JEWISH TRADITIONS ABOUT THE COMING OF THE MESSTATI.
to an end, and consequently that the Messiah, in whom it was to expire, has long since come.
§ 12. There is one of them, a nameless person, not unlearned, who hath written somewhat lately in the Portuguese language, which is translated into Latin by Brenius the Socinian, who gives so satisfactory an answer in his own conceit unto this argument, that he concludes, that every one who is not obstinate, or blinded with corrupt affections, must needs acquiesce in it. His confidence, if not his reasons, deserves our consideration, especially as he brings forward reasors which their former masters did not insist upon.
That then which he returns as an answer to the inquiry after the causes of their present long captivity and misery, is the sins of their forefathers under the first temple. The greatness of these sins, he saith, is expressed by the prophet Ezekiel, ch. xvi. 48. “Α51 live, saith the Lord God, Sodom thy sister hath not done, she nor her daughters, as thou hast done, thou and thy daughters.’ To which he adds, Isa. 1. 9, where mention is made again of Sodom. So that this captivity is to them in the room of such a destruction, as that with which Sedom was overthrown.
But it may be said that these sins, whatever they were, were expiated in the Babylonish captivity, and pardoned unto them upon their return. So that now they must suffer on the account of their sins committed under the second temple, to which he replies that this exception is of no force. ‘ Nam liberatioe Babylone nihil aliud fuit, quam exploratio, qua Deus experiri voluit, an cum restitutione regni et templi possint abbreviari, et expiari enormia ista, que commisserant, adulterii, homicidii, et idololatrize peccata; sed pro antecedentium debitorum solutione, quam prestare debuerunt, nova insuper debita accumulayerunt.’ ‘ For the deliverance from Babylon was nothing but a trial, whereby God would make an experiment, whether with the restitution of their kingdom and temple, these enormous sins of adultery, murder, and idolatry, which they had committed, might have been cut off and expiated, but instead of a discharge of their former arrears, which they were obliged unto, they heaped up new debts by their sins.’ This he affirms. At their deliverance out of Babylon, the people had no discharge of their former sins by the pardon of them; but were only tried how they would afresh acquit themselves, with a resolution in God, that if they made not satisfaction then for those sins, to charge the guilt of them again upon them, and upon all their posterity, for all the generations that are passed, until this day. But, first, This is plainly a fiction of this man’s own devising. Let him produce any one word from the Scripture, where it treats of these things, in the least giving countenance: thereto, or let him show how this procedure is suitable to the justice of God; either to the general notion that we have of it, or to any other instance recorded of it in the Scripture.
But if these men may feign what they please, there is no doubt but they will justify themselves, and maintain their own cause.
Secondly. Why did none of the latter prophets whom God granted unto the people, after their return from captivity, as Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, let the people know that this was the condition of their return into their land, but only require of them to walk in a manner answerable to the mercies which they had then received?
Thirdly. As the very nature of the dispensation did declare, that God having purged out the rebels of the people, and “destroyed them with his sore judgments, had forgiven their sins, and had returned unto them in a way of mercy and grace, never again to call over their past iniquities, so the prophets that treated concerning that dispensation of God, do in places innumerable assert the same, and plainly contradict this imagination.
Fourthly. God punisheth not the sins of the fathers upon their children, unless the children continue in the sins of their fathers. This he declareth at large, Ezek. xviii. Now, what were the sins of this people under the first temple before their captivity? Our author reckons adultery, murder, and idolatry. There is no doubt but many of them were adulterers, and that sin among others was charged on them by the prophets; but it is evident that their principal ruining sins were their idolatry, and persecution or killing of the prophets. And God by Ezekiel declares, that in and by their captivity, he would punish and take away all their idolatry, and adulteries of which they had been guilty, from the time of their leaving the land of Egypt, or from their beginning to be his people, ch. xxii. 11—27. Now were the Jews, that is the body of the people, guilty of these sins under the second house? It is known that they preserved themselves from all idolatry, which was the sin that in an especial manner was their ruin before; and for killing the prophets, they acknowledge that after Malachi they had none, so that none could be persecuted by them, but those whom they will not own to be prophets. But,
Fifthly. Suppose that all those under the second house had continued in the sins of their forefathers, which yet is false, and is denied by themselves as occasion requires, yet what have the Jews done, for sixteen hundred years since the destruction of that house? They plead that they are holy, and in application of the prophecy, Isa. 1111, unto themselves, proclaim themselyes innocent and righteous; at least they would not have us to think that the generality of them are adulterers, murderers, and idolaters. Whence is it, then, that the punishment of their fathers’ sins lies so long on them? What rule of justice is observed herein ὁ What instance of the like dispensation can they produce? On Christian principles, it is indeed easy to account for their continued calamities, for we afhrm, that they continue unto this day in the same sin for which their forefathers under the second house were rejected and destroyed, and so know the righteousness of God in their present captivities and miseries. Besides,
Sixthly. They say that they abhor the sins of their forefathers, repent of them, and do obtain remission of sins through their observation of the law of Moses. Where, then, is the faithfulness of God in his promises to them? Why are they not delivered out of captivity? Why not restored to their land according to express testimonies of the covenant made with them unto that purpose? There is no colour of truth or of reason therefore in this evasion, which they have invented to countenance themselves in their obstinate blindness and unbelief.
§ 13. But our author yet adds an instance, whereby he hopes to strengthen and confirm his former answer. Saith he, ‘Deus per manus Salamanassani
decem tribus in captivitatem passus est abduci in regiones nobis incognitas, sexcentis fere annis ante destructionem templi secundi, hoc est ante presentem hanc nostram captivitatem, necdum in hodiernam hance diem in terram suam reverse aut dominio suo restitute sunt, quae omnia speciali Dei providentia nobis ita evenerunt, ne quis causam hujus nostree captivitatis speciali alicui peccato sub secunda domo commisso imputaret: Cum decem tribus qui tum abfuerunt captivitatem pati debent sexcentis annis longiorem. ‘God suffered the ten tribes to be carried captive by Salamanasser
into regions unknown to us, six hundred years before the destruction of the second temple, and our present captivity; neither are they yet brought back to their own land, or restored to their former rule, all which things have happened unto us by the especial providence of God: that none might impute the cause of the captivity unto any sin committed under the second temple: seeing the ten tribes that were then absent must endure a captivity six hundred years longer.’ But this instance will not yield them the least
relief. For, 1. It was before granted, that the sins under the second temple were even greater than those under the first, whence the punishment of these former sins was revived, which is here denied, manifesting that this is an evasion invented to serve the present turn. 2. Whatever is pretended, no impartial man who admits the special relation of that people unto God, and his covenant with them, can refuse to grant that their present rejection is for some outrageous sins which broke the covenant under the second temple, and which are continued in by them unto this day. 3. The case of the ten tribes, after they had publicly rejected all that worship of God, and all that government of his peculiar people, which was appointed to typify Messiah, and to continue until his coming, is different from that of the other tribes, to whom the promises were appropriated in Judah, and in the house of David; so that the rejection of the ten tribes implies no disannulling of the covenant. 4. It must be remembered, that all of the two tribes came not up to Jerusalem at the return from the captivity of Babylon, and that very great numbers of the ten tribes appear so to have done. Now these being added to the multitudes of them which before that had fallen away to Judah, partly upon the account of the worship of God, partly upon the account of outward peace, when their own land was wasted, makes the condition of the body of the people to be one and the same. Now these men, consisting partly of some of the ten tribes, and partly of some of the two tribes, committed, and their posterity continue in the sins to which we ascribe their present dispersion and captivity. 5. The remnant of that people dispersed amongst strange nations, seems voluntarily to have embraced their manners and customs, and utterly to have forgotten their own land; whereas those with whom we have to do, daily expect, desire, and endeavour, a return thereunto; so that this evasion can yield no relief to the present Jews. We may now return to the notions of their more ancient masters.
