← catalogue

The Grounds of Christianity Examined by Comparing The New Testament with the Old

by George Bethune English · English · Gutenberg #15968 · 461,239 chars · public domain (US)

The Project Gutenberg eBook of The Grounds of Christianity Examined by Comparing The New Testament with the Old
    
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and
most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms
of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online
at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States,
you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located
before using this eBook.

Title: The Grounds of Christianity Examined by Comparing The New Testament with the Old

Author: George Bethune English


        
Release date: June 1, 2005 [eBook #15968]
                Most recently updated: December 14, 2020

Language: English

Other information and formats: www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/15968

Credits: Produced by Charles Klingman


*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE GROUNDS OF CHRISTIANITY EXAMINED BY COMPARING THE NEW TESTAMENT WITH THE OLD ***




Produced by Charles Klingman





The Grounds of Christianity
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 their turn, and say, THIS IS TRUE.”
	ISAIAH.


Boston 1813


To the Intelligent and the Candid
Who are
Willing to Listen to Every Opinion
That is Supported by Reason;
And
Not Averse to Bringing their Own Opinions
To the Test of Examination;
THIS BOOK
Is Respectfully Dedicated
By
The Author



CONTENTS

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

Chapter II.
Statement of the Question in Dispute.

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

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

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

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

Chapter IX.
On the character of Jesus of Nazareth, and the weight to be
allowed to the argument of martyrdom, as a test of truth, in this
question.

Chapter X.
Miscellaneous.

Chapter XI.
Whether the Mosaic Law be represented in the Old Testament 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 miraculous
powers, ascribed to the Primitive Christians; and whether recorded
miracles are infallible proofs of the Divine Authority of doctrines
said to have been confirmed by them.

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
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 by the Old
testament, in contradiction the assertion, that “life and immorality
were brought to light by the Gospel.”

Conclusion

Appendix

Addenda



PREFACE

The celebrated Dr. Price, in his valuable “Observation on
the Importance of the American Revolution,” addressed to the
people of the United States, observes that, “It is a common
opinion, that there are some doctrines so sacred, and others of so
bad a tendency, that no public discussion of them ought to be
allowed. Were this a right opinion, all the persecution that has
ever been practised would be justified; for if it is a part of the duty
of civil magistrates to prevent the discussion of such doctrines,
they must, in doing this, act on their own judgments of the nature
and tendency of doctrines; and, consequently, they must have a
right to prevent the discussion of all doctrines which they think to
be too sacred for discussion, or too dangerous in their tendency;
and this right they must exercise in the only way in which civil
power is capable of exercising it--'by inflicting penalties upon all
who oppose sacred 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
nature. 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 mentioned
is right. But, in reality, civil power has nothing to do in such
matters, and civil governors go miserably out of their proper
province, whenever they take upon them the care of truth, or the
support of any doctrinal points. They are not judges of truth, and if
they pretend to decide about it, they will decide wrong. This all
the countries under heaven think of the application of civil power
to doctrinal points in every country, but their own. It is indeed
superstition, idolatry, and nonsense, that civil power at present
supports almost every where under the idea of supporting sacred
truth, and opposing dangerous error. Would not, therefore, its
perfect neutrality be the greatest blessing? Would not the interest
of truth gain unspeakably, were all the rulers of states to aim at
nothing but keeping the peace; or did they consider 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 person and
property; not of any ecclesiastical, but secular, matters only?”

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

“I would extend these observations to all points of faith, however
sacred they may: be deemed. Nothing 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 nature 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 Arminians, Trinitarians and Socinians, Fatalists and
Free-Willers, are continually exclaiming against one another's
opinions, as dangerous and licentious. Even Christianity itself
could not, at its first introduction, escape this accusation. The
professors of it were considered as atheists, because they opposed
pagan idolatry; and their religion was, on this account, reckoned a
destructive and pernicious enthusiasm. If, therefore, the rulers of a
state are to prohibit the propagation of all doctrines, in which they
apprehend immoral tendencies, an opening will be made, as I have
before observed, for every species of persecution. There will be no
doctrine, however true or important, the avowal of which will not,
in, some country or other, be subjected to civil penalties.”

These observations bear the stamp of good sense, and their truth
has been abundantly confirmed by experience; and it is the peculiar
honour of the United States, that in conformity with the principles
of these 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 ascendancy of one set of religious
opinions, and persecuting or tolerating all others, and which does
not permit any man to harass his neighbour, because he thinks
differently from himself. In consequence of these excellent
institutions, difference of religious sentiment; makes here no
breach in private friendship, and works no danger to the public
security. This is as it should be; for, in matters of opinion,
especially with regard to so important a thing as religion, it is
every man's natural right and duty to think for himself, and to
judge upon such evidence as he can procure, after he has used his
best endeavours to get information. Human decisions are of no
weight in this matter, for another man has no more right to.
determine what his opinions shall be, than I have to determine
what another man’s opinions shall be. It is amazing that one man
can dare to presume he has such a right over another; and that any
man can be so weak and credulous, as to imagine, that another has
such right over him.

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

For unless all men are allowed freely to profess their opinions, the
means of information, with respect to opinions, must, in a great
measure, be wanting; and just inquiries into their truth be almost
impracticable; and, by consequence, our natural right and duty to
think and judge for ourselves, must be rendered almost nugatory,
or be subverted, for want of materials whereon to employ our
minds. A man by himself, without communication with other
minds, can make no great progress in knowledge; and besides, an
individual is indisposed to use his own strength, when an
undisturbed laziness, ignorance, and prejudice give him full
satisfaction as to the truth of his opinions. But if there be a free
profession, or communication of sentiment, every man will have
an opportunity of acquainting himself with all that can be known
from others; and many for their own satisfaction will make
inquiries, and, in order to ascertain the truth of opinions, will desire
to know all that can be said on any question.

If such liberty of professing and teaching be not allowed, error, if
authorized, will keep its ground; and truth, if dormant, will never
be brought to light; or, if authorized, will be supported on a false
and absurd foundation, and such as would equally support error;
and, if received on the ground of authority, will not be in the least
meritorious to its professors.

Besides, not to encourage capable and honest men to profess and
defend their opinions when different from ours, is to distrust the
truth of our own opinion, 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 grounded, 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,
consider and debate with others, (as well as with themselves,) what
reason and Scripture says; and to profess, and act openly,
according to what they are convinced they say? How can we
become better informed with regard to religion, than by using the
best means of information? which consist in consulting reason and
scripture, and calling in the aid of others. And of what use is it to
consult reason, and Scripture at all, as any means of information.,
if we are not, upon conviction, to follow their dictates?

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

We ought to examine 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
in them, and are the worst a man can possibly take to obtain truth;
and therefore, though they may be objects of forgiveness, they can
never be of reward from Him.

Having promised these observations in order to persuade, and
dispose the reader to be candid, I will now declare the motives,
which induced me to submit to the consideration of the intelligent,
the contents of this volume. The Author has spared, he thinks, no
pains to arrive at certain Truth in matters of religion; 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 become acquainted with the
Grounds, and Doctrines of the Christian Religion; and nothing but
the difficulties, which he in this volume lays before the public,
staggers his faith in it.

It may perhaps add to the interest the Reader may take in this work
to inform him, that the Author 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 attention to the consideration
of the ancient, and obscure controversy between the Christians and
the Jews. His curiosity was deeply interested to examine a subject
in truth so little known, and to ascertain the causes, and the
reasons, which had prevented a people more interested in the truth
of Christianity than any other from believing it: and he set down to
the subject without any suspicion, that the examination would not
terminate in convincing him still more in favour of 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 Testament in opposition, and
reduce Christians to this fatal dilemma.--Either the Old Testament
contains a Revelation from God; or it does sot. If it does, then the
New Testament cannot 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 former
by them acknowledged Revelation: 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 Testament must go
down, because it asserts that the Old Testament is a revelation
from God, and builds upon it as a foundation. And if the
foundation fails, how can the house, stand? The Author pledges
himself to the Reader, to prove, that they establish this dilemma
completely. And he cannot help thinking, that there is reason to
believe, that if both sides of this strangely neglected 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.

The Author has been earnestly dissuaded from making public the
contents of this volume on account of apprehended mischievous
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.

The Author therefore makes it public, for these reasons,--because
he thinks, that the matter contained in the book, is true, and
important,--because he wished, and found it necessary to justify
himself from 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; who for almost
eighteen hundred years have been made the unresisting victims of,
as the reader will find, groundless misrepresentation, and the most
amazing cruelty; because they refused to believe what it was
impossible that they should believe, on account of reasons their
persecutors did not know, and refused to be 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 subject of the following pages; and
will think with the author, that it is time, high time, that the truth
should be known, and justice be done to them.*

There is not in existence a more singular instance of the
mischievous mistakes arising from taking things for granted which
require proof, than the case before the reader. The world has all
along been in total error with regard to the reasons and the motives
which have prevented the Hebrew nation from receiving the
system of the New Testament. They have been successfully
accused of incorrigible blindness and obstinacy; and while
volumes upon volumes have been written against them, and the
arguments therein contained, supported and enforced by the power
of the Inquisition, and the oppressions of all Christendom, these
unfortunate people have not been willingly suffered to offer to the
world one word in their own defence. They have not been
allowed, after hearing with patience both arguments, and “railing
accusations” in abundance, to answer in their turn; but have been
compelled, through the fear of confiscation, persecution, and death,
to leave misapprehensions unexplained, and misrepresentations
unrefuted.

Is it then to be wondered at, that mankind have considered their
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
curiosity? Alas! the world did not consider, that nothing was more
easy than to confute people whose tongues were frozen by the
terror of the Inquisition!! But, thanks to the good sense of this
enlightened age, those times are past and gone. There is now one
happy country where freedom of speech is allowed, where every
harmless religious opinion is protected by law, and where every
opinion is listened to that is supported by reason. The time, I trust,
is now come when the substantial arguments of this oppressed,
and, in this respect, certainly calumniated, people, may be
produced and their reasons set forth, without the fear of harm, and
with, and with the hope of hearing from the intelligent and the
candid. They, we believe, will be fully convinced, that their
adversaries have for so long a time triumphed over them without
measure, only because they have been suffered to do so without
contradiction.

