Those who desire to see a more elaborate discussion of this prophecy, and an ample defence of this interpretation, are referred to Levis 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 Lukes 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 Lords 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 Peters 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 Gods 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 tailors, or fullers 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 Lukes 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 Evangelists.
Jo. xiii. v. 21. Jesus says to his Disciples, a new commandment I give unto you, that ye love one another. This is not true, for the love of man towards his neighbour, was not a new precept, but at least as ancient as Moses, who gives it, Levit. xix. as the command of God, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
Acts vii. v. 4. When he (Abraham) went out of the land of the Chaldees, he dwelt in Charran; from thence after his father was dead, he led him into this land in which ye dwell. This directly contradicts the chapter in Genesis where the story of Abraham's leaving Haran is related; for it is certain from thence, that Abraham left his father Terah in Haran alive, when he departed thence. And he did not die till many years afterwards. This chronological contradiction has given much trouble to Christian Commentators, as may be seen in Whitby, Hammond, &c. &c.
V. 14, Stephen says, Jacob therefore descended into Egypt, and our Fathers, and there died. And they were carried to Sichem, and buried in the sepulchre which Abraham bought from the Sons of Hemor the Father of Sichem. Here is another blunder; for this piece of land was not purchased by Abraham, but by Jacob. Gen. xlix. 29; so also see the end of Joshua. But it is evident, that Stephen has confounded the story of the purchase of the field of Machpelah, recorded in Gen. xxiii. with the circumstances related concerning the purchase by Jacob.
In v. 43 of the same chapter, there is another disagreement between Stephen's quotation from Amos, and the original. [In the Acts the quotation is,—Yea, ye took up the tabernacle of Moloch, and the Star of your God. Remphan, figures which ye made to worship them, and I will carry you away beyond Babylon. In Amos, ch. v. 26—But ye have borne the tabernacle of Moloch and Chinn your images, the Star of your God which ye made, &c.]
So also there is in the speech of James, Acts xv. a quotation from Amos, in which to make it fit the subject, (which after all it does not fit,) is the substitution of the words, the remnant of men, for the words, remnant of Edom, as it is in the original.
All these mistakes, besides others to be met with in almost—I was going to say in every page, of these Histories of Jesus and his Apostles, sufficiently show how superficial was the acquaintance of these men with the Old Testament, and how grossly, either through design or ignorance, they have perverted it. Indeed from these mistakes alone, I should be led strongly to suspect, that the Books of the New Testament were written by Gentiles, as I can hardly conceive that any Jew could have quoted his Bible in such a blundering manner.
CHAPTER XI.
WHETHER THE MOSAIC LAW BE REPRESENTED IN THE OLD TESTAMENT AS A TEMPORARY, OR A PERPETUAL INSTITUTION.
A very great part of Dogmatic Theology among Christians is founded upon the notion that the Jewish Law was a temporary dispensation, only to exist till the coming of Jesus, when it was to be superseded by a more perfect dispensation.
On the contrary, the Jews are persuaded that their Law is of perpetual obligation, and the Doctrine of the Trinity itself is hardly more offensive to them, and, as they think, more contradictory to the Scriptures, than the notion of the abrogation of it. Now, that the Jews are on the right side of this question, i. e., arguing from the Old Testament, I shall endeavour to prove by several arguments. They are all comprised in these positions, 1. That the Mosaic Institutions are most solemnly, and repeatedly declared to be perpetual; and we have no account of their being abrogated, or to be abrogated in the Old Testament. 2. They are declared to be perpetual by Jesus himself, and were adhered to by the twelve apostles.
1. Nothing can be more expressly asserted in the Old Testament than the perpetual obligation of those rites which were to distinguish the Jews from other nations. It appears, for instance, (from the 17th ch. of Genesis,) in the tenor of the covenant made with Abraham, that circumcision was to distinguish his posterity, to the end of time. It is called an everlasting covenant to be kept by his posterity through all their generations. See the ch. where the condition of the covenant is, that God would give to Abraham and his posterity, the perpetual inheritance of the promised land with whatever privileges were implied in his being their God, on condition that their male children were circumcised in testimony of putting themselves under that covenant. There is no limitation with respect to time; nay it is expressly said that the covenant should be perpetual.
