Exercitation on Hebrews

years. Duration of the Persian Empire. Of the Empire of the Seleucidae to the Rule of Jonathan among the Jews. Duration of the Egyptian Kingdom, or Reign of the Ptolomey's Rule of the Hasmonaeans and Herod the Great. From the Birth of Christ, to the destruction of Jerusalem. From the first Decree of Cyrus, to the destruction of Jerusalem 599 years. Precise End of Daniel's Weeks, the death of the Messiah. 37 Years taken from the former account. Opinion of Reynolds. Examined, rejected. Meaning of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 cut off; limited; not abbreviated. Vulgar Latin, and Mountacue noted. Opinion of the Jews, rejected. Account of Beroaldus, Broughton, Genebrand, Willet. The Decree of Cyrus not intended in the Prophecy. Of the Life and Age of Nehemiah. He came not up with Zerubbabel. The Decree of Darius. What Darius that was. Hystaspes. Not the Decree intended. This Darius not Nothus; proved against Scaliger. The Decrees of Artaxerxes to Ezra and Nehemiah examined. Longimanus, not Memor, intended. Decree unto Ezra proved to be the Decree mentioned.

THat there is some difficulty in finding out the true and exact computation of [§ 1] the time here limited, all Chronologers and Expositors do confess: Neither is there anything that belongs unto the account of the times mentioned in the Scripture, that hath been debated of old, or of late, with more difference of opinion, or diligence of endeavor. And the Holy Ghost himself by the Angel seems to intimate this difficulty unto Daniel in the double caution given him about it in the preface of the Revelation made unto him, v. 23. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 declaring that not ordinary wisdom, diligence, consideration and understanding, is to be used in the investigation of the time here determined. Nor is it necessary to suppose that Daniel himself exactly understood the beginning and ending of the time or weeks mentioned. The hiding of the precise time intended, was also greatly subservient unto the providence of God, in the work he had to do by the Messiah, and what that people were to do unto him. The general notation of it, sufficed for the direction of the godly, and the conviction of unbelievers, as it doth unto this day. And it may be, we shall not find any comp • tation, that will exactly answer in all particulars and fractions to a day, month, or year. And that either because of the great darkness and confusion of some of the times falling under the Account, or else because perhaps it was not the mind of God that ever the time should be so precisely calculated, or that anything which he revealed for the strengthening of the faith of his Church, should depend on Chronological niceties. It shall suffice us then to propose and confirm such an Acc • unt of these Weeks, which infallibly comprizing the substance of the Prophecy, contains nothing in it contrary to the Scripture, and is not liable unto any just rational exc • ption. And herein I shall not examine all the several Accounts and Computations that by learned men of old, or of late, have been given, (being eleven or twelve in number) but only mention those which carry the fairest probability, and the greatness of whose Authors or Abetters, call for our consideration.

In the first place, we may wholly lay aside the consideration of them, who would [§ 2] date the Weeks from any time whatever before the first year of the Reign, and first Decree or Cyrus. Among these are, Lyra, Burgensis, Galatinus, and he from whom he borrowed his Computation Raymandus Martini. These fix the beginning of the Weeks on the fourth year of Zedekiah, as they say, when Jeremiah gave out his Prophecy about the Babylonish Captivity, and the return from it at the end of seventy years; indeed the fourth year of Jehoiakim, and not of Zedekiah, as is apparent, Jer. 25.1, 11.

Of the like nature is the account of Solomon Jarchi, among the Jews, who dates the time limited from the destruction of the Temple by the Chaldeans. But both these accounts are expressly contrary to the words of the Angel, fixing the beginning of the time designed, on the going forth of a Decree for the building Jerusalem. To these we may add all that would extend these Weeks beyond the destruction of the City and Temple by Titus, as some of the Jews would do, to comprize the Prophecy of their second fatal destruction by Hadrian, which is no way concerned in it:

[§ 3] The seventy Weeks then mentioned, we must seek for, between the first year of Cyrus, when the first Decree was made for the re-edification of the Temple, and the final destruction of it by the Romans. This space we are confined unto by the Text; the seventy Weeks are 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 from the going forth of the word to cause to return and build Jerusalem, verse. 25. Now the Kingdom of Cyrus had a double first year : The one absolutely of his Reign over Persia, the other of his rule over the Babylonish Monarchy which he had conquered after the death of Darius Medus. The first year it is of this second date of the Kingdom of Cyrus, which may have any relation unto the time here limited; for whilst he was King of Persia only, he could have nothing to do with the Jews, nor make any Decree for the building of the Temple, both the people and place being then under the dominion of another. Besides, Ezra 1.11. Where it is said, that he made his Decree in the first year of his Reign, himself plainly declares that he had obtained the Eastern Monarchy by the conquest of Babylon. The Lord God of Heaven hath given me all the Kingdoms of the Earth ; which words can in no sense be applied unto the Kingdom of Persia, supposing, the Monarchy of Babylon still to continue. The whole space of time then here limited is seventy Weeks, verse. 24. Th • beginning of these seventy Weeks is the going forth of the Decree or Word to restore or build Jerusalem, v. 25. The first Decree or command that could have any relation unto this matter, was that made by Cyrus in the first year of his Empire. We must then in the first place, find out the direct space of time between the first year of Cyrus, and the destruction of the Temple, and then inquire whether the whole, or what part of it is denoted by these seventy Weeks.

[§ 4] Some, I confess, there are, who contend that there is no consideration to be had of that computation of time, which we find amongst the Heathen Writers, nor of those stated Epocha's by which they limited and distinguished their computations: For whereas, say they, we have certainly the term of this duration of time, its beginning and ending fixed, namely, the first of Cyrus, and the death of Messiah. It is positively det • rmined, that between them were seventy Weeks, or four hundred ninety years, unto which all other accounts are to be squared and made proportion • ble. Indeed the conclusion were unquestionable, if the premises were certain. If the terms be rightly fixed in the first of Cyrus, and the death of the Messiah, there must be but 490 years between them: for whether we understand the reason of it or no, all foreign Accounts must be suited unto what of infallible truth is stated in the Scripture.

But these things are much questioned; for whereas some do doubt whether the time limited do absolutely expire in the death of the Messiah, and be not rather to be ex • ended unto the destruction of the City and Temple. There be many more, that do peremptorily deny that it is to take date from the first Decree of Cyrus: And so must we also, unless it can be proved that the times mentioned are justly commensurate from thence unto the death of Messiah : For seeing there were other Decrees, as we shall find, to the same purpose, which might be respected as well as that; there is no reason why we should offer violence unto other approved computations, to force them to submit unto the Scripture Account, when we first offer violence unto that, to make it serve our own opinion. I shall therefore proce • d in the way proposed, and first give a just computation of the time from the first year of the Empire of Cyrus, unto the destruction of the City and Temple, and then inquire whether the seventy Weeks, or 490 years here determined, be commensurate unto the whole, or only unto some part of it; and if to some part only, then to what part of it, and how we are directed by the Text to the beginni • g and end of the computation.

And herein I shall not scrupulously bind myself unto days, or months, or seasons of the year in any single account, but only consider the full and sound number of years, which in such computations, according to the custom of holy Writ, is to be observed. And indeed, what through the silence, what through the disagreement of Anti • nt Historians, it is utterly impossible to state exactly, as to those lesser fractions, the times that are passed of old. And we seek for no more certainty in these things, than the condition of them will naturally bear.

[§ 5] It is generally agreed by all Hi • torians and Chronologers, that Cyrus began his Reign over Persia, in the first year of the fifty fifth Olympiad ; probably the same year that Nab • nidus, or Darius Medus began his reign over Babylon. And this was the year wherein Daniel set himself solemnly to seek the Lord for the delivery of the people out of Captivity, He being now come to a Kingdom who was so long before prophesied of to be their deliverer, Dan. 9.1. In the twenty seventh year of his reign, or the first of the sixty second, Olympiad, having conquered the Babylonian Empire, he began the first year of his Monarchical reign, from whence Daniel reckons his third, which was his last, Chap. 10.1. And therein he proclaimed liberty unto the people of the Jews, to return to Jerusalem, and to build the Temple, Ezra 1.1. The City and Temple were destroyed by Titus, in the third year of the eleventh Olympiad ; now from the first year of the sixty second Olympiad, unto the third of the two hundred and eleventh Olympiad inclusive, are five hundred ninety nine years, and within that space of time are we to inquire after, and find the four hundred and ninety years here prophesied of, and foretold.

Of this space of time, the Persian Empire from the twenty seventh of Cyrus, or first [§ 6] of the whole Monarchy, and the first of the sixty second Olympiad, continued two hundred and two years, as is generally acknowledged by all ancient Historians, ending on, and including in it the second year of the one hundred and twelfth Olympiad which was the last, of Darius Codomanus. For Cyrus reigned after this three years: Cambyses and Smerdes Magus eight: Darius Histaspes thirty four: Xerxes with the months ensuing of Artabanus twenty one: Artaxerxes Longimanus forty one: Darius Nothus nineteen: Artaxerxes Mnemon forty three: Ochus twenty three: Arses three: Darius Codomanus seven, in all two hundred and two years.

After his death Alexander beginning his Reign in the third year of the 112th Olympiad, reigned six years: from him there is a double account, by the two most famous branches of the Graecian Empire. The first is by the Syrian, or Aera of the Seleucidae, which takes its date from the tenth year after the death of Alexander, when after some bloody contests, Seleucus settled his Kingdom in Syria, and reigned thirty years. After him reigned Antiochus Soter twenty one years, Antiochus Theos fifteen, Seleucus Callinicus twenty, Seleucus Ceraunus two, Antiochus Magnus thirty seven, Seleucus Philopater twelve, Antiochus Epiphanes twelve, Eupator two, Dementrius Soter ten. In the second year of this Demetrius, which was the 153d. of the account of the Seleucidae, was Judas Macchabaeus slain, being the one hundred sixty ninth year after the death of Darius Codomanus, or end of the Persian Empire, allowing six years to the reign of Alexander, and ten more to the beginning of the Kingdom of the Seleucidae. Demetrius Soter in the tenth year of his reign was expelled out of his Kingdom by Alexander Vales ; in the second year of whose reign, ten years after the death of Judas, Jonathan his Brother took upon him the supreme Government of the people of the Jews, and began the Rule or Reign of the Hasmonaeans : So that the time of the Graecian Empire in Syria from the death of Darius Codomanus, unto the liberty of the Jews and erection of a supreme Government amongst them, was one hundred seventy nine years, which being added unto two hundred and two years of the Persian Empire, makes up three hundred eighty one years.

To the same issue comes also the account by the other branch of the Graecian Empire [§ 7] in Egypt: For Alexander reigned as we said, after the death of Darius six years, Ptolomaeus Lagi thirty nine: Philadelphus thirty eight: Euergetes twenty four: Philopater nineteen: Epiphanes twenty three: Philometor thirty: in which thirtieth year began the rule of the Hasmonaeans.

The Rule of the Hasmonaeans, with the reign of Herod the great, who obtained the [§ 8] Kingdom by means of their divisions, continued until the Birth of Christ, one hundred forty years. For Jonathan began his Rule in the second year of the one hundred fifty seventh Olympiad, as may be seen, by adding the Seleucian Aera to the one hundred and fourteenth Olympiad, wherein Alexander died; and our Lord Christ was born in the second year of the one hundred ninety fourth Olympiad, in the last year, or the last save one of Herod the great. This sum of one hundred forty eight years, being added to the fore-mentioned, from the beginning of the Empire of Cyrus, which is three hundred eighty one years, makes up in all five hundred twenty nine years. From the Birth of our Lord Christ in the second year of the one hundred ninety fourth Olympiad, to the destruction of the City and Temple, in the third year of the two hundred and eleventh Olympiad, are seventy years; which makes up the whole sum before mentioned of five hundred ninety nine years, from the first of the Empire of Cyrus, unto the destruction of Jerusalem. Petavius and our Mountacue reckon from the first of Cyrus, unto the eighteenth of Tiberius, wherein our Lord Christ suffered five hundred ninety four years, which differs very little from the account we have insisted on: For take from them twenty seven years of the reign of Cyrus, before the first of his Empire, and add unto them thirty seven for the continuance of the City and Temple after the death of Christ, and the sum remaining will exceed our account only four years, or five at the most.

But the computation we have fixed on, being every way consistent with itself, and the stated Aeras of the Nations, and abridging the time to the shortest size that will endure the trial, we shall abide by it. Now the number of five hundred ninety nine years, exceeds the time limited in this Prophecy of four hundred and ninety, the whole space of one hundred and nine years.

