1. Jesus whom Paul preached, the true Messiah. 2, 3. First argument, from the time of his coming—Foundation of this argument unquestionable. 4. Coming of Jesus at the time appointed, proved by Scripture record and catholic tradition; 5. By the testimonies of heathen writers; 6. By the confession of the Talmudical Jews—Jesus Christ intended by them in their story of Jesus the son of Pandira and Stada. 7. No other came at that season by them owned. 8. Force of this argument. 9. Characteristical notes of the Messiah given out in the Old Testament. 10. His family, stock, or lineage, confined unto the posterity of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Judah, David. 11. Our Lord Jesus of the posterity of Abraham and tribe of Judah; also of the family of David—Testimonies of the evangelists vindicated. 12. Jewish exceptions in general answered; 13. In particular, the genealogy not proved, answered. 14. The genealogy of Matthew declared; 15. And of Luke. 16. Jewish genealogies not trustworthy. 17. The place of the birth of the Messiah, Bethlehem, Mic. 5:1. 18. Circumstances enforcing this consideration. 19. The evangelist's citation of the words of the prophet vindicated. 20. The Messiah to be born of a virgin, Isa. 7:10–16, and Matt. 1:22, 23. 21. Jews convinced that Jesus was born of a virgin. 22. Jewish exceptions to the application of this prophecy—Their weight. 23. The answer of some unto them unsafe, needless. 24, 25. True sense of the words—Exceptions answered. 26, 27. The signification and use of 28 .עַלְמָה. Greatness of the sign promised. 29, 30. No other virgin and son designed but Jesus Christ and his mother— The prophecy cleared in this instance. 31. In what sense the birth of the Messiah was a sign of present deliverance. 32, 33. Remaining objections answered. 34. Other characters of the Messiah. 35. He was to be a prophet, Deut. 18:18, 19—A prophet like unto Moses expected by the Jews. 36. Jesus Christ a prophet; that prophet. 37. The nature of the doctrine which he taught—Its perfection. 38. The works of the Messiah revealed only in the gospel of Christ. 39. Also the nature and end of Mosaical institutions. 40. Threatenings unto the disobedient fallen upon the Jews. 41. Sufferings are another character of the Messiah. 42. His passion foretold, Ps. 22—The true Messiah therein intended—Expositions of Kimchi and others confuted. 43. Sufferings peculiar unto the Messiah. 44. The psalm exactly fulfilled in Jesus Christ. 45. Objections of the Jews from the principles of Christians answered. 46. Isa. 53 a prophecy of the suffering of the Messiah. 47. Consent of ancient Jews—Targum, Bereshith Rabba, Talmud, Alshech. 48–53. Invalidity of exceptions of later rabbins —Application to the Lord Jesus vindicated. 54. Other testimonies concerning the sufferings of the Messiah. 55. Jewish traditions to the same purpose. 56. Other arguments proving Jesus to be the true Messiah. 57, 58. Miracles; the nature of them; 59. Wrought by Christ, proved. 60. Testimony of the gospel. 61. Notoriety of the miracles, and of tradition. 62. Miracles of Christ compared with those of Moses. 63. Excelling them in number; 64. In manner of their being wrought; 65. In their nature; 66. In his giving power to others to effect them; 67. In his resurrection from the dead; 68. Continuance of them in the world. 69. Sum of this argument. 70, 71. Conviction of the Jews evinced. 72, 73. Causes of the miracles of Christ assigned by them—Magical art retorted; removed. 74. The name of God. 75. Testimony of his disciples. 76. Success of the doctrine of Jesus—Last argument.
1. THE third branch of that great supposition and fundamental article of faith whereon the apostle builds his arguments and reasonings wherewith he deals with the Hebrews, is, that Jesus whom he preached was the true and only promised Messiah, who came forth from God for the accomplishment of his work, according to the time determined and foretold. The confirmation of this foundation of our faith and profession is that which now, in the third place, we must engage in. A subject this is whereon I could insist at large with much satisfaction to 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 apostle's divine reasonings in this epistle, and therefore we must contract, as much as may be, the arguments that we have to plead in this case; and yet neither can this be so done but that some continuance of discourse will be unavoidably necessary. And the course 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 foreappointed of God for the coming of the Messiah is signified and made known:—First, By certain τεκμήρια, or evident tokens, taken from the Judaical church, with the state and condition of the whole people of the Jews. This we have insisted on from Gen. 49:10; Hag. 2:3, 6–9; Mal. 3:1. Secondly, By a computation of the time itself as to its duration, from a certain fixed date unto its expiration. This way we have unfolded and vindicated at large from Dan. 9:24–27. And although herein we have evidenced the truth and exactness of the computation insisted on by us, as far as any chronological accounts of time 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 ἐν πλάτει, 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 that time, as denoted and described by the general τεκμήρια, or evident tokens before mentioned, and limited by the computation insisted on, came Jesus, and no other that the Jews can or do pretend to have been the Messiah: and therefore he was the true, promised Messiah.
