Imágenes de página



VOL. II. 12th month, ADAR, FEBRUARY, 5580. NO. 11.

{The answer to Ned. Mc— Concluded from our last.)

"And was not his heel bruised when Jesus was crucified about the end of the 70 weeks, or 490 years of Daniel, If so Messiah has come; and put an end to the sins and transgressions of the old and visible covenant, or law; by putting an end to the ceremonial law itself. For the law external being terminated, sin and transgression against it, are also ended: and thus Daniel's prophecy has been literally fulfilled: chap. ix. 24. &c. by the coming of the most holy in the flesh; nud the end ol the law by the death of the flesh. Thus he was a "mediator, by death, for the sins committed uuder the law;" and came to redeem the Jews Irora under the bondage of the law of types and ceremonies; and briny in everlasting righteousness, the Lord's law of his spirit written in the heart; which law is the new covenant to those who embrace it. "This law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul; this testimony of God is sure, making wise the simple." Ps. xix. 7."

The 70 weeks of Daniel you speak of, will in no shape suit the time of Jesus. It was, and is your province to show how they tally with his advent, as you term it. What was thereby intended will be shewn, God willing; at present, weightier matter must be first attended to : but your objection is naught, my brother; because you have only asserted, and not proved that they were fulfilled in Jesus: you have not shown that he was TJJ frvo Messiah the Prince, (or Leader ;) neither have you shown him to be the Messiah, to be cut off after the 70 weeks : you should shpw that he was cut off at the end, or after the 70 weeks; if you will do this, you will do that which has never yet been done ; and your not having done this, superceeds the necessity of my explaining it at present: for I have nothing to combat. You should have shown when the 70 weeks, or 490 years began, and which made them to end with the cutting off, or crucifixion, and how all things in that prophecy was fulfilled; we then should have had an opportunity of Judging, and of either approving, or showing our reasons for not allowing it. You perhaps may say, others have already done it. Granted, but it has been explained by so many, and with so much difference, and contradiction between them, that you should have pointed out which you accepted as correct: when we should have known which to consider: on our part, we dare not attack either in the present case, lest it is not the one you allow the correct explanation; for I believe there is not two ian Commentators, who

agree, and explain it alike; for these reasons I can only meet your assertion that he was cut off at the end of 70 weeks, by a contrary assertion, and I say, he was not crucified at the end of the 70 weeks of Daniel, nor anywise about that time. I further say that, \h |'k1 does not mean as translated in the English Bible, "And not for himself."

As to the sins and transgressions, of what you are pleased to term, the old and visible covenant, which you say were put an end to, by the law external being terminated: you should have shown how the law was terminated. Daniel does not say any thing like it, his words are "to make an end, or finish sin or sinning," he says nothing about terminating the law.

If to act contrary to law, is crime or sin, what name shall we give to the subvertion of the law itself? According to you it makes an end of sin, when it is, itself, the greatest of all sins. The law is given by the Eternal, and by him commanded to be observed FOREVER. It alway* remains in force, and men may violate, but cannot disannul it; because it is of perpetual obligation.

You apply Psalm xix. to this New Testament: but it is plain David sings of the law of Moses ; neither does he say a single word whereby we can have the least reason to suppose, any other was by him intended. Speaking of its faithful statutes, enlightening commandments, and righteous judgments, he takes the praise of guardedly observing them. Now what law did he observe, but the Mosaic Dispensation? And there is not the smallest colour of proof that he had the least thought of the New Testament. And I have already shown his language, when he does speak of it, in my explanation of Michtam Le David. Ps. xvi.

"If the sceptre, or light of Jewish sovereignty, was to belong to Judahfrom the time it commenced in David; andif none but such as descended from David or Judah, should be acknowledged king of the Jews, till Shiloh come; it is certain then, Messiah, or Shiloh, has come. You say the sceptre departed from Judahjat the captivity of the Jews by Nebuchadnezzar. You might as well say the sceptre departed from Judah between the death of any one king, and the installation of his successor.—DM the Jews ever acknowledge any one to be their lawful king, before Herod the great? If you answer no, then Shiloh must have come about the time of Herod.—True

inns have not three Gods, but one, Jehovah, and his spirit is their only sancti

fier. To whom only I commend you dear Jews."

This objection, if it proves any thing, proves toe much for the Messiahship of Jesus; even allowing it all the force it requires. "None but such as descended from David or Judah, should be acknowledged

[graphic][ocr errors]

king of the Jews till Shiloh come ;" you say, "It is certain then, Messiah or Shiloh, has come." Let us for argument sake, say he has come; in that case, it must have been before the sceptre departed from Judah, that is before the destruction of the first Temple ; for then the sceptre departed : for after that, none who descended from David or Judah, did in any shape hold the sceptre. As to your question about Herod being our lawful king, and none before, what can you mean? from the time of Judah Maccabeas we had lawful kings from the Chashmunian Dynasty, who were Levites, Priests, and as to Herod, he was indeed king, but not lawful; for he was not one of our brethren, but an Idumean. How then can Jesus be the Messiah, when the Messiah must have come, according to your reading, before the departure of the sceptre; even in the time of the first Temple, nearly 400 years before Jesus.

Again my brother, please to consider you wish to establish arguments which destroy each other. Jacob foretold, according to you, that the sceptre should depart from Judah, when Shiloh came. This sceptre is the throne of David, which did depart when Jesus came. Again, you wish to establish, that Shiloh is the Messiah, and does sit on the throne of David, from his advent even for ever. If your first proposition is correct, then Jesus is not Shilo ; for Jesus sits on the throne and the Scepter is even now in Judah; then Shiloh cannot be the Messiah; because according to you when he comes, the Scepter must depart from Judah. on the other hand, if Jesus is the Messiah is the Shilo, and has the Scepter, then Jacob did not foretell the truth, for according to you he said, the Scepter should depart from Judah on the coming of Shiloh.

