Exercitation 17: The Third Dissertation, Proving Jesus to Be the Promised Messiah

Jesus whom Paul preached, the true Messiah. First Argument from the time of his coming. Foundation of this Argument unquestionable. Coming of Jesus at the time appointed, proved by Scripture, Record, and Catholick Tradition. By the testimonies of Heathen Writers. By the confession of the Talmudical Jews. Jesus Christ intended by them, in their story of Jesus the Son of Pandira and Stada. No other came at that season, by them owned. Force of this Argument. Characteristical notes of the Messiah, given out in the Old Testament. His Family, Stock, or Lineage, confined to the posterity of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Judah, David. Our Lord Jesus, of the posterity of Abraham, and Tribe of Judah, also of the Family of David. Testimonies of the Evangelists vindicated. Jesoes exceptions in general answered. In particular, the Genealogie, not proved; answered. The Genealogie of Matthew declared, and of Luke. The place of the Birth of the Messiah, Bethlehem, Micah 5:2. Circumstances enforcing this consideration. The Evangelists Citation of the words of the Prophet vindicated. The Messiah to be born of a Virgin. Isa. 7:10, 11. and Matth. 1.21, 22. Jews convinced that Jesus was born of a Virgin. Jews exceptions, to the Application of this Prophecy. Their weight. The answer of some to them; unsafe, needless. True sense of the words. Exceptions answered. The signification and use of [in non-Latin alphabet]. Greatness of the sign promised. No other Virgin and Son designed but Jesus Christ and his Mother. The Prophecy cleared in this instance. In what sense the Birth of the Messiah, a sign of present deliverance. Remaining Objections answered. Other Characters of the Messiah. He was to be a Prophet, Deut. 18:19. A Prophet like to Moses. Expected by the Jews. Jesus Christ a Prophet. That Prophet. The nature of the doctrine which he taught. Its perfection. The works of the Messiah revealed, only in the Gospel of Christ; also the nature and end of Mosaical Institutions. Threatnings to the disobedient fallen upon the Jews. Sufferings are an other character of the Messiah his Passion foretold, Psal. 22. The true Messiah therein intended. Expositions of Kimchi and others confused. Sufferings peculiar to the Messiah. The Psalm exactly fulfilled in Jesus Christ. Objections of the Jews from the principles of Christians, answered. Isa. 53. Prophecy of the suffering of the Messiah. Consent of the Antient Jews. Targum. Bereshith Rabba. Talmud, Ashech. Invalidity of exceptions of latter Rabbins. Applications to the Lord Jesus vindicated. Other Testimonies concerning the sufferings of the Messiah. Jews Traditions to the same purpose. Other Arguments proving Jesus to be the true Messiah. Miracles. The nature of them, wrought by Christ; proved. Testimony of the Gospel. Notoriety of Tradition. Miracles of Christ compared with those of Moses. Excelling them, in number; in manner of their being wrought; in their nature; in his giving power to others, to effect them; in his resurrection from the Dead; continuance of them in the World. Jews self-conviction evinced. Causes of the miracles of Christ, assigned by them. Art Magical, retorted; removed. The name of God. Testimonies of his Disciples; Success of the Doctrine of Jesus. Last Argument.

The third branch of that great supposition and fundamental Article of faith, whereon the Apostle builds his Arguments and Reasonings, wherewith he deals with the Hebrews is, that Jesus whom he preached was the true and only promised Messiah who came forth from God for the accomplishment of his work; according to the time determined and foretold. The confirmation of this foundation of our faith, and profession, is that which now in the third place we must engage in. A subject this is whereon I could insist at large, with much satisfaction to my self; nor have I just cause to fear, that the matter treated of, would be irksom to any Christian Reader. But we must have respect to our present design, for it is not absolutely and of set purpose, that we handle these things, but meerly with respect to that further end of opening the springs of the Apostles Divine reasonings in this Epistle, and therefore must contract (as much as may be) the Arguments that we have to plead in this case. And yet neither can this be so done, but that some continuance of discourse will be unavoidably necessary. And the course we shall proceed in, is the same we have passed through in our foregoing demonstrations of the promise of the Messiah, and of his coming. Our Arguments are first to be produced, and vindicated from the particular exceptions of the Jews; and then their opposition to our Thesis in general, is to be removed, referring an Answer to their special Objections to another Dissertation.

That we may the more orderly annex our present Discourse to that foregoing: our first Argument shall be taken from that which is proved, and confirmed therein; namely, the time limited and determined for the coming of the Messiah. Two wayes there are, whereby the time fore-appointed of God for the coming of the Messiah, is signified and made known. First, By certain [in non-Latin alphabet], or evident tokens, taken from the Judaical Church, with the state and condition of the whole people of the Jews. This we have insisted on from Genesis 49:10, Haggai 2:8, Malachi 3:1, 2. Secondly, By a computation of the time its self as to its duration, from a certain fixed date to its expiration. This way we have unfolded and vindicated at large, from Daniel 9:24, 25, 26, 27. And although herein we have evidenced the truth and exactness of the computation insisted on by us, as far as any Chronological accounts of times past are capable of being demonstrated. Yet we have also manifested, that our Argument depends not on the precise bounding of the time limited; but lying [in non-Latin alphabet] is of equal force, however the computation be calculated, the whole time limited being undeniably expired before, or at the destruction of the City and Temple. Hence is the foundation of our first Argument. Before or at the expiration of that time the promised Messiah was to come. Before, or at that time, as denoted and described by the general [in non-Latin alphabet], or evident tokens before mentioned, and limited, by the computation insisted on, came Jesus, and no other that the Jews can or do pretend to have been the Messiah; and therefore he was the true promised Messiah.

§ 3 The foundation of this argument, namely, that the Messiah was to come within the time limited, prefixed and foretold cannot be shaken, without calling into question the truth of all promises and predictions in the Old Testament, and consequently the faithfulness and power of God. The great design, whose lines are drawn in the face, and whose substance lyes in the bowels of the Old Testament, and which is the Spirit that enlivens the whole doctrine, and story of it, the bond of union, wherein all the parts of it do center, without which they would be loose, scattered, and deformed heaps, is the bringing forth of the Messiah, the Savior of the world. Without an apprehension of this design and faith therein, neither can a letter of it be understood, nor can a rational man discover any important excellency in it. Him it promiseth; Him it typifieth; Him it teacheth, and prophesieth about: Him it calls all men to desire and expect. When it has done thus, in several places it expresly limits, foretells, and declares, the time wherein He shall be sent and exhibited. If there be a failure herein, seeing it is done to give evidence to all other things that are spoken concerning him, by which they are to be tryed, and to stand or fall, as they receive approbation or discountenance from there. To what end should any man trouble himself, about that which is cast, as a fancy and empty imagination, by its own verdict? If then the Messiah came not within the time limited, all expectation from the Scripture of the Old Testament, must come to nought; which these, with whom at present we contend, will not grant.

Nor can the Jews on such a supposition, in any measure defend the truth of it against an infidel. For to his enquiry where is the promised Messiah, if they shall plead their usual pretences, it is easie for him to reply, that these things being no where mentioned, nor intimated in the Books themselves, they are only such subterfuges as any man may palliate the most open untruths withal. And indeed, the ridiculous figment of his being born at the time appointed, but kept hid to this day, they know not where, is not to be pleaded, when they deal with men not bereft of their senses, or judicially blinded by God. For besides, that the whole of it, is a childish, toyish fiction, inconsistant with the nature and being of their Messiah, whom they make to be a meer man subject to mortality, in his whole person, like all the other sons of Adam, it suits not at all to the difficulty intended, to be assoyled by it. For it is not his being born only, but also his accomplishment of his work and office, at the time determined which is foretold. Nor is there any one jot more of probability in their other pretence, about their own sins and unworthiness. For, as we have declared, this is nothing but in plain terms to assert, that God has violated his faith and promise; and that in a matter, wherein the great concernments of his own glory, and the welfare of all mankind does consist, upon the account of their miscarriages, which as they either cannot, or will not remedy, so he himself has not, (though he might have so done) provided any relief against. This then stands upon equal evidence with the whole authority of the Old Testament, namely, that the promised Messiah, was to come within the time prefixed for his coming, and foretold.

We ask them then, if Jesus of Nazareth be not the Messiah, where is he? Or who is he that came in answer to the prophecies insisted on? Two things then remain to be proved. First, that our Lord Jesus Christ came, lived, and dyed within the time limited for the coming of the Messiah. Secondly, that no other came within that season, that either pretended with any color of probability to that dignity, or was ever as such, owned or esteemed by the Jews themselves.

First then, that Jesus came and lived in the time limited to the coming of the § 4 Messiah, some short space of time before the departure of scepter and scribe from Judah, the ceasing of the daily sacrifice, and final desolation of the second Temple, we have all the evidence, that a matter of fact so long passed, is capable of as good, as that the world was of old by God created. The stories of the Church are express, that he was born during the empire of Augustus Caesar, in the latter end of the reign of Herod over Judaea, when Cyrenius was governor over Syria; that he lived to the time, wherein Pontius Pilate was governor of Judaea under Tiberius, about thirty six or thirty seven years before the destruction of the nation, city and Temple by Titus. This the stories written by divine inspiration, and committed to the care of the Church, expresly affirm; neither have the Jews any thing to object against the truth of the relation, what ever thoughts they have of his person, who he was, or what he did: that he lived and dyed then, and there, is left testified on records beyond controll. And if they should deny it, what is the bare negation of a few interested, blinded persons, without testimonies or evidence from any one circumstance of times, persons, or actions to be laid in the ballance against the catholic tradition of all the world, whether believing in Jesus, or rejecting of him. For they all alwayes consented in this, that he lived, and died at the time mentioned in the sacred stories.

And this was still one part of the charge managed against his followers, in the very next age after, that they believed in a person whom they knew to live at such a season, and in a mean condition. Neither did the most malicious and fierce impugners of the religion taught by him, such as Celsus, Porphyrie, and Julian ever once attempt to attacque the truth of the story, as to his real existence, and the time of it. So that herein we have as concurrent a suffrage as the whole world in any case is able to afford.

The best of the historians of the nations, who lived near those times, give their testimony to what is recorded in our Gospel. The words of one of them, a person of unquestionable credit, in things that he could attain the knowledge of, and as it will appear by them, far enough from any compliance with the followers of Jesus, may suffice for an instance. This is Cornelius Tacitus, in the fifteenth of his Annals: Abolendo (says he) rumori (he speaks of Nero and his firing of Rome,) subdidit reos, & quaesitissimis poenis affecit, quos per flagitia invisos vulgus Christianos appellebat. Author ejus nominis Christus qui Tiberio imperitante per procuratorem Pontium Pilatum supplicio affectus erat. He expressly assigns the time of the death of Christ to the reign of Tiberius, and government of Pilate. The same also is confirmed by the Jews' own historian Flavius Josephus, in the fourth chapter of the eighteenth book of their Antiquities; to which season also he assigns the death of John the Baptist, who was his contemporary, according to the Evangelical Story.

Further, we have that testimony in this matter, which though in itself, it be of little or no moment, yet as to them with whom we have to do, is cogent above all others; and this is their own confession. They acknowledge in the Talmud, that he lived before the desolation of the second Temple, for they tell us, cap. Cheleck, and [in non-Latin alphabet] — cap. 2. that he was the Son of Pandira and Stada, and that he lived in the days of the Maccabees, Alexander, Hircanus, and Aristobulus, under whom he was crucified. I confess Galatinus, Reuchlinus, and of late the learned Schiklard with some others do contend that it is not Jesus Christ whom they intend in the wicked story which they tell of that Jesus the Son of Pandira. But the reasons they insist on, are of no cogency to procure the assent of any one, acquainted with their writings; no though the latter Jews themselves (ashamed of the prodigious lies of their fore-fathers, and afraid to own their blasphemies, for fear of provoking the Christians against them) do faintly (some of them) deny him to be the person intended. The names of their parents, say they, agree not. The Lord Jesus was the reputed Son of Joseph, the true Son of Mary. This Jesus of the Talmud, was the Son of Pandira and Stada. I shall not reply that Damascenus lib. 4. places a Panther; and Barpanther, on the genealogy of Christ, making the latter grandfather to the blessed Virgin, seeing it is evident that he borrowed that part of his genealogy from some corrupt traditions of the Jews.

The reason why the Talmudists concealed the true names of the parents of Jesus are evident; for by this means they more covered their malice, in one respect, and gave more blasphemous vent to it, in another. They concealed it thus far, that every one might not perfectly understand whom they intended, unless he were a disciple of their own. And they gave it vent in the reflection they cast upon the Evangelical Story, as though it had not given us the true names of the parents of Jesus. And moreover, they gave themselves liberty by this means to coin new lies at their pleasure, for they may say what they would of their Pandira and Stada though all the world knew it to be false as to Joseph and Mary. [in non-Latin alphabet], Pandira is a feigned name, insignificant, and invented by them for this only purpose. They sometimes write it with [in non-Latin alphabet] in the midst instead of [in non-Latin alphabet], Panthira: so that Galatinus does perfectly contradict himself in this matter; for whereas lib. 1. cap. 7. he contends that by Jesus the Son of Pandira mentioned in the Talmud, the Lord Jesus is not intended, lib. 8. cap. 5. he asserts, that Jesus the Son of Panthira, in whose name James the Just healed the sick and wrought miracles, was the Lord Jesus; as indeed it was he, whom they intend also in that story about James. But now Pandira and Panthira are the same; and so also was he who they term his Son. [in non-Latin alphabet], Stada is also a name framed to the same end; and as the learned Buxtorfe supposes from [in non-Latin alphabet], one that went aside, declined, or was an adulteress. And they feign her to have been a plaiter of women's hair, with other monstrous lies at their pleasure; but yet expressly in sundry places confess that her true name was Mary, and as I suppose, from the imputations mentioned, do wilfully confound her with Mary Magdalen, as Mahomet did with Miriam the Sister of Moses. These stories must be searched for in the Talmud printed at Venice, for they are left out in that printed at Basil. The exception is yet more impertinent that the things which are ascribed to Jesus the Son of Pandira, can by no means be accommodated to Jesus Christ. As though the Talmudical rabbins had ever accustomed themselves to speak one true word concerning him, or as though they intended not him in all these blasphemous lies, wherewith they and their fore-fathers reproached him; which is all one as if we should say, that it was another and not the Lord Jesus whom they accused of sedition, blasphemies, and seducing the people, because indeed he was most remote from such things. But yet also there were sundry things which they ascribe to this Jesus the Son of Pandira and Stada which make very apparent who it was whom they intended; for first, they say that he learned magic in Egypt, which upon his being carried there in his infancy, they ascribe to him: again, they say he was a seducer of the people; which we know was the accusation that they managed against the Lord Jesus.

Again, They tell us a story concerning two men placed in a room near him, to over-hear his seducing, that so they might accuse him; this they say was their course to intrap Seducers, and thereof they give this instance. So they did to the Son of Stada, and they hanged him on the Eve of the Passeover. The witnesses they speak of are no others but the false witnesses mentioned (Matthew 26:60, 61). The kind of his death, hanged on a tree, with the time of it, the Eve of the Passeover, do also fully make naked their intentions. The age only, or the time of his life remains, from where any difficulty is pretended. This Jesus the Son of Pandira they have affirmed to have lived in the dayes of Alexander, and to have been crucified in the dayes of Aristobulus, an hundred, or an hundred and ten years before the birth of Christ. But the mysterie of this fiction also is discovered by Abraham Levita, in his Cabala Historiae. He tells us that the Christians placed the death of their Christ under Pilate, that so they might shew, that the destruction of the City and Temple fell out not long after his death; whereas he sayes, it is apparent from the Mishna and Talmud, that he was crucified in the dayes of the Maccabes, an hundred years before. And here we have unawares the sore discovered, and the true reason laid open, why the Talmudists attempted, to transferr the time of his death, from the dayes of Herod the Tetrarch, to the Rule of Aristobulus the Hasmonaean; namely, lest they should be compelled to acknowledge their utter ruine to have so suddenly ensued upon their rejection of him, as indeed it did. However, as to our present purpose, we have in general this confession of our adversaries themselves, that the Lord Jesus came before the destruction of the City and Temple, which was that we undertook to confirm.