3. The foundation of this argument,—namely, that the Messiah was to come within the time limited, prefixed, and foretold,—cannot be shaken without calling into question the truth of all promises and predictions in the Old Testament, and consequently the faithfulness and power of God. The great design, whose lines are drawn in the face, and whose substance 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 centre, without which they would be loose, scattered, and deformed heaps, is the bringing forth of the Messiah, the Saviour 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 nought; which those with whom at present we contend will not grant.
Nor can the Jews, on such a supposition, in any measure defend the truth of it against an infidel; for unto his inquiry, Where is the promised Messiah? if they shall plead their usual pretences, it is easy for him to reply, that these things being nowhere mentioned or intimated in the books themselves, 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, inconsistent with the nature and being of their Messiah, whom they make to be a mere man, subject to mortality in his whole person, like all the other sons of Adam, it suits not at all unto the difficulty intended to be 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 do consist, upon the account of their miscarriages, which as they either can not 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 colour of probability unto that dignity, or was ever as such owned or esteemed by the Jews themselves.
4. First, then, that Jesus came and lived in the time limited unto the coming of the Messiah, some short space of time before the departure of sceptre 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 past 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 any thing to object against the truth of the relation, whatever 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 [i.e., contradiction.] And if they should deny it, what is the bare negation of a few interested, blinded persons, without testimony 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 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 have lived 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 attack 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.
5. The best of the historians of the nations who lived near those times give their testimony unto what is recorded in our Gospels. 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 15th of his Annals, cap. xliv. "Abolendo," saith he, "rumori" (he speaks of Nero and his firing of Rome) "subdidit reos, et quaesitissimis poenis affecit, quos, per flagitia invisos, vulgus Christianos appellabat. Auctor nominis ejus Christus, 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 fifth chapter of the 18th 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.
6. Further; we have that testimony in this matter which, though in itself it be of little 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. Chelek, and ע״ז, cap. ii., that he was the son of Pandira and Stada, and that he lived in the days of the Maccabees, Alexander, Hyrcanus, and Aristobulus, under whom he was crucified. I confess, Galatinus, Reuchlinus, and of late the learned Schickard, 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 later Jews 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. iv., placeth a Panther and Barpanther on the genealogy of Christ, making the latter grandfather to the blessed Virgin, seeing it is evident that he borrowed that part of his genealogy from some corrupt traditions of the Jews.
The reasons 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 every one might not perfectly understand whom they intended, unless he were a disciple of their own; and they gave it vent in the reflection they cast upon the evangelical story, as though it had not given us the true names of the parents of Jesus. And, moreover, they gave themselves liberty by this means to coin new lies at their pleasure, for they may say what they would of their Pandira and Stada, though all the world knew it to be false as to Joseph and Mary. פנדירא, "Pandira," is a feigned name, insignificant, and invented by them for this only purpose. They sometimes write it with ת in the midst, instead of פנתירא ;ד, "Panthira." So that Galatinus doth perfectly contradict himself in this matter; for whereas, lib. i. cap. vii., he contends that by Jesus the son of Pandira, mentioned in the Talmud, the Lord Jesus is not intended, lib. viii. cap. v., he asserts that Jesus the son of Panthira, in whose name James the Just healed the sick and wrought miracles, was the Lord Jesus; as indeed it was he whom they intend also in that story about James. But now Pandira and Panthira are the same; and so also was he whom they term his son. סטדא, "Stada," is also a name framed to the same end, and, as the learned Buxtorf supposeth, from סטא דא, "one that went aside," declined, or was an adulteress; and they feign her to have been a plaiter of women's hair, with other monstrous lies at their pleasure: but yet they expressly, in sundry places, confess that her true name was Mary; and as I suppose, from the imputations mentioned, do wilfully confound her with Mary Magdalene, as Mohammed did with Miriam the sister of Moses. These stories must be searched for in the Talmud printed at Venice, for they are left out in that printed at Basil. The exception is yet more impertinent, that the things which are ascribed 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 those 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 ascribed unto this Jesus the son of Pandira and Stada, which make it very apparent who it was whom they intended; for, first, they say that he learned magic in Egypt, 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 overhear his seducing, that so they might accuse him. This, they say, was their course to entrap seducers; and thereof they give this instance: הפסח בערב ותלאוהו סטדא לבן עשו וכן;—"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 affirm 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 Cabbala 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 fell out not long after his death; whereas," he says, "it is apparent from the Mishnah and Talmud that he was crucified in the days of the Maccabees, an hundred years before." And here we have unawares the sore discovered, and the true reason laid open why the Talmudists attempted to transfer the time of his death from the days of Herod the tetrarch to the rule of Aristobulus the Asmonaean,—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.
