of 
 the New Testament have applied this prophecy to the Mes- 
 siah, 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 the Jews of his time 
 derided the Christians for relying upon this prophecy ; al-
 
 43 
 
 leging that it related to their own nation, and was a pro- 
 phecy of their suffering and persecuted state, and of their ul- 
 timate emancipation and happiness. And this interpretation 
 of the prophecy, the learned Vitringa in his commentary upon 
 Is. in loc. allows to be the most respectable he had met with 
 among the Jews, and according to him " to be by no means 
 despised." 
 
 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 prophecy, part 
 by part, each part accompanied by the Jewish interpreta- 
 tion. 
 
 Isaiah lii. 13, "Behold my servant shall prosper, he 
 shall be exalted, and extolled, and be very high." Inter- 
 pretation My servant Israel, though he be in great afflic- 
 tion for a time, yet hereafter shall be released from capti- 
 vity, 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, thou art my servant." 
 Again, chapter xliv. " Now therefore, hear Jacob my ser- 
 vant," and so frequently in the same chapter. See also ch. 
 xlv., and Jer. ch. xxx., and Ps. cxxxvi., and Isaiah through- 
 out, for similar examples.) 
 
 " As 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 As many were astonished at thee, 
 on account of thy abject state, and miserable condition, 
 being squalid with misery, and suffering 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,
 
 44 
 
 from the depth of degradation to the height of prosperity, 
 and honour. So that they shall lay their hands upon their 
 mouths, which had before time 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 re- 
 port, and the arm of the Lord to whom was it revealed ? 
 For he grew up, (Heb. 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 de- 
 sire him." 
 
 The sense is, The Gentiles shall say to each other in 
 wonder, " Who believed what we heard concerning them ? 
 And to whom was the interest the Lord took in them made 
 known ? For it was a despised 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 sor- 
 sows and acquainted with grief, and we hid, as it were our 
 faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him 
 not." 
 
 That is, They were despised, and held in abhorrence, 
 they were men of sorrow, and familiar with suifering. W T e 
 looked upon them with dislike, we hid our faces from them, 
 and esteemed them not. 
 
 "Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sor-* 
 rows." 
 
 Interpretation Surely 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 sufferings 
 of an afflicted world, for God hath connected universal 
 happiness with their prosperity ; and the end of their suf- 
 ferings is the beginning of our joys. 
 
 " Yet did we esteem him smitten of God, and afflicted." 
 
 Interpretation Nevertheless we considered them as a 
 God-abandoned race, and devoted to wretchedness by him, 
 for having crucified their king.
 
 45 
 
 " But he was wounded for, (or by) 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 obedi- 
 ence ; 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 oppressed, [or " exposed to pecuniary exac- 
 tion^ and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth ; 
 he was brought as a lamb to the 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 trans- 
 gression 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 de- 
 ceit in his mouth." 
 
 Interpretation How passive 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
 
 N 46 
 
 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 them, because they 
 had not done iniquity. 
 
 Rabbi Isaac, author of the famous Munimen Fidei, ren- 
 ders 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 were the real cause why we put them to death. Ne- 
 vertheless they used no violence in opposition to our op- 
 pressions, neither would they forsake their religion, and 
 deceitfully assent to ours in hypocrisy.* 
 
 " Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise him, he hath put him 
 to grief. When thou shalt make his soul a propitiation for 
 sin, he shall see hip 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 Jeicish nation, because one individual cannot 
 be put to death, and yet " see his seed," and " prolong his 
 days.) " After (or on 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 ini- 
 quities." 
 
 * 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 " he shall 
 avenge or recompense upon the wicked his Grave, and his death upon 
 the rich." Thus do theTargum, and the Arabic version interpret 
 the place : and Ezekiel ix, 10. uses the verb in the verse in Isaiah 
 under consideration translated (in the Knglish version.) " He made, 
 &c." In the same sense, given to this place in Isaiah, by the Targum, 
 and the Jirabic, as said above. See the place in Ezekiel, where it is 
 translated " I will recompense 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." 
 TheTargum, " he will send the wicked into Hell, and the rich who pot 
 him to a cruel Death."
 
 47 
 
 *That is, after and for their sufferings, they shall be abun- 
 vlantly 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. 4 ch. 
 
 " Wherefore I will give him a portion with the Great, and 
 with the mighty shall be divide the spoil, because he poured 
 out his life unto Death, and was numbered with the trans- 
 gressors, and himself bare the sin of many, and interceded 
 for the transgressors." 
 
 Interpretation Therefore their regard shall be exceeding 
 great, because for the sake of their duty, they willingly ex- 
 posed themselves to death, and were accounted as transgres- 
 sors, and bore the cruel afflictions inflicted by many, and 
 made intercession for them who afflicted them. 
 
 Such is the explication given by the Jews of this pro- 
 phecy. I have made no important alterations of the com- 
 mon English translations ; except, that in some passages, I 
 have made it more conformable to the original, by substitut- 
 ing a verb in the past tense, instead of leaving it in the fu- 
 ture, as in the English version. Those Translators have 
 taken certain liberties in this respect to make this pro- 
 phecy (and several others) more accordant to their own 
 views, which are not supported by the Hebrew : many of 
 these expressions however 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 interpreta- 
 tion of this prophecy of Isaiah, we refer him to the " Muni- 
 men Fidei" contained in Wagenseil's " Tela Ignea," 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 Christ, from these 
 circumstances. 1. Jesus certainly was not exalted, and mag- 
 nified, and made very great upon Earth, which as has been 
 shown, was to be the scene of the exaltation of the Old Tes- 
 tament Messiah, but was put to a cruel and disgraceful 
 
 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'
 
 48 
 
 be spiritualized on this occasion, for the word seed in the 
 Old Testament, means nothing else than literally ' children, 1 
 which it is not pretended he ever had ; and how could he 
 " prolong his days," when he was cut off in his 33rd 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. See Priestley's notes on the Scriptures, in loco ; and 
 the context before and after. 
 
 We have now come to the last subject proposed to be con- 
 sidered in this chapter, viz. Daniel's prophecy of the seventy 
 weeks. The " instar omnium 1 ' 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' from 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 prophecy, any 
 voice in the affair. 
 
 During many years, one learned man, after another, had 
 amused himself with destroying the system of his predeces- 
 sor, 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 Jit with the event of the crucifixion. 
 At length Marsham, a learned Englishman, declared and 
 demonstrated, that his predecessors in this inquiry had been 
 grossly mistaken, for that the prophecy, in all its parts, was 
 totally irrelevant and irreconcileable with the time of the cru- 
 cifixion. 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 ever-
 
 49 
 
 lasting righteousness, and to seal the vision, and prophecy, 
 and to annoint 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 Jeru- 
 salem, unto the anointed Prince, shall be seven weeks ; 
 and (in) threescore, and two weeks the street shall be built 
 again, 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. "and not, or none 
 to him,") and the City and the Sanctuary shall be destroy- 
 ed 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 the 
 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 abomi- 
 nations he shall make it desolate, even until the consumma- 
 tion, and that (is) determined be poured upon the deso- 
 late." 
 
 This is the prophecy on which such stress has been laid, 
 as pointing out the precise time of the coming of the Mes- 
 siah : 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. 
 
 * 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 delivered by Jere- 
 miah, 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 not 
 understanding the prophecy, and therefore the Angel said 
 unto him, " 1 am now come forth to give thee skill, and un- 
 derstanding." And he proceeds to inform him, that as 
 soon as he began to pray, and God saw his perplexity, the 
 royal command went forth from him, that he should come 
 to Daniel to make him understand the truth of those mat- 
 ters, that were to come to pass in future time. And as the 
 
 * The remainder of this chapter is taken from Levi, and Wagtnttil.
 
 50 
 
 angel Gabriel had explained to him the vision from whence 
 his doubt arose, it was incumbent on him to perfect the ex- 
 planation : and that is what is meant by the expression 
 " to show," i. e. as I began the explanation, the command- 
 
 ment 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 agreed to Darnel's question, and also the 
 reason of his using the term weeks, and not years, or times, 1 
 as in the other visions. 
 
 It appears, that Daniel, from the words of Jeremiah, 
 perceived that God would visit all the nations, arid punish 
 them for their sins ; as may be observed from the follow- 
 ing words. " Thus saith the Lord God of Israel unto me. 
 Take the wine cup of his fury at my hand, and cause all 
 the nations to whom I send thee to drink it." Jer. xxv. 15. 
 He then mentions first Jerusalem, and afterwards the Kings 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 na- 
 tion 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 forgo tten seventy years" Isaiah xxiii 15, The same of Ba- 
 bylon. " And it shall come to pass when seventy years are 
 accomplished, I will punish the king of Babylon, 5 ' Jer. xxv. 
 12, and as it is observed in the next verse, " All that is 
 written in this Book which Jeremiah hath prophesied, 
 against all the nations" From whence it appears, that as 
 the visitation of Babylon was to be in 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 in- 
 formed 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 grievous ; 
 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 ;
 
 51 
 
 and if not, then he will punish them. But as for Israel, he 
 would not only wait seventy years, but seven times seventy 
 years ; (for thus it is literally, in the Heb. the words trans- 
 lated " seventy weeks," are literally " seventy sevens") after 
 which, if they had not repented and reformed, their king- 
 dom should be cut off, and they return into captivity, to 
 finish an atonement for their transgressions. Hence the 
 cause 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 four 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 re- 
 turn 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 general collection of all that were in captivity, even all the 
 tribes, save only a few of Judah and Benjamin, and those 
 not the most respectable. And after their return, they were 
 not free, but were under the dominion of the Persians, 
 Greeks, and Romans. And although they at one time 
 threw off their yoke, and had kings of the Asmonean and 
 Herodian families, yet was there no king among them of the 
 seed of David, neither had they the Shekinah 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 ac- 
 cording 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;" and 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 Jehovah should be 
 known, worshipped, and obeyed by all mankind. But if 
 they did not repent, and amend, if they did evil, as their fa- 
 thers, then their kingdom was to be cut off" at the expiration 
 of the seventy weeks ; which in fact took place.~]
 
 52 
 
 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 
 destruction 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 Chris- 
 tians 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 appellation 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 
 Cyrus." 2. It is a singular fact, that the appellation " Mes- 
 siah" is never applied to the expected deliverer of the Israelites 
 in the whole Bible, except perhaps, in the ii. Psalm. It is an 
 appellation indifferently applied to Kings, and Priests, and 
 Prophets ; 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, ori- 
 ginated in and from the Targums. 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 manoauvre ; 
 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 or Naaid,' a word which in the 
 Hebrew Bible always, without exception, denotes a Prince, or 
 Ruler, one invested with temporal authority, or supreme com- 
 mand. 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 can, by no means, be the " anointed Prince" 
 mentioned in the prophecy. 
 
 Second Period. " And (in) threescore and two weeks,
 
 53 
 
 the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in trou- 
 blous times." 
 
 Here the Angel gave him to understand, that after the 
 seven weeks before mentioned, there would 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 build- 
 ing to cease See Ezra, and Nehemiah,) till the second year 
 of Darius, who gave leave to finish the building : which con- 
 tinued till the Destruction by the Romans, sixty two weeks, be- 
 sides the last week, &t 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 hun- 
 dred and twenty, in the whole, sixty three weeks, or four hun- 
 dred and forty one years. But the Angel made his division 
 at sixty two weeks, as he afterwards described what was to 
 come to pass in the last week (and with reason, for the hor- 
 rible Jewish war lasted seven years! ) And by the words 
 " 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 persecuted, 
 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".) And the city, and the sanc- 
 tuary 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 
 ("Me 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 succes- 
 sor ; 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.
 
 54 
 
 The angel finishes the prophecy with these words, " And 
 lie (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 week,) lie shall cause the sacri- 
 fice 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 offered 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 endea- 
 voured 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 difficulty 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 de- 
 struction of Jerusalem, or within the seven years preceding 
 that event ! Now we know from the Evangelists, and from 
 profane History, that Jesus was crucified more than 40 years 
 before the destruction of Jerusalem. In addition to this, no- 
 thing need be said, for this circumstance lays flat their inter- 
 pretation 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, con- 
 tradictory, perplexed, and multitudinous contrivances by 
 which it has been endeavoured to apply this prophecy to, 
 Jesus, are referred to Prideaux, Michaelis, and Blayney.
 
 55 
 
 We have now gone through an examination of the evi- 
 dence 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, we 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. 
 
 Many of our readers have, no doubt, heard from the pul- 
 pit 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 reader, 
 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 be the 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
 
 56 
 
 this necessary thing, that Jesus was the son of David. Be-r 
 cause he was not begotten by Joseph, as the Gospel of Mat* 
 thew 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 
 consequently not of David, and if she were, still Jesus is not 
 more the Son of David, descents being reckoned from the 
 males only. Neither is the Genealogy of Joseph rightly de- 
 duced from David, but labours under great difficulties. 
 Matthew, and Luke also, not only disagree, but irreconcilably 
 andjftatly contradict each other in their Genealogies of Joseph. 
 Now, it cannot be, that the testimony of two witnesses, who 
 directly contradict each other in the matter to be proved by 
 them, can be received as true. But the prophets 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 esta- 
 blish 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 Mo- 
 ther-in-Law," which words are written Mat. ch. 10. But 
 we find the prophecies concerning the Messiah to attribute 
 to him very different works from these ; nay the very op- 
 posite. For whereas Jesus testifies concerning himself, that 
 he did not come to establish Peace in the Earth, but " Divi- 
 sion" "Fire," and "Sword ;" Zechariah says, concerning the 
 expected Messiah, ch. 9, " He shall speak Peace to the 
 nations." Jesus says, he come to send " fire and sword" 
 upon the Earth, but Micah says, ch. 2, that in the times of 
 the true Messiah, " they shall beat their swords into plough- 
 shares, 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 come " to put Divi- 
 sion between the Father, and the Son, &c." But in the 
 time of the true Messiah, Elias the Prophet shall come, of 
 whom Malachi prophesied " 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 come to serve others, 
 not to be served by them," Mat. xx. 28. But of the true 
 Messiah it is said, Ps. 72, " All kings shall bow themselves
 
 57 
 
 before him, all nations shall serve him." The same also is 
 said by Zechariah, ch. 9, " His dominion shall be from one 
 sea to the other, and from the river unto the ends of the 
 Earth." And so Dan., ch. 7, " All 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 Is. ch. 2. " It shall 
 come to pass in the latter days, that the mountain of the 
 Lord's house shall be established in the top of the moun- 
 tains, 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 swords into ploughshares, and their spears into 
 pruning hooks." See also Hosea, ch. 3, and also Dan. ch. 
 2, where it is written. " God hath made known unto king 
 Nebuchadnezzer 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 king- 
 doms 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 de- 
 struction of the Roman Empire, not while it was in its vi- 
 gour, when Jesus came ; in ' the latter days,' and not before.* 
 
 4. Besides all these difficulties, neither were the promises 
 made to us by the Prophets, concerning the things to come 
 to pass at the coming of the Messiah, fulfilled in the time of 
 
 * The Reader is requested to consider the reasoning in the last para- 
 graph. 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 
 np a Kingdom which would never be destroyed, that of the Messiah. 
 Of course, according to this interpretation, the Kingdom of the Messiah 
 was not to be, not only, not till after the destruction of the Roman Em- 
 pire, but not till the latter days of the Kingdoms which grew up out of 
 its ruins ; whereas Jesus Christ was horn 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 verr striking repug- 
 nance, to the claims of the New Testament, and, if substantiated, must 
 overset them entirely.
 
 58 
 
 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 
 Dan. ch. 2. But, behold, we see with our eyes many inde- 
 pendent 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 
 written in Isaiah, ch. 52, and 66, that all nations shall come 
 at stated times to worship Jehovah at Jerusalem see also 
 Zechariah, ch. 14, and ch. 8, and indeed throughout the 
 writings of the Prophets.' 
 
 * 3. In the time of the King Messiah, Idols were to be cut 
 off, and utterly to perish from the Earth, as it is said in 
 Zechariah, ch. 13, and so in Is., ch. 2, it is written " And 
 the glory of Idols shall utterly pass away," and so in Zepha- 
 niah, ch. 2. "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. 30, Zephaniah, ch. 
 3, and in Jeremiah, ch. 3, and 50, and so also in Ezekiel, 
 ch. 36 and 37. 
 
 * 5. In the times of the Messiah there shall be peace be- 
 tween man and beast, and between the Tyger 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 Is., ch. 11, and 65, the original from whence he de- 
 rived 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 Is. 65.
 
 59 
 
 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 will 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 there- 
 upon. And the Schechinah 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 Je- 
 hovah, and all the Earth shall resound with his praise, as is 
 written in Ezech., ch. 37, and 39, and 43, and in Joel, ch. 
 2, and in Zech., ch. 2, and in Is., ch. 1 1, and throughout 
 the latter part of his prophecies, and in Jer. 31.' 
 
 And now Christian Reader ! let me ask you this question, 
 has any one of the foregoing prophecies been yet fulfilled, 
 either in the days of Jesus, or ever since ? 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 pre- 
 dicted 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 
 besides, which to avoid prolixity have been omitted, most as- 
 suredly did not take place in the time of Jesus, nor ever since, 
 and since 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 Mes- 
 siah." 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 Mes- 
 siah ? 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 
 duly 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
 
 60 
 
 Messiah, but a Messiah who should sit on the throne of 
 David, and confer liberty, and happiness upon them, ancJ 
 spread peace, and happiness throughout the earth ; and com- 
 municate 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 Quar- 
 rels, 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 " car- 
 nally minded" as to refuse to receive Jesus as their Messiah, 
 because he was poor and in a low estate. On the contrary, 
 did they not ask him to come out of his evasions ? " 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 timid 
 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 re- 
 frain from smiling at the frothy declamations, in which di- 
 vines load that nation with so much unmerited reproach ? 
 These Jews had just reason, we think, to doubt his Messiah- 
 ship ; 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 Jewisn 
 nation might be allowed to have understood their sacred 
 books upon the subject, as well, at least, if not better, than 
 the illiterate Apostles, who manifestly put new interpreta- 
 tions upon them, and those confessedly, not agreeable to 
 the obvious and literal meaning of those books ; but con- 
 trary to the sense of the Jewish nation. And for this scep- 
 ticism they might plead the example of the Apostles them- 
 selves, who, at first, like other unbelieving Jews, expected 
 a temporal Prince ; and did disbelieve Jesus to be the Mes-
 
 siah, on account of his death, notwithstanding his miracles. 
 And they continued in these thoughts, till it seems they 
 came to understand the spiritual sense of the Scriptures : 
 which spiritual sense, it is said, they obtained by " the tra- 
 ditionary rules of interpretation in use among the Jews." 
 Yet it is rather inconsistent and singular, that they should 
 place so much dependence upon these traditionary rules, 
 and yet pay so little regard to the traditionary explication of 
 the Scriptures, with respect to the temporal kingdom of the 
 Messiah.* 
 
 * The sum of our argument may be expressed thus. God is repre- 
 sented in the Prophecies of the Old Testament as designing to send 
 into the world an eminent Deliverer, descended from David, the peace 
 and prosperity of 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 alleging the prophecies of the Hebrew Scriptures as belonging to, 
 and fulfilled in him, is what we can by no means allow, and that espe- 
 cially 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 by an accomplishment so plain and sensible, as might sufficiently 
 distinguish the person meant by them to be that Messiah. Bat 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 connection 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 applications of the prophecies, Christians 
 finding themselves hard pressed by the simple and natural construc- 
 tion, forsake the literal, and take shelter in spiritual and mystical 
 senses, fly to Hyperboles, and strained metaphors, and thus expound 
 the true meaning and importance of the prophecies quite away ; the in- 
 tent 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 am- 
 biguous 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 ; would be unable to teach the 
 clear truth, and apt to ensnare men in 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 espe- 
 cially, mast be figuratively taken ; yet we must always put a wide dif- 
 
 K
 
 62 
 
 CHAPTER IX. 
 