For a close, then, of these considerations, I shall add some of the confessions of the Jews themselves, which the evidence of the truth contended for, hath at several seasons extorted from them. And this I shall not do, as though they were of great importance in themselves, or unto us, but only to discover their difficulties in contending against the light; for the present masters of their unbelief, are more perplexed with the convictions of their predecessors, than with the plainest testimonies of the Scripture: the authority of their predecessors being equal with them unto, if not more sacred than that of the word of God itself.
First, then, Being pressed with the testimonies before insisted on out of Haggai, concerning the glory of the second temple, and the coming of the desire of all nations thereunto, they have a tradition that the Messiah was born on the same day that the second temple was destroyed. The story, indeed, with which they make it up, is weak, fabulous, and ridiculous; but he who is offended with the citation of such things out of their Talmudical doctors, is desired only to exercise patience, until he shall be able himself to report from them things more serious and of greater importance; and yet from them we must learn the persuasions and convictions of the ancient Jews, or remain utterly ignorant of them. And let their stories be what they will, the powerful convincing evidence of truth, and the miserable shifts that the poor creatures are put to, to keep off the efficacy of it from their minds, do sufficiently appear in them.
§ 14, The tradition mentioned, they give us in Tractat. Bezaroth. distinct. Hajakorr, in these words: TW Tow OYA IN “Ἴ DW Dn ae
WIparnt ma Aq BPs ἽΞ, “ Rabbi Joden, in the name of Rabbi Ibbo, said, the Messiah was born in the day that the house of the sanctuary was destroyed.’ And the story they tell to this purpose is as followeth: It came to pass, that as a Jew was ploughing, his ox before him lowed, and there passed by him “ΣΡ, ‘an Arabian,’ and he heard a voice saying, O Jew, the son of a Jew, loose thy oxen, for behold the house of the sanctuary is destroyed. The ox lowed the second time; and he said, O Jew, the son of a Jew, yoke thy oxen, for behold Messiah the King is born. He said unto him, What is his name? He answered, om, Menachem, that is, ‘ the Comforter. And in Bereshith Rabba on Gen. xxx., they have a long story to the same purpose. DYD yom 42 Sxyew “aN vel, 2209 IN TT ON, ‘Rabbi Samuel, the son of Nachman, said, As Elias of good memory was walking on the way, on that very day that the house of the sanctuary was destroyed, he heard >\p na, ‘the voice from heaven,’ crying unto him, The house of our holy sanctuary is brought unto destruction. When Ehas of good memory heard this, he thought the whole world should be destroyed. He went, therefore, and finding, DIN 123, ‘men ploughing and sowing,’ he said unto them, The holy blessed God is angry with the world, or all this generation, D>1y7 55, and will destroy his house, and send his children into captivity among the nations of the world, and you are solicitous about this temporal life! ΣῚΡ na came forth again, and said unto him, Let them alone, for unto Israel is born a Saviour. He said unto the voice, Where is he? The voice said unto him, In Bethlehem Judah. He went and found a woman sitting in the door of her house, and her child lying in its own blood before her. He said unto her, My daughter, hast thou born a son? She said unto him, Yea. He said, And why doth it lie so long in its own blood? She said unto him, Because of the great evil; for on this day wherein he is born, the house of the sanctuary is destroyed. He said unto her, My daughter, be of good courage, and take care of the child, for great salvation shall be wrought by his hand; and she was straitway encouraged, and took care of him. —In the sequel of this story, they tell us that this
child was carried away by the four winds of heaven, and kept in the Great Sea four hundred years, of which afterwards. I doubt not but that this tale is derived from the account which is given in the second chapter of the gospel by Luke, of the appearance of the angels to the shepherds, and of their finding our Lord’s mother in a stable. ΑἹ] the use that I intend to make of this story is, to urge the present Jews with a conviction and acknowledgment of their forefathers, that the Messiah was to be born under the second temple.
§ 15. Again, they have a tradition out of the school of one Elias, a famous master amongst them of the Tannarei or Antetalmudical doctors, which they have recorded in the Talmud Tractat, Saned. distinct. Chelek. about the continuance of the world, which is as follows: 358 25 NIN nia opbx sw) mn pds sap ann pdx aw diy nt mow pds ww ΤῊ, “ΤῸ is a tradition of Elias, that the world shall continue six thousand years, two thousand void (which the gloss of Rabbi Solomon Jarchi reckons from the creation of the world unto the call of Abraham,) two thousand to the law, (from thence to the destruction of the second temple,) and two thousand to the days of the Messiah.’ It is incredible how the latter Rabbins are perplexed with this tradition of their masters, which is recorded in the Talmud as sacred. In the account they give in Shebet Jehuda, of a disputation they had with one Hierome, a converted Jew, before the bishop of Rome, they know not how to free themselves from the authority of it. The sum of their answer is, that the next words in the tradition are, that that time is elapsed because of their sins; but as others have already manifested that that gloss is no part of the tradition, but an addition of the Talmudists, so we shall immediately manifest the vanity of that pretence. Others of them say, that it sufficeth to maintain the truth and credit of the tradition, if the Messiah come at any time within the last two thousand years. But even these are now drawing towards their period, not a fifth part in their computation of that space of time remaining: moreover, such an interpretation as this is directly contrary to the very words of the tradition. For as two thousand years are assigned to the world before the law, and two thousand ‘to the law, which they reckon from the call of Abraham to the ruin of the second temple, so the two thousand years allotted to the time of the Messiah must begin with his coming, as the other portions do one of them with the creation, the other with the call of Abraham; or else the space of time (above sixteen hundred years) between the expiration of the second two thousand years, and the third, must be left out of the computation. And the time limited for the duration of the world extended above sixteen hundred years, beyond what is allotted to it in their tradition.
§ 16. Many similar concessions and acknowledgments hath the evidence of truth wrested from sundry of them, which having been collected by others, we shall not trouble the reader with their recital: these that have been insisted on, may and do suffice to make good the argument in hand. And thus we have fully demonstrated the second thing proposed for confirmation; namely, that the true Messiah is long since come, and hath finished the work allotted unto him. Now as in the course of our reasoning we have vindicated the particular testimonies insisted on from the exceptions of the Jews; it remaineth that we consider in the conclusion of this dissertation, the general answer which they give unto the whole argument.
