§ 13. The Jews take another course to solve this difficulty, as also to give some countenance to their computation, in beginning the numeration of the weeks from the destruction of the temple by the Chaldeans, and ending it in the desolation of the second house by the Romans. They will allow no more kings of Persia than are mentioned in the Scripture, and they will not admit that they reigned any longer than they find mentioned therein of the years of their reign. As though whether they did good or evil towards Jerusalem, it was fatal unto them; so that they must needs die immediately upon it. Thus they will not allow that there were above four or five kings of Persia at most, and thereby contract the duration of that empire from two hundred years and upwards, to fifty years at the most. But this supposition stands in open contradiction to all generally allowed computation of time in the world. And not only so, but it excludes all consideration of events as notorious to mankind, as that there ever was a Persian empire. Of this nature are the transactions and wars with other nations, especially the Grecians, which did not happen in the days of any of the kings mentioned in the Scripture; especially that famous expedition of Xerxes, which the whole world looked on, waiting for its event. And yet I acknowledge that this imagination might deserve consideration, if it could be pretended that the books of Ezra and Nehemiah did intentionally give us an account of the Persian empire, and of the reigns of the kings thereof, as some books do of the kings of Israel and Judah. But it is evident, that the design of the books of Ezra and Nehemiah is quite different; and that they mention only occasionally some ofthe kings of Persia, and some years of their reign, as these related unto the state and actions of the people of the Jews. It is therefore as foolish to contend from thence, that there were no more kings of Persia, than are mentioned in them, and that they reigned no longer than is in them expressed; as it would be to say that there were never above three or four kings of the Assyrian empire, because there are no more mentioned in the Scripture, although the reigns of other Assyrian kings are ascertained from other authorities. But this ανιστορήσια is beneath all consideration.
§ 14. There are other learned and pious men, who, resolying to date these weeks from the first year of Cyrus, and to make 490 years the exact measure of the time from thence unto the death of Messiah, and not being able to disprove the computation from Alexander to that time, fall also upon the Persian empire, and cut it short above fifty years of the true account of its duration, to fit it to the place and measure provided for it. To this end, they reject the accounts of the Chaldeans, Grecians, and Romans, concerning the time of its continuance, as fabulous, and give us a new arbitrary account of the reign of those kings whom they will allow.
This plan is adopted by Beroaldus, Broughton, Genebrard, and Willet, with sundry others. And the truth is, were the supposition once cleared, that the decree or commandment mentioned by Gabriel, must needs be given out by Cyrus, there were some colour for offering this violence to the accounts of this period, although these were written by men prudent and sober in their own days. But this is so far from being a foundation sufficient to bear such a structure, that take it nakedly of itself, it is destitute of all probability. The word, decree, or commandment mentioned unto Daniel, is that for the building of Jerusalem; that is, the restoring it to a condition of rule and government, that is the building of a city, and not only the setting up of houses. Consequent upon this, their building of the walls also for the defence of the people is mentioned. Of this it is said, that it should fall out ima troublesome time, or a time of straits, as accordingly it did fall out in the days of Nehemiah. In the whole there is not the least mention of building the temple, which, had it been intended, could not I suppose have been omitted. But in the decree of Cyrus, the principal thing mentioned and aimed at, is the re-edification of the temple, the city and the walls thereof being not spoken of in it, as may be seen in the first of Ezra at large.
It seems then evident that there were two decrees; that the decree mentioned by Daniel for the building of the city and walls, not the temple, and that given out by Cyrus, for the building of the temple, and not the city and walls, were divers. Besides this decree of Cyrus, although foretold long before, and made famous because it was the introduction to the people's return and settlement, yet it took effect for so short a space of time, being obstructed within less than three years, and utterly frustrated within four or five, that it is not likely to be the date of this prophecy, which seems to take place from some good settlement of the people. That this decree of
Cyrus is the term from which the seventy years should be computed, is argued with some colour of probability, from the prediction recorded, Isa. xliy. 8. It is there prophesied of him, that he should say to Jerusalem, ‘thou shalt be built, and to the temple, thy foundations shall be laid’ But yet neither is it here foretold that Cyrus should make any decree for the building of Jerusalem; or that it should be done in his days, as indeed it was not until a hundred years after, as it is evident from the story in Nehemiah. The whole intention of this prophecy, is only that he should cause the people to be set at liberty from their captivity, and give them leave to return to Jerusalem, which he did accordingly, and thereupon both the building of the city and temple ensued, though not without the intervention of other decrees; of which afterwards.
