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 Luke’s 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?