We, Secondly, In the pursuit of our argument, affirmed that no other person came, at, or within the time limited, that could pretend to be the Messiah. This the Jews themselves confess, nor can they think otherwise, without destroying themselves. For if any such person came, seeing they received him not, nor do own him to this day, their guilt would be the same, that we charge upon them, for the refusing of our Lord Jesus. There is no need then, that we should go over the tragical stories of Barchocheba, Moses Cretensis, David el David, and such other imposters. For whereas none of them came or lived within the time determined, so they are all disclaimed by themselves, as seducers and causers of great misery to their people and nation. Herein then we have the consent of all parties concerned, which renders all further evidence unnecessary.

From what therefore has been spoken, and disputed; it remaineth, that either our Lord Jesus was, and is the true Messiah, as coming from God in the season limited for that purpose, or that the whole promise concerning the Messiah is a meer figment, the whole Old Testament a fable, and so both the old and present religion of the Jews a delusion. At that season the Messiah must come, or there is an end of all religion. If any came then, whom they had rather embrace for their Messiah then our Lord Jesus: let them do so, and own him, that we may know who he was, and what he has done for them. If none such there were, that can be so esteemed, as in truth, and as themselves universally acknowledge there was not, their obstinacy and blindness in refusing the only promised Messiah is such, as no reasonable man can give an account of, who does not call to mind the righteous judgement of God in giving them up to blindness and obstinacy, as a just punishment for their rejection and murthering his only Son. And this argument is of such importance, as that with the consideration of the doctrine of Christ, and his success in the world, it may well be allowed to stand alone in this contest.

Our second argument is taken from those characteristical notes that are given in the Scripture of the Messiah. Now these are such, as by which the Church might know him, and upon which they were bound to receive him. All these we shall find to agree and center in the person of our Lord Jesus. Some of the principal of them we shall therefore insist upon, and vindicate from the exceptions of the Jews. The stock whereof he came, the place and manner of his birth, the course of his life and death, what he taught, and what he suffered, are the principal of those signs and notes that God gave out to discover the Messiah in his appointed time; and as they were very sufficient for that purpose, so upon the matter they comprise all the signs and tokens whereby any person may be predesigned and signified.

First, For the family, stock, or lineage whereof he was to come; there was a threefold restitution of it, after the promise had for a long time run in general, that he should be of the seed of the woman, or take his nature from among mankind. The first was to the seed of Abraham (Genesis 15:17), and under that alone, there was no more required, but that he should spring from among his posterity, until God added that peculiar limitation to it, in Isaac shall your seed be called (Genesis 21:12). After this in the family of Isaac, Jacob peculiarly inherited the promise; and his posterity being branched into twelve tribes or families, the rise or nativity of the Messiah was confined to the tribe of Judah (Genesis 49:10). This made it further necessary that from him, by some one of the numerous families that sprang of him he should proceed. Out of that tribe God afterwards raised the kingly family of David to be a type and representation of the kingdom of the Messiah; and hereupon he restrained the promise to that familie, though not to any particular branch of it. Hereunto no other restriction was ever afterwards added.

It was not then at any time made necessary by promise that the Messiah should proceed from the Royal branch, or family of the House of David, but only that he should be born of some of his posterity, by what family soever, poor or rich, in power or subjection, he derived his Genealogy from him. His Kingdom was to be quite of another nature than that of David or Solomon; nor did he derive his Title in the least thereunto from the right of the Davidical House to the Kingdom of Judah. Thus far then it pleased God to design this Stock and Family of the Messiah. He was to be of the posterity of Abraham, of the Tribe of Judah, of the family of David. And although this evidence in its latitude will conclude only thus far, that no one can be pretended to be the Messiah whose Genealogy is not so derived by David, and Judah to Abraham; yet by the addition of this circumstance in the Providence of God, that no one since the destruction of the City and Temple can plead or demonstrate that original; seeing this was given out for a note, and sign to know him by, it proves undeniably, that he whom we assert was the true Messiah. For to what end should this token of him be given forth to know him by, when all Genealogies of the people being utterly lost; it is impossible it should be of any use in the discovery of him.

§ 11 First then, For Abraham there is no question between us and the Jews, but that the Lord Jesus was of his offspring and posterity. Neither do they pretend any exceptions to his being of the Tribe of Judah; the Apostle in this Epistle asserts it as a thing notorious and unquestionable (Chap. 7:14). [in non-Latin alphabet], says he, [in non-Latin alphabet]; it is every way, or altogether manifest, that our Lord sprang of Judah: [in non-Latin alphabet], is in Greek Authors, not only manifest, but openly and conspicuously so. Thus he is said, [in non-Latin alphabet], in Sophocles, who died openly and gloriously by all men's consent. Thus was the birth of our Savior among the Jews themselves, as to his springing from the Tribe of Judah. The Apostle declares that it was [in non-Latin alphabet], without any contradiction received among them, and acknowledged by them. Nor to this day, do they lay any exception to this assertion. It remains, that we prove him to have been of the Family of David by some one signal branch of it. For as we said, there is nothing in the promise restraining his original to the first reigning family, or the direct posterity thereof. Now this is purposely declared by two of the Evangelists, who being Jews, and living among them, wrote the story of his life in the Age wherein he lived, for the use of the Jews themselves, with the residue of mankind. Matthew who calls his record of it, [in non-Latin alphabet], or [in non-Latin alphabet], the roll of his Genealogies, shows in the front of it, that he wrote it on purpose to declare, that he was according to the promise of the posterity of Abraham, and of the family of David. Of Jesus Christ the Son of David the Son of Abraham: That is, who was promised to Abraham and David, to spring from their loins. Luke also who derives his Genealogy from the first giving of the promise to Adam, brings it down through the several restrictions mentioned by Abraham, Judah and David. Other testimony or evidence in this matter of fact is utterly impossible for us to give, and unreasonable for any other to demand. It was written and published to all the world, by persons of unquestionable integrity, who had as much advantage to know the truth of the matter about which they wrote, as any men ever had, or can have in a matter of that nature. And this they did not upon rumors, or traditions of former days, but in that very Age wherein he lived, and that to the faces of them, whose great interest it was to except against what they wrote; and who would undoubtedly have so done, had they not been overpowered with the conviction of the truth of it: had they had the least suspicion on the contrary, why did they not in some of their consultations and rage against him and his doctrine, once object this to himself, or his followers, that he was not of the family of David, and so could not be the person he pretended himself to be. Besides, the persons who wrote his Genealogy, sealed their testimony, not only with their lives, but with their eternal condition; an higher assurance of truth can no men give.

§ 12 Two things the present Jews except to this testimony. First in general, they deny the authority of our witnesses, and deny the whole matter that they assert. Secondly, in particular they say, they prove not the matter in question; namely, that Jesus of Nazareth was of the family of David. For the first, they neither have, nor do yield any other reasons but their own wills and unbelief. They neither do, nor will believe what they have written. Record, testimony, tradition, or any circumstance contradicting their witness, they have none; only they will not believe them. Now whether it be meet, that their mere obstinacy and unbelief, wherein, and for which they perish temporally and eternally, should be of any weight with reasonable men, is easy to determine. Besides, I desire to know of the Jews whether they think it reasonable that any man without reason, testimony, evidence, or record, to give them countenance, should call into question, disbelieve and deny the things witnessed to, and written by Moses. It is known what they will answer to this demand, and thereby they will stop their own mouths, as to the refusal of our record in this matter, so that this exception which amounts to no more but this, that the Jews believe not the Gospel, and that because they will not, needs no particular consideration, it being [illegible] which we plead with them about in all these our discourses. And as to our own faith it is secured by all these evidences which we give of the sacred authority of the Writings of the New Testament.

But moreover they except in particular, that neither of the Evangelists do either assert, or prove indeed that our Lord Jesus did spring from the family of David. For whereas they assert, and Christians believe, that he was born of the Virgin Mary, without conjunction of man, and that Joseph was only reputed to be his Father, because his Mother was legally espoused to him, both Genealogies belong to Joseph alone, as is evident from the beginning of the one, and the end of the other. Now the Lord Jesus being not related to Joseph, but by the legal contract of his Mother, he cannot be esteemed in his right to belong to the family of David. This is pleaded by many of them, as also they take notice of the difficulties which have exercised many Christians in the reconciliation of the several Genealogies recorded by the two Evangelists; to all which exceptions, we shall briefly reply, and take them out of our way.

First, Suppose it granted, that the Genealogy recorded by Matthew be properly the Genealogy of Joseph, what madness is it to imagine that avowedly proposing to manifest Jesus Christ to have been of the family of David, and premising that design, in the title of his Genealogy, he does not prove and confirm what he had so designed, according to the Laws of Genealogies, and of the legal just asserting any one to be of such a tribe or family. No more is required for the accomplishment of the promise, but that the Lord Jesus should be so of the family of David, as it was required by the Laws of Families and Genealogies, that any person might belong to it. Now this might be by the legal marriage of his Mother to him who was of that family; for after that contract of marriage, whatever Tribe or Family she was of before, she was legally accounted to be of that Family, whereunto by her espousals she was engrafted. And of that Family, and no other, was he to be reckoned, who was born of her, after those espousals. Now that the reckoning of Families and Relations among the Jews by God's own appointment, did not always follow Natural Generations, but sometimes Legal Institutions, is manifest by the Law of a man dying without Issue: for when the next Kinsman took the Wife of the deceased, to raise up seed to him, he that was born of the Woman, was by Law not reckoned to be his Son by whom he was begotten, but was to be the Son, and of the Family of him that was deceased, to bear his name, and inherit his estate (Numbers 36:6). And this legal cognation, Luke seems to intimate, chap. 1:27, where he says, that the Mother of Jesus was espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the Family of David; there being no reason to mention his Family, but that the Genealogy of his Wife's Son was to relate thereunto. And if this were the Law of Genealogies, and legal relations to Tribes and Families, as evidently it was, Matthew recording the Genealogy of Joseph, to whom the blessed Virgin was espoused before the birth of Jesus Christ, does record his, according to the mind of him who gave both Law and Promise, and upon this known Rule of Genealogies, and legal relations, may Matthew proceed in his recital of the pedigree of Joseph, and profess thereby to manifest, how Jesus Christ was the Son of David, the Son of Abraham. Secondly, Although there was no indispensable necessity among the Jews, binding them to marry within their Tribes, unless the Women were inheritrixes, in which case provision was made, that inheritances might not be transferred from one Tribe to another, yet it is more than probable, that the blessed Virgin Mary was of the same Family with Joseph, and this so notoriously known, that seeing Genealogies were not reckoned by Women, nor the Genealogies of Women directly recorded, there was no better, or more certain way of declaring his pedigree, who was born of Mary, than by his, to whom she was so nearly related. So that on several accounts, the Genealogy recorded by Matthew, proves Jesus Christ to have been of the Family of David.

Secondly, For Luke, he does directly, and of set purpose, give us the Genealogy of the blessed Virgin Mary, the Mother of our Lord Jesus; for the line of his progenitors, which he derives from Nathan, is not at all the same with that of Joseph from Solomon, insisted on by Matthew. It is true, there are a Zerubbabel and Salathiel in both Genealogies, but this proves not both the lines to be the same: for the lines of Solomon and Nathan, might by marriage meet in these persons, and so leave it indifferent, which line was followed up to David; and the lines of Joseph and Mary might be separated again in the posterity of Zerubbabel, Matthew following one of them, and Luke the other. This, I say, is possible, but the Truth is, (as is evident from the course of generations insisted on) that the Zerubbabel and Salathiel mentioned in Matthew, were not the same persons with those of the same names in Luke, those being of the house of Solomon, these of the house of Nathan. So that from David it is not the line of Joseph, but of the blessed Virgin that is recited by Luke. And the words wherewith Luke prefaces his Genealogy do no way impeach this assertion; for whereas these words, as was supposed, are usually placed and read in Parenthesis, the Parenthesis may be better extended to include Joseph; being (as was supposed, the Son of Joseph) the Son of Heli: or Joseph may be said to be the Son of Heli, because his Daughter was espoused to him, otherwise the true natural Father of Joseph was Jacob, as Matthew declares, Heli being the Father of the blessed Virgin. So that both legally and naturally our Lord Jesus Christ was a descendant of the house and lineage of David, according to the promise. And as this was unquestionable among the Jews in the days of his conversation in the flesh, so the present Jews have nothing of moment to oppose to these unquestionable Records.

§ 16 This is the first characteristical note given of the Messiah, whereby he might be known, and it has strength added to it by the providence of God, in that all genealogies among the Jews, are now so confounded, and have been so, for so many generations, that it is utterly impossible that any one should rise among them, and manifest himself to be of this, or that particular family. The burning of their genealogies by Herod, the extirpation of the family of David by Vespasian, and their one thousand and six hundred years dispersion, have put an utter end to all probability about the genealogies among them. The Jews indeed pretend that the family of the Messiah shall be revealed by the miracles that he should do; that is, by knowing him to be the Messiah, they shall know of what family he is. But this note of his family is given out to know him by; nor are we anywhere directed to learn his family from our knowledge of him.

§ 17 Another note or sign pointing out the Messiah in prophecy, was the place where he should be born, which added to the time wherein, and the family whereof, he should be brought forth, evidently designed his person. This place of his nativity is foretold (Micah 5:2): [in non-Latin alphabet]. And you Bethlehem Ephrata, is it (or it is) little for you to be among the thousands of Judah; out of you shall come forth to me, he that shall be Ruler in Israel, whose goings forth are from of old, from the days of eternity. That of old this prophecy was understood by the church of the Jews, to denote the place of the birth of the Messiah; we have an illustrious testimony in the records of the Christian Church (Matthew 2:5, 6). Upon the demand of Herod, where the Messiah should be born, the chief priests and scribes affirm with one consent, that he was to be born at Bethlehem, confirming their judgement by this place of the prophet. And afterwards when they supposed that our Lord Jesus had been born in Galilee, because he lived there, they made this an argument against him, because he was not born according to the Scripture in Bethlehem, the town where David was (John 7:41, 42). And we have the concurrence of their own testimony in this matter: so the Chaldee Paraphrase renders these words, [in non-Latin alphabet] out of you shall come forth to me the Ruler, [in non-Latin alphabet] out of you shall come forth to me the Messiah, who shall have the dominion; taking it for granted, that he it is whom this place is spoken of. So also K. Solomon expounds the place, [in non-Latin alphabet] &c. [in non-Latin alphabet] little to be in the thousands of Judah, that is, you deserve to be so, because of the profanation of Ruth the Moabitess, who was in you, out of you shall come forth to me the Messiah, the Son of David; and so he says, the stone which the builders refused. And though Kimchi seems to deny that the Messiah shall be born in Bethlehem, yet he grants that it is he, who is here prophesied of, out of you shall come forth [in non-Latin alphabet] to me the Messiah, for he shall be of the seed of David, who was of Bethlehem. He grants, I say, that it is the Messiah that is here prophesied of, though against Rashi, the Targum and the text, he would deny that he should be born in Bethlehem. But his interpretation is fond and forced to serve the present turn, because the Jews know that the Lord Jesus was born there. God speaks to Bethlehem the city of David, and gives an account how greatly he will magnify it, beyond what it then seemed to deserve; and this he will do by raising out of, and from that place (not from David, who was born at that place) the Messiah, who was to rule his people Israel. This then was the place of old designed for the birth of the Messiah, and there was our Lord Jesus born, at the appointed time, of the tribe of Judah, and family of David; and there are sundry circumstances giving weight to this consideration.