7. We, secondly, in the pursuit of our argument, affirmed that no other person came at or within the time limited that could pretend to be the Messiah. This the Jews themselves confess, nor can they think otherwise without destroying themselves; for if any such person came, seeing they received him not, nor do own him 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 Bar- Cochba, Moses Cretensis, David el David, and such other impostors; for whereas none of them came or lived within the time determined, so they are all disclaimed by themselves as seducers and causers of great misery unto their people and nation. Herein, then, we have the consent of all parties concerned; which renders all further evidence unnecessary.
8. From what, therefore, hath been spoken and disputed, it remaineth that either our Lord Jesus was and is the true Messiah, as coming from God in the season limited for that purpose, or that the whole promise concerning the Messiah is a 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 have come, or there is an end of all religion. If any came then, whom they had rather embrace for their Messiah than our Lord Jesus, let them do so, and own him, that we may know who he was, and what he hath done for them. If none such there were that can be so esteemed, as in truth, 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 rejecting and murdering 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.
9. Our second argument is taken from those characteristical notes that are given in the Scripture of the Messiah. Now, these are such as by which the church might know him, and upon which they were bound to receive him. All these we shall find to agree and centre in the person of our Lord Jesus. Some of the principal of them we shall therefore insist upon and vindicate from the exceptions of the Jews. The stock whereof he came, the place and manner of his birth, the course of his life and death, what he taught, and what he suffered, are the principal of those signs and notes 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.
10. First, For the family, stock, or lineage, whereof he was to come, there was a threefold restriction of it, after the promise had for a long time run in general, that he should be of the seed of the woman, or take his nature from among mankind. The first was unto the seed of Abraham, Gen. 12:3; 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," chap. 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 some one of the numerous families that sprang of him, he should proceed. Out of that tribe God afterwards raised the kingly family of David, to be a type and representation of the kingdom of the Messiah; and hereupon he restrained the promise 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, rich or poor, in power or subjection, he derived his genealogy from him. His kingdom was to be quite of another nature than that of David or Solomon; nor did he derive his title in the least thereunto from the right of the Davidical house to the kingdom of Judah. Thus far, then, it pleased God to design the stock and family of the Messiah: He was to be of the posterity of Abraham, of the tribe of Judah, of the family of David. And although this evidence in its latitude will conclude only thus far, that no one can 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 the genealogies of the people being utterly lost, it is impossible it should be of any use in the discovery of him?
11. First, then, as 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 exception to his being of the tribe of Judah. The apostle in this Epistle asserts it as a thing notorious and unquestionable. Chap. 7:14, Πρόδηλον γὰρ, saith he, ὅτι ἐξ Ἰούδα ἀνατέταλκεν ὁ Κύριος ἡμῶν·—"It is every way" (or "altogether") "manifest that our Lord sprang of Judah." Πρόδηλον is in Greek authors not only "manifest," but openly and conspicuously so. Thus he is said θανεῖν προδήλως, in Sophocles, [Aj. 1311,] who died openly and gloriously by all men's consent. Thus was the birth of our Saviour among the Jews themselves, as to his springing from the tribe of Judah. The apostle declares that it was ἀναντιῤῥήτως, without any contradiction received amongst them and acknowledged by them; nor unto this day do they lay any exception unto this assertion. It remains that we prove him to have been of the family of David by some one signal branch of it; for, as we said, there is nothing in the promise restraining his original to the first, reigning family or the direct posterity thereof. Now this is purposely declared by two of the evangelists; who being Jews, and living 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 Βίβλον γενέσεως, or סֵפֶר תּוֹלְדֹת, "The roll of his genealogies," shows in the front of it that he wrote it on purpose to declare that he was, according to the promise, of the posterity of Abraham and of the family of David: "Of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham;" that is, who was promised to Abraham and David to spring from their loins. Luke also, who derives his genealogy from the first giving of the promise unto Adam, brings it down through the several restrictions mentioned, by Abraham, Judah, and David. Other testimony or evidence in this matter of fact it is utterly impossible for us to give, and 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 rumours 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 in their 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. A higher assurance of truth can no man 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 will and unbelief. They neither do nor will believe what they [the evangelists] have written. Record, testimony, tradition, or any circumstance contradicting their witness they have none; only they will not believe them. Now, whether it be meet that their mere obstinacy and unbelief, wherein and for which they perish temporally and eternally, should be of any weight with reasonable men, is easy to determine. Besides, I desire to know of the Jews whether they think it reasonable that any man, without reason, testimony, evidence, or record, to give him countenance, should call into question, disbelieve, 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 that which we plead with them about in all these our discourses. And as unto our own faith, it is secured by all those evidences which we give of the sacred authority of the writings of the New Testament.
