And the prophet himself, puts it beyond dispute, that this is the
proper interpretation of the prophecy, by express words, as well as
by his whole narration; for he says, "Behold I, and the children
whom the Lord hath given me, are for signs, and for wonders in
Israel from the Lord of Hosts, that dwelleth in mount Zion." Isaiah
viii. 19.

This is the plain drift and design of the prophet, literally,
obviously, and primarily understood; and thus he is understood by
one of the most judicious of interpreters, the great Grotius. Indeed,
to understand the prophet as having the conception of Mary, and
the birth of her son Jesus from a virgin mother literally, and
primarily in view, is a very great absurdity, and contrary to the
very intent and design of the sign given by the prophet.

For the sign being given by Isaiah to convince Ahaz that he
brought a message from God to him, to assure him that the two
kings should not succeed in their attempt against him, how could a
virgin's conception, and bearing a son seven hundred years
afterwards, be a sign to Ahaz, that the prophet came to him, with
the said message from God? And how useless was it to Ahaz, as
well as absurd in itself for the prophet, to say, "Before the child,
born seven hundred years hence, shall distinguish between good
and evil, the land which thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both
her kings," which would be a banter, instead of a sign.

But a prophecy of the certain birth of a male child, by a particular
female within a short time, seems a proper sign, as being not only
what could not with certainty, be foretold, except by a person
inspired, but considered as soon coming to pass, it, consequently,
evidences itself to be a divine sign, and answers all the purposes of
a sign. And such a sign is agreeable to God's conduct on like
occasions; witness his conduct to Gideon and Hezekiah. Jud. vi.; 2
Kings xx.

This prophecy, therefore, not being fulfilled in Jesus, according to
the literal and obvious sense of the words as they stand in Isaiah, it
is supposed that this, like the other prophecies cited in the New
Testament, is fulfilled in a secondary, or typical, or mystical sense;
that is, the said prophecy, which was literally fulfilled by the birth
of the son foretold by the prophet, was again fulfilled by the birth
of Jesus, as being an event of the same kind, and intended to be
secretly and mystically signified either by the prophet or by God,
who directed the prophet's speech. If the reader desires further
satisfaction that the literal and obvious sense of this prophecy
relates to a son to be born in Isaiah's time, and not to Jesus, he is
referred to the commentator Grotius, and to Huetius' Demonstrat.
Evang. in loc., to the ancient fathers, and to the most respectable of
the modern Christian. commentators, who all allow and show, that
the words of Isaiah are not applicable to the birth of Jesus in their
literal sense, but only in a mystical, or figurative, or allegorical
sense.

Again, 	Matthew gives us another prophecy, which he says was
fulfilled. He tells us, that Jesus was carried into Egypt; from
whence he returned after the death of Herod, (Mat. ii.) "that it
might be fulfilled, which was of the Lord by the prophet, saying,
'out of Egypt have I called my son.'" Which, being word for word
in Hosea, (ch. xi. 1) and no where else to be found in the Old
Testament, are supposed to be taken from thence; where according
to their obvious sense they are no prophecy at all! but relate and
refer to a past action, viz., to the calling of the children of Israel
out of Egypt, which will, I think, be denied by few. This passage,
therefore, or as it is styled, prophecy, of Hosea, is said by learned
men among Christians to be mystically, or allegorically, applied,
in order to render Matthew's application of it, just; and they say all
other methods of some learned men to solve the difficulty arising
from Matthew's citation of this passage, have proved unsuccessful.

Again, Matthew says, (ch. ii.) "Jesus came, and dwelt at Nazareth,
that it might be fulfilled, which was spoken by the prophet, saying,
'he shall be called a Nazarene;'" but as this passage does not
occur in the Old Testament at all, we are precluded from
ascertaining whether it be literal, mystical, or allegorical.

Jesus says of John the Baptist, (Mat. xi. 14) "This is Elias that was
for to come," wherein he is supposed to refer to these words of
Malachi, (ch. iv. 4) "Behold I will send you Elijah the prophet,
before the coming of the great and terrible day of the Lord," which,
according to their literal, and obvious sense, are a prophecy, that
Elijah or Elias was to come in person (which we know from the
New Testament, as well as elsewhere, was the constant expectation
of the Jews.) Besides, this Elijah was to come "before the great and
terrible day of the Lord," which has not yet arrived; and, therefore,
this prophecy of Malachi, referred to by the evangelist, was
certainly not literally, but only mystically, fulfilled in John the
Baptist.

