« AnteriorContinuar »
selves known, for their state is low in Israel, as was foretold by Ezekiel and Micab, vide The Jew, vol. 1. No. 10. page 205.
Item 2. Speaking of genealogies, you say, "I am told you have none."
We need none; authentic public registers will answer every purpose, much better than private tables; and every male Jew is registered, as soon as circumcised, by the operator.
Item 3. "The ten and a half tribes of Israel appear to be lost.'r
The ten tribes we cannot speak with certainty of as to where they exist. We believe they do exist, and expect they will be found in the country they settled in on their expulsion from the
land of Israel, principally in Media, ian missionaries do not
go there, more than other travellers.
You next inform us that 1st. we " expect when Messiah comes he will rebuke the nations; 2d. lead you (us) back unto the land of Judea and Palestine; 3d. establish a new covenant, and 4th. explain the signification of your (our) ceremonies.
Of the two first items you are already better informed; as regards the third, God will establish (as you term it) the covenant with us; the Messiah is only a man as ourselves, and not a God. And as to the 4th. we shall need none of his teachings; as yourself allow all will be taught of the Lord. "All shall know me; from the least of them to the greatest."
As regards the items contained in the following paragraph: "While these (the old covenant, Jerusalem, and the kingdom of God among us) existed, the laws of them were written externally on stone, parchment, and paper. They were very local, also. But I have observed that the new covenant is very different from your old one. For Jeremiah says, God, the Jehovah, will write it internally on the hearts of the house of Israel and Judaii, and be their God and law-giver. The old law, therefore, was external: this new law is internal even in the heart and disposition. The old regulated external morals: the new is to regulate internal affections and desires. Under the old covenant you are to get knowledge from the lips of the priests and mercenary teachers; but under the new, the Lord will be the one shepherd, and teach his flock himself, without money or price: and all shall know him; and the Messiah is not only to be your glory, but the light of all nations; so that no man need to teach his neighbour any more; for all shall be taught of the Lord, who will pour out his holy spirit on all flesh, as Joel prophesied. Come, then, and walk and worship in this light of God's holy spirit within you."
I have, in part, I trust, set your ideas right. As to paper, I believe they knew of none. Again, Jeremiah does not say God the Lord will write the covenant, but the law in our hearts—yes, friend, the law which J have given -nru among them; the old law which he formerly had given; for the verb is in the past tense,
and not as erroneously translated by ians, in the future, I
will put, and I presu me the editor of Israel's Advocate, if you ask him, will tell you I am correct.
And, my loved friend, you play on the word internally, for I suppose the word inward, used in the Bible, does not suit you; the Bible says, "I will put my law in their inward parts;" you would rather have it—I will put my law in their internal parts. But, friend, the word translated, in their inward parts, is D2ip3 bykerbam, and which will not bear to be so translated; the English of it is, among them, so that, friend, be assured you are too Internal. In regard to their locality you are assuredly correct, they are intended for Jews alone; and, although the whole world will be of the Jewish persuasion, yet will they observe only two commands of the ceremonial law, to wit, circumcision and the feast of the tabernacles, as I have shown in the Jew, vol. 1. No. 8. page 157; and in my answer to the sermon of the Rev. G. S. Faber, last page. As to the whim of doing without priests, and thereby saving our money, (you'll please to excuse the language) it is pleasant enough to speak of, but, excuse me, not agreeable to Scripture; the priests will be the ministers of God as long as day and night endureth—but we shall no more have occasion to do what we are now doing; no more argument with one another; no more teaching one the other; in that regard we shall all know the Lord from the least to the greatest; and in that light, in consequence, be a nation of priests unto the Lord, a holy people. And as to not wearing any longer a rough garment, (a garment of hair cloth) to deceive, surely we have no fault to find with the gospel ministers;. they do it not; fine linens, broad cloth, and silk, answers their purpose well enough. As to visible worship, and invisible worship, visible Jerusalem and invisible Jerusalem; be assured, kind friend, what is invisible is also illusory. My hope is strong, the root of the matter is also sound within me. "In These Eyes Shall I See God;" no illusion, no invisibility. And now, friend, permit me to warn you not again to add to the word written in the prophets; you tell us Micah and Isaiah say, " it is a mountain established on the tops of the mountains," &c. I think they say " on the top" in the singular, see your Bible. You next inform us that " Daniel also speaks of this mountain of the new covenant, as a kingdom and empire; or as a little stone and mountain; and that the kingdom of the little stone should be set up in seventy weeks, i. e. four hundred and ninety days or years; but that the sanctuary of it will not be cleansed till two thousand three hundred days, or years, which approaches the present time; when the kingdom of the little stone shall become the empire of the mountain, covering the whole earth. In this holy mountain of the Lord's house, or church, all nations round the globe can and will come to worship; and they will beat their swords into plough-shares, and their spears into pruning hooks, and worship Jehovah, the Prince of Peace."