[§ 9] Hence it evidently appears, that the seventy Weeks of Gabriel, or the four hundred and ninety years, are not commensurate to the whole space of time between the first Decree of Cyrus in the first year of his general Empire, and the final desolation of City and Temple by Titus. One hundred and nine years must be taken from it, either at the beginning, or at the ending, or partly at the one, partly at the other.

[§ 10] We shall first consider the End of them, which being clear in the Prophecy will regulate, fix, and state the beginning. Two things in general are insisted on in this Prophecy. (1.) The coming of Messiah the Prince, his annointing unto the work which he had to do, and his cutting off, as we before declared. (2.) The Ceasing of the daily Sacrifice, with the destruction of the City and Temple by War and a flood of desolations. Now these things happened not at the same time; for the City and Sanctuary were destroyed thirty seven years after the cutting off, or death of the Messiah. We are to inquire therefore, which of these it was that the time mentioned was determined for, and was to expire withal. Now it is the coming, annointing and cutting off of the Messiah, that is the thing chiefly intended in this Prophecy. This we have proved undeniably before; manifesting that the Vision was granted unto Daniel, and given out by him for the consolation of himself and the Church, as was the way of the Holy Ghost in all his dealings with the Fathers of old: Hereunto the desolation and destruction of the City and Temple was only a consequent, a thing that should follow and ensue on what was principally foretold and promised. And it is doubtless unreasonable to extend the duration of the time, beyond the principal subject matter treated of, and on the account whereof alone the computation is granted, unto that which is only occasionally mentioned as the consequent of the accomplishment of the Prophecy itself. Besides the computation itself is pointed directly by the Angel unto the Messiah, and his cutting off. Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people, Know therefore, that from the going forth of the Commandment, unto Messiah the Prince shall be, &c. And after sixty two weeks shall Messiah be cut off. But there is no guidance or direction of the time limited unto the desolation of the City and Sanctuary, which is only said to ensue thereon.

Thirdly, It is expressly said, that the time limited extends itself only unto the death of the Messiah, or a very few years farther. For he was to come after seven weeks and sixty two weeks, which are the whole time limited within one week or seven of years. Now his coming here intended, is not his Incarnation, but the time of his Unction in his Baptism, which fell out at the end of sixty nine weeks. After these sixty nine weeks, or seven, and sixty two, he is to be cut off; that is in the middle or towards the end of the last week; when he had confirmed the Covenant by preaching three years and an half of that seven years which remained. And if we shall say that his Unction being to be after the seven weeks, and sixty two, we must grant it to be in the first or second year of the last week, whereunto add the three years and an half of his Preaching, and the remnant Fraction of one year or two can no way disturb the account, there being nothing more frequent, then the casting in of such parcels of time to complete and fill up an entire and round number. Here then must we fix the end of four hundred and ninety years, in the death of the Messiah, and so wholly lay aside the account of them, who would extend the time determined unto the desolation of the City and Temple.

[§ 11] We must therefore in the first place; abate from the whole account of five hundred ninety nine years before stated, the sum of thirty seven years, which ensued after the death of our Savior, until the destruction of Jerusalem ; and the remnant is five hundred sixty two years. Now five hundred sixty two years exceeds the number of four hundred ninety stated in Daniel's Vision, seventy two years. It appears then, that the beginning and ending of the seventy Weeks, cannot be the Decree of Cyrus, and the death of our Savior; there being seventy two years between them, more then the Weeks contain, or can be extended unto. The end we have already fixed from the Text, and therefore it doth not appear that their date and rise can be taken from the Decree of Cyrus. Sundry things are offered to disintangle us from this difficulty.

The most learned Reynolds in his Praelaections on the Apocryphal Books, allowing our account above-mentioned, as to the substance of it, especially that which concerneth the Persian Empire, about which alone there is any considerable difference, resolves yet at length, that the number of seventy Weeks, which is a round complete number, is put for an uncertain number, thereabouts, more or less, over or under, not much varying from it. And on this supposition, he dates the beginning of the Weeks in the Decree of Cyrus. To confirm his opinion, he giveth sundry instances of this kind of computation in the Scripture, and contends that the particular reason of limiting the whole time unto seventy Weeks, was to make it answer unto the seventy years captivity that immediately preceded it. The time to follow being declared to be just seven times as much.

This Interpretation of words, might it be admitted, would, I confess, solve all difficulties, [§ 12] and entirely preserve the sacred and profane accounts from all appearance of enterfering. But there are two reasons, upon the account whereof I cannot assent unto it. The first is, because indeed there is no other instance in the Scripture to give countenance unto it; namely, wherein a number of years coming so far short of the true and exact account, as this doth, is yet put for the whole; especially considering this number is given out for this very purpose, that men might aright compute it, and so come to know the time of its expiration. But to name 490, for 562, seems rather to be a conjecture, then a Prophecy. This may then be the condition of some few odd years, that may be cast in unto a full round number, but of so considerable a part of the whole as 72 is, there is no reason to suppose it so disposed of.

Secondly, The word used by the Angel to express the limitation of this time 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 plainly proves that a precise duration of time, and number of years is signified. The Vulgar Latin renders that word abbreviate, shortened, or cut short. And a learned man of our own approves of that interpretation of it, in opposition unto our own Translation, and that of Junius. De annis (saith he) porro loquitur signanter Propheta quod sint, non decisi, (as Junius ) non determinati (as ours) apud Deum statuti, ( quod tamen verum erat ) sed quod erant abbreviati quemadmodum transtulit doctissimus interpres vetus. Mon. App. ad Orig. Eccl. And thereon disputes at large, how the years are said to be shortened ; and yet concludes, dicuntur autem abbreviatae hebdomadae, • o quod erant decisae & determinatae ; as though shortened or abbreviated was the proper sense of the word, only it might be interpreted determined ; or that the days are said to be shortened, because they were determined.

But the truth is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 doth not signify to abbreviate or make short; and all the reason given to show why the times here are said to be shortened, are perfectly cast away. It is in this place only used in the Scripture, and that in the singular number joined with a Noun of the plural, to intimate that every week of the whole number was limited and determined, and cut out, as is usual in the Hebrews. Among the Rabbins, it is to cut off; and from it is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a piece cut off, as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , a piece of fles • cut off, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , is a cutting, or incision. So that the word in its precise signification, is cut out, or cut off, that is set apart, limited, or determined. A portion of time cut out, limited and apportioned unto the end, for the accomplishment of the work foretold. Now there is nothing more contrary unto a precise determination of time, then that a certain number of years should be named to signify an uncertain, and that so exceeding distant from the exact account, as 490 years are from 562. So that here is no place for the conjecture of that most learned and renowned person.

The Jews take another course to solve this difficulty, as also to give some countenance [§ 13] unto their computation, in dating the weeks from the destruction of the Temple by the Chaldeans, and ending them in the desolation of the second house, by the Romans ; for they will allow no more Kings of Persia, then are mentioned in the Scripture, nor that they reigned any longer then they find mention therein of the years of their Reign: As though whether they did good or evil towards Jerusalem, it was fatal unto them; so that they must needs die immediately upon it. Thus they allow not above four or five Kings of Persia at most, and thereby take in the duration of that Empire from two hundred years and upwards, unto fifty years at the most. But this supposition stands in open contradiction to all generally allowed computation of time in the world: And not only so, but it excludes all considerations of things done, as notorious to mankind, as that ever there was such a thing as the Persian Empire. Of this nature are the transactions and wars with other Nations, especially the Grecians, which fell not out in the days of any of the Kings mentioned in the Scripture; especially that famous expedition of Xerxes, which the whole world looked on, and waited for its event. And yet I acknowledge that this imagination might deserve consideration, could it pretend that the Books of Ezra and Nehemiah did intentionally give us an account and History of the Persian Empire, and the Reign of the Kings thereof, as some Books do of the Kings of Israel and Judah. But whereas it is evident, that their design being quite otherwise, and that they only occasionally mention some of the Kings of Persia, and some years of their Reign, as they related unto the state and actions of the people of the Jews : It is no less madness and folly to contend from thence, that there were no more Kings of Persia, then are mentioned in them, and that they reigned no longer then is in them expressed, then it would be to say that there were never above three or four Kings of the Assyrian Empire, because there are no more mentioned in the Scripture, and so many of them are spoken of: This 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is beneath all consideration.

[§ 14] Others there are, men learned and pious, who resolving to date these Weeks from the first of Cyrus, and to make 490 years the exact measure of the time from thence unto the death of Messiah, and not being able to disprove the computation from Alexander unto that time, fall also upon the Persian Empire, and cut it short above fifty years of the true account of its duration, to fit it unto the place and measure provided for it. To this end, they reject the accounts of the Chaldeans, Grecians and Romans, concerning the time of its continuance, as fabulous, and give us a new arbitrary account of the Reign of these Kings whom they will allow.

This course steers Beroaldus, Broughton, Genebrard, and Willet, with sundry others. And the truth is, were the supposition once cleared, that the Decree or Commandment mentioned by Gabriel, must needs be given out by Cyrus, there were some color for offering of this violence, unto all consent of time, with account of things done, written by men prudent and sober in their own days. But this is so far from being a basis or foundation sufficient to warrant such a procedure, that take it nakedly of itself without the burden upon it, and it is destitute of all probability. The word, Decree, or Commandment mentioned unto Daniel, is that for the building of Jerusalem ; that is the restoring of it into a condition of rule and government; that is the building of a City, and not only the setting up of houses. Consequent unto this, there building of the walls also for the defense of the people is mentioned. Of this it is said, that it should fall out in a troublesome time, or a time of straits, as accordingly it did fall out in the days of Nehemiah. In the whole there is not the least mention of building the Temple, which had it been intended, could not I suppose have been omitted. But in the Decree of Cyrus, the principal thing mentioned and aimed at, is the re-edification of the Temple, the City and the Walls thereof being not spoken of in it, as may be seen in the first of Ezra at large.

It seems then evident, that the Decree mentioned by Daniel for the building of the City and Walls, not the Temple, and that given out by Cyrus, for the building of the Temple, and not the City and Walls, were divers. Besides this Decree of Cyrus, although foretold long before, and made famous because it was the entrance into the people's return and settlement, yet it took effect for so short a space of time, being obstructed within less then three years, and utterly frustrated within four or five, that it is not likely to be the date of this Prophecy, which seems to take place from some good settlement of the people. That alone which is pleaded with any color for this Decree of Cyrus is the praediction recorded, Isa. 44.28. It is prophesied of him, that he should say to Jerusalem, thou shalt be built, and to the Temple, thy foundations shall be laid: But yet neither is it here foretold that Cyrus should make any Decree for the building of Jerusalem ; or that it should be done in his days, as indeed it was not until an hundred years after, as it is evident from the story in Nehemiah. The whole intention of this Prophecy, is only that he should cause the people to be set at liberty from their captivity, and give them leave to return to Jerusalem, which he did accordingly, and thereupon both the building of the City and Temple ensued, though not without the intervention of other Decrees ; of which afterwards.

The only Argument wherewith this opinion of the duration of the Persian Empire [§ 15] not above one hundred and fifty years at the most, maintains itself, is taken from the life and age of Nehemiah. In Ezra 2. v. 2. he is reckoned among them that came up with Zerubbabel unto Jerusalem in the first year of Cyrus. Then he may rationally be supposed to have been at least twenty or twenty five years of age. And it seems from the last Chapter of Nehemiah, that he lived unto the reign of Darius Codomanus : for Sanballat the Hornoite assisted Alexander in his Wars. And Jaddua whom he mentions Chap. 12.11. was High Priest, when Alexander came to Jerusalem, as appears from Josephus. Now if the Persian Empire continued for the space of two hundred years, which we have allotted unto it, then he who went to Jerusalem in the first year of Cyrus, and continued unto the reign of Codomanus, must needs live two hundred and twenty years at the least, which is not credible, that any one should do in those days. And therefore the space of time must needs be shorter then is pretended, at least fifty or sixty years. But indeed there is no force in this exception. For First, There is no necessity why we should conclude that Nehemiah wrote that Genealogy, Chap. 12. where mention is made of Jaddua, who was afterwards High Priest, v. 11. for he ends his story in the High Priesthood of Eliashib, Chap. 13.28. who was Great Grand-father unto Jaddua, as appears, Chap. 12.10, 11. Or however if he did, Jaddua might then be a Child, and it may be not come unto the High-Priesthood until fifty or sixty years after; after the death of Eliashib, Joiada, and Jonathan his Great Grand-Father, Grand-Father, and Father. So that no evidence can be taken from hence for the continuance of his life unto the end of the Persian Monarchy. A •• for that Sanballat mentioned by Josephus in the time of Alexander, it is not improbable, but that he might name him as the head of the Samaritans, there being no name of any other after him left upon record.

