abominable wretch for surely this Abraham is represented to have been such another monster as was David. Read Gen. xxii. and you will there find that Abraham, under the cloak of piety, persuaded his only Son, Isaac, to go with him a three day's journey from home to a solitary place, where he intended to stick a knife into him, and roast him like an Ox! You, Sir, are the father of a large family, and probably could better spare one of your children, than the man who has an only Son; yet, were you, in a dream, in a vision of the night, when deep sleep falleth upon men; in slumberings upon the bed; to imagine that some phantom appeared, (for you cannot suppose that God himself, could possibly appear to any man, when it is written, that no man shall see him and live.2) and commanded you to take one of your children to some by-place, and there slay and roast him, could you so stifle all natural affection, all feelings of humanity, as to comply with so absurd and diabolical a command? Even were you so credulous as to believe, that the message came from God, would you not think him a tyrannical monster, for attempting to sport with your feelings in that manner?

3

I have heard some priests strain hard to persuade their hearers that the offering up of Isaac was a type of God's offering up of his son Jesus. Which, by the bye, I think was no credit to this God; for, surely, if he were both an "all-wise" and an "all-powerful" being, he might have found out some other method to satisfy his wrath and fury, than that of wreaking his vengeance on his own innocent son! But what similarity does the one bear to the other? Isaac did not suffer; but Jesus did. Abraham deceived Isaac, by pretending that he was only going to worship, and then to return; but surely, you will not pretend to say, that God deceived Jesus! Isaac, being a young man of twenty-five, was not forced to yield to a feeble old man of one hundred and twenty-five years of age; but Jesus was, being compelled by superior force. You, likewise say that Jesus was the only begotten son of God; whereas Isaac was not the only begotten son of Abraham, (though

Paul says he was,) because, he had, at that time, another son living, whose name was Ishmael; and to whom, and to his mother, Abraham's barbarity is another instance of his unnatural feelings: for, after having first seduced the mother, with the help and consent of his own wife Sarai, and got her with child, he suffered his wife Sarai to treat her in so inhuman a manner, while in a pregnant state, that, rather than submit to such tryannical behaviour, the poor girl ran into the wilderness: for, as Solomon says, it is better to dwell in the wilderness, than with a contentions and angry woman. 8 And, though she humbled herself and returned home, probably, for the sake of the child in her womb, yet, after she had brought him forth a son, which he so much desired, he had the barbarity to turn both her and the child out of doors; giving them only a bottle of water, and some bread, to go and perish in the wilderness: although, at the same time, he had cattle, servants, and land in abundance !10 But Paul says, that those two sons of Abraham, were no more than an allegory; by which it appears that Paul only considered it as a fictitious tale! Neither were the unnatural feelings of Abraham confined to his children only; for, even his own wife, on whom he doated, he would rather sacrifice to pagan lust, than endanger his own life for her, or even trust her to the mercy and protection of his God.12

11

But to return to the Holy Ghost; why have we not his genealogy, if a genealogy at all, be necessary? For without some account of his pedigree, we know nothing of him; having never heard or read of such a being before! We are only assured of his belonging to the masculine gender, by his capability of getting Mary with child; and that is all we know about him! Could I be assured, by any authenticated history, that such a person as this Jesus ever existed, I should imagine that it alluded to some Holy or High Priest, that got her with child: : we have so many instances, even in our own days, of holy and high priests getting young maidens with child!