First, whereas the parents of Jesus were outwardly of a mean condition, and living in Galilee, it may be supposed that they were very little known, or taken notice of, to be of the lineage and off-spring of David; nor it may be in their low estate did they much desire to declare that, which would be of no advantage, and perhaps of some hazard to them: but now their coming to Bethlehem, and that whether they would or no, upon the command of public authority, made their house and kindred known to all the Jews, especially those of the family of David, who were then all of them gathered together in that place. Secondly, there is no just nor appearing reason to be given that should move the Roman Emperor to decree that description and enrolment of persons which brought them to Bethlehem: a matter it was of great charge and trouble to the whole Empire, which at that time enjoyed the greatest peace and tranquility. The Temple of Janus was then shut, and all things in quietness in all parts of the world. Neither was there afterwards any public use made of that enrollment; nor is it certain that it was accomplished in many other nations. But the infinite, holy, wise governor of all the world, puts this into his mind, and incites him on this work, to set mankind into a motion that two persons of low condition might be brought out of Galilee into Bethlehem, that Jesus might according to this prophecy be born there. Thirdly, it is not likely that Joseph and Mary had any thoughts at that time about the place where the Messiah should be born, and so probably had not the least design of removing their habitation to Bethlehem; or if they had so, yet their doing of it on their own accord, might have given advantage to the Jews, to say that the mother of Jesus did not indeed any way belong to Bethlehem, but only went there to be delivered, that she might report her Son the better to be the Messiah. But by this admirable providence of God, all these, and sundry other difficulties of the like nature, are removed out of the way, their minds are determined, a journey they must take, and that at a time very unseasonable for the Holy Virgin, when she was so near the time of her delivery, and be publicly enrolled of the family of David, upon the command of him who never knew ought of that business, which none but himself could be instrumental to accomplish. Fourthly, not long after this, that town of Bethlehem was utterly destroyed, nor has been for a thousand and six hundred years, either great or small among the thousands of Judah. And all these circumstances give much light to this characteristical presignation of the person of the Messiah, from the place of his birth or nativity.

The exceptions of the Jews to the Evangelists citation of the words of the Prophet concern not the testimony itself, nor are indeed of any great importance. For first, the Evangelist intended no more, but only to direct to that testimony which was given to the nativity of the Messiah at Bethlehem, reciting so much of the words, and in such manner, as to prove by them that which he intended. He took not upon him to repeat every word as they were written by the Prophet (which he might easily have done had he designed it, and that without the least disadvantage to what he aimed at,) but only to declare how the assertion was proved, that the Messiah was to be born at Bethlehem.

Secondly, he uses the words to no other purpose than that for which by the Jews acknowledgement they were recorded by the Prophet; neither in the alterations that are made in this recital is there one letter taken from the Prophet's words, or added to them, used by him to the advantage of his assertion, which is the whole that the utmost scrupulosists can require in the recital of the words of another by the way of testimony.

Thirdly, he seems not to repeat the words of the Prophet himself immediately, but only to record the answer which from these words of the Prophet, was given to Herod by the Priests and Scribes. So that the repetition of the words is theirs, and not his properly.

Fourthly, whose ever the words are, as there is nothing in the whole of them discrepant from, much less contrary to, those of the Prophet, nor are used to signify any thing but the open plain intention of the Prophet: so are all the particulars wherein a difference appears between them, capable of a fair reconciliation. This we shall manifest by passing briefly through them.

The first difference is in the first words; [in non-Latin alphabet], and you Bethlehem Ephrata; which are rendered in the Evangelist; [in non-Latin alphabet]; and you Bethlehem in the land of Judah; that Bethlehem which was of old called Ephrata, from its first builder (1 Chronicles 4:4), that name being now forgotten and worn out of use, is here said to be, as it was indeed, in the land of Judah; to distinguish it from Bethlehem, that was in the lot or land of Zebulun, as both Rashi and Kimchi observe (Joshua 19:15). And it may be to denote withal the relation that the Messiah had to Judah. So that here there is no discrepancy. Bethlehem Ephrata, and Bethlehem in the land of Judah, are one and the same name and place. 2. In the ensuing words there is more variety, [in non-Latin alphabet], little to be in the thousands of Judah: in the Evangelist, [in non-Latin alphabet]; art not the least among the leaders of Judah; [in non-Latin alphabet], parva, or little, in the positive, is rendered by the Evangelist, [in non-Latin alphabet], in the superlative degree, the Hebrews have no superlative degree in their language, and therefore do often express the importance of it by the positive with [in non-Latin alphabet] following, as it does in this place; [in non-Latin alphabet], little in the thousands of Judah, that is the least of them, if the word be adjectively to be expounded.

[〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], that is [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], (as the word is rendered by the LXX) is in the Evangelist [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], Princes, Rulers, Leaders. The Israelites in their political order were distributed into Tens, Hundreds, and Thousands, not unlike the distribution in our own country, into Tythings, Hundreds, and Counties; and each portion had its peculiar Captain, Ruler, or Leader. According to this distribution, when there was a considerable number of a thousand, or more inhabiting together, they made a peculiar kind of Town or City, which had its special Chiliarch, or Governour. And these were called the Thousands of Israel or Judah; or places that had such a proportion of people belonging to them, and consequently such a special Ruler of their own; which kind of Rulers in the commonwealth were alone taken notice of. Those others of Tens and Hundreds being under their Government. So that Rulers, and Thousands, denote one and the same thing; one with respect to the people, the other to the Governours of them.

The only [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], is in the mode or manner of expression. The proposition in the Prophet seems to be affirmative, you are little; in the Evangelist, it is expresly negative, you are not the least. But First, This difference concerneth not the Testimony, as to that end for which it was produced: what ways soever the words be interpreted, the importance of the Testimony is still the same. (2.) The words in the Prophet contain no perfect Enuntiation, nor do yield any compleat sense, unless it be on one of these two suppositions. First, That the word [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], is to be taken adverbially, and to signifie not parva, but parum, not a little one, but a little; and then they give us this sense, and you Bethlehem Ephrata it is but a little that you should be among the Thousands of Judah; and this has no inconsistency with the words of the Evangelist, You are not the least: For though it were eminent among the Thousands of Judah, yet this was but a little, or small matter in comparison of the honor that God would put upon it by the birth of the Messiah. And this is not unusual in the Hebrew Language, Adjectives foeminine are frequently taken in the Neuter Gender, which it has not, and signifie Adverbially. And though [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], be of a Masculine Termination; yet being joyned with [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], the name of a Town or City, it is put for [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], of the foeminine Gender. Or, Secondly, An Interrogation must be supposed to be included in the words, are you but little? Bethlehem [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], are you but little? which may well be rendered negatively, [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], you are not the least, among the thousands of Judah. The Prophet then might have respect both to its present outward estate, which was mean and contemptible in the eyes of men, and also the respect that God had to it as to its future worth, which was to prefer it above all the Thousands of Judah, which principally the Evangelist had regard to.

There is yet another solution of this difficulty added of late by a learned person (Pocock Miscelan. not. cap. 2.) who makes it probable at least, that the word [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], is of the number of those that are used in a direct contrary sense, as [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], to sanctifie and prophane, [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], to bless and curse; [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], a living soul, and a dead carkass. And he proves by notable instances, that it signifies, as sometimes [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], least, so sometimes [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], Great, Illustrious, and Excellent.

The remaining differences are inconsiderable, the Pronoun [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] to me, is omitted by the Evangelist, and the reason of it is evident; for in the Prophet God speaks himself in his own person, in the Gospel the words are only Historically recited. [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], Ruler in Israel, is paraphrased by the Evangelist, [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], the Leader that shall feed my people Israel: asserting his Rule, he adds the manner of it, he shall do it by feeding of them, according as his rule is declared in the next words in the Prophet (Micah 5:4), He shall stand and feed in the strength of the Lord; which words the Evangelist had respect to. And thus much have we spoken by the way, for the vindication of the recital of this Testimony, whose Application in general to the matter in hand is every way unquestionable, and so yields us a second characteristical note of the person of the Messiah.

The manner of the birth of the Messiah, namely that he should be born of a Virgin, is a third characteristical note given of him. The first promise does sufficiently intimate that he was not to be brought into the world according to the ordinary course of mankind, by natural generation, seeing he was [in non-Latin alphabet], and in peculiar manner designed to be the seed of the Woman, that is to be born of a Woman without conjunction of man. To make this sign yet the more evident, God gives it forth directly in a word of promise (Isaiah 7:10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16): "Moreover the Lord spake to Ahaz, saying, ask you a sign of the Lord your God, ask it either in the depth, or in the height above; but Ahaz said, I will not ask, neither will I tempt the Lord; And he said, hear you now you House of David, Is it a small thing for you to weary men, but you will weary my God also? Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign, Behold, a Virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and call his name Emanuel, Butter and Honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good; for before the Child shall know to refuse the evil and choose the good, the Land that you abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her Kings." This is the promise and prophecy, the accomplishment whereof in our Lord Jesus we have recorded (Matthew 1:22, 23): "All this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Prophet, Behold, A Virgin shall be with Child, and shall bring forth a Son, and they shall call his name Emanuel." Now this being a thing utterly above the course of nature, which never fell out from the foundation of the world to that day, nor ever shall do so to the end of it, seeing the miraculous power of God shall no more in the like kind be exerted; it is an infallible evidence, and demonstrative note of the true Messiah. He and he alone was to be born of a Virgin; so alone was Jesus of Nazareth, and therefore he alone is the true Messiah.

The Jews being greatly pressed with this prophecy, and the accomplishment of it, do try all means to escape by breaking through one of them. And we might expect that they would principally attempt the story of the Evangelist; but circumstances on that side are so cogent against them, that they are very faint in that endeavour. For if it was so indeed that Jesus was not born of a Virgin as is recorded, and as both himself and his Disciples professed, why did they not charge him with untruth herein, in the days of his flesh? Why did they not call his Mother into question, especially considering that the being espoused to an Husband; they might upon conviction have put her to a public and shameful death? None of this being done, or once undertaken by their fore-fathers, no less full of envy and malice against the person and doctrine of Jesus than themselves, and much better furnished and provided for such an undertaking, might any color be given to it, than they are, they insist not much upon the denial of the truth of the record; but to relieve themselves, they by all means contend that the words of the Prophet are no way applicable to the birth of our Lord Jesus, which the Evangelist reports them prophetically to express. And to this end they multiply exceptions against our interpretation of the prophecy.

First, They deny that here is any thing spoken of the conception or bearing of a Son by a Virgin. For the word here used, say they, ([in non-Latin alphabet]) signifies any young woman, married or unmarried; yes sometimes an adulteress; as Proverbs 30:18. So that the whole foundation of our interpretation is infirm; and the [in non-Latin alphabet], here intended, was they say, no other but either the wife of the Prophet, or the wife of Ahaz the King, or some young woman in the Court then newly married, or to be married to the King, or some other person.

Secondly, They say, that the birth of this Child with the [in non-Latin alphabet], or young woman mentioned was to conceive, was immediately to ensue, so as to be a sign to Ahaz, and the house of David, of the deliverance promised to them, from the Kings of Damascus and Samaria; and so could not be Jesus of Nazareth, whose nativity happening seven hundred years after this, would be no pledge to them of any thing that should shortly come to pass.

Thirdly, They insist that v. 16. it is promised, that before that Child which should be so conceived and born, should come to the years of discretion, to know to refuse the evil, and to choose the good, the Kings of Damascus and Samaria should be destroyed. Now this came to pass within few years after, and therefore can have no relation to the birth of Jesus of Nazareth.

Fourthly, They affirm, that in the following Chapter the accomplishment of this prophecy is declared, in the Prophet's going in to the Prophetess, and her conceiving a Son, concerning whom it is said, that before he should have knowledge to say my Father, and my Mother, the Land should be forsaken of both her Kings, in answer to what is spoken of the Child of the Virgin, Chap. 7. v. 16. Chap. 8. v. 1.

Fifthly, That the name of this Child was to be Immanuel, whereas he of whom we speak was called Jesus (Matthew 1:21).

Sixthly, That the Child here mentioned was to be fed and nourished with butter and honey, which cannot be spoken, nor is written of Jesus of Nazareth.

In answer to these objections, some learned men have granted to the Jews, that these words of the Prophet were literally fulfilled in some one then a Virgin, and afterwards married in those days, and that they are only in a mystical sense, applied by Matthew to the birth of the Lord Jesus, as they say, are sundry other things that are spoken primarily of others in the Old Testament. But the truth is, this answer is neither safe in itself, nor needful as to the argument of the Jews, nor consistent with the sense of the place, or truth of the words themselves. First, It is not safe, as to the faith of Christians. For whereas the birth of the Messiah of a Virgin was so signal a miracle, and so eminent a characteristical note of his person, if it be not directly foretold and prophesied of in this place; there was no one prediction of it made to the Church of the Jews. Now how this should seem reasonable, whereas things of far less concernment are foretold, is not easily made to appear.

Secondly, Upon this interpretation of the words, there is no ground left for the application of their mystical sense which they pretend to be made by Matthew. For if indeed the Person primarily, directly and literally spoken of, did not conceive a Child while she was a Virgin, but only that she who was then a Virgin, did afterwards upon marriage conceive in the ordinary course of nature, there remains no ground for the application of what is spoken concerning her, to one, who in, and after her conception, and the Birth of her Child, continued a Virgin. For although it be not required that there be an agreement in all things between the Type and the Antitype; yet if there be no agreement between them, in that wherein the one is designed to signify the other, they cannot on any account stand in that relation. David as he was a King, was a Type of Messiah the Great King. There was we know, not an absolute similitude in all things between David and him: nor was there any necessity, that so there should be, that he might be his Type. But yet if he had not been a King, he could have been no Type of him at all in his Kingdom. No more can any person here spoken of, unless she did conceive a Son, and bring forth continuing a Virgin, be a Type of her who was so to do. For how can the miraculous work of the Conception of a Virgin, be signified or expressed by the ordinary Conception of a Woman in the State of Wedlock? Besides, this Answer is wholly needless, as to the objection of the Jews, and inconsistent with the sense of the place, as will be seen in the consideration of the words themselves.

§ 24 We have formerly evinced that the foundation and end of the Judaical Church and State, and of the preservation of the Davidical family, was solely the bringing forth of the promised Messiah. And this the Event has fully demonstrated in their utter rejection after the accomplishment of that end. And hence the promise of the Messiah was the Foundation, Cause, and Reason of all other promises made to that people, as to any mercy or privileges, that as such, they were entrusted withal. For that for whose sake they were a people, must needs be the reason and cause of all good things; that as a people were bestowed upon them. Thus God often promises them to do this or that to them, for Abraham's sake, and David's sake, that is upon the account of the promise of the Messiah signally made to Abraham and David, when his bringing forth into the world was restrained to their families and posterity. And hence also in times of straits and difficulties, when the people were pressed on every side, and laboured for deliverance, God oftentimes renewed to them the promise of the Messiah, partly to support their spirits with expectation of his coming, and the salvation that it should be accompanied withal, and partly to give them assurance, that they should not be consumed or utterly perish under their calamity, because the great work of God by them in bringing forth the Messiah, was not yet accomplished. So to this purpose the 4th chapter of this Prophecy. And on this account it was, namely, of the temporal concernment of that people in the coming of the Messiah, that the promise of him was oftentimes mixed and interwoven with the mention of other things, that were of present use and advantage to them; so that it was not easy sometimes to distinguish the things that are properly spoken with reference to him, from those other things which respected what was present; seeing both sorts of them are together spoken of, and that to the same end and purpose.