§ 17. That which they principally insist on is this, that the concession which they have made, must be taken in connection with an exception, which, as they suppose, renders the whole useless to our purpose. Thus they grant that the time fixed on, was determined for the coming of the Messiah; but they add withal, that it is prolonged beyond the limited season, because of their sins. That is, that the promise of his coming at that season was not absolute, but conditional, depending on the supposition that the Jews were righteous, holy, and worthy to receive him. Thus, to the tradition of Elias before mentioned, determining the coming of the Messiah to be at the end of the second two thousand years of the world’s duration; they add in the Talmud. Tractat. Saned. distinct. Chelek. cap. a: these words as an exception, ἽΝ 1170 ἽΝ IAW INDI}, ‘ because of our sins, those days have exceeded the time, all that is past.’ And again they add in the same place; N38 “dn att PN? 155 psp 55 1595 37 ὝΩΝ DAI Oy) Mawn. Rab. said, ‘all times appointed are finished, and this matter is not suspended, but upon account of repentance and good s2 works. And nothing is more common with them than this condition, if they deserve it, if they repent, the Messiah will eome, the time is already past, but because of our sins he is not come. If all Israel could repent but one day, he would come. This is the sum of their answer. There was a time limited and determined for the coming of the Messiah; this time is signified in general in the Scripture to be before the destruction of the second temple, and the utter departure of scribe and law-giver from Judah; but all this designation of the time was but conditional, and the accomplishment of it had respect unto their righteousness, repentance, good works, and merits; which they failing in, their Messiah is not yet come. To this issue is their infidelity at length arrived. But there are reasons innumerable, that make naked the vanity of this pretence. Some of them I shall briefly insist upon at present, and more fully afterwards. ᾿
§ 18. First, We have before proved, that not the Jews only, but the Gentiles also, even the whole world, was concerned in the coming of the Messiah. The first promise of him concerned mankind in general, without the least particular respect unto any one peculiar people, Gen. 11]. 15. The next solemn renovation of this promise unto Abraham, extends the blessing with which it was to be attended unto all the kindreds of the earth, Gen. xii. 3, xviii. 18. All that there was of restriction in the promise to him and to his posterity, consisted only in the designation of them to be the means of bringing forth that Messiah, who was to be a blessing unto all nations. And when Jacob foretels that he should be born of the tribe of Judah, Gen. xlix. 10, he declares that together with his posterity, other nations should have an equal share in Messiah's blessings: ‘To him,’ saith he, ‘shall be the gathering of the people.’ The same course do all the succeeding prophets follow. They every where declare, that the Gentiles, the nations of the world, were equally concerned with the Jews in the promise of the coming of the Messiah, if not principally intended, because of their greatness and number. In mercy, love, compassion, and philanthropy, did God provide this blessed remedy for the recovery of mankind, both Jews and Gentiles, out of that misery in which they had involved themselves by sin and apostasy from him. The time of exhibiting this remedy unto them, he promised also, and limited, stirring them up unto an expectation of its
- accomplishment, as that wherein all their happiness did depend. Shall we now suppose, that all this love, grace, and merey of God towards mankind, that his faithfulness in his promises were all suspended on the goodness, righteousness, merits, and repentance of the Jews? that God who so often testifies concerning them, that they were a people, wicked, obstinate, stubborn, and rebellious, should make them keepers of the everlasting happiness of the whole world? Shall we suppose that he hath given the fountain of his grace and love, which he intended and promised should overflow the whole earth, and make all the barren wildernesses of it fruitful unto him, to be closed and stopped by them at their pleasure? that it should be in their power to restrain all the promised effects of them from the world? As if he should say in his promises, I am resolved out of mine infinite goodness and compassion towards you, O ye poor miserable sons of Adam! to send you a Saviour and a Deliverer, who at such a time shall come and declare unto you the way of eternal life, shall open the door of heaven, and shall save you from the wrath that you have deserved; but I will do it only on this condition, that the Jews, an obstinate and rebellious people, be good, holy, righteous, and penitent; for unless they be so, the Saviour shall not come, nor is it possible that he should, until they be so: this of themselves they will never be, nor do I intend to make them so. If they can persuade us, that God hath thus placed them on his throne, and given his grace and truth into their hands to make it effectual, or to frustrate it at their pleasure, and hath suspended his good-will towards the residue of mankind on their obedience, (of whom he testifieth that they have been always stubborn and disobedient,) they may also hope to prevail with us to believe, that they only are men, and that all others are beasts, as some of their Talmudical masters have affirmed. At present we find by blessed experience, that their wickedness hath not made the truth of God of no effect.
§ 19. Secondly, When God limited and foretold the time of the coming of the Messiah, he either foresaw what would be the state and condition of the Jews as to their repentance and good works, or he did not. If they say that he did not, then they both deny him to be Ged, by denying those essential attributes of his nature, which the very heathen acknowledged in their deities; and they also utterly overthrow all the prophecies and predictions of the Old Testament, for there is not any of them but depend on a supposition of the prescience of God; and this is nothing but to countenance their unbelief with perfect atheism. If they say that he did foresee, that their circumstances and manners would be such as they have in fact been, then he must also have known that it was impossible that the Messiah should come at the time limited and determined, seeing the Jews were to prove so wicked. I ask then to what purpose doth he so often, and at so great a distance of time, foretel and promise that he should come at such a season, seeing he knew perfectly that he should not come at that time, and that thus not one word of his predictions should be fulfilled? Why, I say, did he fix on a time and season, foretel it often, mark it out by infallible signs, give an exact computation of the years from the time of his predictions, and call all men unto an expectation of his coming accordingly, when by his foresight of the want of merit and repentance in the Jews, he knew that no such thing could possibly fall out? God who is aPevoroc, doth not deal thus with the sons of men. This were not to promise and foretel in infinite veracity, but purposely to deceive. This pretended condition then cannot be annexed to the promise of the coming of the Messiah, without a direct denial of some, and by just consequence of all the essential properties of the nature of God.
§ 20. Thirdly, There is not in the whole Scripture, the least intimation of any such condition, as this which they pretend that the promise insisted on is clogged with. It is no where said, no where intimated, that if the Jews repented, and merited well, the Messiah should come at the time mentioned; no where threatened, that if they did not repent, his coming should be put off unto an uncertain day. We know not, nor are they able to inform us, whence they had this condition, unless they will acknowledge that they have forged it in their own brains, to give countenance to their infidelity. Before the time allotted was elapsed, and they had absolutely refused him who was sent, and who came according unto promise; there was not the least rumour of any such thing amongst them. Some of their predecessors invented it to palliate their impiety, and if they can succeed in this they are not solicitous about the reflection which it may cast upon the honour of God. Besides, as the Scripture is silent as to any thing that may give the least support to this pretence, so it teaches that which is contrary to it, and destructive of it; for it informs us, that the season of the coming of the Messiah shall be a time of great sin, darkness, and misery, which also their own masters, in other places, and on other occasions acknowledge. See Isa. ch. 11. liti; Jer. xxxi. 32, 33; Dan. ix. 24; Zech. xiii. 1; Mal. iii. 4. He was to come to turn men from ungodliness, and not because they were thus turned before his coming. There can be no place then for this condition.
§ 21. Fourthly, The suggestion of this condition subverts the foundation of the promise, and the whole nature of the thing promised. We have before manifested, that the rise and spring of this promise, was mere love and sovereign grace. There was not any thing in man, Jew or Gentile, that should move the Lord to provide a remedy and relief for them who had destroyed themselves. Now to suspend the promise of this love and grace, on the righteousness and repentance of them unto whom it was made, is perfectly to destroy it, and to place the merit of it in man, whereas it, arose purely from the grace of God. Again, it utterly takes away and destroys the nature of the thing promised. We have proved, that it is a relief, a recovery, a salvation from sin and misery that is the subject matter of this promise. To suppose then that this shall not be granted, unless men, as a condition of it, deliver themselves from their sins, is to assert a plain contradiction, and wholly to destroy the promise. He was not promised unto men, because they were penitent and just, but to make them so. And to make the righteousness of Jews or Gentiles the condition of his coming, is to take his work out of his hand, and to render both him and his coming useless. But this figment proceeds from the πρωτὸν Wevdoc of the Jews; namely, that the Messiah is not promised to free them from their own sins, but to make them possessors of other men’s goods; not to save their souls, but their bodies and estates; not to make men heirs of heaven, but lords of the earth; which folly hath been before discovered and disproved.