The reader is assured, that, notwithstanding the subject, he will
find nothing in this volume but what is considered by the author to
be fair and 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 inoffensive manner; for
he has no wish, and claims no right, to wound the feelings of those
who differ from him in opinion. There is not, nor ought there to be,
a word of reproach in it, against the moral character of Jesus, or the
twelve Apostles; and the utmost the author attempts to prove is,
that their system was founded, not upon fraud and imposture, but
upon a mistake. After the deaths of Christ and his Apostles, it was
indeed aided and supported by very bad means; but its 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 now 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 fairness, and expresses them in
decent language; and no sensible Christian ought to shut his ears
against his neighbour, who respectfully asks “a reason for the faith
that is in him.”

The author has been told, indeed, that, “supposing the Christian
system to be unfounded, yet that it is reasonable to believe, that the
Supreme Being would view any attempts to disturb it, with
displeasure, on account of its moral effects.” But is not this
something like 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 mistaken, or imposed upon, by
Revelations pretended to be from Him, which if in fact not from
him, must be the offspring either of error or falsehood? And if the
Christian system be, in 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 precepts? Can we suppose, that that Supreme and
awful Being can feel Himself honoured, in having his creatures
made to believe, that He was once nine months in the womb of a
woman; that God, the Great and Holy, went through all the
nastiness of infancy; that be lived a mendicant in a corner of the
earth, and was finally scourged, and hanged on a gibbet by his own
creatures? If these things be, in truth, all mistakes, can we
suppose, that God is pleased in having them believed of Him? On
the contrary, can they, together with the doctrine of the Trinity, I
would respectfully ask, be possibly looked upon by Him (if they
are not true), otherwise, than as so many--what I forbear to
mention. But this is not all. The reader is requested to consider,
that the Christian system is built upon the prostrate necks of the
whole Hebrew nation. It is a tree which flourished in a soil watered
by their tears; its leaves grew green in an atmosphere filled with
their cries and groans; and its roots have been moistened and
fattened with their blood. The ruin, reproach, and sufferings of that
people, are considered, by its advocates, as the most striking proof
of the Divine authority of the New Testament; and for almost
eighteen hundred years the system contained in that book has been
the cause of miseries and afflictions to that nation, the most
horrible and unparalleled in the history of man.

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

If that system be verily and indeed founded on a mistake, no
language, no indignation, can do justice to its guilt in this respect.
All its good moral effects are a mere drop of pure water in that
ocean of Jewish and Gentile blood it has caused to be shed by
embittering men's minds with groundless prejudices. And if it be
not divine; if it be plainly and demonstrably proved to have
originated in error; who is the man, that, after considering what has
been suggested, will have the heart to come forward, and coolly
say, “that it is better that a whole nation of men should continue, as
heretofore, to be unjustly hated, reproached, cursed, and plundered,
and massacred, on account of it, rather than that the received
religious system should be demonstrated to be founded on
mistake?" No! If it be, in fact, founded on mistake, every man of
honour, honesty, and humanity, will say, without hesitation, "Let
the delusion (if it is one) be done away, which must be supported
at the expense of 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 affliction and misery on account of it." No! though the
moral effects ascribed to this system of religion were as good, as
great, and ten times greater than they ever have been, or can be,
yet, if it is a delusion, it would be absolutely wicked to support it,
since it is erected upon the sufferings, wretchedness, and
oppression of a people who compose millions of the great family
of mankind.

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

And as for the opinions and the arguments contained in this
volume, I have but trembling hopes that they will meet with
favour, merely because the author is sincere, and wishes to do
right. Conscious that I make a perilous attempt, in daring to
defend myself by attacking ancient error supported by multitudes,
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 authority of
the writer, I am sensible they must fall by their own weakness, or
stand by their own strength. I must leave them, therefore, to their
fate; and I can cheerfully do it, without fear for the issue, if the
reader will only be candid, and will comply with my earnest
request--“first to understand, and then judge.”

Before I conclude these prefatory remarks, I would observe, that as
the contents of this volume will be perfectly novel to nine hundred
and ninety-nine out of a thousand, it is but justice to the public, and
to myself, to avow, that I do not claim to have originated all the
arguments advanced in this book. A very considerable proportion
of them were selected, and derived, from ancient and curious
Jewish Tracts, translated from Chaldee into Latin, very little
known even in Europe, and not at all known there to any but the
curious and inquisitive. And I reasonably hope, that discerning
men will be much more disposed to weigh with candour the
arguments herein offered, when they consider that they are, in
many instances, the reasonings of learned, ancient and venerable
men, who, in times when the inquisition was in vigour, suffered
under the most bloody oppression, and whose writings were
cautiously preserved, and secretly handed down to the seventeenth
century in manuscript, as the printing of them would assuredly
have brought all concerned to the stake. Some few other arguments
were derived from other authors, and were taken from works not so
much known as I hope they will be.

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

September 28, 1813.



THE

EVIDENCES OF CHRISTIANITY

Examined by Comparing the

NEW TESTAMENT WITH THE OLD.



CHAPTER I.

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

Christianity is founded on Judaism, and the New Testament upon
the Old; and Jesus of Nazareth is the person said in the New
Testament to be Promised in the Old, under the character and name
of the Messiah of the Jews, and who as such only claims the
obedience, and submission of the World. Accordingly, it is the
design of the authors of the New, to prove Christianity from the
Old, Testament; which is said Jo. 5:39, to contain the words of
eternal life: and it 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 prophecy of, or to typify
Christianity.

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

Thus he proves Mary’s being with child by the Holy Spirit, and the
Angel’s telling her she “shall bring forth a son, and call his name
Jesus;” and the other circumstances attending his miraculous birth;
Jesus’ birth at Bethlehem; his flight into Egypt; the slaughter of the
infants; Jesus Dwelling at Nazareth, and at Capernaum, in the
borders of Zabulon, and Naphtali; his casting out devils, and
healing the sick; his eating with Publicans and sinners; his
speaking in parables that the Jews might not understand him; his
sending his disciples to fetch an ass, and a colt; the children’s
crying in the Temple; the resurrection of Jesus from the dead;
Jesus’ being betrayed by Judas, and Judas’ returning back the
thirty pieces of Silver, and the Priest’s buying the Potter’s 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. 13: 13, ch. 21: 2--7. 15,16, ch. 22: 31, 32, ch.
26: 54, 56, ch. 27: 5--10.

Jesus himself is represented as proving the truth of Christianity
thus. He, joining himself to two of his Disciples, (Luke 28: 15--
22,) after his resurrection, who knew him not, and complaining of
their mistake about his person, whom they now took not to be the
Messiah, because he had been condemned to death, and crucified;
he, observing their disbelief of his resurrection, which had been
reported to them by “certain 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 Messiah) 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
concerning 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 (1. e. the Messiah) to
suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day; and that repentance,
and remission of sins should be preached in his name, beginning at
Jerusalem.”

When the people of several nations, Acts 2:12, were amazed at the
Apostles speaking in their several tongues, and when many
mocked the Apostles, saying they were full of new wine, Peter
makes a speech in public, wherein, after saying they were not
drunk, because it was but the third hour of the day, he endeavours
to show them, that this was spoken of by the Prophet Joel, and he
concludes with proving the resurrection of Jesus from the book of
Psalms.

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

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

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

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

The Bereans are highly extolled (Acts 17: 11,) for searching the
Scriptures, i.e. the Old Testament, daily, 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 rejected by the Bereans, as teachers of false doctrine.

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

The Author of the first Epistle to the Cor. says, 15 ch. v. 4, that
“Jesus rose again from the dead the third day, according to the
Scriptures,” that is, according to the Old Testament, and he is
supposed to ground this on the history of the prophet Jonas, who
was three days and three nights in the fish's belly: though the cases
do not seem to be parallel, for Jesus being buried on Friday
evening, and rising on Sunday morning, was in the tomb but one
day and two nights.

But most singular is the argument of the Apostle Paul (in his
Epistle to the Galatians) to prove Christianity from the Old
Testament. “Tell me (says he, Gal. 4: 21,) ye that desire to be
under the Law, do ye not hear the Law? For it is written, that
Abraham had two Sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a free
woman. But he who was of the bond woman, was 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 answereth to Jerusalem
that now is, and is in bondage with her Children. But Jerusalem
which is above is free, which is the Mother of us all. For it is
written (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: 10,
12,) Cast out the bond woman, and her son, for the son of the bond
woman shall not be heir with the son of the free woman. So then,
Brethren, we are not the 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,” (2Cor. 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 contained 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.

STATEMENT of THE QUESTION IN DISPUTE.

How Christianity depends on the Old Testament, or what proofs
are to be met with therein in behalf of Christianity, are the subjects
of almost all the numerous books written by divines, and other
apologists for 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
preaching 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 established on those foundations,
because a proof drawn from an inspired book is perfectly
conclusive. And prophecies delivered in an inspired book
are, when fulfilled, such as may be justly deemed sure, and
demonstrative proof; and which Peter (2 Peter 1: 19) prefers as an
argument for the truth of 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 eternal
evidence, and testimony.” And this opinion of Peter’s is
corroborated by the words of Jesus himself, who, in Mat. xxiv: 23,
24, Mark xiii: 21, 22, affirms, that miracles wrought in
confirmation of a pretender’s being the Messiah, are not to be
considered as proof of his being so--“though they show great
signs and wonders, believe it not,” is his command to his disciples.

Besides, prophecies fulfilled, seem the most proper of all
arguments to evince the truth of a new revelation which is
designed to be universally promulgated to men. For a man who has
the Old Testament put into his hands, which contain prophecies,
and the New Testament afterward, which is said to contain their
completions, and is once satisfied, as he may be with the greatest
ease, that the Old Testament existed before the New, may have a
complete, internal, divine, demonstration of the truth of
Christianity, without long, and laborious enquiries. Whereas,
arguments of another nature, such, for instance, as relate to the
authority and genuineness of the books, and the persons, and
characters of authors, and witnesses, require more application, and
understanding, than falls to the share of the bulk of mankind; or
else are very precarious in themselves, since we know that in the
first centuries there were numberless forged Gospels, and
Apocryphal writings imposed upon the credulous as apostolic and
authentic; and there were in the Apostles times, as many, and as
great heresies and schisms as perhaps have been since in any age
of the Church. So that, setting aside the before mentioned internal
proofs from prophecy, (which were the Apostle's proofs and in
their nature sufficient of themselves) we should have no certain
proof at all for the 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 and his Apostles built it is then invalid,
and false. Nor can miracles, said to have been wrought by Jesus,
and his Apostles in behalf of Christianity, avail anything in the
case. For miracles can never render a foundation valid, which is in
itself invalid; can never make a false inference true; can never
make a prophecy fulfilled, which is not fulfilled; and can never
designate a Messiah, or Jesus for the Messiah, if both are not
marked out in the Old Testament; no more than they could prove
the earth to be the sun, or a mouse a lion.

