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

; 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 brin

emy 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 te

e 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

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

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 h

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 w

stituted 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 c

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, h

. This is not true, for the love of man towards his neighbour, was not a new precept, but at least as anc

ctly 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 d

e 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 i

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 a

make it fit the subject, (which after all it does not fit,) is the substitution of th

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 l