§ 22. Fifthly, The Jews on several accounts are αὐτοκατάακριτοι, or selfcondemned, in the use of this pretence. Their great sins, they say, are the cause why the coming of the Messiah is retarded. But, Ist, what those sins are they cannot declare. We readily grant them to be wicked enough, but withal we know that their great wickedness consists in what they will not acknowledge, namely, in their refusing him when he came, not in their being unfit for his coming. They sometimes indeed mention their hatred one of another, their mutual animosities, and frequent adulteries, and want of observing the Sabbath, according to the rules of their present superstitious scrupulosity. But what is all this unto the abominations which God passed over formerly in their nation, when he also fulfilled his promises unto them, though really conditional. 2d. Take them from the rack of our arguments, and you hear no more of their confessions, no more of their sins and wickedness, but they are immediately all righteous and holy, all beloved of God, and better than their forefathers. Yea, 3d. On the day of expiation, they are all as holy, if we may believe them, as the angels in heaven.’ There is not one sin amongst them, so that it is strange the Messiah should not at one time or another come to them on that day. 4th. They have a tradition among themselves, that the coming of the Messiah may be hastened, but not retarded. So they speak in their gloss on Isa. lx. 22. “I the Lord will hasten it in its time.” Tractat- Saned. and ~aT’>29 “TID IdN Toya ἸΞῚ ΝὉ mw 227 TWN AND) TNyAa, Rabbi Alexander said, and Rabbi Joshua the Son of Levi, ‘ it is written in his time, and it is written, I will hasten it, I will hasten it if they deserve it, and if they deserve it not, yet in its own time; and this they apply to the coming of the Messiah.
5th. Many of them assert, that the fifty-third chapter of Isaiah speaks of them, and of their being causelessly afflicted by the Gentiles; now he whom the prophet there speaks of, is one perfectly innocent and righteous, and so they must needs be in their own esteem, as they suppose themselves to be there intended. How inconsistent then is it in them to say, that the coming of the Messiah has been deferred because of their sins.
§ 23. Sixthly, This plea is directly opposed to the nature of the covenant which God promised to make at the coming of the Messiah, or to that which Messiah came to ratify and establish, and to the reason which God gives, ἡ for the making of that covenant, Jer. xxxi. 31—33. The foundation of the new covenant lies in this, that the people had disannulled and broken the former covenant made with them. Now surely they do not disannul that covenant, if they are righteous according to the tenor of it, and unless they are so, they say that the Messiah will not come, that is, the new covenant shall not be made, unless by them it be first made unnecessary. Again, the nature of the covenant consists in this, that God in it engages to make men righteous and holy, Ezek. xi. 19. So that righteousness and holiness cannot be the condition of making it, unless it be of making it useless. This then is the contest between God and the Jews, he takes it upon himself, to give men righteousness by the covenant of the Messiah; they take it upon themselves to be righteous, that so he may make that covenant with
§ 24. Lastly, If the coming of the Messiah depend on the mghteousness and repentance of the Jews, it is not only possible, but very probable that he may never come. They conceive that the world shall not continue above six thousand years: Of this space, they do not suppose that there are more than five hundred years remaining; the time which is past since the expiration of the days determined for the coming of the Messiah, is at least sixteen hundred years: seeing that they have not repented all this while, what assurance have we, nay what hope may we entertain of their repentance, within the fuur or five hundred years that remain. Greater calls to repentance from God, greater motives from themselves and from others, they are not likely to meet with. And what ground have we to expect, that they who (by their own confessions) have withstood all these calls without any good fruit, will ever become any better. Upon this supposition then, it would be very probable, that the Messiah should never come. Nothing can be replied to all this reasoning, but that God will either at length effectually by his grace give them that repentance which they make necessary for his coming, or that he will send him at last, whether they repent or not. But if either of these are expected, then I would ask, what reason can be imagined, why God should so deal at a future season, concerning which he has made no promise that the Messiah should come therein, and not deal so at the time concerning which he had so often promised and foretold, that he should come therein.
§ 1. Jesus whom Paul preached, the true Messiah. ‘§ 2,3. First argument from the time of his coming. Foundation of this argument unquestionable. § 4. Coming of Jesus at the time appointed, proved by Scripture, record, and catholic tradition. § 5. By the testimonies of heathen writers. ᾧ 6. By the confession of the Talmudical Jews. Jesus’ Christ intended by them, in their story of Jesus the son of Pandira and Stada. §7- No other came at that season, by them owned. § 8. Force of this argument. § 9. Characteristical notes of the Messiah given out in the Old Testament. § 10. His family, stock, or lineage, confined unto the posterity of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Judah, David. § 11. Our Lord Jesus of the posterity of Abraham, and tribe of Judah, also of the family of David. Testimonies of the Evangelists vindicated. § 12. Jewish exceptions in general answered. § 13. In particular, the genealogy not proved; answered. § 14. The genealogy of Matthew declared. § 15, 16, and of Luke. § 17. The place of the birth of the Messiah, Bethlehem, Micah, v. 2. § 18. Circumstances enforcing this consideration. § 19. The evangelist’s citation of the words of the prophet vindicated. § 20. The Messiah to be born of a virgin, Isa. vii. 10, 11, and Matt. i. 21, 22. § 21. Jews convinced that Jesus was born of a virgin. § 22. Jewish exceptions to the application of this prophecy. Their weight. § 23. The answer of some to them; unsafe, needless. § 24, 25. True sense of the words. * Exceptions answered. § 26—28. The signification and use of >My. Greatness of the sign promised. ὃ 29, 30. No other Virgin and Son designed but Jesus Christ and his mother. The prophecy cleared in this instance. § 31. In what sense the birth of the Messiah was a sign of present deliverance. § 32, 33. Remaining objections answered, § 34. Other characters of the Messiah. § 35. He was to be a prophet, Deut. xviii. 19, a prophet like unto Moses. Expected by the Jews. § 36. Jesus Christ a prophet. That prophet. § 37. The nature of the doctrine which he taught. Its perfection. § 38, The works of the Messiah revealed only in the gospel of Christ. § 39. Also the nature and end of Mosaic institutions. ὁ 40. Threatenings unto the disobedient, fallen upon the Jews. 41. Sufferings are another character of the Messiah. § 42. His passion foretold, Psal. xxii. The true Messiah therein intended. Expositions of Kimchi and others confuted. § 43. Sufferings peculiar unto the Messiah. § 44. The Psalm exactly fulfilled in‘ Jesus Christ. § 45. Objections of the Jews from the principles of Christians, answered. § 46. Isa. lui. Prophecy of the suffering of the Messiah. § 47. Consent of the ancient Jews. Targum, Bereshith Rabba, Talmud, Ashech. § 48—53. Invalidity of exceptions of latter rabbins. Application to the Lord Jesus vindicated. § 54. Other testimonies concerning the sufferings of the Messiah. 55. Jewish traditions to the same purpose. § 56. Other arguments proving Jesus tobe the true Messiah. § 57. Miracles. § 58. The nature of them. § 59. Wrought by Christ, proved. § 60. Testimony of the gospel. § 61. Notoriety of tradition. § 62. Miracles of Christ compared with those of Moses. § 63. Excelling them in number; § 64. in manner of their being wrought; ᾧ 65. in their nature; § 66. in his giving power to others to effect them; § 67. in his resurrection from the dead; § 68. continuance of them inthe world. § 69. Sum of the argument. § 70, 71. Conviction of the Jews evinced. § 72, 73. Causes of the miracles of Christ assigned by them. Magical art, retorted, removed. § 74. The name of God. § 75. Testimonies of his disciples. § 76. Success of the doctrine of Jesus. Last argument.
§ 1. Tue third branch of that great supposition and fundamental article of faith, on which the apostle builds his arguments and reasonings 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, at the time which had been 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. This is a subject on which I could insist at large, with much satisfaction to myself; nor have I just cause to fear that the matter treated of would be irksome to any Christian reader. But we must have respect unto our present design; for it is not absolutely and of set purpose that we handle these things, but merely with reference to that further end of opening the springs of the apostle’s divine reasonings in this Epistle, and therefore we 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 which we shall adopt is the same which we have followed 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 objections of the Jews, and then their opposition to our thesis in general is to be removed, referring an answer to their special objections unto another dissertation.