 I am now about to consider a subject, to which, notwith- 
 standing the harshness of my language in some of the pre- 
 ceding chapters, I approach with feelings of great respect, 
 
 ference between a sense not just, as the words in their first signification 
 import, and a sense directly the contrary of what they import. And 
 yet we complain that this latter is the sense which Christians labour to 
 obtrude upon the gainsayers. We say, that a kingdom of this world 
 and not of this world ; contempt and adoration , poverty and magnifi- 
 cence j persecution and peace ; sufferings and triumph ; a cross and a 
 throne ; the scandalous death of a private man upon a gibbet, and the 
 everlasting dominion of a universal monarch, must be reconciled, and 
 rneaa the self same thing, before the prophecies appealed to, can do 
 their cause any service. Granting then, that 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 mislead 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 Christ, 
 ehould be so exactly, and so entirely the very reverse of all those ideas 
 under which their Prophets had constantly described, and the Hebrew 
 nation as constantly expected their Messiah, and his coming ; and to 
 suppose that the Supreme Being meant to describe, and point out such 
 a person as Jesus Christ by such descriptions of the Messiah as are 
 contained in the Old Testament, is certainly substantially to accuse 
 foim of the most unjustifiable prevarication, and mockery of his crea- 
 tures. 
 
 In cider 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 
 \ioth Jews and Christians. Whether the supernatural claims of the 
 Old Testament be just, or not, is of no consequence in the world to 
 the controversy we are considering For the dispute of the Jew with 
 the Christian is one thing, and his dispute with the sceptic is anoftier 
 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 ap- 
 pear at all. The Christian says, that he has appeared in the person 
 c( Jesus of Nazareth. This the Jew denies, but looks forward to the 
 future fulfillment of the promises in his Bible. While the Sceptic 
 denies that the Messiah has come, or ever will. 
 
 But the subject at present under consideration is the dispute of the 
 Jew wi.h the Christian, who acknowledges the Old Testament to be a 
 iievela'ion, upon which a new Revelation, that of the New Testament
 
 63 
 
 Far be it from me to reproach the meek, the compassionate, 
 the amiable Jesus, or to attribute to him, tjbe mischiefs oc- 
 casioned by his followers. No, I look upo*n his character 
 with the respect which every man should pay to purity of 
 mprals : though mingled with something like the sentiments 
 which we naturally feel for the mistaken enfhusiast.\ Jesus 
 
 is founded, and erected. To him the Jew argues, that if the Old Tes- 
 tament be a Divine Revelation, then the New Testament cannot be a 
 Revelation, because it contradicts, and is repugnant to the Old Testa- 
 ment, 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, con- 
 scious 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 Chris- 
 tianity ; then the Jow would tell him, that he acts as absurdly a a 
 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 id reduced to this fttal 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 abun- 
 dantly, that the New Testament is contradictory, and repugnant to the 
 Old, and to itself too. If, on the other hand, the Old Testament con- 
 tains no Revelation from God, then the New Testament must go 
 down at any rate ; because it assert-? that the Old Testament does con- 
 tain a Revelation from Gcd, and builds upon it as a foundation. 
 
 | There was nothing which gave the author, in writing this Book, 
 BO much uneasiness, as the apprehension of being supposed to enter- 
 tain disrespectful sentiments of the Founder of the Christian Religion. 
 I would most earnestly entreat the reader to believe my solemn assur- 
 ances, that by nothing that I have said, or shall be under the necessity 
 of saying, do I thick, or mean to intimate the slightest disparagement 
 to the moral character of one, whose purity of morals, and good inten- 
 tions, deserve any thing else but repioach. 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 apprehension above-mentioned 
 alone, I would have confined the contents of this volume to myself, did 
 I not feel compelled to justify myself for having quitted a profession; 
 and did I not, above all, think it my duty, to make a well meant at- 
 tempt, which I hope will be seconded, to vindicate the unbelief of art 
 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 ia the duty of every 
 honest, and every humane man, to endeavour to dispel an illusion, 
 which certainly has been, notwithstanding any thing that can be said 
 to tho contrary, the bona fide, and real cause of unspeakable misery, 
 and of repeated and remorseless plundering, 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.
 
 64 
 
 of 'Nazareth appears to have been a man of irreproachable 
 purity, of great piety, and of great mildness of disposition. 
 Though the world has never beheld a character exactly pa- 
 rallel with his, yet it has seen many greatly similar. Con- 
 templative and melancholy, it is said of him by his followers, 
 " he was often seen to weep, but never to laugh." He re- 
 tired to solitary places, and there prayed : he went into the 
 wilderness to sustain, and to vanquish the assaults of the 
 devil : In a word, he appears by such means to have per- 
 suaded himself, as hundreds have done since, that he was 
 the chosen servant of God, raised up to preach righteous- 
 ness to the hypocrites and sinners of his day. It is remark- 
 able, 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 as- 
 sume 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 Jleshly foes ; but he un- 
 dertook to save them from the tyranny of their spiritual ene- 
 mies. He could not undertake to set up his kingdom upon 
 earth ; but he told them that he had a kingdom in another 
 world. He could not pretend to give unto his followers the 
 splendid rewards of an earthly monarch : but he promised 
 them instead thereof, forgiveness oj sins, and spiritual remu- 
 neration. 
 
 In a word, he was not a king fit for the 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 pro- 
 phecy of Malachi concerning Elias, to John the Baptist. 
 
 As to his conduct to the woman, it was the conduct of a 
 mild, and merciful man, but not that of one who declared, 
 " that he came to fulfil the law." For God commanded
 
 65 
 
 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 hy which he 
 deterred the witnesses from testifying against her, was a 
 contrivance, directly calculated, totally to frustrate the ends 
 of justice ; and which, if acted upon at this day, in Chris- 
 tian 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 f ' 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 di- 
 vider over you ? carry the accused to the proper tribunal.' 
 
 As to his conduct about the matter of Elias, it was as fol- 
 lows: It is said, in the 17th chapter of Matthew, that at his 
 transfiguration, as it is called, Moses and Elias appeared to 
 his disciples on the mount, talking with Jesus. Upon com- 
 ing down from the mount, the disciples asked Jesus, " how 
 say the Scribes that Elias must come first, (that is, before 
 the Messiah.) Jesus answered, Elias truly cometh first, and 
 restoreth all things ; but I say unto you, that Elias has come 
 already, and they have done imto him what they would ;" 
 meaning John the Baptist, who was beheaded by Herod. 
 (See the parrallel place in Mark.) And he says, concern- 
 ing 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 
 prophesied of by Malachi, as to come before the great, 
 and terrible day of the Lord" which has not yet taken place. 
 And besides, that he was not Elias is testified of, and con- 
 firmed by John himself, who in the gospel of John, chapter 
 1, to the question of the Scribes asking him, " if he was 
 Elias ?' answers, " / am not" It is pretty clear that Jesus 
 was embarrassed by the question of the Apostles, " how say 
 the Scribes, that Elias must come first ?" for his answer is 
 confused ; for he allows the truth of the observation of the 
 Scribes, and then refers them to John, and insinuates that he 
 was " the Elias to come." However it must be acknow- 
 ledged, 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 said by some qf my readers. Do you account
 
 66 
 
 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 extraordinary claims ? and who should assert, 
 that " eating his fash, and drinking his blood" were necessary 
 to secure eternal life f Who should say, that " he and God 
 were one f and should affirm (as Jesus does in the last chap- 
 ters of John) that " God was inside of him and dwelt in 
 him ;" and that " he who had seen him, had seen God f" 
 What should we think of this ? Should we consider such 
 a man an object of wrath, or of pity ? Should we not di- 
 rectly, and without hesitation, attribute such extravagan- 
 cies to hallucination of mind ? Yes, certainly ! and there- 
 fore the Jews were to blame for crucifying Jesus. If Chris- 
 tians had put to death every unfortunate, who, after being 
 frenzied by religious fasting and contemplation, became 
 wild enough to assert, that he was Christ, or God the Fa- 
 ther, or the Virgin Mary, or even the Holy Trinity, they 
 would have been guilty of more than ffity 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 ahvays in his 
 right mind, I think, will appear plain to every intelligent 
 physician who reads his discourses, especially those in the 
 gospel of John. They are a mixture of something that looks 
 like sublimity strangely disfigured by wild and incoherent 
 words. So unintelligible indeed, that even the profoundest 
 of Christian divines have never been able to fathom all their 
 mysteries. To prove that I do not say these things rashly, 
 wickedly, or out of any malignity towards the character of 
 Jesus, which I really respect and venerate, I will establish 
 my assertions by examples. For instance 
 
 Many instances might be adduced of conduct directly 
 subversive of the very design to promote which, he said, that 
 he was sent into the world. For example, he said, that he 
 came to preach glad tidings to the poor and uninformed ; 
 and yet he declares to his disciples, that he spake to this 
 very multitude ot poor and ignorant people in parables, 
 lest they might understand him, and Le converted from their 
 sins, and God should heal or pardon them- In the 26th chap- 
 ter of Matthew, Jesus says, to his disciples in the garden of
 
 67 
 
 Gethsemane these strange words, " Sleep on now, and take 
 your rest Arise! let us be going" The commentators en- 
 deavour to get rid of the strange contradictoriness of these 
 words, by turning the command into the future ; and render- 
 ing the Greek word translated " now," thus "for the rest 
 of your time," or "for the future" And that he asked 
 them " whether they slept for the future" ? ! which appears 
 to be just as rational, as to have asked, " how they do to- 
 morrow" ? ! 
 
 Jo. viii. 51, " Verily, verily, (said Jesus) I say unto you, 
 if a man keep my saying, he shall never see death" Reader, 
 what dost thou think of this saying? Has believing in the 
 Christian religion, at all prevented men from dying as iri 
 aforetime ? 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 de- 
 mon (i. e. art mad) Abraham is dead, and the Prophets, 
 and thou sayest if a man keep my saying he shall never 
 taste of death ?" So said the Jews, and if in our times a man 
 was to make a similar assertion, should we not say the same ? 
 
 Many instances might also be given of absurd and in- 
 consequent reasoning ; but I shall only adduce the follow- 
 ing: He reproaches the Pharisees, Luke xi. 47, 48, for 
 building, and adorning the sepulchres of the Prophets, whom 
 their wicked fathers slew ; and says to them, " Your fathers 
 slew them, and ye build their sepulchres ;" and he adds, 
 "That thus they showed that they approved the deeds of 
 their fathers !" Surely this is absurd ! Did the Athenians, 
 by setting up a statue to Socrates after his unjust death, 
 show to the world that they "approved" the deed of them 
 who slew him ? Did it not show the direct contrary ? And 
 was it not intended as a testimony of their regret and repen- 
 tence. 
 
 Again, " Upon you (says Jesus to the Jews) shall come 
 all the righteous blood that has been shed upon the earth, from 
 the blood of Abel, the righteous, to the blood of Zechariah,'* 
 &c. Now herein is a marvellous thing ! How could a man 
 really sent from God, assert to the Jews, that of them should 
 be required the blood of Abel, and of all the righteous slain 
 upon the earth ? Did the Jews kill Abel? or did their fathers 
 kill him ? No ! he was slain by Cain, whose posterity all 
 perished in the deluge : how then could God require of the
 
 68 
 
 Jews, who lived four thousand years after the murder, the 
 guilt of it: nay more, "of all the righteous blood that had 
 been shed upon the earth," were they guilty of all that too? 
 If such assertions, and suck reasonings, do not prove what I 
 asserted, what can ? 
 
 . It is said, that Jesus, by giving himself up to suffer death, 
 proved the truth of his mission and doctrines, by his readi- 
 ness to die for them. But this is an argument which will 
 recoil upon those who advance it. Are there no instances 
 upon record of mild, zealous, and amiable men who preach- 
 ed to the savages of America, that they ought to worship the 
 Virgin Mary ? and did they not cheerfully die by the most 
 excruciating torments to prove it? Yes, certainly! And let 
 any Protestant Christian read the accounts of the preaching, 
 sufferings, deaths., aye ! and miracles too, of the Roman 
 Catholic missionaries in Asia and America; and then let 
 him candidly answer, whether he is willing to rest the issue 
 of his controversy with the Papists upon the argument of 
 martyrdom ? We all know the power of enthusiasm upon 
 a susceptible mind ; and we have read of, and perhaps seen 
 its effects in producing martyrdoms among people or all re- 
 ligions, 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 hus- 
 bands, to prove, as they say, their love for them, and their 
 determination to accompany them to the other world ; when 
 it is well known, that they bum themselves from the impulse 
 of vanity, and the fear of disgrace, if they should not do so. 
 Nay more still, so little support does martyrdom yield to 
 truth, that there are more martyrdoms in honour of the 
 false, rediculous, and abominable idols of Hindostan, than 
 any where else. You may see men hooked through the 
 ribs, and supported, and whirled round in the air, in honour 
 of their gods, clapping their hands, and testifying pleasure, 
 instead of crying out with pain. You may see in that 
 country, the misguided enthusiastic worshippers of missha- 
 pen 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 bed of roses. Indeed the 
 argument of martyrdom will support any religion ; and it 
 has, in fact, been cheerfully undergone by enthusiasts, and
 
 zealots of all religions, in testimony of the firm belief of the 
 sufferers not only in the absurdities of Popery, and 
 Brachmanism, but of every, even the most monstrous 
 system that ever disgraced the human understanding. 
 There have been martyrs for Atheism itself. 
 
 This argument of martyrdom has been more particularly 
 applied to the Apostles, and first Christians. "How 
 can it be imagined, (say Christian Divines,) that sim- 
 ple 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 ex- 
 pect to get by supporting false doctrine, and false testi- 
 mony. 
 
 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 we not seen such men submit to de- 
 privations 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 endeavor 
 to convince another of it, by such an argument as the 
 above ! 
 
 But much more than this can be said upon this topic ; 
 for it can be shown, that the Apostles in preaching Chris- 
 tianity, did not suffer near so much, as some well meaning 
 enthusiasts in modern times have suffered, to propagate re- 
 ligious tenets notoriously false, and absurd. And that the 
 Apostles could expect to get neither fame, nor honour, nor 
 riches by their preaching, is doubtful. This is certain, that 
 they could not lose much. For they were confessedly 
 
 L
 
 70 
 
 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, ani 
 though they did not acquire fame or respect from the 
 higher ranks of society, they were at least held in great 
 respect by their followers. Neither George Fox, nor Whit- 
 Jield, nor Westley were honoured by the nobility, or gentry, 
 or scholars of England ; or Ann Lee, by the most respecta- 
 ble citizens of the United States. Yet among their dis- 
 ciples, 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 paid, 
 for the trouble of making converts ? 
 
 It is true that the Apostles did not acquire riches, for 
 'they were conversant only with the poor. But neither 
 had they any to lose by taking up the profession of Apos- 
 tles and Preachers. At least by preaching the gospel, 
 they obtained food, and clothing, and contributions ; as is 
 evident from many places in the Epistles, where they 
 write to their converts, "it is written, 'thou shalt not 
 muzzle the ox when he treadeth out the corn ;' " and Paul- 
 tells them, that they must not think from this place, that 
 God takes care for oxen, " for, (says he,) it was undoubted- 
 ly written for our sakes." Thus we see that the gospel 
 was by no means altogether unprofitable, and many men 
 daily risk their lives for. less gain than the Apostles did. 
 
 As to the dangers, to which it is said they exposed 
 themselves, they had none to fear, except in Judea, which 
 they quickly quitted, finding the Jews too stubborn, and 
 went to the Greeks. From the Greeks, and likewise from 
 the Romans, they had not much to fear, who were not very 
 difficult or scrupulous in admitting new Gods, and new 
 modes of worship. Besides this, the Romans for a great 
 while seem to have considered the Christians merely as a 
 Jewish sect who differed from 'the rest of the Jews in mat- 
 ters not worth notice ; as is to be gathered from Tacit uf
 
 71 
 
 and Suetonius. And if the Apostles did speak against the 
 Pagan Gods, it was no more than what the Roman poets 
 and philosophers did : and the magistrates were not then 
 very severe about it. And it is evident from the Acts of 
 the Apostles, that the Roman praetors considered the ac- 
 cusations against Paul and his companions, as mere trifles. 
 But in Judea, where the danger was evident, it was other- 
 wise. When Paul was in peril there, on account of his 
 transgressions against the law, after being delivered from 
 the Jews by the Roman garrison at Jerusalem, he pleaded 
 before Festus and Agrippa, that he was falsely accused by 
 the Jews ; and he asserted that he had taught nothing 
 against the Law of Moses, and his country, but that he only 
 preached about the resurrection of the dead ; and that it 
 was for this that the Jews persecuted him ; and ended by 
 appealing to Caesar. When yet he knew that this was not 
 the reason of the hatred of the Jews against him ; but that 
 it was because he taught that circumcision, and the Law of 
 Moses were abolished, and no longer binding : which is evi- 
 dent to any who will read the Acts, and the Epistle to the 
 Galatians. So you see by what manceuvre he got out of 
 the difficulty : first, by at least equivocating, and then by 
 refusing to be tried by his own countrymen, and appealing 
 to Caesar ; thus securing himself a safe conduct out of 
 Judea, which was too dangerous for him. Among the Gen- 
 tiles, their doctrine had a better chance of success, for they 
 taught them marvellous doctrines, such as they had been 
 accustomed to listen to, viz., how the Son of God was born 
 of a virgin, and was cruelly put to death ; and that his Di- 
 vine Father raised him from the dead. The idea of God's 
 having a Son of a woman did not shock them, for all their de- 
 mi-gods they believed had been so begotten ; and a great part 
 of their poems are filled with the exploits and the sufferings 
 of these heroes, who are at length rewarded by being raised 
 from earth to heaven, as Jesus is said to have been. 
 These doctrines were not disrelished by the common people, 
 but were rejected by the wise and learned. Accordingly 
 we see that Paul could make nothing of the philosophers of 
 Athens, who derided him, and considered him as telling them 
 a story similar to those of their own mythology, when he 
 preached to them Jesus and the resurrection. And in re- 
 venge we see Paul railing against both the stubborn Jews, 
 and the incorrigible philosophers, as being unworthy of 
 knowing " the hidden wisdom," which was to the one "a
 
 72 
 
 stumbling block," and to the other, " foolishness," and which 
 he thought fit only for " the babes," and " the devout wo- 
 men," with whom he principally dealt. 
 