(2.) There is no reason to think that the Nehemiah, mentioned Ezra 2. v. 2. who came up with Zerubbabel, was that Nehemiah who was afterwards Governor of Judah, and whose actions we have written probably the most part by himself, no more then there is to think that the Seraiah there mentioned, was the Seraiah that was slain at the taking of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar. The Daniel mentioned, Ezra 8.2. was not Daniel the Prophet, nor Baruch, Nehem. 10.6. that Baruch who was the Scribe of Jeremiah : nor that Jeremiah mentioned, Neh. 12. v. 11. Jeremiah the Prophet. Besides Ezra is said to come up with Zerubbabel, Nehem. 12.1. which either must not be that Ezra the great Scribe, or he must be said to come up with Zerubbabel, because he followed him on the same errand and account. It cannot be denied, but that there were sundry men at the same time of the same name; as the same person had sundry names, much more might several men have the same name in successive generations. Thus after Joshua was High Priest, there was another Joshua chief of the Levites, Neh. 12.7, 8. And that about this time there were two Zerubbabel's one of the house of Nathan, the other of the posterity of Solomon, we shall make it appear in the consideration of the Genealogies of Matthew and Luke. (3.) That this was not the Nehemiah that went up with Zerubbabel, the sacred story itself gives us sufficient evidence. For (1.) He was ignorant of the state and condition of Jerusalem when he lived in the Court of Persia, Chap. 1. had he been there before, and seen their condition, and but newly returned unto Shushan, he could not have been so surprised as he was ver. 4. upon the account then given him thereof. (2.) Chap. 7. v. 5, 6. He speaks of it as a great matter, that he should find a Roll or Register of them that came first up to Jerusalem with Zerubbabel in the days of Cyrus, amongst whom that Nehemiah was one. Now if this had been himself, what reason had he to mention it as a great discovery, which he could not but by his own knowledge be full well acquainted withal. Unto what time soever then the period of his life was extended, there is no color to surmise, that he was amongst them who returned from captivity in the days of Cyrus.

The account therefore before laid down being established, it is certain enough, that [§ 16] the Decree mentioned by Gabriel, from the going forth whereof, the seventy weeks are to be dated, was not that of the first of Cyrus, for the return of the Captivity and building of the Temple. For from thence, the period would ensue long before the just time allotted unto it, yea, before the beginning of the reign of Herod the great, where Eusebius would have them to expire. We must therefore inquire for some other Word, Decree or Commandment, from whence to date the four hundred and ninety years inquired after.

[§ 17] The second Decree of the Kings of Persia in reference unto the Jews was that of Darius made in his second year, when the work of the building of the Temple was carried on through the Prophecy of Haggai and Zechariah. This is the Decree or Commandment mentioned in Ezra 6. granted by Darius, upon appeal made unto him from his neighbouring Governors; and it was a mere revival of the Decree of Cyrus, the Roll whereof was found in Achmetha in the Province of the Medes, v. 2. And this is that which Haggai and Zechariah relate unto, dating their Prophecies, from the second year of Darius, Hag. 1.2, 10. Zech. 1.1. Upon the Roll of the Kings of Persia, we find three called by the name of Darius, or Darianes, as the Jews term him. (1.) Darius Hystaspes who succeeded Camhyses, by the election of the Princes of Persia, upon the killing of Smordes Magus the Usurper. (2.) Darius Nothus who succeeded Artaxerxes Longimanus. (3.) Darius Codomanus in whom the Persian Empire had its period by Alexander the great. That the last of these can be no way concerned in the Decree, is notorious. The two others are disputed. Most learned men grant that it was Darius Hystaspes which was the Author of this Decree; and indeed that it was so, at least, that it can be ascribed unto no other Darius, we shall afterwards undeniably prove. And it is not unlikely that he was inclined unto this favor and moderation towards the Jews by his general design to relieve men from under the oppressions that were upon them during the reign of Cambyses, and to renew the Acts of Cyrus their first Emperor, who was renowned amongst them, to ingratiate himself unto Mankind, and confirm himself in that Kingdom whereunto he came not by succession. And it is not improbable, but that this was he; who was the H • sband of Hester, though if so, it was not until after this Decree made in the second year of his reign, the putting away of Vashti happening in his third, Hest. 1.3. Now Cyrus reigned after his first Decree three years; Cambyses with S • erdes eight, whom succeeded this Darius, who issued out this Decree in the second year of his reign; that is at most thirteen years after the death of Cyrus ; or if with some we should grant Cyrus to have reigned twenty years over the whole Empire, it was but nineteen or twenty years at the most. Now the whole sum of years from the first of Cyrus, to the cutting off the Messiah we have manifested to have been five hundred sixty two: deduct thirteen years from five hundred sixty two, and there yet remains five hundred forty nine years, which exceeds the number of years inquired after fifty nine years, neither doth the addition of seven years to the reign of Cyrus, make any alteration in this general account. For on that supposition, his first year must be taken seven years backwards, and the space of time from thence unto the end of the weeks will be five hundred sixty nine years, and the remnant from Darius, as we declared before, five hundred forty nine years. So that neither can this be the Commandment intended, there being from the going forth of it, unto the cutting off of the Messiah not four hundred and ninety years, but as is declared five hundred forty nine. Besides indeed this Decree of Darius was no new command, nor had any respect unto the restauration of Jerusalem, but was a mere renovation, or a new acknowledgement of the Decree of Cyrus about the re-edifying of the Temple, and so doubtless was not designed as the signal Epocha of the time here limited and determined.

[§ 18] The great Scaliger who would date the weeks from this Decree of Darius, knowing that the time would not suit with the reign of Darius Hystaspes contends that it was Nothus who succeeded Longimanus that was the Author of it, and extends the whole time or space of four hundred and ninety years, to the destruction of the City and Temple, that space of time, according to his computation, being elapsed from the second year of Darius.

But the truth is, as may be seen from our former account, from the second year of Darius Nothus to the destruction of the City was but four hundred and eighty years short of the whole sum. Besides we have before proved from the Text, that the time determined, was to expire in the death of the Messiah. And there are sundry other circumstances which plainly evince the inconsistency of this computation: for from the first of Cyrus, when the first command went forth for the building of the Temple, whereupon the work of it was begun, unto the second year of Nothus are fully an hundred and eight years. And it is not credible that the work of building of the Temple should so long be hindered, and then come to perfection by them who first began it. For on this supposition Zerubba ••• and Joshua must live at Jerusalem after their return, above an hundred years, and then take in hand again the work which they had so long deserted. And this is yet more incredible upon his own opinion that Xerxes was the Husband of Hester, about fifty years before the Reign of Nothus. When it is not likely but the Jews would have attempted, and not have been denied their liberty of going on with their work.

Neither is it consistent with the Prophecy of Jeremiah, that the Temple should lie waste so long a space, that is about a hundred and seventy years. Again, Haggai doth plainly declare, that when the work of the Temple was carrying on in the second year of Darius, that many were yet alive, who had seen the first Temple, cap. 2.3. As multitudes were upon the laying of its foundation in the days of Cyrus, Ezra 3.12. And this was impossible, had it been in the days of Nothus, an hundred and sixty, or an hundred and seventy years after it was destroyed. And Scaliger doth plainly wrest the words of the Text, when he would have them pronounced by way of supposition; if any were then alive who saw the first house in its glory : for Haggai doth plainly relate unto the distemper of the people upon the laying of the foundation of the house mentioned in the forenamed place of Ezra ; and the words themselves will bear no other sense; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Who is among you that is left, that saw this house in her glory. He speaks of them who were yet left, and remaining; and spake to them, to remove and take away their complaint and repinings. Moreover that Artaxerxes, in whose days Ezra and Nehemiah went up to Jerusalem, was Longimanus, who reigned before Nothus, and not Memor, who succeeded him, as will afterwards appear: Now this Artaxerxes was long after that Darius, upon whose warranty the building of the Temple was finished, Ezra 7.1. Which certainly could not be Nothus who was his successor.

It appears then that Darius Nothus was not the Author of the Decree mentioned, as [§ 19] also that the times of the Weeks cannot be dated from the second year of Darius Hystaspes, who was the Author of it.

After this, there is mention made of two other Commands or Decrees relating to the [§ 20] Temple and People, both granted by the same Artaxerxes, one in the seventh year of his Reign unto Ezra, chap. 7.7. The other in the twentieth year of his Reign, unto Nehemiah, chap. 2.1. And from one of these must the account inquired after be dated. Now, supposing that one of these Decrees must be intended, it is evident that it was Longimanus, and not Memor, who was the Author of them: For from the seventh year of Memor, which was the second of the ninety fifth Olympiad, unto the eighteenth year of Tiberius Caesar, wherein our Savior suffered, being the third year of the two hundred and second Olympiad, are only four hundred twenty eight years, sixty two years short of the whole, or four hundred and ninety. Now these sixty two years added to the beginning of the account, from the seventh of Memor, fall in exactly on the seventh of Longimanus ; from the seventh of Longimanus then to the seventh of Memor are sixty two years, and from the seventh of Memor to the eighteenth of Tiberius are four hundred twenty eight years, in the whole, four hundred and ninety. The whole number inquired after.

It was then this Decree of Longimanus, that was intended by the Angel Gabriel : for [§ 21] from the seventh year, wherein he sent Ezra unto Jerusalem, and unto that work which he afterwards commissionated Nehemiah to carry on and perfect, unto the cutting off of the Messiah, are exactly seventy Weeks, or four hundred and ninety years, as may appear from the accounts formerly insisted on and declared: From the first of Cyrus, supposing him to reign but three years over the whole Empire, unto the death of Christ, there was, as we have proved, five hundred sixty two years: From the first of the same Cyrus, unto the seventh of Longimanus, were seventy two years, which being deducted from the whole of five hundred sixty two years, the remainder is four hundred and ninety; which space of time, how it was apportioned between the Persian, Graecian, Hasmonaean, Herodian, and Roman Rule, we have before declared.

And there wants not reason to induce us to fix on this Decree, rather than any other, [§ 22] being indeed the most famous, and most useful to the people of all the rest. By what means it was obtained, is not recorded. Evident it is that Ezra had great favor with the King, and that he had convinced him of the greatness and power of that God whom he served, chap. 8.22. Besides, it was not a mere proclamation of liberty, like that of Cyrus, which was renewed by Darius ; but a Decree, a Law made by the King and his seven Counselors, chap. 7.14. The highest and most irrefragable Legislative Power amongst the Medes and Persians. Moreover, with the Decree he had a formal Commission, where he is said not only to have leave to go, but to be sent by the King and his Council. Besides, the former Decrees barely respected the Temple ; and it seems that in the execution of them, the people had done little more then built the bare fabric, all things as to the true order of the Worship of God remaining in great confusion, and the civil state utterly neglected. But now in this Commission of Ezra, he is not only directed to set the whole Worship of God in order, at the charge of the King, chap. 7.16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23. But also that he should appoint and erect a Civil Government and Magistracy with supreme power over the lives, liberties, and estate of men, to be exercised as occasion required, v. 25, 26. Which alone, and no other, was the building of the City mentioned by Gabriel ; for it is not walls and houses, but Policy, Rule and Government, that makes and constitutes a City.

[§ 23] And it is very considerable what a conviction of the necessity of this work, was then put upon the spirits of the Governors of the Persian Empire ; for the King himself he calls Ezra the Scribe of the Law of the God of Heaven, owning him therein for the true God ; for he who is the God of Heaven, is God alone, all others are but the dunghill gods of the Earth, v. 12. Again, he declares that he was persuaded, that if this work was not done, there would be wrath from Heaven upon himself, his Kingdom, and his Son, v. 23, The seven Counselors they join in that Law, v. 14. And the mighty Princes of the Kingdom assisted Ezra in his work, v. 28. So that no command that concerned that people before or after, was accompanied with that solemnity, or gave such glory unto God as this did. Besides, the whole work of the Reformation of the Church, the restitution of the Worship of God, the recollection and recognition of the sacred Oracles was begun, carried on and finished by this Ezra, as we elsewhere at large have declared. All which considerations falling in with the account before insisted on, makes it manifest that it was this, and no other Decree that was intended by the Angel Gabriel ; and from thence unto the death of the Messiah, was seventy weeks, or four hundred and ninety years, the just and true limitation of which time we have been • nquiring after.