§ 2. That our present discourse may follow the foregoing in a natural order, 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 ways there are, whereby the time fore-appointed of God for the coming of the Messiah is signified and made known. First, By certain τεκμήρια, 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 Gen. xlix. 10; Hag. ii. 8; Mal. iii. 1,2. Secondly, By a computation of the time itself as to its duration, from a certain fixed date unto its expiration. This way we have unfolded and vindicated at large from Dan. ix. 24—27. And although 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 haye also manifested, that our argument depends not on the precise bounding of the time limited; but lying ἐν πλατει, 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 τεκμήρια, or evident tokens before mentioned, and limited by the computation insisted on,) Jesus came, 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 and foretold, cannot be shaken, without calling in question the truth of all promises and predictions in the Old Testament, and consequently the faithfulness and power of God. The great design of the Old Testament is to reveal the Messiah, the Saviour of the world. This design is manifested from the first, and it is prosecuted through the whole record. The testimony of Jesus is the spirit that enlivens the whole doctrine and history of it. It is the bond of union, and it is the centre in which all the parts of it do meet, and without which they would be loose, scattered, and deformed heaps. Without an apprehension of this design, and faith therein, not a letter of it can 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 men to desire and expect. When it hath done this in several places, it expressly limits, foretels, 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 tried, and to stand or fall, as they receive support or are discountenanced by it,) 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 Scriptures of the Old Testament must come to nought; which those, with whom at present we contend, will not grant.
Nor can the Jews, on such a supposition, in any measure defend the truth of the Scriptures against an infidel. For unto his inquiry, where is the promised Messiah? if they shall plead their usual pretences, it 15 easy 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 fiction, inconsistent with the nature and being of their Messiah, whom they make to be a mere man subject to mortality, in his whole person like all the other sons of Adam, it suits not at all unto the difficulty intended to be removed 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 im 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 hath violated his faith and promise; and that in a matter, wherein the great concern of his own glory, and the welfare of all mankind, doth consist, on account of their miscarriages, which, as they either cannot or will not remedy, so he himself hath not, (though he might have so done,) provided any relief against them. 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 died within the time limited for the coming of the Messiah. Secondly, That no other came within that season, that either pretended with any colour of probability unto that dignity, or was ever as such owned or esteemed by the Jews themselves.
§ 4. First, then, that Jesus came and lived in the time fixed for the coming of the Messiah, that is, some short time before the departure of sceptre and scribe from Judah, the ceasing of the daily sacrifice, and the final desolation of the second temple, we have all the evidence that a matter of fact which happened so long ago is capable of, evidence as good as that the world was of old created by God. ‘The histories of the church are express in affirming that he was born during the reign of Augustus Cesar, and in the latter end of that of Herod over Judea, when Cyrenius was governor over Syria; that he lived unto the time when Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea under Tiberius, about thirty-six or thirty-seven years before the destruction of the Jewish nation, city, and temple by Titus. This the histories written by divine inspiration, and committed unto the care of the church, expressly affirm; neither have the Jews any thing to object against the truth of the relation, whatever may be their thoughts of his person, or of what he did. That he lived and died then and there is left on record beyond dispute. 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, when laid in the balance against the catholic tradition of all the world, whether believing in Jesus, or rejecting of him. For they all have always agreed in this, that he lived and died at the time mentioned in the sacred stories.
And this was still one part of the charge brought against his followers, in the very next age after, that they believed in a person whom they knew to have lived at such a season, and in a mean condition. Neither did the most malicious and fierce opposers of the religion taught by him, such as Celsus, Porphyry, and Julian, ever once attempt to attack the truth of the story, as to his real existence, and as to the time of it. So that in this we haye as concurrent a suffrage as the whole world in any case is able to afford.
§ 5. The best historians of the nations who lived near those times give their testimony unto 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 suftice for an instance. ‘This is Cornelius Tacitus, in the fifteenth of his Annals: ‘ Abolendo (saith he) rumori (he speaks of Nero and of his burning Rome) subdidit reos, et quzesitissimis 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 unto the reign of Tiberius, and government of Pilate. The same also is confirmed by Flavius Josephus, the Jewish historian, 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.
§ 6. 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. Chelek, and jy, 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 which they insist on are of no cogency to procure the assent of any one acquainted with their writings; no, though some of the more modern Jews (ashamed of the lies of their forefathers, and afraid to own their blasphemies, lest they should provoke the Christians against them) do faintly deny him to be the person intended. The names of their parents, say they, do not agree. 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, mentions one Pan ther and Barpanther, as in the genealogy of Christ, making the latter grandfather to the blessed virgin; seeing it is evident that he borrowed that part of the genealogy from some corrupt traditions of the Jews. |
The reason why the Talmudists concealed the true names of the parents of Jesus is evident; for by this means they covered their malice more 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 which 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 choose of their Pandira and Stada, though all the world knew it to be false as to Joseph and Mary. 81725, Pandira, is a feigned name, insignificant, and invented by them for this only purpose. They sometimes write it with N in the midst, instead of 7: N12 Panthira: so that Galatinus doth 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 whom they term his son. N70D Stada, is also a name framed to the same end; and as the learned Buxtorf supposeth from NT NUD, one that went aside, declined, or was an adulteress. And they feign her to have been a platter of women’s hair, with other monstrous lies, at their pleasure; but yet in sundry places they expressly 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 objection, namely, that these things can by no means be accommodated to Jesus of Nazareth, is of as little avail as the things themselves are: for such an objector reasons 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 forefathers 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 all such things. But yet there are also sundry things which they ascribe to this Jesus, the son of Pandira and Stada, which make it very apparent who it was whom they intended; for first, they say that he learned magic in Egypt, upon his being carried thither in his infancy. Again, they say he was a seducer of the people; which we know was the accusation that they raised against the Lord Jesus.
Again, They tell us a story concerning two men placed in a room near him, to overhear his seducing, that so they might accuse him. This they say was their course to entrap seducers, and therefore they give this instance. MDa Aaya ἹΓΤῚΝ ΠῚ NTud jad wy 13. ‘So they did to the son of Stada, and they hanged him on the eve of the passover.’ The witnesses they speak of are no others but the false witnesses mentioned Matt. xxvi. 60, 61. The kind of his death, hanged on a tree, with the time of it, the eve of the passover, do also fully make naked their intentions. The age only, or the time of his life, remains, from whence any difficulty is pretended. This Jesus, the son of Pandira, they have affirmed to have lived in the days of Alexander, and to have been crucified in the days of Aristobulus, a hundred, or a hundred and ten years before the birth of Christ. But the mystery of this fiction also is discovered by Abraham Levita, in his Cabala Historiz. He tells us that the ‘ Christians placed the death of their Christ under Pilate, that so they might show that the destruction of the city and temple fell out not long after his death; whereas, he says, it is apparent from the Mishna and Talmud that he was crucified in the days of the Maccabees, a hundred years before.’ And here we have the true reason unawares laid open, why the Talmudists attempted to transfer the time of his — death from the days of Herod the tetrarch to the rule of Aristobulus the Hasmonzan; namely, lest they should be compelled to acknowledge their utter ruin 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 what we undertook to confirm.
§ 7. Secondly. In the pursuit of our argument, we 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 unto 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 impostors. 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 unto their people and nation. Herein, then, we have the consent of all parties concerned, which renders all further evidence unnecessary.