§ 15. The only argument to prove that the Persian empire lasted not above a hundred and fifty years, is taken from the life and age of Nehemiah. In Ezra ii. 2, he is reckoned among them that came up with Zerubbabel unto Jerusalem in the first year of Cyrus. It may reasonably be supposed that he was then at least twenty or twenty-five years of age. And it seems from the last chapter of Nehemiah, that he lived to the reign of Darius Codomanus: for Sanballat the Horonite assisted Alexander in his wars. And Jaddua whom he mentions ch. xii. 11, was high priest, when Alexander came to Jerusalem, as appears from Josephus. Now if the Persian empire continued for the space of two hundred years, which we have allotted unto it, then he who went to Jerusalem in the first year of Cyrus, and continued unto the reign of Codomanus, must needs live two hundred and twenty years at the least; now it is not credible that any one should live so long in those days. And therefore the space of time must needs be shorter than is pretended, at least by fifty or sixty years. But indeed there is no force in this exception. For, first, There is no necessity to conclude that Nehemiah wrote that genealogy, ch. xii., where mention is made of Jaddua, who was afterwards high priest, ver. 11, for he ends his story in the high priesthood of Eliashib, ch. xill. 28, who was great grandfather unto Jaddua, as appears, ch. xi. 10, 11. Or, however, if he did, Jaddua might then be a child, and might not come to the high priesthood until fifty or sixty years after; after the death of Eliashib, Joiada, and Jonathan, his great grandfather, grandfather, and father. So that no evidence can be taken from hence, for the continuance of his life unto the’end of the Persian monarchy. And for Sanballat mentioned by Josephus in the time of Alexander, it is not improbable, that he might name him as the head of the Samaritans, there being no name of any other after him left upon record.
2. There is no more reason to think that the Nehemiah, mentioned Ezra 11. 2, who came up with Zerubbabel, was that Nehemiah who was afterwards governor of Judah, and whose actions are recorded in the book of Nehemiah, written in all probability chiefly by himself, than there is to think that the Seraiah there mentioned, was the Seraiah that was slain at the taking of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar. The Daniel mentioned, Ezra viii. 2, was not Daniel the prophet, nor Baruch, Nehem. x. 6, that Baruch who was the scribe of Jeremiah: nor that Jeremiah mentioned, Neh. xii. 11, Jeremiah the prophet. Besides, Ezra is said to come up with Zerubbabel, Neh. xii. 1, which must either not be that Ezra the great scribe, or he must be said to come up with Zerubbabel, because he followed him on the same errand and account. It cannot be denied that there were sundry men at the same time of the same name, as the same person had sundry names. much more mights everal men have the same name in suc- cessive generations. Thus after Joshua was high priest, there was another Joshua chief of the Levites, Neh. xii. 7,8. And that about this time there were two Zerubbabels, one of the house of Nathan, the other of the posterity of Solomon, we shall make appear in the consideration of the genealogies of Matthew and Luke. 3. That this was not the Nehemiah that went up with Zerubbabel, the sacred story itself gives us sufficient evidence. For, 1st, he was ignorant of the state and condition of Jerusalem when he lived in the court of Persia, ch. i.: had he been there before and seen their condition, and been but newly returned to Shushan, he could not be so surprised as he was, ver. 4, upon the account then given him thereof. 2nd. ch. vii. 5, 6, he speaks of it as a great matter, that he should find a roll or register of them that came first up to Jerusalem with Zerubbabel in the days of Cyrus, amongst whom that Nehemiah was one. Now if this had been himself, what reason had he to mention as a great discovery, a thing with which he could not but by his own knowledge be fully acquainted. There is no reason then to surmise, that he was among them who returned from captivity in the days of Cyrus, whatever may have been the length of his life.
§ 16. The account therefore before laid down being established, it is certain enough, that the decree mentioned by Gabriel, from the going forth whereof the seventy weeks are to be dated, was not that of the first of Cyrus for the return of the captivity and building of the temple. For from thence, the period would end long before the just time allotted unto it, yea, before the beginning of the reign of Herod the Great, where Eusebius would have them to expire. We must therefore search for some other word, decree or commandment, from whence to date the four hundred and ninety years enquired after.