Again, Jesus (Mat. xiii.) cites the prophecy of Isaiah (Is. vi. 9,) "By
hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand;" and he assures us,
that it was fulfilled in his time in those to whom he spake in
parables, (which, by the way, he did, it is said, in order to fulfil a
passage of the Psalms) though it is manifest that the prophecy of
Isaiah quoted, according to its literal sense, undoubtedly relates to
the obstinate Jews who lived in the time of Isaiah.

In fine, these, and the many other passages cited as prophecies
from the Old Testament by the authors of the New, do so plainly
relate, in their obvious and primary sense to other matters than
those which they are adduced to prove, that it is allowed by the
most learned defenders of Christianity, that to pretend that they
prove in a literal sense what they are adduced to prove, is to give
up with both hands the cause of Christianity to the enemies thereof,
who can so easily show in so many undoubted instances, the Old
and New Testament to have no manner of connection in that
respect, but to be in an irreconcilable state.

These proofs from the prophets being so different from what we
should expect, it behoves us to enquire what could induce Jesus
and his apostles to quote the Old Testament in such a manner?

The Jews shortly answer this question, by saying, that they did so,
because they did not understand the meaning of the books they
quoted. But it has been answered by some learned Christians, that
Jesus and the apostles did not quote in the manner they did through
caprice or ignorance bat according to certain methods of
interpretation, which were in their times of established authority
among the Jews.

The rules of interpretation, which were supposed to be
irrecoverably lost afterwards recovered to the world by the learned
Surenhusius, professor of the Hebrew language in the illustrious
school of Amsterdam. He made an ample discovery to the world of
the rules by which the apostles cited the Old Testament, and
argued from thence, wherein the whole mystery of the apostles
applying scripture in a secondary, or typical, or allegorical sense,
seems to be unfolded. I shall, therefore, state this matter from
Surenhusius.

He (Surenhusius) says, "that when he considered the various
opinions Of the learned about the passages of the Old Testament
quoted in the New, He was filled with grief, not knowing where to
set his foot; and was much concerned, that what had been done
with good success upon profane authors, could not be so happily
performed upon the sacred."

He tells us, "that having had frequent occasions to converse with
the Jews (on account of his application to Hebrew literature from
his youth) who insolently reflected upon the New Testament,
affirming it to be plainly corrupted, because it seldom or never
agreed with the Old Testament, some of whom were so confident
in this opinion, as to say, they would profess the Christian religion,
if any one could reconcile the New Testament with the Old. "I was
the more grieved, because, (says this honest and well meaning
man) I knew not how to apply a remedy to this evil." But the
matter being of great importance, he discoursed with several
learned men about it, and read the books of others, being
persuaded that the authors of the books of the New Testament had
written nothing but what was suited to the time wherein they lived,
and that Christ and his apostles had constantly followed the
method of their ancestors. After he had long revolved this
hypothesis in his mind, at last he met with a Rabbi well skilled in
the Talmud, the Cabbala, and the allegorical books of the Jews.
This Rabbi had once embraced the Christian religion, but was
again relapsed to Judaism on account of the idolatry of the Papists,
yet not perfectly disbelieving the integrity of the New Testament.
Surenhusius asked him, what he thought of the passages of the Old
Testament quoted in the New, whether they were rightly quoted or
not, and whether the Jews had any just reason to cavil at them, and
at the same time proposed to him two or three passages, which had
very much exercised the most learned Christian commentators.

The Rabbi having admirably explained those passages, to the great
surprise of Surenhusius, and confirming his explications by
several places of the Talmud, and other writings of the Jewish
commentators, and allegorical writers, Surenhusius asked him
what would be the best method to write a treatise in order to
vindicate the passages of the Old Testament quoted in the New?
The Rabbi answered, that he "thought the best way of succeeding
in such an undertaking would be to peruse a great part of the
Talmud, and the allegorical and literal commentators; to observe
their several ways of quoting and interpreting scripture, and to
collect as many materials of that kind, as would be sufficient for
that purpose."