Upon these principles we may easily discover the true sense and importance of this § 25 prophetical prediction. Upon the infidelity of Ahaz, and the generality of the house of David with him, refusing a sign of deliverance tendered to them, God tells them by his Prophet, that they had not only wearied his Messengers by their unbelief and hypocrisy, but that they were ready to weary himself also, v. 13. He was even almost wearied with their manifold provocations, during that typical state and condition, wherein he kept them. However, for the present he had promised them deliverance, and although they had refused to ask a sign of him according to his command, yet he would preserve them from their present fears, and utter ruin, and in his due time accomplish his great and wonderful intendment, and that in a miraculous manner by causing a Virgin to conceive and bring forth that Son, on whose account they should be preserved. This is the ground of the promise of the Messiah in this place; even to give them assurance that they should be preserved from utter destruction, because they were to continue their church and state until his coming; as also to comfort and support them during their distresses with the hopes and expectation of him; for with the thoughts of his coming, do the Jews to this day relieve their spirits under their calamities, though they have had no renewed promise of him for near two thousand years. But how may it appear that it was the Messiah who should be thus born of a Virgin? This the Prophet assures them, by telling them, in his Name, what he shall be, and be called accordingly, He shall be called Immanuel, or God with us; he shall be so both in respect of his Person and Office; for he shall be God and Man, and he shall reconcile God and Man, taking away the enmity and distance that was caused by sin. And this was such a description of the Messiah, as by which he was sufficiently known under the Old Testament, yes from the foundation of the world, as has been before declared. And the Prophet further assures them, that this Immanuel shall be born, truly a man, and dwell among them, being brought up with the common food of the country, until he came as other men, to the years of discretion. Butter and honey shall he eat, until he know to choose the good, and refuse the evil. And this was enough for the consolation of believers, as also for the security of the people from the desolation feared. But yet because all this discourse was occasioned by the war raised against Judah by the Kings of Israel and Damascus, to the promise of their deliverance, God is pleased to add a threatening of judgment and destruction to their adversaries; and because he would limit a certain season for the execution of his judgment upon them, as he had declared the safety and preservation of Judah, to depend on the birth of Immanuel of a Virgin in the appointed season, so as to their enemies that they should be cut off and destroyed, before the time that any child not yet born could come to the years of discretion, to choose the good, or to refuse the evil, v. 16. Now that this is the true importance and meaning of the Prophecy, will evidently appear in our vindication of it from the exception of the Jews (before laid down) against its application by Matthew to the Nativity of Jesus Christ.

First, They except that it is not a Virgin that is here intended by [in non-Latin alphabet], which they § 26 say signifies any young woman, and sometimes an adulteress. This being the foundation of all their other objections, and on the determination whereof, the whole controversy from this place dependeth, I shall fully clear the truth of what we assert. For the Jews themselves will not deny, but that if the conception of a Virgin be intended, it must refer to some other, and not to any in those days. [in non-Latin alphabet], The word here used, is from [in non-Latin alphabet] to hide, or [in non-Latin alphabet] in Niphal, hidden, kept close, reserved. Hence is that name of Virgins, partly in general from their being unknown by man, and partly from the universal custom of the East, wherein those Virgins who were of any esteem, or account, were kept hid and reserved from all public or common conversation. Hence by the Grecians also they are called [in non-Latin alphabet], shut up, or recluses, and their first appearance in public they termed [in non-Latin alphabet], the season of bringing them out from the retirements wherein they were hid. The original signification of the word then denotes precisely a Virgin, and cannot be wrested to a person living in the state of wedlock, much less to a prostitute harlot, as the Jews pretend.

Secondly, the constant use of the words directs us to the same signification. It is seven times used in the Old Testament, and in every one of them does still denote a Virgin, or Virgins, either in a proper, or metaphorical sense: the first time it is used, is (Genesis 24:43) where Rebeckah is said to be [in non-Latin alphabet] a Virgin, v. 16. She is said to be [in non-Latin alphabet] a Maid, and [in non-Latin alphabet] a Man had not known her, so that [in non-Latin alphabet] is [in non-Latin alphabet] a Maid that no Man has known; that is, an unspotted Virgin. And doubtless such a one, and no other, was intended by Abraham's Servant for a Wife to Isaac when he prayed, that She [in non-Latin alphabet] which came forth to the water, might answer his token that he had fixed on. Again, it is used (Exodus 2:8) where Moses' Sister, who called her Mother to Pharaoh's Daughter, is termed [in non-Latin alphabet]; and her age being then probably not above nine or ten years old, with the course of her life in her Mother's house, declare her sufficiently to have been a Virgin. Once it is used in the Psalms in the plural number (Psalm 68:26), [in non-Latin alphabet] in the midst, the Virgins playing with Tymbrels; where also none but Virgins properly so called, can be intended; for they were by themselves exercised to celebrate the praises of God in the great Assembly. Twice is the word used in the same number in a metaphorical sense in the Canticles; and in both places has respect to Virgins, chap. 1:3. Therefore do the [in non-Latin alphabet] love you; that is the Virgins, as they do a desirable person from where the Allusion is taken. And chap. 6:7, They [in non-Latin alphabet] are distinguished first from [in non-Latin alphabet] the Queens, or the King's married Wives; and then from the [in non-Latin alphabet] or Concubines: those who were admitted ad usum Thori, to the marriage-bed, though their children did not inherit with those of the married Wives: and therefore none but those who were properly Virgins, could be designed by that name: and by them are those denoted who keep themselves chaste to Christ, and undefiled in his Worship. Hence are they in the Revelation (chap. 14:5) said to be [in non-Latin alphabet] Virgins, or [in non-Latin alphabet] (v. 17) persons unblameable before the Throne of God, having not defiled themselves with the special fornications of the great Whore. There remaineth only one place more wherein this word is used, from where the Jews would wrest somewhat to countenance their exceptions; this is (Proverbs 30:19) [in non-Latin alphabet] And the way of a Man with a Maid. And who is intended by [in non-Latin alphabet] there, they say, the ensuing words declare [in non-Latin alphabet] So is the way of an Adulteress, or a Woman an Adulteress, an Harlot, so that [in non-Latin alphabet] may it seems be such an one. But 1. Suppose the word should in this place be used in a sense quite contrary to that of all other places wherein mention is made of it; is it equal that we should take the importance of it from this one abuse, rather than from the constant use of it in other places; especially considering that this place will by no means admit of that signification, as we shall immediately evince. Secondly, it is used here peculiarly with the prefix [in non-Latin alphabet] from where it is rendered by the LXX. in the abstract, [in non-Latin alphabet], The way of a Man in his youth; which sense Hierom follows viam viri in Adolesentia, and it may thus seem to be differenced from the same word in all other places. But thirdly, indeed the meaning of the wise man is evident, and it is a Virgin that he intended by the word and [in non-Latin alphabet] is the way that a man takes to corrupt a Virgin, and to compass his lust upon her. This is secret, hidden, full of snares, and evils, such as ought not to enter into the thoughts of a good man to conceive, much less to approve of. And therefore, whereas he says of the residue of the Quaternion joined with this (v. 18) [in non-Latin alphabet] They are too wonderful for me, he adds on the mention of this evil, [in non-Latin alphabet] I know it not, or as Hierom, penitus ignoro, which he could not say of the way of natural generation. And by this means, she who is called [in non-Latin alphabet] a Virgin (v. 19) is made [in non-Latin alphabet] an Harlot (v. 20) and become impudent in sinning. A man having by subtle wicked ways prevailed against her chastity, and corrupted her Virginity, she afterwards becomes a common prostitute. And this I take to be the genuine meaning of the place, though it be not altogether improbable, that the wise man in the v. 20 proceeds to another especial instance of things secret and hidden in an adulterous Woman, [in non-Latin alphabet] signifying as much as, so also, which it does in sundry other places.

And these are all the places besides that of the Prophet under consideration, wherein the word is used in the Old Testament. So that as its rise, its constant use also will admit of no other signification, but only that of an unspotted Virgin. Besides, the LXX. render it in this place [in non-Latin alphabet] a Virgin, and the Targum [in non-Latin alphabet] which the other Targums express a Virgin by (Genesis 24:24, 59; Esther 2:2; chap. 4:4; Ruth 2:23; 1 Samuel 25:42). Neither is any word in the Scripture so constantly and invariably used to express an incorrupted Virgin as this is. [in non-Latin alphabet] has respect only to Age, and signifies any one married, or unmarried, a Virgin, or one deflowered, so she be young. [in non-Latin alphabet] also is used for one corrupted (Deuteronomy 22:23, 24) as also for a Widow (Joel 1:8). So that by this word, a Virgin is precisely signified, or the Hebrews have no word denoting exactly that state and condition. And lastly, the prefixing of [in non-Latin alphabet] in this place [in non-Latin alphabet] makes the denotation of the word the more signal. It is but twice more so prefixed (Genesis 24 and Exodus 2) in both which places the Jews themselves will not deny but that unspotted Virgins are intended.

Further, there are other considerations offering themselves from the context, undeniably proving that it is the conception of a Virgin which is here intended and foretold. For first, it is plainly some marvelous thing, above, and contrary to the ordinary course and operation of nature that is here spoken of. It is called a signal prodigie, and is given by God himself in the room of, and as something greater, and more marvelous than any thing that Ahaz could have asked either in Heaven above, or in the Earth beneath, had he made his choice according to the tender made to him. The Lord God himself shall give you a sign. The emphasis used in giving the promise, denotes the marvelousness of the thing promised. Now certainly it was no such great matter that the wife of Ahaz, which had before born him a son who was now eight years of age, or the wife of the Prophet, who was the mother of Shearjashub then present with his father, or any virgin then present immediately to be married, should bear a son, so as to have it called a prodigie, an eminent sign of God's giving a thing that he should take upon his own power to perform, when within the same space of time hundreds of sons were born to other women in the same country. And it is ridiculous what the Jews pretend, namely, that it was great in this, that the Prophet should foretell that conception, as also that it should be a son that should be born, and not a daughter; for the work and sign intimated does not consist at all in the truth of the Prophet's prediction, but in the greatness of the thing itself that was foretold.

The Jews cannot assign either virgin or son that is here intended. Some of them affirm that Alma was the wife of Ahaz, and the son promised Hezekiah; but this is rejected by Kimchi himself, acknowledging that Hezekiah was now eight years old, being born four years before his father came to the kingdom, in the fourth year of whose reign this promise was given to him. Others would have the Alma to be the wife of the Prophet, and the son promised to be Maker-shalal-hasbaz, whose birth is mentioned in the next chapter. But neither has this any more color of reason: for besides that, his wife is constantly called a Prophetess, and could on no account be termed a virgin, having a son some years old at that time accompanying his father, that son of hers in the eighth chapter, is promised as a sign quite to another purpose, nor could for any reason be called Immanuel, whose the land should be, which is said to belong to this promised child. And for what they, lastly, add concerning some virgin then standing by, who was shortly after to be married, it is as fond as any other of their imaginations; for besides that the Prophet says not 'this virgin,' as he would have done, had he directed his speech to any one personally present; it is a more arbitrary invention, no way countenanced from the text or context; such as if men may be allowed in, it is easie for them to pervert the sense of holy Writ at their pleasure. On all which considerations it appeareth, that none can possibly in this promise be intended, but he whose birth was a miraculous sign, as being born of a virgin, and who being born was God with us, both in respect of his person uniting the natures of God and Man in one, and of his office reconciling God and Man, that God might dwell with us in a way of favor and grace, and he whose the land should be in an everlasting kingdom.

I have insisted the longer on this particular, because it comprizeth all that the prophecy is cited for by the Evangelist, and all that we are concerned in it. This being proved and confirmed undeniably, that it is the Messiah whose birth is here foretold, as also that he was to be born of a virgin, all other passages, whatever difficulty we may meet withal in them, must be interpreted in answer thereunto. And we have shewed before, that by reason of the typical state and condition of that people, many of the promises of the Messiah were so mixed with things of their then present temporal concernment; that it is often a matter of some difficulty to distinguish between them. It is enough for us, that we prove unquestionably, that those passages which are applyed to him in the New Testament were spoken of him intentionally in the Old; which we have done in this place; and what belonged to the then present state of the Jews, we are not particularly concerned in. However we shall manifest in answer to the remaining exceptions of the Jews, that there is nothing mentioned in the whole prophecy that has any inconsistency with what we have declared, as to the sense of the principal point of it; no, that the whole of it is excellently suited to the principal scope already vindicated.

§ 31 That then which in the second place is objected by the Jews against our application of this place and prophecy to Jesus Christ, is that the birth of the child here promised, was to be a sign to Ahaz, and the house of David, of their deliverance from the two kings who then waged war against them. And this they say the birth of the Messiah so many hundred years after could give them no pledge or assurance of. And (1.) We do not say, that this was given them as a peculiar sign, or token of their present deliverance. Ahaz himself had before refused such a sign: but God only shews the reason in general why he would not utterly cast them off, although they wearied him, but would yet deliver them as at other times. And this was because of that great work which he had to accomplish among them, which was to be signal, marvelous and miraculous. And this he calls [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], a sign in its absolute, not relative sense, as denoting a work wonderful, such as sometimes he wrought, to evidence his great power thereby. In this sense [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], signs, are joined to [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], prodigies (Deuteronomy 26:22; Jeremiah 32:20; Nehemiah 9:10), where the works so called, were great and marvelous, not signs formally of any thing, unless it were of the wonderful power of God whereby they were wrought. So the miracles of our Savior and the Apostles in the New Testament are called [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], signs for the same, and no other cause. And the word is thus absolutely used very often in the Old Testament.

Besides, that which is secondly alleged, that a thing that shall come to pass many ages after, cannot be made a sign of that which was to be done many ages before, is not universally true. The thing itself in its existence it is true cannot be made so a sign; but it may in the promise and prediction of it. And many instances we have of things promised for signs, which were not to exist in themselves, until after the accomplishment of the things whereof they were signs, as (Exodus 3:12; 1 Samuel 11:34; Isaiah 37:10; 1 Kings 22:25), God intending by them the confirmation of their faith, who should live in the time of their actual accomplishment.

Thirdly, this sign had the truth and force of a promise although it was not immediately to be put in execution, and that is the reason, that the words here used, are one of them [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], conceive, in the preter-perfect tense, the other [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], in benoni, or participle of the present tense, to intimate the certainty of the events, as is usual in the prophetical dialect. Their assurance then from this sign consisted herein, that God informs them, that as surely as he would accomplish the great promise of bringing forth the Messiah, and would put forth his marvelous power therein, that he should be conceived and born of a Virgin, so certain should be their present deliverance which they so desired.

§ 32 It is further insisted on by them, that the deliverance promised was to be wrought before the child spoken of, should know to refuse the evil and choose the good; or should come to years of discretion, v. 16. and what was this to him that was to be born some hundred years after? Answ. (1.) That the [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], mentioned v. 16. is the same with the [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] promised, v. 14. does not appear. The Prophet by the command of God when he went to the King with his message, took with him Shear-jashub his son, v. 3. This certainly was for some especial end in the word or message that he had to deliver, the child being then but an infant, and of no use in the whole matter, unless to be made an instance of something that was to be done. It is therefore probable that he was the [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], the young child designed, v. 16. before whose growing up to discretion, those kings of Damascus and Samaria were destroyed, or (2.) the expression may denote the time of any child's being born and coming to the maturity of understanding, and so consequently the promised child. In as short a space of time as this promised child; when he shall be born, shall come to know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, shall this deliverance be wrought.

Their remaining cavils are of little importance. The child intended, Chap. 8. § 33 was to be the son of the Prophet and Prophetess, and so not this child that was to be born of a Virgin. Besides, he is plainly promised as a sign of other things than those treated of in this chapter: yes, of things quite contrary to them. Again this child they tell us was to be called Immanuel whereas the son of Mary was called [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], or, as they maliciously write it [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉]. But this name is given to signify what he should be, and do, and not what he should be commonly called. He was to be God and man in one person, to reconcile God and man; to be every way Immanuel. And this kind of expression in the Scripture, when a thing is said to be called that which it is; the name denoting the being, nature, and quality of it, is so frequent, that there is nothing peculiar in it as here used. See (Isaiah 1:26; Isaiah 8:3; Isaiah 9:6; Jeremiah 23:6; Zechariah 8:2). The like also may be said to that which they except in the last place, namely, that they know not that Jesus of Nazareth was brought up with butter and honey, which is foretold concerning this child. For the expression signifies no more but that the child should be educated with the common food of the country, such as children were in those places and times nourished withal: it being the especial blessing of that land that it flowed with milk and honey. And thus have we asserted and vindicated the third characteristical note of the true Messiah, he was to be born of a Virgin, which none but only our Lord Jesus ever was from the foundation of the world.