 That the New Testament inculcates an excellent mo- 
 rality, cannot be denied ; for its best moral precepts were 
 taken from the Old Testament. And if the Apostles had 
 not preached good morals, how could they have expected 
 to be considered by the Gentiles as messengers from God ? 
 For if they had inculcated any immoralities, such as rebel- 
 lion, murder, adultery, robbery, revenge, their mission 
 would not only have been disbelieved, but they would have 
 undergone capital punishment by the sentence of the judge, 
 which it was their business to avoid. Mahomet., through- 
 out the Koran, inculcates all the virtues, and pointedly re- 
 probates vice of all kinds. His morality is merely the pre- 
 cepts of the' Old and New Testaments, modified a little, 
 and expressed in Arabic. They are good precepts, and al- 
 ways to be listened to with respect, wherever, and by whom- 
 soever 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, (be- 
 sides James who was slain by Herod,) died a natural, or a 
 violent death, the learned Christians do not certainly knoio. 
 For there is extant no authentic history of the Apostles, 
 besides the Acts. There are indeed many fabulous narra- 
 tions published by the Papists, called Marty roloyies, stuffed 
 with the most extravagant lies, which no learned man now 
 regards ; and who, therefore, will credit what such books 
 say of the Apostles ? Peter is said in them to have been 
 put to death at Rome by Nero, nevertheless most of the 
 learned men of the Protestants assert, that Peter never was 
 in Rome, and as for Paul, no one certainly knows where, when, 
 or how 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 Apostles ; 
 who, we are sure derived some benefit by preaching the 
 gospel, and are not sure that they came to any harm by it 
 
 I will conclude this long chapter, by laying before my
 
 73 
 
 reader some extracts from the book written by Celsus, a 
 Heathen philosopher, against Christianity, preserved by 
 Origin 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 enquirer ; 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 excel- 
 lent people, with hardly any fault but credulity. 
 
 "If they (i. e. the teachers of Christianity,) say " do 
 not examine" and the like ; it is however incumbent on 
 them to teach what those things are which they assert, and 
 whence they are derived." 
 
 " Wisdom in life is a bad thing, but folly is good." 
 
 " Why should Jesus, when an infant, be carried into 
 Egypt, lest he should be murdered ? God should not fear 
 being put to death." 
 
 " You say that God was sent to sinners : but why not 
 to those who are free from sin ? What harm is it not to 
 have sinned ?" 
 
 " You encourage sinners, because you are not able to 
 persuade any really good men: therefore you open the 
 doors to the most wicked and abandoned." 
 
 " Some of them say ' do not examine, but believe, and 
 thy faith shall 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 are reckoned evil by us. But 
 whoever is unlearned, ignorant, and silly, let him come 
 without fear ! Thus they own that they can gain only the 
 foolish, the vulgar, the stupid, slaves, women, and chil- 
 dren." 
 
 " At first, when they were but few, they agreed. But 
 when they became a multitude, they were rent again, and
 
 74 
 
 again, and each will have their own factions : for factious 
 spirits they had from the beginning." 
 
 " All wise men are excluded from the doctrine of their 
 faith ; they called to it only fools, and men of a servile 
 spirit." 
 
 " The preachers of their Divine Word only attempt to 
 persuade silly, mean, senseless persons, slaves, women, and 
 children. What harm is there in being well-informed ; and 
 both in being, and appearing a man of knowledge ? What 
 obstacle can this be to the knowledge of God ? Must it not 
 be an advantage ?" 
 
 " We see these Itinerants shewing readily their tricks to 
 the vulgar, but not approaching the assemblies of wise men 
 nor daring there to show themselves. But wherever they 
 see boys., a crowd of slaves, and ignorant men, there they 
 thrust in themselves, and show off their doctrine." 
 
 "You may see weavers, tailors, and fullers, illiterate 
 and rustic men, not daring to utter a word before persons 
 of age, experience, and respectabili ty ; but when they get 
 hold of boys privately, and silly women, they recount won- 
 derful things ; that they must not mind their fathers, or 
 their tutors, but obey them ; as their fathers, or guardians 
 are quite ignorant, and in the dark ; but themselves alone 
 have the true wisdom. And if the children obey them, 
 they pronounce them happy, and direct them to leave their 
 fathers, and tutors, and go with the women, and their play- 
 fellows, into the chambers of the females, or into a tailor's, 
 or fuller's shop, that they may learn perfection." 
 
 Celsus compares a Christian teacher to a quack " who 
 promises to heal the sick, on condition that they keep from 
 intelligent practitioners, lest his ignorance be detected." 
 i 
 
 " If one sort of them introduces one doctrine, another, 
 another, and all join in saying * Believe if you would be 
 saved, or depart .' what are they to do, who desire really to 
 be saved ? Are they to determine by the throw of a die, 
 where they are to turn themselves, or which of these de- 
 manders of implicit faith they are to believe ?" 
 
 Omitting what Celsus says reproachfully of the moral
 
 75 
 
 characters of the Apostles, and the first teachers of Chris- 
 tianity, for which we certainly shall not take his word ; it 
 is easy to perceive from the above quotations, that they had 
 more success among simple, and credulous people, than 
 among the intelligent, and well-informed. Their introduc- 
 tory lesson to their pupils, was, " Believe, but do not ex- 
 amine ;" and their succeeding instructions seem to have 
 been a continued repetition, and practice of the dogma of 
 implicit faith.* 
 
 CHAPTER X. 
 
 MATTHEW, ch. v., Jesus says, " Ye have heard that it was 
 said, " Thou shalt love thy neighbour and hate thine enemy." 
 But this is no where said in the Law or the Prophets ; but, 
 on the contrary, we read directly the reverse. For it is written, 
 Ex. xxiii. " If thou find the ox of thine enemy, or his ass 
 going astray, thou shalt certainly bring him back to him." 
 " If thou seest the ass of him that liateth thee lying under 
 
 * Jerom, in his Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians, says, 
 that "The Church of Christ was not gathered from the Academy, or 
 the Lyceum, but from the lowest of the People." (Vili Plebecula.) 
 And Ccecilius' in Minutius Felix, says, that the Christian assemblies 
 were made op "de ultima fece collectis, imperitoribus, et mulieribua 
 credulis sexus suae facilitate labentibus," i. e. " that they consisted of 
 the lowest of the mob, simple and unlearned men, and credulous wo- 
 men." 
 
 The president of a province is introduced by Prudenuus as thus ad- 
 dressing a martyr. 
 
 " Tu qui Doctor, ait, seris novellum 
 Comment! genus, ut LEVES PUELL.E, 
 Lucos destituunt, 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 appears evidently from the New 
 Tastament, 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 Ebionites, 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 number, and became extinct.
 
 76 
 
 his burden, and wouldst forbear to help him, thou shalt 
 surely help him." Again, Levit. xix., " Thou shalt not hate 
 thy brother in thine heart, rebuke thy neighbour, nor suffer 
 sin upon him. Thou shalt not revenue, nor keep anger, (or 
 bear any grudge,) against the children of thy people, but 
 thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, I am the Lord." 
 So also in Prov. xxxiv. " When thine enemy falleth, do not 
 triumph, and when he stumbleth, let not thine heart exult." 
 So also in ch. xxv. " If thine 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 fulfill- 
 ment of it contrary to nature, and those very instincts given 
 us by our Creator. And therefore, whoever thinks he ful- 
 fills, really fulfills this command, does in fact play the hy- 
 pocrite unknown to himself ; for though we can, and ought 
 to do good to our enemy, yet to love him is as unnatural as 
 to hate our friends. 
 
 In Mark ch. ii. 25, Jesus says to the Pharisees, " Have 
 ye not read what David did when he hungered, and those 
 that were with him. How that he entered into the house 
 of the Lord, in the time of Abiathar the High Priest, and 
 did eat of the shew-bread, &c." See the same also in Mat- 
 thew, ch. xii. 3. Luke vi. 3. Now here is a great blunder : 
 for this thing happened in the time of Achimelech, not in 
 the time of Abiathar; for so it is written, 1 Sam. xxi. "and 
 David came to Nob, to Achimelech the Priest, &c." And 
 in the 22nd chapter it is said that Abiathar was his son. 
 
 In Luke ch. 1. 26, the Angel Gabriel is said to have come 
 from God to Mary, when she was yet a virgin, espoused to 
 Joseph, who was of the house of David, and announced to 
 her that she should conceive, and bear a son, and should 
 call his name Jesus ; that her holy Offspring should be call- 
 ed 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 forever, and that to his kingdom there 
 should be no end." Now this story is encumbered with 
 many difficulties, which I shall not consider ; but confine
 
 77 
 
 myself to asking, Wherefore, if these things were true, did 
 not the Mother of Jesus and his brethren, knowing these 
 extraordinary things, obey his teachings ? For it is certain, 
 that they did not at first believe him, but, as appears from 
 the 7th chap, of John, derided him. Besides, neither did his 
 mother nor his brethren, when they came to the house 
 where he was preaching to simple and credulous men, come 
 for the purpose of being edified, but " to lay hold of him," 
 to carry him home, for said they he is mad, or " beside 
 himself," (Mark iii. 21) which certainly they would not 
 have dared to do, if this story of Luke were true. For 
 their mother would have taught them of his miraculous 
 conception, and extraordinary character. Moreover, how 
 was it that God did not give him the throne of David, as 
 was promised by the Angel to his Mother ? For he did not 
 sit upon the throne of David, nor exercise any authority in 
 Israel. Moreover, how comes it that David is called the 
 Father of Jesus, since Jesus was not the son of Joseph, 
 who, according to the Evangelists drew his origin from that 
 King. Finally, the saying " that to , his kingdom there 
 should be no end," is directly contradicted by Paul in the 
 1st Ep. to the Cor. ch. xv: for he says therein "that Jesus 
 shall render up his kingdom unto the Father, and be him- 
 self subject unto him." Here you see, that the kingdom of 
 Jesus is to have an end ; for when he renders up his king- 
 dom 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. 89, " And the Father himself which 
 hath sent me, hath borne witness of me ; ye have neither 
 heard his voice at any time, &c." But how does this agree 
 with Moses, who says, Deut iv. 33, " Did ever People 
 hear the voice of God speaking out of the midst of fire, as 
 thou hast heard ?" " And we heard his voice out of the 
 midst of the fire ; we have seen this day, that God doth 
 talk with man, and he liveth." Deut v. 24. 
 
 Luke, ch. 4, 17, "And they gave to Jesus the Book 
 of Isaiah the Prophet, and he opened the Book, and found 
 this place, where it was written, < The Spirit of the Lord is 
 upon me, therefore hath he anointed me ; to preach the 
 Gospel to the poor hath he sent me, that I should bind up 
 the broken in heart, proclaim liberty to the captives, and
 
 78 
 
 tight to the blind ; that I should preach the acceptable year 
 of the Lord.' And shutting the Book, he gave it to the 
 minister, and afterwards addressed them, saying, This day 
 is this Scripture fulfilled in your ears." Here you see the 
 words which gave offence ; and by turning to Is. in loco, 
 chap. Ixi you may see the reason why the inhabitants 
 of Nazareth arose up in wrath against him. For 1. 
 these words ailed <*ed in Luke, are somewhat perverted 
 from the original in Isaiah : for these words, " and sight 
 to the blind," are not in Isaiah, but are inserted in 
 Luke for purposes very obvious. And 2. he neglects 
 the words following, " and the day of vengeance of our 
 God, and of consolation to all who mourn. To give 
 consolation to the mourners of Zion ; to give them beauty 
 instead of ashes, and the oil of joy instead of grief ; a gar- 
 ment of praise instead of a broken heart, &c." to the end 
 of the chapter. From this it is very clear, that this prophecy 
 has no reference to Jesus : but Isaiah speaks these things 
 of himself ; and the words "the Lord hath anointed me," 
 signifying, " God hath chosen, established me to declare" 
 what follows. This exposition of anointing is confirmed 
 from these passages. 1 Kings, xix ch. " Anoint a Prophet 
 in thy stead," where the sense is, " constitute a Prophet in 
 thy place." Again, " touch not mine anointed ones, and 
 do my Prophets no harm," i. e. "Touch not my chosen 
 servants ;" and so in several other places. The meaning, 
 therefore, of Isaiah is, that God had appointed, and con- 
 stituted him a Prophet to announce these consolations to 
 the Israelites, who were to be in captivity, in order that 
 they should not despair of liberation ; and that they should 
 have hope, when they read these comfortable words spoken 
 by the mouth of Isaiah, at the command of God. For he 
 calls the subjects of his message " the broken in heart," 
 "the captives," "the mourners of Zion, &c." all which terms 
 are applicable only to the Israelites. That this is the true 
 interpretation, will be made further evident to any impar- 
 tial person, by reading the context preceding, and follow- 
 ing. 
 
 Jo. ch. ii. v. 18. "The Jews said to Jesus, what sign 
 shewest 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, say- 
 ing, forty and six years was this temple in building, and 
 wilt thou build it in three days ?" The Jews could never
 
 79 
 
 have spoken these words here related : for the temple then 
 standing was built by Herod, who reigned but thirty-seven 
 years, and built it in eight years. This, therefore, must be 
 a blunder of the Evangelist. 
 
 Jo. xiii. v. 21. Jesus says to his Disciples, " a new com- 
 mandment 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." 
 
 : 9 ->'. . , - 
 
 Acts vii, v. 4. When he (Abraham) went out of the land 
 of the Chaldees, he dwelt in Charran ; fi om thence after 
 hisfatlier was dead, he led him into this land in which ye 
 dwell." This directly contradicts the chapter in Genesis 
 where the story of Abraham's leaving Haran is related ;'for 
 it is certain from thence, that Abraham left his father Terah 
 in Haran alive when he departed thence. And he did not 
 die till many years afterwards. This chronogical contra- 
 diction has given much trouble to Christian Commentators, 
 as may be seen in Wliitby, 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 Abra- 
 ham bought from the Sons of Hemor the Father of Sicnem.'* 
 Here is another blunder ; for this piece of land was not pur- 
 chased 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 Mach- 
 palah, recorded in Gen. xxiii. with the circumstances 
 related concerning the purchase by Jacob. 
 
 In v. 43 of the same chapter, there is another disagree- 
 ment between Stephen's quotation from Amos, and the ori- 
 ginal, which see. 
 
 So also there is in the speech of James, Acts xv. a quo- 
 tation 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 al-
 
 80 
 
 most I was going to say in every page, of these Histories 
 of Jesus and his Apostles, sufficiently show how superficial 
 was the acquaintance of these men with the Old Testament, 
 and how grossly, either through design or ignorance, they 
 have perverted it. Indeed from these mistakes alone, I 
 should be led strongly to suspect, that the Books of the 
 New Testament were written by Gentiles, as I can hardly 
 conceive that any Jew could have quoted his Bible in such 
 a blundering manner. 
 
 CHAPTER XL 
 
 A very great part of Dogmatic Theology among Chris- 
 tians, is founded upon the notion, that the Jewish Law was a 
 temporary dispensation, only to exist till the coming of Je- 
 sus, when it was to be superceded by a more perfect dispen- 
 
 On the contrary, the Jews are persuaded that their Law 
 is of perpetual obligation, and the Doctrine of the Trinity 
 itself is hardly more offensive to them, and, as they think, 
 more contradictory to the Scriptures, than the notion of the 
 abrogation of it Now that the Jews are on the right side 
 of this question, i. e. arguing from the Old Testament, I 
 shall endeavour to prove by several arguments. They are 
 all comprised in these positions, 1. That the Mosaic In- 
 stitutions are most solemnly, and repeatedly declared to be 
 perpetual ; and we have no account of their being abrogated, 
 or to be abrogated in the Old Testament 2. They are de- 
 clared 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 17 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 chapter where the 
 ^condition of the covenant is, that God would give to Abraham,
 
 81 
 
 and his posterity the perpetual inheritance of the promised 
 land with whatever privileges were implied in his being their 
 God, on condition that their male children were circum- 
 cised, in testimony of putting themselves under that cove* 
 nant There is no limitation with respect to time ; nay it is 
 expressly said that the covenant 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 forever." This is repeated afterwards, and 
 the observance of this rite is confined to Israelites, Pro- 
 selytes, and Slaves who should be circumcised, v. 48. 
 
 The observance of the Sibbath was never to be discon- 
 tinued, 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 chil- 
 dren of Israel/orewr." 
 
 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 be forever, Lev. xxiii. 
 41. " It shall be a statute forever, 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 word ; as 
 if an union of worship at Jerusalem was to be, according to 
 them, effected among all nations by the united observance 
 of this Festival there, see Zech. 14 ; what he there says is 
 confirmed by what Isaiah prophesied concerning the same 
 period, Is. 2. " It shall come to pass in the last days, that 
 the mountain of the Lord's house shall be established in 
 the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the 
 hills, and all nations shall flow unto it. And many people 
 shall go, and say, Come ye, and let us go up to the moun- 
 tain of the Lord, to the house of the God of Jacob, and he 
 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 na- 
 tions, 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 He- 
 brew 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 pos- 
 session 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 repen- 
 tance, God would gather them from the remote parts 
 of the world, and bring them to their own country 
 again. And both Moses, and the later Prophets as- 
 sure them, that in consequence of their becoming obedi- 
 ent 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 thou 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 ut- 
 most 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 Fa- 
 thers 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
 
 83 
 
 thy seed, to love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and 
 with all thy soul, that thou mayest 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 com- 
 mandments which I command thee this day, Sfc." 
 
 " What an extent of prophecy, and how firm a faith in 
 the whole of it do we see here ! (says Dr. Priestley) The 
 Israelites were not then in the land of Canaan. It was oc- 
 cupied by nations far more numerous, and powerful 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 idola- 
 try, and wickedness, and would in consequence of it be 
 driven out of their country ; and without being exter- 
 minated 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 fa- 
 vour, 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 wonderful exactness to' 
 what has been fulfilled of this prophecy, that we can have 
 no 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 
 days ; and that they should have the undisturbed posses- 
 sion of it to the end of time. 
 
 It has been objected, that the term "forever" is not al- 
 ways to be understood in its greatest extent, but is to be 
 interpreted according to circumstances. This for the sake 
 of saving time I will acknowledge. But the circumstances 
 in which this phrase is used in the passages already ad- 
 duced, and in a number of others of similar import which 
 might be adduced, clearly indicate, that it is to be under- 
 stood in those passages to mean a period as long as the 
 duration of the Israelitish nation, which elsewhere is said to 
 continue to the end of the world.
 
 84 
 
 For this reason, among others, this final return of the 
 Jews from their dispersed state, cannot at any rate be said 
 to have been accomplished at their return from the Baby- 
 lonish captivity. 
 
 For that captivity was not by any means such a total dis- 
 persion of the people among all nations, as Moses, 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 magnifi- 
 cent promises made to Abraham, and his posterity, and to 
 the nation in general afterwards, have never had any proper 
 accomplishment at all : because with respect to external pros- 
 perity, 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 pro- 
 mise itself in the most definite language expresses the con- 
 trary, is so arbitrary a construction a&,nothing can warrant 
 By this mode of interpretation, any event may be said to be 
 the fulfillment of any prophecy w/iatever. 
 
 Besides, it is perfectly evident, that these prophecies, 
 whether they will 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 forseen 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,
 
 85 
 
 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 accomplish- 
 ed ; this disobedience, and the consequences of it are ex- 
 pressly mentioned by Moses, and the other Prophets, only 
 as a temporary thing, and what was to be succeeded by an 
 effectual repentance, and perpetual obedience and pros- 
 perity. 
 