13. But, moreover, they except in particular that neither of the evangelists doth either assert or prove indeed that our Lord Jesus did spring from the family of David; for whereas they assert, and Christians believe, that he was born of the Virgin Mary without conjunction of man, and that Joseph was only reputed to be his father, because his mother was legally espoused 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:—
14. First, Suppose it granted that the genealogy recorded by Matthew be properly the genealogy of Joseph, what madness is it to imagine, that, avowedly proposing to manifest Jesus Christ to have been of the family of David, and premising that design in the title of his genealogy, he doth not prove and confirm what he hath 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 whereinto by her espousals she was ingrafted; and of that family, and no other, was he to be reckoned who was born of her after those espousals. Now, that the reckoning of families and relations among the Jews, by God's own appointment, did not always follow natural generation, but sometimes legal institutions, is manifest by the law 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, Deut. 25:5, 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 house of David," there being no reason to mention his family, but that the genealogy of his wife's son was to relate thereunto. And if this were the law of genealogies and legal relations 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 indispensable necessity among the Jews binding them to marry within their tribes, unless the women were inheritrixes, in which case provision was made that inheritances might not be transferred from one tribe unto another, Num. 36:6, 7, yet it is more than probable that the blessed Virgin Mary was of the same family with Joseph, and this so notoriously known, that, seeing genealogies were not reckoned by women, nor the genealogies of women directly recorded, there was no better or more certain way of declaring his pedigree who was born of Mary than by his unto whom she was so nearly related. So that, on several accounts, the genealogy recorded by Matthew proves Jesus Christ to have been of the family of David.
15. Secondly, As for Luke, he doth directly and of set purpose give us the genealogy of the blessed Virgin Mary, the mother of our Lord Jesus; for the line of his progenitors, which he derives from Nathan, is not at all the same with that of Joseph, from Solomon, insisted on by Matthew. It is true, there are a Zorobabel and Salathiel in both genealogies, but this proves not both the lines to be the same; for the lines of Solomon and Nathan might by marriage meet in these persons, and so leave it indifferent which line was followed up from David; and the lines of Joseph and Mary might be separated again in the posterity of Zorobabel, Matthew following one of them, and Luke the other. This, I say, is possible; but the truth is (as is evident from the course of generations insisted on), that the Zorobabel 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, Ων ὡς ἐνομίζετο υἱὸς Ἰωσὴφ τοῦ Ηλί; for whereas these words, ὡς ἐνομίζετο, "as was supposed," are usually placed and read in parenthesis, the parenthesis may be better extended unto τοῦ Ηλί, including Joseph, "Being (as was supposed, the son of Joseph) the son of Heli." Or Joseph may be said to be the son of Heli, because his daughter was espoused unto him; otherwise the true natural father of 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 shall 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. The place of his nativity is foretold, Mich. 5:1, וּמוֹצָאֹתָיו בְּ שְׂרָאֵל מוֹשֵׁל לִהְיוֹת יֵצֵא לִי מִמְּךָ יְהוּדָה בְּאַלְפֵי לִהְיוֹת צָעִיר אֶפְרָתָה בֵּית־לֶחֶם וְאַתָּה מִימֵי מִקֶּדֶם עוֹלָם; —"And thou, Beth-lehem 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, Matt. 2:5, 6. Upon the demand of Herod where the Messiah should be born, the chief priests and scribes affirmed with one consent that he was to be born at Bethlehem, confirming their judgment by this place of the prophet. And afterwards, when they supposed that our Lord Jesus had been born in Galilee, because he lived there, they made this an argument against him, because he was not born, according to the Scripture, in Bethlehem, the town where David was, John 7:41, 42. And we have the concurrence of their own testimony in this matter. So the Chaldee paraphrase renders these words, מוֹשֵׁל לִהְיות יֵצֵא לִי מִמְּךָ;—"Out of thee shall come forth to me the ruler:" למהוי יפוק קדמי מנד שולטן עביד משיחא;—"Out of thee shall come forth to me the Messiah, who shall have the dominion;" taking it for granted that he it is who is spoken of in this place. So also R. Solomon expounds the place: המאביה רות פסלות מבכן יהודה אלפי במשפחות צעיר להיות היית ראוי יהודה באלפי ות אבן אומ״ הוא וכן דוד בן משיח יצא לי ממך שבך מאסו, etc.;—" '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 יהיה מבית־לחם שהיה דוד מזדע כי משיח לי יצא,"—"unto me the Messiah; for he shall be of the seed of David, who was of Bethlehem." He grants, I say, that it is the Messiah that is here prophesied of, though, against Rashi, the Targum, and the text, he would deny that he should be born in Bethlehem. But his interpretation is fond, and forced to serve the present turn, because the Jews know that the Lord Jesus was born there. God speaks to Bethlehem, the city of David, and gives an account how greatly he will magnify it beyond what it then seemed to deserve; and this he will do by raising out of and from that place (not merely from David, who was born at that place) the Messiah, who was to rule his people Israel. This, then, was the place of old designed for the birth of the Messiah, and there was our Lord Jesus born, at the appointed time, of the tribe of Judah and family of David. And there are sundry circumstances giving weight unto this consideration:—
18. First, Whereas the parents of Jesus were outwardly of a mean condition, and living in Galilee, it may be supposed that they were very little known 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 tranquillity; the temple of Janus was then shut, and all things in quietness in all parts of the world. Neither was there afterwards any public use made of that enrolment; nor is it certain that it was accomplished in any other nation. 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 of 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 aught of that business, which yet 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.