But this book is written in such an ambiguous and

15

And

unintelligible manner, especially the writings of Paul, in which Peter himself acknowledges, are some things hard to be understood, 13 that I cannot discover what is meant by this Holy Ghost? Some passages seem to favour the opinion of his being the High Priest, while others are altogether enigmatical. For instance; we find in Acts xiii. 2. that, when certain prophets and teachers came to Antioch, the Holy Ghost said, "separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them :" which evidently implies that some person in authority whom they well knew was speaking to them, seeing that they were not at all surprised at the voice. when Peter tells us, 14 that "holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost," what else can he mean, but that those men who had sanctified themselves to the Lord, according to their law, spake and wrote as the Holy or High Priest directed them? Even Jesus said, that "all manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men, but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven"; 16 because it was not lawful for any man to speak evil of or against the High Priest. 17 But when we find this Holy Ghost descending like a dove upon the head of a man at one time, 18 and like a parcel of fiery cloven tongues at another; sometimes filling men and women;20 at others converting their bodies into temples,2 21 and many other curious freaks which this Holy Ghost is said to have done, we can have no idea what this Holy Ghost could be. Perhaps it was a nick-name given by the Greeks, in derision, to the Jewish High or Holy Priest, when they wrote this Quixotical story of Jesus; it being evident that it could not have been written by the Jews; for none of the rulers or prophets ever mentioned a word about such a being as a Holy Ghost: especially as we find that they never did, nor ever will believe a word about it; and surely they ought to know best. But whoever or whatever this Holy Ghost might have been that got her with child, why should he, as well as she, escape the punishment of the Jewish law ?22 Or how could Joseph be called a just man, who was not willing to expose this

19

adulterous connection? Was he not amenable likewise to the law,23 by his attempting to put her away privily? Though I cannot imagine how he could put her away privily, without privily putting her to death, if her apLearance proved that she was with child; it being written that she was found with child, which could only be known by those who found her, but by her appearance; the nature of which, and the law of the Jews, on such an occasion, must have rendered it impossible for Joseph to put her away privily.

Matthew says, (verse 20) that "while he thought on these things, behold the angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost."

That a man should have such a dream as this, I will not say is impossible: for, as Solomon said, a dream cometh through the multitude of business; and in the multitude of dreams and many words, there are also divers vanities. 2 4 But that the Jews could be expected to give any credit to such a dreamer, appears to me very improbable, especially as their law authorized, and even commanded them, to put all such dreamers to death, who should attempt to subvert their faith in their one God. 25 So that, like Luke, I must differ from Mr. Matthew, by rejecting all such absurdities as dreams; for he, conceiving that it would give the story a greater degree of plausibility, says26 that the angel appeared (not in a dream, but) in a visible form, (not to Joseph, but) to Mary. No doubt but he found that Matthew's dreaming story would not be so readily received among the people, for the reasons already given; therefore he endeavoured to give it a more substantial colouring, by bringing the angel forward in reality; well knowing that the ignorant and weak-minded, were credulous enough to believe in the stories of witches, ghosts, angels, and such imaginary beings. Yet he ought to have informed us, how it was that Mary discovered that this angel came from God? seeing that Satan can transform himself into an angel of light,27 and perform many wonderful things, as well as God himself!

But men in this age, who are so well acquainted with the schemes and contrivances which some women will make in order to avoid the stigma of harlotry, will not be imposed upon by either Luke or Matthew; of which both Mark and John seems to have been aware, by their avoiding to say any thing about the birth of this Jesus; although John had heard and seen all things from the beginning. 28 That such a woman as Mary, if she ever did exist, did play the harlot will not be disputed, it being a thing neither unnatural nor yet uncommon. But should a woman in the present age say that an angel, or even God himself, had come and told her that she should be with child, I doubt whether any sensible man would believe that it was produced without the help of man, supposing that she was afterwards, like Mary, found to be with child. I grant that there are many persons so credulous as to swallow any absurdity that is offered to them; such as the preternatural conception of Joanna Southcott; the tales of the "Arabian Nights;" "Haunted Tower, &c.: but because they are so weak-minded as to credit such idle and nonsensical tales of ghosts, witches, angels, and hobgoblins, should you, who are so well skilled in all the Arts and Sciences, submit your reasoning faculties to their credulity? No; surely your philosophy teaches you that immateriality cannot corporate with materiality. Besides, it is written that he that is joined to an harlot, is one body; for two, saith he, shall be one flesh.29

Then let us compare things and examine ourselves; proving all things, and supporting that which is just and true, not being like unto those who seem ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. 30 We are not ignorant of the craft and subtilty of priests, who, to extricate themselves from this dilemma, say that with God all things are possible. But this I deny; for it is impossible for God to lie; 1 and that which is crooked, cannot be made straight; and that which is wanted, cannot be numbered. 3 2 Still, admitting for the sake of argument, that this God could tell a lie if he chose, and alter the course and laws of nature, he must have some

3