§ 17. The second decree of the kings of Persia in reference to the Jews, was that of Darius made in his second year, when the work of the building of the temple was carried on through the prophecy of Haggai and Zechariah. This is the decree or commandment mentioned in Ezra vi. granted by Darius, upon appeal made unto him from the neighbouring governors; and it was a mere revival of the decree of Cyrus, the roll whereof was found in Achmetha in the province of the Medes, ver.2. And this is that which Haggai and Zechariah relate to, dating their prophecies from the second year of Darius, Hag. i.2—10; Zech. i. 1. In the roll of the kings of Persia we find three called by the name of Darius, or Darianes as the Jews term him. 1. Darius Hystaspis, who succeeded Cambyses, by the election of the princes of Persia, upon the killing of Smerdes Magus the usurper. 2. Darius Nothus, who succeeded Artaxerxes Longimanus. 3. Darius Codomanus, in whom the Persian empire had its period by Alexander » the Great. That the last of these can be no way concerned in the decree, is notorious. The two others are disputed. Most learned men grant that it was Darius Hystaspis who was the author of this decree; and indeed that it was so, at least that it can be ascribed unto no other Darius, we shall afterwards undeniably prove. And it is not unlikely that he was inclined unto this favour and moderation towards the Jews, by his general design to relieve men from the oppressions which they suffered during the reign of Cambyses, and to renew the acts of Cyrus their first emperor, who was much renowned amongst them. Thus he might hope to ingratiate himself with mankind, and confirm himself in that kingdom to which he came not by succession. And it is not improbable that he was the husband of Esther; but if this was the case it was not till after this decree, made in the second year of his reign, the putting away of Vashti happening in the third, Esth. i. 3. Now ‘Cyrus reigned after his first decree three years; Cambyses with Smerdes eight, to whom succeeded this Darius, who issued this decree in the second year of his reign, that is at most thirteen years after the death of Cyrus; or if with some we should grant Cyrus to have reigned twenty years over the whole empire, it was but nineteen or twenty years at the most. Now the whole sum of the years from the first of Cyrus to the cutting off the Messiah, we have manifested to have been five hundred and sixty-two: deduct thirteen years from five hundred and sixty-two, and there yet remains five hundred and fortynine years which exceeds the number of years inquired after by fiftynine years. The addition of seven years to the reign of Cyrus, does not make any alteration in this general account. For on that supposition his first year must be taken seven years backwards, and the space of time from thence unto the end of the weeks will be five hundred and sixty-nine years, and the remnant from Darius, as we declared before, five hundred and forty-nine years. So that neither can this be the commandment intended there being from the going forth of it, unto the cutting off of the Messiah, not four hundred and ninety years, but as is declared five hundred and forty-nine. Besides indeed this decree of Darius was no new command, nor had any respect unto the restoration of Jerusalem, but was a mere renovation of the decree of Cyrus about the re-edifying of the temple,and so, doubtless, was not designed as the signal epoch of the time here determined.
§ 18. The great Scaliger, who would date the weeks from this decree of Darius, knowing that the time would not suit with the reign of Darius Hystaspis, contends that it was Darius Nothus who succeeded Longimanus that was the author of it, and extends the whole time or space of four hundred and ninety years, to the destruction of the city and temple, that space of time, according to his computation, being elapsed from the second year of Darius.
But the truth is, as may be seen from our former account, from the second year of Darius Nothus to the destruction of the city, was but four hundred and eighty years, which is short of the whole sum. Besides, we have before proved from the text, that the time determined was to expire in the death of the Messiah. And there are sundry other circumstances which plainly evince the inconsistency of this computation; for from the first of Cyrus, when the first command went forth for the building of the temple, whereupon the work of it was begun, unto the second year of Nothus, are full a hundred and eight years. And it is not credible, that the work of building of the temple should so long be hindered, and then come to perfection by them who first began it. For on this supposition, Zerubbabel and Joshua must live at Jerusalem after their return, above a hundred years, and then take in hand again the work which they had so long deserted. And this is yet more incredible upon his own opinion, that Xerxes was the husband of Ksther, about fifty years before the reign of Nothus. For it is likely that the Jews would have attempted, and would have been able to effect the building of the temple, while Esther was queen.
Neither is it consistent with the prophecy of Jeremiah, that the temple should lie waste so long a space, that is about a hundred and seventy years. Again, Haggai plainly declares, that when the work of the temple was carrying on in the second year of Darius, many were yet alive who had seen the first temple, chap. ii. 3, as multitudes were upon the laying of its foundation in the days of Cyrus, Ezra ui. 12. Now, this was impossible had it been in the days of Nothus, a hundred and sixty, or a hundred and seventy years after it was destroyed. And Scaliger plainly wrests the words of the text, when he would have them to be spoken by way of supposition: ‘If any were then alive who saw the first house in its glory. For Haggai evidently speaks with reference to the distress of the people, upon the laying of the foundation of the house, mentioned Ezra iii. 12, and the words themselves will bear no other sense: TIT T2T AN TN ἬΝ ANWIT DIA “2 W223, ‘ Who is among you that is left, that saw this house in her glory? He speaks of them who were yet left and remaining, and spake to them to remove and take away their complaint and repinings. Moreover, Artaxerxes, in whose days Ezra and Nehemiah went up to Jerusalem, was Longimanus, who reigned before Nothus, and not’ Memor, who succeeded him, as will afterwards appear. Now, this Artaxerxes was long after that Darius, upon whose authority the building of the temple was finished, Ezra vii. 1, which certainly could not be Nothus, who was his successor.