§ 8. From the preceding reasonings then, it follows, that either our Lord Jesus 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 mere figment, the whole Old Testament a fable, and so both the former and the 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 than our Lord Jesus, let them do so, and own him, that we may know who he was, and what he hath done for them. If none such there were, that can be so esteemed, as in truth there was not, and as they universally acknowledge that 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 doth not call to mind the righteous judgment of God in giving them up to blindness and obstinacy, asa just punishment for their rejecting and murdering his only Son. And this argument is of such importance, as that with the consideration fof the doctrine of Christ and his success in the world, it may well be allowed to stand alone in this contest.
§ 9. Our second argument is taken from those characteristic notes that are given in the Scripture of the Messiah. Now these were designed to enable the church to know him; and it was bound to receive him who was pointed out by these characteristic marks. All these we shall find to meet and centre 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 by which God taught his people 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.
§ 10. First, For the family, stock, or lineage, whereof he was to come. There was a threefold restriction 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 restriction was to the seed of Abraham, Gen. xy. 17, and under that alone, there was no more required, but that he should spring from among his posterity, till God added that peculiar limitation unto it, In Isaac shall thy seed be called, Gen. xxi. 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 unto the tribe of Judah, Gen. xlix. 10. This made it further necessary that from him, by some one of the numerous families that sprang of him, Messiah should proceed. Out of that tribe God afterwards raised the royal family of David to be a type and representation of the kingdom of the Messiah; and hereupon he restrained the promise unto that family, though not unto any particular branch of it. To this, no other restriction was ever afterwards added.
Tt was not then at any time made necessary by promise, that the Messiah should proceed from the royal family of the house of David, but only that he should be born of some of his posterity. For 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 the 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 pretend to be the Messiah, whose genealogy is not so derived by David, and Judah from 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 demonstrate a lineal descent from David, and 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, ch. vil. 14, προδηλον γαρ, saith he, ore εξ Iovda avareradkey ὁ Κυριος ἡμων; ‘it is every way, or altogether manifest, that our Lord sprang of Judah.’ Προδηλον is used by the Greek authors to signify not only manifest, but openly and conspicuously manifest. Thus he is said, θανεῖν προδηλως, in Sophocles, who died openly and gloriously by all men’s consent. ‘Thus, among the Jews themselves, it was a manifest thing that our Saviour sprang from the tribe of Judah. The apostle declares that it was αναντιρῥητως, without any contradiction received amongst them, and acknowledged by them. Nor unto this day do. they lay any exception unto this assertion. It remains, that we prove him to have been of the family of David by some one single branch of it. For as we said, there is nothing in the promise restraining his origin to the reigning family, or to the direct posterity thereof. Now this is purposely declared by two of the evangelists, who being Jews, and living amongst the Jews, wrote the story of his life in the age wherein he lived, for the use of the Jews themselves, as well as for the residue of mankind. Matthew, who calls his record of it, βιβλον γενέσεως, or MTDNN DD, ‘the roll of his genealogies, shews 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 unto Adam, brings it down through the several restrictions mentioned. by Abraham, Judah, and David. Other testimony or evidence in this matter of fact, it is utterly impossible for us to give, and it is unreasonable for any man to demand any other. It was written and published unto 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 man ever had, or can have in a matter of that nature. And this was done, not upon rumours, or traditions of former days, but in that very age wherein he lived, and that before them whose great interest it was to object to what they wrote, and who would undoubtedly have done so, had they not been overpowered with the conviction of the truth of it. If they had the least suspicion of the contrary, why did they not in some of their consultations, and in their rage against him and his doctrine, object this unto himself, or to his followers, that he was not of the family of David, and so could not be the person that he pretended to be? Besides, the persons who wrote his genealogy, sealed their testimony, not only with their lives, but with their hopes of a happy eternity: a higher proof of assurance of truth can no man give.
§ 12. The present Jews make two objections to this testimony. First, In general they deny the authority of our witnesses, and they deny the whole matter that they assert. Secondly, In particular they say, that these 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 the evangelists 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, it 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 him countenance, should call in question, disbelieve, and deny the things witnessed unto by Moses. It is known what they will answer unto 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 believe it, needs no particular consideration, it being that 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. ©
§ 13. But moreover they object in particular, that neither of the evangelists do either prove or assert that our Lord Jesus did spring from the family of David. For they thus reason, that as 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 unto him, and as both genealogies belong unto Joseph alone, as is evident from the beginning of the one, and the end of the other; therefore the Lord Jesus being not related unto Joseph, but by the legal contract of his mother, he cannot be esteemed in his right to belong unto the family of David. This is pleaded by many of them; moreover, they take notice of the difficulties which have exercised many Christians in reconciling the several genealogies recorded by the two evangelists; to all which exceptions, we shall briefly reply, and take them out of our way.
§ 14. First, Suppose it granted, that the genealogy recorded by Matthew is properly the genealogy of Joseph, what madness is it to imagine, that the evangelist avowedly proposing to manifest Jesus Christ to have been of the family of David, and premising that design in the title of his genealogy, doth not prove and confirm what he had so designed, according to the laws of genealogies, and according to the legal and just way of asserting any one to be of such atribe or family. No more is required for the accomplishment of the promise, but that the Lord Jesus should be of the family of David, in such a manenr as was required by the laws of families and genealogies, that any person might belong unto it. Now this might be by the legal marriage of his mother unto 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, into which 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 generation, but sometimes legal institutions, is manifest by the law respecting a man dying without issue. For when the next kinsman took the wife of the deceased, to raise up seed unto him, he that was born of his widow, was by law not reckoned to be his son by whom he was begotten, but the son of him, and of the family of him that was deceased, to bear his name, and inherit his estate, Numb. xxxvi.6. And this legal cognation Luke seems to intimate, ch. i. 27, where he says, that ‘the mother of Jesus was espoused unto 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 thereto. And if this were the law of genealogies, and of legal relations unto tribes and families, as it evidently was, Matthew recording the genealogy of Joseph, to whom the blessed Virgin was espoused before the birth of Jesus Christ, doth 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 heiresses, in which case provision was made, that inheritances might not be transferred from one tribe unto another, yet it is more than probable, that the blessed Virgin Mary was of the same family with Joseph, and that this was 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 unto 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.
§ 15. Secondly, Luke directly, and of set purpose, gives 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, 1 say, it possible, but the truth is, as is évident 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 with which Luke prefaceth his genealogy, do in no way impeach this assertion, wy ὡς evopiZero viog Ἰωσηῷ rov ‘Ht; for whereas these words, ὡς ἐνομίζετο, as was supposed, are usually placed and read in parenthesis, the parenthesis may be better extended unto τοὺ ‘Hr, including 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 unto him, otherwise the true natural 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 unto these unquestionable records.
§ 16. This is the first characteristical note given of the Messiah, whereby he might be known, and it hath strength added unto 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 amongst 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 unto 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; ee we any where 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 unto the time wherein, and the family whereof he should be brought forth, was intended evidently to mark out his person. The place of his nativity is foretold, Mic. v. 2. bya med eer ed qr mam ἜΣΝΞ ned ὟΣ ome onda ΠΙΠΝῚ Ὁ Diy “mam DIpm PaNyiw ΝΞ, ‘And thou Bethlehem Ephratah, is it (or it is) little for thee to be amongst the thousands of Judah; out of thee shall come forth unto 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 Jewish church, to denote the place of the birth of the Messiah, we have an illustrious testimony in the records of the Christian church, Matt. ii. 5,6. Upon Herod’s demanding 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 judgment 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 vii. 41, 49, And we have the concurrence of their own testimony in this matter. So the Chaldee paraphrase renders these words, 5170 mem ΝΣ sd} Jr, ‘Out of thee shall come forth to me the ruler, ΠΏΣ Tay “ad Nw PH Mp 7D, ‘out of thee shall come forth to me the Messiah, who shall have the dominion τ taking it for granted, that he it is of whom this place is spoken. So also R. Solomon expounds the place: Sys mimt> mr “nn mm wpb nerd ὙΝ 72 mw xvod Jon Jaw mann ΠΥῚ mds san mm “pbx minpwna ONT JAN “IN NW jD TN, ἄς. ‘Little to be in the thousands of Judah, that is, thou deservest to be so, because of the profanation of Ruth the Moabites, who was in thee, out of thee shall come forth to me the Messiah, the Son of David; and so he saith, 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 promised of, ‘Out of thee shall come forth, A’) ond-n*a MAW TT yay 3 Mw Ὁ KB, unto 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, in opposition to Rashi, and to the Targum, and to 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 (not only from David, who was born at that place, but also out of 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 unto this consideration.