The ordinance of the Passover is also said to be perpetual, Ex. xii. 14, &c. And this day shall be unto you for a memorial, and you shall keep it as a feast to the Lord throughout your generations. You shall keep it a feast by an ordinance for ever. This is repeated afterwards, and the observance of this rite is confined to Israelites, Proselytes, and slaves who should be circumcised, v. 48.
The observance of the Sabbath was never to be discontinued, Ex. xxxi. 16. Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the Sabbath throughout their generations, for a perpetual covenant. It is a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever.
The appointment of the Family of Aaron to be Priests, was to continue as long as the Israelites should be a nation. See Lev. vii. 35.
The Feast of Tabernacles was to be forever. Lev. xxiii. 41. It shall be a statute for ever, in your generations. The observance of this Festival is particularly mentioned in the prophecies, which foretell a future settlement of the Jews in their own land, as obligatory on all the world; as if an union of worship at Jerusalem was to be, according to them, effected among all nations by the united observance of this Festival there, see Zech. 14; what he there says is confirmed by what Isaiah prophecied concerning the same period. Is. 2. It shall come to pass in the last days, that the mountain of the Lord's house shall be established in the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills, and all nations shall flow unto it. And many people shall go, and say, Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, to the house of the God of Jacob, and He will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths. For out of Zion shall go forth the Law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem. And he shall judge among the nations, and rebuke many people, and they shall beat their swords into ploughshares, and their spears into pruning hooks. Nation. shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.
With respect to all the Laws of Moses, it is evident from the manner in which they were promulgated, that they were intended to be of perpetual obligation upon the Hebrew nation, and that by the observance of them they were to be distinguished from the other nations, see Deut. xxvi. 16.
The observance of their peculiar Laws was the express condition on which the Israelites were to continue in possession of the promised land; and though on account of their disobedience they were to be driven out of it, they had the strongest assurances given them that they should never be utterly destroyed, like many other nations who should oppress them; but that on their repentance God would gather them from the remote parts of the world, and bring them to their own country again. And both Moses, and the later Prophets assure them, that in consequence of their becoming obedient to God in all things, which it is asserted they will, (and which may be the natural consequence of the discipline they will have gone through,) they shall be continued in the peaceable enjoyment of the land of promise, in its greatest extent to the end of time. See to this purpose Deut. iv. 25, &c.; also. Deut. 30, where it is thus written.
And it shall come to pass, when all these things are come upon thee, the blessing and the curse, which I have set before thee, and shalt call them to mind among all the nations whither the Lord thy God hath driven thee; and shalt return unto the Lord thy God, and shall obey his voice according to all that I command thee this day, thou and thy children, with all thy heart, and with all thy soul; that, then, the Lord thy God will turn thy captivity, and have compassion upon thee, and will return, and gather thee from all the nations whither the Lord thy God hath scattered thee. If any of thine be driven out unto the utmost parts of heaven, from thence will the Lord thy God gather thee, and from thence will he fetch thee. And the Lord thy God will bring thee unto the Land which thy Fathers possessed, and thou shalt possess it, and He will do thee good, and multiply thee above thy Fathers. And the Lord thy God will circumcise thy heart, and the heart of thy seed, to love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, that thou mayest live; and the Lord thy God will put all these curses upon thine enemies, and on them that hate thee, which persecuted thee. And thou shalt return, and obey the voice of the Lord, and do all his commandments which I command thee this day." &c.
What an extent of prophecy, and how firm a faith in the whole of it do we see here! (says Dr. Priestly.) The Israelites were not then in the land of Canaan. It was occupied by nations far more numerous, and powerful than they; and yet it is distinctly foretold in the 4th ch. that they would soon take possession of it, and multiply in it: and that afterwards they would offend God by their idolatry, and wickedness, and would in con-sequence of it be driven out of their country; and without being exterminated or lost, be scattered among the nations of the world; that by this dispersion, and their calamities, they would at length be reformed, and restored to the divine favour, and that then (as in the quotation) in the latter days they would be gathered from all nations, and restored to their own country, when they would observe all the laws which were then prescribed to them. Past history, and present appearances, correspond with such wonderful exactness to what has been fulfilled of this prophecy, that we can have no doubt with respect to the complete accomplishment of what remains to be fulfilled of it.