 Among others, let the following prophecy of Isaiah (in 
 which the future security of Israel is compared to the secu- 
 rity of the world from a second deluge) be considered, and 
 let any impartial person say, whether the language does not 
 necessarily lead those who believe the Old Testament, to 
 the expectation of a much more durable state of Glory and 
 Happiness, than has 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 ever- 
 lasting 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 moun- 
 tains shall (or " may") depart, and the hills be removed, 
 but my kindness 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. 
 In 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 heri- 
 tage of the servants of the Lord, and their righteousness 13 
 of me, saith the Lord." 
 
 Here, as also in Moses, and other Prophets, an esta- 
 blishment in righteousness is promised to the Israelites, 
 such as shall secure their future prosperity ; and this pro- 
 mise has not yet been fulfilled. The promise of future vir*
 
 86 
 
 tue, as connected with their future happiness, is also clearly 
 expressed in Jer. ch. iii. 18. 
 
 Had the Jewish nation become extinct, or likely to be- 
 come 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 pro- 
 mise must have had some other signification than that 
 which was most obvious. But the Jews are as much a dis- 
 tinct 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 cus- 
 toms, or modes of worship in " the latter days," is a proof 
 of the meant restoration of their ancient religious rites. 
 
 That the institutions of the Mosaic Law are to be con- 
 tinued on the restoration of the Jews to their own land af- 
 ter their utter dispersion, is asserted by Moses himself in one 
 of the passages already quoted ; but is more clearly ex- 
 pressed by the subsequent Prophets. In some of their 
 prophecies particular mention is made of the observance of 
 Jewish festivals, and of sacrifices ; and in Ezechiel we find 
 a description of a magnificent 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 be reared with greater magnificence 
 than ever. Mention is also made of " the Glory of the 
 Lord" or that effulgent Shechinah which 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 be- 
 hold the glory of the Lord came from the way of the East, 
 and his voiee 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
 
 87 
 
 me into 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 in the midst of the children of Israel 
 forever, 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 by sacrifices; and par- 
 ticular 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 are not only to return 
 to their own country, and to be distinguished among the 
 nations, but are to rebuild the Temple, and to restore the 
 ancient Worship. 
 
 Having proved that the Old Testament declares the per- 
 petuity of the Mosaic Law, I proceed 2ndly to prove, that 
 it is declared to be perpetual by Jesus himself. 
 
 But before I adduce my proofs, 1 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 or- 
 der 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 sub- 
 sisting, without a 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 tremen- 
 dously 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 fulfil. 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 com- 
 manded his Disciples to the same purpose " The Scribes
 
 88 
 
 and Pharisees (says he) sit in Moses' seat; all, therefor*, 
 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 abo- 
 lished. 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 intend- 
 ing, viz. of abolishing the moral law. He seems in his dis- 
 course 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 suffi- 
 cient 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" And all the 
 law is 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 cer- 
 tainly notwithstanding this fulfillment of the moral law, it 
 remains in as full force as ever. 
 
 The Apostles understood Jesus to mean as we have as- 
 serted. 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 con- 
 duct 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 con- 
 trary doctrine, as 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)) ihat thou teachest all the Jews which 
 are among the Gentiles, to prsake Moses, saying that they 
 ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after 
 the customs." 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 revort,
 
 89 
 
 he advises Paul to be at charges with some Jewish Chris- 
 tians, 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 was 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 offended 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 some 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." Bnt 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 Gen- 
 tiles. To the Jews he became as a Jew ; and to the un- 
 circumcised as one uncircumcised, he was " all things to all 
 menT 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 Com- 
 mentators, and the Reconciliators, the Disciples of Su- 
 renhusius ; 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 irutar 
 omnium 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
 
 90 
 
 Psalms, are nothing to the purpose ; they being merely de- 
 clarations 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 des- 
 truction by Titus do it And as it would be notoriously ab- 
 surd to maintain thejirst, so it is equally so, to maintain the 
 last position. Besides a very considerable part of that l;iw can 
 be, and for these seventeen hundred years has been kept with- 
 out 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. 
 
 CHAPTER XII. 
 
 As Christians lay great stress upon their argument for 
 the truth of their Religion, derived from the supposed mira- 
 culous conversion of Paul ; and since almost the whole of 
 Systematic Christianity is built upon the foundation of the 
 Epistles ascribed to him ; we shall pay a little more atten- 
 tion to his character and writings. 
 
 Paul was evidently a man of no small capacity, a fiery 
 temper, great subtilty, and considerably well versed in 
 Jewish Traditionary, and Cabbalistic Learning, and not un- 
 acquainted with the principles of the Philosophy called 
 *' the Oriental." He is said by Luke to have been convert- 
 ed 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 Nazarene Christians, he is repre- 
 sented as having been converted to Christianity from a 
 diiferent cause. They say * that being a man of tried abi- 
 lities and of some note, he demanded the High Prieafs
 
 91 
 
 daughter in marriage, and being refused, his rash and rage- 
 ful temper, and a desire of revenge, drove him to join the 
 " sect of the Nazarenes," at that time beginning to become 
 troublesome to the Sanhedrim. However this may be, 
 whether he became a Christian from conviction, or from am- 
 bition ; it is certain from the Acts that he always was con- 
 sidered 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. I 4 or it is 
 evident from the Epistles to the Galatians, and the Corin- 
 thians, that the Jewish Christians represented Paul to them 
 as not " sound in the Faith," but as teaching a different 
 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 there were two Parties, or Schools in the first 
 Christian church, viz. the adherents of the Apostles, and the 
 Disciples of Paul, is evident from the New Testament, and 
 has been fully, and unanswerably proved by the learned 
 Semler, the greatest Scholar certainly in Christian Anti- 
 qu ; ties that ever lived. The knowledge of this secret, ac- 
 counts for the different conduct of Paul when among his 
 Gentile converts, from that which he pursued when with the 
 apostles at Jerusalem. He had a difficult part to act, and 
 he managed admirably. He was indeed, as he says him- 
 self, " all things to all men," a Jew with the Jews, and as 
 one uncircumcised 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 him- 
 self out of tribulation, by throwing a bone of contention 
 among the Council, and setting his Judges together by the 
 ears. " And when Paul perceived that the one pait (of the 
 Council) were Sadducees, and the other Pharisees, he cried out 
 in the Council : Brethren lama Pharisee, and the son of a 
 Pharisee ; concerning the hope of the resurrection of the dead, 
 I am now judged. And when he had said this, a dissention 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 cry, and the Scribes that were on the 
 part of the Pharisee* arose and strove, saying, We find no
 
 92 
 
 evil in this man, &c." This indeed was a masterly ma- 
 noeuvre, and produced the desired effect ; and Paul by this 
 shows his knowledge of the human 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 the 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 de- 
 pends entirely upon his own assertion ; and whether his cre- 
 dibility be absolutely unimpeachable, can be easily deter- 
 mined by an impartial consideration of the history of his 
 conduct already mentioned. I will only add upon this sub- 
 ject, that in telling the story of his conversion, he ought to 
 have had a better memory. For in telling it once in the 
 xxvi. ch. of Acts, he says, in describing his miraculous vi- 
 sion, that " those that were 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 re- 
 corded 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 9 ch. of the Epistle to the Romans, v. 24, he 
 thus proves that the Old Testament prophesied of the con- 
 version 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 wilfully -, (yes wilfully, for Paul was a 
 learned man, and knew better) perverted the original from 
 its proper reference, and has passed upon his simple con- 
 verts, who did not know so much of the Jewish Scriptures,
 
 as he did, a prophecy relating entirely to the Jews, as re- 
 ferring to the Gentiles ! ! By turning to Hosea, 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 1 will not be 
 your God, yet the number of the children of Israel shall be 
 as the sand of the sea, which cannot be measured, nor num- 
 bered. 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, ye are the sons of the living God." Hos. 
 eh. 1. 
 
 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 discon- 
 nected. For in the 8th chapter of Is. it is written, " Sanc- 
 tify 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, " therefore thus saith the Lord God. Behold I lay 
 in Zion for a foundation, a stone, a tried stone, a precious cor- 
 ner stone, a sure foundation, he that believeth shall 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 con- 
 cern. 
 
 Ch. x. v. 6. " The scripture saith, * say not in thine 
 heart, " who shall ascend into Heaven ?' (that is that he 
 may bring down Jesus from above, ) again, ' who shall 
 descend L-to the abyss ? (that is, that he may bring up Je- 
 sus 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 thine 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
 
 94 
 
 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 Law, 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 excom- 
 municate 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 Gos- 
 pel, it was forbidden to them no where in the Scriptures 
 but in the Mosaic Code. Therefore Paul must have found- 
 ed 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 say 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. 
 
 Ch. 10. 1 Cor. "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 thousand.' Here is a 
 blunder, for it is written " twenty four thousand" Num. 25. 
 
 Gal. iii. 13. Paul says, "Christ hath redeemed us from 
 the curse 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
 
 95 
 
 Law, but by repenting of his sins, and becoming obedient 
 to it And in alleging the words " cursed is every one 
 that hangeth on a tree," from Deut 21, 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 man ever did continue in all 
 things written in the Law. Now in the first place I would 
 observe, that Paul has dared to forge, and insert the word 
 " all" in the passage he quotes from Deut. (in the original 
 of which it is not) in order to make it support his system ; for 
 'the whole of his argument is built upon this one surrepti- 
 tiously inserted word. 2. The words according to the ori- 
 ginal 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 commands of the Law, shall be un- 
 der 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 30 chap- 
 ter of Deut. that if they repent, the curses written shallbe re- 
 moved from them ? and have we not innumerable instances 
 recorded in the Old Testament of sinners, and transgressors 
 of this very Law, received to pardon, and favour, upon re- 
 pentance, and amendment ? So that this argument founded 
 upon forgery, and supported by bad Logic, is every way 
 bad and insulting to God, and his (by Paul acknowledged) 
 word. 
 
 Gal. ch. iii. 16. To Abraham, and his seed were the pro- 
 mises 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 
 Genesis, which Paul, bold as he was in these matters, 
 certainly would 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 word " seed" in the singular number, in the pas- 
 sage of Genesis from whence he quotes. And because the 
 word seed is in the singular number, he tells the "foolish
 
 90 
 
 Galatians" 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 15 chapter of Gen. from 
 whencehe 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 be. And he said, know of a surety that thy seed shall 
 be a stranger in a land that is not theirs, and they shall 
 afflict 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. 22. God said to Abraham by his Angel, 
 '* I will multiply thy seed as the stars of Heaven, and as 
 the sand 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 impudence in palming such an ar- 
 gument upon 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 Chris- 
 tians, 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 alleged in that Epis- 
 tle 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 see absurdity in reasoning, and
 
 97 
 
 something worse, in quotation, exposed in a masterly man- 
 ner. Indeed some learne'i Christians are so sensible of the 
 insuperable difficulties attending every attempt to reconcile 
 that Epistle to the Doctrine of Inspiration, or even to com- 
 mon sense, that they avoid the trouble, by denying that 
 Paul could have been the author of such a work, and attri- 
 bute it to the same, or a similar hand with that, which forged 
 the marvellous Epistle ascribed to Barnabas. 
 
 The quotation brought forward in the Epistle to the He- 
 brews to prove 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. Af- 
 ter those days saith the Lord, I will put My Law in their 
 inward parts, and write it in their hea/ts ; 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 new 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 the intro- 
 duction of the Gospel Dispensation. 
 
 Now I would observe on his reasoning, in the first place, 
 that allowing for a moment his interpretation of the pro- 
 phecy to be correct, (i. e. that it signifies the abolishment 
 of the old, and an introduction of a new Law) the 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 Apos- 
 tles, 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.
 
 98 
 
 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 contrary asserts that this new Covenant would be effec- 
 tual 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 re- 
 ward of obedience, and death, and excision the punishment 
 lor revolt, and disobedience. And you will moreover ob- 
 serve, that notwithstanding what is here called a new cove- 
 nant, 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 Pro- 
 phet, by expanding his idea, sufficiently explains 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 favour with him, that their 
 hearts would be hereafter so right with God, that in conse- 
 quence of it they would continue in the quiet possession of 
 their country to the end of time. And all this, is inti- 
 mated by Moses, in the quotation from Deuteronomy quoted 
 in the last chapter. 
 
 Thus is this 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 Mo- 
 saic 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 right, rejoicing the heart, and 
 enlightening the eyes." " The works of his hands are 
 Truth, and Judgment. All his Precepts are sure. They 
 stand .fast forever and ever : being done in Truth, and Up- 
 rightness"
 
 99 
 
 CHAPTER XIII. 
 
 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 prove, 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 Cab" 
 balism of the Jews ; the Religion of the Magi of Persia ; 
 and the Philosophy of the Bramins oflndostan. I shall at- 
 tempt 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 Eph. v. 30, " For 
 we are members of his (Christ's) body, of \i\zjlesh, 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 
 Christ, 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 my- 
 sterious passage to all those who are unacquainted with the 
 cabbalistic notion to which it alludes, and refers. To illus- 
 trate the passage, and to prove that Paul mixed his Cab- 
 balism with his Religion, I shall set down here the note of 
 Dr. Whitby the Christian Commentator upon the text of 
 Paul. 
 
 " The learned Dr. Allix saith, The first match between 
 Adam and Eve was a Type of that between Christ, and his 
 Church ; and in this, saith he, the Apostle follows 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 bless- 
 ad, or of the Messiah, with the Church ; whence the 
 Apostle applies the very words which Adam said con- 
 cerning Eve his spouse, to the Church, who is the spouse
 
 100 
 
 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 no- 
 tion as this among them, that sensible things are but an imi- 
 tation of things above, conceived from thence, that there was 
 an ,orig inal pattern of Love, and Union, which is between a 
 man, and his wife, in this world. This being expressed by 
 the kindness of Tiphiret and Malcuth, 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 Malcuth also, (i. e. 
 the kingdom) they call by the name of Chinnereth Israel, 
 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 my- 
 stery, but he speaks concerning Christ and his Church." 
 For the marriage of Tiphiret, and Malcuth, is the mar- 
 riage of Christ " the Lord from Heaven," ( " the "first 
 man was of the Earth, earthly, the second man is the 
 Lord from /leaven" says Paul 1 Cor. 15,) 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." Tertullian frequently 
 alludes to the same thing, saying " this is a great sacra- 
 ment 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 Indostan, 
 will not fail to see through this cloud of words, the origin 
 of this anology of Paul's. The fact is, that in India, and 
 in Egypt, the Divine, creative poicer which produced all 
 things, and energizes in every thing, was symbolized by the 
 Phallus ; and to this day, in Ilindostan, the operation of 
 Deity upon matter is symbolized by Images of the male, 
 and female generative organs ; and in the darkest recesses 
 of their Temples, which none but the initiated were per- 
 mitted to enter, the Phallus of stone is the solitary idol, be-
 
 101 
 
 fore 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 abomi- 
 nation, and the marriage between Christ and the Church 
 ought not to have been thus illustrated by Paul, who re- 
 proached 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 are members of his body, of his fash, 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 chapter 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 participation of the blood 
 of Christ ? The loaf (ac. 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. XL 29, " For 
 he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh 
 judgment to himself, not distinguishing (or discovering) the 
 Lord's 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^es^, 
 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 seen what Paul believed 
 upon this subject, and I shall corroborate the sense I put 
 upon his words, by the words of Jesus his master, and 
 by quotations from the earliest Fathers. 
 
 Jesus says, Jo. vL, " I am the living bread which came down 
 from Heaven ; if any man eat of this bread, he shall live 
 forever, and the bread which I will give, is my fash, which I 
 will give for the life of the world." The Jews, therefore,
 
 102 
 
 contended among themselves, saying " How can thy man 
 give us his flesh to eat ?" Jesus therefore said unto them, 
 " Verity, 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 ever- 
 lasting life ; and I will raise him up at the last day. 
 For my flesh is verily food, 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 cer- 
 tain 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 conse- 
 crated bread " is some how or other, the flesh of Christ." 
 
 In the dispute with Latimer about Transubstantiation, it 
 is acknowledged by the most candid writers, that the Ro- 
 man 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 fol- 
 lowing 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 appear eth 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 before 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,
 
 103 
 
 is the notion, that moral corruption originates in the influ~ 
 ence of the body upon the mind. 
 
 It was one of the principal tenets of the Oriental Philo- 
 sophy, that all evil resulted from matter, and its first found- 
 er 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 beneficent nature; 
 therefore, the origin of these evils, with which the 
 world abounds, must be sought somewhere eke, than in the 
 Diety. 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 drew from this Hypothesis 
 was, that since all evil resulted from matter, the depravity 
 of mankind arose from the pollution derived to the human 
 soul, from its connexion with the material body which it in- 
 habits ; and therefore the only means by which the mind 
 could purify itself from the defilement, and liberate itself 
 from the bondage imposed upon it by the body, was to ema- 
 ciate and humble the body by frequent fasting, and to invi- 
 gorate 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, lasciviousness, idolatry, 
 sorcery, hatred, contentions, rivalries, wrath, disputes, di- 
 visions, heresies, envyings, murthers, 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 my flesh dwelleth no good, for to will 
 is present with me, but to perform that which is good, I
 
 104 
 
 find not, but the evil which I would not, that I 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 serve the Law of God, but with 
 my 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 cruci- 
 fled 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 sub- 
 ject exceedingly strong. He represents (1 Cor. ix. 27,) his 
 mind and body as engaged in combat, and says, " I buffet 
 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, 
 James, where the Boxers dragged off the Arena, their con- 
 quered, 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 suffer- 
 ings of Jesus " in the fash" " Since the children are 
 partakers of flesh and blood, Christ himself also in like man- 
 ner 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 con- 
 demned sin in the flesh" (Rom. viii. 3.) " But now, through 
 Christ Jesus, ye who formerly were far off, 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 hit fleshly body, through his death," 
 (Col i. 20.)
 
 105 
 
 Though 'these notions are sufficiently strange, yet they 
 are not so very remarkable as the one I am about to consi- 
 der. It is a singular, and a demonstrable fact, that the 
 fundamental scheme of Christianity was derived from the Re- 
 ligion of the ancierd Persians. The whole of the New Testa- 
 ment scheme is built upon the Hypothesis, that there is a 
 powerful and malignant Being, called the Devil) and Satan, 
 the Chief of unknown myriads of other evil spirits ; that he is, 
 by the sufferance of God, the Prince of this world, and is 
 the Author of Sin, Woe, and Death ; the Tempter ; the 
 Tormentor 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 ran- 
 som of the Tyrant, at the price of his Blood ; for observe, 
 my reader ! that the idea of the death of Christ being an 
 atonement to God for the sins of men, is a modern notion, for 
 tiie primitive Christians, all of them, considered the death 
 of Christ 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 the world, may 
 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 / 
 willy I give it'* Luke 4., Jesus calls him " the Prince of 
 this world ;" Jo. 12, and elsewhere. In his commission to 
 Paul, he calls embracing his Religion, " turning from dark- 
 ness unto light, and from the Power of Satan to God." 
 Acts, xx vi. 18. Accordingly we find that to become a 
 Christian, was considered as being freed from the tyranny 
 ef Satan. " God hath given life to you, (says Paul,) who 
 were dead in offences and sins ; in which ye former- 
 ly walked, according to the course, (or constitution) of 
 this world, according to the Prince of the Power of the air" 
 Ephes. ii. 1, and again, " If our Gospel be covered, ( or 
 hid,) it is covered among those that are lost, among those 
 unbelievers, whose minds the God of this world hath blind- 
 ed, 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 stripeth him of the arms in which he trusted, 
 and gpoileth his goods. " For this purpose was the Son of 
 God manifested, that he might destroy the works of the De-
 
 106 
 
 tn7." 1 Jo. iiL 8. And it is said, that he came to send forth 
 the captive into liberty, and to heal those who were op- 
 pressed of the Devil" men are also said to have been " taken 
 captive of the Devil, to fulfil his will." 2 Tim. ii. 26. And 
 we find, that the Chiristians attributed all their sufferings 
 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." Ephes. 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 Christians were considered as 
 being the subjects of Jesus, and the rest of the world as be- 
 ing of the kingdom of Satan, when a man became a Chris- 
 tian he was translated from the kingdom of one, to the king- 
 dom 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 Gos- 
 pel, from the account of the old Lady whose back the De- 
 vil had bowed down, for eighteen years, Luke xiii. 10, (on 
 what account it does not appear.) In short, the New Tes- 
 tament represents him as being the source of all evil, and 
 mischief, and the promoter of it ; and the whole world as 
 being his subjects, and combined with him against all good. 
 