§ 19. It appears, then, that Darius Nothus was not the author of the decree mentioned, as also, that the times of the weeks cannot be dated from the second year of Darius Hystaspis, who was the author of it..
§ 20. After this, there is mention made of two other commands or decrees relating to the temple and people, both granted by the same Artaxerxes, one in the seventh year of his reign, unto Ezra, chap. vil. 7; the other in the twentieth year of his reign, unto Nehemiah, chap. ii. 1. And from one of these must the account inquired after be dated. Now, supposing that one of these decrees must be intended, it is evident that it was Longimanus, and not Memor, who was the author of them. For, from the seventh year of Memor, which was the second of the ninety-fifth Olympiad, to the eighteenth year of Tiberius Czsar, when our Saviour suffered, being the third year of the two hundred and second Olympiad, are only four hundred and twenty-eight years, sixty-two years short of the whole, or four hundred and ninety. Now, these sixty-two years added to the beginning of the account from the seventh of Memor, terminate in the seventh of Longimanus. from the seventh of Longimanus, then, to the seventh of Memor, are sixty-two years, and from the seventh of Memor to the eighteenth of Tiberius, are four hundred and twenty-eight years, making together, four hundred and. ninety years; which is the number inquired after.
§ 21. It was then, this decree of Longimanus that was intended by the angel Gabriel. For, from the seventh year of his reign, when he sent Ezra unto Jerusalem, to engage in that work which he afterwards commissioned Nehemiah to carry on and perfect, unto the cutting off of the Messiah, are exactly seventy weeks, or four hundred and ninety years, as may appear from the accounts formerly insisted on. From the first of Cyrus, supposing him to reign but three years over the whole empire, unto the death of Christ, there was, as we have proved, five hundred and sixty-two years. From the first of the same Cyrus, unto the seventh of Longimanus, were seventy-two years, which being deducted from the whole of five hundred and sixty-two years, the remainder is four hundred and ninety years. How this period was apportioned between the Persian, Grecian, Hasmonzan, Herodian, and Roman governments, we have before declared. |
§ 22. And there wants not reason to induce us to fix on this decree, rather than any other, being indeed, the most famous and most useful to the people of all the rest. By what means it was obtained, is not recorded. But it is evident that Ezra had great favour with the king, and that he had convinced him of the greatness and power of that God whom he served, chap. vill. 22. Besides, it was not a mere proclamation of liberty, like that of Cyrus, which was renewed by Darius; but a decree, a law made by the king and his seven counsellors, chap. vil. 14, the highest and most irrefragable legislative power amongst the Medes and Persians. Moreover, with the decree, Ezra had a formal commission, in which he is said not only to have leave to go, but to be sent by the king and his council. Besides, the former decrees barely respected the temple; and it seems, that in the execution of them, the people had done little more than built the bare fabric, all things as to the true order of the worship of God remaining in great confusion, and the civil state utterly neglected. But now, in this commission of Ezra, he is not only directed to set the whole worship of God in order, at the charge of the king, chap. vii. 16—23, but also to appoint and erect a civil government and magistracy with supreme power over the lives, 11- berties, and estates of men, to be exercised as occasion required, ver. 25, 26, which alone, and no other, was the building of the city mentioned by Gabriel; for it is not walls and houses, but policy, rule, and government, that makes and constitutes a city.
§ 23. And here the impression made on the minds of the Persian rulers, ought to be particularly observed. The king himself calls Ezra the scribe of the law of the God of heaven; thus owning him for the true God: for he who is the God of heaven, is God alone; all others are but the dunghill gods of the earth, ver. 12. Again, he declares that he was persuaded that if this work was not done, there would be wrath from heaven upon himself, his kingdom, and his sons, ver. 23. The seven counsellors they join in that law, ver. 14; and the mighty princes of the kingdom assisted Ezra in his work, ver. 28. So that no command that concerned that people before or after, was accompanied with such solemnity, or gave such glory unto God as this did. Besides, the whole work of the reformation of the church, the restitution of the worship of God, the collecting and the recognition of the ~ sacred oracles, was begun, carried on, and finished by this Ezra, as we elsewhere at large have declared. All which considerations falling im with the account before insisted on, makes it manifest that it was this, and no other decree that was intended by the angel Gabriel; and from thence unto the death of the Messiah, was seventy weeks, or four hundred and ninety years; the just and true limitation of the time after which we have been inquiring,
§ 24. I declared at the entrance of this discourse, that the force of our argument against the Jews from this place of Daniel, does not depend on this chronological computation of the time determined. All then, that I aimed at in it, was to vindicate it in general from those perplexities by which they pretend to render the whole place meconclusive. And this we have not only done, but we have, moreover, so stated the account, as that they are not able from any records of times past, to bring any one considerable objection against it, or any objection which may not be easily solved. We now proceed to what remains of our introductory dissertations.