What was first announced by Moses, is repeated by Isaiah and other prophets, assuring them of their certain return wherever dispersed, to their own land in the latter days; and that they should have the undisturbed possession of it to the end of time.
It has been objected, that the term "for ever" is not always to be understood in its greatest extant, but is to be interpreted according to circumstances. This for the sake of saving time I will acknowledge. But the circumstances in which this phrase is used in the passages already adduced, and in a number of others of similar import which might be adduced, clearly indicate, that it is to be understood in those passages to mean a period as long as the duration of the Israelitish nation, which elsewhere is said to continue to the end of the world.
For this reason, among others, this final return of the Jews from their present dispersed state, cannot at any rate be said to have been accomplished at their return from the Babylonish captivity.
For that captivity was not by any means such a total dispersion of the people among all nations, as Moses, and the later prophets have foretold. Nor does their possession of the country subsequent to it, at all correspond to that state of peace, and prosperity, which was promised to succeed this final return.
Figures of speech must, no doubt, be allowed for. But if the whole of the Jewish polity was to terminate at the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus, (as is maintained by Christians,) while the world is still to continue, the magnificent promises made to Abraham, and his posterity, and to the nation, in general, afterwards, have never had any proper accomplishment of all. Because with respect to external prosperity, which is contained in the promises, many nations have hitherto been more distinguished by God, than the Jews. Hitherto the posterity of Ishmael has had a much happier lot than that of Isaac. To say, as Christians do, that these prophecies have had a spiritual accomplishment in the spread of the Gospel, when there is nothing in the phraseology in which the promises are expressed, that could possibly suggest any such ideas, nay, when the promise itself in the most definite language expresses the contrary, is so arbitrary a construction as nothing can warrant. By this mode of interpretation, any event may be said to be the fulfillment of any prophecy whatever.
Besides, it is perfectly evident, that these prophecies, whether they will be fulfilled, or not, cannot yet have been fulfilled. For all the calamity that was ever to befall the Jewish nation is expressly said to bear no sensible proportion to their subsequent prosperity: whereas, their prosperity has hitherto borne a small proportion to their calamity; so that had Abraham really foreseen the fate of his posterity, he would on this idea, have had little reason to rejoice in the prospect.
It may be said, that the prosperity of the descendants of Abraham, was to depend on a condition, viz., their obedience, and that this condition was not fulfilled. But, besides that the Divine Being must have foreseen this circumstance, and therefore must have known that he was only tantalizing Abraham with a promise which would never be accomplished; this disobedience, and the consequences of it are expressly mentioned by Moses, and the other Prophets, only as a temporary thing, and what was to be succeeded by an effectual repentance, and perpetual obedience, and prosperity.
Among others, let the following prophecy of Isaiah (in which the future security of Israel is compared to the security of the world from a second deluge) be considered, and let any impartial person say, whether the language does not necessarily lead those who believe the Old Testament, to the expectation of a much more durable state of Glory, and Happiness, than has, as yet, fallen to the lot of the posterity of Abraham.
Is. 54, 7. For a small moment have I forsaken thee, but with great mercies will I gather thee. In a little wrath I hid my face from thee for a moment, but with everlasting kindness will I have mercy on thee, saith the Lord, thy Redeemer. For this is as the waters of Noah unto me. For as I have sworn that the waters of Noah should no more go over the earth, go have I sworn, that I would not be wroth with thee, nor rebuke thee. For the mountains shall [or may] depart, and the hills be removed, but my kindness shall not depart from thee, neither shall the covenant of my peace be removed, saith the Lord that hath mercy on thee.—All thy children shall be taught of the Lord, and great shall be the peace of thy children. In righteousness shalt thou be established. Thou shalt be far from oppression, for thou shalt not fear; and from terror, for it shall not come nigh thee. No weapon formed against thee, shall prosper, and every tongue that shall rise against thee in judgment, thou shalt condemn. This is the heritage of the servants of the Lord, and their righteousness is of me, saith the Lord.