 But how does all this prove that these notions were de- 
 rived from the Religion of the ancient Persians ? I answer 
 by requesting you, my reader, to peruse attentively the fol- 
 lowing account 'of the fundamental principles of the Reli- 
 gion of Zoroaster, the Prophet of the Persians. 
 
 The Doctrine of Zoroaster was, that there was one su- 
 preme Being, independent, and self-existing from all Eter- 
 nity ; 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 An- 
 gel of Light prevails, there the most is good ; and where 
 the Angel of Darkness prevails, there the most is eviL 
 That this strugle 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
 
 107 
 
 according to their works ; after which, the Angel of dark- 
 ness, and his followers, shall go into a world of their own, 
 where they shall suffer in darkness 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 re- 
 ceive in everlasting Light the reward due to their good 
 deeds. 
 
 It is impossible but that the reader must see the agree- 
 ment of the Doctrines of the New Testament, with all 
 this ; and since it is undoubted, that these tenets of Zoroas- 
 ter 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 of) besides sup- 
 posing the Devil of the New Testament to be of Persian ori- 
 gin. It is however in my power to make this coincidence still 
 more striking, from the words of Jesus himself, who says, 
 Mat. 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 !) his enemy came, and sowed 
 tares among the wheat. But when the blades sprung up, 
 and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares also. So 
 the servants of the householder came near, 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 ofMan, and the field is the world; and 
 the good seed are 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 pre- 
 cise agreement with the Doctrine of Zoroaster ; and to com- 
 plete 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 prepared 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 ser-
 
 108 
 
 vant 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 commands 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 consi- 
 dered as honourable ; i. e., punishment without malevolence 
 does not pollute the inflictor. Consider the story of the 
 destruction of Sodom, Gen. xix., of Egypt, Ex. xxii. of Sen- 
 nacherib, 1 Kings xxix., 35, also Joshua v. 13. The term 
 Satan signifies an adversary, and is applied to any angel sent 
 upon an errand of punishment. For example, Num. xxii, 
 23, " The Angel of the Lord stood in the way, for an ad- 
 versary (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 Ps. 
 xxxv. 5, " Let the Angel (of punishment) of the Lord 
 chase them, (i. e. drive them before him; in a military man- 
 ner, pursue them) let their way be dark and slippery, and 
 the Angal of the Lord following them." 
 
 2 Sam. xxiv. 16, "The Lord sent a pestilence upon Is- 
 rael the Angel (of punishment,) stretched forth his hand 
 and smote the people." 1 Chi on. 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 Testa- 
 ment applied to any Angel of the Lord sent upon an errand 
 of punishment And the term itself is so far from being 
 reproachful (for David is said, 1 Sam. 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, 
 where God himself is represented as saying, that he would 
 be an Adversary or a Satan to bad men, and wicked nations.
 
 109 
 
 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 under- 
 take 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 " There be spirits created for 
 vengeance, which in their fury lay on sore strokes ; in the 
 time of Destruction they pour out their force, and ap- 
 pease the wrath of him that made them. They shall rejoice in 
 his (God's) commandment, and they shall be ready upon 
 earth, when need is ; and when their time is come, they 
 shall not transgress his Word." Ecclesiasticus, xxxix, 28. 
 
 CHAPTER XIV. 
 
 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 of 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 con- 
 ceivable, that Paul could have had the boldness, and pre- 
 sumption to speak to these men concerning the use, and 
 abuse, of these gifts, if they really had them not 
 
 I am ready to confess, that this argument of Dr. Paley 
 
 puzzled me. For though I was satisfied, that Paul had 
 
 imposed upon their credulity many irrelevant passages from 
 
 the Scriptures as proofs of Christianity ; yet I could not 
 
 Q
 
 110 
 
 imagine, that he could presume so much upon their stu- 
 pidity, as to give them directions about the management of 
 their mirawlous powers ; which 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 puz- 
 zled 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 be- 
 tween 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, " pro- 
 fessed to have visions, and to see numbers of spirits, as plain 
 as they saw their brethren and sisters ; and to look into the 
 invisible world, and to converse with many of the departed 
 spirits, who had lived in the different ages of the world ; 
 and to learn, and to see their different states in the world 
 of spirits. Some they saw, 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 be- 
 lieve all this. They are not, you will observe, artful im- 
 postors, for the Shakers are certainly a harmless, and a 
 moral people ; and yet they confidently asserted, (and con- 
 tinue to assert,) that they had these miraculous powers of 
 " discerning spirits, speaking with tongues, and doing great 
 signs and wonders," Nevertheless, it must be evident, that
 
 Ill 
 
 these powers were conferred upon them, only by their enthu- 
 siasm, and heated imaginations. 
 
 I have heard of the Shakers before, and have been in- 
 formed, 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 preach- 
 ing 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 cer- 
 tain 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 notwhat, as I have 
 done several times. Part of what I spake at one time, was 
 " Liero devo jerankeemango, ad sileambano, durem subramo, 
 deviranto diacerimango, jasse vah pe cri, evanigalio ; de vom 
 grom seb crinom, os vare cremo domo" 
 
 " 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 pronunciation ; as I have heard some men of learning 
 who were present, say, a few words were Hebrew, three or 
 four of 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 be- 
 fore he broke out. Here it is : " We danced for near an 
 hour, several turned round like tops, and to crown all, I had
 
 112 
 
 gift to speak in some other language ; but the greatest 
 isfortune was, that neither I, nor any other, understood what 
 " 
 
 a 
 
 misfortune was, 
 I said." 
 
 My reader will not be surprised after this, at hearing him 
 say, that the spectators of " these signs and wonders," in- 
 stead 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 1 Ep. 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 be under- 
 stood, how shall it be known what is spoken ? for ye will 
 speak to the air." And as others did not understand the 
 Corinthians speaking in unknown tongues, so it seems too, 
 that the Corinthians themselves were in the same unfortu- 
 nate 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's, " Wherefore, let 
 him that speaketh in an unknown tongue, pray that he may 
 interpret" Why pray that he may interpret, if he under- 
 stood 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 Jive words with his 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 unbe- 
 lievers come in, will they not say, that ye are mad f" (as the 
 spectators said of the Shakers.) 
 
 He advises them therefore, to conduct their assemblies 
 vrith less uproar than formerly, and exhorts them as fol- 
 lows : " How is it then brethren, when you come together,
 
 113 
 
 hath each of you a psalm, hath he a doctrine, hath he an 
 unknown tongue, hath he a revelation ? Let all things he 
 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 inter- 
 preter, let such keep silence in the church, and let him 
 speak to himself and to God. And let two or three Pro- 
 phets speak, and let the others discern. But if any thing 
 be revealed to another who sitteth by, let the first keep si- 
 lence. 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 particu- 
 larly, the perfect correspondence between "the spiritual 
 gifts" of the Corinthians, and those of the Shakers. And I 
 would ask the venerable Paley, if it were now possible, 
 whether an apostolical Epistle of Ann Lee, William Lee, or 
 Whitaker, (the spiritual mother, and fathers of the Shakers,) 
 addressed to them, and seriously giving 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 the cases more 
 analogous,) suppose that the Shakers from this time be- 
 come the dominant sect throughout 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 were honest and good men, with no mo- 
 tive to deceive, and had addressed letters to their first con- 
 verts, 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 ?
 
 114 
 
 From all this, I think my reader must be sensible how 
 extremely fallacious are all proofs of doctrines, pretend- 
 ed 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 !* 
 
 * 1 will here lay before the reader, the arguments advanced by the 
 Mahometans in behalf of the miracles of their Prophet, extracted 
 from the learned Reland's account of Mahometanism. They say that 
 " the miiacles of Mahomet and his followers have been recorded in 
 innumerable volumes of the most famous, learned, pious, and subtle 
 Doctors of the Mahometan Faith, who let nothing pass without the 
 strictest and severest examination, and whose tradition therefore is un- 
 exceptionable among them : that they were known throughout all the 
 Regions of Arabia, and transmitted by common, and universal Tradi- 
 tion 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 oive an account of Mahomet's Life, and 
 actions, the books of Annalists, and Lawyers - the books of Mathema- 
 ticians 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 ac- 
 counts 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 certain- 
 ty 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 denounc- 
 ed Hell and Damnatianto all those who shonld 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 neve" 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 or the New Testament ? 
 Art thou not rather satisfied how fallacious the evidence of Testimony 
 is in all such oases ? 
 
 This is not all that the Mahometan might urge in behalf of his 
 Prophet. For he might tell the Christian, boRSting that Jesus and his 
 Apostles converted the Roman World from Idolatry, that they over- 
 threw one system of Idolatry, only to build up another ; since the wor-
 
 115 
 
 Speaking of the gift of healing diseases, which the Primi- 
 tive 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 successfully main- 
 tained in the Heathen world by fraud, and craft, that when 
 it came to be challenged by the Christians, it was not capa- 
 ble of exciting any attention to it among those, who them- 
 selves pretended to the same power ; which, though the cer- 
 tain effect of imposture, was yet managed with so" much art, 
 that the Christians could neither deny nor detect it ; but in- 
 sisted always that it was performed by Demons, or evil 
 spirits, deluding mankind to their ruin ; and from the sup- 
 posed reality of the fact they inferred the reasonableness of be- 
 lieving what was more credibly affirmed by the Christians 
 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 some extraordinary works perform- 
 ed in the name of Idols, from which some have received bene- 
 fit, others harm." And then he goes on to prove that they 
 were not performed by God, but by Demons ! Doctor Mid- 
 dleton then proceeds, (p. 77.) " whatever proof, then, the 
 primitive Church had among themselves, yet it could have 
 but little effect towards making proselytes among those who 
 pretended to the same gift ; possessed more largely, 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 pretend- 
 ship 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 wor- 
 ship 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 re- 
 ply, that Mahomet was a poor camel-driver, but that Islamism made 
 more progress in one hundred years, than Christianity did in a thou- 
 sand ; that it was embraced by the noble, the great, the wise, and the 
 learned, almost as soon as it appeared : whereas, Christianity waa 
 skulking and creeping among the mob of the Roman Empire for some, 
 hundred years before it dared to raise its head in public view. If the 
 Christian should reply to this, by ascribing the success of Mahometan- 
 ism to the sword, the Mahometan might reply, with truth, that it was 
 a vulgar error ; for that vastly more nations embraced Islamism volun- 
 tarily, than there were who freefy 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.
 
 116 
 
 ed help of that Deity : in proof of which, there were erect- 
 ed in each Temple columns, or tables of brass, and marble, on 
 which a distinct narrative of each particular cure was in- 
 scribed." 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 be- 
 sides, which stood apart, dedicated to the memory of Hip- 
 polytus, who had been raised from the dead !' Strabo, also, 
 another grave writer, informs us, that these temples were 
 constantly filled with the sick, imploring the help of the 
 God ; and that they had tables hanging around them, in 
 which all the miraculous cures were described." Dr. Mid- 
 dleton then proceeds thus " There is a remarkable frag- 
 ment of one of these tables still extant, and exhibited by 
 Gruter in his collection, as it was found in the ruins of 
 Esculapius' Temple, in the island of the Tyber at Rome, 
 which gives an account of two blind men restored to sight by 
 Esculapius in the open vieio, and with loud acclamations of 
 the people, acknowledging 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, suboniing men 
 to counterfeit diseases, and miraculous cures." He then 
 proceeds, (p. 79.) " Now, though nothing can support the 
 belief, or credit of miracles more authentically 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, con- 
 trived to delude the multitude ; and in truth, this particu- 
 lar claim of curing diseases miraculously, 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 
 miracles recorded in the New Testament, are casting out 
 Devils, and healing diseases, Powers claimed by the Hea- 
 thens as well as these Christians : and these miracles, (un- 
 doubtedly false) are as well, if not far better authenticated 
 than those of the New Testament: for books may \& forged, 
 but public monuments of brass and marble are not so capa- 
 ble of being so : and these are always considered as better 
 evidence for facts than books. What then will the Christian
 
 117 
 
 say to this ? for since these miracles, recorded on brass and 
 marble, inscribed whfo the narratives of them almost imme- 
 diately after the occurrence of them, are unquestionably Lies ; 
 what can he pretend to say of those recorded in books, cer- 
 tainly written many years after the events they record, and, 
 as will be proved hereafter, more than suspected to be apo- 
 cryphal 9 And what would become of truth ? and who 
 would be able to distinguish truth from falsehood, in 
 matters of Religion, if attested miracles, such as these, 
 are sufficient to establish the divine authority of Doc- 
 trines said to be confirmed by them ? Miracles are 
 as numerous, and better authenticated on the part of Ju- 
 piter, Apollo, and Esculapius, than on the part of Chris- 
 tianity. They are strong on the part of Popery against 
 Protestantism : for the Roman Catholic Churches in Eu- 
 rope are full of monumental records of miracles wrought by 
 the Virgin Mary and the Saints, in favour of their worship- 
 pers. Nay, there never were miracles better proved, as far 
 as human testimony could prove them, than the famous mi- 
 racle 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 
 authenticated 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 en- 
 tirely cut out by the roots ; and it is recorded in the archives 
 of the Eastern Empire. 
 
 Is not this testimony enough ; and yet, is it sufficient to 
 prove the doctrine 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 ? 
 
 The miracles of the Abbe Paris too, are proved to be 
 true, as far as testimony can prove any thing of the kind. 
 R
 
 118 
 
 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 re- 
 spectable people were imposed upon, have never yet beer* 
 thoroughly developed and explained. 
 
 CHAPTER XV. 
 
 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, Deut. 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, where- 
 of 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 proved (or tryeth) you, 
 to know whether ye love the Lord your God with all your 
 heart, and with all your soul." 
 
 And now Christian reader, I ask you what you think of 
 miracles, or " signs and wonders," as proof of a divine mis- 
 sion, 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
 
 119 
 
 directions, 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 fulfilment of his words. If what he 
 says comes to pass, he is a true Prophet ; if the event fore- 
 told does not take place, he has spoken presumptuously, and 
 must die the death. 3. " If any man arise in Israel," and 
 advise, or teach them to worship any other besides Jehovah ; 
 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 won- 
 der promised, he is nevertheless not to be hearkened to ; but 
 be put to death. And these criterions, given by God, or 
 Moses, as the means whereby they might know a true Pro- 
 phet from a false one, most exquisitely prove his wisdom 
 and foresight. For if he had not expressly excluded mira- 
 cles, or " signs and wonders," from being a proof of the di- 
 vinity of doctrines ; the barriers which divided his religion 
 from those of Idolaters, must have been broken down ; 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 Reve- 
 lation, 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 ac- 
 count of their foretelling the truth, or being supposed to do so. 
 
 Thus it is said, 1 Sam. iii. 20, " And all Israel, from 
 Dan even to Beersheba, knew, that Samuel was established 
 to be a Prophet of the Lord." Why ? Because he perform- 
 ed 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 accom- 
 plishment. The same may be said of all the Hebrew Pro- 
 phets, from Nathan to Malachi. For though Elijah, and 
 Elisha performed miracles, yet it was not 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 offered by them as proofs of their being 
 sent from God. 
 
 These things being by this time, it is hoped, made plain,
 
 120 
 
 and evident, let us now test the character of Jesus as a 
 true Prophet, by the criteria, by Christians, and by the 
 Jews believed to be given by God. If his prophecies were 
 fulfilled, and if he taught the worship of no other being be- 
 sides Jehovah, he was, according to the Old Testament, a 
 true Prophet. But if any of his prophecies were not ful- 
 filled, or, if he taught the worship of any other Being be- 
 sides Jehovah, 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's 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 foretel them. This is ac- 
 knowledged 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 compassed with armies, then know 
 that the desolation thereof is nigh. Then let them which 
 are in Judea flee to the mountains, and them which are in 
 the midst of it, depart out, and let not 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 
 fell 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 
 hi the stars, and upon the earth, distress of nations with 
 perplexity, the sea and waves roaring, men'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 com- 
 ing in a cloud, with power, and great glory. And when 
 these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift 
 up your heads ; for your redemption draweth nigh. And he 
 spake to them a parable, Behold the fig tree and all the 
 trees. When they now shoot forth, ye see, and know of 
 your ownselves, that summer is now nigh at hand. So
 
 121 
 
 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 you, this generation shall not pass away till all 
 be fulfilled. 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 fulfilment of his 
 prophecy, but of Daniel's, who did, as is set down in the 
 7th chapter of this work, expressly foretell the utter de- 
 struction of the city and the temple. And it was from 
 Daniel that Jesus obtained his knowledge of the approach 
 of that event. For he expressly cites Daniel, Mat. 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 ivhich are 
 written may be fulfilled. So that in foretelling the destruc- 
 tion of Jerusalem he no did more than any Jew of that age, 
 who attentively read their Scriptures, could have done, and 
 been no Prophet either. 
 
 2. It would have been better for his reputation as a Pro- 
 phet, 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 that 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 often smiled over the contri- 
 vances 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 hi fact take place in that generation ;
 
 122 
 
 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 Hea- 
 ven, with power, and great glory," meant merely, that he 
 sent Titus, and the Romans, to destroy Jerusalem, or per- 
 haps might have been an invisible spectator himself. 
 
 The reader will easily see, that all this is nonsense. And 
 the Commentator 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 dming, and to tell the Apostles 
 what he did, for the sake of keeping up their spirits ! 
 
 But to annihilate the figurative Hypothesis of these well- 
 meaning Commentators at once, it will be only necessary to 
 bring forward the testimony following. 1. The other 
 Evangelists make an express distinction between the Des- 
 truction of Jerusalem, and the coming of Jesus : and not 
 only so, but represent him as saying, that after that event, i. e. 
 of the destruction of Jerusalem, " in those days," i. e. in the 
 same aera in which that event took place, " the Son of man 
 shall come," &c. Witness for me, Mark, ch. xiii. 24. 
 " But in those days, after that tribulation, [i. e. the destruc- 
 tion 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 be shaken. And 
 then shall they see the Son of man coming in the clouds 
 with power and glory ; and then shall he send his angels, 
 and shall gather his elect from the four winds, from the ut- 
 termost part of the Earth, to the uttermost part of Hea- 
 ven. Verily, I say unto you, that this generation shall not 
 pass, till all these things be accomplished." This is deci- 
 sive, and cannot be evaded. 
 