§ 18. 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 to be of the lineage of David; and it may be, in their low estate, they did not much desire to declare that which would be of no advantage, and perhaps of some hazard unto them. But now their coming to Bethlehem, and that whether they would or not, by the command of public authority, made their house and kindred known unto all the Jews, especially to those of the family of David, all of whom were then gathered together in that place. Secondly. No just reason appears, why the Roman Emperor decreed that description and enrolment of persons. It was a matter of great charge and trouble to the whole empire, which at that time enjoyed the greatest peace and tranquillity. 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 enrolment, 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 the emperor’s mind, and incites him to a work which sets mankind in motion, that two persons of low condition might be brought out of Galilee into Bethlehem, in order that Jesus might, according unto 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, 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 any way belong unto Bethlehem, but only went thither to be delivered, that she might with more advantage report that her son was 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 they must be publicly enrolled of the family of David, upon the command of him who never knew aught of that business, which none but he could thus haye accomplished. Fourthly. Not long after this, that town of Bethlehem was utterly destroyed; and for these sixteen hundred years, it has not been either great or small among the thousands of Judah. Nowall these circumstances illustrate this characteristical presignation of the person of the Messiah from the place of his nativity.
§ 19. The exceptions of the Jews against the citation of the words of the prophet by the evangelist, 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 these in such a manner, as to prove by them that which he intended. He did not intend 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 useth the words to no other purpose than that for which, by the acknowledgment of the Jews, 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 all that the most scrupulous can require in the recital of the words of another by 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 unto Herod by the priests and scribes; so that the repetition of the words is theirs, and not his properly.
Fourthly. But to whomsoever the words belong, as there is nothing in them discrepant from, much less contrary to those of the prophet, and as they are not used to signify any thing but what the prophet plainly intended, so are all the particulars wherein a difference appears between them capable of a fair reconciliation. This.we shall manifest by briefly reviewing them.
The first difference is in the first words: MN758 onda ms), ‘and thou Bethlehem Ephratah; which are rendered in the evangelist, καὶ cv Βεθλεεμ yn lovda, ‘and thou Bethlehem in the land of Judah.’ Bethlehem, which was of old called Ephratah,’ from its first builder, 1 Chron. iv. 4, that name being now disused, is here said to be, as it indeed was, in the land of Judah; to distinguish it from Bethlehem, that was in the lot or land of Zebu- Jun, as both Rashi and Kimchi observe, Josh. xix. 15; and perhaps also, to denote the relation that the Messiah had to Judah. So that here there is no discrepancy. Bethlehem Ephratah, and Bethlehem in the land of Judah, are names of one and the same place. 2. In the ensuing words there p-pbn, that is, χιλιαδες, as the word is rendered by the ἄχ. is in the evangelist, ἡγεμονες, 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, as a thousand or more, inhabiting together, they made a peculiar kind of town or city, which had its special chiliarch, or governor. 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; the one respecting the people, the other their governors.:
The only ἐναντιοφωνησια is in the mode of expression. The proposition in the prophet seems to be affirmative, thou art little; in the evangelist, it is expressly negative, thou art not the least. But, first, this difference concerneth not the testimony, as to that end for which it was produced: what way soever the words be interpreted, the import of the testimony is still the same. 2. The words in the prophet contain no perfect enunciation, nor do yield any complete sense, unless it be on one of these two suppositions. First, the word Ty is to be taken adverbially, and to signify not parca, but parvum, not a little one, but a little; and then they give us this sense, ‘ And thou Bethlehem Ephratah, it is but a little that thou shouldst be among the thousands of Judah.’ And this hath no inconsistency with the words of the evangelist, ‘thou art 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 honour that God would put upon it by the birth of the Messiah. And this is not unusual in the Hebrew language. Adjectives feminine are frequently taken in the neuter gender, which it hath not, and signify adverbially. And though 13 be of a masculine termination, yet being joined with pm>-m’a ‘the name of a town or city,’ it is put for ΤΣ, of the feminine gender. Or, secondly, An interrogation must be supposed to be included in the words, ‘art thou but little?—Bethlehem, YS TNS, art thou but little? which may well be rendered negatively, ovdapwe edaxtory, ‘thou art not the least’ among the thousands of Judah. The prophet then might have respect both to its present outward state, which was mean and contemptible in the eyes of men, and also to the regard that God had to it as to its future worth, which was to prefer it above all the thousands of Judah, to which principally the evangelist refers.
There is yet another solution of this difficulty given of late by a learned person, (Pocock, Miscelan. not. cap. 2,) who makes it,probable at least, that the word ὝΥΝ is of the number of those that are sometimes used in a sense directly contrary to their meaning. Thus wp, ‘to sanctify and profane; 772, ‘to bless and to curse; 52, ‘a living soul and ἃ dead carcase.’ And
_ The remaining differences are inconsiderable. The pronoun ~5, to me, is omitted by the evangelist, and the reason of it is evident: for in the prophet God himself speaks in his own person; in the gospel the words are only historically recited. ΝΣ Swi, ruler in Israel, is paraphrased by the evangelist, ἡγούμενος, dorig ποιμανει Tov λαον pov Toy Ἰσραήλ, “ the leader that shall feed my people Israel.’ When he asserts that Messiah should rule over his people, he adds the manner of his ruling: he shall rule by feeding them, according as it is declared in the next words of the prophet, Micah ν. 4, ‘ He shall stand and feed in the strength of the Lord; which words the evangelist had respect unto. Of these things we have spoken by the way, to vindicate the recital of this testimony by the evangelist, and we have seen that the application of it 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.
§ 20. 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 doth 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 διακριτικως, and in a 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, Isa. vii. 10—16: ‘ Moreover, the Lord spake to Ahaz, saying, Ask thee a sign of the Lord thy 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 ye now, ye house of David, is it a small thing for you to weary men, but ye 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 Immanuel: 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 thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings. ‘This is the promise and prophecy, the accomplishment whereof in our Lord Jesus we have recorded, Matt. i. 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 Immanuel.’ 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 again fall out, seeing the miraculous power of God shall be no more exerted in the same way, it is an infallible evidence and demonstrative note of the true Messiah. He, and he alone, was to be born of a virgin. Jesus of Nazareth is the only person who ever was born of a virgin, and therefore he alone is the true Messiah.
§ 21. The Jews being greatly pressed with this prophecy, and with the accomplishment of it, try all means to evade the force of it by breaking through one of these. And it might be expected, that they would principally oppose the story of the evangelist; but circumstances on that side are so cogent against them, that they are very faint in that endeayour. For if indeed Jesus was not born of a virgin, as is recorded, and as both he 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 to account, especially considering that she being espoused unto a husband, they might, upon conviction, have put her to a public and shameful death? Nothing of this kind being done, or once undertaken, by their forefathers, (no less full of envy and malice against the person and doctrine of Jesus than themselves, and much better provided for such an undertaking, if any reason had been given for 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 in no way applicable to the birth of our Lord Jesus, of which the evangelist considers them as a prophecy. And to this end they multiply exceptions against our interpretation of the prophecy.
