covenant between him and the Lord, &e. To these natural interpreters of the mysteries contained in the Scriptures, De Wett proposes this question: "How know you that Abraham had such thoughts?" which to us appears a very rational kind of question, which they will find it difficult to answer satisfactorily; for we are sure, with the Apostle Paul, (Epistle to the Corinthians, chap. 2, v. 6) that the judgment of God is according to truth, against them which commit such things;" for, (1st Epistle to the Romans, chap. 1, v. 22) "professing themselves to be wise, they became fools." How far from folly-how far from naturalism must those interpreters of Scripture be, who, in the face of its plainest declarations to the contrary, will obstinately insist that Abraham was a real personage. Truly these are the theologians and critics who bring the Scriptures into contempt-philosophers who, like Eichhorn, take away from Biblical history its divine character, and attributed the supernatural reflex which is spread over it, not to deception or fraud, but to the natural result of the peculiar manner in which the light of antiquity made itself manifest; who strive to make it appear that the vocation of Moses was not a real vocation-that the account in Exodus chap. 3, v. 2, 3, and 4, " And the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a flame of fire, out of the midst of a bush: and he looked, and, behold, the bush burned with fire, and the bush was not consumed. And Moses said, I will now turn aside, and see this great sight, why the bush is not burnt. And when the Lord saw that he turned aside to see, God called unto him out of the midst of the bush, and said, Moses, Moses. And he said, Here am I"-is, when literally received, most absurd and incongruous; who endeavours to explain, that Moses imagined he saw the angel of the Lord appear in a flame-that he imagined he heard God call out of the bush "Moses, Moses," which call was, in fact, nothing more than the thought long conceived by the patriot of delivering his people— a thought which, renewing itself in a dream with new strength and vivacity, was mistaken by him for divine inspiration. The smoke and the flame upon Mount Sinai, or as written in Exodus, chap. 24, v. 17, "The sight of the glory of the Lord, which was like the devouring fire on the top of the mount in the eyes of the children of Israel," Eichhorn explains as a fire lighted by Moses upon the mountain in order to assist the imaginations of the Israelites; and a violent storm happening to co-operate with it, the luminous appearance of his face was a consequence either of his great heat or his position with regard to the "devouring fire," which Moses himself

not understanding the cause of, for (Exod. chap. 34, v. 29) «when he came down from the mount, Moses wist not that the skin of his face shone while he talked with him," though equally with the people, there was in the circumstance something divine. The same author has given other explanations equally ingenious and equally unsatisfactory of the histories of Noah and Abraham.

In the 21st chapter of Genesis, v. 2 and 3, it is written that "Sarah conceived and bare Abraham a son in his old age, at the set time of which God had spoken to him. And Abraham called the name of the son who was born unto him, whom Sarah bare to him, Isaac." Then the text goes on to say that " Abraham circumcised his son Isaac, being eight days old, as God had commanded him;" but before the birth of Isaac, the history states (Gen. chap. 16, v. 2, 3, 4) that "Sarai said unto Abram, Behold now, the Lord hath restrained me from bearing: I pray thee, go in unto my maid; it may be that I may obtain children by her. And Abram hearkened to the voice of Sarai. And Sarai Abram's wife took Hagar her maid the Egyptian, after Abram had dwelt ten years in the land of Canaan, and gave her to her husband Abram to be his wife. And he went in unto Hagar, and she conceived," &c. Here we have a precise account in Genesis of the conception of Hagar, the bondmaid, who is afterwards informed by an angel of the Lord that she is with child, and "shall bear a son, and shall call his name Ishmael;" also, the conception of Sarah, the free woman, and the birth of Isaac; but, what must be the astonishment of a literal interpreter of Scripture, who believes the story of Abraham to be something more than an allegory, when he turns to the 4th chapter, 22, 23, and 24th verses of Galatians, and sees the following? For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, and the other by a freewoman. But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise. Which things are an allegory." What evidence can be more conclusive against the supposition, that the history of Abraham is matter of fact?-yes, the weight of these Scriptural texts will bear down and crush the puny sophism of theologians-for the things related of Abraham are proved to be allegorical by texts and arguments, having all the force and completeness of a moral demonstration. He must be a knave, or an idiot, who will, after this, declare with Saint Matthew, "Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham," in spite of common sense, reason, and Scripture; and if Jesus Christ was not the son of

T

Abraham, who was he the son of?-or was Christ a purely imaginary being as well as Abraham? which we declare, and are pledged to prove. It has now been shewn by Biblical texts, that the character of Abraham is an allegory-that his history is a something related which is not meant that the author, or authors, attached to it one sense, while we are bewildered by its literal absurdity, and, in many cases, have lost all clue to its hidden meaning-S that, while we "cannot judge from appearance, if we would judge righteous judgment," we should do well to act upon the advice of Origines, and, if possible, bury ourselves in the true meaning of the writers. In taking leave, therefore, of Abraham, and passing to a review of the various arguments that have been urged in favor of the existence as a human being of Jesus Christ, with full confidence in our ability to shew by reference to ecclesiastics of acknowledged authority in the Christian Church, as well as Pagan and Jewish historians, who have written, or were said to have written, corroboratory of the prevailing notion, that a God, or at all events, a man called Christ, was born in Judea eighteen hundred years ago; we we will shew by these very favorable, and often certainly partial authorities themselves, that the books of the New Testament are books containing absurdity and falsehood of a most pernicious and demoralising character!—that what is there written about the doings of a Jesus-is a forgery, and an insult to the common sense of mankind!