Besides, miracles said to have been wrought, may be often justly
decided false reports, when attributed to persons who claim an
authority from the Old Testament, which they impertinently
alledge to support their pretentions. God can never be supposed
often to permit miracles to be done for the confirmation of a false,
or pretended mission. And if at any time he does permit miracles to
be done in confirmation of a pretended mission, we have express
directions from the Old Testament (acknowledged by Christians to
be of divine authority) Deut. xiii. 1, 2, not to regard such miracles;
but to continue firm to the antecedent revelation given by Himself,
and contained in the Old Testament, notwithstanding any “signs or
wonders;” which, under the circumstance of attesting something
contrary to an antecedent 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, unless 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 crucified for pretending to be
what to them he appeared plainly not to be.

Nor had his miracles alone any effect on his own brethren, and
kindred, who seem (Mark vi. 4; Jo. vii. 6,) 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 sera, in great numbers followed
impostors giving themselves out as the Messiah, with force, and
arms, as the way to restore the kingdom of Israel. So that the Jews,
who it seems mistook in this most important matter, and after the
most egregious manner, the meaning of their own Books, might,
till they were set right in their interpretation of the Old Testament,
and 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 person, who in virtue
of miracles would lead them into idolatry, or any other breach of
their law.

In fine, the miracles said to have been wrought by Jesus, 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 forewarned 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.*



CHAPTER III.

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

Having shewn from the New Testament, and proved from the
nature of the case, that the whole credit and authority 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 tested solely by the coincidence of the character, and
circumstances of the pretender with the descriptions given by the
prophets as the means by which he may be known to be so--it is
proper, in order that we may be enabled to form a correct opinion,
to lay before the reader those passages of the Old Testament
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 Hebrew prophets, to become the abode of happy beings.

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 contained in Num. xxiv. 17,19,
“There shall come a star out of Jacob, and a sceptre shall rise out
of Israel, shall smite the corners of Moab, and destroy the children
of Seth.” Geddes interprets the latter clause--“shall destroy the
sons of esdition;” but it probably means, according to the common
interpretation, that this monarch was to govern the whole race of
men, i. e. the children of Seth; for Noah, according to the Old
Testament, was descended from him; and of the posterity of Noah,
was the whole earth overspread. And in verse 19, it is added “out
of Jacob shall come he that shall have dominion.”*

God says to David, 2 Sam. vii. 12, “And when thy days shall be
fulfilled, and thou shall sleep with thy fathers, I will set up thy seed
after thee, which shall proceed out of thy bowels; and I will
establish his kingdom. He shall build a house for my name, and I
will establish the throne of his kingdom for ever. I will be his
Father, and he shall be my Son--if he commit iniquity, I will
chasten him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the
children of men. But my mercy shall not depart from him, as I took
it from Saul, whom I put away before thee. And thy house, and thy
kingdom shall be established before me, and thy throne shall be
established for ever.” Mention is made of this promise in several of
the Psalms, but it certainly suggests no idea of such a person as
Jesus of 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 readers, 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 recorded in
Isaiah ix. 6--“Unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given, and
the government shall be upon his shoulder; and the Wonderful, the
Counsellor, the mighty God, the everlasting Father shall call his
name* the Prince of Peace.” [For thus it is pointed to be read in the
original Hebrew, and this is the meaning of the passage, and not as
in the absurd translation of this verse in the English version.] “Of
the increase of his government there shall be no end upon the
throne of David, and his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it
with judgment, and with justice from henceforth and for ever: the
zeal of the Lord of Hosts will do this.” Here again we have a
mighty monarch, sitting upon the throne of David, upon earth; and
not a spiritual king placed in heaven, upon the throne of “the
mighty God, the everlasting Father.”

The next passage which comes under notice, is in the eleventh
chapter of Isaiah, in which a person is mentioned, under whom
Israel, and the whole earth 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 after 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 fruitful. And the spirit of the Lord
shall rest upon him; the spirit of wisdom, and understanding; the
spirit of counsel, and strength; the spirit of knowledge, and the fear
of the Lord. And he shall be quick of discernment in the 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. With
righteousness shall he judge the poor, and with equity shall he
work conviction# on the meek of the earth. And he shall smite the
earth with the blast of his mouth; and with the breath of his lips
shall he slay the wicked one. And righteousness shall be the girdle
of his lions, and faithfulness the cincture of his reins. Then shall
the wolf take up his abode with the lamb; and the leopard shall lie
down with the kid; and the calf, and the young lion, and the fatling
shall come together, and a little child shall lead them. And the
heifer, and the she bear shall feed together, and the lion shall eat
straw like the ox. And the suckling shall play upon the hole of the
asp; and upon the den of the basilisk shall the new weaned child
lay his hand. They shall not hurt, nor destroy in my holy mountain,
for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord as the
waters cover the sea. And it shall come to pass in that day, the root
of Jesse which standeth for an ensign to the people, unto him shall
the nations repair, and his resting place shall be glorious.”

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

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

“Behold a king shall reign in righteousness, and princes shall rule
with equity. And the man shall be a covert from the storm, as a
refuge from the flood, as canals of waters in a dry place, as the
shadow of a great rock in a land of fainting with heat. And him the
eyes of those that see shall regard, and the ears of them that hear
shall harken, * * * * till the spirit from on high be poured out upon
us, and the wilderness become a fruitful field, and the fruitful field
be esteemed a forest. And judgment shall dwell in the wilderness,
and in the fruitful field shall reside righteousness. And the work of
righteousness shall be peace, and the effect of righteousness
perpetual quiet, and security. And my people shall dwell in a
peaceful mansion, and in habitations secure, and in resting places
undisturbed.”

The same Prophet, chap. lxii 1, speaks of a person under the title of
“God’s Servant,” of a meek disposition, raised up by God to
enlighten the world, even the Gentile part of it; to bring prisoners
out of their confinement, and to open their eyes; alluding,
probably, to the custom too common in the East; of sealing up the
eyes, by sewing or fastening together the eyelids of persons, and
then imprisoning thorn 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 nations shall
earnestly wait for his Law.”

“Thus saith the Lord, even, the Eternal, who created the heavens,
and stretched them out; who spread abroad the earth, and the
produce thereof, who giveth breath to the people upon it, and spirit
to them that tread thereon. I the Lord have called thee for a
righteous purpose,* and I will take hold of thy hand, and I will
preserve thee; and I will give thee for a covenant to the people, for
a light to the nations; to open the eyes of the blind, to bring the
captive out of confinement, and from the dungeon those that dwell
in darkness. I am the Eternal, that is my name, and my glory will I
not give to another, nor my praise to the graven images. The
former predictions, lo! they are to come to pass, and now events I
now declare; before they spring forth, behold I make them known
unto you.” See also chap. xlix. 1,12, and chap. liv. 3, 5.

In the 3d chapter of Hosea, verses 4 and 5, it is said by the Prophet,
that “the sons of Israel shall abide many days 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 return, and shall seek the Lord their God, and DAVID
their King, and shall fear the Lord, and his goodness in the latter
days.”

Micah chap. v. speaks of 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 old, from the days of hidden
ages. Therefore will He (God) deliver them up, until the time when
she that bringeth forth, hath brought forth, and until the residue of
his brethren shall return together with the sons of Israel. And. he
shall stand and feed his flock, in the strength of the Lord, in the
majesty of the name of the Lord his God, and they shall abide, for
now shall he be great unto the ends of the earth, and he shall be
Peace.” 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, and Israel shall dwell in security, and
this is the name by which the Eternal shall call him, OUR
RIGHTEOUSNESS.”# [Heb.] The same is mentioned in chap. xxx.
8, 9. “And it shall be in that day, saith the Lord of Hosts, I will
break his yoke from off his neck, and his bands will I burst
asunder, and strangers shall no more exact service of him. But they
shall 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 for ever, 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
Palestine,) without man and beast, and in all the cities thereof, 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 came to grow up of the line
of David a branch of righteousness, and he shall execute judgment
and justice in the earth. In those days Judah shall be saved, and
Jerusalem, shall dwell securely, and this is he whom the Lord shall
call--‘OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS.’ [Heb.] Surely, thus saith the
Lord, there shall not be a failure in the line of David, one to sit
upon the throne of the house of Israel, neither shall there be a
failure in the line of the Priests, the Levites, of one to offer before
me burnt offerings, and to perform sacrifice continually." See ch.
xxxiiii. 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.

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

“Therefore will I save my flock, and they shall no more be a prey:
and I will judge between cattle, and cattle. And I will set up one
Shepherd over them, and be 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 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, &c.”

In another passage this prophet says, that the two nations, Israel
and Judah, shall have one king, and that this king shall be named
DAVID, who shall reign for ever, chap. xxxvii. 21--28. “Say unto
them, thus saith the Lord God, behold I will take the 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 detestable 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 children, and their children’s children
for ever, and my servant DAVID shall be their prince forever.
Moreover I will make a covenant of peace with them: it shall be an
everlasting covenant 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 over the Israelites for
ever.”

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

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

I have now gone through the prophecies which are allowed 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
government, and receive, and obey the law of this beneficent
prince; and enjoy unspeakable felicities on the earth, then changed
to a universal paradise. And for all this happiness, they were to
worship, and glorify the true God only, and glorify the Eternal, and
give thanks to Him “because He is good, and his mercy endureth
forever.”

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

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

his manifestation, and (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 being now laid
before the reader, we have only to apply these descriptions to know
whether an individual be their Messiah, or not. For, (according to
the principles laid down, and established in the preceding chapter)
where the foregoing characteristics given by the prophets do centre
and agree, that person is the Messiah foretold; but where they are
not found in any one claiming that character, miracles are nothing
to the purpose, and nothing 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.