Surenhusius took the hint immediately: he read such books as were
recommended, observed every thing that might be subservient to
his design, and made a book upon the subject. And in the third part
of that book he gives us the rules so long sought after, viz., the ten
ways# used, he says, by the Jewish doctors in citing scripture. And
here they are:--

1. The first rule is--"reading the words of the Hebrew bible, not
according to the points placed under them, but according to other
points substituted in their stead," as is done by Peter, Acts iii. 3; by
Stephen, Acts vii. 43, and by Paul, 1 Cor. xv. 54; 2 Cor. viii. 16,
and Heb. iii. 10; ix. 21; xii. 6.

2. The second rule is--"changing the letters, whether those letters
be of the same organ (as the Hebrew grammarians speak,) or not,"
as is done by Paul, Rom. ix. 33; 1 Cor. xi. 9; Heb. viii. 9, and x. 6;
and by Stephen, Acts vii. 43.

3. The third is--"changing both letters and points," as is done by
Paul, Acts xiii. 41, and 2 Cor. viii. 15.

4. The fourth is--"adding some letters, and taking away others."

5. The fifth is--"transposing words and letters."

6. The sixth is--"dividing one word into two."

7. The seventh is--"adding other words to those in the text, in
order to make the sense more clear, and to accommodate it to the
subject they we upon."

8. The eighth is--"changing the order of words."

9. The ninth is--"changing the order of words, and adding other
words."

10. The tenth is--"changing the order of words, adding words,
and retrenching words," which, (says he) is a method often used
by Paul. Of the application of all these rules, he gives examples
taken from the New Testament.

It is not necessary to make many observations upon these rules,
they speak for themselves most significantly; for what is there that
cannot be proved from the Old Testament, or any other book, yea,
from Euclid's Elements! or even an old almanac! by the help of
"altering words and sentences; adding; retrenching; and
transposing, and cutting words in two," as is stated above by a
learned and good man, and sincere Christian who found out, and
brought forward, these rules, as the best means of getting the
authors of the New Testament out of a difficulty, which had long
shocked and grieved their best friends.



CHAPTER VI.

EXAMINATION OF THE MEANING OF THE PHRASE "THIS
WAS DONE THAT IT MIGHT BE FULFILLED."

It may be objected from divers learned authors, who have been
very sensible of the difficulties stated in the preceding chapters,
and have, sensible of the difficulties stated in the preceding
chapters, therefore, taken other ground than their predecessors, in
order to defend themselves the better; I say, it may be objected to
what I have advanced, that Christianity is not in fact grounded on
the prophetical, or other, quotations made from the Old, in the
New, Testament; but that those quotations being allegorically
applied by the authors of the New Testament, are merely
arguments ad hominem, to convince the Jews of the truth of
Christianity, who allowed such a method of arguing to be valid,
and are not arguments to the rest of mankind.

To which I answer--That this distinction is the pure invention of
those who make the objection, and not only has no foundation in
the New Testament, but is utterly subverted by its express
declarations; for the authors of the books of the New Testament
always argue absolutely from the quotations they cite as
prophecies out of the books of the Old Testament. Moses and the
prophets are every where represented to be a just foundation for
Christianity; and the author of the Epistle to the Romans expressly
says, ch. xvi. 26, 26, "The gospel, which was kept secret since the
world began, was now made manifest by the scriptures of the
prophets (wherein that gospel was secretly contained) to all
nations," by the means of the preachers of the gospel who gave
the secret or spiritual sense of those scriptures; for to the ancient
Jews, according to them, the gospel was preached by the types of
their law, and, therefore, must have been considered as truly
contained in it.

Besides, the authors of the books of the New Testament were
convinced long before the publication of them, that the gospel was
to be preached to the Gentiles as well as the Jews, to both of
whom, therefore, they reasoned allegorically in their books, as
Peter and others did in their sermons, though with greater success
on Gentiles than on Jews; and as Paul did before Felix, when he
said he took his heresy, or Christianity, from the law, and the
prophets. Acts xxiv., as also he did before Agrippa. It would,
therefore, seem strange, that books written to all the world by men
equally concerned to convert Gentiles as well as Jews, and that
discourses made expressly to Gentiles as well as to Jews, should be
designed to be pertinent only to Jews, much less to a very few
Jews! Indeed, I am ashamed at being thus long engaged in showing
what must be self evident; and did I not fear being further tedious
to my readers, I would undertake to bring together passages from
the New Testament, where the meaning and intention of the writers
is obvious, in such abundance, as would immediately and entirely
put the hypothesis of our opponents out of countenance.