§ 22. First. They deny that there is any thing said here of the conception or bearing of a son by a virgin. For the word here used, say they, ΤΟΝ, signifieth any young woman, married, or unmarried; yea, sometimes an adulteress, as Proy. xxx. 18; so that the whole foundation of our interpretation is infirm. And the ΤῚΝ here intended, was no other, say they, 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 to some other person.
Secondly. They say that the birth of this child which the maby, or young woman, mentioned, was to conceive, was immediately to ensue, so as to be a sign unto Ahaz, and to the house of David, of the deliverance promised unto them from the kings of Damascus and Samaria. Therefore, they say, that the child promised could not be Jesus of Nazareth, whose nativity happening seven hundred years after this, would be no pledge unto them of any thing that should shortly come to pass.
Thirdly. They insist that in ver. 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 choose the good, the kings of Damascus and Samaria should be destroyed. Now this came to pass within a few years after, and therefore this passage 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 unto the prophetess, and in 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 correspondence with what is spoken of the child of the virgin, ch. vu. 16, vii. 1.
Fifthly. That the name of this child was to be Immanuel, whereas he of whom we speak was called Jesus, Matt. 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.
§ 23. In answer unto 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 say they, 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, nor with the truth of the words themselves.:
First. It is not safe, as to the faith of Christians. For whereas the birth of the Messiah by 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 unto the church of the
Jews. Now how this should seem reasonable, when things of far less concern 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, if the passage only means 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, unto one who in, and after her conception, and the birth of her child, continued a virgin. For though 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 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 histype. But yetif he had not beena king, he could not have been at all a type of him in his kingdom. No more can any person who may be supposed to be here spoken of, unless she did conceive and bring forth a son, continuing a virgin, be a type of her who was so todo. 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 design of the Jewishchurch and state, and of the preservation of the Davidical family, was solely the bringing forth of the promised Messiah. And this the event hath fully demonstrated, they being utterly rejected after the accomplishment of that end. Add hence the promise of the Messiah was the foundation, cause, and reason of all their privileges, and of all other promises made unto them. For that for the sake of which they were made a people, must needs be the reason and cause of all good things, that as a people were bestowed. upon them. Thus God often promiseth to do this or that unto them for Abraham’s sake, and for David’s sake, that is, upon the account of the promise of the Messiah signally made unto Abraham and David, when it was declared that he should be born in the line of their posterity. And hence also, in times of difficulty, when the people were pressed on every side, and laboured for deliverance, God oftentimes renewed unto them the promise of the Messiah, partly to support their spirits with expectation of his coming, and of his salvation, and partly to give them assurance that they should not utterly perish under the then present calamity, because the great work of God by them in bringing forth the Messiah was not yet accomplished. See to this purpose the fourth chapter of Isaiah’s prophecy. On account of this temporal concern which that people had in the coming of the Messiah, the promise of him was often interwoven with the mention of other things that were of present use to them; so that sometimes it; is not easy to distinguish the things that are spoken with peculiar reference unto him, from those other things which respected what was present, seeing things of both sorts are spoken of together, and that to the same end and purpose.
§ 25. Upon these principles, we may easily discover the true sense and import of this prediction. Upon the infidelity of Ahaz, and of the generality of the house of David, they refusing a sign of deliverence tendered unto 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, ver. 13. He was cven almost wearied with their manifold provocations, during that typical state in which he preserved them. However, for the present he promised them deliverance; and though they had refused to ask a sign of him according unto his command, yet he declares that he would preserve them from their present fears and from utter ruin, and in due time would accomplish his great and wonderful design, and that in a miraculous manner, by causing a virgin to conceive and bring forth that Son, on whose account they were 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 to enjoy 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 of this day relieve their spirits under their calamities, though they 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? Of this the prophet assures them, by telling them his name, and by this name he tells them what he shall be; ‘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. Now this was a description of the Messiah sufficiently express; for he had been known under the Old Testament, yea from the foundation of the world, as he who alone was to accomplish this work. And the prophet further assures them, that this Immanuel shall be born truly a man, and dwell amongst them, being brought up with the common food of the country, until he came, as other men, unto 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 believer, as also to secure 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 this judgment, as he had declared the safety and preservation of Judah to depend on the birth of Immanuel by a virgin in the appointed season, so as to their enemies, he declares 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 refuse the evil, ver. 16. Now, that this is the true meaning of the prophecy, will evidently appear in our vindication of it from the objections mentioned above, as made by the Jews against its application by Matthew unto the nativity of Jesus Christ.
§ 26. First. They object, that it is not a virgin here intended by ΤΡ, which they say signifies any young woman, and sometimes an adulteress. This being the foundation of all their other objections, on the determination of which 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 unto some other, and not to any in those days. 77>y, the word here used, is from dy, § to hide, or D>y3, 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, by which those virgins who were of any esteem, were kept hid and reserved from all public or common conversation. Hence by the Grecians also they are called κατα- κλειστοι, ‘shut up, or ‘recluse; and their first appearance in public they termed ανακαλυπτηρια, the season of bringing them out from the retirements in which they had been hidden. 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 unto a prostituted harlot, as the Jews pretend.
Secondly. The constant use of the words directs us to the same significa~ tion. Itis seven times used in the Old Testament, and in every one of them doth still denote a virgin, or virgins, either in a proper or metaphorical sense. The first time it is used, is Gen. xxiv. 43, where Rebekkah is said to be maby, ‘a virgin,’ ver. 16. She is said to be m1n3, ‘a maid, and Ys myt x, “ἃ man had not known her,’ so that py is yp. Nd WX WR Tans ‘a maid that no man hath known, that is, an unspotted virgin. And doubtless such a one, and no other, was intended by Abraham’s servant for a wife unto Isaac, when he prayed that she m7a>yrt which came forth to the water, might answer his token that he had fixed on. Again, it is used, Exod. ii. 8, where Moses’ sister, who called her mother unto Pharaoh's daughter, is termed 12>»; and she living in her mother’s house, and being then probably not above nine or ten years old, it is sufficiently evident that she then was a virgin. It is used once in the Psalms in the plural number, Psal. Ixviii. 26, MEIN M2>y 712, ‘in the midst, the virgins playing with tymbrels; where also none but virgins properly so called can be intended, for they were separately employed to celebrate the praises of God in the great assembly. ‘'wice is the word used in the same number in a metaphorical sense in the Canticles; and in both places -hath respect unto virgins, ch. i. 3. _ Therefore do the ΠΟ, love thee: that is the virgins, as they do a desirable person, from whence the allusion is taken. And, ch. vi. 7, the nyndy are distinguished first from mr>n the queens, or the king’s married wives; and then from the 0255, 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 unto Christ, and undefiled in his worship. Hence are they in the Revelations, ch. xiv. 4, said to be παρθενοι, 6 virgins,’ OY ἀμωμοι ἐνωπιον Tov θρονου του Θεοῦ, ver. 17 ς persons unblameable before the throne of God, they not being defiled with the spiritual fornications of the great whore. There remaineth only one place more where this word is used, and from it the Jews try to draw some support to their objections. It is Prov. xxx. 19, mmadbya 722 777, ‘and the way of a man with a maid.’ And who is intended by ΤῸ there, they say, the ensuing words declare, NDNY TWN FIT 13, ‘so is the way of an adulteress, or a woman an adulteress, a harlot;’ so that T7>Y 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 in which it is used in all other places, is it reasonable that we should take the import of it from this single peculiar use of it, rather than from all the other places in which it is constantly used in another sense? Moreover we must add, 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 2; ΤΣ ΣΙ, whence it is rendered by the LXX. in the abstract, ἐν νεότητι, ‘the way of aman in his youth; which sense Hierome