ὁ 1. Other considerations, proving the Messiah to be long since come. ᾧ 2. Fluctuation of the Jews about the person and work of the Messiah. ᾧ 3. Their state and condition in the world for sixteen centuries. ᾧ 4. Promises of the covenant made with them of old. All fulfilled unto the expiration of that covenant. § 5. Not now made good unto them. Reason thereof. The promise of the land of Canaan failed, § 6. Of protection and temporal deliverance. § 7. Spirit of prophecy departed. § 8. Covenant expired. § 9. Jewish exceptions. Their prosperity. § 10. The sins of their forefathers. § 11—13. Of themselves. Vanity of these exceptions. Concessions of the ancient Jews. Folly of ‘Talmudical doctors. § 14. Traditions of the birth of the Messiah before the destruction of the second temple. §15, 16, Tradition of the school of Elias; about the world’s continuance. Answers of the Jews unto our argument by way of concession. § 17. The time prolonged because of their sins. Vanity of this pretence. § 18. Not the Jews only, but the Gentiles concerned in the coming of the Messiah. § 19. The promise not conditional. Limitations of time not capable of conditions. ᾧ 20. No mention of any such condition. § 21. The condition supposed overthrows the promise. § 22. The Jews in the use of this plea, self-condemned. § 23. The covenant overthrown by it. § 24. The Messiah may never come upon it.
§ 1. We may now add to the conclusive testimonies before insisted on, some other considerations taken from the circumstances and opinions of the Jews themselves. These will be found both suitable for their own conviction, and of use to strengthen the faith of them who do believe. And the first thing that offers itself unto us, is their miserable fluctuation and uncertainty in the whole doctrine about the Messiah, ever since the time of his coming, and of their rejection of him.
§ 2. That the promise of the coming of the Messiah was the foundation of their professed faith and worship, from the days of Abraham, we have before sufficiently proved. Until the time of his coming, they were unanimous in this profession, as also in their desires and expectations of his advent. Since that time, as, they have utterly lost all faith in him, as to the great end for which he was promised, so they have lost all truth as to the doctrine concerning his person, office, and work, though these are abundantly revealed in the Old Testament.
In their Talmud. Tractat. Sanedr. they only wrangle, conjecture, and contend about him, and that under such notions and apprehensions of him, as the Scripture gives no countenance unto. When he shall come, and how, where he shall be born, and what he shall do, they wrangle much about, but are not able to determine any thing at all; at which uncertainty the Holy Ghost never left the church in things of so great importance. Hence, some of them adhered to Barcosba for the Messiah, a bloody rebel; and some of them in after ages to David el David, a wandering juggler; others, to Moses Cretensis; and by sundry other pretenders have they allowed themselves to be deluded. Thus, some have lately followed the foolish | apostate Sabadia, with his false prophets, R. Levi and Nathan, who never | made the least appearance of any one character of the true Messiah, as | Maimonides confesseth and bewaileth. The disputes of their late masters, have not any thing more of certainty or consistency, than those of their | Talmudical progenitors. And this, at length, hath driven them to the present miserable relief of their infidelity and despair, asserting that Messiah shall not come until immediately before the resurrection of the dead; only they take care that some small time may be left for them to enjoy wealth and pleasure, with dominion over the Edomites and Ishmaelites, that is, Christians and Turks, under whom they live, full of thoughts of revenge and retaliation in the days of their Messiah. Now, to what can any man ascribe this fluctuation and uncertainty, about that which was the fundamental article of the faith of their forefathers, and their utter renunciation of the true knowledge of the Messiah, but to this, that having long ago renounced him, they exercise their thoughts and expectations about a chimera of their own, which having no subsistence in itself, nor foundation in any work or word of God, can afford them no certainty or satisfaction in their contemplations about it?