THE CHARACTER OF JESUS TESTED BY THOSE
CHARACTERISTIC MARKS OF THE MESSIAH GIVEN BY
THE PROPHETS OF THE OLD TESTAMENT.

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
honour 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 ho should be
tried, by examining whether this claim can be made out, or not.
The argument from prophecy becomes necessary to establish the
claim of the Gospel: and as truth is consistent with itself, so this
claim must be true, or, it destroys all others.

Besides, what notions of common morality must he have, who
pretends to come from God, and declares (Jo. v. 37,) “that the
Scriptures testify of him,” if, in fact, the Scriptures do not testify of
him? What honesty, or sincerity could he have, who could “begin
at Moses, and all the prophets, and expound unto his disciples in
all the Scriptures the things concerning himself,” if neither Moses
nor the prophets ever spake a word about him? The prophets,
therefore, must decide this question, and the foundation of
Christianity must be laid upon them; or else, to avoid one
difficulty, Christians will be forced into such absurdities, as no
man can palliate, much less can extricate himself out of.

Furthermore, this claim must be made out to the satisfaction of the
Gentile, as well as the Jew. For since the fundamental article of
Christianity is, that Jesus is the Christ; (Jo. xx. 31) that is to say,
that he is the Messiah prophecied of in 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
promise of a Messiah. Moreover, whoever comes as this Messiah
of the Jews, must at least pretend to answer the character of their
Messiah plainly delivered in the writings of their prophets. And 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 prophets. If his
character corresponds in all respects with that given by those
prophets, he is undoubtedly to be acknowledged as the king of
Israel foretold; but if they do not exactly correspond, if there be the
slightest incongruity, he certainly was not this Messiah. For it is
evident, that some of the 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 sit upon the throne of
David judging right; and that to him, and their own land, was Israel
to be gathered, and all nations serve and obey him; and worship
one God, even Jehovah.

But of Jesus we read, that he asserted, that his kingdom was “not
of this world.” Instead of effecting peace among the nations, he
said, “Think not that I am come to send peace on earth, I have
come to send a sword, I have come to put division between a son,
and his father; the mother, and the daughter; 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
division.” Again, “I have come to put fire on the earth.” These are
not the characteristics of the Messiah of the prophets of the Old
Testament. For of him Zechariah (ch. ix.) says, that “He shall
speak peace to the nations;” and of him Isaiah says, “Nation shall
not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war
anymore.” 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 children, and the heart of
the children to their parents.”

In the times of the Messiah, wars were to cease, righteousness was
to flourish, and mankind be happy. Whether this has yet taken
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 honour, 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 honour 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 David; but the name
“Jesus” is not the same as “David,” and Christians have assigned
him a spiritual kingdom, and a throne in heaven! But was the
throne of David in heaven? No! it was in Jerusalem, and no more
in Heaven, than that of the Caesars.

Lastly, it appears from the prophecies of Hosea, Micah, and
Jeremiah, Isaiah, and Ezekiel, quoted in the last chapter, that the
manifestation of their Messiah was to be contemporaneous with
the restoration of Israel, and from the quotations adduced from the
three first mentioned prophets, it should seem that his birth 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 by the Hebrew prophets, and that of Jesus of
Nazareth. It seems scarcely credible, that a man who, though
amiable and virtuous, yet lived in a low state, was poor, living
upon alms, without wealth, and without power; and who (though
by misfortune) died the death of a malefactor, crucified between
two robbers, (a death exactly parallel with being hanged at the
public gallows in the present day) should ever be taken for that
mighty prince, that universal potentate, and benefactor of the
human race, foretold in the splendid language of the prophets of
the Old Testament.



CHAPTER V.

EXAMINATION OF THE ARGUMENTS FROM THE OLD
TESTAMENT ADDUCED IN THE NEW, TO PROVE THAT
JESUS OF NAZARETH WAS THE MESSIAH.

But since one would esteem it almost incredible, that the apostles
could persuade men to believe Jesus to be this Messiah, unless they
had at least some proof to offer to their conviction, let us next
consider, and examine, the 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 Testament in our hands; the first containing what are
offered as proofs of Christianity, and the latter the application of
those proofs, and we should seem to have nothing more to do, but
to compare the Old and New Testament together.

But these proofs taken out of the Old Testament, and urged in the
New, being sometimes not to be found in the Old, nor urged in the
New, according to the literal and obvious sense, which they appear
to bear in their supposed places in the Old, and, therefore, not
proofs according to the rules of interpretation established by
reason, and acted upon in interpreting every other ancient book--
almost all Christian commentators on the Bible, and advocates for
the religion of the New Testament, both ancient and modern, have
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 account of the
conception of Mary, and the birth of Jesus, says (ch. i.,) “All this
was done that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the
prophet, saying, Behold a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring
forth a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel.” But the words
as they stand in Isaiah ch. vii. 14, from whence they are taken, do,
in their obvious and literal sense, relate to a young woman in the
days of Ahaz, King of Judah, as will appear, considering the
context.

When Rezin, King of Syria, and Pekah, King of Israel, were
confederates in arms together, against Ahaz, King of Judah, Isaiah
the prophet was sent by God, first to comfort Ahaz and the nation,
and then to assure them by a sign, that his enemies should in a little
time be confounded.--But 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 acknowledged,
and established beyond dispute by the best Hebrew scholars of
this age,) shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name
Immanuel. Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to
refuse 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
accordingly given Ahaz by the prophet, who, ch. viii. v. 2, 18, took
two witnesses and went to the said young woman, who in due time
conceived, and bare a son, after whose birth the projects of Rezin
and Pekah were, it appears, soon confounded, according to the
prophecy and sign given by the prophet.

And the prophet himself, puts it beyond dispute, that this is the
proper interpretation of the prophecy, by 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 Hosts, that dwelleth in mount Zion.” Isaiah
viii. 19.

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

For the sign being given by Isaiah to convince Ahaz that he
brought a message from God to him, to assure him that the two
kings should not succeed in their attempt against him, how could a
virgin’s conception, and bearing a son seven hundred years
afterwards, be a sign to Ahaz, that the prophet came to him, with
the said message from God? And how useless was it to Ahaz, as
well as absurd 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, by 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; witness his conduct to Gideon and Hezekiah. Jud. vi.; 2
Kings xx.

This prophecy, therefore, not being fulfilled in Jesus, according to
the literal and obvious sense of the words as they stand in Isaiah, it
is supposed that this, like the other prophecies cited in the New
Testament, is fulfilled in a secondary, or typical, or mystical sense;
that is, 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 intended to be
secretly and mystically signified either by the prophet or by God,
who directed the prophet’s speech. If the reader desires further
satisfaction that the literal and obvious sense of this prophecy
relates to a son to be born in Isaiah's time, and not to Jesus, he is
referred to the commentator Grotius, and to Huetius’ Demonstrat.
Evang. in loc., to the ancient fathers, and to the most respectable of
the modern Christian. commentators, who all allow and show, that
the words of Isaiah are not applicable to the birth of Jesus in their
literal sense, but only in a mystical, or figurative, 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 of the Lord by the prophet, saying,
‘out of Egypt have I called my son.’” Which, being word for word
in Hosea, (ch. xi. 1) and no where else to be found in the Old
Testament, are supposed to be taken from thence; where according
to their obvious sense they are no prophecy at all! but relate and
refer to a past action, viz., to the calling of the 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 Christians 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 difficulty arising
from Matthew's citation of this passage, have proved unsuccessful.

Again, Matthew says, (ch. ii.) “Jesus came, and dwelt at Nazareth,
that it might be fulfilled, which was spoken by the prophet, saying,
‘he shall be called a Nazarene;’” but as this passage does not
occur in the Old Testament at all, we are precluded from
ascertaining whether it be literal, mystical, or allegorical.

Jesus says of John the Baptist, (Mat. xi. 14) “This is Elias that was
for to come,” wherein he is supposed to refer to these words of
Malachi, (ch. iv. 4) “Behold I will send you Elijah the prophet,
before the coming of the great and terrible day of the Lord,” which,
according to their literal, and obvious sense, are a prophecy, that
Elijah or Elias was to come in person (which we know from the
New Testament, as well as elsewhere, was the constant expectation
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 understand;” and he assures us,
that it was fulfilled in his time in those to whom he spake in
parables, (which, by the way, he did, it is said, in order to fulfil a
passage of the Psalms) though it is manifest that the prophecy of
Isaiah quoted, according to its literal sense, undoubtedly relates to
the obstinate Jews who lived in the time of Isaiah.

In fine, 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 is allowed by the
most learned defenders of Christianity, that to pretend that they
prove in a literal sense what they are adduced to prove, is to give
up with both hands the cause of Christianity to the enemies thereof,
who can so easily show in so many undoubted instances, the Old
and New Testament to have no manner of connection in that
respect, but to be in an irreconcilable state.

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

The Jews shortly answer 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 ignorance bat according to certain methods of
interpretation, which were in their times of established authority
among the Jews.

The rules of interpretation, which were supposed to be
irrecoverably lost afterwards recovered to the world by the learned
Surenhusius, professor of the Hebrew language in the illustrious
school of Amsterdam. He made an ample discovery to the world of
the rules by which the apostles cited the Old Testament, and
argued from thence, wherein the whole mystery of the apostles
applying scripture in a secondary, or typical, or allegorical sense,
seems to be unfolded. I shall, therefore, state this matter from
Surenhusius.

He (Surenhusius) says, “that when he considered the various
opinions Of the learned about the passages of the Old Testament
quoted in the New, He was filled with grief, not knowing where to
set his foot; and was much concerned, that what had been done
with good success upon profane authors, could not be so happily
performed upon the sacred.”

He tells us, “that having had frequent occasions to converse with
the Jews (on account of his application to Hebrew literature from
his youth) who insolently reflected upon the New Testament,
affirming it to be plainly corrupted, because it seldom or never
agreed with the Old Testament, some of whom were so confident
in this opinion, as to say, they would profess the Christian religion,
if any one could reconcile the New Testament with the Old. “I was
the more grieved, because, (says this honest and well meaning
man) I knew not how to apply a remedy to this evil.” But the
matter being of great importance, he discoursed with several
learned men about it, and read the books of others, being
persuaded that the authors of the books of the New Testament had
written nothing but what was suited to the time wherein they lived,
and that Christ and his apostles had constantly followed the
method of their ancestors. After he had long revolved this
hypothesis in his mind, at last he met with a Rabbi well skilled in
the Talmud, the Cabbala, and the allegorical books of the Jews.
This Rabbi had once embraced the Christian religion, but was
again relapsed to Judaism on account of the idolatry of the Papists,
yet not perfectly disbelieving the integrity of the New Testament.
Surenhusius asked him, what he thought of the passages of the Old
Testament quoted in the New, whether they were rightly quoted or
not, and whether the Jews had any just reason to cavil at them, and
at the same time proposed to him two or three passages, which had
very much exercised the most learned Christian commentators.