There remain yet other descriptive notes of the Messiah, consisting in what he was to teach, and do, and suffer, all of them guiding the faith of the Church to our Lord Jesus, who in all things fully answered to them all. I shall briefly pass through them, according to our design and purpose; and begin with what he was to teach. This Moses directs us to, giving that great predescription of him, which we have (Deuteronomy 18:18, 19): I will raise them up a Prophet from among their Brethren, like to you, and will put my words in his mouth, and he shall speak to them all that I shall command him. And it shall come to pass, that whoever will not hearken to my words, which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him. This is that signal testimony concerning the Messiah, which Philip urged out of Moses to Nathaniel (John 1:45), which Peter not only applies to him, but declares that he was solely intended in it (Acts 3:22, 23), and Stephen seals that application with his blood (Acts 7:37). Neither can, or do the Jews deny that the Messiah was to be a Prophet, or that he was promised to the Church in the Wilderness in these words, but we shall consider the particulars of them.

Sundry things are here asserted by Moses concerning the Messiah; as (1.) In general, that he should be a Prophet; a teacher of the Church, and not a King only. The Jews indeed, who greedily desire the things which outwardly attend kingly power and dominion in this world, do principally fix their thoughts and expectations on his Kingdom. The revelation of the will of God which was to be made by him, they little desire or enquire after. But the common faith of their ancestors from this and other places, was that the Messiah was to be a Prophet; and reveal to the Church the whole counsel of God, as we shall evince in our comment on the first words of the Epistle. (2.) That this Prophet should be raised up to them from among their Brethren; He shall be of the posterity of Abraham, and of the Tribe of Judah, as was promised of old; or made of them according to the flesh (Romans 1:3, 9, 5). So that as to his original or extract, he was to be born in the level of the people, from among his Brethren was he to be raised up; to this Office of a Prophet and Teacher of the Church. (3.) That he must be like to Moses. The words are plain in many places, that in the ordinary course of God's dealing with that Church among the Prophets, there was none like to Moses, neither before, or after him. Hence Maimonides with his followers conclude, that nothing can ever be altered in their Law, because no Prophet was ever to arise of equal authority with him, who was their Law-giver. But the words of the Text are plain. The Prophet here foretold, was to be like to him, wherein he was peculiar and exempted from comparison with all other Prophets, which were to build on his foundation, without adding any thing to the rule of faith and worship which he had revealed, or changing any thing therein. In that, is the Prophet here promised to be like to him. That is, he was to be a Law-giver to the House of God, as our Apostle proves and declares (chap. 3:1, 2, 3, 4, 5). And we have the consent of the most sober among the Jews to the same purpose.

The words of the Author of Sepher Ikkarim lib. 3. cap. 10. are remarkable. [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], It cannot be, that there should not at some time, [〈◊〉] a Prophet, like to Moses, or greater then he; for Messiah the King should be like him, greater then he: but thus, these words, there arose none like him, ought to be interpreted, not as though none should ever be like him, but that none should be like him, as to some particular quality or accident; or that in all the space of time, wherein the Prophets followed him, until Prophecy ceased, none should be like to Moses; but hereafter there shall be one like him, or rather greater then he. This is that which we affirmed before, in the whole Series of Prophets that succeeded in that Church building on Moses foundation, there was none like to him; but the Prophet here promised was to be so, and in other regards, as appears from other Testimonies, far greater then he. This was of old their common faith from this prediction of Moses. And wherein this likeness was to consist, our Apostle declares at large in his third chapter. Moses was the great law-giver, by whom God revealed his mind, and will, as to his whole worship, while the Church state instituted by him was to continue. Such a Prophet was the Messiah to be, a law-giver, so as to abolish the old, and to institute new rites of worship, as we shall afterwards more fully prove and confirm. (4.) This raising up of a Prophet, like to Moses, declares that the whole will of God, as to his worship, and the Churches obedience, was not yet revealed. Had it so been, there would have been no need of a Prophet like to Moses, to lay new foundations as he had done. Those who succeeded building on what he had fixed, and therefore said not to be like to him, would have sufficed. But there are new counsels of the will of God, as yet hid, to be finally and fully revealed by this Prophet. And after his work is done, there is no intimation of any further revelation to ensue. (5.) The presence of God with this Prophet in his work is set down. He would put his word into his mouth, or speak in him, as our Apostle expresseth the same matter, chap. 1. v. 1. And lastly, his ministry is further described from the event, with respect to them who would not submit to his authority, nor receive the law of God at his mouth. God would require it at their hands, that is, as those words are interpreted by Peter, they should be cut off from among his people, or from being so. And this signal commination in the accomplishment of it, gives light to the whole praediction. Some of the Jews from these words have fancied to themselves another great Prophet, whom they expect as they did of old, before the coming of the Messiah. So in their dealing with John the Baptist, they asked him whether he was Elias, which he denied, because, though he were promised under that name, yet he was not that individual person whom they looked for, that is the soul of Elias the Tishbite, as Kimchi tells us with a body new created like to the former. Wherein they further demand whether he were [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], the Prophet promised by Moses, which he also denies, because that Prophet was no other then the Messiah (John 1:21). To this purpose also is it, that the Spirit of the Lord is promised to rest upon the Messiah (Isaiah 11:3), to make him of quick understanding in the fear of the Lord, that he might not judge after the sight of his eyes, &c. v. 3, 4, 5. So also cap. 61:1, 2. And from this great Prophet, were the Isles of the Gentiles to receive the law (chap. 42:1, 2). The sum of all is, the Messiah was to be a Prophet, a Prophet like to Moses; that is a law-giver, one that should finally and perfectly reveal the whole will and counsel of God; all with that authority, that whoever refused to obey him should be exterminated, and cast out from the privilege of being reckoned among the people of God.

§ 36 We are then in the next place to consider the accomplishment of this promise, in the person of Jesus of Nazareth. Now this the story of him and the event do abundantly testify, that he was a Prophet, and so esteemed by the Jews themselves, until through the envy of the Scribes and Pharisees, and their own unwillingness to admit of the purity and holiness of his doctrine, they were stirred up to oppose and persecute him, as they had done all other Prophets, who in their several generations foretold his coming, is evident from the records of the Evangelical story; see John 1:46, chap. 6:17, Acts 3:22, 23. Their present obstinate denial hereof, is a mere contrivance to justify themselves in their rejection and murder of him. But this is not all; he was not only a Prophet in general, but he was that Prophet who was foretold by Moses, and all the Prophets, who built on his foundation, who was to put the last hand to divine revelations, in a full declaration of the whole counsel of God, the peculiar work of the Messiah; and this we shall evince in the ensuing considerations of his doctrine and prophecy, with the success and event of them.

First, the nature of the doctrine taught by this Prophet, gives testimony to our assertion. Whatever characters of that truth which is holy and heavenly can rationally be conceived or apprehended, they are all eminently and incomparably imprinted on the doctrine of Jesus Christ. Whatever tends to the glory of God, as the first cause, and last end of all things, as the only sovereign ruler, judge, and disposer of all, as the only infinitely holy, wise, righteous, good, gracious, merciful, powerful, faithful, independent being, is clearly, evidently, and in a heavenly manner revealed therein. Whatever is useful or suitable to excite and improve, all that is of good in man, in the notions of his mind, or inclinations of his will, to discover his wants and defects that he may not exalt himself in his own imagination above his state and condition; whatever is needful to reveal to him, his end, or his way, his happiness, or the means conducing thereunto, whatever may bring him into a due subjection to God, and subordination to his glory; whatever may teach him to be useful in all those relations wherein he may be cast, within the bounds and compass of the moral principles of his nature, as a creature made for society; whatever is useful to deter him from, and suppress in him every thing that is evil, even in those hidden seeds and embryos of it which lie beneath the first instances that reason can reach to to discovery of, and that in an absolute universality, without the least indulgence on any pretence whatever, and to stir him up, provoke him to, and direct him in the practice of whatever thing is true, honest, just, pure, lovely, of good report, that is virtuous, or praise-worthy, that may begin, bound, guide, limit, finish, and perfect, the whole system of moral actions in him in relation to God himself, and others; it is all revealed, confirmed, and ratified in the doctrine of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. It has stood upon its trial above sixteen hundred years in the world, challenging the wit and malice of its adversaries, to discover any one thing or circumstance of any thing that is untrue, false, evil, uncomely, not useful, or inconvenient in it, or to find out any thing that is morally good, virtuous, useful, praise-worthy, in habit or exercise, in any instances of operations in any degree of intention of mind, any duty that man owes to God, others, or himself, that is not taught, enjoined, encouraged, and commanded by it; or to discover any motives, encouragements, or reasons to, and for the pursuit of that which is good, and the avoidance of evil that are true, real, solid, and rational, which it affords not to them that embrace it. This absolute perfection of the doctrine of this Prophet, joined with those characters of divine authority which are enstamped on it, does sufficiently evidence that it contains the great, promised, full, final revelation of the will of God, which was to be given forth by the Messiah. Add hereunto, that since the delivery of this doctrine, the whole race of mankind has not been able to invent, or find out any thing, that without the most palpable folly and madness might be added to it, much less stand in competition with it, and it will itself sufficiently demonstrate its author.

Secondly, we have declared in the entrance of this discourse, that the Messiah was the means promised for the delivery of mankind from that woful estate of sin and misery whereunto they had cast themselves. This was declared to all in general, this they believed whom God graciously enabled thereunto. But how this deliverance should be wrought in particular by the Messiah, how the works of the Devil should be destroyed, how God and man should be reconciled, how sinners might recover a title to their lost happiness, and be brought to an enjoyment of it; this was unknown not only to all the sons of men, but also to all the angels in heaven themselves; who then shall unfold this mystery which was hid in the counsel of God from the foundation of the world? It was utterly beyond the reason and wisdom of man, to give any tolerable conjecture how these things should be effected and brought about. But all this is fully declared by this Prophet himself. In his doctrine, in what he taught, does this great and hidden mystery of the reconciliation and salvation of mankind open itself gloriously to the minds and understandings of them that believe, whose eyes the God of this world has not blinded, and them alone; for although this promise of the Messiah was all that God gave out to Adam, and by him to his posterity to keep their hopes alive in their miserable condition in the earth, yet such was its obscurity, that meeting with the minds of men full of darkness, and hearts set upon the pursuit of their lusts, it was as to the substance of it, utterly lost to the greatest part of mankind. Afterwards the thing itself was again retrieved to the faith and knowledge of some by new revelations and promises, only the manner of its accomplishment was still lost, hid in the depths of the bosom of the Almighty. But as we said by the preaching of Jesus, both the thing itself, and the manner of it, are together brought to light, made known, and established, beyond all the power of Satan, to prevail against it. This was the work of the promised Prophet; this was done by Jesus of Nazareth, who is therefore both Lord and Christ.

§ 39 Thirdly, We have also declared, how God in his wisdom and sovereignty restrained the promise to Abraham and his posterity, shadowing out among them the accomplishment of it in Mosaical rites and institutions. And these also received manifold explications by the succeeding prophets. From the whole, a system of worship and doctrine did arise, which turned wholly on this hinge of the promised Messiah, relating in all things to the salvation to be wrought by him. But yet the will and mind of God was in this whole dispensation so folded and wrapt up in types, so vailed and shadowed by carnal ordinances, so obscure and hid in allegorical expressions, that the bringing of them forth to light, the removal of the clouds and shades that were cast upon them, with a declaration of the nature, reason, and use of all those institutions, was a work no less glorious than the very first revelation of the promise itself. This was that which was reserved for the great Prophet, the Messiah; for that God would prescribe ordinances and institutions to his Church, whose full nature, use, and end, should be everlastingly unknown to them, is unreasonable to imagine. Now this is done in the doctrine of our Lord Jesus Christ. The spiritual end, use and nature of all these sacrifices, and typical institutions, which to them who were conversant only with their outside servile performances were an insupportable yoke of bondage, as the Jews find them to this day, being never able to satisfy themselves in their most scrupulous attendance to them, are all made evident and plain, and all that was taught by them accomplished. This was the work of the Prophet, like to Moses. He fulfilled the end, and unvailed the mind of God in all these institutions. And he has done it so fully, that whoever looks upon them through his declaration of them, cannot but be amazed at the blindness and stupidity of the Jews, who rejecting the revelation of the counsel of God by him, adhere pertinaciously to that whereof they understand aright no one title or syllable: for there is not the meanest Christian, who is instructed in the doctrine of the Gospel, but can give a better account of the nature, use, and end of Mosaical institutions, than all the profound Rabbins in the world either can, or ever could do. He that is least in the Kingdom of God, being greater in this light and knowledge, than John Baptist himself, who yet was not behind any of the prophets that went before him. This I say, is that which the promised Prophet was to do; and moreover, to add the institutions of his own immediate revelations, even as Moses had given them the law of ordinances of old. And in this superinstitution of new ordinances of worship thereby superceding those instituted by Moses, was he like to him, as was foretold.

§ 40 Lastly, The event confirms the application of this character to the Lord Jesus. Whoever should not receive the word of this Prophet, God threatens to require it of him, that is, as themselves confess, to exterminate them from among the number of his people, or to reject them from being so. Now this was done by the body of the Jewish Nation; they received him not, they obeyed not his voice, and what was the end of this their disobedience? They who for their despising, persecuting, killing the former prophets, were only corrected, chastened, afflicted, and again quickly recovered, out of the worst and greatest of their troubles, upon their rejection of him, and disobedience to his voice, are cut off, destroyed, exterminated from the place of their solemn worship, and utterly rejected from being the people of God. Whatever may be conceived to be contained in the commination against those who disobey the voice of that Prophet promised, is all of it to the full, and in its whole extent, come upon the Jews, upon and for their disobedience to the doctrine of Jesus of Nazareth; which added to the foregoing considerations, undeniably prove him to have been that Prophet.

There is yet another character given of the Messiah in the Old Testament, namely, § 41 in what he was to suffer in the world, in the discharge of his work and office. This being that wherein the main foundation of the whole was to consist, and that which God knew would be most contrary to the apprehension and expectation of that carnal people, is of all other notes of him, most clearly and fully asserted. The nature and effects of these sufferings of the Messiah, and how they were to be satisfactory to the justice of God (without which apprehension of them, little or nothing of the promise, or of Mosaical institutions can rightly be understood) because we must treat of them in our explication of the Epistle itself, shall not here be insisted on. It is sufficient to our present intention, that we prove that the Messiah was to suffer, and that as many other miseries, so death itself; and this his suffering is foretold as a character to know and discern him by, that Jesus of Nazareth by so many other demonstrations, and evident tokens proved to be the Messiah, did also suffer the utmost that could be inflicted on a man, and in particular the things and evils which the Messiah was to undergo, we shall not need to prove; the Jews confess it, and even glory that their forefathers were the instrumental cause of his sufferings. Neither does it at present concern us to declare what he suffered from God himself, what from man, what from Satan, in his life and death, in his soul and body, and all his concernments; it being abundantly sufficient to our present purpose, that he suffered all manner of miseries; and lastly, death itself, and that not for himself, but for the sins of others.

The first evident testimony given hereunto, is in Psalm 22, from the beginning to the 22nd verse, that sufferings, and those very great and inexpressible, are treated of in this Psalm, the Jews themselves confess, and the matter is too evident to be denied. That dereliction of God, tortures and pains in body and soul, revilings, mockings, with cruel death, are sufferings, is certain, and they are all here fore-told. Again, it is evident, that some individual person is designed as the subject of those sufferings. Most of the Jews would interpret this Psalm of the body of the people, to whom not one line in it can be properly applied; for besides, that the person intended, is spoken of singularly throughout the whole Prophecy, he is also plainly distinguished from all the people, of what sort soever; from the evil among them who reviled and persecuted him, v. 7, 8, and from the residue, whom he calls his Brethren, and the Congregation of Israel, v. 22. It cannot then be the Congregation of Israel that is spoken of; for how can the Congregation of Israel be said to declare the praises of God, before the Congregation of Israel, which is the sum of Kimchi's Exposition. Some of them from the title of the Psalm [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉]; for the hind of the morning, would have it to be a Prophecy of Hester, who appeared as beautiful as the morning in the deliverance of Israel. But as the title is of another importance, respecting the nature of the Psalm, not the person treated of in it, so they are not able to apply one verse or word in it to her. Others of them plead, that it is David himself who is intended; and this is not without some shadow of truth; for David might in some things propose his own afflictions and sufferings, as types of the sufferings of the Messiah. But there are many things in this Psalm that cannot be applied to him absolutely. When did any open their lips, and shake their heads at him, using the words mentioned, v. 7, 8? When was he, or his blood poured forth like water, and all his bones dis-jointed, v. 14? When were his hands and feet pierced, v. 16? When did any part his garments, and cast lots on his vesture, v. 18? When was he brought to the dust of death, before his last and final dissolution, v. 15? And yet all these things were to be accomplished in the person of him, who is principally treated of in this Psalm.