§ 3. Again, the state and condition of this people for the space of above sixteen hundred and thirty years, gives evidence to the truth contended for. The whole time of the continuance of their church state and worship, from the giving of the law on Mount Sinai, to the final destruction of the city and temple by Titus, was not above sixteen hundred and thirty years, or sixteen hundred and forty at the utmost, allowing all their former captivities and intermissions of government into the reckoning. They have then, continued in a state of dispersion and rejection from God, as long as ever they were accepted for his church and people; what their condition hath been in the world for these sixteen centuries, is known unto all, and what may be thence concluded, we shall distinctly consider.
§ 4. When God took the Jews to be his people, he did it by a special and solemn covenant. In this covenant, he gave them promises, which were all made good to them until the expiration of this peculiar covenant in the coming of the Messiah. These promises may be classed under three heads. First. That they should possess the land of Canaan, and there enjoy that worship which he had prescribed unto them; see Exod. vi. 4, xxxiv. 10, 11; Levit. xxvi. 8,9; Deut. xviii. 18, xxix. 13; Psal. cy. 10, 11. Secondly. That he would defend them from their adversaries, or if at any time he gave them up to be punished and chastised for their sins, that upon their repentance and supplications made unto him, he would deliver them from their oppressors, Deut. xxx. ]—5; Neh. i. 9; Deut. xxxii. 359—37; 1 Kings viii. 84. Thirdly. That he would continue prophets among them to instruct them in his will, and to reclaim them from their transgressions, Deut. xvii. 18. The whole Pentateuch, and all their divine writings, are full of promises about these things. And, as we said, till the time limited for the expiration of that special covenant, they were all made good unto them. That it was to expire, they are forced to acknowledge, because of the express promise of a new or another covenant to be made not like unto it, Jer. xxxii. The land given them by inheritance and the place designed for the worship of God therein, were continued in their possession, notwithstanding the mighty attempts made by the nations of the world for their extirpation. And when at any time he gave them up for a season unto the power of their adversaries, because of their sins and provocations, as unto the Babylonians in the days of Nebuchadnezzar, and afterwards unto the Grecians or Syrians im the days of Antiochus Epiphanes; yet still he first foretold them of their condition, promised them deliverance from it, and ina short time accomplished it, though it could not be done without the ruin of other kingdoms and empires. The oppression of the Babylonians continued but seventy years, and the persecu- tion of Antiochus prevailed only for three years and a half. Prophets also _he raised up unto them in their several generations, yea, in the time of their greatest distresses; as Jeremiah at the time of their desolation, Ezekiel and Daniel at Babylon, Haggai and Zechariah in their poverty after their return, which dispensation ceased not until these prophets had pointed out to them the end of that covenant, and had told them that the Messiah should come speedily and suddenly into his temple, Mal. ii. 1, 2.
§ 5. The present Jews, I hope, will not deny but that God is faithful still, and that he is as able now to accomplish his promises, as he was in the days of old. Let us, then, inquire whether they enjoy any one thing promised them in the covenant, or any thing relating to it, or whether they have done so since the days wherein, as we have proved, the Messiah was to come. 1. For the country given unto them by covenant, and the place of God's worship there, the whole world knows, and they continually complain, that strangers possess it, they being utterly cast out of it. It is with them all, as it was with Abraham before the grant of the inheritance was accomplished, they have not possession of one foot in it, no not for a burying-place. Their temple is destroyed, and all their attempts for the restoration of it, which God so blessed of old, have been frustrated, and have ceased. Their daily sacrifice has ceased, and whatever they substitute in the room of it, is an open abomination unto the Lord. We need not insist on these things. The stories of the ruin and exile of their forefathers, and of the vain attempts which they have made to recover their land, and of the utter pollution of the places of their worship, are known to themselves, and to all men that care to know ought of these things. Where is now the covenant of the land of Canaan? Was it to be absolutely everlasting? Whence comes it to pass, that the great promise of it doth utterly fail? Was it to expire? What period can be assigned unto its duration, but only that of the coming of the Messiah, and the establishment of a new covenant in him? Is not the denial hereof a ready way to make the men of the world turn Atheists, and to look upon the Scriptures of the Old Testament as a mere fable, when they shall be taught that the promises contained in it, were but conjectures, deceitful words, that came to nothing.
§ 6. Again, How are they delivered from their adversaries? How are they defended from their oppressors? There is not a nation in the known world, in which they do not live either openly or privately in exile and banishment from their own land. About their oppressions, and against their oppressors, they have cried out, and prayed after their manner, for many generations. Where is the protection, the deliverance promised? If the time be not yet expired for the coming of the Messiah, why are they not delivered ἢ What word is there in the law, or the prophets, that they shall not be delivered out of temporal distresses in any other way but by the Messiah? Hath it not been otherwise with them? Were they not delivered from former oppressions and captivities by other means? Could not God of old have dispossessed the Romans of the land of Canaan, and afterwards the Saracens? and can he not now dispossess the Turks as easily as he did the Babylonians, Persians, and Grecians? If the covenant of those promises be not expired in the coming of the Messiah, what account can they give of these things?