[§ 24] I declared at the entrance of this discourse, that th • force of our Argument from this place of Daniel against the Jews, doth not depen • on t •• s Chronological Computation of the time determined. All then that I aim • at it, was to vindicate it in general from such perplexities, as whereby they pretend to render the whole place inargumentative: And this we have not only done, but also • o st •• ed the account, as that they are not able from any records of times past, to lay any one considerable objection against it, or which may not be easily solved: Return we now to what remains of our former designed discourse.

Exercitatio XVI.

UNto the invincible Testimonies before insisted on, we may add some other [§ 1] considerations taken from the Jews themselves, that are both suitable unto their conviction, and of use to strengthen the faith of them who do believe. And the first thing that offers its self unto us, is their miserable fluctuation and uncertainty in the whole Doctrine about the Messiah ever since the time of his coming and their rejection of him.

That the great fundamental of their profession from the days of Abraham, and that [§ 2] which all their Worship was founded in, and had respect unto, was the promise of the coming of the Messiah, we have before sufficiently proved. Untill the time of his coming, this they were unanimous in, as also in their desires and expectations of his Advent. Since that time, as they have utterly lost all faith in him, as to the great end for which he was promised, so all truth as to the Doctrine concerning his Person, Office and Work plentifully delivered in the Old Testament.

In their Talmud. Tractat. Sanedr. they do nothing but wrangle, conjecture and contend about him, and that under such notions and apprehensions of him as the Scripture giveth no countenance unto. When he shall come, and how, where he shall be born, and what he shall do, they wrangle much about, but are not able to determine anything at all; at which uncertainty, the Holy Ghost never left the Church in things of so great importance. Hence some of them adhered to Barcosby for the Messiah, a bloody Rebel; and some of them in after ages to David el David a wandering Juggler, and Moses Cretensis, and sundry other pretenders have they given up themselves to be deluded by (as of late unto the foolish Apostate Sabadia with his false Prophets, R. Levi and Nathan ) who never made the least appearance of any one character of the true Messiah, as Maimonides confesseth and bewaileth. The Disputes of their late Masters, have not anything more of certainty or consistency, then those of their Talmudical Progenitors. And this at length hath driven them, to the present miserable relief of their infidelity and d • spair, asserting that he shall not come until immediately before the Resurrection of the dead, only they take care that some small time may be left for them to • njoy wealth and pleasure, with dominion over the Edomites and Ishmalites, that is, Christians and Turks under whom they live, as yet full of thoughts of revenge and retaliation in the days of their Messiah. Now whereunto can any man ascribe this fluctuation and uncertainty, in and about that which was the great fundamental Article of the faith of their Fore-fathers, and their utter renunciation of the true Notion and Knowledge of the Messiah. But unto this, that having long ago renounced him, they exercise their thoughts and expectation about a Chimoera of their own Brains, which having no substance in its self, nor found • tion in any work or word of God, can afford them no certainty or satisfaction in their contemplation about it?

[§ 3] Again, The State and condition of this people for the space of above sixteen hundred and thirty years, gives evidence to the truth contended for. The whole time of the continuance of their Church, State and Worship, from the giving of the Law on Mount Sinai, to the final destruction of the City and Temple by Titus, was not above sixteen hundred and thirty years, or sixteen hundred and forty upon the longest account, allowing all their former Captivities and intermissions of Government into the reckoning. They have then continued in a state of dispersion and rejection from God as long as ever they were accepted for his Church and people, what their condition hath been in the world for these sixteen Ages is known unto all, and what may be thence concluded, we shall distinctly consider.

[§ 4] When God took the Jews to be his people, he did it by a special and solemn Covenant. In this Covenant he gave them promises, which were all made good unto them unto the utmost date, and expiration of it in the coming of the Messiah. And they principally respected these three heads. First, That they should possess the Land of Canaan, and there enjoy that Worship which he had prescribed unto them. See Exod. 6.4. Chap. 34.10, 11. Levite. 26.8, 9. Deut. 18.18. Chap. 29.13. Psalm 105.10, 11. Secondly, That he would defend them from their Adversaries, or if at any time he gave them up to be punished and chastized for their sins: Yet upon their repentance and supplications made unto him, he would deliver them from their Oppressors. Deut. 30.1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Nehem. 1.9. Deut. 32.35, 36, 37. 1 Kings 8.34. Thirdly, That he would continue Prophets among them to instruct them in his will, and to reclaim them from their miscarriage, Deut. 18.18. The whole Pentateuch, all their Divine Writings are full of Promises about these things. And as we said until the time limited for the expiration of that special Covenant, they were all made good unto them. That it was to expire, themselves are forced to acknowledge, because of the express promise, of a new, or another Covenant to be made not like unto it; Jer. 32. The Land given them by inheritance, and the place designed for the Worship of God therein, were continued in their possession, notwithstanding the mighty Attempts made by the Nations of the world for their extirpation. And when at any time he gave them up for a season, unto the power of their Adversaries, because of their sins and provocations, as unto the Babylonians in the days of Nebuchadnezzar, and afterwards unto the Grecians or Syrians in the days of Antiochus Epiphanes : yet still he foretold them of their condition, promised them deliverance from it, and in a short time accomplished it, though it could not be done without the ruin of other Kingdoms and Empires. The Oppression of the Babylonians continued but seventy years; and the persecution of Antiochus prevailed only for three years and half. Prophets also he raised up unto them in their several Generations: yea, in the time of their great distress; as Jeremiah at the time of their desolation: Ezekiel and Daniel in Babylon: Haggai and Zechariah, in their poverty after their re •• rn, which dispensation ceased not, until they pointed out unto them the end of the Covenant, and told them that the Messiah should come speedily and suddenly unto his Temple, Mal. 3.1, 2.

[§ 5] The present Jews (I hope) will not deny, but that God is faithful still, and as able to accomplish his Promises, as he was in the days of old. Let us then inquire whether they enjoy any one thing promised them in the Covenant, or anything relating thereunto, or have done so since the days wherein, as we have proved, the Messiah was to come. (1.) For the Country given unto them by Covenant, and the place of God's Worship therein, the whole world knows, and themselves continually complain, that strangers possess it, they being utterly extirpated and cast out of it. It is with them all, as it was with Abraham before the grant of the inheritance was accomplished, they have not possession of one foot in it in any propriety, no not for a burying place. Their Temple is destroyed, and all their attempts for the restauration of it, which God so blessed of old, frustrated, yea ceased. Their daily Sacrifice is ceased, and whatever they substitute in the room of it, is an open abomination unto the Lord. We need not insist on these things. The Stories of their ruin, exile, vain attempts to recover their Land, of their Fore-fathers, of the utter pollution of the places of their Worship are known to themselves, and all men that take care to know ought of these things. Where is now the Covenant of the Land of Canaan? Was it to be absolutely everlasting? Whence comes it to pass, that the great promise of it doth utterly fail? Was it to expire? What period can be assigned unto its duration, but only that of the coming of the Messiah and the establishment of a New Covenant in him? Is not the denial hereof, the ready way to make the men of the world turn Atheists, and to look upon the Scriptures of the Old Testament as a mere Fable, when they shall be taught that the Promises contained in it, were but conjectures, deceitful words, that came to nothing.

Again, How are they delivered from their Adversaries? How are they defended [§ 6] from their Oppressors? There is not a known Nation in the world, wherein they live not, either openly or privately, in Exile and Banishment from their own Land. About their oppressions, and against their Oppressors they have cried out, and prayed after their manner for many Generations. Where is the protection, the deliverance promised? if the time be not yet expired for the coming of the Messiah, why are they not delivered? What word is there in the Law, or the Prophets, that they shall not be delivered out of Temporal distresses any other way but by the Messiah? hath it not been otherwise with them? Were they not delivered from former Oppressions and Captivities, by other means? Could not God of old have dispossessed the Romans of the Land of Canaan, and afterwards the Saracens, and can he not now the Turks, as easily as he did the Babylonians, Persians and Grecians? If the Covenant of those promises be not expired in the coming of the Messiah, what account can they give of these things?

Further, where are the Prophets, promised unto them? can they name one since the [§ 7] days of a John the Baptist, whom they owned for a Prophet? hath any one amongst them pretended to any such thing, whom the event, and themselves thereon have not discovered to be an Impostor? Such was Theudas, and Moses Cretensis, with some few others. Is it not strange, that they who never long wanted a Prophet in their straits and difficulties, and sometimes had many of them together, should now in their utmost misery, wanderings and darkness, be left utterly destitute of any one for a thousand six hundred years, and upwards? It is the general confession of all their Masters, that they have left the Holy Ghost, or Spirit of Prophecy. After the finishing of the second Temple, they say, and they say truly, that Prophecy ceased. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ; saith Saadias Haggeon on Daniel the 9th. Israel had no Prophet after the finishing of the second house, but those who enjoyed the Bath Kol. But what is now become of that Bath Kol also for a thousand six hundred years? Is not all pretence of Revelations utterly departed? what then is become of that Covenant wherein it was promised unto them? yea we know that they have not only left the Holy Ghost, as a spirit of Prophecy ; but also as a spirit of grace and supplications; so that besides a few superstitious forms repeated by number and tale; there is no such thing as prayer amongst them; as some of their late Masters have acknowledged.

What reason now can be assigned of this state and condition of things, but only [§ 8] that the Covenant wherein the good things mentioned were promised unto them, had a time limited unto it, when it was to give place unto a new one of another nature. And this the Jews acknowledge is to take date from the coming of the Messiah. God is faithful, unchangeable, able to make good his promises and his word to the utmost. The present Jews are no less Jews of the carnal seed of Abraham, then their forefathers were. It cannot be then but that the Covenant made with them, until the coming of the Messiah, is long since expired. And therefore also, that he is long since come.

Two things in general, the Jews reply unto these considerations, the one, as they [§ 9] have occasion and advantage, the other, openly and constantly: The first which they only mention, as they have occasion, is the prosperity of some of their Nation in this or that Country, with the honor and riches, that some of them have attained unto. Unto this purpose, they tell us stories of their number and wealth in the East, out of Benjamin Tudulensis and others, with the riches of some of them in the Western parts of the world also. But themselves know that none of these things, not one of them, was promised unto them in the Covenant that God made with them upon Mount Horeb. All the promises of it respected the Land of Canaan, with their preservation there, or return thither. What they get abroad in the world, elsewhere under the power and dominion of other Nations, befalls them in a way of common providence, as the like things do the vilest wretches of the earth, and not in a way of any especial promise. And therefore when Daniel and Nehemiah, with others, were exalted unto glory and riches among the Babylonians and Persians, yet they rested not therein, but pleaded the Covenant of God for their restauration unto the Land promised unto Abraham. And to suppose that the wealth of a few Jews up and down the world, gotten by Physic, or Usury, or farming of Customs, is an accomplishment of the promises before insisted on, is openly to despise the promises, and the Author of them?

[§ 10] But it is pleaded, secondly, by them, That it is for their sins that the coming of the Messiah is thus retarded and prolonged. But it is not about the coming of the Messiah, directly and immediately, that they are pressed withal in these considerations; that which we inquire about, is their present state, and their long continuance therein, with the reason of it; only aiming to find out and discover the true cause thereof: This, they say, is because of their sins ; and this also in general we grant, But yet must further inquire, what they intend thereby: I ask therefore whether it be for the sins of their forefathers, who lived before the last final dispersion, or for their sins, who have since lived in their several Generations, that they are thus utterly forsaken. If they shall say, it is for the sins of their forefathers, as Manasseh plainly doth, Quest. 43. in Gen. p. 65. And sundry others of them do the same, then I desire to know whether they think God to be changed from what he was of old, or whether he be not still every way the same as to all the promises of the Covenant; supposing they will say that he is still the same, I desire to know whether he did not in former times, in the days of their Judges and Kings, especially in the Babylonian Captivity punish them for their sins, with that contemperation of Justice and mercy, which was agreeable unto the Tenor of the Covenant? This I suppose they will not deny, the Scripture speaking so fully unto it, and the Righteousness of God requiring it. I desire then to know what were the sins of their forefathers, before the destruction of the second Temple, and your final dispersion, which so much, according to the Rules of the Covenant, exceeded the sins of them who lived before the desolation of the first Temple, and the captivity that ensued; for we know that the sins of those former were punished only with a dispersion, which some of them saw the beginning and ending of; the duration of the whole of it not exceeding seventy years, after which they were returned again to their own Land.