The Rabbi having admirably explained those passages, to the great
surprise of Surenhusius, and confirming his explications by
several places of the Talmud, and other writings of the Jewish
commentators, and allegorical writers, Surenhusius asked him
what would be the best method to write a treatise in order to
vindicate the passages of the Old Testament quoted in the New?
The Rabbi answered, that he “thought the best way of succeeding
in such an undertaking would 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 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. 16,
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 grammarians speak,) or not,”
as is done by Paul, Rom. ix. 33; 1 Cor. xi. 9; Heb. viii. 9, and x. 6;
and by Stephen, Acts vii. 43.

3. The third is--“changing both letters and points,” as is done 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 accommodate it to the
subject they we upon.”

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

9. The ninth is--“changing the order of words, and adding 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 Testament, or any other book, yea,
from Euclid’s Elements! or even an old almanac! by the help of
“altering words and sentences; adding; retrenching; and
transposing, and cutting words in two,” as is stated above by a
learned and good man, and sincere Christian who found out, and
brought forward, these rules, as the best means of getting the
authors of the New Testament out of a difficulty, which had long
shocked and grieved their best friends.



CHAPTER VI.

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

It may be objected from divers learned authors, who have been
very sensible of the difficulties stated in the preceding chapters,
and have, sensible of the difficulties stated in the preceding
chapters, 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 prophetical, 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 subverted by its express
declarations; for the authors of the books of the New Testament
always argue absolutely from the quotations they cite as
prophecies out of the books of the Old Testament. Moses and the
prophets are every where represented to be a just foundation for
Christianity; and the author of the Epistle to the Romans expressly
says, ch. xvi. 26, 26, “The gospel, which was kept secret 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.

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 would,
therefore, seem strange, that books written to all the world by men
equally concerned to convert Gentiles as well as Jews, and that
discourses made expressly to Gentiles as well as to Jews, should be
designed to be pertinent only to Jews, much less to a very few
Jews! Indeed, 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 readers, I would undertake to bring together passages from
the New Testament, where the meaning and intention of the writers
is obvious, in such abundance, as would immediately and entirely
put the hypothesis of our opponents out of countenance.

These quotations from the. Old Testament are certainly urged, and
spoken of as direct proofs, as absolute proofs in themselves, and
not as mere proofs ad hominem to the Jews; for if these prophecies
are only urged by the apostles as proofs to the Jews, and intended
only as proofs founded on the mistaken meanings of the Old
Testament of some Jews of their time, what sense is there in
appealing upon all occasions to the prophets, and recommending
the reading and search of the Old Testament for the trial and proof
of what was preached? for that was to proceed on weakness itself,
knowing it to be so. Certainly nothing, but a real persuasion, that
the prophecies of the Old Testament were really fulfilled in Jesus,
could make them every where inculcate and appeal to the fulfilling
of prophecy. In order to support their hypothesis, Christians have
been forced to seek evidence to prove, that the phrase--“this was
done that it might be fulfilled,” so frequent in the New Testament,
meant no such thing, but was only a habit the Jews had got of
introducing by such phrases a handsome quotation, or allusion,
from the Old Testament. But this evasion must be given up, upon
two accounts. 1. Because most of the European biblical critics of
the present day (the learned annotator on Michaelis’ Introduction
to the New Testament, Dr. Marsh, among others) frankly
acknowledge it not to 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 Jesus 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 unsuitable in John, in describing his master dying
upon the cross, to represent him as saying things, whereby he only
gave occasion to observe, that he fulfilled, i. e., accommodated a
phrase! not a prophecy!!

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

In a word, unless it be granted, that the citations were intended by
the authors of the New Testament, to be adduced, and applied, as
prophecies fulfilled; if you do suppose them not intended to be
adduced, and applied, as prophecies; then, the whole 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 Palconia, who did the same, in verses, and words
taken out of--Virgil!

In fine, one of two things must be allowed, either (which is most
probable) the authors of the New Testament conceived their
citations to be indeed prophecies concerning Jesus, and then they
were ignorant and blundered, and, therefore; were not inspired; or,
they knowingly used them as means to deceive the simple and
credulous into a belief of their being testimonies sufficient to prove
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 working miracles, and, consequently, their
interpretations of Scripture, however strange they may appear to
your minds, must be infallible, they being men inspired.”

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

Secondly,--That whether these miracles were really performed, or
not, depends entirely upon the credibility of the authors themselves
who have thus quoted! which, as shall be shown hereafter, may be
disputed; and, thirdly, it could be retorted upon Protestants, that
this same argument is the same in principle with the often refuted
popish argumentation. The Papists pretend to derive all their new
invented and absurd doctrines and practices from the scriptures by
their interpretations of them; but yet, when their interpretations are
attacked from scripture, they immediately fly from thence to the
miracles wrought in their church, and to the visions of their holy
men and saints, for the establishment of their interpretations, by
which they support those very doctrines and practices. And
particularly they endeavour to prove thus the doctrine of
transubstantiation, from the numerous miracles affirmed to have
been wrought in its behalf, which reasoning Protestant Christians
assert to be an argument absurd and inconclusive, therefore, they
should not use it themselves.

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

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 roitones requiro.”



CHAPTER VII.

EXAMINATION OF THE ARGUMENTS ALLEGED FROM
THE HEBREW PROPHETS, TO PBOVE THAT JESUS WAS
THE MESSIAH.

But it may be asked, how it was 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 Testament, which appear more to the purpose than those we
have been considering? To this I candidly answer that there are,
and this chapter will be devoted to the consideration of them.

Two of these prophecies, one from Genesis, and the other from
Daniel, are thought by the advocates of Christianity, (because they
conceive them to point out and to limit the time of the coming of
the Messiah,) to be stronger in their favour than any of those
quoted in die New Testament. If so, it is a very singular
circumstance, that the inspired authors of the New Testament did
not make use of them, instead of others not so much to the purpose.
This circumstance of itself should teach us to examine the
prophecies in question with caution, and also with candour, since
many worthy and religious men have thought them sufficient to
prove that Jesus was indeed the Messiah. These prophecies I shall
reserve last for consideration, and shall now begin with the others
usually adduced, taking them up pretty much in the order in which
they stand in the Old Testament.

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

This passage is pertinaciously and solely applied to Jesus, by many
Christian writers, because it is so applied by Peter in the 2 chap. of
Acts, in his sermon to the Jews, just after he had received the full
inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and of course must be considered as
infallible. Nevertheless, these words of Moses are supposed by
many learned men, both Jews and Christians, to be spoken of
Joshua, whom Moses himself afterwards, at the command and
appointment of God, declared to be his successor, and who was
endowed with the spirit which was upon Moses, (see Deut. xxxi.
33, xxxiv. 17,) and to whom the Jews then promised to hearken,
and pay obedience to, as they had done before to Moses. But 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, that “when they
came into Canaan, they should not learn to do after, the
abominations of the people thereof; and, particularly, that there
should not be found among them any one that useth divination, or
an observer of times, &c., or a consulter with familiar spirits, &c.
For all, says he, “that do these things are an abomination to the
Lord; and because of these abominations the Lord thy God doth
drive these people out from before thee. For these nations which
thou shalt possess hearkened unto observers of times, and unto
diviners. But as for thee, the Lord thy God hath not suffered thee to
do so.” Then follow the words about the prophet, “The Lord thy
God will raise unto thee a prophet from the midst of thee of thy
brethren like unto me, unto him ye shall hearken.” All which is as
much as to say, “When you come into Canaan, do not hearten 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 any
instruct you, to whom ye shall hearken.” Or rather, “Do not
hearken to diviners, &c., but to prophets, who shall be raised up
among you.”

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

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

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

I shall conclude this explication, by adducing, in confirmation of it,
the paraphrase of the words given in the 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 enquire 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 frequently is, used in scripture, and in common
language, to signify, similarity in some, though not in every,
particular; and every prophet, who speaks by God’s direction, is a
prophet “like unto Moses,” who did the same, though he be not
like, or equal to, him “in doing signs and wonders,” which is all
that is affirmed in the last chapter of Deuteronomy.

And, finally, there is nothing to limit this prophecy to Jesus of
Nazareth, if 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 chap. of Acts, another
passage quoted by Peter from the Psalms, and applied by him to
prove the resurrection of Jesus, and on which he lays very great
stress, which after all seems to be nothing to the purpose. Peter
says, “Him (i. e., Jesus) God hath raised up, having loosed the
pains [or bands] of death, because it was not possible that he
should be holden of it.” And why? “For [because] David speaketh
concerning him, ‘ I foresaw the Lord always before my face, for
he is on my right hand, that I should not be moved. Therefore did
my heart rejoice, and my tongue was glad; moreover also my flesh
shall rest in hope. Because thou wilt not leave my soul in Hades,
[the place of departed Spirits] nor suffer thy 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 resurrection of Christ, that his soul was
not left in Hades, neither did his flesh see corruption.”