§ 7. Further, where are the prophets promised unto them? Can they name one since the days of John Baptist, whom they owned for a prophet? Hath any one amongst them pretended to any such thing, whom the event, and they on the event, have not discovered to be an impostor? Such was
Theudas, and Moses Cretensis, with some few others. Is it not strange, that they who never long wanted a prophet in their difficulties, and sometimes had many of them together, should now in their utmost misery, wanderings, and darkness, be left utterly destitute of any one for more than a thousand and six hundred years together? It is the general confession of all their masters, that they have lost the Holy Ghost, or spirit of prophecy. After the finishing of the second temple, they say, and they say truly, that rophecy ceased. “n> S82 Ty ΝΞ) OP Nd WA Man maw ‘> IP na ὙΠ, saith Saadias Haggaon on Daniel ix. ‘Israel had no prophet after the finishing of the second house, but those who en joyed the Bath Kol’ But what is now become of that Bath Kol also for sixteen hundred years? Is not all pretension to revelations utterly departed? What then is become of that covenant, wherein it was promised unto them? Yea we know, that they have not only lost the Holy Ghost as a spirit of prophecy, but also as a spirit of grace and supplications; so that except a few superstitious forms, repeated by number and tale, there is no such thing as prayer amongst them, as some of their late masters have acknowledged.
§ 8. What reason now can be assigned for this state and condition of things, but only that the covenant wherein the good things mentioned were promised unto them, had a time limited unto it, when it was to give place to a new covenant of another nature. And this the Jews acknowledge is to take date from the coming of the Messiah. God is faithful and unchangeable, and able to make good his promises and his word to the utmost. The present Jews are no less Jews of the carnal seed of Abraham, than their forefathers were. Therefore the covenant made with them, to continue until the coming of the Messiah, must be long since expired; consequently the Messiah must be long since come.
§ 9. Two things in general the Jews reply unto these considerations; the one as they have occasion and advantage, the other openly and constantly. In the first place, to evade the force of the argument from their present abject condition, they mention as they have occasion the prosperity of some of their nation in this or that country, with the honour and riches that some of them have obtained. To this purpose, they tell us stories of their number and wealth in the east, out of Benjamin Tudelensis and others, and of the riches of some of them in the western parts also of the world. But they know that not one of these things was promised unto them in the covenant that God made with them upon Mount Horeb. ΑἹ] the promises of it respected the land of Canaan, with their preservation there, or their return thither. What they acquire in countries which are under the power of other nations, they acquire in a way of common providence, as do some of the vilest wretches of the earth, and not in a way of any especial promise. And therefore when Daniel and Nehemiah, with others, were exalted unto glory and riches among the Babylonians and Persians, yet they rested not therein, but pleaded the covenant of God for their restoration to the land promised unto Abraham. And to suppose that the wealth of a few Jews in different regions, obtained by physic, or usury, or by farming of customs, is an accomplishment of the promises before insisted on, is openly to despise the promises, and the Author of them. che
§ 10. But it is pleaded, secondly, by them, that it is for their sins that the coming of the Messiah is thus retarded. But it is not about the coming of the Messiah, directly and immediately, that they are pressed in these considerations; that about which we inquire, is their present state, and their long continuance in this state, with the reason of it. We ask then what is the true cause of their present condition? They say it is because of their sins; and this also in general we grant. But we must yet further inquire what they intend by this answer. I ask therefore whether it be for the sins of their forefathers, who lived before the last final dispersion, or for their sins who haye lived in the several generations since, that they are thus utterly forsaken? If they shall say it is for the sins of their forefathers, as Manasseh plainly doth, Quest. 43. in Gen. p. 65, and sundry others of them do the same, then I desire to know whether they think God to be changed from what he was of old, or whether he be not still every way the same as to all the promises of the covenant? If they shall answer that he is still the same, I desire to know whether he did not in former times, in the days of their Judges and Kings, especially in the Babylonian captivity, punish them for their sins, with that contemporation of justice and mercy, which was agreeable to the tenour of the covenant? This 1 suppose they will not deny, the Scripture speaking so fully to this effect, and the righteousness of God requiring it. I desire then to know what were the sins of their forefathers, before the destruction of the second temple, and their final dispersion, which so much, according to the rules of the - covenant, exceeded thesins of them who lived before the desolation of the first temple, and the captivity that ensued? For we know that in the former instance they were punished only with a dispersion, of which some of them saw the beginning and the end; the duration of the whole of it not exime seventy years, after which they were restored again to their own and. But the captivity and dispersion which hath befallen them upon the