But the captivity and dispersion which hath befallen them upon the sins of those who lived before the destruction of the second Temple, as they were in their manner and entrance much more terrible, dreadful and tremendious then the former; so they have now continued in them above twenty times seventy years without any promise of a recovery. God being still the same that he was, if the Old Covenant with the Jews be still in force. The difference between this dispensation must arise from the difference of the sins of the one sort of persons, and the other. Now of all the sins, which on the general account of the Law of God, the sons of men can make themselves guilty of, Idolatry doubtless is the greatest: The choosing of other God's is a complete renunciation of the true one. And therefore comprised in it all other sins what ever, for casting off the yoke of God, and our dependence on him as the first cause, and last end of all, it doth that in gross, and by whole-sale, which other sins do only by retail; and therefore is this sin forbidden in the head of the Law, as intimating, that if the command of owning the true God, and him alone, be not adhered unto, it is to no purpose to apply ourselves unto them that follow. Now it is known to all that this sin of Idolatry abounded amongst them under the first Temple, and that also for a long continuance, attended with Violence, Adulteries, Persecution and Oppression, but that those under the second Temple had contracted the guilt of this sin, the present Jews do not pretend; and we know that they hated all appearance of it. Nor are they able to assign any other sins what ever, wherein they went higher in their provocations, then their Progenitors under the first Temple. What then is the cause of the different event and success between them before insisted on? It cannot be, but that either they have contracted the guilt of some sin, wherewith God was more displeased, then with the Idolatry of their forefathers, or that the Covenant made with them is expired, or that there hath been a coincidence of both these; and that indeed is the condition of things with them. The Messiah came, in whom the carnal Covenant was to expire, and they rejected and slew him, justly deserving their perpetual rejection from it, and disinheritance.

[§ 11] Sometimes they will plead, that it is for their own sins and the sins of the Generations that succeeded the destruction of the second Temple, that they are kept thus long in misery and captivity. But we know, that they use this plea only as a covering for their obstinate blindness and infidelity. Take them from this dispute, and they are continually boasting of their Righteousness and Holiness, for they do not only assure us that they are better then all the world besides, but also much better then their forefathers, as Manasseh plainly affirms in the place before cited, and that on the day of Expiation, that is, once a year; they are as holy as the Angels in Heaven: There are therefore one or two things which I would desire to know of them, as to this pretence of their own sins, which on another account must also be afterwards insisted on.

First Then, whereas it is a principle of their faith, That all Jews excepting Apostates are so holy and righteous, that they shall all be saved, have all a portion in the blessed world to come, whence is it that none of them, are so Righteous as to be returned into the Land of Canaan? Is it not strange, that that Righteousness which serves the turn to bring them all to Heaven, will not serve to bring any one of them to Jerusalem. This latter being more openly and frequently promised unto them then the former. I know not how to solve this difficulty; ipsi viderint.

Again, Repentance from their sins is a thing wholly in their own power, or it is not; if they shall say, it is in their own power, as generally they do; I desire to know why they defer it? The brave imaginations that they have of the levelling of Mountains, the dividing of Rivers, the singing of Woods, and dancing of Trees, of the Coaches and Chariots of Kings to carry them, as also their riding upon the shoulders of their rich neighbors into Jerusalem, the Conquest of the world, the eating of Behemoth, and drinking the Wine of Paradise, the Riches, Wives, and long Life that they shall have in the days of the Messiah, do make them as they pretend, patiently endure all their long exile, and calamity. And can this not prevail with them for a little Repentance, which they may perform when they please, with a wet finger, and so obtain them all in a trice? If they are so evidently blind, foolish and mad, in and about that which they look upon as their only great concernment in this world, have they not great cause to be jealous, lest they are also equally blind in other things, and particularly in that wherein we charge them with blindness? This it seems is the State of these things. Unless they repent, the Messiah will not come; unless he come, they cannot be delivered out of their calamity nor enjoy the promises. To repent is a thing in their own power, which yet they had rather endure all miseries, and forego all the promises of God then take in hand, or go through with it. And what shall we say to such a perverse generation of men, who openly proclaim, that they will live in their sins, though they have never more to do with God unto eternity. If they shall say, that Repentance is the gift of God, and that without his pouring forth his Spirit upon them, they cannot attain unto it, then I desire to know whence it is that God doth not give them Repentance, as he did to their forefathers, if the Covenant continue established with them, as in former days? From what hath been discoursed, It doth sufficiently appear that the state and condition of the Jews hath been such in the world, for these sixteen hundred years, as manifests the end of their special Covenant to be long since come, and consequently the Messiah, in whom it was to expire.

There is one of them, a nameless person, not unlearned, who hath written somewhat [§ 12] lately in the Portugal 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 everyone who is not obstinate, or blinded with corrupt affections, must needs acquiesce therein. His confidence, if not his reasons, deserves our consideration, especially considering that he offers somewhat new unto us, which their former Masters did not insist upon.

That then which he returns as an Answer, unto the enquiry of the Causes and Reasons of their present long captivities 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, Chap. 16.48. As I live, saith the Lord God, Sodom thy Sister hath not done, she nor her daughters, as though 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 Sodom was overthrown withal.

But it may be said, that these sins what ever 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 liberatio e Babilone nihil aliud suit, quam exploratio, qua Deus experiri voluit, an cum restitutione Regni & Templi possint abbreviari, & expiari enormia ista, quae commiscerant, adulterii, homicidii, & Idolatriae peccata; sed pro antecedentium debitorum solutione, quam prestare debuerunt, nova insuper debita accumulaverunt. 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. Thus he. 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 themselves and 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 thereunto; or let him show, how this procedure is suitable unto the Justice of God, either unto the general notion that we have of it, or as unto any other instance recorded of it in the Scripture.

But if these men may fain 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 answerable unto the mercies 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 was returned unto them, in a way of mercy and grace never to call over their forepast iniquities anymore, 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. 18. Now what were the sins of this people under the first Temple before their captivity? our Author reckons Adultery, Murder and Idolatry : It 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 ev • n from the Land of Egypt, or their beginning to be his people, Chap. 23.11, 27. Now were the Jews, that is, the body of the people guilty of these sins under the second House? it is known that from all Idolatry they preserved themselves, which was that sin, that in an especial manner was their ruin before; and for killing the Pophets, 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 continued in the sins of their forefathers, which yet is false, and denied by themselves as occasion requires, yet what have the Jews done, for sixteen hundred years since the destruction of that House? they plead themselves to be holy, and in application of the Prophecy, Isa. 53. unto themselves, proclaim themselves 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? What instance of the like dispensation can they produce? for our parts we affirm, 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 they abhor the sins of their forefathers, repent of them, and do obtain Remission of sins through their observation of the Law of Moses ; Wherein then is the faithfulness of God in his prom • ses unto 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 color of truth nor reason therefore in this evasion, which they invented to countenance themselves in their obstinate blindness and unbelief.

But our Author yet adds an Instance, whereby he hopes to reinforce and confirm [§ 13] 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 •• t ante presentem hanc nostram captivitatem, n • cdum in hodiernam hanc diem in terram si • am reversae aut dominio suo restitutae sunt, quae omnia specially Dei Providentia nobis ita ev • nerunt ne quis causam hujus nostrae captivitatis specially alicui peccato sub secunda domo commisso imputaret: Cum decem tribus qui tum absuerunt captivitatem pati debent sexcent • s annis longiorem. God suffered the ten Tribes to be carried captive by Salamanasser into Countries unknown to us six hundred years before the destruction of the second Temple, and our present captivity: neither are they yet returned to their own Land, or restored to their former rule, all which things have happened unto us, by the especial Providence of God. That n • ne 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. Neither will this instance yield them the least relief. For (1.) It was before granted that the sins under the second Temple were even greater then those under the first, whence the punishment of them was revived, which is here denied, manif • sting that this is an evasion invented to serve the present turn. (2.) What ever is pretended, no impartial man that owns the special relation of that people unto God, and his Covenant with them, can but grant, that their present rejection is for some outrageous sins breaking the Covenant under the second Temple, and continued in by themselves unto this day; (3.) The case of the t • n Tribes, after they had publicly reject • d all that Worship of God, and all that Government of the people, which was appointed to Type out, and to continue unto the bringing of the •• ssiah, is different from that of the oth • r Tribes, to whom the Promises w • re appropriated in Judah, and in the house of David ; so that their rejection implies no disannulling of the Covenant. (4.) As all of the two Tribes came not up to Jerusalem at the return from the captivity of Babylon, so very great numbers of the ten Tribes appear so to have done, which b • ing added to those 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; and these men committed, and their posterity continue in the sins on which we charge their present dispersion and captivity. (5.) The remant 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 endeavor a return thereunto: so that neither doth this evasion, yield our present Jews any relief, and we may 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 entanglements in contending against the light: for the present Masters of their unbelief, are more perplexed with the convictions of their Predecessors then with the plainest testimonies of the Scripture. The Authority of their Predecessors being equal with them unto, if not more sacred then that of the word of God its self.

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 the same day that the second Temple was destroyed. The story indeed which they make it up with, is weak, fabulous and ridiculous, and 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 must we learn the persuasions and convictions of the Antient Jews, or be utterly ignorant of them. Be their stori • s what they will also, the powerful convincing Evidence of Truth, and the miserable shifts that the poor wretches are put unto, to keep off the Efficacy of it from their minds do sufficiently appear in them.

The Tradition mentioned, they give us in Tractat. Bezaroth. distinct. Hajakorr ; in [§ 14] these words; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 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 plowing, his Ox before him lowed, and there passed by him 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Menachem, that is, the Comforter. And in Bereshith Rabba on Gen. 30. they have a long story to the same purpose. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , vel, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 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, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the voice from Heaven, crying unto him, the house of our holy Sanctuary is brought unto destruction: when Elias of good memory heard this, he thought the whole world should be destroyed, he went therefore and finding 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , men plowing and sowing, he said unto them the holy blessed God is angry with the world, (or all this generation) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 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. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , came forth again and said unto him, Let them alone, for unto Israel is born a Savior; 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 streightway encouraged, and took care of him. In the process 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 this Tale is hammered out of the second of Luke, about the appearance of the Angels to the Shepherds, and their finding his Mother in a stable; All the use that I intend to put this confession of theirs unto, is to urge the present Jews with a conviction, and acknowledgement 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. Chelec. about the continuance of the world, which is as follows, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , It 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 Sehuda of a Disputation they had with one Jerome a converted Jew before the Bishop of Rome, they know not how to disintangle 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 besides, that even they also are now drawing towards their period, not a fifth part in their computation of that space of time remaining, so this gloss 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 unto it in their Tradition.

[§ 16] Many other the like concessions and acknowledgements 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 so we have fully demonstrated the second thing proposed unto confirmation; Namely, that the true Messiah is long since come, and hath finished the work allotted unto him. Now whereas we have in our passage vindicated the Testimonies insisted on from the particular exceptions of the Jews; It remaineth for the closing of this Discourse, that we consider the general Answer which they give unto the whole Argument taken from them all.

That which they principally insist on is, a concession with an exception, rendering [§ 17] as they suppose the whole useless to our purpose. They grant therefore that the time fixed on, was determined for the coming of the Messiah ; But add withal, 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, namely on supposition that the Jews were righteous, holy and worthy to receive him. Thus unto the Tradition of Elias before mentioned, determining the coming of the Messiah upon the end of the second two thousand years of the worlds duration; they add in the Talmud. Tractat. Saned. distinct. Cheleck. cap. 11. these words as an exception, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , because of our sins, those days have exceeded the time, all that is past. And again they add in the same place; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Rab. said, all times appointed are finished, and this matter is not suspended, but upon account of repentance and good works. And nothing is more common with them then this condition, if they deserve it, if they repent, the Messiah will come, 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.

