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.