 2. The Apostles, and Primitive Christians believed, that 
 Jesus would come in that generation, as is evident from many 
 passages of the New Testament. Paul's Epistles to the 
 Thessalonians 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
 
 123 
 
 come, even now (or already) there are many Antichrists, 
 whereby we know 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 Anti- 
 christ 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 Je-^ 
 sus, 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, say- 
 ing, 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 which pierced him, and all kindreds of the earth 
 shall wail because of him." And in the last chapter of Re- 
 velations he represents Jesus as saying, " Surely / 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 ex- 
 pectations 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 this idea in 
 their minds, that, understanding the words of Jesus con- 
 cerning John, " if I will that he tarry 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 expecta- 
 tions by that Apostle's actual decease, that they insisted, that, 
 though he was buried, he was not dead, but only slept, and 
 that the earth over his body rose and fell with the action of 
 his breathing I !
 
 124 
 
 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 Deuteronomy, 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 Jehovah, 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 honor the Son, even as they honour the Father" ? 
 This certainly commands to render to Jesus the same ho- 
 mage which is rendered to God. I might prove that his 
 Disciples did worship him, by 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 Jehovah, 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 Jehovah of 
 Hosts, quoted from the Old Testament, and applied in the 
 New to Jesus. Witness the folllowing: Jo. xii. 41, alludes to 
 Isaiah vi. 5; Rev. i. 8, 11, 17, and ii. 8, to Isaiah xli. 4, 
 xliii. 11, and xliv. 6; Jo. xxi. 16, 17, and Rev. ii. 23, to 1st 
 Kings viii. 39, Po. vii. 9, Jer. xi. 20, and xvii. 20, Rev. xx. 
 12, to Is. xl. 10 ; and, to crown all, Jesus in Rev. i. 13, 
 14, 15, 16, 17, is described in almost the same words as is 
 the Supreme God, " the Ancient of Days," in Daniel 
 vii. 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 ac- 
 knowledged 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.
 
 125 
 
 CHAPTER XVI. 
 
 In the preceding Chapters, I have taken the New Testa- 
 ment as I found it, and have argued upon the supposition 
 that Jesus and the Apostles really said, and reasoned, as 
 has been stated. I shall now endeavour to show, by an ex- 
 amination 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, L e. 
 whether they were written by those to whom they are as- 
 cribed, must be judged of, from the external testimony con- 
 cerning them, and from internal marks in the books 
 themselves. For the miraculous acts therein, and therein 
 only, contained and related, cannot prove the truth and au- 
 thenticity of the BOOKS, because the authority and credibi- 
 lity of the Books themselves must be firmly established, be- 
 fore the miracles related in then! can reasonably be admitted 
 as real facts. 
 
 Now the external evidence in favour 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 
 
 * 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 dif- 
 ferent 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 authois of them were dead. Of course, none 
 of the observations contained in the chapter relative to these Histories, 
 were 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.
 
 126 
 
 only take upon me to assert, that they were most credulous, 
 superstitious, and weak men, and, what is worse, made no 
 scruple of telling lies 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 them- 
 selves 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 misrepresent 
 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 ad- 
 dhced to prove the authenticity of the Gospels, is Papias, 
 a Disciple of John. The character given of him by Euse- 
 bius 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 Euscbius. One of these 
 stories is mentioned by Irenceus 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 sa- 
 cred 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 he say of it ? Why this. " Matthew composed 
 a writing of the Oracles (meaning without doubt the Doc- 
 trines of the Gospel,) in the Hebrew Language, and every 
 one interpreted them as he was able." So far as this Tes- 
 timony goes, it is positive evidence, that the only Gospel of 
 Matthew extant in 116, was extant in Hebrew; and there 
 was then no translation of it, for "every one interpreted as 
 he was able." The present Gospel called of Matthew was
 
 127 
 
 then not written by him, for it is in Greek. And that it 
 has not 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 
 concerning 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 Jerusalem, 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 re- 
 verence 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 Hebrew Gospel of 
 Matthew contained that part of the Greek Gospel of Mat- 
 thew which relates the manner of Judas's death. 
 
 Justin Martyr lived after Papias, in the middle of the se- 
 cond 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 Michaeli'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 icere in his time in a very 
 different state from what they now are. 
 
 The next Christian Father who mentions the Gospel of 
 Matthew is Iren&us, who says also that "Matthew wrote 
 his Gospel in the Hebrew Language." The character of 
 Irenoeus is discoverable from his Work against the Herecies 
 of his time, to that I refer the Reader, who willfind 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 impor- 
 tant 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.
 
 128 
 
 The next witness in favour of the Gospel is Tertuttian, 
 who lived in the latter end of the second century. And 
 the soundness of his Judgment, and his capability to dis- 
 tinguish the genuine Gospels from among a hundred Apo- 
 cryphal 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 suppli- 
 cant : 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 Chistian al- 
 ready 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 exter- 
 nal evidence ! for these are all the witnesses that can be 
 produced as speaking of them, who lived within two hun- 
 dred 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 
 them certainly Liars. 
 
 To convince a thinking man that Histories recording 
 such very extraordinary, 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 not 
 either some of the many spurious productions with which 
 (as we learn from IrenoBus) that early age abounded, cal- 
 culated to astonish the credulous, and superstitious, or else 
 writings of authors who were themselves infected witk the 
 grossest superstitious credulity ; of what use can it be to ad- 
 duce 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 whatsoever, that the more important the matter to be 
 determined by it is, the more unsullied, and unexceptionable 
 ougJtt the characters of the witnesses to be. And when no 
 fipurt of Justice, in determining a question of fraud to the
 
 129 
 
 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 admit 
 similar evidence to be of weight, in a case of the greatest im- 
 portance possible, not to himself only, but to the whole hu- 
 man race ? 
 
 But there is a still 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 many (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 af- 
 terwards, whose writings must have been particularly valua- 
 ble ; yet so singularly industrious have the Fathers, and 
 succeeding sons of the Orthodox Church been, in destroy- 
 ing every writing upon the subject of Christianity, which 
 they could not by some means, or other, apply to the sup- 
 port of their own blasphemous 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 trans- 
 mit 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 Plato- 
 nists, and Pythagoreans. 
 
 The established maxim of these Schools was, that it was 
 not lawful only but commendable to deceive, and assert false- 
 hoods 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 Here ticks, produced a multiplicity of false, and spuri- 
 ous 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 Septuagint with a number of interpolated pretended pro- 
 phecies concerning Jesus, and his death upon the cross ; 
 forgeries as weak, and contemptible, and clumsy in them-
 
 130 
 
 selves, as they were impious, and wicked. Whoever de- 
 sires to see a number of them, may find them in the Dis- 
 pute, 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 coolly answering, that these marvellous pro- 
 phecies 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 con- 
 vinced their 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 ac- 
 count of their lying wonders, which they imposed as mira- 
 culous 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 
 Semler, after spending his life in the study of Ecclesiastical 
 History, and antiquities, which he is allowed to have under- 
 stood 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 collec- 
 tion of forgeries written by the Partizans of the Jewish, and 
 Gentile parties in the Christian Church, and entitled Apos- 
 tolic, 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 de- 
 monstrated, that the Greek Gospel of Matthew was written 
 in the second century after the birth of Jesus, by a Geniile. 
 For he proves that it could not have been written by a Jew, 
 on account of Geographical mistakes, and manifest igno- 
 rance of Jewish customs. 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 clearer than heretofore. 
 
 He gives several instances of Geographical blunders in 
 Matthew. I shall mention only one- Matthew says in the 
 2d chapter that when Joseph the husband of Mary returned
 
 131 
 
 from Egypt, " hearing that Archekus 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 Philadel- 
 phia, 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 evident from the following circumstances. 
 He says Jesus told Peter, that before the cock creio he would 
 deny him thrice ; and that afterwards, when Peter was 
 cursing and swearing, saying " I know not the man ! im- 
 mediately the cock crew." Now it is unfortunate for the 
 credit 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 crowing of a 
 cock, but that it means what dost thou think reader? 
 why it means the sound of a trumpet ! /* 
 
 * That the pretended Gospel of Matthew was not written by Mat- 
 thew, or by an inhabitant of Palestine, may be also 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 Ian* 
 guage 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 place of a skull," Mat- 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, saback- 
 thani," which he says meant, " My God, My God, why hast thou for- 
 saken me?" (Mat. 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 Syio 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 countryman, 
 on his return home, that the French called a horse a shovel, and a hat 
 a chopper !
 
 132 
 
 According to Luke, as soon as Jesus was dead, Joseph of 
 Arimathea went to Pilate, and begged his body ; and hasted 
 to bury it, because the Sabbath (which began at sunset,) 
 drew on ; that his female disciples attended the burial ; ob- 
 served how the body was placed in the Sepulchre, and re- 
 turned, and prepared spices, and ointments to embalm it 
 with, before the Sabbath commenced ? and then rested the 
 Sabbath day, according to the commandment. 
 
 The pretended Matthew, however, tells us, that " whert 
 the even was come" i. e. when the Sabbath day was actually 
 begun, Joseph went to beg the body ; took it down, wrapped 
 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, ij is evident, that he was not only no 
 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 prepara- 
 tion 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 circum- 
 stance not mentioned at all by the other Evangelists. For he 
 tells us that " on the next day which followeth the day of 
 preparation, the Chief Priests, and Pharisees came together 
 unto Pilate, &c." " The next day which followeth the day 
 of preparation ! !" such is the periphrasis that he uses 
 for the Sabbah day. It is well known that among the Jews 
 it was, and is customary to prepare, and set out, in the af- 
 ternoon 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 followeth the 
 day of the preparation" Yet this singular Historian so de- 
 nominates 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 ob- 
 taining the Governor's permission, " they went,, and secured 
 the Sepulchre by sealing the stone that was rolled against it,
 
 138 
 
 and setting a watch." Though there appear nothing very 
 strange in this account to a Christian, yet I assure my read- 
 er that to the Jews, it ever did, and must appear, utterly 
 incredible. For it is wonderful! that the Jewish Rulers and 
 the rigorous Pharisees should, in so public a manner, thus vio- 
 late the precept for observing the Sabbath day ; for the 
 penalty of this action of theirs was no less than death I 
 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 extraordinary 
 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 to- 
 tally 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 were 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 effect 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 An- 
 gel, appears not only from there being nobody else, by 
 whom these uncommon circumstances could have been re- 
 lated, but also by the pronoun personal ye inserted in the 
 original Greek, which in that language is never done, un- 
 less it be emphatically to mark such a distinction, or anti- 
 thesis, as there was on this occasion between them, and the 
 Roman Guard. Here, however, the author is inadvertently 
 inconsistent with* himself, as well as with the other Evange- 
 lists ; and forgetting, that the sole intent of rolling away 
 T
 
 134 
 
 the stone, was to open a passage, absolutely necessary to 
 the body of Jesus to come firth 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 soldiers must have seen 
 him rise, he makes the Angel bid them look into the sepul- 
 chre, to see that he was not there I and tell them that he 
 was already risen ; and that he was gone before them into 
 Galilee, where they should 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 : 
 notwithstanding that some of them were so incredulous, as 
 not to believe even the 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 other of their own Officers but to 
 the Chief Priests of the Jews ! that they assembled a coun- 
 cil 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 in- 
 fluence sufficient with the Roman Proconsul, to prevail on 
 him to submit to the indelible infamy of neglecting the dis- 
 cipline 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 extraordinary good memories, to enable 
 them to keep clear of absurdities, or palpable contradic- 
 tions, 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
 
 135 
 
 to hazard the resentment of their General, how could tkey 
 undertake that all their comrades who remained at the Se- 
 pulchre would do the same ? and to what purpose could the 
 Jewish council bribe some., without a possibility of 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 characters, 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 Bap- 
 tism 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 this 
 Gospel is the patched work composition of some convert 
 from the Pagan schools. At any rate his Gospel flatly 
 contradicts the others in several important particulars in 
 the History of the Resurrection. For he represents the 
 Apostles as being commanded by the Angel, and by Jesus 
 to go to Galilee, in order to see him ; and that they went 
 there, and saw him on a mountain. Yet it is said by the 
 other Evangelists, see Luke chapter 24, and Acts 1, that he 
 appeared on the same day of the resurrection to Peter, at 
 Jerusalem ; to two other Disciples as they went to Emmaus ; 
 and on the succeeding night to the whole congregation of 
 the Disciples, not in Galilee, but in Jerusalem, and that by 
 his express command the Apostles did not go into Galilee, 
 but remained at Jerusalem till the feast of Pentecost. 
 
 But as this Author differs from the other Evangelists, so 
 they also differ among themselves. And the latter part of 
 the last chapter of Mark is so irreconcilable to the other 
 Historians of the Resurrection, that in many Manuscripts 
 it is found omitted. And that Gospel ends in them, at the 
 eighth verse of the last chapter. And Mr. West, in his at-
 
 136 
 
 tempted reconciliation of their accounts of the Resurrection, 
 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 'the performance, he sets 
 the women, and the Disciples a driving backwards, and for- 
 wards, from the City to the Sepulchre, and from the Sepul- 
 chre to the City, and so agitated, that they forget to know 
 each other when they cross in their journeys. Notwith- 
 standing his great ingenuity in reconciling contradictions, 
 iu which he beats Surenhusius himself, he makes but a sor- 
 ry 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 contra- 
 dictions in so glaring a light, that the very laboured ingenuity 
 of his methods of reconciliation, inevitably suggests " con- 
 firmation strong'' to the keen-eyed reader, of 'that irrecon- 
 cilability which the author endeavors to refute. What 
 rational man therefore can reasonably be required to believe 
 the story of resurrection pretended to have ben seen and 
 known, only by the party interested in making it believed! 
 when in their Testimony even, they do not agree, but con- 
 tradict each other ? 
 
 There is really an immense number of discrepencies, 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 Dis- 
 sonance of the four Evangelists," has collected a mass, 
 enough I should think, to terrify the most determined Re- 
 conciliator that ever lived. It is a little remarkable, that 
 Mr. Evanson has asserted and proved the spuriousness of 
 the Gospel ascribed to John, which Semler spared, in the 
 general wreck which he made of the authenticity of the 
 other Books of the 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 fhe 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 considers 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 autlipr of that Gospel had the works of Philo at
 
 137 
 
 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 
 interpolations, he endeavours to purify it ; in which attempt 
 we think he has had very indifferent success. In 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 con- 
 tained 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 the 
 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 Jesus 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 passages 
 relating to Christian affairs now found in Josephus are noto- 
 rious interpolations.) And it is evident from the Chrono- 
 logical, and other mistakes about Jesus in the Talmud, that 
 the curiosity df 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 Rome he had not 
 been considered by the Jews of Jerusalem 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 on the cross. It is evident 
 that Pilate was extremely desirous to save his Life ; and is it 
 impossible that the Roman Soldiers who crucified him, had 
 secret orders ? Consider the circumstances. He was crucified 
 at our nine in the morning, and was taken from the cross at 
 about three in the afternoon. Now crucifixion is not a
 
 138 
 
 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 fulfil 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 circum- 
 stance is mentioned, and eagerly affirmed by him looks as 
 if the Author was aware of the likelihood of a suspicion of 
 the fact we are trying to prove probable, and that he wrote 
 this in order to obviate it. And after all, the Gospel accord- 
 ing 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 gra- 
 tia" 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 
 was deposited in the cave or sepulchre with a large quan- 
 tity of spices, and aromatics. Now suppose that Jesus had 
 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 considera- 
 ble quantity of dry linen, together with many spices, and 
 aromatics, what could be more opportune, or proper to sti- 
 mulate his drowsed senses, and recall the unfortunate suf- 
 ferer 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 plausible ? It is 
 not improbable that he might after this have shewed him- 
 self privately to his particular Disciples ; for you will re- 
 collect Reader, that the appearances of Jesus to his Disciples 
 after his crucifixion were to them only, and for the most 
 part in the night. And thus it is by no means impossible, 
 that the twelve Apostles, who were, I doubt not, well mean- 
 ing men, though extremely simple, and credulous ; I say it 
 is thus by no means impossible, that they might have be- 
 lieved sincerely, that their master had risen from the Dead. 
 This Hypothesis must not be considered only as the brain
 
 139 
 
 work of an unbelieving Sceptic ; for it has been (in its main 
 principle) advanced, and elaborately defended by Dr. Paulus 
 the professor of divinity in the principal University in Bavaria, 
 
 It is true, that it may be said, that this is all Hypothesis, 
 and mere conjecture. We allow it ; it is true ; and we as- 
 sert, that the account given by the Evangelists is no better, 
 nay, worse than conjecture, as it is a mere forgery of the se- 
 cond century ! For no man, we 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 ac- 
 count* 
 
 * As reasons for this assertion, take the following facts, which are 
 now ascertained, and can he proved : 1. Several sects of Christians 
 in the first century, in the apostolic sera, denied that Jesus was cruci- 
 fied : as the Basildeans, &c. The author of the Epistle escribed to 
 Barnabas, I think, denied it, and the author of the gospel of Thomas 
 certainly did. 2. The Jewish Christians, the disciples 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 iu " Co- 
 telerius* Patres Jlpostolici" 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 doc- 
 tiine, 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, A.) 
 3. It is certain, that from the beginning, the Chiistians were never 
 agreed as to points of faith ; and that the Apostles themselves, so far 
 from being considered as inspired and infallible, were frequently con- 
 tradicted, thwarted, and set at nought by their own converts : and there 
 were as many sects, heresies, and quarrels, in theirs/ century, as 
 in the second or third. 4. Christ and his Apostles were no sooner 
 off the stage, than forgeries of all kinds broke in with irresistible 
 force ; Gospels, Epistles, Acts, Revelations without number, pub- 
 lished 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 veneiation, and read in the public assemblies 
 as of equal authority with those now received, 5. The very learned 
 and pious Dodwell, in his Dissertations on Irenaeus, avows, that he can- 
 not 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 TVo/an, and Adrian, i. e. before 
 the middle of the second century, i. e. nearly a hundred years after 
 the Apostles were dead. (See Appendix B.) 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 received were not also apocryphal. For 
 ihey were written noboby certainly knows by whom, or where, or when.
 
 140 
 
 If all this will not satisfy the man that " believeth all 
 things," our last resource is to deny the fact of this resurrec- 
 tion. And this we can do with perfect sang froid, as we 
 know very well that it cannot be proved ; for the only testi- 
 
 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, while they were rejected as spurious by many sects of Chris- 
 tians, who asserted that they were possessed of the genuine gospels, 
 which, however, those who received " the four," denied. 6. A11 the 
 different sects of Christians, without a known exception, altered, inter- 
 polated, and without scruple garbled their different copies of their va- 
 rious and discordant gospels, in order to adapt them to their janing, 
 and whimsical philosophical notions. Celsus accuses them of this, and 
 they accuse each other. And that they were continually tampering 
 with their copies of the books of the New Testament, is evident from 
 the immense number of various readings ; and from some whole 
 phrases, and even verses, which for knavish purposes were foisted into 
 the text, but have been detected, and exposed by Griesbach, and others. 
 They also forged certain rhapsodies under the name of " Sybbiline 
 Oracles," and then adduced them as prophetic proofs of the truth of 
 their religion. They also interpolated certain clumsy forgeries as pro- 
 phecies 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 
 Christ. The lists of what were considered as canonial books, differ in 
 different ages, and some books now acknowledged by nil Christians to be 
 forgeries, were in the second and third centuries considered as equally 
 apostolic as those now received, and as such were publicly read in the 
 Churches. 8. The reason why we have not now extant gospels differ- 
 ent, and contradictory to those now received, is because that the sector 
 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 pur- 
 poses, 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 fears of the 
 learned. 
 