How imposing is this argument! How plausible it appears! And yet
it is irrelevant, as Dr. Priestly frankly confesses, who tries to save
the credit of the apostle by the convenient principle of
accommodation! The whole force of Peter’s reasoning depends
upon the word “corruption.” David did see corruption; therefore,
he could not mean himself, but “being a prophet,” &c., he meant
Jesus Christ. Now, the whole of Peter’s argument is grounded
upon two mistakes; for, 1st, the Hebrew word translated
“corruption,” here signifies “destruction, perdition;” and in the
next place, instead of being “thy holy One,” in the singular, it is in
the Hebrew “thy saints,” in general. The passage is quoted from
the 16th Psalm; and I will give a literal translation of it from the
original, which will make the propriety or 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 preservation,
He showeth the hope of his calling, of the resurrection, and of life
everlasting.” And the passage in question, according to the
original, reads thus:--“I have set the Lord always before me:
Because he is on my right hand, I shall not be moved: Therefore
my heart is glad, and my glory [i. e., tongue] rejoiceth: My flesh
also shall rest in hope. For thou wilt not leave my soul in Hades,
neither wilt thou suffer thy saints to see destruction. Thou wilt
show me the path of life: In thy presence is fullness of joy, and at
thy right hand are pleasures for evermore.” That is--“Because I
have ever trusted in thee, and experienced thy constant protection,
therefore I will not fear death; because thou wilt not for over 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 for ever in thy presence.”#

In the 4th chap. of the Acts, the apostles are represented as praying
to God, and referring in their prayer to the 2d Psalm “why did the
heathen rage," &c., as being a prophecy 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 assemble
together to crucify Jesus, as this was done by a few soldiers. 2. The
“kings of the earth” had no hand in it, for they knew nothing
about it. And 3rdly, Those who were concerned did by no means
“form vain designs,” since they effected their cruel purposes. And
lastly, From that time to the present, God has not set Jesus as his
king upon the “holy hill of Sion,” as the Psalm imports, nor given
him “the nations for his inheritance, nor the uttermost parts of the
earth for a possession.”

The next prophecy usually adduced to prove that Jesus is the
Messiah, is The passage quoted from Micah v. 2, in the 2d chapter
of Mat.--“But from Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little
among the chiefs of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto
me, that is, to be ruler in Israel, whose goings forth have been from
old, from the days of hidden ages.” This passage probably refers to
the Messiah, but by no means signifies that this Messiah was to be
born in Bethlehem, as asserted by Matthew; but only, that he was
to be derived from Bethlehem, the city of Jesse, the father of David
of famous memory, whose family was venerable for its antiquity, “
being of the days of hidden ages.” And this interpretation is
known, and acknowledged, by Hebrew scholars. But in order to cut
short the dispute, w will permit the passage to be interpreted as
signifying that Bethlehem was to be the birth place of the Messiah.
What then? Will a man’s being born in Bethlehem be sufficient to
make him to be the Messiah foretold by the Hebrew prophets?
Surely it has been made plain in the beginning of this work, that
many more characteristic 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! Behold thy king cometh
unto thee, the righteous one, and saved, or preserved [according to
the Hebrew] lowly, and riding upon an ass, and upon a colt, the
foal of an ass.” This has been applied by the evangelists to Jesus,
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 according to the Hebrew
idiom of the passage quoted above, the personage there spoken of,
was to ride upon “an ass’ colt;” whereas, the apostles, in order to
be sure of fulfilling the prophecy, represent Jesus as riding upon an
ass, and the colt, too! "They spread their garments 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 being
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 contemporaneous with the restoration
Israel, and the establishment of peace and happiness, which seems
to cut up by the roots the interpretation of the evangelists. And to
conclude the argument,--Jesus being born in Bethlehem, and
riding into Jerusalem, allowing it to be true, would not, we think,
frustrate these prophecies of a future fulfillment--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 chap. of Zech. v. 10, and part of it has
been misquoted by John. “And I will pour upon the house of
David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace
and supplications, and they shall look on me whom they have
pierced.” So it stands in the English version; but, before I state
what it ought to be, I would observe, that before the evangelist,
(who in his account of the crucifixion applies this passage as
referring to Jesus’ being pierced with a spear) could make this
passage fit his purpose, he had to substitute the word “him” for
“me,” as it is in the Hebrew; confirmed by, I believe, all the
versions, ancient and modern, without exception. Yet, with this
change, it will by no means answer his purpose; for the Hebrew
word here translated “pierced,” in this place signifies
“blasphemed,” or “insulted,” as it is understood by Grotius, who
confirms this rendering from the Hebrew of Levit. xxiv. 11, where
in this passage “the Israelitish woman's son blasphemed the name
of the Lord.” The Hebrew word translated “blasphemed” is from
the same root with the Hebrew 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 supplications,
and they shall look towards me whom they have blasphemed.”
[To “look towards God” is a phrase frequently met with, and well
understood.] Now, to enable us to understand more perfectly this
passage, let us consider the context, where we shall find that it
states, that there was to be a war in Judea, and a 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.
Immediately after which matters, follows the prophecy under
consideration--“I will pour upon the house of David,” &c. Now,
from these things thus laid together, I crave leave to argue in the
words of Dr. Sykes [Essay, &c., p. 268]--“Did any one
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 supplications, the Jews have had their hearts
hardened against the Christ; instead of mourning for him whom
they have pierced, they condemn him and his followers even until
this day.”

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

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

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

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

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
“Judah” has never been free, but in subjection to the Persians, the
Syrians, the Romans, 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 Rittangelius, and a
learned Jew, (preserved in Wagenseils’ “Tela Ignea,”) where he
will find Rittangelius first amicably inviting the Hebrew to discuss
the point, who does so most ably and respectfully toward his
Christian antagonist, and unanswerably establishes the
interpretation above stated, by the laws of the Hebrew language, by
the ancient interpretation of the Targum, by venerable tradition,
and by appealing to history. Rittangelius begins his defence by
shuffling, an ends by getting into a passion, and calling names;
which his opponent, who is cool, because confident of being able
to establish his argument, answers by notifying to Rittangelius his
compassion and contempt.

The next prophecy proposed to be considered, is the celebrated
prophecy of Isaiah, consisting of part of the 52nd, and the whole of
the 53rd, chapter. 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 8,) 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. I will, then, before I consider
it, first premise, that since it has been heretofore abundantly made
evident, that the Messiah of the Old Testament was not to 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
passage, so that it may not contradict very many others of a
directly contrary import. Now, if this passage can relate only to the
Messiah, it will throw into utter confusion the whole scheme of the
prophetical scriptures. But if it can be made to appear, that it does
not necessarily relate to him; if it can, consistently with the
context, be otherwise applied, the whole difficulty vanishes. Now,
the authors of the New Testament have applied this prophecy to
the Messiah, and to Jesus as the Messiah; and for doing so, they
have been accused of misapplication of it-from the earliest times;
since we know from Origen, that the Jews of his time derided the
Christians for relying upon this prophecy; alleging that it related to
their own nation, and was a prophecy of their suffering and
persecuted state, and of their ultimate emancipation and happiness.
And this interpretation of the prophecy the learned Vitringa, in 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 dispised.”

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

Isaiah lii. 13, “Behold, my servant shall prosper, he shall be
exalted, and extolled, and be very high.” Interpretation--My
servant Israel, though he be in great affliction for a time, yet
hereafter shall be released from captivity, and be honoured and
raised to elevation very high among the nations of the earth. [That
the Jewish nation is spoken of, in the singular number and under
the title of God’s servant frequently in the Old Testament, is well
known, and will be here made certain by a few examples. Isaiah
xli. (the chapter preceding the prophecy,) “But thou Israel my
servant, thou, Jacob, whom I have chosen,” presently afterwards,
“saying to thee, thou art my servant.” Again, chapter xliv.--
“Now, therefore, hear Jacob my servant,” and so frequently in the
same chapter. See also ch. xlv., and Jer. ch. xxx., and Ps. cxxxvi.,
and Isaiah throughout, for similar examples.]

“And many were astonished at thee (his visage was so marred
more than any man, and his form more than the sons of men.)”
That is--And many were astonished at thee, on account of thy
abject state, and miserable condition, being squalid with misery,
and 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, from the depth of degradation
to the height of prosperity and honour. So that they shall lay their
hands upon their mouths, which had beforetime reproached them,
when they shall see their felicity to be so far beyond what had been
told them, and they shall attentively consider it, and they shall say
to each other--

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

The sense is--The Gentiles shall say to each other in wonder,
“Who believed what we heard concerning them? And to whom
was the interest the Lord took in them made known? For it was a
dispised people, feeble, and wretched, like a tender plant springing
up out of a thirsty soil. Their appearance was abject, and there was
nothing attractive in their manners.”

“He was despised and rejected of men, a man of sorrows and
acquainted with grief: and we hid, as it were, 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 suffering. We looked upon them
with dislike: we hid our faces from them, and esteemed them not.

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

Interpretation--Surely their sufferings are as great as if they 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 sufferings, is the beginning of our joys.

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

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

“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 obedience; and this chastisement is
that by which our peace is to be effected; for their chastisement
and probation being finished. God will by them impart and diffuse
peace and happiness.

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

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

“He was oppressed, [or “exposed to pecuniary exactions”] 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
transgression of my people was he stricken. And he made his grave
with the wicked; but with the rich were his deaths, [or tomb]
because he had done no violence, neither was deceit in his mouth.”

Interpretation--How 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 Iamb to the
slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so they
opened not their mouth. They were taken from the dungeon to be
slain, they were wantonly massacred, and every man was their foe;
and the cause of the sufferers who condescended to examine; for
by the thoughtless crimes of my people, they suffered. Yet
notwithstanding their graves were appointed with the wicked; yet
they were rich in their deaths. This did God grant them, because
they had not done iniquity.

Rabbi Isaac, author of the famous Munimen Fidei#, renders the
original--“on account of impieties was he given to his sepulchre,
and on account of his riches was his death, because he did no
violence, neither was deceit in his mouth”--which he interprets
thus:--We (the former speakers) raised against them false
accusations of impiety, on account of their religion, and refusing to
worship our idols; but their riches was the real cause why we put
them to death. Nevertheless, they used no violence in opposition
to our oppressions, neither would they forsake their religion, and
deceitfully assent to ours in hypocrisy.*

“Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise him: he hath put him to grief.
When thou shalt make his soul a propitiation for sin, he shall see
his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the Lord
shall prosper in his hands.” [This proves that this prophecy cannot
refer to any individual, but may refer to the Jewish nation, because
one individual cannot be put to death, and yet “see his seed,” and
“prolong his days.”] “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 iniquities.”