19. The exceptions of the Jews unto the evangelist's citation of the words of the prophet concern not the testimony itself, nor are, indeed, of any great importance; for,—First, The evangelist intended no more but only to direct 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 disadvantage 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 than that for which, by the Jews' acknowledgment, they were recorded by the prophet; neither, in the alterations that are made in this recital, is there one letter taken from the prophet's words or added unto them used by him to the advantage of his assertion: which is the whole that the utmost scrupulosist 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 soever the words are, as there is nothing in the whole of them discrepant from, much less contrary unto, those of the prophet,— nor are they used to signify any thing but the open, plain intention of the prophet,—so are all the particulars wherein a difference appears between them capable of a fair reconciliation. This we shall manifest by passing briefly through them:—
The first difference is in the first words: אֶפְרָתָה בֵּית־לֶחֶם וְאַתָּה, —"And thou, Beth-lehem Ephratah;" which are rendered in the evangelist, Καὶ σὺ Βεθλεὲμ, γῆ Ἰούδα,—"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. "Beth-lehem Ephratah," and "Bethlehem in the land of Judah," are one and the same name and place. Secondly, In the ensuing words there is more variety: בְּאַלְפֵי לִהְיוֹת צָעִיר;—"Little to be in the thousands of Judah." In the evangelist, Οὐδαμῶς ἐλαχίστη εἶ ἐν τοῖς ἡγεμόσιν Ἰούδα·—"Art not the least among the leaders of Judah." צָעִיר, "parva," or "little," in the positive, is rendered by the evangelist ἐλαχίστη, 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 בְּ following, as it doth in this place: בְּאַלְפֵי צָעִיר,—"Little in the thousands of Judah;" that is, the least of them, if the word be adjectively to be expounded.
אַלְפִים, that is, χιλιάδες (as the word is rendered by the LXX.), is in the evangelist ἡγεμόνες, "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 tithings, hundreds, and counties; and each portion had its peculiar captain, ruler, or leader. According to this distribution, when there was a considerable number, a thousand or more, inhabiting together, they made a peculiar kind of town or city, which had its special chiliarch, or governor. And these were called the thousands of Israel or Judah, or places that had such a proportion of people belonging to them, and consequently such a special ruler of their own; which kind of rulers in the commonwealth were alone taken notice of, those others of tens and hundreds being under their government. So that "thousands" and "rulers" denote one and the same thing,—the one with respect unto the people, the other unto the governors of them.
The only ἐναντιόφανες 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 way soever the words be interpreted, the importance of the testimony is still the same. Secondly, The words in the prophet contain no perfect enunciation, nor do yield any complete sense, unless it be on one of these two suppositions:—First, That the word צָעִיר 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 shouldest be among the thousands of Judah." And this hath no inconsistency with the words of the evangelist, "Thou art not the least;" for though it were eminent among the thousands of Judah, yet this was but a little or small matter in comparison of the honour that God would put upon it, by the birth of the Messiah. And this is not unusual in the Hebrew language. Adjectives feminine are frequently taken in the neuter gender, which it hath not, and signify adverbially. And though צָעִיר be of a masculine termination, yet being joined with בֵּית־לֶחֶם, the name of a town or city, it is put for צָעִירה of the feminine gender. Or, secondly, An interrogation must be supposed to be included in the words, "Art thou but little?" "Beth-lehem, צָעִיר אַתָּה," "art thou but little?" which may well be rendered negatively, Οὐδαμῶς ἐλαχίστη,—"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 to 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 (Pococke Miscellan. Not. cap. ii.), who makes it probable, at least, that the word צָעִיר is of the number of those that are used in a directly contrary sense: as קדש, to "sanctify" and "profane;" ברך, to "bless" and "curse;" נפש, "a living soul" and "a dead carcase." And he proves by notable instances that it signifies, as sometimes ἐλάχιστος, "least," so sometimes οὐδαμῶς ἐλάχιστος, "great, illustrious, and excellent."
The remaining differences are inconsiderable. The pronoun לִי, "to me," is omitted by the evangelist, and the reason of it is evident; for in the prophet God himself speaks in his own person, in the gospel the words are only historically recited. בְּ שׂרָאֵל מוֹשֵׁל, "Ruler in Israel," is paraphrased by the evangelist, Ἡγούμενος, ὅστις ποιμανεῖ τὸν λαόν μου τὸν Ισραήλ, —"The leader that shall feed my people Israel." Asserting his rule, he adds the manner of it,—he shall do it by feeding 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 this 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.