 Douglas, in his famous " CRiTERnm," 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 be 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 fake, when they are not 
 published in the place where it is pretended the facts were wrought, but
 
 141 
 
 mony in favour of it are the four Evangelists ; four witness- 
 es, the like of whose written testimony, (being as contradic- 
 tory as that is,) to say no more, certainly would not, we be- 
 lieve, be received in a modern Court of Justice to settle the 
 
 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 suffer- 
 ed to pass without examination. 
 
 These are the marks he gives us as infallible tests by which we may 
 distinguish the accounts of miracles in the New Testament to be true ; 
 and accounts of miracles in other books (though supported by more tea- 
 timony than the former,) to be false ; with how much justice may be 
 evident from the 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 ac- 
 counts given 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. 
 
 2. If " we have reason to suspect them to be false, when they are 
 not published in the place where it is pretendedthe 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 trhern. 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, howewer, 
 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 fust Christians were 
 merely one husdred and twenty Galileans, 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 Gen- 
 tiles any way interested hi 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 between 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 ehoek their 
 garments, and told them that from henceforth we go to the Gentiles." Ac- 
 cordingly, whei the Apostles preached in the synagogues, and the 
 Jews " contradicted, and blasphemed," and made fun of theic mode of 
 proving from the Prophets, ' that Jesus was the Christ ;* yet the 
 *' proselyle and devout women" listened, and believed.
 
 142 
 
 fact about a debt of jive 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 fore- 
 runner^ and more than two hundred thousand followers who 
 publicly acknowledged him for the Messiah, raised contribu- 
 tions, 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 by 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 wrote controversial ^uorks in his cause, 
 as Paul did. And to conclude, his party was not entirely 
 extinct within a very few years. Yet notwithstanding all 
 this, he was an Impostor ; and no man now believes the 
 
 3. If " supposing the accounts to have the^two foregoing qualifica- 
 tions, 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 examina- 
 tion 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 Chris- 
 tians ; whose maxim was " believe, but do not examine, and thy faith 
 shall save thee." Another very good reason why they might be suffer- 
 ed to pass wihout examination is, that the miracles of the Gospels were 
 entirely unknown to, or at least unacknowledged 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 very obscure, that those who 
 lived nearest the times of the Apostles do not seem to have known any 
 thing about them, or their doctrines. 
 
 Though a little out of place, yet I will here adduce a fact which illus- 
 trates and exemplifies the power of enthusiasm to make people believe 
 they saw what they did not see. -Lucian gives an account of one Pere- 
 grinus, a philosophist 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 enthu- 
 siastic veneration of his followers, that sorrte of his disciples did 
 solemnly aver, that they had seen him after his death, clothed in white 
 and crowned ; and they were bejieved, insomuch that altars and statues 
 were erected to Peregrinus as to a demigod. See Lucian's account.
 
 143 
 
 stories of his miracles, or his resurrection ; *otwithstanding 
 that both are affirmed by more recent,*more learned, and more 
 respectable testimony, than is, or can be offered in favour of 
 the Messiahship of Jesus. The name of this famous Im- 
 postor was Zebathai Tzevi, and his history is given by Bas- 
 nage in his History of the Jews. 
 
 I wish the Christian Reader to peruse carefully, and 
 coolly, 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 under- 
 standing as his, if he had found in his New Testament the 
 story of Jonah misquoted, and by a small transposition a la 
 mode de Surenhusius representing, that " Jonah swallowed 
 the whale !" his sturdy " confidence in things not seen," 
 would, I doubt not, have enabled him without difficulty to 
 ewallow the Prophet with the whale in his belly. 
 
 CHAPTER XVII. 
 
 I have already expressed my respect for the character of 
 Jesus Christ. And I again declare, that I request that it 
 may be distinctly understood, that by nothing that I have 
 said, do I intend to impeach, or to depreciate his moral cha- 
 racter. 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 charac- 
 ter 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 con- 
 duct, indirectly impeached the perfection of his moral cha- 
 racter, 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 no- 
 thing himself, that the only accounts we have of him are con- 
 tained in books, probably apocryphal, and 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 Fa-
 
 144 
 
 thers in their writings generally quote traditions concerning 
 Jesus instead of histories. Since these things are so, who 
 knews, but that the authors of the histories of him now ex- 
 tant, have attributed to him words and actions of which he 
 was guiltless, ^e 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 Testament. And though I am obliged in this work, 
 to take the New Testament as I find it, and to reason con- 
 cerning the works, and words of Jesus as I find them there 
 expressed, yet I would earnestly request the reader to con- 
 sider 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 beautir 
 ful parables. I shall ever contemplate his mildness and be- 
 nevolence with respect : and I peruse with pity, the recital 
 of his suiferings, and cruel death. All this I have done, and' 
 I believe I shall ever do ; but I cannot ! I cannot in effect 
 deny the ONE living, and true GOD, and renounce my 
 reason, and common sense, by believing all the contra- 
 dictory, and strange doctrines contained in the New Tes- 
 tament. 
 
 Having unburthened my mind upon this subject, and 
 frankly expressed my sentiments and feelings with regard 
 to the character of Jesus, I hope I may 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 Testament. 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 falsely ascribed to him 
 and to them.
 
 145 
 
 Now then, let us attend to the subject of the chapter, 
 viz. the moral maxims ascribed to Jesus. These moral max- 
 ims consist of 1st. Those which were adopted by him from 
 the Old Testament. 2d. Those of which he himself is de- 
 scribed as being 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 1st. 
 
 * Do to others what you would that others should da to you. * 
 2nd. ' Resist not the injurious person, but if a man smite 
 thee on one cheek, turn to him the other also.' 3rd. ' If a 
 man ask thy cloak, give him thy coat also.' 4th. * If thou 
 wouldest be perfect, sell all 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 life also, he cannot be my disciple.' 6th. 
 
 * Take no thought for the morrow.' 
 
 With regard io the first of these maxims, it does not be- 
 long to Jesus as the author. It is found in the book of To- 
 bit, ch. iv. 15, and it was a maxim well known to the Rab- 
 bins. 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 HUM addressed a 
 Proselyte, thus, " what is hateful to thee, do not thou to thy 
 neighbour." Several other expressions of Jesus were, it 
 appears from the Talmud, proverbial expressions in use a- 
 mong the Jews. For instance, the original of that saying 
 recorded Mat. vii. 2. " With whatsoever measure ye mete," 
 &c. is found in the Talmud of Babylon (Sanhedrim fol. 100, 
 Sotah ch. 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 sub-
 
 146 
 
 ject, 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 prin- 
 ciples of Christianity, and the honour of them can be chal- 
 lenged by, I believe, no other religion. 
 
 These precepts are so extremely hyperbolical, that they 
 are not, and cannot be perfectly observed by any Christian* 
 who does not detach himself completely from the business 
 of Society ; and these maxims, (which, as I said before, are 
 the only part of the morality of the New Testament, which 
 is 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 lives 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 
 fulfilment of which is impossible by any man who is a hus- 
 band, a father, or a citizen. 
 
 It is an outrage to human nature, and to common sense, 
 to order a virtuous 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 vio- 
 lence, injury, and insult ; not to defend himself or his pro- 
 perty when " sued at the law ;" to quit his house and goods, 
 and to hate his parents, and brethren, and wife, and chil- 
 dren, 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 discourage, and debase a man ? to degrade
 
 147 
 
 him in his own eyes, and those of others ? to plunge him 
 into despair ? And would not the literal fulfilment 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, which 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 Chirstianity, 
 meaning thereby, not the morality of those called Christians, 
 but the morality expressed and required in the New Testa- 
 ment. 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 mis- 
 anthrope. Society desires, and wants virtues that help to 
 maintain 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 plea- 
 sures, and to augment the general felicity. But the pecu- 
 liar virtues of the New Testament, either debase the mind 
 by overwhelming 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 pre- 
 fer to the social virtues, the real, and the useful, and with- 
 out 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 advo- 
 cates. 
 
 The first of these Christian Virtues, which serves as a 
 base for all the others is Faith. It consists in believing 
 the truth of dogmas, of absurd fables, which Christianity (ac-
 
 148 
 
 cording 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 en- 
 tire 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 damna- 
 tion. 
 
 This virtue too, though necessary to all men, is neverthe- 
 less the gift of Heaven ! the effect of special grace. It for- 
 bids doubt and examination ; it forbids a man the right to 
 exercise his reason ; it deprives him of the liberty of think-r 
 ing, and degrades him into a bearded baby. 
 
 This Faith vanishes, when a man re'asons: this virtue 
 cannot sustain a tranquil scrutiny. And this is the reason 
 why all thorough going Christians are naturally, and conse- 
 quently, the enemies of Science. This miraculous Faith, 
 which " believeth all things," is not given to persons enlight- 
 ened by Science and Reflection, and accustomed to think. 
 It is not given but to those who are afraid to think, lest 
 they should offend God. 
 
 The next Christian Virtue which flows from the first, i* 
 Hope, founded upon the promises which the New Testa- 
 ment 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 makes them firmly believe, that 
 God will recompence in Heaven the pains they have taken 
 to make themselves miserable on Earth. How can a man, 
 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 indifferent as to 
 his own ? And how can he help this, when he believes, that 
 " friendship with the world is enmity with God ?" 
 
 The third Virtue is Charity. We have elsewhere said, 
 that if universal love, or charity means only general benevo- 
 lence, and a desire to make others happy, and to do them 
 good, all this is commanded by reason and the ancient re- 
 velation ; 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
 
 149 
 
 though we can abstain from hurting 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 feel- 
 ing which interests us in favour of our fellow beings. But 
 how is this feeling consistent with the peculiar doctrines ,<xf 
 the Gospel ? According to its maxims, it is a crime to of- 
 fer God a heart whose aifections are shared by terrestrial 
 objects. And besides, does not experience show, that de- 
 votees obliged by principle to hate themselves, are little dis- 
 posed to give better treatment to others. 
 
 We should not be surprised that maxims originating with 
 enthusiasm, should aim at, and have the effect 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 vo- 
 luntary evils he inflicts upon himself. From thence origi- 
 nate those austerities, those penances, destructive to 
 health ; those cruel privations by which the inhabitants of 
 the monastic cell kill themselves by inches, in order to me- 
 rit the joys of Heaven. Now how can good sense admit 
 that God delights in seeing his creatures torment them- 
 selves ? 
 
 It may be said to all this, perhaps, that this is mere de- 
 clamation, for Christians now a days do not torment them- 
 selves, but live as comfortably as others. To this I answer 
 that Christianity is to be 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." Cer- 
 tainly 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."
 
 150 
 
 It was the New Testament morality that spawned those le- 
 gions of Monks, and Cenobites, who thought to secure the 
 favour of Heaven, by burying their talents in the deserts 
 and devoting themselves to inaction and celibacy. And at 
 this very day, we see these very same things in those Chris- 
 tian countries, which are truly faithful to the principles of 
 their religion. 
 
 In fine, Christianity seems from the first, to have taken 
 pains to set itself in point blanc opposition to nature, and 
 reason. If it admits and includes some virtues ordered, 
 and appointed by God, good sense, and universal experi- 
 ence, it drives them beyond their bounds into extravagance. 
 It preserves no just medium, which is the point of perfec- 
 tion. Voluptuousness, adultery and debauchery are for- 
 bidden by the laws of God and reason. But Christianity 
 not content with commanding and encouraging Marriage, 
 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," A nd 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 very Being, whose very first com- 
 mand 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 His- 
 tory, and Practice of the Primitive Christians; to the innu- 
 merable Monasteries of Europe, and Asia ; to the immense 
 multitudes who have lived and died Hermits ; and, finally, 
 (because I know very well, the Protestant Divines attribute 
 these follies to the influence of Platonism, Pythagoreanism, 
 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. 1 adduce them the 
 more confidently, because, being simple and unlearned., 
 their character has been formed by the spirit of the New
 
 151 
 
 Testament, and perfectly represents the effects of its princi- 
 ples fully carried out, and acted upon. They never heard 
 of Platonism or of Pythagoras in their lives, and consequent- 
 ly 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 Py- 
 thagoras, 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 subsisting 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 bate father, and mother, and 
 sister, and brother, for the sake of Jesus, take the following 
 extracts from the History 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 vari- 
 ous schemes that have been contrived, to destroy all natu- 
 ral affection, and social attachment between man and wife, 
 parent and child, brothers 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,) 
 came to Niskeuna to see her daughter. Eldress Hannah 
 Matterson told the daughter to go into the room to her 
 carnal mother, and say, " What do you come here for ? I 
 don't want you to come and see me with your carnal affec- 
 tions !" 
 
 " The mother being grieved, replied, " I did not ex- 
 pect that a daughter of mine would ever address me in that 
 
 " The daughter, in obedience to what she was taught, 
 replied again, " You have come here with your carnal 
 jleshly desires, and I don't want to see you" and left her mother. 
 
 " Some time after, one Duncan Shapley, who had be-
 
 152 
 
 longed to the society, called to see Abigail, his sister, at 
 Niskeuna, whom he had not seen for six or seven years : 
 but he was not admitted ; he waited some time, being loth 
 to go away without seeing her : at length she was ordered 
 to go to the window and address him in the language of abuse 
 and scurrility. The words she made use of, it would be 
 indecent to mention. For this she was applauded^ and that 
 in the author's hearing, when he belonged to the s6ciety." 
 
 This man gives a very curious account how the Elders 
 treated " their 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 the New Testament towards science. " I know of seve- 
 jal, who, soon after they joined the Church, have been coun- 
 selled by the Elders to dispose of their Books ; and have ac- 
 cordingly done it. Elder Ebenezer, being at my house one 
 day, on seeing a number of books, he said " Ah ! Thomas 
 must put away his books if he intends to become a good 
 believer." 
 
 As an instance of its effect upon the human understand- 
 ing, 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 c|isco- 
 ver 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 have become formed in the room, and its falling." 
 
 " One replied, * Ah ! that is the way, you render a na- 
 tural 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 
 marriage, and considers celibacy as the only state of perfec- 
 tion^ the Shakers allow of no marriages at ull. 
 
 Thus you see that, among these people, to become a
 
 153 
 
 " Good Believer" you must insult your parents, revile your 
 brother, despise learning, and never render a " natural rea- 
 son" for any thing, lest you should " reason away your faith, 
 and yourself out of the Gospel" 
 
 CHAPTER XVIII. 
 
 After having seen the 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 faith- 
 fully observed. Let us do so, and we shall find, that wherever 
 Christianity is established and obeyed, it establishes a set of 
 laws directly opposed to those of a well ordered national 
 society ; and it soon mukes this disagreement and incompa- 
 tibility distinctly to be felt. 
 
 Politics are intended to maintain union and concord among 
 the citizens. Christianity, though it preaches universal 
 love, and commands its followers to live in peace, yet by a 
 strange inconsistency, consequentially annihilates the'effect 
 of these excellent precepts, by the inevitable divisions it 
 causes among its followers ; who necessarily understand dif- 
 ferently the Old and New Testaments, because the latter is 
 not only irreconcilably contradictory to the former, but is 
 even inconsistent with itself. From the very 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 persecutions 
 and quarrels, exceedingly well adapted to destroy this 
 vaunted spirit of concord, said by its defenders to be peculiar 
 to Christianity ; and the existence of which is in fact impos- 
 sible in a Religion which is one entire chaos of obscure doc- 
 trines, and impracticable precepts. In every religious dis- 
 pute, both parties thought that God was on their side, and 
 consequently they were obstinate and irreconcileable. 
 And how should it tyave been otherwise ? since they con- 
 founded the cause of God, with the miserable interests of
 
 154 
 
 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 ob- 
 noxious sects, they sung Te Deum. 
 
 It is not my intention to pursue, in this place, the 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 difficult to see how the maxim of judging the tree by its 
 fruit, will not fatally affect the cause of the Christian Reli- 
 gion. I refer to Mr. Gibbon's History, as a cool and im- 
 partial narrative, for I am well satisfied, that so far from 
 having reason to complain of him, the advocates of Christi- 
 anity have very great reason, indeed, to thank him for his 
 forbearance, since with his eloquence, he might have drawn 
 a picture that would have made humanity shudder. For, 
 throughout the whole history, if a man had wished to know 
 what was then the Orthodox Faith, the best method of as- 
 certaining it would have been, undoubtedly, to ask, " Wliat 
 is the Catechism of the Public Executioner" 
 
 The Christian Religion was, it is evident from his history, 
 the principal^ though by no means the only cause., of the De- 
 cline and Fall of the Roman Empire. Because it degraded 
 the spirit of the people, and because it produced monks and 
 hermits in abundance, but yielded no soldiers. The Hea- 
 then Adversaries of Christianity were in the right when 
 they said, that " if it prevailed Rome was no more !" The 
 Christians would not serve in the armies of the emperor, if 
 they could possibly avoid it. They justly considered the 
 profession of a soldier and that of a Christian as incompati- 
 ble. Celsus accuses them of abandoning the empire, under 
 whose laws they lived, to its enemies. And what is the an- 
 swer of Origen to this accusation ? Look at his pitiful re- 
 ply ! He endeavours to palliate this undutiful refusal by 
 representing that "the Christians had their peculiar camps, 
 in which they incessantly combatted for the safety of the 
 Emperor and Empire, 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
 
 155 
 
 of course, it little mattered what became of the Emperor, 
 or the Empire. This notion was the principal engine for 
 making Proselytes ; and it was by this expectation that 
 many were frightened into Baptism. 
 
 That Christianity was considered incompatible with the 
 military profession is evident from many passages of the 
 Fathers. And one of them, I believe Tertullian, ventures 
 to insinuate to the 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 the Roman youth in Italy, the expe- 
 dient of cutting off the thumbs of their right-hand?, in order 
 to avoid the conscription, and that they might be allowed to 
 count their beads at home in quiet 
 
 If we examine, in detail, the precepts of this religion, as 
 they affect nations, we shall see, that it interdicts every 
 thing which can make a nation nourishing. We have seen 
 already the notion of imperfection which Christianity at- 
 taches to marriage, and the esteem, and preference it holds 
 out to celibacy. These ideas certainly do not favour popu- 
 lation, which is without contradiction the first source of 
 power to every state. 
 
 Commerce is not less obnoxious to the principles of a Re- 
 ligion whose founder is represented as denouncing an ana- 
 thema against the rich, and as excluding them from the King- 
 dom of Heaven. All industry is equally interdicted to per- 
 feet Christians, who are to spend their hves "as strangers, 
 and pilgrims upon earth," and who are "not to take care 
 of the morrow." . . 
 