You must therefore, either give up Jacob, or Jesus: take either horn of the dilemma.

For my part I hold with Jacob; for he has foretold the truth. But he did not say nor intend what you make him to say ; his words literally and correctly rendered, are these ; The Scepter's departure from Judah, and the Scribe's departure from detween his feet, shall not be forever; because Shiloh will come, (and restore both) and unto him shall the nations be obedient.

As to the number of gods of the true ian, I am willing to believe you have but one. But you will please to allow every one to call himself true, and have as many as he pleases.

May the God of Israel, enlighten our minds, grant us his grace, and give us to see his salvation ; and that we, together with the righteous of all nations, may be written in the book of eternal life. Amen.


Continued f ram page 439.

The absurdity, mid inconsistency of the doctrines, treated of in my last letter, proves the impossibility of applying the prophecy, or making it answer the purposes intended thereby, as some pretend that a two-fold death was implied in the sentence, they infer that Adam and and his posterity, were condemned, both to a natural, and spiritual death i from which they could only be released by the sufferings and passion of one, who was to be both, God and men. They say au agreement being made between God the father, and God the son, the latter offered himself, to be made a sacrifice on the cross, to appease the wrath of God the father, and to atone by this ignominious death, for Adam's sin: restoring the human race thereby, to God's grace and favour, freeing them from the power of the devil, and from the penalties, under which they must have continued; as no other satisfaction, could have been accepted, or deemed sufficient. We shall now, therefore, enquire into the foundation of this two-fold death. "'In the day that thou eateth thereof, thou shalt surely die." (l)This in Hebrew is expressed, by the words, Moth Yumoth, which phrase denotes the certainty of its being inflicted; as will very evidently appear, by considering the use and intent of the same phrase, in other places. When Solomon passed sentence on Shemei, the same phrase is made use of, "On the day thou goest forth,.and passest over the brook Kidron, thou shalt know for certain, that thou shalt surely die. (2) Heb. Moth Yumoth. The prophet Elisha uses the same phrase to Hazeal, to denote thereby the certainty of the death of Ben-hadiib King of Syria. "The Lord hath shewn me, that he shall surely die." (3) Heb. Moth Yumoth. When Saul doomed his son Jonathan to death, he makes use of the game expression: "Thou shalt surely die Jonathan." (4) Heb. Moth Yumoth, he also uses the same expression, when he sentenced the Priest: "Thou shalt surely die Ahimelech," (5) Heb. Moth Yumoth

From which passages, and from all others in scripture, where the same phrase is made use of, it is plain that nothing but a corporeal death could be intended; thus you see the foundation, on which this grand superstructure is built. The sentence therefore only imports that, on the day Adam eat the forbiden fruit, he should be mortal. That being the punishment to be inflicted, he was banished Paradise, that he might be exposed to want and calamities ; that by a decay of

(I) Gen. ii. 17. (2) 1st Kings, ii. 37. (3) 2d King*, viii. 10. (4) 1st Sam. xiv. 44. (5) 1st Sam. xxii. 16.

nature and frame, it might come on him. The punishment, being thus inflicted on the aggressor, would it be just, to doom his race to Eternal Damnation? Is such conduct reconcilable to the gooducss and mercy of God? (6) Supposing a Legislature instituted a Law, and enacted a certain penalty, or punishment, to be inflicted on those who transgressed that Law: could any other, greater punishment be inflicted on the transgressor, besides that which had been enacted? would it not be a very great injustice, to impose a greater punishment, on the offender? and if this would be so in human laws, and tribunals, how much more so would it be in the Merciful God? In what a woful, and miserable state must the whole human race be in, if notwithstanding they in all respects obeyed the word of God, by which they were intitled to mercy, should notwithstanding continue, and be under his wrath and heavy displeasure! both here and hereafter! to what purpose did he give laws, if those who practised the duties enjoined by them, were not to be benifitted thereby? can this be made consistent? N O. This is invented, to give a colouring, to what is not on any ground whatever to be maintained, or supported. To support the doctrine before mentioned, it is pretended that this history of the fall, ought not to be taken literaly. I cannot better answer this objection, then in the words made use of by the authors of the Universal History. "It cannot be denied" say they, "that some of the philosophers affected such an allegorical way of writing; to conceal their notions from the vulgar; and keep their learning within the bounds of their own school: Yet it is apparent, Moses had no such design: and as he pretends only, to relate matters of fact, just as they happened, without art or disguise; it cannot be supposed, but that the history of the fall, is to be taken in a literal sense: as well as the rest of his writings."(7) Notwithstanding this assertion, these authors, immediately declare themselves of opinion, that it was the devil, who made use of the serpents body. That this beast stands for and means the devil, is also the opinion of every

» ian commentator, and is particularly asserted by Doc. Sherlock,

who has taken great pains, to establish this point: but conscious, that the passsge as it stands, could not bear that meaning, he adds, "You'll say what an unreasonable liberty of interpretation is this? tell us by what rules of language, the seed of the woman, is made to denote, one particular person? (that is Jesus,) and by what art you discover, the

Mystery of 's miraculous conception, and birth, in this common

expression ? tell us also how, bruising the serpent's head, comes to signify, destroying the power of sin, and the redemption of mankind by

(6) Univ. Hist. Vol. I. pa. 125. (7) Univ. Hist. Vol. L pa. 135.

« AnteriorContinuar »