sins of those who lived before the destruction of the second temple, as they were in their manner and entrance much more terrible and tremendous than the former; so they have now continued above twenty times seventy years without any prospect of a restoration. As God is still the same that he was, if the old covenant with the Jews be still in force, then the difference between these dispensations must arise from the difference of the sins of the one sort of persons and the other. Now of all the sins of which, on the general account of the law of God, the sons of men can be guilty, idolatry is doubtless the greatest. The choosing of other Gods, is a complete renunciation of the true God. This sin then comprises in it all other sins whatever, as it casts off the yoke of God, and our dependence upon him as the first cause, and last end of all. Thus while other sins violate the different precepts of the moral law, idolatry tramples on the whole law, by rejecting the Lawgiver. Therefore the first commandment forbids this sin, thus intimating, that if the command to own the true God, and him alone, be not obeyed, it is to no purpose to apply ourselves to the precepts that follow. Now it is known to all, that this sin of idolatry abounded amongst them under the first temple, and that also for a long time, attended with violence, adulteries, persecution, and oppression; but that those under the second temple had contracted the guilt of this sin, the present Jews do not pretend; and we know that they hated all appearance of it. Nor are they able to assign any other sins whatever, in which they exceeded their progenitors under the first temple. What then is the cause of the difference in the event between them and their forefathers? It must be, that either they have contracted the guilt of some sin, wherewith God was more displeased than with the idolatry of their forefathers, or that the covenant made with them is expired, or that there hath been a coincidence of both these causes. This indéed is the condition of things with them,
The Messiah came, in whom the carnal covenant was to expire, and they rejected and slew him. Thus do they justly suffer a perpetual rejection from it, and disinheritance.
§ 11. Sometimes they plead, that it is for their own sins, and the sins of the generations that succeeded the destruction of the second temple, that they are kept thus long in misery. But we know that they use this plea only as a covering for their obstinate blindness and infidelity. Take them from this dispute, and they are continually boasting of their mghteousness and holiness; for they do not only assure us that they are better than all the world besides, but also much better than their forefathers, (as Manasseh plainly affirms in the place before cited;) and that on the day of expiation, that is once a-year, they are as holy as the angels in heaven. There are therefore one or two things which I would desire to know of them as to this pretence of their own sins, which on another account also must be afterwards considered.
First, then, Whereas it is a principle of their faith, that all Jews, excepting apostates, are so holy and righteous, that they shall all be saved, and all have a blessed portion in the world to come, whence is it that none of them are so righteous as to be restored to the land of Canaan? Is it not strange, that that righteousness which is able to bring them all to heaven, will not serve to bring any one of them to Jerusalem. Yet this latter mercy is more openly and frequently promised to them than the former. I know not how to solve this difficulty; ipsi viderint.
Again, Repentance from their sins is a thing wholly in their own power, or it isnot. If they shall say it is in their own power, as generally they do, I desire to know why they defer it? The high imaginations which they have of the levelling of mountains, the dividing of rivers, the singing of woods, and the dancing of trees; of the coaches and chariots of kings to carry them, as also of their riding upon the shoulders of their rich neighbours into Jerusalem; of the conquest of the world, of the eating of Behemoth, and of drinking the wine of paradise; of the riches, and wives, and long life that they shall enjoy in the days of the Messiah; these do make them, as they pretend, patiently endure all their long exile and cala-. mities. And can these all not prevail with them for a little repentance, which they may perform when they please, and so obtain them all in a trice? If they are so evidently blind, foolish, and mad, about that which they look upon as their only great concern in this world, have they not great cause to be jealous, lest they be also equally blind in other things, and particularly in that wherein we charge them with blindness. This, it seems, is the state of these things. Unless they repent, the Messiah will not come; unless he come, they cannot be delivered from their calamities, nor enjoy the promises. To repent isa thing in their own power, yet they choose rather to endure all miseries, and forego all the promises of God, than to repent of their sins. And what shall we say to such a perverse generation of men, who openly proclaim that they will live in their sins, though they should never have more to do with God unto eternity. If they shall say that repentance is the gift of God, and that without his pouring forth his Spirit upon them, they cannot attain unto it, then I desire to know whence it is that God doth not give them repentance, as he did to their forefathers, if the covenant continue established with them as in former days? From what hath been discoursed, it sufficiently appears, that the condition of the Jews hath been such in the world for these sixteen hun— dred years, as to manifest that their special covenant has long since come