 Cljrysostom says, that " a Merchant cannot please God, 
 and Chat such a one ought to be chased out of the Church. 
 
 No Christian also, without being inconsistent, can serve 
 in the army. For a man, who is never sure of being in a 
 state of grace, is the most extravagant 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 precipitate into hell ? 
 A Christian soldier is a monster ! a nondescript ! and Lac-
 
 156 
 
 tantius affirms, that "a CItristian cannot be either a Soldier 
 or an accused 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 Astro- 
 nomy and Geometry. And Jerom declares, that he was 
 whipped by an Angel only for reading that Pagan Cicero! 
 
 It has been often remarked, that the most enlightened 
 men are commonly 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 princi- 
 ples 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 the 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 " HO Christian can lawfully be a Soldier." That ac- 
 cording 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 Chris- 
 tian ought to study" In fine, joining these maxims together 
 with those of the New Testament, it will follow, that a 
 Christian, who, as he 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 ; 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 quick as possible. 
 
 Let us hearken to Eusebius of Csesarea, 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 children, nor riches. In fine, 
 it is entirely a stranger to human modes of living. It is en- 
 tirely absorbed in an insatiable love of heavenly things. 
 Those who follow this course of life, have only their bodies
 
 157 
 
 upon earth, their whole souls are in heaven, and they already 
 dwell among pure, and celestial intelligences, and they 
 despise the manner of 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 salva- 
 tion. If Christians in general, happily, for society, were 
 not inconsistent, and did not neglect the peculiar precepts of 
 their 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 fulfil what they mistakenly conceived to be 
 the will of God. 
 
 Is this a picture taken from the life, or is it a fanciful re- 
 presentation of something different from the peculiar mora- 
 lity 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 / have unfortu- 
 nately experienced its operation to be on my own mind I 
 would respectfully ask -Can such a Religion, whose pecu- 
 liar 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 pe- 
 culiar moral principles and maxims, teach the mind to gro- 
 vel, 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 so- 
 ciety.
 
 158 
 
 CHAPTER XIX. 
 
 From the preceding chapters you may judge, Reader, of 
 the justice and truth of the opinion, that " the yoke of 
 Christian morality is easy, and its 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 ob- 
 servance." 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 cheer- 
 fully leave it to such a man, whether the Mosaic Law, with 
 all its numerous rites, and ceremonial observances, nay, 
 with all " the (ridiculous) traditions of the Elders," 
 super added, would not be much more bearable to human na- 
 ture, and much easier to be observed and obeyed, than 
 such precepts 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-merrow :" 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 the best possible, or really 
 divine, is of no consequence in this enquiry, r and is with me, 
 another question from that of its inftriority to that of the 
 New Testament. I do by 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 Theo- 
 logians, when comparing it with that of the New Testament, 
 in order to deprecate the former, appear to me extremely 
 partial 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.* 
 
 * The author had piepared, in order to subjoin in this place, an exa- 
 mination of the Mosaic Code, and a developement of its principles, 
 which he thinks would have satisfied thereadei of the truth of what be 
 has said in the last paragraph. But as it would have too much in-
 
 159 
 
 Another unfounded reproach which Theologians, in or- 
 der to magnify the importance of the New Testament, cast 
 upon the Old, is this : they 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 this is a very mistaken notion, and to manifest 
 that the Jehovah 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 ter- 
 rible, who regardeth not persons, nor taketh reward. He 
 doth execute the judgment of the fatherless and widow, and 
 loveth the stranger, in 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 land 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 his home born, and to the stranger 
 that sojourneth among you. The stranger that dwelleth with 
 you shall be as one born among you, and thou shalt love 
 him as thyself. I am the Lord your God." 
 
 Indeed, so little truth is there in the 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 a manner, as shows, that they were intended to be 
 as unconfined as the Christian or Mahometan ; its religion, 
 in fact, admitted every one who would receive it. And 
 what is more, it can be proved that the Old Testament dis- 
 pensation claims, as appears from itself, to have been given 
 for the common advantage of all mankind. And it is as- 
 serted in it (whether truly, or not, is not the question ; it 
 is sufficient for my purpose that it asserts it) that the reli- 
 gion contained in it, will one day be the religion of all man- 
 kind. 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 Jehovah will be the only 
 God worshipped ; and his laws the only laws obeyed. It 
 represents Abraham and his posterity as merely the instru- 
 
 cteased the bulk of the volume, it has been omitted. It is an institu- 
 tion however curious enough to be the subject of an interesting discus- 
 sion, which he should be happy to see from the hands of one able to 
 do it justice.
 
 160 
 
 ments of Jehovah to bring about these ends ; it is repeatedly 
 declared therein, that the reason of God's dispensations to- 
 wards them was, *' that all the earth might know that Je- 
 hovah is God, and that there is no other but Him." Ac- 
 cording to its history, when God threatened to destroy the 
 Israelites for their perverseness in the Wilderness, and offers 
 Moses, interceding for them, to raise up his seed to fulfil 
 the purposes for which he designed the posterity of Abra- 
 ham, he tells Moses, that his purpose should not be frus- 
 trated through the perverseness of the chosen instruments ; 
 " but (saith he) as surely as I live, all the earth shall be 
 Jilted with the glory of the Lord" Num. xiv. 21. Many pas- 
 sages of similar import are contained in the Psalms, antl 
 the Prophets. In fact, there is no truth at all in the state- 
 ment 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 reli- 
 gion, (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 soletg 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 peremptory 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 Je- 
 hovah 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 Jehovah, and to seek Jehovah 
 of Hosts ; I will go also. Yea, many people, and strong 
 nations shall come to seek the Jehovah of Hosts in Jerusa- 
 lem, and to pray before Jehovah. Thus saith Jehovah of 
 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, for we have heard that^God is with you." 
 
 Be it so, it may be said : " Still it is to Christianity the 
 world owes the consoling doctrine of a life to come. 
 Life and immortality were brought to light by the Gospel," 
 say the Christian Divines ; and they assert that the doc- 
 trine of a resurrection was not known to Jew or Gentile, 
 till they learned it from Christ's followers. The Old Tes-
 
 161 
 
 tament, (say they,) taught the Jews nothing of the glorious 
 truths concerning " the resurrection of the body, and the 
 life everlasting," their " begqarly 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 where 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 ch. of Ezekiel, and which is 
 as follows, " The hand of the Lord was upon me, and car- 
 ried me 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 
 very dry. And he said unto me, son of man, can these 
 bones live ? and I answered, O Lord God thou knowest. - 
 Again he said unto me, prophesy 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 you, and will bring up flesh upon you, and 
 cover you with skin, and put breath into you ; and ye shall 
 live, and know that I am the Lord. So I prophesied as I 
 was commanded, 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 skin covered them above ; but 
 there was no breath in them. Then said he unto me, 
 prophesy 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 
 he commanded me, and the breath came into them, and they 
 lived, and stood up upon their feet an exceeding great army." 
 
 A plainer resurrection than this is, I think never was 
 preached either by Christ, or his followers. Again, Daniel 
 the Prophet says, " Many of them that sleep in the dust of 
 the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to 
 shame, and everlasting contempt," Dan. xii. 2, Now 
 Ezekiel lived almost six hundred years before Jesus, and 
 Daniel was cotemporary with the former ; and is it not a 
 little surprising, that the Jews should learn for the first time 
 the doctrine of a resurrection of the followers of Jesus Christ, 
 when they knew of the resurrection almost six hundred years 
 before he was born ? Isaiah also, (who lived before either
 
 162 
 
 Ezekiel, or Daniel) in the 26th ch. of his prophecies, 
 (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 suffer therein) foretells them, 
 that death would not deprive them of the reward of their 
 piety, and virtue ; for God would raise them from the dead, 
 and make them happy. " Thy dead men shall live, my 
 dead bodies (i. e. the bodies of God's servants) they shall 
 arise. Awake ! 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 effects of the dew, changes, and springs up, as it were 
 in a moment, green and fresh, and beautiful ; so by the in- 
 stantaneous influence of the word of God, the dry, and de- 
 cayed 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 al- 
 ready produced is sufficient. Those however who wish to 
 see the subject more thoroughly examined, are refened 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. Priestly, 
 in 1801. 
 
 I shall only add one observation more upon 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 iUelf 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 the Old Testament ! f
 
 163 
 
 CONCLUSION. 
 
 I have now finished my work ; which I have written in 
 order to exculpate 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 conclusions attached 
 to it Though there might have been drawn from the Old 
 and New Testaments, many additional arguments corrobo- 
 rative 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 suffi- 
 cient 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 satisfactory refutation of the objections contained 
 in this volume, his resigning a profession whose duties obliged 
 him to say what he was convinced was false, was conduct 
 to be reprehended. And lastly, he appeals to the good 
 sense of the Public, for a decision, whether, with such ob- 
 jections, and difficulties weighing upon his mind, as he has 
 now exposed his conduct in that respect, can reasonably be 
 attributed to the unmanly influence of caprice, and 
 fickleness, (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 have, 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 Testa- 
 ment as a foundation, admitted and necessarily admitted by 
 Christians, to be of divine authority, and are surrounded by
 
 164 
 
 the bulwarks they have raised out of the demolished en- 
 trenchments 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 on both sides, I am obliged to believe, that 
 the stoutest Polemical Goliah 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. He 
 fears, that he shall see an answer precisely resembling the 
 many others he has seen upon that subject Except two, 
 those of Skyes and Jeffries (who acknowledge that miracles 
 have nothing to do with the question of the Messiahship, 
 which can be decided by the Old Testamont only ;) all 
 that he has ever met with evade this question, and slide 
 over to the ground of miracles. Such conduct in an an- 
 swerer of this Book would be very unfair, and also very 
 absurd. For the case is precisely resembling the follow- 
 ing : A father informs, by letter, his son in a foreign coun- 
 try that he is about to send him a Tutor, whom he will know 
 by the following marks : " He is learned in the Mathema- 
 tics, and the Physical Sciences ; acquainted with the learned 
 languages, and an excellent Physician; of a dark com- 
 plexion ; six feet high, and with a voice loud and commanding" 
 By and by, a man comes to the young man, professing to 
 be this Tutor sent to him by his Father. On examining the 
 man, and comparing him w itli 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, he knows nothing about them ; 
 instead of being * six feet high, of a dark complexion, and 
 with a voice loud and commanding,' he is a dimunitive crea- 
 ture of Jive 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 pretented 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 con-
 
 165 
 
 vince the young man, that he is acquainted with the sciences 
 aforesaid, and that he is also six feet high ; of a dark com- 
 plexion ; and talks like an Emperor! The young man re- 
 plies " Friend, you are either an enthusiast, a mad man, 
 or something worse. As to your * signs and wonders' I 
 have been warned in my Father's letter to pay no regard to 
 any such things in this case. Besides, you ought to be sen- 
 sible, that your identity with the person I am taught by my 
 Father's letter to expect, can be only determined by com- 
 paring you with the description of him given therein. Whe- 
 ther your * wonderful works' are real miracles or not, I 
 neither know, nor care. At any 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 Alex- 
 ander ; or the Methodist George Whitfield to be the Empe- 
 ror Napoleon Bounaparte /" 
 
 To conclude, if any person should feel inclined to attempt 
 to refute the Book, let him do it like a man , without eva- 
 ding the question, or equivocating, or cavilling about little 
 things. Let him consider the principal question, and the 
 main arguments on which he perceives that the Author re- 
 lies, 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 disin- 
 genuous, 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 an- 
 swers, 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 maintains a desperate Cause.
 
 19* 
 
 APPENDIX A. 
 
 SEE Cotelerius " Patres Apostolic," Tom. 1, p. 602. 
 
 Extracts of a letter from Peter to James prefixed to the 
 Clementines. " For if this be not done (says Peter, after 
 entreating James not to communicate 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 be- 
 ginning of this evil. For some from among the Gentiles 
 have rejected my legal Preaching ; embracing the trifling, 
 and lawless Doctrine of a man who is an enemy. And these 
 things some have endeavoured to do now in my own life 
 time, transforming my words by various interpretations, 
 to the destruction of the Law ; as if / had been of the same 
 mind, but dared not openly profess it; (See Gal. 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 Tes- 
 timony of our Lord for 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 opi- 
 nion, (see Gal. as above,) take upon them to explain the 
 words they heard from me, better than I that spoke them ; 
 telling their Disciples, my sense was that of which I had 
 not so much as thought ; now if in my own life time they 
 dare feign such things, how much more will those that 
 come alter do the same,"
 
 167 
 
 APPENDIX B. 
 
 Extract from Dodwell's Dissertations on Irenseus, Diss. 
 1. 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 Traj'in, 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 
 overwhelmed under such a multitude as where then of Apocry- 
 phal, and suppositions 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 dis- 
 tinguished 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 at- 
 testation of the Canon is subject to the same inconveniences 
 with those traditions of the ancient persons that I defend, 
 and whom Irenaeus both heard and saw ; for it is equally 
 distant from the original, and could not be made except by 
 such only as had 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 admonished to beware of them 
 for the future. Likewise the true writings of the Apos- 
 tles used to be so bound up in one volume with the Apo- 
 crypha?, that it was not manifest by any mark of public cen- 
 sure which of them should be preferred to t/te other. We 
 have at this day certain authentic writings of Ecclesiastical 
 Authors of those times, as Clemens Roman us, 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 icith one passage, 
 or any mention of the New 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
 
 168 
 
 for the most part so interpolated, that it cannot be known, 
 whether they produced them out of ours, or some Apocry- 
 phal 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 Testa- 
 ment, especially if it be considered, that they pass no cen- 
 sure on the Apocryphal, nor leave any mark whereby the 
 reader might discern 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 conformable to ours, it was not done through 
 any certain design, as if dubious things were to be confirm- 
 ed only by the Canonical Books, so as it is very possible 
 that both those and the like passages may have been bor- 
 rowed 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 Canonial 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 incon- 
 testably 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 im- 
 mediate 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 authen- 
 tic with them ; and what stress should be laid on the testi- 
 mony of those Fathers, who not only contradict one ano- 
 ther, but are often inconsistent with themselves in relating
 
 169 
 
 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 pre- 
 sent Gospels were forgeries. As an example of this, take 
 the following, from the works of Faustus, quoted by 
 Augustine, contra Faustum Lib. 32. chapter 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 by the Apostles, but a Img time after them 
 by certain obscure persons ; who, lest no credit should be 
 given to the stories they told of what they could not know, 
 did prefix to their writings the names of the Apostles, and 
 partly of those who succeeded the Apostles, affirming, 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 dissonant, and repugnant ; and that 
 they pretended to write those Gospels under their names 
 which are so full of mistakes, of contradictory relations, and 
 opinions, that they are neither coherent with themselves, nor 
 consistent with one another. What is this therefore bui to 
 throw a calumny on good men, and to fix the accusation of 
 Discord on the unanimous Society of Christ's Disciples."
 
 170 
 
 ADDENDA. 
 
 THERE is in the Gospel ascribed to Joht, 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 chap- 
 ter. 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 prophecy ! may appear, it is 
 one of the most impudent applications of passages from the 
 Old Testament that occurs in the New. It is taken from 
 the 18th verse of the 22d Psalm, which Psalm was proba- 
 bly made by David in reference to his humilating 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 his 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, verse 16, "They pierced my 
 hands and my feet." In the original there seems to have 
 been a word 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 difficult 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 con- 
 text, where David represents himself as in the utmost dis- 
 tress, 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 sur- 
 rounded by dogs, who are busied in tearing the flesh from
 
 171 
 
 his bones ; their teeth fixed in his hands and feet and pulling 
 him asunder. This is the import of the place, and this in- 
 terpretation 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 feet" 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 Fri- 
 day, as undoubtedly a prophecy 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 Christ, than it has 
 to Nebuchadnezzer. 
 
 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 the customs, habits, and 
 personal appearance of the early Christians, corroborative 
 of what is said in the 17th and 18th chapters of this work. 
 Lest however Lucian's testimony in this matter should 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 appearance, and practices of the Primitive 
 Christians." Lami was a very learned, and sincere Chris- 
 tian, and of course his testimony cannot be objected lo, and 
 the reader will find, on a perusal of his work, that what I 
 have asserted in the 17th and 18th chapters is altogether 
 true, and not the whole truth neither. Indeed that the state- 
 ments in those chapters as to the effects of the peculiar 
 maxims of the New Testament upon the heart, and under- 
 standing are substantially correct, will I believe be discover- 
 ed 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 enquirer, and glory in it, that chastity is 
 more honourable than marriage ; that Faith is every thing ;
 
 172 
 
 that 'doubt is damnable, and a proof of " an unrrgenerated 
 mind ;" that all the goods and pleasures of this world are 
 trash ; that human institutions are mere "carnal ordi- 
 nances ; and that human science and learning is a snare 
 to faith, and an abomination to a true Disciple of the cross.
 
 NOTE BY THE PUBLISHER. 
 
 The reader of the preceding pages cannot have failed to 
 have observed that the Author, in many instances, has ex- 
 pressed his doubts as to a Divine Revelation being contain- 
 ed in the Old Testament. His arguments 19 this book are, 
 therefore, only founded on this fact, acknowledged both by 
 Jews and Christians, and not on his own convictions ; but 
 he has, in a subsequent Work, entitled, " Five Pebbles, 
 from the Brook" which was written in reply to a "Defence of 
 Christianity," by Mr. Everett,* made use of the following 
 remarkable expressions : 
 
 " This Book is not the work of an Infidel. I am not an. 
 Infidel ; what I have learned and seen in Europe, Asia, and 
 Africa, while it has confirmed my reasons for rejecting the 
 New Testament, has rooted in my mind the conviction that 
 the ancient Bible does contain a Revelation from the God 
 of Nature, as firmly as my belief in the first proposition of 
 Euclid." 
 
 " The whole analogy of nature, while it is in many respects 
 opposed to the characteristics ascribed to the Divinity by the 
 metaphysicians, yet bears witness in my opinion, that this 
 world was made, and is governed by just such a Being as 
 the Jehovah of the Old Testament, "while the palpable ful- 
 filment of the predictions contained in that Book, and 
 which is so strikingly manifest in the Old World, leaves in 
 my mind no doubt, whatever, of the ultimate fulfilment of 
 all that it promises, and all that it threatens." 
 
 He closes his Work with the following note : 
 
 " I believe that the Scholar will not find any misstate- 
 ment of facts, nor the Logician any flaw in the arguments, 
 the Book lays before the public. On these two points I 
 feel secure in this respect ; and I calmly and firmly lay my 
 gage at the feet of all Christendom. Let him who dares to 
 take it up, do it" 
 
 If Subscribers offer, The FIVE PEBBLES," will 
 be reprinted. PRICE, g2. 
 
 * Mr. Everett wrote the " Defence of Christianity" in reply to the 
 " Grounds of Christianity Examined."
 
 \\EUNIVER% 
 
 1 1 
 
 
 University of California Library 
 Los Angeles 
 
 This book is DUE on the last date stamped below. 
 
 R 
 
 NAY 03 2004 
 
 enewals 
 :5-9188 
 
 - 
 
 S5 
 
 
 3 | 
 ^
 
 A 000 005 624 2 __ 
 
 
 -. uj" 
 
 I 1 
 
 
 ^\\E-UNIVER% 
 
 
 \\E-UNIVER% 
 
 1 a 
 
 ? 
 
 II