The prophet Daniel, my inquiring, informing friend, does not say a word of this new covenant; neither does he speak at all of the mount of the Lord's house. He speaks only of the kingdom. He calls it 3*1 ma a great mountain, so great, indeed, that it filled the whole earth; there, consequently, was no room for auy other. This represented the universal earthly empire of the Messiah, as himself explains it, to the king, chap. ii. 44. It is a mountain; a kingdom that destroys all others; it fills the whole earth itself; the whole image; all the monarchies of the old world become before it, while it is only a stone, as chaff before the wind. But the mount of the Lord's house, spoken of by Isaiah and Micah, is, if I may so express it, of another nature; it destroys nothing, and is only exalted above them; and it is not a mountain, but a hill, a mount, it is Zion itself—the house of the Lord—the CHURCH of God—in Jerusalem external—when and whereto, all nations will come to be taught, and being their differences to be adjudged of, and in consequence superscede the necessity of war. Isa. ii. 4. and Micah iv. I. 5. As to Daniel's
Vol. It. 8
saying, "the little stone will be set up in 70 weeks, i. e. four hundred and ninety days or years, but that the sanctuary of it will not be cleansed, till two thousand three hundred days," to the end of your address to us, (excuse my plain language, kind friend) is altogether a misrepresentation. Daniel does not, in any place, say little stone. Secondly, Daniel's stone is cut out in the latter days, after the image is complete, as himself explains to the king. "In the days of these kings," when the Roman empire is divided into the toes, " will the God of Heaven raise up a kingdom," and not before; but at the time you mention, at the end of the seventy weeks of Daniel, the Roman empire was not yet divided, be does not say the stone shall then be cut out; please see the Jew, No. 1. vol. 1. Again, " when the kingdom of the little stone shall become the empire of the mountain,"—do not so pervert the words of the prophet. He does not say the kingdom of, neither does he say the empire of. Daniel's words are, "and the stone that smote the image became a great mountain." The stone itself, and not the kingdom of the stone, becomes a great mountain itself, and not the empire of the mountain. The stone, you perceive, is the kingdom, not the person; and so of the mountain. It is the empire, not the Messiah, that Daniel speaks of. Again, Daniel does not say, covering the whole earth; he says Jill. My dear friend, "wo to them that cover with a covering, and not of my spirit." That the " glorious kingdom called the mountain, has not yet come, we are agreed—neither has the stone come, or been cut out yet, or it would strike the image which now stands on its feet, on the toes. And now, kind friend, I hope what I have said will be taken in charity, as well intended, and that if again you require the Jews to answer questions, you will only state one at a time; as to instruction and information, you cannot give us too much. We owe you thanks, and beg leave to assure you of our gratefulness, for your's is the only fair method hitherto taken for our conviction; if I should have the pleasure of seeing any further of your productions in that way, I pledge to attend to it as soon as possible. I beg leave to close for the present, assuring you that 1 am truly and affectionately your brother and friend.
Let not CANDIDUS think himself slighted because Camden is first attended to. Israel's Advocate is considered the adversary of the Jews: and in our title, we avow a determination of defending Judaism, particularly against its insidious attacks. Jews are pleased when they see any appearance of fairness in its pages, as we must acknowledge is the address of Camden. It opens the
argument between Jews and ians; such things in our pages,
unquoted, would carry the appearance of our raising difficulties for the purpose of clearing them. Again, of Candidus, we could not ask for a reply, he being a private correspondent to the Jew, and may withhold his communication when he thinks proper.— But of Camden, through his Rev. agent, Mr. R. we have a tangible hold, and a right to demand a reply of him.
Indeed, in fairness, we have a right to expect a reply to this, of the Rev. Editor, or of Candidas; and although we do not wish to dictate the method, we would barely intimate the satisfaction it would confer, if our method of quoting our opponent, by presenting! it altogether before our readers without any comment, and without mutilating any part of it, that the whole force may be apparent, before we commence our reply. If Israel's Advocate, or any other ian religious publication, should be willing to use any thing out of the Jew, for that purpose, they may do so, giving the usual credit.
One thing I have not noticed, and truly, I am sorry to find it in such an address as Camden's; it is the phraseology of " THE
LORD, the Prince of Peace," Do not ians know the Prince
of Peace was a man, who died 2200 years ago, and not God. Although the quotation is incorrect; for it is nowhere said—and worship The Lord, the Prince of Peace—nay, it nowhere says that the Prince of Peace should be worshipped as God.
(Continued from page 286.)
The better to show the insufficiency of the arts and inventions,
mentioned in my last; it is necessary to instance some prophecies,
which being explained according to those rules, you will then be
the better able to- judge the vanity of all such arts, and how ab-»