This whole Psalm then is a Prophecy of the Messiah, and absolutely of no other, as may further be evidenced from sundry passages in the Psalm itself. For first, it treats of one in whom the welfare of the whole Church was concerned; they are therefore all of them invited to praise the Lord on his account, and for the event and success of his sufferings which they had the benefit of, v. 22, 23. Secondly, it is he, by whom the meek shall be satisfied, and obtain life eternal, v. 26. Thirdly, upon his sufferings, as the event and success of them the Gentiles are to be gathered in to God, v. 27. All the ends of the world shall remember and turn to the Lord, and all the kindreds of the nations shall worship before you. And this by the confession of the Jews is the proper work of the Messiah, to be effected in his days and by him alone. Fourthly, the preaching of the truth and righteousness and faithfulness of God in his promise to all nations, that is of the Gospel, ensues on the sufferings described, v. 31, which they also acknowledge to belong to his days: so that it is the Messiah and he alone, who is absolutely and ultimately intended in this Psalm.

Now the whole of what is here prophesied on, was so exactly fulfilled in Jesus of Nazareth, in all the instances of it, that it appears to be spoken directly of him, and no other. The manner of his sufferings is scarcely more clearly expressed in the story of it by the Evangelists, than it is here foretold by David in Prophecy, and therefore, many passages out of this Psalm are expressed by them in their records. He it was who pressed with a sense of God's dereliction cried out, My God, my God, why have you forsaken me? He it was that was accounted a worm and no man, and reviled and reproached accordingly; at him did men wag their heads, and reproach him with his trust in God, his bones were drawn out of joint by the manner of his sufferings: his hands and feet were pierced, and upon his vestures lots were cast; upon his sufferings were the truth and promises of God declared and preached to all the world: so that it is his suffering alone which is before hand described in this Psalm.

But the Jews except against our application of this Psalm to the Lord Jesus, as they imagine from our own principles, and greatly triumph in their supposed advantage, indeed in their own blindness and ignorance. Jesus they tell us, in the opinion of Christians was God, and how can these things be spoken of God; how could God cry out, my God, my God, why have you forsaken me, how could men pierce the hands and feet of God. And sundry of the like queries are made by Kimchi on the several passages of this Psalm. But we know of how slender importance these things are. He who suffered was God; but he suffered not as God, nor in that wherein he was God; for he was man also, and as man, and in that wherein he was man, did he suffer. But their ignorance of the union of the divine and human nature in the Person of Christ, each nature preserving its distinct properties and operations, is a thing which they would by no means be persuaded to part withal, because it stands them, as they suppose, in great stead, as furnishing them with those weak and pitiful objections that they use to make against the Gospel.

§ 46 We have yet another signal testimony to the same purpose. Isaiah 53, as the outward manner of the sufferings of the Messiah, with their actings who were instrumental therein, is principally considered in Psalm 22, so the inward nature, end and effect of them, are declared in this prophecy. There are also sundry passages, relating to the covenant between the Lord Christ and his Father, for the carrying on of the work of redemption by this way of suffering, which the ancient Jews not understanding his personal subsistence before his incarnation, referred to his soul, which they imagine to have been created at the beginning of the world. Now is there any prophecy that fills the present Rabbins with more perplexities, or drives them to more absurdities and contradictions. It is not our present business to explicate the particular passages of the prophecy, or to make application of them to the Messiah. It has been done already by sundry learned men, and we also have cast our mite into this sanctuary on another occasion. That which we insist on, is obvious to all; namely, that dreadful sufferings in soul and body, and that from the will and good pleasure of God, for ends expressed in it, are here foretold and declared. Our enquiry is alone, after the person spoken of; for whoever he be, the Jews will not deny, but that he was to suffer all sorts of calamities. That it is the Messiah and none other, we have not only the evidence of the text and context, and nature of the subject matter treated of, with the utter impossibility of applying the thing spoken of to any person, without the overthrow of the whole faith of the ancient Church, but also all the advantage from the confession of the Jews that can be expected or need to be desired from adversaries.

§ 47 First, the most ancient and best records of their judgement expressly affirm the person spoken of, to be the Messiah. This is the Targum on the place which themselves esteem of unquestionable, if not of divine authority. The spring and rise of the whole prophecy, as the series of the discourse manifests, is in v. 13. of chapter 52, and there, the words [⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩]; Behold my servant shall prosper, or deal wisely, are rendered by Jonathan, [⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩]; Behold my servant the Messiah shall prosper. And among others, the fifth verse of chapter 53 is so paraphrased by him, as that none of the Jews will pretend any other to be intended: [⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩]. And he shall build the house of our sanctuary, which is prophaned for our sins, and delivered for our iniquities, and in his doctrine shall peace be multiplyed to us; and when we obey his word, our sin shall be forgiven us. Wherein though he much pervert the text, yet to give us that sense, which by their own confession is applicable only to the Messiah: whereby as by other parts of his interpretation, he stopt the way to the present Rabbinical evasions. The translation of the LXX, they have formerly avouched as their own. And this also plainly refers the words to the Messiah and his sufferings; though somewhat more obscurely than it is done in the Original.

In the Talmud itself, lib. Saned. Tractat. Chelek: among other names they assign to the Messiah, [⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩], is one; because it is said in this place, [⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩], truly he bore our infirmity. We have their ancient Rabbins making the same acknowledgement. To this purpose they speak in Bereshith Rabba on Genesis 24:67: This is Messiah the King who shall be in the generation of the wicked, and shall reject them, and choose the blessed God and his holy name, to serve him with his whole heart. [⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩]. And he shall set his heart to seek mercy for Israel, to fast, and to humble himself for them, [⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩]; as it is said (Isaiah 53) he was wounded for our transgressions, [⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩]. And when Israel sins, he seeks mercy for them, as it is said again, and by his stripes are we healed. So Tanchuma on v. 13. chapter 52. [⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩]; this is King Messiah. And not to repeat more particular testimonies we have their full confession in Alshech on the place, with which I shall close the consent. [⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩]; Behold our masters of blessed memory with one consent determine according as they received by tradition, that it is concerning Messiah the King that these words are spoken. And therefore Abarbinel himself, who of all his companions has taken most pains to corrupt and pervert this prophecy, confesses that all their ancient wise men consented with Ben Uzziel in his Targum. So that we have as full a suffrage to this character of the Messiah, from the Jews themselves, as can be desired or expected.

We have strength also added to this testimony by the weakness of the opposition § 48 which at present they make to our application of this place to the Messiah. It is rather rage than reason, that here they trust to; and seem to cry, pereant & amici, dummodo & inimici pereant. Let Targum, Talmud, Cabal tradition, former masters be esteemed liars, and deceived; so that Christians may be disappointed. New expositions and applications of this prophecy they coin, wherein they openly contradict one another; yes, the same man (as Abarbinel) sometimes himself; and when they have done, suggest such things as are utterly inconsistent with the faith of the ancient Church concerning the Messiah, with follies innumerable no way deserving our serious consideration. The chief things which they most confide in, we shall speedily remove out of our way.

First, some of them say, that this prophecy indeed concerns the Messiah, but not Messiah Ben David, who shall be always victorious, but Messiah Ben Joseph, who shall be slain in battle against Gog and Magog. But (1.) this figment wholly overthrows the faith of the true Messiah; and they may as well make twenty as two of them. (2.) That Ben Joseph whom they have coined in their own brains, is to be a great warrior from his first appearance, and after many victories to be slain in a battle, or at least, be reputed so to be. But this prophecy is concerning a man, poor, destitute, despised, afflicted all his life, bound, imprisoned, rejected, scorned, condemned and slain under a pretence of judgement, no one thing whereof they do, or can ascribe to their Ben Joseph.

2. Others feign that the true Messiah was born long ago, and that he lived among the leprous people at the Gates of Rome, being himself leprous, and full of sores; which as they say, is foretold in this Prophecy. Such monstrous imaginations as these might not be repeated without some kind of participation in the folly of their Authors, but that poor immortal souls are ruined by them; and that they evidence what a foolish thing man is when left to himself, or judicially given up to blindness and unbelief. We are ready to admire at the senseless stupidity of their fore-fathers, they do so themselves, who chose to worship Baal and Moloch, rather then the true God, who had so eminently revealed himself to them; but it does no way exceed that of those who have lived since their rejection of the true Messiah, nor do we need any other instance then that before us to make good our Observation. And yet neither does this prodigy of folly, this leprosy, in any thing answer the words of the Prophecy; nor indeed has any countenance from any one word therein; that single word they reflect upon, signifying any kind of infirmities or sorrows in general.

3. Some of them apply this Prophecy to Jeremiah, concerning whom Abarbinel affirms and that truly, that no one line or verse in the whole can with any colourable pretence be applyed to him; which also I have in particular manifested on another occasion. Himself applies it two ways: (1.) To Josia; (2.) To the whole body of the people; contradicting himself in the exposition of every particular instance, and the truth in the whole. But it is the whole people in their last desolation that they chiefly desire to wrest this Prophecy to. But this is (1.) Contrary to the testimony of their Targum, and Talmud, all their antient Masters, and some of the wisest of their latter Doctors. (2.) To their own principles, profession and belief; for whereas they acknowledge that their present misery is continued on them for their sins, and that if they could but repent and live to God, their Messiah would undoubtedly come; this place speaks of the perfect innocency and righteousness of him that suffers, no way on his own account deserving so to do, which if they once ascribe to themselves, their Messiah being not yet come, they must for ever bid adiew to all their expectations of him. (3.) Contrary to the express words of the text, plainly describing one individual person. (4.) Contrary to the context, distinguishing the people of the Jews, from him that was to suffer by them, among them, and for them, v. 3, 4, 5, 6. (5.) Contrary to every particular assertion and passage in the whole Prophecy, no one of them being applicable to the body of the people. And all these things are so manifest to every one who shall but read the place with attention, and without prejudice; that they stand not in need of any farther confirmation: Hence Johannes Isaac confesseth, that the consideration of this place, was the means of his conversion.

§ 49 Again, the whole work promised from the foundation of the world to be accomplished by the Messiah, is here ascribed to the person treated of, and his sufferings. Peace with God is to be made by his chastisement, v. 5. and healing of our wounds by sin, is from his stripes. He bears the iniquity of the Church, v. 6. that they may find acceptance with God. In his hand the pleasure of the Lord for the redemption of his people, was to prosper, v. 10. And he is to justifie them for whom he dyed, v. 11. If these and the like things here mentioned may be performed by any other, the Messiah may stay away, there is no work for him to do in this world. But if these are the things which God has promised that he shall perform, then he, and none other is here intended.

§ 50 Neither are the cavils of the Jews about the application of some expressions to the Lord Jesus, worth the least consideration. For besides that they may all of them be easily removed, the whole being exactly accomplished in him, and his passion set forth beyond any instance of a prophetic description of a thing future, in the whole Scripture, let them but grant that the true and only Messiah was to converse among the people in a despised, contemned, reproached condition, that he was to be rejected by them, to be persecuted, to suffer, to bear our iniquities, and that from the hand of God, to make his soul an offering for sin, by that means spiritually to redeem and save his people, and as themselves know well enough, that there is an end of this controversy, so the Lord Jesus must and will on all hands be acknowledged to be the true and only Messiah.

§ 51 But that we may not seem to avoid any of their pretences, or exceptions that they make use of when they are pressed with this Testimony, I shall briefly consider what their latter Masters, who think themselves wiser; in the Authors of their Targum, and Talmud, and all their antient Doctors who with one consent acknowledge the Messiah to be intended in this Prophecy, and wrest it to the People of the Jews themselves, to whom not one line or word of it is applicable, do object to our interpretation of the place. First, Then they say, it is not the Prophet from the Lord, nor in the Persons of the people of the Jews, but the Kings of the Earth which formerly had afflicted them, who are mentioned Chap. 52. v. 15. who utter and speak the words of this Chapter, in an admiration of the blessed estate that the Jews shall at length attain to. Answ. Any man that shall but view the Context, will easily see the shameful folly of this evasion. For (1.) Where is there any instance in the whole Scripture of the like introduction of Aliens and Foreigners, and the Prophets personating of them in what they say, and why should such a singular imagination here take place? (2.) How could they say; Who has believed our report, or the Doctrine that we had heard, and taught, concerning this person, or these persons? Had the Kings and Nations so preached the misery and happiness ensuing of the people of the Jews, that they are forced to complain of the incredulity of men, that they would not believe them? And who would not believe them? The Jews, they believe it well enough; the Nations and their Kings, they are supposed to be the men complaining that they are not believed; so that the fondness of this imagination is beyond expression. (3.) How do they say, For the iniquity of my people he was stricken, v. 8. Who are they when the people themselves are supposed to speak? In brief, let all the Jews in the world, find out one expression in the whole Prophecy tolerably suited to this Hypothesis of theirs, and I shall be contented that the whole of it be granted to them, and be used according to their desires.

Secondly, They add, that the subject of this Prophecy is spoken of in the plural number, § 52 and so cannot intend any one singular person. This they endeavour to prove from those words of the Lord, v. 8. [in non-Latin alphabet] which they render, à transgressione populi mei plaga illa. Lamo, is of the plural number, and so cannot respect any single person, but must denote the whole people. Answ. But what perverseness is this, whoever be intended in this Prophecy, he is spoken of twenty times as a single person; and such things spoken of him, as can by no artifices be suited to any collective body of people; and shall one expression in the plural number out-weigh all these, and be made an engine to pervert the whole context, and to render it unintelligible? (2.) Suppose yet the word to denote many, a people, and not one single person, will it not unavoidably follow, that here is a mention interserted occasionally of some other persons, besides him who is the principal subject of the Prophecy; and so the sense can be no other, but that the people of the Prophet, that is, the Jews, should assuredly be punished for the rejection of him, whose person and work he prophesied about. (3.) The truth is, the word has not necessarily a plural signification, [in non-Latin alphabet] lamo, is most frequently put for [in non-Latin alphabet], by the inserting of [in non-Latin alphabet], whereof we have sundry instances in the Scriptures, Genesis 6:2. Blessed be the Lord of Shem; [in non-Latin alphabet] and Canaan shall be his Servant: Lamo, for Lo, Job 20:23. God shall cast the fury of his wrath upon him, [in non-Latin alphabet] and shall rain it upon him while he is eating; [in non-Latin alphabet] for [in non-Latin alphabet]. So again, the same word is used, chap. 22. v. 2. Psalm 11. v. 7. The Righteous Lord loves Righteousness, [in non-Latin alphabet] his countenance does behold the upright; [in non-Latin alphabet] for [in non-Latin alphabet]. And in this Prophet, chap. 44. v. 15. He makes it a graven image, [in non-Latin alphabet] and he falls down to it. Lamo for Lo. And this is so known, that there is scarce any Grammarian of their own, who has not taken notice of it; so that this exception also is evidently impertinent.