First, We have before proved, that not the Jews only, but the Gentiles also, even [§ 18] 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. 3.15. The next solemn renovation of it unto Abraham extends the blessing wherewith it was to be attended unto all the kindreds of the earth, Gen. 12.3. Chap. 18.18. The whole restriction of the promise unto 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 foretells his coming of Judah, Gen. 49.10. he declares who were to have an equal share in the blessing of it, together with his posterity; to him, saith he, shall be the gathering of the people. The same course do all the succeeding Prophets proceed in. They everywhere 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 philanthrophy did God provide this blessed remedy for the recovery of mankind, (both Jews and Gentiles) out of that misery whereunto they had cast 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 whereon all their happiness did depend. Shall we now suppose, that all this love, grace and mercy 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? that he hath given the fountain of his grace and love, which he intended and promised should overflow the whole earth, and make all t • e barren Wildernesses of it fruitful unto him, to be closed and stopped by them at thei • pleasure? that it should be in their power to restrain all the promised • ffects 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 Savior and a Deliverer, who at such a time shall come and declare unto you the way of life eternal, shall open the door of Heaven, and save you from the wrath that you have deserved, but I will do it on this condition, that the Jews an obstinate and rebellious people, be good, holy, righteous and penitent; for unless they be so, the Savior shall not come, nor is it possible 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 in his Throne, and given his Grace and truth into their hands to make effectual, or frustrate at their pleasure, and suspended his good will towards the residue of mankind on their obedience, whom he testifieth to have been always stubborn and disobedient, they may also hope to prevail with us to believe, that they only are men, and all other beasts, as some of their Talmudical Masters have affirmed. At present we find it 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 he did not, then besides that they deny him to be God, by denying those Essential Attributes of his nature, which the very Heathen acknowledged in their Deities, 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 he did foresee, that their conditions and manners, would be such as the event hath proved them, whence he must also know that it was impossible, that the Messiah should come at the time limited and determined; I ask to what end and purpose he doth so often, and at so great a distance of time, promise and foretell, that he should come at such a time and season, seeing he knew perfectly that he should not so do, and so, that not one word of his predictions should be fulfilled? why I say, did he fix on a time and season, foretell it often, limit it by signs infallible, give out 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 Jews want of merit and repentance, no such thing could possibly fall out? God who is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , doth not deal thus with the sons of men. This were not to promise and foretell in infinite veracity, but purposely to deceive. The condition then pretended, cannot be put upon 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 that which they pretend the promise insisted on, to be clogged withal. It is nowhere said, nowhere intimated, that if the Jews repented, and merited well, the Messiah should come, at the time mentioned; nowhere threatened, that if they did not so, 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 unto their infidelity. Before the time allotted, was elapsed, and they had obstinately refused him, who was sent, and 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, which so they may do, they are not solicitous what reflection it may cast upon the honor of God. Besides as the Scripture is silent, as to anything that may give the least color unto this pretence, so it delivers that which is contrary unto it, and destructive of it; for it informs us, that the season of the coming of the M • ssiah shall be a time of great sin, darkness and misery which also their own Masters, in other places, and on other occasions acknowledges. So Isa. 52. & 53. Jer. 31.32, 33. Dan. 9.24. Zach. 13.1. Mal. 3.4. He was to come to turn men from ungodliness, and not because they were turned so before his coming. There can be no place then for this Condition.

[§ 21] Fourthly, The suggestion of this condition, overthrows the rise 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 anything in man, Jew nor 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 that this shall not be granted, unless men as a condition of it, deliver themselves from their sins, is to assert a plain contradiction, so 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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 Lord's of the earth; which folly hath been before discovered and disproved.

Fifthly, The Jews on several accounts are 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , or self-condemned, in [§ 22] the use of this plea or pretence. Their great sins, they say, are the cause, why the coming of the Messiah is retarded. But First, what those sins are they cannot declare. We readily grant them to be wicked enough, but withal we know their great wickedness to consist, in that which they will not acknowledge; namely, not in being unfit for his coming, but in refusing him when he came. They instance sometimes in 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, and also fulfilled his promises unto them, though really conditional. (2.) 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 then their forefathers; yea, (3.) 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. (4.) 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. 60.22. I the Lord will hasten it in its time. Tractat. Saned. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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. (5.) They assert many of them, that it is themselves who are spoken of in the fifty third of Isaiah, and 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, supposing themselves there intended. So that this pretence is known to themselves to be no more.

Sixthly, This plea is directly contrary to the nature of the Covenant, which God promised [§ 23] to make at the coming of the Messiah, or that which he came to ratify and establish, and the reason which God gives, for the making of that Covenant, Jer. 31, 31, 32, 33. The foundation of the New Covenant lies in this, that the people had disannulled and broken the former 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 the Messiah will not come, that is, the New Covenant shall not be made, unless by them it be first made needless. Again, the nature of the Covenant lies in this, that God in it makes men righteous and holy, Ezekiel 11.19. 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 he may make that Covenant with them.

Lastly, If the coming of the Messiah, depend on the Righteousness and repentance [§ 24] of the Jews, it is not only possible, but very probable that he may never come. Themselves conceive that the world shall not continue above six thousand years. Of this space, they do not suppose, that there is anymore then five hundred remaining; the time 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, within the four or five hundred years that are behind. Greater Calls to Repentance from God, greater motives from themselves and others they are not like to meet withal. And what ground have we to expect, that they who have withstood all these Calls without any good fruit by their own confessions, will ever be any better. Upon this supposition then, it would be very probable, that the Messiah should never come. Nothing can be replied hereunto, 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 no: But if either of these may be expected, what reason can be imagined, why God should so deal at any season concerning which he had made no promise, that the Messiah should come therein, and not do so at the time concerning which he had so often promised and foretold, that he should come therein.

Exercitatio XVII. The Third general Dissertation, proving Jesus of Nazareth to be the only true and promised Messiah.

THe third branch of that great supposition and fundamental Article of faith, [§ 1] whereon the Apostle builds his Arguments and Reasonings, wherewith he deals with the Hebrews is, that Jesus whom he preached was the true and only promised Messiah who came forth from God for the accomplishment of his work; according to the time determined and foretold. The confirmation of this foundation of our faith, and profession, is that which now in the third place we must engage in. A subject this is whereon I could insist at large, with much satisfaction to 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 respect unto that further end of opening the springs of the Apostles Divine reasonings in this Epistle, and therefore must contract (as much as may be) the Arguments that we have to plead in this case. And yet neither can this be so done, but that some continuance of discourse will be unavoidably necessary. And the course we shall proceed in, is the same we have passed through in our foregoing demonstrations of the promise of the Messiah, and of his coming. Our Arguments are first to be produced, and vindicated from the particular exceptions of the Jews ; and then their opposition to our Thesis in general, is to be removed, referring an Answer unto their special Objections unto another Dissertation.

[§ 2] That we may the more orderly annex our present Discourse unto that foregoing: our first Argument shall be taken from that which is proved, and confirmed therein; namely, the time limited and determined for the coming of the Messiah. Two ways there are, whereby the time fore-appointed of God for the coming of the Messiah, is signified and made known. First, By certain 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , or evident tokens, taken from the Judaical Church, with the state and condition of the whole people of the Jews. This we have insisted on from Gen. 49.10. Hagg. 2.8. Mal. 3.1, 2. Secondly, By a computation of the time its self as to its duration, from a certain fixed date unto its expiration. This way we have unfolded and vindicated at large, from Dan. 9.24, 25, 26, 27. And although herein we have evidenced the truth and exactness of the computation insisted on by us, as far as any Chronological accounts of times past are capable of being demonstrated. Yet we have also manifested, that our Argument depends not on the precise bounding of the time limited; But lying 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is of equal force, however the computation be calculated, the whole time limited being undeniably expired before, or at the destruction of the City and Temple. Hence is the foundation of our first Argument. Before or at the expiration of that time the promised Messiah was to come. Before, or at that time, as denoted and described by the general 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , or evident tokens before mentioned, and limited, by the computation insisted on, came Jesus, and no other that the Jews can or do pretend to have been the Messiah; and therefore he was the true promised Messiah.

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

Nor can the Jews on such a supposition, in any measure defend the truth of it against an Infidel. For unto his enquiry where is the promised Messiah, if they shall plead their usual pretences. It is easy for him to reply, that these things b • ing nowhere mentioned, nor intimated in the Books themselves : They are only such subterfuges as any man may palliate the most open untruths withal. And indeed, the ridiculous figment of his being born at the time appointed, but kept hid to this day, they know not where, is not to be pleaded, when they deal with men not bereft of their senses, or Judicially blinded by God. For besides, that the whole of it, is a childish, toyish fiction, inconsistant with the nature and being of their Messiah, whom th • y 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 assoiled by it. For it is not his being born only, but also his accomplishment of his Work and Office, at the time determined which is foretold. Nor is there any one jot more of probability in their other pretence, about their own sins and unworthiness. For, as we have declared, this is nothing but in plain terms to assert, that God hath violated his faith and promise; and that in a matter, wherein the great Concernments of his own Glory, and the welfare of all mankind doth consist, upon the 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. 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 color of probability unto that dignity, or was ever as such, owned or esteemed by the Jews themselves.

First then, that Jesus came and lived in the time limited unto the coming of the [§ 4] Messiah, some short space of time before the departure of Scepter and Scribe from Judah, the ceasing of the daily Sacrifice, and final desolation of, the second Temple, we have all the evidence, that a matter of fact so long passed, is capable of as good, as that the world was of old by God created. The Stories of the Church are express, that he was born during the Empire of Augustus Caesar, in the latter end of the Reign of Herod over Judea, when Cyrenius was Governor over Syria ; that he lived unto the time, wherein Pontius Pilate was Governor of Judea under Tiberius, about thirty six or thirty seven years before the destruction of the Nation, City and Temple by Titus. This the stories written by Divine inspiration, and committed unto the care of the Church, expressly affirm; neither have the Jews anything to object against the truth of the relation, what ever thoughts they have of his Person, who he was, or what he did: That he lived and died then, and there, is left testified on Records beyond control. And if they should deny it, what is the bare negation of a few interested, blinded persons, without Testimonies or evidence from any one circumstance of Times, Persons, or Actions to be laid in the balance against the Catholic Tradition of all the world, whether believing in Jesus, or rejecting of him. For they all always consented in this, that he lived, and died at the time mentioned in the sacred stories.

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

The best of the Historians of the Nations, who lived near those times, give their [§ 5] 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 suffice for an instance. This is Cornelius Tacitus, in the fifteenth of his Annals: Abolendo (saith he) rumori (he speaks of Nero and his firing of Rome, ) subdidit reos, & quaesitissimis poenis affecit, quos per flagitia invisos vulgus Christianos appellebat. Author ejus nominis Christus qui Tiberio imperitante per procuratorem Pontium Pilatum supplicio affectus erat. He expressly assigns the time of the death of Christ unto the reign of Tiberius, and government of Pilate. The same also is confirmed by the Jews own Historian Flavius Josephus, in the fourth Chapter of the eighteenth Book of their Antiquities ; unto which season also he assigns the death of John the Baptist, who was his contemporary, according to the Evangelical Story.

Further, We have that Testimony in this matter, which though in its self, it be of little [§ 6] or no moment, yet as unto them with whom we have to do, is cogent above all others; and this is their own confession. They acknowledge in the Talmud, that he lived before the desolation of the second Temple, for they tell us, cap. Cheleck, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 — cap. 2. that he was the Son of Pandira and Stada, and that he lived in the days of the Maccabes, Alexander, Hircanus, and Aristobulus, under whom he was crucified. I confess Galatinus, Reuchlinus, and of late the learned Schiklard with some others do contend that it is not Jesus Christ whom they intend in the wicked Story which they tell of that Jesus the Son of Pandira. But the reasons they insist on, are of no cogency to procure the assent of any one, acquainted with their Writings; no though the latter J • ws themselves (ashamed of the prodigious lies of their forefathers, and afraid to own their blasphemies, for fear of provoking the Christians against them) do faintly (some of them) deny him to be the person intended. The names of their Parents say they agree not. The Lord Jesus was the reputed Son of Joseph, the true Son of Mary. This Jesus of the Talmud, was the Son of Pandira and Stada. I shall not reply that Damascenus lib. 4. placeth a Panther ; and Barpanther, on the Genealogy of Christ, making the latter Grand-father to the blessed Virgin, seeing it is evident that he borrowed that part of his Genealogy from some corrupt Traditions of the Jews.

