Page images
PDF
EPUB

they pleased, and to act according to their law. And Christ himself owns they "sat in Moses' seat." The high priest sat to judge St. Paul, who applied to him that text, Exod. xxii. 28. "Thou shalt not revile the gods, nor curse the ruler of thy people, or speak evil of him," as the Apostle renders it, Acts xxiii. 5. So that here the government was still in the Jews, though in subjection to the Romans: and thus it continued till the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple by the Romans. But since that time they are dispersed in all countries, and have no governor or ruler of their own in any. The sceptre is entirely departed from them.

D. It is impossible but the Jews must see the difference of their state before the destruction of Jerusalem, and since, and of their condition, as to government, in their several captivities, and now in their dispersion. In the former, they had still a face of government left among themselves; but now none at all. And their excuses which you have mentioned, render them indeed self-condemned.

What do they say to that text you have quoted, Jer. xxxiii. 17, &c. that David should never want a son to sit upon his throne, &c.? You Christians apply it to Christ, who was called the Son of David: but to whom do the Jews apply it?

C. Some of them say, that David will be raised from the dead, and made immortal, to fulfil this prophecy. Others say, that after the Messiah, who is to be of the seed of David, he shall thenceforward no more want a son, &c.

D. Both these interpretations are in flat contradiction to the text.' The text says, "Shall never

want;" these say, "Shall want for a long time;" they must confess now for near seventeen hundred years together, and how much longer they cannot

tell. They have had none to sit in Moses' seat, or on the throne of David, though in subjection to their enemies, as they had in the worst of their captivities; but have not now in their dispersion.

But is there any difference betwixt what you call the cathedra, or seat of Moses, and the throne of David?

C. None as to government; for Moses was king in Jeshurun, Deut. xxxiii. 5. but David was the first king of the tribe of Judah, which was to be the name of the whole nation; and Christ was called the King of the Jews. It was the title set upon his cross. But after him none ever had that title to this day.

D. This is not to be answered by the Jews. But pray what person is it, do they say, was meant in the fifty-third chapter of Isaiah, which you have quoted?

C. They will not have it to be any person at all; for they can find none, except our Christ, to whom these prophecies can any way be applied. There

fore, they say, it must be meant of the nation of the Jews, whose sufferings, &c. are there described in the name of a person, by which the people are to be understood.

D. But the people and the person there described as suffering, &c. are plainly contradistinguished. It is said, ver. 8. "For the transgression of my people was he stricken." And ver. 3, 6, &c. "We," (the people,)“ like sheep, have gone astray: and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all," that

is, of the people, who are here called wicked.

But he is called, "My righteous servant, who did no violence, neither was there any deceit in his mouth.” Therefore, this people, and the person here spoken of, could not be the same. They are opposed to each other. The one called righteous, the other wicked. The one to die for the other, and to justify the other." By his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many," &c.

C. The Jews, before Christ came, understood this prophecy of the Messiah, as indeed it can be applied to none other: but the Jews, since Christ, to avoid the force of this and other prophecies which speak of the sufferings and death of the Messiah, have invented two Messiahs; one Ben-Joseph, of the tribe of Ephraim, who is to be the suffering Messiah, the other Ben-David, of the tribe of Judah, who is to triumph gloriously, and shall raise from the dead all the Israelites, and among them the first Messiah, Ben-Joseph.

D. Does the Scripture speak of two Messiahs, and the one raising the other?

C. No, not a word; but only of the Messiah, which shows it spoke only of one. It mentions the twofold state of this Messiah, the first suffering, the second triumphing. Whence the modern Jews have framed to themselves these two Messiahs.

D. This is shameful! And plainly to avoid the prophecies against them.

C. This of Isaiah is fully explained, Dan ix. 24. &c. where it is said, that the Messiah the Prince should be cut off, but not for himself, but for the transgressions of the people: "To make an end of

sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity." And that this was to be within four hundred and ninety years after the building of the second temple, which I have mentioned before.

D. I cannot imagine how the Jews get clear of this.

C. They cannot. But in spite to it, they seek now to undervalue the whole book of Daniel, though they dare not totally reject it, because it was received by their forefathers, who preceded Christ. But, about a hundred years after Christ, they made a new distribution of the books of the Old Testament, different from their fathers, and took the book of Daniel out of the middle of the prophets, where it was placed before, and put it last of all. But more than this, to lessen the credit of this book, they adventured to shake the authority of their whole Scriptures; for they took upon them to make a distinction of the books of the Scripture, and made them not all inspired or canonical, but some of them they called "holy or pious books," though in a lower class than those called inspired or canonical Scriptures.-And they put the book of Daniel into the inferior class; but in that book Daniel speaks of himself as having received these prophecies immediately from an angel of God. Wherein, if he told us the truth, it must be put in the highest class of canonical Scripture ; but if he told us false, then this book is quite through all a lie, and blasphemous too, in fathering it all upon God. So that the distinction of our modern Jews confounds themselves. And since they allow this book of Daniel a place among the "holy writings," they cannot deny it to be truly canonical, as all their

fathers owned it before the coming of Christ. And if they throw off Daniel, they must discard Ezekiel too: for he gives the highest attestation to Daniel that can be given to mortal man; he makes him one of the three most righteous men to be found in all ages, and the very standard of wisdom to the world, Ezek. xiv. 14, 20. xxviii. 3.

D. What do they say to Hag. ii. 7, 9. where it is said, that Christ was to come into the second temple?

C. Some of them say, that this must be meant of a temple yet to be built.

D. This is denying the prophecy; for it is said, ver. 7. “ I will fill this house with glory," &c. And ver. 9. "The glory of this latter house-and in this place will I give peace," &c. but I am not to defend the cause of the Jews. It seems to me very desperate. I own you Christians have the advantage of them in this.

C. And I hope it will have so much effect with you, as to make you consider seriously of the weight of this argument of prophecy we have discoursed.

D. Let us at present leave this head of prophecy. Have you any further evidence to produce for your Christ?

VII. C. I have one more, which is yet more peculiar to him than even that of prophecy. For whatever weak pretence may be made of some prophecies among the heathen, as to some particular events of little consequence to the world, yet they never offered at that sort of evidence I am next to produce; which is not only prophecies of the fact, and that from the beginning of the world, but also

« PreviousContinue »