They yet urge further those words, v. 10. He shall see his seed, he shall prolong his § 53 days; This, say they, is not agreeable to any, but those who have children of their bodies begotten, in whom their days are prolonged. Answ. 1. It were well if they would consider the words foregoing; of his making his soul an offering for sin, that is, dying for it; and then tell us, how he that does so, can see his carnal seed afterwards, and in them prolong his days. 2. He that is here spoken of, is directly distinguished from the seed, that is the people of God, so that they cannot be the subject of the Prophecy. 3. It is not said that he shall prolong his days in his seed, but he himself shall prolong days after his death, that is, upon his Resurrection he shall live eternally, which is called length of days. 4. The seed here, are the seed spoken of (Psalm 22:30), A seed that shall serve the Lord, and be all accounted to him for a Generation. That is a spiritual seed, as the Gentiles are called the Children of Sion brought forth upon her traveling (Isaiah 66:8). Besides, how the Messiah shall obtain this seed, is expressed in the next verse; By his knowledge shall my righteous Servant justify many; they are such as are converted to God by his Doctrine, and justified by Faith in him. And that Disciples should be called the seed, the offspring, the children of their Masters, and Instructors, is so common among the Jews, and familiar to them, as no phrases or expressions are more in use. Thus speaks expressly this Prophet also, chap. 8:18. Behold, I and the Children whom the Lord has given me; and who were their Children, he declares, v. 16. bind up the Testimony, seal the Law among my Disciples: These were the Children whom the Lord had given him. And this is the sum of all that which any appearance of Reason is objected against our application of this place to the Messiah; which how weak and trivial it is, is obvious to every ordinary understanding.

§ 54 We may yet add some other testimonies to the same purpose. Daniel tells us (chapter 9, verse 25), Messiah shall be cut off, that is, from the land of the living, and that not for himself. And Zechariah 9:9, it is said, he shall be poor; and in his best condition, riding on an ass; which place is interpreted by Solomon, Jarchi, and others, of the Messiah. He was also to be pierced (chapter 12:10), being the Shepherd (chapter 13:7), the King as the Targum, that was to be smitten with the sword of the Lord. The Judge of Israel that was to be smitten with the rod on the cheek (Micah 4:1), all denoting his persecution and suffering.

§ 55 Agreeable to these testimonies the Jews themselves have a tradition about the sufferings of the Messiah, which sometimes breaks forth among them. In Midrash Tehillim, on Psalm 2, Rabbi Hana in the name of Rabbi Idi, says, that the Messiah must bear the third part of the affliction that shall ever be in the world. And R. Machir, in Abkath Kocheb, affirms, that God inquired of the soul of the Messiah at the beginning of the creation, whether he would endure sufferings and afflictions for the purging away the sins of his people, to which he answered, that he would hear them with joy. And that these sufferings of the Messiah are such, as that without the consideration of them, no rational account can be given of any of their services or sacrifices, shall in our exposition be fully declared. Now upon these testimonies it is evident, that the great argument used by the Jews to disprove Jesus of Nazareth from being the true Messiah, namely, his meanness, poverty, persecutions, and sufferings in this world, does strongly confirm the truth of our faith, that he only was so indeed.

§ 56 To these characters given of the Messiah, we may also subjoyn sundry invincible arguments proving our Lord Jesus Christ to be he that was promised. I shall add only some few of them, and that very briefly, because they have been by others in an especial manner at large insisted on.

First, then he testified of himself that he was the Messiah, and that those who believed not that he was so, should perish in their sins. Now because, according to a general rule he granted, that although the testimony which he gave concerning himself, being the testimony of the Son of God, was true, yet that it might be justly liable to exception among them, for the confirmation of his assertion, he appeals to the works that he wrought, issuing the difference and question about his testimony in this, that if his works were not such as never any other man wrought, or ever could work, but the Messiah only, that they should be at liberty as to their believing in him. The works, says he, that my Father has given me to finish, the same works that I do, bear witness of me, that the Father has sent me (John 5:36), that is, to be the Messiah. His own record he asserts to be true, appeals also to the testimony of John, but shows it withal inferiour to those other witnesses which he had; namely, the Scripture and his own works. And so also (chapter 10:37), If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not.

§ 57 Many things might be insisted on for the confirmation of this argument; I shall only point at the heads of them; nor is there more necessary to our present purpose.

First, all true real miracles are effects of divine power. Many things prodigious, marvelous, or monstrous, besides the common and ordinary productions of nature, may be asserted, and brought forth by an extraordinary concurrence of causes, not usually falling in such a juncture and coincidence; many may be wrought by the great, hidden, and to us unknown power of wicked spirits; many things may have an appearance of prodigie and wonder, by the force of some deceit, pretence, or delusion, that attend the manner of their declaration. But real miracles are effects so above, besides, or contrary to the nature and efficacy of any, or all natural causes, that by no application or disposition of them, though never so uncouth or unusual, they can be produced, and therefore must of necessity be the effects of an almighty creating power, causing somewhat to exist in matter or manner out of nothing, or out of that which is more adverse to the being or manner of existence given to it, than nothing itself. Such are the works of raising the dead; opening the eyes of men born blind, &c. And this position the Jews will not deny, seeing they make it the foundation of their adherence to the Law of Moses.

§ 58 Secondly, when God puts forth his miracle-working power, in the confirmation of any word or doctrine, he avows it to be of, and from himself; to be absolutely and infallibly true; setting the fullest and openest seal to it, which men who cannot discern his essence or being, are capable of receiving or discerning. And therefore when any doctrine which in itself is such as becomes the holiness and righteousness of God, is confirmed by the emanation of his divine power in the working of miracles, there can no greater assurance, even by God himself, be given of the truth of it.

Thirdly, the Lord Jesus, in the days of his flesh, wrought many great, real miracles, in the confirmation of the testimony that he gave concerning himself, that § 59 he was the Christ the Son of God (so John 5:20, chapter 7:31, chapter 10:25, chapter 12:37). Greater confirmation it could not have. Now that the Lord Jesus wrought the miracles recorded by the Evangelists with others innumerable that are not recorded (John 20:30, chapter 21:25), we have in general, all the testimony, evidence, and certainty that any man can possibly have of things which he saw not done with his own eyes; and to suppose that a man can have no assurance of any thing but what he sees or feels himself, as it overthrows all the foundations of knowledge in the world, and of all humane society, yes of every thing that as men we either do, or know; so being once granted, it will necessarily follow that we know not the things that we see any longer than while we see them; no nor perhaps then neither; seeing the evidence we have of knowing any thing by our senses, proceeds from principles and presumptions, which we never saw, nor can ever so do. And as for the Jews, we have all the advantage for the confirmation of what we affirm, that either we are capable of, or need to desire.

First, we plead our own records, that are written by the Evangelists. And herein we have but one request to make to the Jews; namely, that they would lay no exceptions against them, which they know to be of equal force against the writings of Moses, and all the Prophets. If they declare themselves to be such Bedlams, as to set their own houses on fire, for no other end, but to endanger their neighbours; if they will destroy the principles of their own faith and religion, to cast the broken pieces of them at the heads of Christians; if they cry, pereant amici dummodo & pereant inimici, they are not fit to be any longer contended withall. I desire then to know what one exception the Jews can lay against this record, which mutatis mutandis may not be laid against the Mosaical writings: and if they have always concluded all such exceptions, to be invalid as to an opposition to those grounds and evidences on which they believe those writings; why will they not give us leave to affirm the same of them, in reference to those which we receive and believe, on no less certain testimonies and evidencies. Unless then they can except any thing to the credit of our writers, or disprove that which is written by them, from records of equal weight with them, which they can never do, nor do attempt it, they have nothing reasonable to plead in this cause. To tell us that they do not believe what is written by them, neither did their forefathers, is, as to themselves no more than we know, and as to their forefathers, nothing but what those very writers testify concerning them; and to look for their consent to that in any record, which that record witnesses that they dissented from, is to overthrow the record itself, and all that is contained in it. The Jews then have nothing to oppose to this testimony, but only their own unbelief; which for all the reasons that have been insisted on, cannot be admitted as any just exception; story or circumstance they have none to oppose to it.

Secondly, we plead the notoriety of the miracles wrought by Christ, and the tradition delivering them down to us. This also the Jews plead concerning the miracles of Moses. They were, say they, openly wrought in the sight of all Israel, and that they were so wrought, the testimony of Israel in succeeding ages, is, next the writings itself, the best and only witness they have of them. And wherein does our testimony come short of theirs? Nay, on both accounts, of their first notoriety, and succeeding tradition, it far exceeds what they have to plead. For as the miracles of Moses were wrought openly; so the most of them were so only in the sight of that one people whom he had under his own conduct, in a wilderness, remote from any converse with other nations; and that in those dark times of the world, wherein men were generally stupid and credulous, as having not been imposed on by the delusions, which the following ages were awakened by. The Jews also lay no greater weight on any miracles than they do on those which were wrought in the wilderness of Midian, which had no witness to them, but that of Moses himself. But the miracles of Jesus were all, or most of them, wrought before the eyes of multitudes, envying, hating, and persecuting of him; and that in the most knowing days of the world, when reason and learning had improved the light of the minds of men, to the utmost of their capacity, in, and upon multitudes for sundry years together, being all of them sifted by his adversaries, to try if they could discover any thing of deceit in them. And although his personal ministry was confined to one nation, yet the miracles wrought by his disciples in his name and by his power, for the confirmation of his being the Messiah, were spread all the world over, so that all mankind were filled first with the report of them, and then satisfied with their truth; and lastly, the generality of them with faith in him, which they directed to. The notoriety therefore of his miracles, far exceedeth that of those of Moses. And for the means whereby the certainty of them is continued to us, whether we respect the number of persons confirming it, or their quality, or their dis-interest as to any carnal advantage, or their suffering for their testimony, it is notorious that the Jews condition confined merely to themselves, is no way to be compared with it. So that we may truly say, that no Jew can possibly on any rational account, give credit to the truth of the miracles wrought by Moses, and deny it to them wrought by the Lord Jesus.

But yet there seems somewhat further necessary in this case. Though there were miracles wrought by our Savior, yet they might be every way inferior to them wrought by Moses, and so not sufficient to testify to a doctrine and authority removing and abolishing the laws and customs instituted by Moses. And this the Jews of old seemed to have had respect to, in their endless tumultuary calling after signs and miracles. And hence, though the Lord Christ sometimes pleaded with them the works that he wrought, leaving them to stand and fall according to the evidence of them (John 15:24; chapter 10:37), as also did the Apostles afterwards (Acts 2:22), to the astonishment of all, and satisfaction of the less obdurate (John 7:31; chapter 12:37), yet both he himself constantly refused to gratify their curiosity and unbelief, when they required any sign or miracle of him (Matthew 12:38, 39; chapter 16:4; Luke 11:29), and the Apostle expressly condemns the whole principle in them, as that which in the preaching of the Gospel was not to be gratified, nor much attended to (1 Corinthians 1:22). But yet neither is there any strength wanting to our argument on this account also. For although it be not at all necessary, that he who comes with an after-revelation of the will of God, reversing any thing before established, should be attested to with more miracles, or those that are more signal, than he or they were, who were the instruments of the first revelation of things to be repealed (seeing no more is required but that he be sufficiently evidenced to be sent of God, which may be done by one true real miracle, as well as by a thousand) yet the wisdom of God has so ordered things, that the miracles wrought by the Lord Jesus, did on many accounts exceed those wrought by Moses, as by a comparison in some particular instances will appear.

First, the number of them gives them the preheminence. The Jews contend that there were seventy six miracles wrought by Moses, whereas those of all other prophets, as they observe, amount but to seventy four; for so do they lay hold on every occasion to exalt him, who yet judgeth and condemneth them. To make up this number, they reckon up sundry things that happened about his birth, and death, far enough from miracles wrought by him, or in the confirmation of his ministry: they add also every extraordinary work of God that fell out in his days, to the same purpose. Be it so then, that so many miracles were wrought by Moses, as we are far from diminishing any thing of the glory of his ministry, yet what are those compared to those wrought by Christ, and his Apostles, in his Name, and by his power and authority? Those that are recorded of his own, are not easily reckoned up, and yet those that are written, are far the least part of what he did perform, and that in the space of three or four years, whereas those of Moses were scattered to the whole course of his life, for an hundred and twenty years. Thus John assures us, that he did many more signs besides those that are written (chap. 20:30, 31), and that his testimony is equal to that of Moses, we have proved before. He adds, that the world could not contain the books that might be written of his miracles (chap. 21:25), by which usual hyperbole, a great multitude is designed.

Nor did the writers of the story of the Gospel agree to give an account of all the miracles that were wrought by the Author of it, but only to leave sufficient instances on record of his divine power, in the effecting of them. For this end they singled out some works that were occasionally attended with some disputes or preachings, tending to the opening and confirmation of the doctrine of the Gospel. Thus upon the coming of the disciples of John to him, it is said (Luke 7:21), In that same hour he cured many of their infirmities and plagues, and of evil spirits, and to many that were blind he gave sight. The particular stories of none of these are any where mentioned; nor had that season been at all remembred, but upon occasion of those persons who were sent to him; the present works which they saw, being made the ground of that answer which he returned to their Master; v. 22. Go tell John the things which you have seen and heard, how that the blind see, &c. Considering therefore what is elsewhere written, of all the regions about bringing in their sick, weak, and impotent, and of the cures of persons by the touching of his garment, it is evident that his personal miracles amounted to thousands, which might well give occasion to the hyperbole used by John in recounting of them. Hence some among the Jews were convinced that he was the Messiah, not only by the greatness, but also by the number of his works (John 7:31), Many of the people believed on him, and said, when Christ cometh will he do more miracles then these, which this man doeth? And what are the seventy six miracles of Moses to those, as to number, which in the first place the Jews glory in? And if we may add those which were wrought by his power by them that preached the Gospel on his commission: as they are all of the same efficacy to the end proposed, or confirmation of his being the Messiah, they amount not to thousands only, but probably to millions. For of this sort were all the miraculous gifts of the Holy Ghost, that were granted to the Church all the world over. So that as to the number of miracles, he was sufficiently by them attested to, to be the Messiah, the great law-giver of the people of the New Covenant.

Again, the Jews much insist on this, that all other prophets wrought miracles by the intervention of prayer, Moses alone without it at his own pleasure. The rod they say was committed to him as a kingly scepter, to denote that authority whereunto the whole nature of things gave place. It is true indeed it is not recorded that Moses prayed in words before every miracle that was wrought by him; or in reference to his ministry: but yet this is plain in story, that he wrought no mighty work, but either upon his prayer, or some express command and direction from God in particular; which everts the Judaical pretence of an abiding power remaining with him, enabling him to work miracles when and how he would. But this which they falsly ascribe to Moses, was eminently true in the Lord Jesus. Those thousands of miraculous works which he wrought, were the arbitrary effects of a word of command, without any especial direction for every new work; arguing the constant presence of an infinite power with him exerted according to his will. Come forth of him, come out of the grave, I will, be you clean, be you opened, and the like expressions he used as signs and pledges thereof. Thus was it not with Moses, as the story manifests; yes, he himself greatly doubted of the greatest effect of the divine power put forth by him, when he smote the rock to bring forth water.

The nature of the Miracles also wrought by the one and the other may be compared, § 65 and we shall see from there on which side the pre-eminence will be found. For those wrought by Moses, or by God himself while he employed him in the service of giving the Law, and the delivery of the people, they were for the most part portentous prodigies, suited to fill men with wonder, astonishment and fear. Such were all the signs of the presence of God on Mount Sinai. The effects also of most of them were evil and destructive, proceeding from wrath and indignation against sin and sinners; such were all the mighty works wrought in Aegypt; such those of the swallowing up of Dathan and Abiram in the Wilderness. Those that tended to the good and relief of mankind, as the bringing of water from the rock, were typical, and occasional. And those kinds of works were suited to that ministry of death and condemnation, which was committed to him. But on the other side, the mighty works of the Lord Jesus, were evidently effects of goodness, as well as of power, and consisted in things useful and helpful to mankind. Healing the sick, opening the eyes of the blind, and ears of the deaf, giving strength to the lame; casting out of devils, feeding hungry multitudes, raising the dead, are things amiable and useful. And though terrible prodigies may more affect and astonish carnal minds, such as the Jews were filled with, yet these works of grace and goodness, do more allure those who attend to the dictates of right reason. Evidences they were of a gracious ministry, tending to salvation and peace, in every kind; such as that of the Messiah was promised and foretold to be. As Miracles then were the tokens of their several ministries, and bespake the nature of them, those of the Lord Christ were exceedingly more excellent than those of Moses.

