ble 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 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 dif ferences to be adjudged of, and in consequence superscede the necessity of war. Isa. ii. 4. and Micah iv. 1. 5. As to Daniel's VOL. II.

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, he 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 fill. 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 I am truly and affectionately your brother and friend.

THE EDITOR.

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 Candidus; 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.

DEA'S LETTERS.

(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

surd it is to pretend by such evasions to prove either the fulfilling of the prophecies, or to support any claim. It is pretended, “that the prophet intimated clear enough, that a new dispensation was to be introduced, and a new covenant, different from that which God made with their fathers."* To prove this they refer to a passage of Jeremiah, which I will transcribe at length, give you its literal meaning, and then consider it according to the application made by their arts. The passage is as follows:

"Behold! the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers, in the days that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, which my covenant they broke, although I was a husband unto them, saith the Lord. But this shall be the

covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those

1

days, saith the Lord: I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts, and will be their God, and they shall be my people. And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, know the Lord for they shall all know me from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the Lord. For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more. Thus saith the Lord, which giveth the sun for a light by day, and the ordinances of the moon and of the stars, for a light by night, which divideth the sea when the waves thereof roar; the Lord of Hosts is his name. If those ordinances depart from before me saith the Lord; then the seed of Israel also shall cease from being a nation before me for ever. Thus saith the Lord, if heaven above can be measured, and the foundation of the earth searched out beneath, I will also cast off all the seed of Israel, for all that they have done, saith the Lord. Behold the days come, saith the Lord, that the city shall be built to the Lord from the tower of Hananel unto the gate of the corner, and the measuring line shall yet go forth over against it, upon the hill Gareb, and shall compass about to Goath, and the whole valley of the dead bodies, and of the ashes and all the fields, unto the brook Kedron, unto the corner of the horse gate towards the east shall be holy unto

Divine authority, vol. 1. p. 101.

the Lord: it shall not be plucked up nor thrown down any more for ever."*

Now from this prophecy it plainly appears, that God was to make a new covenant with the house of Israel and Judah, or Jewish nation, which covenant should not be broke like that made with their fathers. The conditions on the people's part is, that they are to observe the law, (signified by God's writing it on their hearts, and fixing it in their inwards parts) and be God's peculiar people: and God, on his part, was to forgive and forget their iniquity and sin; was to restore, preserve them, and be their God; cause their city to be built, never more to be destroyed. This, in few words, is the contents of the promised covenant, according to the clear sense and obvious meaning of the prophet, conformably and agreeably to the repeated promise made to the nation, by all the prophets. The plain meaning of this prophecy, and the peculiar terms in which it is delivered, ought, one would think, to deter people from practising their arts, and impose meanings thereon so different, and so entirely contradictory to that of the prophet. He has entered into a particular description of the people who were to be a party, or partakers of the new covenant. And he has also particularized and declared, not only its contents, but likewise in what it was to differ from the former one. Thus it plainly appears, that God would enter into a new covenant with the Jews; but that a new law, or any new dispensation, was to be introduced, has no manner of foundation. That the new covenant was to be different from that which their fathers entered into, is likewise plain and evident. But what has that to do with a new dispensation which is pretended was to be introduced: does not the prophet declare in what the difference was to consist? The former covenant had been conditional; by it the nation's happiness and welfare was made to depend entirely on the observance of that which they stipulated; but they continually failed, and broke the conditions, and, in consequence, often received exemplary punishments. But the new covenant was to be formed upon an entire new plan; by it the nation's happiness was to be permanent, lasting, and unconditional; for they were to have

*Jeremiah, chap. xxxi. verse 31 to the end. Bible translation.