20. The manner of the birth of the Messiah, namely, that he should be "born of a virgin," is a third characteristical note given of him. The first promise doth sufficiently intimate that he was not to be brought into the world according to the ordinary course of mankind, by natural generation, seeing he was διακριτικῶς, and in a peculiar manner designed to be the "seed of the woman;" that is, to be born of a woman, without conjunction of man. To make this sign yet the more evident, God gives it forth directly in a word of promise: Isa. 7:10–16, "Moreover, the LORD spake again unto 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, O house of David; Is it a small thing for you to weary men, but will ye weary my God also? Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall 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 Emmanuel." 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.
21. The Jews, being greatly pressed with this prophecy and the accomplishment of it, do try all means to escape by breaking through one of them; and we might expect that they would principally attempt the story of the evangelist, but circumstances on that side are so cogent against them that they are very faint in that endeavour. For if it was so indeed, that Jesus was not born of a virgin, as is recorded, and as both himself and his disciples professed, why did they not charge him with untruth herein in the days of his flesh? Why did they not call his mother into question, especially considering that she 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 than themselves, and much better furnished and provided for such an undertaking, might any colour be given unto it, than they are, they insist not much upon the denial of the truth of the record. But to relieve themselves, they by all means contend that the words of the prophet are no way applicable 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.
22. First, They deny that here is any thing spoken of the conception or bearing of a son by a virgin; for the word here used, say they (עַלְמָה), signifieth any young woman, married or unmarried, yea, sometimes an adulteress, as Prov. 30:19, so that the whole foundation of our interpretation is infirm; and the עַלְמָה here intended was, they say, no other but either the wife of the prophet, or the wife of Ahaz the king, or some young woman in the court then newly married or to be married to the king, or some other person.
Secondly, They say that the birth of this child, which the עַלְמָה, 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 Damascus 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 any thing that should shortly come to pass.
Thirdly, They insist that, Isa. 7:16, it is promised that before that child which should be so conceived and born should come to the years of discretion, to "know to refuse the evil, and choose the good," the kings of Damascus and Samaria should be destroyed; now this came to pass within a few years after, and therefore can have no relation to the birth of Jesus of Nazareth.
Fourthly, They affirm that in the following chapter the accomplishment of this prophecy is declared, in the prophet's going in unto the prophetess, and her conceiving a son, concerning whom it is said, that before he should have knowledge to say, "My father, and my mother," the land should be forsaken of both her kings, in answer unto what is spoken of the child of the virgin, chap. 7:16, 8:1.
Fifthly, That the name of this child was to be Immanuel, whereas he of whom we speak was called Jesus, Matt. 1:21.
Sixthly, That the child here mentioned was to be fed and nourished with butter and honey; which cannot be spoken, nor is it written, of Jesus of Nazareth.
23. In answer unto these objections, some learned men have granted unto the Jews that these words of the prophet were literally fulfilled in some one then a virgin, and afterwards married in those days, and that they are only in a mystical sense applied by Matthew to the birth of the Lord Jesus; as, they say, are sundry other things that are spoken primarily of others in the Old Testament. But the truth is, this answer is neither safe in itself, nor needful as to the argument of the Jews, nor consistent with the sense of the place or truth of the words themselves. First, It is not safe as to the faith of Christians; for whereas the birth of the Messiah of a virgin was so signal a miracle, and so eminent a characteristical note of his person, if it be not directly foretold and prophesied of in this place, there was no one prediction of it made 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.
Secondly, Upon this interpretation of the words, there is no ground left for the application of the 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 whilst 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? Besides, this answer is wholly needless as to the objection of the Jews, and inconsistent with the sense of the place, as will be seen in the consideration of the words themselves.
24. We have formerly evinced that the foundation and end of the Judaical church and state, and of the preservation of the Davidical family, was solely the bringing forth of the promised Messiah; and this the event hath fully demonstrated, in their utter rejection after the accomplishment of that end. And hence the promise of the Messiah was the foundation, cause, and reason of all other promises made unto that people, as to any mercy or privilege that as such they were to be intrusted 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 laboured 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 fourth 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.
25. Upon these principles, we may easily discover the true sense and importance of this 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, verse 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 of utter ruin, and in 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 to enjoy their church and state until his coming; as also, to comfort and support them during their distresses with the hope 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 [he declares] that they should be cut off and destroyed before the time that any child not yet born could come to the years of discretion, "to refuse the evil and choose the good," verse 16. Now, that this is the true importance and meaning of the prophecy will evidently appear, in our vindication of it from the exceptions of the Jews (before laid down) against its application by Matthew unto the nativity of Jesus Christ.