Here, as also in Moses, and other Prophets, an establishment in righteousness is promised to the Israelites, such as shall secure their future prosperity; and this promise has not yet been fulfilled. The promise of future virtue as connected with their future happiness, is also clearly expressed in Jer. ch. iii. 18.
Had the Jewish nation become extinct, or likely to become so, it might, with some plausibility, have been said by Christians, that the purposes of God concerning them were actually fulfilled, and, therefore, that the words of the promise must have had some other signification than that which was most obvious. But the Jews are as much a distinct people as they ever were, and therefore seem reserved for some future strange destination.
On the whole, it must be allowed, that the settlement of Israel in the land of Canaan, foretold with such emphasis by the Prophets, is a settlement which has not yet taken place, but may take place in that period so frequently, and so emphatically, distinguished by the title of the latter days; and therefore that whatever is said of Jewish customs, or modes of worship in the latter days? is a proof of the meant restoration of their ancient religious rites.
That the institutions of the Mosaic Law are to be continued on the restoration of the Jews to their own land after their utter dispersion, is asserted by Moses himself in one of the passages already quoted; but is more clearly expressed by the subsequent Prophets. In some of their prophecies, particular mention is made of the observance of Jewish festivals, and of sacrifices; and in Ezechiel we find a description of a magnificent Temple, which being closely connected with his prophecy of the future happy state of the Israelites in their own land, cannot be understood of any other than a Temple which is then, according to the Hebrew Prophets, to be reared with greater magnificence than ever. Mention is also made of the Glory of the Lord, or that effulgent Shechinah which was the symbol of the divine presence, filling this Temple, as it did that of Solomon.
Ezech. xliii. 1, &c. Afterward he brought me to the gate, even the gate that looketh toward the East; and behold the glory of the Lord came from the way of the East, and his voice was like the noise of many waters, and the Earth shined with his Glory.—And the Glory of the Lord came into the house by the way of the gate, whose prospect is toward the East. So the Spirit took me up, and brought me into the inner court, and behold the Glory of the Lord filled the house.—And he said unto me, Son of man, the place of my Throne, and the place of the soles of my feet, where I will dwell in the midst of the children of Israel for ever, and my holy name shall the house of Israel no more defile, &c.
Towards the end of the same chapter we read an account of the dedication of this new Temple by sacrifices; and particular directions are given in the succeeding chapters for the Priests, and for the Prince. If, therefore, there be any truth in these prophecies, the Jews are not only to return to their own country, and to be distinguished among the nations, but are to rebuild the Temple, and to restore the ancient worship.
Having proved that the Old Testament declares the perpetuity of the Mosaic Law, I proceed, 2dly, to prove that it is declared to be perpetual by Jesus himself.
But before I adduce my proofs, I beg leave to premise, that when any Law is solemnly enacted, we expect that the abrogation of it should be equally solemn, and express, in order that no room for dispute may remain upon the subject. Accordingly, it is the custom, I believe, in all countries, not to make any new Law, contradictory to another before subsisting, without a previous express abrogation of the old one. And certainly it appears to me a strange notion to suppose, that the elaborate and noble Law given from mount Sinai amidst circumstances unexampled, awful, and tremendously magnificent, and believed to have been declared by the voice of God to be a perpetual and everlasting Code, should vanish, perish, and be annihilated by the mere dictum of twelve fishermen!!
But the fact is otherwise, for Jesus was so far from teaching the abrogation of that law, that he expressly says— Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the Prophets, I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass, one jot, or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. This is a most explicit declaration that not the smallest punctilio in the law of Moses was intended to be set aside by the Gospel. Nay more, he expressly commanded his disciples to the same purpose—The Scribes and Pharisees (says he,) sit in Moses seat; all therefore whatsoever they command you, that observe, and do.
It is said in answer to this by Christian Divines, that his discourse relates to things of a moral nature, and that he only meant, that no part of the Moral Law was to be abolished. But besides that the expression is general, there could be no occasion to make so solemn a declaration against what he could not have been suspected of intending, viz. of abolishing the moral law. He seems in his discourse to have had in view the additions that had been made to the law. These he sets aside, but no part of the original law itself.