These quotations from the. Old Testament are certainly urged, and
spoken of as direct proofs, as absolute proofs in themselves, and
not as mere proofs ad hominem to the Jews; for if these prophecies
are only urged by the apostles as proofs to the Jews, and intended
only as proofs founded on the mistaken meanings of the Old
Testament of some Jews of their time, what sense is there in
appealing upon all occasions to the prophets, and recommending
the reading and search of the Old Testament for the trial and proof
of what was preached? for that was to proceed on weakness itself,
knowing it to be so. Certainly nothing, but a real persuasion, that
the prophecies of the Old Testament were really fulfilled in Jesus,
could make them every where inculcate and appeal to the fulfilling
of prophecy. In order to support their hypothesis, Christians have
been forced to seek evidence to prove, that the phrase--"this was
done that it might be fulfilled," so frequent in the New Testament,
meant no such thing, but was only a habit the Jews had got of
introducing by such phrases a handsome quotation, or allusion,
from the Old Testament. But this evasion must be given up, upon
two accounts. 1. Because most of the European biblical critics of
the present day (the learned annotator on Michaelis' Introduction
to the New Testament, Dr. Marsh, among others) frankly
acknowledge it not to be tenable; and 2. Because it can be proved
not to be so from the New Testament itself. For example, when
John represents (Jo. xix. 28,) Jesus upon the cross saying, "'I
thirst' that the scripture might be fulfilled," doth he not plainly
represent Jesus as fulfilling a prophecy which foretold that the
Messiah should thirst, or say, "I thirst," upon the cross? Nay, does
he not suppose him to say so, in order to fulfil, or that he might
fulfil, a prophecy? Is it not also suitable to the character of Jesus,
who founded his Messiahship on the prophecies in the Old
Testament, and could not but have the accomplishment of those
prophecies constantly in view to fulfil, and to intend to fulfil them?
And is it not unsuitable in John, in describing his master dying
upon the cross, to represent him as saying things, whereby he only
gave occasion to observe, that he fulfilled, i. e., accommodated a
phrase! not a prophecy!!

Besides, they who set up this accommodating principle of
accommodation, do, in some cases, take the term fulfilled in its
proper sense, and do allow it, (when convenient) to relate to a
prophecy really fulfilled. But I would ask them, what rule they
have to know when the apostles mean a prophecy fulfilled, and
when a phrase accommodated, since they are acknowledged to use
the strong expression of fulfilling in the latter case no less than in
the former?

In a word, unless it be granted, that the citations were intended by
the authors of the New Testament, to be adduced, and applied, as
prophecies fulfilled; if you do suppose them not intended to be
adduced, and applied, as prophecies; then, the whole affair of Jesus
being foretold as the Messiah, is reduced to an accommodation of
phrases! and it will, assuredly, follow, that the citations of Jesus
and his apostles out of the Old Testament, are like and no better
than the work of, the Empress Eudoxia, who wrote the History of
Jesus in verses put together, and borrowed out of--HOMER! or
that of Proba Palconia, who did the same, in verses, and words
taken out of--Virgil!

In fine, one of two things must be allowed, either (which is most
probable) the authors of the New Testament conceived their
citations to be indeed prophecies concerning Jesus, and then they
were ignorant and blundered, and, therefore; were not inspired; or,
they knowingly used them as means to deceive the simple and
credulous into a belief of their being testimonies sufficient to prove
what they themselves knew they had no relation to;--and then
they were deceivers: there is no other alternative, and each horn of
the dilemma, must prove as fatal as the other.

Perhaps it may be said, "It is to no purpose for you to object to the
quotations or the arguments of Jesus and his apostles, for God was
with them confirming their doctrine by signs following, they had
from God the power of working miracles, and, consequently, their
interpretations of Scripture, however strange they may appear to
your minds, must be infallible, they being men inspired."

To this argument it can be justly answered, first, that the question
whether Jesus be the Messiah, entirely depends, as proved before,
upon his answering the characteristics given of that personage by
the Jewish prophets; and all the miracles in the world could never,
from the nature of the case, prove him to be so, unless his character
does entirely agree with the archetype laid down by them, as had
been already abundantly proved.