The reason why the Talmudists concealed the true names of the Parents of Jesus are evident; for by this means they more covered their malice, in one respect, and gave more blasphemous vent unto it, in another. They concealed it thus far, that everyone might not perfectly understand whom they intended, unless he were a Disciple of their own. And they gave it v • nt in the r • flection they cast upon the Evangelical Story, as though it had not given us the true names of the Parents of Jesus. And moreover, they gave themselves liberty by this means to coin new lies at their pleasure, for they may say what they would of their Pandira and Stada though all the world knew it to be false as to Joseph and Mary. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Pandira is a feigned name, insignificant, and invented by them for this only purpose. They sometimes write it with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the midst instead of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Panthira : so that Galatinus 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 who they term his Son, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Stada is also a name framed to the same end; and as the learned Buxtorfe supposeth from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , one that went aside, declined, or was an Adulteress. And they feign her to have been a platter of Womens hair, with other monstrous lies at their pleasure; but yet expressly in sundry places confess that her true name was Mary, and as I suppose, from the imputations mentioned, do willfully confound her with Mary Magdalene, 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 Exceptions is yet more impertinent that the things which are ascribed unto Jesus the Son of Pandira, can by no means be accommodated unto Jesus Christ. As though the Talmudical Rabbins had ever accustomed themselves to speak one true word concerning him, or as though they intended not him in all these blasphemous lies, wherewith they and their 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 such things. But yet also there were sundry things which they ascribe unto this Jesus the Son of Pandira and Stada which make very apparent who it was whom they intended; for first, they say that he learned Magic in Egypt, which upon his being carried thither in his infancy, they ascribe unto him: Again, they say he was a Seducer of the people; which we know was the accusation that they managed against the Lord Jesus.

Again, They tell us a story concerning two men placed in a room near him, to over-hear his seducing, that so they might accuse him; this they say was their course to entrap Seducers, and thereof they give this instance. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . 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. 26.60, 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, an hundred, or an hundred and ten years before the birth of Christ. But the mystery of this Fiction also is discovered by Abraham Levita, in his Cabala Historiae. He tells us that the Christians placed the death of their Christ under Pilate, that so they might show, that the destruction of the City and Temple f • ll 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 Maccabes, an hundred years before. And here we have unawares the sore discovered, and the true reason laid open, why the Talmudists attempted, to transferr the time of his death, from the days of Herod the Tetrarch, to the Rule of Aristobulus the Hasmonaean ; 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 that we undertook to confirm.

We, Secondly, In the pursuit of our Argument, affirmed that no other person came, [§ 7] 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 Imposters. For whereas none of them came or lived within the time determined, so they are all disclaimed by themselves, as Seducers and Causers of great misery unto their people and Nation. Herein then we have the consent of all parties concerned, which renders all further evidence unnecessary.

From what therefore hath been spoken, and disputed; It remaineth, that either [§ 8] our Lord Jesus was, and is the true Messiah, as coming from God in the season limited for that purpose, or that the whole promise concerning the Messiah is a mere figment, the whole Old Testament a Fable, and so both the old and present Religion of the Jews a delusion. At that season the Messiah must come, or there is an end of all Religion. If any came then, whom they had rather embrace for their Messiah then our Lord Jesus : let them do so, and own him, that we may know who he was, and what he hath done for them. If none such there were, that can be so esteemed, as in truth, and as themselves universally acknowledge there was not, their obstinacy and blindness in refusing the only promised Messiah is such, as no reasonable man can give an account of, who doth not call to mind the righteous Judgment of God in giving them up to blindness and obstinacy, as a just punishment for their rejection and murthering his only Son. And this Argument is of such importance, as that with the consideration of the Doctrine of Christ, and his success in the world, it may well be allowed to stand alone in this contest.

Our second Argument is taken from those Characteristical notes that are given in [§ 9] the Scripture of the Messiah. Now these are such, as by which the Church might know him, and upon which they were bound to receive him. All these we shall find to agree and center in the person of our Lord Jesus. Some of the principal of them we shall therefore insist upon, and vindicate from the exceptions of the Jews. The stock whereof he came, the place and manner of his Birth, the course of his life and death, what he taught, and what he suffered, are the principal of those signs and notes that God gave out to discover the Messiah in his appointed time; and as they were very sufficient for that purpose. So upon the matter they comprise all the signs and tokens whereby any person may be predesigned and signified.

First, For the Family, Stock, or lineage whereof he was to come; There was a threefold [§ 10] restitution of it, after the promise had for a long time run in general, that he should be of the seed of the Woman, or take his nature from among mankind. The first was unto the seed of Abraham, Gen. 15.17. and under that alone, there was no more required, but that he should spring from among his posterity, until God added that peculiar limitation unto it, in Isaac shall thy seed be called, Gen. 21.12. After this in the Family of Isaac, Jacob peculiarly inherited the promise; and his posterity being branched into twelve Tribes or Families, the rise or nativity of the Messiah was confined unto the Tribe of Judah, Gen. 49.10. This made it further necessary that from him, by someone of the numerous families that sprang of him he should proceed. Out of that Tribe God afterwards raised the Kingly Family of David to be a Type and representation of the Kingdom of the Messiah ; and hereupon he restrained the promise unto that family, though not unto any particular branch of it. Hereunto no other restriction was ever afterwards added.

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

[§ 11] First then, For Abraham there is no question between us and the Jews, but that the Lord Jesus was of his offspring and posterity. Neither do they pretend any exceptions to his being of the Tribe of Judah ; The Apostle in this Epistle asserts it as a thing notorious and unquestionable, Chap. 7.14. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , saith he, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ; it is every way, or altogether manifest, that our Lord sprang of Judah: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , is in Greek Authors, not only manifest, but openly and conspicuously so. Thus he is said, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , in Sophocles, who died openly and gloriously by all men's consent. Thus was the birth of our Savior among the Jews themselves, as to his springing from the Tribe of Judah. The Apostle declares that it was 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , without any contradiction received 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 someone signal branch of it. For as we said, there is nothing in the promise restraining his original to the first reigning family, or the direct posterity thereof. Now this is purposely declared by two of the Evangelis • s, who being Jews, and living amongst them, wrote the story of his life in the Age wherein he lived, for the use of the Jews themselves, with the residue of mankind. Matthew who calls his record of it, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the roll of his Genealogies, shows in the front of it, that he wrote it on purpose to declare, that he was according to the promise of the posterity of Abraham, and of the family of David. Of Jesus Christ the Son of David the Son of Abraham: That is, who was promised to Abraham and David, to spring from their loins. Luke also who derives his G • nealogie 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 is utterly impossible for us to give, and unreasonable for any other to demand. 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 men ever had, or can have in a matter of that nature. And this they did not upon rumors, or Traditions of former days, but in that very Age wherein he lived, and that unto the faces of them, whose great interest it was to except against what they wrote; and who would undoubtedly have so done, had they not been overpowered with the conviction of the truth of it: had they had the least suspicion on the contrary, why did they not in some of their consultations and rage against him and his Doctrine, once object this unto himself, or his followers, that he was not of the family of David, and so could not be the person he pretended himself to be. Besides, the Persons who wrote his Genealogy, sealed their Testimony, not only with their lives, but with their eternal condition; an higher assurance of Truth can no men give.

[§ 12] Two things the present Jews except unto this Testimony. First in general, they deny the Authority of our Witnesses, and deny the whole matter that they assert. Secondly, in particular they say, they prove not the matter in question; namely, that Jesus of Nazareth was of the family of David. For the first, they neither have, nor do yield any other reasons but their own wills and unbelief. They neither do, nor will believe what they have written. Record, Testimony, Tradition, or any Circumstance contradicting their witness, they have none; only they will not believe them. Now whether it be meet, that their mere obstinacy and unbelief, wherein, and for which they perish temporally and eternally, should be of any weight with reasonable men, is easy to determine. Besides, I desire to know of the Jews whether they think it reasonable that any man without Reason, Testimony, Evidence, or Record, to give them countenance, should call into question, dis-believe and deny the things witnessed unto, and written 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, needs no particular consideration, it being •• at which we plead with them about in all these our discourses. And as unto our own Faith it is secured by all these Evidences which we give of the sacred Authority of the Writings of the New Testament.

But moreover they except in particular, that neither of the Evangelists do either assert, [§ 13] or prove indeed that our Lord Jesus did spring from the family of David. For whereas they assert, and Christians believe, that he was born of the Virgin Mary, without conjunction of man, and that Joseph was only reputed to be his Father, because his Mother was legally espoused unto him, both Genealogies belong unto Joseph alone, as is evident from the beginning of the one, and the end of the other. Now 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, as also they take notice of the difficulties which have exercised many Christians in the reconciliation of the several Genealogies recorded by the two Evangelists ; unto all which exceptions, we shall briefly reply, and take them out of our way.

First, Suppose it granted, that the Genealogy recorded by Matthew be properly the [§ 14] Genealogy of Joseph, what madness is it to imagine that avowedly proposing to manifest Jesus Christ to have been of the family of David, and premising that design, in the title of his Genealogy, he doth not prove and confirm what he had so designed, according to the Laws of Genealogies, and of the legal just asserting any one to be of such a tribe or family. No more is required for the accomplishment of the promise, but that the Lord Jesus should be so of the family of David, as it was required by the Laws of Families and Genealogies, that any person might belong 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, whereunto by her espousals she was engrafted. And of that Family, and no other, was he to be reckoned, who was born of her, after those espousals. Now that the reckoning of Families and Relations among the Jews by God's own appointment, did not always follow Natural Generations, but sometimes Legal Institutions, is manifest by the Law of a man dying without Issue: for when the next Kinsman took the Wife of the deceased, to raise up seed unto him, he that was born of the Woman, was by Law not reckoned to be his Son by whom he was begotten, but was to be the Son, and of the Family of him that was deceased, to bear his name, and inherit his estate, Numb. 36.6. And this legal cognation, Luke seems to intimate, chap. 1.27. 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 Wives Son was to relate thereunto. And if this were the Law of Genealogies, and legal relations unto Tribes and Families, as evidently it was, Matthew recording the Genealogy of Joseph, to whom the blessed Virgin was espoused before the birth of Jesus Christ, 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 indispensible necessity among the Jews, binding them to marry within their Tribes, unless the Women were inhaeritrixes, 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 this so notoriously known, that seeing Genealogies were not reckoned by Women, nor the Genealogies of Women directly recorded, there was no better, or more certain way of declaring his pedigree, who was born of Mary, then 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.

Secondly, For Luke, he doth directly, and of set purpose, give us the Genealogy of [§ 15] 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 Genealogics, but this proves not both the lines to be the same: For the lines of Solomon and Nathan, might by marriage meet in these persons, and so leave it indifferent, which line was followed up to David ; and the lines of Joseph and Mary might be separated again in the posterity of Zerubbabel, Matthew following one of them, and Luke the other. This, I say, is possible, but the Truth is, (as is eviden •• from the course of generations insisted on) that the Zerubbabel and Salathiel mentioned in Matthew, were not the same persons with those of the same names in Luke, those being of the house of Solomon, these of the house of Nathan. So that from David it is not the line of Joseph, but of the blessed Virgin that is recited by Luke. And the words wherewith Luke prefaceth his Genealogy, do no way impeach this assertion, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ; for whereas these words 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , as was supposed, are usually placed and read in Parenthesis, the Parenthesis may be better extended unto 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , including Joseph ; being (as was supposed, the Son of Joseph ) the Son 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 Joseph, was Jacob, as Matthew declares, Heli being the Father of the blessed Virgin: So that both legally and naturally our Lord Jesus Christ was a descendant of the house and lineage of David, according unto 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 amongst them. The Jews indeed pretend that the Family of the Messiah shall be revealed by the Miracles that he should do; that is, by knowing him to be the Messiah, they shall know of what Family he is. But this note of his Family is given out to know him by; nor are we anywhere directed to learn his Family from our knowledge of him.

[§ 17] Another note or sign pointing out the Messiah in Prophecy, was the place where he should be born, which added unto the Time wherein, and the Family whereof, he should be brought forth, evidently designed his person. This place of his Nativity is foretold, Mich. 5. v. 2. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . 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 Church of the Jews, to denote the place of the birth of the Messiah ; we have an illustrious testimony in the records of the Christian Church, Matth. 2.5, 6. Upon the demand of Herod, where the Messiah should be born, the Chief Priests and Scribes affirm with one consent, that he was to be born at Bethlehem, confirming their 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, Joh. 7.41, 42. And we have the concurrence of their own Testimony in this matter: So the Chaldee Paraphrase renders these words, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 out of thee shall come forth to me the Ruler, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 out of thee shall come forth to me the Messiah, who shall have the dominion ; taking it for granted, that he it is whom this place is spoken of. So also K. Solomon expounds the place, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 &c. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 little to be in the thousands of Judah, that is, thou deservest to be so, because of the profanation of Ruth the Moabitess, 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 prophesied of, out of thee shall come forth 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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 M • ssiah that is here prophesied of, though against Rashi, the Targum and the Text, he would deny that he • hold be born in Bethlehem. But his interpretation is fond and forced to serve the present turn, because the Jews know that the Lord Jesus was born there. God speaks to Bethlehem the City of David, and gives an account how greatly he will magnify it, beyond what it then seemed to deserve; and this he will do by raising out of, and from that place (not from David, who was born at that place) the Messiah, who was to rule his people Israel. This then was the place of old designed for the birth of the Messiah, and there was our Lord Jesus born, at the appointed time, of the Trib • of Judah, and Family of David ; and there are sundry circumstances giving weight unto this consideration.