It has also been urged that by fulfilling, may be meant such an accomplishment of it as would imply the superseding of it when the purposes for which it was instituted should be answered. To silence this explication it will be sufficient to produce a few out of many passages of the New Testament where the term fulfil occurs in connexion with the term law. Thus Paul says, Gal. v. 14, All the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this, thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, and again. Rom. xiii. 8, He that loveth another, hath fulfilled the law. But certainly, notwithstanding this fulfilment of the moral law, it remains in as full force as ever.
The Apostles understood Jesus to mean as we have asserted. For it is evident from the Acts, that the Christians at Jerusalem were zealous in attachment to the law of Moses; this is evident from their surprise at Peter's conduct with regard to Cornelius; and in the dispute about imposing circumcision upon the Gentiles; observe there was no dispute about its being obligatory upon Jews.
Paul was indeed vehemently accused of teaching a contrary doctrine, as we find in the history of the transactions respecting him in his last journey to Jerusalem. Acts xxi. 21, They (i. e. the Christians) are informed of thee (says James to Paul) that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles, to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumscise their children, neither to walk after the custom. Here James gives Paul to understand that he considered the report as a calumny, and accordingly, to convince the Jewish Christians that it was a false report, he advises Paul to be at charges with some Jewish Christians, who were under a vow of Nazaritism, (which is an instance in point to prove that the first Christians kept the law,) and thus publicly manifest that he himself walked orderly, and kept the law. Paul complies with this advice, and purified himself in the temple, and did what was done in like cases by the strictest Jews. He also circumcised Timothy, who was a convert to Christianity, because he was the son of a Jewish Mother. And he solemnly declared in open court. Acts xxv. 8, Against the law of the Jews, neither against the Temple, have I offended any thing at all, and again, to the Jews at Rome, Acts xxviii., 7, he assures them that he had done nothing against the people, or the customs of the fathers.
But some men will say, did not Paul expressly teach the abrogation of the law, in his Epistles, especially in that to the Galatians? I answer, he undoubtedly did; and in so doing he contradicted the Old Testament, his master Jesus, the twelve Apostles, and himself too. But how can this be? I answer, it is none of my concern to reconcile the conduct of Paul; or to defend his equivocations. It is pretty clear, that he did not dare to preach this doctrine at Jerusalem. He confined this hidden wisdom, to the Gentiles. To the Jews he became as a Jew; and to the uncircumcised as one uncircumcised, he was all things to all men! and for this conduct he gives you his reason, viz. that he was determined at any rate to gain some. If this be double dealing, dissimulation, and equivocation, I cannot help it; it is none of my concern, I leave it to the Commentators, and the reconciliators, the disciples of Surenhusius; let them look to it; perhaps they can hunt up some traditionary rules of interpretation among the Jews, that will help them to explain the matter.
Lastly, it has been said that there was no occasion for Jesus, or his Apostles to be very explicit with respect to the abolition of the laws of Moses, since the Temple was to be soon destroyed, when the Jewish worship would cease of course.
This argument, flimsy as it is, is nevertheless the instar omnium of the Christian Divines to prove the abolishment of this Law: (for the other arguments adduced by them as prophecies of it from the 1 ch. of Isaiah, and some of the Psalms, are nothing, to the purpose; they being merely declarations of God, that he preferred obedience in the weightier matters of the Law; Justice, Mercy, and Holiness, to ceremonial observances; and that repentance was of more avail with him than offering thousands of rams, and fed beasts,) and this argument like so many others, when weighed in the balance, will be found wanting.
For, as the destruction of the Temple by Nebuchadnezzar certainly did not abolish the Law, so neither did the destruction by Titus, do it. And as it would be notoriously absurd to maintain the first, so it is equally so to maintain the last, position. Besides, a very considerable part of that Law can be, and for these seventeen hundred years, has been kept without the Temple. As for example, circumcision, distinction of meats, and many others. And when, if ever, they shall return to their own land, and rebuild the Temple, they will then, according to the Old Testament, observe the whole, and with greater splendour than ever.