Secondly,--That whether these miracles were really performed, or
not, depends entirely upon the credibility of the authors themselves
who have thus quoted! which, as shall be shown hereafter, may be
disputed; and, thirdly, it could be retorted upon Protestants, that
this same argument is the same in principle with the often refuted
popish argumentation. The Papists pretend to derive all their new
invented and absurd doctrines and practices from the scriptures by
their interpretations of them; but yet, when their interpretations are
attacked from scripture, they immediately fly from thence to the
miracles wrought in their church, and to the visions of their holy
men and saints, for the establishment of their interpretations, by
which they support those very doctrines and practices. And
particularly they endeavour to prove thus the doctrine of
transubstantiation, from the numerous miracles affirmed to have
been wrought in its behalf, which reasoning Protestant Christians
assert to be an argument absurd and inconclusive, therefore, they
should not use it themselves.

We allow, that if these interpretations of the sense of the Old
Testament had been in existence before the Christian era, it might
be something. But we beg leave to remind them, that it is certain,
that these interpretations were not published till after the events to
which they are referred took place, which is a circumstance of
obvious significancy.

In fine, to this argument I would answer, as in Cicero (de Natura
Deor. Ed. Dav. p. 209) Cotta did to Balbus--"rumoribus mecum
pugnas, ego autem a te roitones requiro."



CHAPTER VII.

EXAMINATION OF THE ARGUMENTS ALLEGED FROM
THE HEBREW PROPHETS, TO PBOVE THAT JESUS WAS
THE MESSIAH.

But it may be asked, how it was possible, that wise and good men
could have been led to embrace the religion of the New Testament,
if there were not in the Old Testament some prophecies which
might be conceived by them to supply, at least, plausible
arguments to prove that Jesus of Nazareth was the Messiah? Are
there no other passages in the prophets besides those quoted in the
New Testament, and are there not a few passages quoted in the
New Testament, which appear more to the purpose than those we
have been considering? To this I candidly answer that there are,
and this chapter will be devoted to the consideration of them.

Two of these prophecies, one from Genesis, and the other from
Daniel, are thought by the advocates of Christianity, (because they
conceive them to point out and to limit the time of the coming of
the Messiah,) to be stronger in their favour than any of those
quoted in die New Testament. If so, it is a very singular
circumstance, that the inspired authors of the New Testament did
not make use of them, instead of others not so much to the purpose.
This circumstance of itself should teach us to examine the
prophecies in question with caution, and also with candour, since
many worthy and religious men have thought them sufficient to
prove that Jesus was indeed the Messiah. These prophecies I shall
reserve last for consideration, and shall now begin with the others
usually adduced, taking them up pretty much in the order in which
they stand in the Old Testament.

The first passage is taken from Deut. xviii. 15, "The Lord thy God
will raise up unto thee a prophet from the midst of thee, like unto
me, unto him ye shall hearken. According to all that thou desiredst
of the Lord thy God in Horeb, in the day of the assembly, saying.
Let me not hear again the voice of the Lord my God, neither let me
see his great fire any more, that I die not. And the Lord said unto
me, they have well spoken that which they have spoken. I will
raise them up a prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee,
and I will put my words into his mouth, and he shall speak unto
them all that I command him. And it shall come to pass, that
whosoever will not hearken unto my, words which he shall speak
in my name, I will require it of him."

This passage is pertinaciously and solely applied to Jesus, by many
Christian writers, because it is so applied by Peter in the 2 chap. of
Acts, in his sermon to the Jews, just after he had received the full
inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and of course must be considered as
infallible. Nevertheless, these words of Moses are supposed by
many learned men, both Jews and Christians, to be spoken of
Joshua, whom Moses himself afterwards, at the command and
appointment of God, declared to be his successor, and who was
endowed with the spirit which was upon Moses, (see Deut. xxxi.
33, xxxiv. 17,) and to whom the Jews then promised to hearken,
and pay obedience to, as they had done before to Moses. But others
understand them to be a promise of a succession of prophets, to
whom the Jews might upon all occasions have recourse; and one or
the other of these seems to be the certain meaning of the place.
From this consideration, that from the context it appears Moses
was giving the Jews directions of immediate use; and, therefore, in
promising a prophet to them, to whom they should hearken, he
seems to intend an immediate prophet who might be of use to the
Jews, and answer their common exigencies, and not a prophet two
thousand years to come.

But I take the words to promise a succession of prophets, and for
that sense wherein Grotius and Le Clerc, and most of the Jews,
take them. I shall give my reasons, for this, and show that they do
not necessarily refer to Jesus Christ.