26. First, They except that it is not a virgin that is here intended by עַלְמָה, which they 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, (1.) 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. עַלְמָה, the word here used, is from עָלַם, "to hide," or נֶעֱלַם, 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 κατάκλειστοι, "shut up," or recluses; and their first appearance in public they termed ἀνακαλυπτήρια, 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. (2.) The constant use of the word directs us to the same signification. It is seven times used in the Old Testament, and in every one of them doth still denote a virgin or virgins, either in a proper or metaphorical sense. The first time it is used is Gen. 24:43, where Rebekah is said to be עַלְמָה, "a virgin." Verse 16, she is said to be בְּתוּלָה, "a maid," and יְדָעָהּ לֹא אִישׁ. "a man had not known her." So that עַלְמָה is יְדָעָ לֹא אִישׁ אֲשֶׁר בְּתוּלָה, "a maid that no man hath known;" that is, an unspotted virgin. And doubtless such a one, and no other, was intended by Abraham's servant for a wife unto Isaac, when he prayed that the הָעַלְמָה which came forth to the well might answer his token that he had fixed on. Again, it is used Exod. 2:8, where Moses' sister, who called her mother unto Pharaoh's daughter, is termed עַלְמָה; and her age, being then probably not above nine or ten years old, wit the course of her life in her mother's house, declares her sufficiently to have been a virgin. Once it is used in the Psalms in the plural number: Ps. 68:26, תּוֹפֵפות עֲלָמוֹת בְּתוֹךְ;—"In the midst the virgins playing with timbrels;" where also none but virgins, properly so called, can be intended, for they were by themselves exercised to celebrate the praises of God in the great assembly. Twice is the word used in the same number, in a metaphorical sense, in the Canticles, and in both places it hath respect unto virgins: Chap. 1:3, "Therefore do the עֲלָמוֹת love thee;" that is, the virgins, as they do a desirable person, from whence the allusion is taken. And chap. 6:8, the עֲלָמוֹת are distinguished first from מְלָכוֹת, the "queens," or the king's married wives; and then from the פִּילַגְשִׁים, or "concubines," those who were admitted "ad usum thori," to the marriage-bed, though their children did not inherit with those of the married wives: and therefore none but those who were properly virgins could be designed by that name. And by them are those denoted who keep themselves chaste unto Christ, and undefiled in his worship. Hence are they in the Revelation, chap. 14:4, said to be παρθένοι, "virgins," or ἄμωμοι ἐνώπιον τοῦ θρόνου τοῦ θεοῦ, verse 5, "persons unblamable before the throne of God," having not defiled themselves with the spiritual fornications of the great whore. There remaineth only one place more wherein this word is used, whence the Jews would wrest somewhat to countenance their exceptions. This is Prov. 30:19, בְּעַלְמָה גֶּבֶר וְדֶרֶךְ;—"And the way of a man with a maid." And who is intended by עַלְמָה there, they say the ensuing words declare: מְנָאָפֶת אִשָּׁה דֶּרֶךְ כֵּן;—"So is the way of an adulteress," or a woman an adulteress, an harlot. So that עַלְמָה may, it seems, be such an one. But, [1.] Suppose the word should in this place be used in a sense quite contrary unto that of all other places wherein mention is made of it, is it equal that we should take the importance of it from this one abuse, rather than from the constant use of it in other places, especially considering that this place will by no means admit of that signification, as we shall immediately evince? [2.] It is used here peculiarly, with the prefix בְּעַלְמָה, בְּ, whence it is rendered by the LXX. in the abstract, Ἐν νεότητι, "The way of a man in his youth;" which sense Jerome follows, "Viam viri in adolescentia;" and it may thus seem to be differenced from the same word in all other places. But, [3.] Indeed the meaning of the wise man is evident, and it is a virgin that he intended by the word, and בְּעַלְמָה גֶּבֶר דֶרֶךְ is the way that a man taketh to corrupt a virgin, and to compass his lust upon her. This is secret, hidden, full of snares and evils, such as ought not to enter into the thoughts of a good man to conceive, much less to approve of. And therefore, whereas he says of the residue of the quaternion joined with this, verse 18, נִפְלְאוּ, "They are too wonderful for me," he adds, on the mention of this evil, יְדַעְתִּי לֹא, "I know it not," or as Jerome, "Penitus ignoro;" which he could not say of the way of natural generation. And by this means she who is called עַלְמָה, "a virgin," verse 19, is made מְנָאָפֶת אִשָּׁה, "an harlot," verse 20, and has become impudent in sinning. A man having, by subtle wicked ways, prevailed against her chastity, and corrupted her virginity, she afterwards becomes a common prostitute. And this I take to be the genuine meaning of the place, though it be not altogether improbable that the wise man in verse 20 proceedeth unto another especial instance of things secret and hidden in an adulterous woman, כֵּן signifying as much as "so also," which it doth in sundry other places.