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

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

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

Such is the explication given by the Jews of this prophecy. I have
made no important alterations of the common English translation;
except, that in some passages, I have made it more conformable to
the original by substituting a verb in the past tense, instead of
leaving it in the future, as in the English version. Those translators
have taken certain liberties in this respect to make this prophecy
(and several others) more accordant to their own views, which are
not supported by the Hebrew: many of these expressions, 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 interpretation of this prophecy of Isaiah, we refer him to the
“Munimen 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, from these circumstances:--1. Jesus
certainly was not exalted and magnified, and made very great upon
earth, which, as has been shown, was to be the scene of the
exaltation of the Old Testament Messiah; but was put to a cruel
and disgraceful death. 2. He was not oppressed by pecuniary
exactions, as is said of the subject of this prophecy. 3. He was
never taken from prison to die, for he was never in one. 4. He did
not “see his seed,” nor “prolong his days,” since he died childless;
and we will not permit the word “seed” to be spiritualized on this
occasion, for the word “seed” in the Old Testament, means
nothing else, than literally “children,” which it is not pretended he
ever had; and how could he “prolong his days,” when he was cut
off in his 33d year. 5. Besides, who were “the strong and mighty,”
with whom he divided the spoil? Were they the twelve fishermen
of Galilee? and what was the spoil divided? In a word, the literal
application of this prophecy to Jesus is now given up by the most
learned Hebrew scholars, who allow, that the literal sense of the
original can never be understood of him. [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 considered in
this chapter, viz., Daniel’s prophecy of the seventy weeks, the
“instar omnium” of the prophetical proofs of Christianity, and
which was for ages held up to the view of “the unbelieving race,”
as cutting off beyond doubt their “hope of Israel” 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 predecessor, and
replacing it with his own, not a whit better, but tending to the same
end, viz., to make the prophecy of the seventy weeks tally and fit
with the event of the crucifixion. At length Marsham, a learned
Englishman, declared, and demonstrated, that his predecessors, in
this enquiry, had been grossly mistaken, for that the prophecy in
all its parts was totally irrelevant and irreconcileable with the time
of the crucifixion. The appearance of his book put all the
theologians of that age in an uproar! But many learned Christians
in the last, and present, century, now freely acknowledge, that
Daniel is not on their side, but as much a Jew as his brethren.

This celebrated prophecy, literally translated from the original, is
as follows:--Dan. ix. 24, &c.--“Seventy weeks are determined
upon thy people, and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression,
and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity,
and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal the vision and
prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy, [i. e., the sanctum
sanctorum, or Holy of Holies.] Know, therefore, and understand,
that from the going forth of the word to restore and build
Jerusalem, unto the anointed prince, shall be seven weeks; and (in)
threescore and two weeks, the street shall be built 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 destroyed# by the people of the prince that shall come;
and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the
war desolations are determined. And he shall confirm 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 abominations he shall make it desolate,
even until the consummation and that (is) determined, be poured
upon the desolate?”

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

*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 Jeremiah, concerning the redemption at the
end of seventy years; (Jer. xxv. 11, 12, and ch. xxix. 10) and from
thence he concluded that the captivity was prolonged on account of
the sins of the nation. This doubt arose from his not understanding
the prophecy, and, therefore, the angel said unto him,--“I am now
come forth to give thee skill and understanding.” And he proceeds
to inform him, that as soon as he 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 matters,
that were to come to pass in future time. And as the angel Gabriel
had explained to him the vision from whence his doubt arose, it
was incumbent on him to perfect the explanation; and that is what
is meant by the expression “to show,” i. e., as I began the
explanation, the commandment was, that I should finish it.

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

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

He also further perceived, that the visitation of each nation would
be at the end of seventy years, as Isaiah observes of Tyre: “And it
shall come to pass in that day, that Tyre shall be forgotten seventy
years.” Isaiah xxiii. 15, the same of Babylon: “And it shall come to
pass, when seventy years are accomplished, I will punish the King
of Babylon.” Jer. xxv. 12, And as it is observed in the next verse:
“All that is written in this book which Jeremiah hath prophecied,
against all the nations.” From whence it appears, that as the
visitation of Babylon was to be seventy years, so was that of the
other nations to be; for so had the wisdom of God decreed to wait
according to this number. For which reason, and because the
prophets say that the restoration of Israel is to be contemporaneous
with the destruction of their enemies, Daniel appears to have.
judged, that the sins of his nation would be done away by the
seventy years of the captivity of Babylon; and, therefore, the angel
informed him of his error, by telling him, that this was not to be the
case with his nation, for that their wickedness was come up before
God, and their sin was very 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; and, if not, then he would 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 Hebrew, the words
translated “seventy weeks,” are, literally, “seventy sevens”) after
which, if they had not repented and reformed, their kingdom
should be cut off, and they return into captivity, to finish an
atonement for their 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 return from Babylon, by
means of that visitation only, all their sins would be done away.
For which reason the angel showed him that it would not be so,
[for the return from Babylon was not a perfect redemption,
because there was not a 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 Herodean
families, yet was there no king among them of the seed of David,
neither had they the Shechinah, nor the Urim and Thummim, all
which is a manifestation that it was not a perfect redemption, but
only a visitation, with which God was pleased to visit them; so that
they were allowed to build a temple to the Lord, by the permission
of Cyrus, and according to the measure given by him. This was
that they might be the better enabled to do the works of repentance
during the time allowed, and thus “make atonement, and thus
finish the transgression, and make an end of sins, and make
reconciliation for iniquity;” 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 the Eternal should be known, worshipped, and obeyed
by all mankind. But if they did not repent, and amend, if they did
evil, as their fathers, then their kingdom was to be cut off at the
expiration of the seventy weeks; which, in fact, took place.]

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

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

That is, it shall be seven weeks or forty nine years from the
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 Christians have objected to the term
Messiah, or anointed, being applied, as in our interpretation to
Cyrus a heathen prince; and they apply it themselves to Jesus of
Nazareth. But that the term, or 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 “Messiah” is
never applied to the expected deliverer of the Israelites in the
whole bible, except, perhaps, in 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, originated 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 manoeuvre; for the term
“Messiah Nagid,” or “the anointed prince,” can never apply to
Jesus, in this place, at any rate; because he certainly was no prince
or “Nagid,” a word which in the Hebrew bible always, without
exception, denotes a prince, or ruler, one invested with temporal
authority, or supreme command. Now, as it is allowed on all
hands, that Jesus had no such temporal power, as a prince, or ruler;
it, consequently, follows, that he can by no means be the
“anointed prince” mentioned in the prophecy.

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

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 building to cease-See Ezra and Nehemiah) till
the second year of Darius, who gave leave to finish the building:
which continued till the destruction by the Romans, sixty-two
weeks, beside the last week, at the beginning of which, the Romans
came, and warred against them, and at length entirely destroyed the
cities of Judah, Jerusalem, and the temple. For, from the time that
Cyrus first gave leave to build the temple, till its completion, was
twenty-one years; and its duration, four hundred and twenty; in the
whole, sixty-three weeks, or four hundred and forty one years. But
the angel made 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 horrible 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 sanctuary shall be destroyed
by the people of the prince that shall come; and the end thereof
shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are
determined.”

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

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

This prediction was fully accomplished; for 1. Titus, “the prince
that should come,” was continually offering peace to the Jews, and
tried to “strengthen the covenant”--i. e., their old treaties made
with the Romans, and in fact did bring over many. 2. On account
of the distress of the siege, the daily sacrifice did in fact cease to be
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 endeavoured to press it into
their service, it remains for me to show, that it is impossible to
make this prophecy refer to “the cutting off” of Jesus.

The 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 destruction 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 forty
years before the destruction of Jerusalem. In addition to this,
nothing need be said, for this circumstance lays flat their
interpretation at one stroke.

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

We have now gone through an examination of the evidence
adduced from the prophets of the Old Testament, to prove that
Jesus is the Messiah of the Old Testament; and those of our readers
who love truth, are, 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.

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

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

Nevertheless, for the further satisfaction of the 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 seen fulfilled in his age. And
in these things are contained the genuine marks characteristic of
our Messiah.’

“1. As to what concerns his genealogy; it does not prove this
necessary thing, that Jesus was the son of David, because he was
not begotten by Joseph, as the Gospel of Matthew testifies; for in
the first chapter of it, it is written, that Jesus was born of Mary
when she was yet a virgin, and had not been known by Joseph;
which things being so, the genealogy of Joseph has nothing to do
with Jesus. The descent and origin of Mary, is still less known, but
it seems from Luke’s calling Elizabeth, who was of Levi, her
cousin, that Mary was of the tribe of Levi, and not of Judah, and,
consequently, not of David; and, if she were, still Jesus is not the
more the son of David; descents being reckoned from the males
only. Neither is the genealogy of Joseph rightly deduced from
David, but labours under great difficulties. Matthew, and Luke
also, not only disagree, but irreconcilably and flatly 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 establish peace on
earth, for I have come to send a sword, and to separate the son
from the father, and the daughter from her mother, and the
daughter-in-law from her mother-in-law,’ which words are written
in Mat. ch. x. But we find the prophecies concerning the Messiah
to attribute to him very different works from these; nay, the very
opposite. For, whereas Jesus testifies concerning himself, that he
did not come to establish peace in the earth, but ‘division,’ ‘fire’
and ‘sword,’ Zechariah says, concerning the expected Messiah, ch.
ix.:--‘He shall speak peace to the nations.’ Jesus says he came to
send ‘fire and sword’ upon the earth, but Micah says, ch. ii., that in
the times of the true Messiah they shall beat their swords into
ploughshares, and their spears into pruning hooks, nation shall not
lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.’
Jesus says that he came ‘to put division between the father and the
son,’ &c. But in the time of the true Messiah, Elias, the prophet,
shall come, of whom Malachi prophecied ‘that he shall convert the
heart of the fathers unto the children, and the heart of the children
to the fathers.’ Jesus says ‘that he came to serve others, not to be
served by them’ – Mat. xx. 29. But of the true Messiah it is said,
Psalm lxxii.:--‘All kings shall bow themselves before him, all
nations shall serve him.’ The same also is said by Zechariah, ch. ix.:--
‘His dominion shall be, from one sea to the other, and from the
river unto the ends of the earth;’ and so Dan., ch. vii.:--‘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 Isaiah ch. ii.:--‘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 mountains, and all nations shall flow unto it;’ and it
immediately follows, concerning the king Messiah, ‘that he shall
judge among the nations, and rebuke many peoples, and they shall
beat their words into ploughshares, and their spears into pruning
hooks.’ See also Hosea, ch. iii, and also Dan., ch. ii., where it is
written:--‘God hath made known unto king Nebuchadnezzar
what shall come to pass in the latter days,’ (or, in the end of days.)
And this pertains to what follows, viz., to this:--‘In the days of
those kings, (i. e., of the kingdoms that arose out of the ruins of the
Roman Empire) the God of heaven will raise up a kingdom, which
shall never be destroyed.’ Thus you see, that the prophets
predicted, that the kingdom of the Messiah should be after the
destruction of the Roman Empire, not while it was in its vigour;
when Jesus came; in ‘the latter days,’ and not before.*

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

“2. In the time of the king Messiah, there was to be only one
religion and one law throughout the world; for, it is written in
Isaiah, ch. lii. and lxvi., that all nations shall come at stated times
to worship the Eternal at Jerusalem. See also Zechariah, ch. xiv.
and ch. viii., and indeed throughout the writings of the prophets.

