date

16 Sept 1811 21 Aug 1815 Jug Util
16 Sept 1811 21 Aug 1815

Jug Util or Jug True

1

II. Subrev

Ch.1. Prolegomena

1

§. Jesus, not Paul &c.

§. 1. From the deportment and discourses of Jesus alone not from d o of any of his followers after his death, can the religion of Jesus be properly deduced

One such observation shall here be mentioned by the observation of which labour must here be abridged and perplexity saved. In so far as the inquiry may be necessary, what in regard to the point in question was the religion of Jesus, the research has been confined within the compass of the four lifes of Jesus called Gospels. The religion delineated in these four Gospels, this alone is the religion of Jesus: the religion delineated in the Acts of the Apostles: of the Apostles or to speak as once more extensively and more correctly, the religion set up by his followers or pretended followers after his death.

What? in so many years as he was occupied in forming this system of religion, such as it is, and preaching it, had he not time enough to know his own mind? God or man, had he not time enough to know his own mind? Is it from this and not from himself that this mind of his is to be learnt? Was it for servants to change that which by the master himself had been ordained?

Whatsoever were the obligations established by him, to add to the number and extent of these obligations is to subtract from it, (for to substitute one obligation to another is to substract <.^.^.> and add another in the room of it) it is in this way <.^.^.> by those followers or any of them any obligations <.^.^.> not to be found in the Gospels could be imposed <.^.^.> any allowances [...?] that were not given in <.^.^.>.
Similar Items
  • Title: [16 Sept 1811 Jug. Util. 2]
    Description: 16 Sept 1811

    Jug. Util.

    2

    B.II.

    Ch.1. or last Gospel alone.

    2

    §. Jesus, not Paul &c.

    In this single reflection, if well applied might Christians secure votaries of the religion of Jesus, find deliverance from the converted persecutor of their predecessors, St Paul, with his obscure ambiguous, unintelligible self-contradictory and gloomy metaphysics: And surely if in obscurity, ambiguity, unintelligibility, self-contradictoriness and gloominess there be any thing delicious enough of all these sweets to satisfy a reasonable appetite might be found in the four Gospels when taken by themselves.
  • Title: [1819 Apr. 18 Jug. Util. Ch]
    Description: 1819 Apr. 18

    Jug. Util.

    Ch. Originality none.

    2

    Remains the article of novelty. But under the head it is still more palpably destitute than under either of the others.

    On this occasion there is neither need nor use in dwelling in the Pagan hell and elysium: the bare allusion is sufficient.

    What is more to the purpose is—that among the Jews—in that very nation to which Jesus belonged, and to which he was preaching, the doctrine of a future state had nothing new in it. So we learn from Jesus’s biographers themselves.

    It was even the predominant opinion. The question, future life or none furnished the characteristic difference between the two principal sects into which the profession of the Jewish religion were at that time divided: namely the Pharisees and the Saducees. The Pharisees were believers in the affirmative: the Sadducees unbelievers: believers in the negative.

    But not only throughout the four Gospels, but in the history of the Acts of the Apostles, and in the Epistles of Saint Paul, it appears beyond doubt that the Pharisees were the prevailing sect: they were the orthodox: the Sadducees were a sect of dissenters. To Saint Paul to belong to the Pharisaic persuasion was matter of boast.

    Utility— verity— novelty—of all these elements of worth[?] it is now it is hoped sufficiently seen, in how compleat a degree the religion called the Christian is compleatly destitute.
  • Title: [3 Oct 1811 Jug. Util. 6]
    Description: 3 Oct 1811

    Jug. Util.

    6

    6

    Jesus no toller

    Note 5 (a)

    What is [...?] is—of the idea given of this incident by the translation the authoritative English translation—is with reference to the original very inadequate not to say inaccurate. From the translation /the natural/ conclusion is that in the first place /upon the [...?] made of his person, as above/ /his being taken not [...?]/ all the followers /persons/ who were in his company forsook him and fled, that therefore being in respect of his own /all those his/ followers left him. Tho surrounded by his [...?] the officers of the police, the young man in question joined him, becoming /was for the first time/ his follower, and in the [...?] sense his sole follower.

    But in the original the aspect of the incident is altogether different. It was at the very time that all the others of his followers had were forsaking or had forsaken him, that this one person, this youth this Abdiel, this young man continued to follow him.

    Like Abdiel in Milton.

    Among the faithless, faithful only he.

    This one person—[greek text]

    On this trying and critical occasion among his followers, besides the betrayer Judas were at least those of his apostles, Peter, James and John, Peter the first of all in authority and confidence. These fled and deserted him with the rest. With him after they had deserted him remained this ‘one’ young man, whose name is not mentioned.

    12 (a) or 5 (a)

    Per translation, the youth joined him not till his followers had fled. Per Greek, he was with him from the first, and stuck by him like Abdiel after they had fled: viz Peter, James and John, &c.