The reader will not now fail to conclude, that the existence of Jesus Christ, so far from being proved by Scripture, is disproved by it. Upon this point, if on no other, the Sacred Writings are perfectly intelligible for they expressly declare, that Christ was crucified and killed three times over, at three different times and places, which it is physically and morally impossible any bodily Christ could have been. Nay, it is beyond all human conception, that the Son of God could have died at three places at one time, or at different times; killing any thing three times over was never heard of any where but in Scripture: so that, it is evident the expressions are figurative. Our critique will, it is hoped, give the coup de grace to this moral absurdity-and by opening the eyes of the people, enable them to see the depths of their superstitious folly -for of all moral poisons the dregs of superstition are the worst.

London: H. Hetherington; A. Heywood, Manchester; and all Booksellers! J. Taylor, Printer, 29, Smallbrook Street, Birmingham.

EXISTENCE OF CHRIST

AS A HUMAN BEING,

DISPROVED!

BY IRRESISTIBLE EVIDENCE, IN A SERIES OF LETTERS,

FROM A GERMAN JEW,

AUDRESSED TO CHRISTIANS OF ALL DENOMINATIONS.

LETTER 23.

WEEKLY.

ONE PENNY.

"I am the Lord thy God, the Holy One of Israel. Before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me. I, even I, am the Lord, and besides me there is no Saviour."-ISAIAH XLIII. 3, 10, 11.

CHRISTIANS,

A glance at the early history of the Church of Christ will materially assist us in the very important investigation we have undertaken; and, though we shall not confine ourselves exclusively to Ecclesiastical historians, it is principally from them evidence will be adduced in disproof of the existence of Jesus as a human being. By such a course, malice itself will be disarmed; and, whatever may be thought of our proofs and reasonings, none will dare accuse us of partiality or unfairness. The weapons wrested from opponents in a warfare of this nature, and used against themselves-even if those weapons be not remarkable for keenness of edge, or excellence of temper-always do great execution. Acting upon this principle, sceptical authorities will be but little referred to, while special reference will be made to those who are acknowledged champions of the faith in Jesus-whether as God, inspired prophet, or human being.

Among these Doctor Mosheim claims the first rank, both on account of his shining talents, and undoubted orthodoxy. His great work on Ecclesiastical History, displays immense erudition and research; nor can it be doubted that it has had a prodigious influence in propping up the (now crumbling into dust) Reformed Church. He had, moreover, no relish for Infidels, as his writings

abundantly testify. Papistry and Infidelity were his abominations'; and whatever emanated from these sources was to him distasteful and bitter. At the very outset of his book, he denounces the Sceptics as "a set of miserable and unthinking creatures, who treat with negligence-nay, sometimes with contempt-the religion of Jesus, not considering that they are indebted to it for all the good things which they so ungratefully enjoy." Bishop Warburton, pronounced his work the only one deserving the name of an Ecclesiastical History; and Doctor Maclaine, announces it as a history of the Christian Church, composed with judgment, taste, and candour— drawn with uncommon discernment and industry from the best sources, enriched with much useful learning, and several important discourses connected with the history of arts, philosophy, and civil government. One who had so profound a contempt for Sceptics, so much learning, and so much love for the Church, will have immense weight with Christians, whether his teachings tend to support or overthrow the vulgar belief in the existence of a man called Jesus of Nazareth.

The perusal of the first twenty or thirty pages of his work is sufficient to prove how unstable were all human opinions and feelings when Jesus is said to have appeared-how confused, false, and therefore little to be relied on, were all documents dignified by the name of historic, which were written at, or subsequent to, that period. In those days, if the priests were not more learned, the people were far more ignorant and fanatical than in our own times, and nothing was more easy than for the scribes and men in authority to palm upon the credulity of the multitude their own audacious forgeries as authentic and holy documents. Daring and rebellious spirits who protested against such enormities were branded as seditious and impious-their conduct as immoral, arrogant, and blasphemous-and, upon all occasions, they were held up to public execration as Atheistical disturbers of public tranquility. The power of the priests was then enormous; and no priesthood has ever been known to part with power except when forced to do so. It was to be expected, therefore, that the histories they wrote, or hired others to write, would contain just as much of truth as suited their purposes, which, we presume, might all have been squeezed into a few pages—and yet, some would have us rely with perfect confidence upon such documents, even when they contradict the evidence of our senses. The treatment received by the first Christians, shews clearly what must have been the fanaticism of the