Moses, in the verses preceding this prophecy in the same chapter,
(Deut. xviii. 9--14) tells the Israelites from God, that "when they
came into Canaan, they should not learn to do after, the
abominations of the people thereof; and, particularly, that there
should not be found among them any one that useth divination, or
an observer of times, &c., or a consulter with familiar spirits, &c.
For all, says he, "that do these things are an abomination to the
Lord; and because of these abominations the Lord thy God doth
drive these people out from before thee. For these nations which
thou shalt possess hearkened unto observers of times, and unto
diviners. But as for thee, the Lord thy God hath not suffered thee to
do so." Then follow the words about the prophet, "The Lord thy
God will raise unto thee a prophet from the midst of thee of thy
brethren like unto me, unto him ye shall hearken." All which is as
much as to say, "When you come into Canaan, do not hearten to a
diviner, &c., as the Canaanites do, for the Lord will give you a
prophet of your own brethren inspired like me, to guide any
instruct you, to whom ye shall hearken." Or rather, "Do not
hearken to diviners, &c., but to prophets, who shall be raised up
among you."

Now that the words cited must relate to a succession of prophets to
begin upon the Israelites taking possession of the land of Canaan,
is manifest; because, the raising up of a prophet, to whom they
were to hearken, is the reason given why they should not hearken
to a diviner, &c., when they came to that land; which reason could
have no force unless they were to have, 1st,--an immediate
prophet in Canaan; for what sense is there, or would there be, in
saying, "Don't hearken to such diviners as are in Canaan, when
you come there, for you shall have a prophet of your own, to
whom ye shall hearken two thousand years after you come there!"

Secondly,--As the context shows that the prophet to be raised up,
was an immediate prophet, so it also shows, that the singular
number here stands for the plural, according to the frequent
custom of the Hebrew language, as is shown by Le Clerc and
Stillingfleet, in loco; for one single prophet to be raised up
immediately, who might soon die, could not be a reason why Jews
of succeeding generations should not harken to diviners in Canaan.

Finally,--The words of God by Moses, which follow the promise
of a prophet, evidently show that by that promise prophets were
intended, in laying-down a rule for the test or trial of the prophets
before mentioned, in such a manner as implies, that that rule was to
be applied to all prophets pretending to come from him. See the
words in Deut. xviii., 19--22.

I shall conclude this explication, by adducing, in confirmation of it,
the paraphrase of the words given in the Targum of Jonathan. "The
nations you are about to possess, (says the Jewish paraphrast)
hearken to jugglers and diviners; but you shall not be like them;
for your priests shall enquire by Urim and Thummim, and the Lord
your God shall give you a true prophet." And this explication is
the one adopted by Origen,--[Contra Celsum, p. 28.]

As to the difficulty that is raised against this explication from the
words at the end of Deuteronomy--"that there arose not a prophet
since in Israel like unto Moses whom the Lord knew face to face.
In all the signs and wonders which the Lord sent him to do," &c.--
it is nothing at all. For every one perceives, that the word "like"
may be, and frequently is, used in scripture, and in common
language, to signify, similarity in some, though not in every,
particular; and every prophet, who speaks by God's direction, is a
prophet "like unto Moses," who did the same, though he be not
like, or equal to, him "in doing signs and wonders," which is all
that is affirmed in the last chapter of Deuteronomy.

And, finally, there is nothing to limit this prophecy to Jesus of
Nazareth, if we allowed (what we reject) the Christian
interpretation; since God might to-morrow, if such were his will,
raise up a prophet like unto Moses in every respect, which Jesus
certainly was not; therefore, it cannot be applied and restrained to
the purpose for which it is quoted by Peter.

There is in the same sermon, in the 2 chap. of Acts, another
passage quoted by Peter from the Psalms, and applied by him to
prove the resurrection of Jesus, and on which he lays very great
stress, which after all seems to be nothing to the purpose. Peter
says, "Him (i. e., Jesus) God hath raised up, having loosed the
pains [or bands] of death, because it was not possible that he
should be holden of it." And why? "For [because] David speaketh
concerning him, ' I foresaw the Lord always before my face, for
he is on my right hand, that I should not be moved. Therefore did
my heart rejoice, and my tongue was glad; moreover also my flesh
shall rest in hope. Because thou wilt not leave my soul in Hades,
[the place of departed Spirits] nor suffer thy holy one to see
corruption, thou hast made known to me the ways of life; thou
shalt make me full of joy with thy countenance.' Men and
brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that
he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this
day. Therefore, being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn
with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins according to the
flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit upon his throne. He, seeing
this before, spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was
not left in Hades, neither did his flesh see corruption."