“3. In the time of the king Messiah, idols were to be cut off, and
utterly to perish from the earth; as it is said in Zechariah, ch. xiii.,
and so in Isaiah, ch. ii., it is written, ‘And the glory of idols shall
utterly pass away;’ and so in Zephaniah, ch. ii., ‘The Lord shall be
terrible among them, when he shall make lean (i. e., bring to
nothing) all the gods of the earth; and all the countries of the
nations shall bow themselves to Him, each out of his place.’

“4. In the times of the Messiah, there shall obtain no more sins and
crimes in the earth, especially among the children of Israel, as is
affirmed in Deut. xxx., Zephaniah, ch. iii and in Jeremiah, ch. iii.
And l., and so in Ezekiel, ch. xxxvi. and xxxvii.

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

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

“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
thereupon. And the Shechinah shall inhabit the temple for ever,
and the glory of God shall never depart from Israel; but they shall
walk amid the splendours of the glory of the Eternal, and all the
earth shall resound with his praise, as is written in Ezekiel, ch.
xxxvii., and xxxix., and xliii.; and in Joel, ch. ii., and in Zech., ch.
ii., and Isaiah, ch. xi., and throughout the latter part of his
prophecies, and in Jer. xxxi.”

And now, reader, let me ask you this question, has any one of the
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 predicted by the Hebrew prophets, as to
be found in their Messiah, were certainly, and evidently, never
found in Jesus; and since these conditions and circumstances, and
many others beside, which, to avoid prolixity, have been omitted,
most assuredly 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 Messiah.” And I would ask the
candid Christian, in which link of this chain of proofs he can find a
flaw? And I would ask him, too, as a moral and honest man,
whether any Jew, in his right mind, could, without setting at
nought what he conceived to be the word of God, receive him as
the Messiah? The honest and upright answer, I believe, will be,
that he could net. And, accordingly, it is very well known, that the
Jewish nation have never done so. And this their obstinacy, as it is
called, will not by this time, I think, appear unreasonable to any
sensible man; and he will now be able to appreciate the justice of
that idle cant about “the carnal Jews,” and their “worldly-minded”
expectation of a temporal prince, as their Messiah. Certainly, the
Jews had very good reason, from their prophecies, to expect no
Messiah but a Messiah who should sit on the throne of David, and
confer liberty and happiness upon them, and spread peace and
happiness throughout the earth, and communicate the knowledge
of God, and virtue, and the love of their fellow-men to every
people. Whether this (carnal or not,) would have been better than a
spiritual kingdom, and a throne in heaven; together with the ample
list of councils, dogmas, excommunications, proscriptions,
theological quarrels, and frauds, and an endless detail of blood and
murder, I leave to the judgment of those capable of deciding for
themselves.

Neither, in fact, is it true, that the Jews were so “carnally minded”
as to refuse Jesus as their Messiah, because he was poor and in a
low estate. On the contrary, did they not ask him not to evade, but
to speak plainly? “How long (said they) dost thou mean to keep us
in suspense? If thou be the Messiah, tell us plainly.” These very
men were willing to hazard, in his favour, their fortunes, their
families, and their lives, in his cause, against the whole power of
the Roman empire. Nay, so urgent were they, that they were going
to make him their king by force, and he concealed himself from the
honour. The evasions he used to avoid their pressing questions
upon the subject, are known to all who have read the evangelists;
and so timed was he in acknowledging himself as the Messiah, that
he did not do so, till Simon Peter told him that he was. And can
any candid man, after all this, wonder at, or condemn, “the
blindness,” as it is called, of the Jews? or can he refrain from
smiling at the frothy declamations in which divines load that nation
with so much unmerited reproach? These Jews had just reason, we
think, to doubt his Messiahship; and they had a right to satisfactory
and unambiguous proof of his being so: even the proofs laid down,
by their prophets. And this, it must be now acknowledged, they
wanted; and, certainly, the wise and learned of the Jewish nation,
might be allowed to have understood their sacred books upon the
subject, as well, at least, if not better, than the illiterate apostles,
who manifestly put new interpretations upon them, and those,
confessedly, not agreeable to the obvious and literal meaning of
those books; but contrary to the sense of the Jewish nation. And
for this scepticism they might plead the example of the apostles
themselves, who, at first, like other unbelieving Jews, expected a
temporal prince; and did disbelieve Jesus to be the Messiah on
account of his death, notwithstanding his miracles. And they
continued in these thoughts, till it seems they come to understand
the spiritual sense of the scriptures; which spiritual sense, it is said,
they obtained by “the traditionary rules of interpretation in use
among the Jews.” Yet, it is rather inconsistent and singular, that
they should place so much dependence upon these traditionary
rules, and yet pay so little regard to the traditionary explication of
the scriptures, with respect to the temporal kingdom of the
Messiah--inconsistent and singular is it, that they should "cry
aloud" for that which would support their peculiar views, but reject
it when militating against these views.*



CHAPTER IX.

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

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

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

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

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

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

But are these all the accusations you have to bring against him?
may be said by some of my readers. Do you account as nothing,
his claiming to forgive sins? his speeches wherein ho claims to be
considered as an object of religious homage, if not to be God
himself? Do you consider these impieties as nothing? I answer by
asking--the following questions: What would you think of a man
who, in our times, should set up those extraordinary claims? and
who should assert, that “eating his flesh, and drinking his blood”
were necessary to secure eternal life? Who should say, that “he
and God were one?” and should affirm (as Jesus does in the last
chapters of John) that “God was inside of him, and dwelt in him;
and that “he who had seen him, had seen God?” What should we
think of this? Should we consider such a man an object of wrath, or
of pity? Should we not directly, and without hesitation, attribute
such extravagancies to hallucination of mind? Yes, certainly! and
therefore the Jews were to blame for crucifying Jesus. If Christians
had put to death every unfortunate, who after being frenzied by
religious fasting and contemplation, became wild enough to assert,
that he was Christ, or God the Father, or the Virgin Mary, or even
the Holy Trinity, they would have been guilty of more than fifty
murders; for I have read of at least as many instances of this
nature; and believe that more than two hundred such might be
reckoned up from the hospital records of Europe alone. And that
the founder of the Christian religion was not always in one
coherent consistent mind, I think will appear plain to every
intelligent physician who reads his discourses; especially those in
the gospel of John. They are a mixture of something that looks like
sublimity, strangely disfigured by wild, and incoherent words. So
unintelligible indeed, that even the profoundest of Christian
divines have never been able to fathom all their mysteries. To
prove that I do not say these things rashly, wickedly, or out of any
malignity towards the character of Jesus, which I really respect and
venerate, I will establish my assertions by examples. For
instance--

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



CHAPTER X.

MISCELLANEOUS

In Matthew, ch. v. Jesus says, “ye have heard that it was said, that
shalt love thy neighbour and hate thine enemy.'” But this is no
where said in the Law, or the Prophets; but, on the contrary, we
read directly the reverse. For it is written, Ex. xxiii. “If thou find
the ox of thine enemy or his ass going astray, thou shalt certainly
bring him back to him.” “If thou meet the ass of him that hateth
thee, lying under his burden, and wouldest forbear to help him,
thou shalt surely help him.” Again, Levit. xix. “Thou shalt not
hate thy brother in thine heart; rebuke thy neighbour, nor suffer sin
upon him. Thou shalt not revenge, nor keep anger, (or bear any
grudge,) against the children of thy people; but thou shalt love thy
neighbour as thyself; I am the Lord.” So also in Prov. xxxiv. “
When thine enemy falleth, do not triumph, and when he stumbleth,
let not thine heart exult.” So also in ch. xxv. “If thy enemy hunger,
give him food; if he thirst, give him to drink.” These precepts are
to the purpose, and are practicable; but this command of Jesus, “
Love your enemies,” if by loving he means, “do them good,” it is
commanded in the above passages in the Hebrew Law. But if by “
love,” he means to look upon them with the same affection that we
feel for those who love us, and with whom we are connected by the
tenderest ties of mature, and friendship, the command is
impracticable; and the fulfillment of it contrary to nature, and
those very instincts given us by our Creator. And therefore,
whoever thinks he fulfills, really fulfills this command, does in fact
play the hypocrite unknown to himself; for though we can, and
ought to do good to our enemy, yet to love him is as unnatural as to
hate our friends.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Acts vii. v. 4. “When he (Abraham) went out of the land of the
Chaldees, he dwelt in Charran; from thence after his father was
dead, he led him into this land in which ye dwell.” This directly
contradicts the chapter in Genesis where the story of Abraham's
leaving Haran is related; for it is certain from thence, that Abraham
left his father Terah in Haran alive, when he departed thence. And
he did not die till many years afterwards. This chronological
contradiction has given much trouble to Christian Commentators,
as may be seen in Whitby, Hammond, &c. &c.

V. 14, Stephen says, “Jacob therefore descended into Egypt, and
our Fathers, and there died. And they were carried to Sichem, and
buried in the sepulchre which Abraham bought from the Sons of
Hemor the Father of Sichem.” Here is another blunder; for this
piece of land was not purchased by Abraham, but by Jacob. Gen.
xlix. 29; so also see the end of Joshua. But it is evident, that
Stephen has confounded the story of the purchase of the field of
Machpelah, recorded in Gen. xxiii. with the circumstances related
concerning the purchase by Jacob.

In v. 43 of the same chapter, there is another disagreement between
Stephen's quotation from Amos, and the original. [In the Acts the
quotation is,--“Yea, ye took u

Showing first 200,000 characters. Full text: gutenberg.org/ebooks/15968