First, Whereas the Parents of Jesus were outwardly of a mean condition, and living [§ 18] in Galilee, it may be supposed that they were very little known, or taken notice of, to be of the lineage and offspring of David ; nor it may be in their low estate did they much desire to declare that, which would be of no advantage, and perhaps of some hazard unto them: But now their coming unto Bethlehem, and that whether they would or no, upon the command of public Authority, made their house and kindred known unto all the Jews, especially those of the Family of David, who were then all of them gathered together in that place. Secondly, There is no just nor appearing reason to be given that should move the Roman Emperor to decree that description and enrolment of persons which brought them unto Bethlehem : A matter it was of great charge and trouble to the whole Empire, which at that time enjoyed the greatest peace and tranquility. The Temple of Janus was then shut, and all things in quietness in all parts of the world. Neither was there afterwards any public use made of that enrollment; nor is it certain that it was accomplished in many other Nations. But the infinite, holy, wise Governor of all the world, puts this into his mind, and incites him on this work, to set mankind into a motion that two persons of low condition might be brought out of Galilee into Bethlehem, that Jesus might according 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 unto Bethlehem ; or if they had so, yet their doing of it on their own accord, might have given advantage unto the Jews, to say that the Mother of Jesus did not indeed any way belong unto Bethlehem, but only went thither to be delivered, that she might report her Son the better to be the Messiah. But by this admirable providence of God, all these, and sundry other difficulties of the like nature, are removed out of the way, their minds are determined, a Journey they must take, and that at a time very unseasonable for the Holy Virgin, when she was so near the time of her delivery, and be publicly enrolled of the Family of David, upon the command of him who never knew ought of that business, which none but himself could be instrumental to accomplish. Fourthly, Not long after this, that Town of Bethlehem was utterly destroyed, nor hath been for a thousand and six hundred years, either great or small among the Thousands of Judah. And all these circumstances give much light unto this characteristical presignation of the person of the Messiah, from the place of his birth or nativity.

The Exceptions of the Jews unto the Evangelists citation of the words of the Prophet, [§ 19] concern not the testimony itself, nor are indeed of any great importance. For first, The Evangelist intended no more, but only to direct unto that Testimony which was given unto the Nativity of the Messiah at Bethlehem, reciting so much of the words, and in such manner, as to prove by them that which he intended. He took not upon him to repeat every word as they were written by the Prophet (which he might easily have done had he designed it, and that without the least disadvantag • unto 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, th •• that for which by the Jews acknowledgement they were recorded by the Prophet •• there in the Alterations that are made in this recital is there one letter taken from the Prophets words, or added unto them, used by him to the advantage of his Assertion, which is the whole that the utmost scrupulosists can require in the recital of the words of another by the way of Testimony.

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

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

The first difference is in the first words; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , and thou Bethlehem Ephratah; which are rendered in the Evangelist ; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ; and thou Bethlehem in the Land of Judah; That Bethlehem which was of old called Ephratah, from its first Builder, 1 Chron. 4.4. that name being now forgotten and worn out of use, is here said to be, as it was indeed, in the Land of Judah ; to distinguish it from Bethlehem, that was in the Lot or Land of Zebulun, as both Rashi and Kimchi observe, Josh. 19.15. And it may be to denote withal the relation that the Messiah had to Judah. So that here there is no discrepancy. Bethlehem Ephratah, and Bethlehem in the Land Judah, are one and the same name and place. 2. In the ensuing words there is more variety, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , little to be in the thousands of Judah : in the Evangelist, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ; art not the least among the Leaders of Judah; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , parva, or little, in the positive, is rendered by the Evangelist, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , in the superlative degree, the Hebrews have no superlative degree in their Language, and therefore do often express the importance of it by the positive with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 following, as it doth in this place; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , little in the thousands of Judah, that is the least of them, if the word be adjectively to be expounded.

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

The only 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , is in the mode or manner of expression. The proposition in the Prophet seems to be affirmative, 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 ways soever the words be interpreted, the importance of the Testimony is still the same. (2.) The words in the Prophet contain no perfect Enuntiation, nor do yield any complete sense, unless it be on one of these two suppositions. First, That the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , is to be taken adverbially, and to signify not parva, but parum, 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 honor that God would put upon it by the birth of the Messiah. And this is not unusual in the Hebrew Language, Adjectives foeminine are frequently taken in the Neuter Gender, which it hath not, and signify Adverbially. And though 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , be of a Masculine Termination ; yet being joined with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the name of a Town or City, it is put for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , of the foeminine Gender. Or, Secondly, An Interrogation must be supposed to be included in the words, art thou but little? Bethlehem 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , art thou but little? which may well be rendered negatively, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , thou art not the least, among the thousands of Judah. The Prophet then might have respect both to its present outward estate, which was mean and contemptible in the eyes of men, and also the respect that God had unto it as to its future worth, which was to prefer it above all the Thousands of Judah, which principally the Evangelist had regard unto.

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

The remaining differences are inconsiderable, the Pronoun 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to me, is omitted by the Evangelist, and the Reason of it is evident; for in the Prophet God speaks himself in his own person, in the Gospel the words are only Historically recited. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Ruler in Israel, is paraphrased by the Evangelist, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the Leader that shall feed my people Israel: asserting his Rule, he adds the manner of it, he shall do it by feeding of them, according as his rule is declared in the next words in the Prophet, Micah 5.4. He shall stand and feed in the strength of the Lord ; which words the Evangelist had respect unto. And thus much have we spoken by the way, for the vindication of the recital of this Testimony, whose Application in general unto the matter in hand is every way unquestionable, and so yields us a second characteristical note of the person of the Messiah.

The manner of the birth of the Messiah, namely that he should be born of a Virgin, is [§ 20] 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , and in peculiar manner designed to be the seed of the Woman, that is to be born of a Woman without conjunction of man. To make this sign yet the more evident, God gives it forth directly in a word of promise, Isa. 7.10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 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. 1.22, 23. All this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Prophet, Behold, A Virgin shall be with Child, and shall bring forth a Son, and they shall call his name Immanuel. Now this being a thing utterly above the course of nature, which never fell out from the foundation of the world unto that day, nor ever shall do so to the end of it, seeing the miraculous power of God shall no more in the like kind be exerted; it is an infallible evidence, and demonstrative note of the true Messiah. He and he alone was to be born of a Virgin ; so alone was Jesus of Nazareth, and therefore he alone is the true Messiah.

The Jews being greatly pressed with this Prophecy, and the Accomplishment of it, [§ 21] do try all means to escape by breaking through one of them. And we might expect that they would principally attempt the story of the Evangelist ; but circumstances on that side are so cogent against them, that they are very faint in that endeavor. For if it was so indeed that Jesus was not born of a Virgin as is recorded, and as both himself and his Disciples professed, why did they not charge him with untruth herein, in the days of his flesh? Why did they not call his Mother into question, especially considering that the being espoused unto an Husband ; they might upon conviction have put her unto a public and shameful death? None of this being done, or once undertaken by their forefathers, no less full of Envy and Malice against the Person and Doctrine of Jesus then themselves, and much better furnished and provided for such an undertaking, might any color be given unto it, then they are, they insist not much upon the denial of the Truth of the Record; but to relieve themselves, they by all means contend that the words of the Prophet are no way applicable unto the birth of our Lord Jesus, which the Evangelist reports them prophetically to express. And to this end they multiply Exceptions against our interpretation of the Prophecy.

First, They deny that here is anything spoken of the conception or bearing of a [§ 22] Son by a Virgin. For the word here used, say they, ( 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ) signifieth any Young Woman, married or unmarried ; Yea sometimes an Adulteress ; as Proverbs 30.18. so that the whole foundation of our interpretation is infirm; and the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , here intended, was they say, no other but either the Wise of the Prophet, or the Wife of Ahaz the King, or some young Woman in the Court then newly married, or to be married to the King, or some other person.

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

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

Fourthly, Th • y affirm, that in the following Chapter the accomplishment of this Prophecy is decla • ed, in the Prophets going in unto the Prophetess, and h • r conceiving a Son, concerning whom it is said, that before he should have knowledge to say my Father, and my M • there, the Land should be forsak • n of both her Kings, in answer unto what is spoken of the Child of the Virgin, Chap. 7. v. 16. Chap. 8. v. 1.

Fifthly, That the name of this Child was to be Immanuel, whereas he of whom we speak was called Jesus, Mat. 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 N • z • reth.

[§ 23] In answer unto th • se Obj • ctions, some l • arned men have granted unto the Jews, that th • se words of the Prophet were literally fulfilled in someone then a Virgin, and afterwards married in those days, and that they are only in a mystical sense, applied by Matth • w to the bir • h of the Lord Jesus, as they say, are sundry other things that are spok • n p • imarily of oth •• s in the Old Testament. But the truth is, this Answer is neither • a • e in its self, nor n • edfull as to the Argument of the Jews, nor consist • nt with the sen • e of the place, or Truth of the words themselves. First, It is not safe, as to the faith of Chris • i • ns. For where • as the birth of the Messiah of a Virgin was so signal a Miracle, and so emi • ent a charact • ristical note of his person, if it be not directly fo • e • old and proph • si • d of in this place; there was no one prediction of it made unto the Church of the Jews. Now how this should seem reasonable, whereas things of far less concernment are foretold, is not easily made to appear.

S • condly, Upon th • s interpretation of the words, there is no ground left for the application of th • ir 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 w • ilest she was a Virgin, but only that she who was then a Virgin, did afterwards upon marriage conceive in the ordinary course of nature, there remains no ground for the application of what is spoken concerning her, unto one, who in, and after her conception, and the Birth of her Child, continued a Virgin. For although it be not required that there be an agreement in all things between the Type and the Antitype ; yet if there be no agreement between them, in that wherein the one is designed to signify the other, they cannot on any account stand in that relation. David as he was a King, was a Type of Messiah the Great King. There was we know, not an absolute similitude in all things between David and him: nor was there any necessity, that so there should be, that he might be his Type. But yet if he had not been a King, he could have been no Type of him at all in his Kingdom. No more can any person here spoken of, unless she did conceive a Son, and bring forth continuing a Virgin, be a Type of her who was so to do. For how can the miraculous work of the Conception of a Virgin, be signified or expressed by the ordinary Conception of a Woman in the State of Wedlock? Besid • s, this Answ • r 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 e • inced that the foundation and end of the Judaical Church and State, and of the preservation of the Davidical family, was solely the bringing forth of the promised M • ssiah. And this the Event hath fully demonstrated in their utter rejection after the accomplishment of that end. And hence the pr • mise of the Messiah was the Foundation, Cause, and Reason of all other promises made unto that people, as to any mercy or privileges, that as such, they were entrusted withal. For that for whose sake they were a people, must needs be the reason and cause of all good things; that as a people were bestowed upon them. Thus God often promiseth them to do this or that unto them, for Abraham's sake, and David's sake, that is upon the account of the promise of the Messiah signally made unto Abraham and David, when his bringing forth into the world was restrained unto their families and posterity. And hence also in times of straits and difficulties, when the people were pressed on every side, and labored for deliverance, God oftentimes renewed unto them the promise of the Messiah, partly to support their spirits with expectation of his coming, and the salvation that it should be accompanied withal, and partly to give them assurance, that they should not be consumed or utterly perish under their calamity, because the great work of God by them in bringing forth the Messiah, was not yet accomplished. So to this purpose the 4. chapter of this Prophecy. And on this account it was, namely, of the temporal concernment of that people in the coming of the Messiah, that the promise of him was oftentimes mixed and interwoven with the mention of other things, that were of present use and advantage unto them; so that it was not easy sometimes to distinguish the things that are properly spoken with reference unto him, from those other things which respected what was present; seeing both sorts of them are together spoken of, and that to the same end and purpose.

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

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

Secondly, The constant use of the words dir • cts us to the same signification. It is seven times used in the Old Testament, and in everyone of them doth still denote a Virgin, or Virgins, either in a proper, or metaphorical sense: The first time it is used, is Gen. 24. v.