§ 66 Furthermore, as Moses had not a power of working miracles constantly resident with him, which he might exert according to his own will; so he was very far from being able to communicate any such power to others. God indeed took of the Spirit that was on him, and gave it to the Elders that were to be joined with him in the government of the people (Numbers 11:25), but yet neither was there a power of working miracles going along with that Spirit, but only ability for rule and government; nor yet was that communication of it any act of Moses at all. But now our Lord Jesus, as he had the divine power mentioned always with him, so he could give authority and power to whom he pleased, to effect all such miraculous works, as were any way necessary for the confirmation of their doctrine. Of this nature was the commission which he gave the Twelve when he sent them forth (Matthew 10:8): Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out devils. As also that to the seventy (Luke 10:17, 19). Yes, he promised them, which also came to pass, that by his power and presence with them, they should do greater things than those which they had seen him to do (John 14:12; Mark 16:17). And this difference is so eminent that nothing can be objected against it. This more evidently confirmed him to be the Master, than all the mighty works which he wrought in his own person on the earth.

§ 67 Again, all the miracles of Moses ended with his life. The Jews indeed some of them tell us a company of foolish stories about his death, which as their manner is, they would fix on those words (Deuteronomy 34:5), and Moses died [in non-Latin alphabet], by the mouth or word of the Lord; as namely, how he contended with ([in non-Latin alphabet]) the Angel of Death, and drove him away with his rod, so that he could not die, until God laid his mouth to his, and so took out his soul from him. But these figments are shameful, and such as become none but themselves. However these things extended only to his death; therewith ended his ministry and miracles. But now the greatest miracle of our Lord Jesus, was wrought by him, after the violent and cruel death which he underwent for our sakes. For he took his life again, and raised himself from the dead (John 10:17, 18). This being performed by him, after the dissolution of his human nature in the open visible separation of his body and soul, in which state it was utterly impossible, that that nature should put forth any act toward the retrievement of its former condition, manifested his existence in another superior nature, acting with power on the human in the same Person. And this one miracle was a sufficient vindication of the truth which he had taught concerning himself; namely, that he was the Messiah the Son of God. And though any should question his being raised again from the dead by his own power, yet the evidence is uncontrollable, that he was raised again by the power of God, without the application of the means and ministry of any other; whereby the Holy and Eternal God of truth, entitled himself to all that he had taught concerning his person and office, while he was alive. And this leaves no room for hesitation in this matter: for this being granted, none will deny, but that he was the Messiah; and what principles we proceed upon for the proof of it to the Jews, has been before declared.

§ 68 To what has been summarily recounted, we may lastly add the continuance of the miracles wrought by his power, after his leaving of this world, and his ascension into Heaven. And there is in them an additional evidence to what has been insisted on. For whereas the miraculous works that were wrought by himself and his Disciples, while he conversed with them in the flesh, were confined, as we observed before, to the Land of Canaan, those who afterwards received power from above by his grant and donation, continued to assert the like mighty works and miracles all the world over; so that within the space of a few years, there was scarce a famous town or city in the world, wherein some of his Disciples had not received the miraculous gifts of the Holy Ghost. And this also distinctly confirms him to be the promised Messiah: for whereas the isles of the Gentiles were to wait for, and to receive his Law, it was necessary that among them also it should receive this solemn kind of attestation from Heaven.

§ 69 Now from what has been spoken it appears, not only that the miracles wrought by Jesus, were sufficient to confirm the testimony which he gave concerning himself; namely, that he was the promised Messiah, the Son of God; but also that they were so much more eminent than those wherewith God was pleased to confirm the ministry of Moses in the giving of the Law, that the Jews have no reason to doubt or question his authority, for the reversing of any institutions of worship, which they had formerly been obliged to.

To close this argument, I shall only manifest, that the Jews of old were convinced § 70 of the truth of the miracles wrought by the Lord Jesus, and therein a little discover the variety of those pretences, whereby they attempt to shield themselves from the natural consequence of that conviction.

1. For those who lived in his own days: see (Matthew 18:11, 12, 13, 14; John 7:31; chapter 19:16, 24; Acts 4:16; Acts 19:13). Neither did they at any time, dispute his works, but only the power whereby they were wrought: of which afterwards.

2. The fame and reputation of them, was such among them, that those who made an art and trade of casting out of devils, used the invocation of the name of Jesus over their possessed, which the notoriety of his exerting his divine power in that kind of works, induced them to: see (Acts 19:13). They adjured the spirits by the name of Jesus whom Paul preached, observing the miracles that he wrought in that name. For they being ignorant of the true way and means whereby the Apostle wrought his miraculous works, after the manner of magicians they used the name of him whom he preached, in their exorcisms, as it was ever the custom of that sort of men to intermix their charms with the names of such persons, as they knew to have excelled in mighty works. And that this was common among the Jews of those days, is evident from (Luke 9:49), which could no otherwise arise, but from a general consent in the acknowledgement of the works wrought by him.

3. We have also hereunto the suffrage of the Talmudical Rabbins themselves, the most malicious adversaries that ever the Lord Jesus had in this world. They intend not indeed to bear witness to his miracles; but partly while they relate stories that were continued among them by tradition, partly while they endeavour to shield their unbelief from the arguments taken from them, they tacitly acknowledge, that they were indeed wrought by him. This I say they do, while they labor to show by what ways and means those prodigies, and wondrous works which are recorded of him, were wrought and effected. For they who say this or that was the way, whereby such a thing was accomplished, do plainly acknowledge the doing of the thing itself; greater evidence of their self-conviction, it is impossible they should give in or need we desire.

First, in the Talmud itself they have traditional stories of miracles wrought by the § 71 disciples of Jesus, and by others in his name; which although they are like the rest of their narrations, foolish and insipid, yet they evidence the tradition that was among them from the forementioned conviction. Thus in Aboda Zara they have a story concerning James (who lived longest among them): it happened they say, that Eleacer the Son of Dama was bitten by a serpent; and James of the village of Sechaniah (that is Bethany) came to cure him in the name of Jesus (the son of Pandira) but R. Ishmael opposed him, and said, it is not lawful for you, you son of Dama: so owning that miracles and cures were wrought by James in the name of Jesus. And in Sabbat. Hierusal. Distinct. Schemona Scheraticin: they tell us that the son of Rab. Jose the son of Levi had swallowed poison; a certain man came and communed with him in the name of Jesus the son of Pandira; and he was healed; but when he was gone out, one said to him, how did you advise him, he said by such a word; the other replied, that it had been better for him to have died, than to have heard that word. I mention these things, only to show that they were never able to stifle the tradition that passed among themselves, concerning the miracles wrought by Jesus and his disciples.

But this conviction more evidently discovers itself in their endeavours to assign his § 72 mighty works to other causes, so that they may not from them be forced to acknowledge his divine power, and the presence of God with him. And there are two pretences which they make use of. The first is that of their fore-fathers (Matthew 12:24): they would have the devil to be the author of them, and that he wrought them by magical incantations. This they pleaded of old; and this some of them pretend to adhere to, to this day; the folly of which blasphemy both reflects upon themselves, and is demonstratively removable from him, whom to their eternal ruin, they seek to reproach.

1. Do they not know, that their own Moses was generally esteemed by the wisest of the heathen, to have been skilled and exercised in magic. So Pliny and Apuleius testify, and that he wrought wonders by virtue thereof, as Celsus contends at large. And can they fix on a readier course to confirm such a suspicion in the minds of atheistical scoffers, than by their own taking up the same accusation against the author of more, and greater miracles than those wrought by Moses? What color of answer can they return to his reproaches, while themselves with more open impudence manage the same accusation against the Lord Jesus? Besides, as is confessed, Egypt was the spring of magical incantations, the world's academy for that diabolical cunning, where, almost alone, it was had in honor and reputation. There in the king's court had Moses his education and conversation forty years. How much more just then, though sufficiently unjust, might a suspicion seem concerning him of his being skilled in that falsely called wisdom, than concerning our Lord Jesus, who was persecuted there, and returned from there in his infancy, which they childishly object to him? So that in this whole vain pretence they do nothing but attempt to cast down their own foundations.

2. Neither indeed do they account the skill in, and use of magical incantations a crime, but an excellency. Josephus would have us believe that the art of magick, and the invention of incantations, was part of the wisdom of Solomon. And their Talmudical Doctors do expresly approve of that diabolical art. Nothing then but extream malice and desperation, would put them upon inventing this cloke for their infidelity, which not only casts down the foundation of their own profession, but involves also a contradiction to those principles, which at other times they avouch. So that Rabbi Achor was mistaken when he gave out that as a prophecy, which was indeed an history, namely, that a generation of ungodly men among the Jews would not believe the things that the Messiah should do, but should affirm that he does them by art magical.

§ 73 For the blasphemy its self, there needs no other answer be given to it, but what was returned by our Lord Jesus of old. If these things had been done by magical incantations, and consequently the assistance of the Devil, it must needs be upon a division of those wicked spirits among themselves, and that upon the main design of their kingdom, dominion and interest in this world. The open and proclaimed work of our Lord Jesus in this world, was by all wayes and means to overthrow the kingdom of Satan and his works. This he privately taught, this he publickly declared to be the main end of his coming into this world. The works and miracles which he wrought, were very many, innumerable of them exercised on devils, themselves, to their shame, terror, and dispossession of the habitations they had invaded. In, and during this work, he declares them to all the world, to be evil, wicked, malicious, unclean, and lying spirits, reserved for everlasting destruction in Hell, under the wrath of the great God. For this cause, they on the other side ceased not to oppose him, and to stir up all the world against him, untill they thought they had prevailed in his death. If men therefore shall imagine or fancy, that the works of Christ against the interest of Satan, upon his person, to his shame; wrought to confirm a doctrine, teaching all the world to avoid him, abhor him, fight and contend against him, commending every thing that he hates, with promises of life eternal to them who forsake him, and maintain his quarrel against him, threatning every thing that he loves, and labours to promote in the world with eternal vengeance, were wrought by his help and assistance, they had more need to be sent to the place where the maladies of those distracted of their wits are attended, then to have an answer given to their folly.

§ 74 They have yet another pretence to preserve themselves from the efficacy of this self-conviction. But this is so perfectly Judaical; that is, so full of monstrous, ridiculous figments, that nothing but an aim to discover their present desperate folly, and with what unmanly inventions, they endeavour to cover themselves from the light of their own conviction, can give countenance to the repetition of it. Besides the fable its self is vulgarly known, and I shall therefore only give a brief compendium of it, seeing it may not be wholly avoided.

The story they tell us is this; There was a stone in the Sanctum Sanctorum, under the Ark, wherein was written Shem Hamphorash, (so the Cabalists call the name Jehovah) He that could learn this name, might by the vertue of it, do what miracles he pleased. Therefore the wise men fearing what might ensue thereon, made two brazen dogs, and set them on two pillars before the door of the Sanctuary: And it was so, that when any one went in, and learned that name, as he came out, those dogs barked so horribly, that they frighted him, and made him forget the name that he had learned. But Jesus of Nazareth going in, wrote the name in parchment, and put it within the skin of his leg, and closed the skin upon it; so that though he lost the remembrance of it at his coming out, by the barking of the brazen dogs, yet he recovered the knowledge of it again out of the parchment in his leg; and by vertue thereof, he wrought miracles, walked on the sea, cured the lame, raised the dead, and opened the eyes of the blind. That alone which from hence we aim to evince, is the conviction that the most stubborn of the Jews had of the miracles of our blessed Savior. Had they not been openly performed, and undeniably attested, no creatures that ever had the shape of men, or any thing more of modesty then the brazen dogs they talk of, would have betaken themselves to such monstrous foolish figments, for a countenance and pretence to the rejection of him and them. He that should contend, that the Sun did not shine all the last year, and should give this reason of his assertion, because a certain man of his acquaintance climbed up to Heaven by a ladder, and put him in a box, and kept him close in his chamber all that while, would speak to the full, with as much probability and appearance of truth, as the grand Rabbins do in this tale. Every word in their story is a monster. The stone, the writing of the name of God in it, the vertue of the pronuntiation of that name, the brazen dogs, the entrance of a private man into the Sanctum Sanctorum; the barking of the dogs, are dreams becoming men under a poenal infatuation and blindness, not much distant from those chains of darkness wherewith Satan himself is kept bound to the judgement of the Great Day.

Fourthly, we must not forget the testimony of his disciples who conversed with him, and were eye witnesses of his miracles, especially of his rising from the dead. These, with multitudes ascertained of the truth by their testimony, to witness it to the world willingly forewent all temporal interests, exposing themselves to dangers innumerable; and lastly, sealed their testimony with their blood, shed by the most exquisite tortures that the malice of Hell could invent, all in expectation of acceptance with him, and a reward from him, which depended on the truth of the miracles, which they asserted him to have wrought and performed. From all these considerations, we may safely conclude, that it is utterly impossible, that the nature of man should be more ascertained of any thing that ever was in this world, than we may be of the miracles wrought by our Lord Jesus. Now all these as we have declared, were wrought by the divine power of God to confirm the truth of his being the promised Messiah. And if this were not so, it is impossible that God should ever more require an assent to any revelation of his mind or will, none being capable of a more evident and full confirmation so to be, than this has received, of Jesus being the Christ. The application of this consideration in particular to his resurrection from the dead, has been the special subject of so many writers, that I shall not farther insist upon it.

One argument more, taken from the success that the doctrine of Jesus has had in the world, shall close this discourse. What was his outward condition in this world, we acknowledge, and the Jews triumph in. The poverty of it, the contempt and reproach that it was exposed to, was one of the chief pretences that they had, and have to this day for their refusal of him. The time wherein he came, was that as has been showed, wherein the Jews were in daily expectation of their Messiah, and when the residue of mankind were in the full enjoyment of all that light, wisdom and knowledge, which the principles of nature could attain to. In this state of things, a poor man, living in an obscure village of Galilee, not taught by men so much as to read, begins to preach and to declare himself to be the Messiah, the Son of God, the Savior of the World. With this testimony he declares a doctrine destructive of the religion and sacred worship of all, and every man then living in the world; of the Jews as to the manner of it, which they esteemed above its substance, and of all others, of its very nature and being; and presses a course of obedience to God, decried by them all. To encourage men to believe in him, and to accept of his testimony, he gives them promises of what he would do for them when this life should be ended. No sooner does he undertake this work, but the Jews among whom he conversed, almost universally, at least all the great wise learned, and esteemedly devout among them, set themselves to scorn, despise, reproach and persecute him. And this course they ceased not, until conspiring with the power of the Gentiles, they took him out of the world as a malefactor, by a bitter, shameful and ignominious death. After which he rises again from the dead, and shows himself neither to Jews nor Gentiles in common, but only to some poor men chosen by himself, to be his witnesses and apostles. These begin to teach both Jews and Gentiles the things before mentioned. The Jews more deeply engaged than formerly, by having slain their Master, immediately persecute them, and that to death. The Gentiles at first deride and scorn them, but quickly changed their note, and set all their wit and power at work to extirpate them, and their followers out of the world. The Jews on many accounts looked upon themselves as ruined and undone for ever, if their testimony were admitted. The Gentiles saw that on the same supposition, they must forego all their religion, and therewith every thing wherewith they pleased themselves in this world. Invisible infernal powers who ruled in the world by superstition and idolatry were no less engaged against them. With them was neither human wisdom or counsels nor external force; yes, the use of both in their work was by their Master severely interdicted to them. Had not the truth and power of God been engaged with him, and for him, it is such a madness to suppose that this undertaking could have been carried on, to that issue and event in the conquest of mankind, which it at length obtained, as no man not utterly forsaken of reason, or cursed with blindness of mind, or made senseless and stupid by the power of his lusts, can make himself guilty of. Many are the branches of this argument, many the considerations that concur in a contribution of evidence and strength to it, all which to examine and improve, is beyond our present design. The bare proposal of it, is sufficient to cause all Jewish exceptions to vanish out of the minds of sober and reasonable men. From it therefore, with them that went before, we conclude the third part of our general thesis concerning the Messiah; namely, that Jesus of Nazareth whom Paul preached was He.