How imposing is this argument! How plausible it appears! And yet
it is irrelevant, as Dr. Priestly frankly confesses, who tries to save
the credit of the apostle by the convenient principle of
accommodation! The whole force of Peter's reasoning depends
upon the word "corruption." David did see corruption; therefore,
he could not mean himself, but "being a prophet," &c., he meant
Jesus Christ. Now, the whole of Peter's argument is grounded
upon two mistakes; for, 1st, the Hebrew word translated
"corruption," here signifies "destruction, perdition;" and in the
next place, instead of being "thy holy One," in the singular, it is in
the Hebrew "thy saints," in general. The passage is quoted from
the 16th Psalm; and I will give a literal translation of it from the
original, which will make the propriety or impropriety of Peter's
quotation perfectly obvious. The contents and import of the Psalm,
according to the English version, are as follow; "David, in distrust
of his merits, and hatred of idolatry, fleeth to God for preservation,
He showeth the hope of his calling, of the resurrection, and of life
everlasting." And the passage in question, according to the
original, reads thus:--"I have set the Lord always before me:
Because he is on my right hand, I shall not be moved: Therefore
my heart is glad, and my glory [i. e., tongue] rejoiceth: My flesh
also shall rest in hope. For thou wilt not leave my soul in Hades,
neither wilt thou suffer thy saints to see destruction. Thou wilt
show me the path of life: In thy presence is fullness of joy, and at
thy right hand are pleasures for evermore." That is--"Because I
have ever trusted in thee, and experienced thy constant protection,
therefore I will not fear death; because thou wilt not for over leave
my soul in the place of departed spirits, nor suffer thy saints to
perish from existence. Thou wilt raise me from the dead, and make
me happy for ever in thy presence."#

In the 4th chap. of the Acts, the apostles are represented as praying
to God, and referring in their prayer to the 2d Psalm "why did the
heathen rage," &c., as being a prophecy of the opposition of the
Jews to Jesus; with how much justice may be seen from these
circumstances.

1. That "the nations," as it is in the original, did not assemble
together to crucify Jesus, as this was done by a few soldiers. 2. The
"kings of the earth" had no hand in it, for they knew nothing
about it. And 3rdly, Those who were concerned did by no means
"form vain designs," since they effected their cruel purposes. And
lastly, From that time to the present, God has not set Jesus as his
king upon the "holy hill of Sion," as the Psalm imports, nor given
him "the nations for his inheritance, nor the uttermost parts of the
earth for a possession."

The next prophecy usually adduced to prove that Jesus is the
Messiah, is The passage quoted from Micah v. 2, in the 2d chapter
of Mat.--"But from Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little
among the chiefs of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto
me, that is, to be ruler in Israel, whose goings forth have been from
old, from the days of hidden ages." This passage probably refers to
the Messiah, but by no means signifies that this Messiah was to be
born in Bethlehem, as asserted by Matthew; but only, that he was
to be derived from Bethlehem, the city of Jesse, the father of David
of famous memory, whose family was venerable for its antiquity, "
being of the days of hidden ages." And this interpretation is
known, and acknowledged, by Hebrew scholars. But in order to cut
short the dispute, w will permit the passage to be interpreted as
signifying that Bethlehem was to be the birth place of the Messiah.
What then? Will a man's being born in Bethlehem be sufficient to
make him to be the Messiah foretold by the Hebrew prophets?
Surely it has been made plain in the beginning of this work, that
many more characteristic marks than this must meet in one person
in order to constitute him the Messiah described by them!

In Zechariah ix. 9, it is written, "Rejoice greatly, O Daughter of
Sion, Shout, O Daughter of Jerusalem! Behold thy king cometh
unto thee, the righteous one, and saved, or preserved [according to
the Hebrew] lowly, and riding upon an ass, and upon a colt, the
foal of an ass." This has been applied by the evangelists to Jesus,
who rode upon an ass into Jerusalem.

But in the first place, it is to be observed, that there seems to have
been a blunder in this transaction; for according to the Hebrew
idiom of the passage quoted above, the personage there spoken of,
was to ride upon "an ass' colt;" whereas, the apostles, in order to
be sure of fulfilling the prophecy, represent Jesus as riding upon an
ass, and the colt, too! "They spread their garments upon them,
and set him upon them."[See the evangelists in loc.] In the next
place, a man may ride into Jerusalem upon an ass, without being
thus necessarily demonstrated to be the Messiah. And unless, as
said before, every tittle of the marks given by the prophets to
designate their Messiah, be found in Jesus, and in any other
claiming to be that Messiah his being born in Bethlehem, and
riding upon an ass into Jerusalem, will by no means prove him to
be so. Besides, those who will take the trouble to look at the
context in Zechariah, will find, that the event spoken of in the
quotation, is spoken of as contemporaneous with the restoration
Israel, and the establishment of peace and happiness, which seems
to cut up by the roots the interpretation of the evangelists. And to
conclude the argument,--Jesus being born in Bethlehem, and
riding into Jerusalem, allowing it to be true, would not, we think,
frustrate these prophecies of a future fulfillment--for no one can
disprove, that if so be the will of God, such a person as
the Messiah is described to be, might be born in Bethlehem
to-morrow, and ride in triumph into Jerusalem, twenty years
afterwards.

The next passage which has been offered, as a prophecy of Jesus,
is to be found in the 12th chap. of Zech. v. 10, and part of it has
been misquoted by John. "And I will pour upon the house of
David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace
and supplications, and they shall look on me whom they have
pierced." So it stands in the English version; but, before I state
what it ought to be, I would observe, that before the evangelist,
(who in his account of the crucifixion applies this passage as
referring to Jesus' being pierced with a spear) could make this
passage fit his purpose, he had to substitute the word "him" for
"me," as it is in the Hebrew; confirmed by, I believe, all the
versions, ancient and modern, without exception. Yet, with this
change, it will by no means answer his purpose; for the Hebrew
word here translated "pierced," in this place signifies
"blasphemed," or "insulted," as it is understood by Grotius, who
confirms this rendering from the Hebrew of Levit. xxiv. 11, where
in this passage "the Israelitish woman's son blasphemed the name
of the Lord." The Hebrew word translated "blasphemed" is from
the same root with the Hebrew word translated "pierced" in the
passage in Zechariah quoted above. So that the passage ought to be
translated thus:--"I will pour upon the house of David, and upon
the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and supplications,
and they shall look towards me whom they have blasphemed."
[To "look towards God" is a phrase frequently met with, and well
understood.] Now, to enable us to understand more perfectly this
passage, let us consider the context, where we shall find that it
states, that there was to be a war in Judea, and a siege of
Jerusalem, and then a deliverance of the Jews, by the destruction of
all the nations, that should come up at that time, against Jerusalem.
Immediately after which matters, follows the prophecy under
consideration--"I will pour upon the house of David," &c. Now,
from these things thus laid together, I crave leave to argue in the
words of Dr. Sykes [Essay, &c., p. 268]--"Did any one
circumstance of all this happen to the Jews about the time of the
death of Jesus? Or rather, was not every thing the reverse of what
Zechariah says; and instead of all nations being destroyed that
came about Jerusalem, Jerusalem itself was destroyed: instead of a
spirit of grace and supplications, the Jews have had their hearts
hardened against the Christ; instead of mourning for him whom
they have pierced, they condemn him and his followers even until
this day."

But it is tiresome thus to waste time in proving that parts and ends
of verses, disjointed from their connexion, and even the words
quoted, some of them changed and some transposed, (though even
done according to the rules given by the venerable Surenhusius)
prove nothing. We must, therefore, devote the remainder of this
long chapter to the consideration of the three famous prophecies,
on which Christians have not hesitated, with triumphing
confidence, to rest the issue of their cause. These are the prophecy
of Shiloh, Gen. 49; the 53d ch. of Isaiah; and Daniel's prophecy of
the "seventy weeks." I will consider them in order, and thus wind
up the chapter.

I have some where read in a catechism, the following question and
answer:--Q. "How can you confound the Jews, and prove, from
prophecy, that the Messiah is already come?" A. "From these two
prophecies--'The sceptre shall not depart from Judah,' &c.--Gen.
xlix.; and this--'Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people,'"
&c.--Dan. ix. 24.

But, notwithstanding these overwhelming proofs, the stubborn
Jews refuse to be confounded! on the contrary, they in fact laugh at
Christians for being so easily imposed upon.

The prophecy concerning Shiloh, the Jews acknowledge, refers to