27. And these are all the places, besides that of the prophet under consideration, wherein the word is used in the Old Testament; so that as its rise, its constant use also will admit of no other signification but only that of an unspotted virgin. Besides, the LXX. render it in this place παρθένος, "a virgin," and the Targum, עלמתא, which the other Targums express a virgin by, Gen. 24:16, 57; Esth. 2:2, 4:4; Ruth. 2:23; 1 Sam. 25:42. Neither is any word in the Scripture so constantly and invariably used to express an incorrupted virgin as this is. נַעֲרָה hath respect only unto age, and signifies any one, married or unmarried, a virgin or one defloured, so she be young. בְּתוּלָה also is used for one corrupted, Deut. 22:23, 24; as also for a widow, Joel 1:8. So that by this word a virgin is precisely signified, or the Hebrews have no word denoting exactly that state and condition. And, lastly, the prefixing of הָ in this place, הָעַלְמָה, makes the denotation of the word the more signal. It is but twice more so prefixed, Gen. 24 and Exod. 2; in both which places the Jews themselves will not deny but that unspotted virgins are intended.
28. Further; there are other considerations offering themselves from the context undeniably proving that it is the conception of a virgin which is here intended and foretold; for, first, it is plainly some marvellous thing, above and contrary unto the ordinary course and operation of nature, that is here spoken of. It is called אוֹת, a signal "prodigy;" and is given by God himself in the room of, and as something greater and more marvellous than, any thing that Ahaz could have asked, either in heaven above or in the earth beneath, had he made his choice, according unto the tender made unto him. "The Lord himself shall give you a sign." The emphasis used in giving the promise denotes the marvellousness of the thing promised. Now, certainly it was no such great matter that the wife of Ahaz, which had before born him a son, who was now eight years of age, or the wife of the prophet, who was the mother of Shear-jashub, then present with his father, or any virgin then present immediately to be married, should bear a son, so as to have it called a "prodigy," an eminent sign of God's giving a thing that he should take upon his own power to perform, when within the same space of time hundreds of sons were born to other women in the same country. And it is ridiculous what the Jews pretend, namely, that it was great in this, that the prophet should foretell that conception, as also that it should be a son that should be born, and not a daughter; for the work and sign intimated doth not consist at all in the truth of the prophet's prediction, but in the greatness of the thing itself that was foretold.
29. The Jews cannot assign either virgin or son that is here intended. Some of them affirm that Alma was the wife of Ahaz, and the son promised was Hezekiah; but this is rejected by Kimchi himself, he acknowledging that Hezekiah was now eight years old, being born four years before his father came to the kingdom, in the fourth year of whose reign this promise was given unto him. Others would have the Alma to be the wife of the prophet, and the son promised to be Maher-shalal-hashbaz, whose birth is mentioned in the next chapter. But neither hath this any more colour of reason; for besides that his wife is constantly called נְבִיאָה, "the prophetess," and could on no account be termed עַלְמָה, "a virgin," having a son some years old, at that time accompanying his father, that son of hers in the eighth chapter is promised as a sign quite to another purpose, nor could for any reason be called עִמָּנוּאֵל, "Immanuel," whose the land should be, which is said to belong unto this promised child. And for what they, lastly, add concerning some virgin then standing by, who was shortly after to be married, it is as fond as any other of their imaginations; for besides that the prophet says not, הַזֹּאת הָעַלְמָה, "This virgin," as he would have done had he directed his speech unto any one personally present, it is a mere arbitrary invention, no way countenanced from the text or context, such as if men may be allowed in, it is easy for them to pervert the sense of holy writ at their pleasure. On all which considerations, it appeareth that none can possibly be intended in this promise but he whose birth was אוֹת, a miraculous "sign," as being born of עַלְמָה, "a virgin;" and who, being born, was עִמָּנוּאֵל, "God with us," both in respect of his person, uniting the natures of God and man in one, and of his office, reconciling God and man, that God might dwell with us in a way of favour and grace; he whose the land should be in an everlasting kingdom.
30. I have insisted the longer on this particular, because it compriseth all that the prophecy is cited for by the evangelist, and all that we are concerned in in it. This being proved and confirmed undeniably, that it is the Messiah whoso birth is here foretold, as also that he was to be born of a virgin, all other passages, whatever difficulty we may meet withal in them, must be interpreted in answer thereunto. And we have showed before, that, by reason of the typical state and condition of that people, many of the promises of the Messiah were so mixed with things of their then present temporal concernment, that it is often a matter of some difficulty to distinguish between them. It is enough for us that we prove, unquestionably, that those passages which are applied unto him in the New Testament were spoken of him intentionally in the Old; which we have done in this place,—and what belonged unto the then present state of the Jews we are not particularly concerned in. However, we shall manifest, in answer to the remaining exceptions of the Jews, that there is nothing mentioned, in the whole prophecy, that hath any inconsistency with what we have declared, as to the sense of the principal point of it, nay, that the whole of it is excellently suited unto the principal scope, already vindicated.
31. That, then, which in the second place is objected by the Jews against our application of this place and prophecy to Jesus Christ is, that the birth of the child here promised was to be a sign to Ahaz and the house of David of their deliverance from the two kings who then waged war against them. And this, they say, the birth of the Messiah so many hundred years after could give them no pledge or assurance of. And,—(1.) We do not say that this was given them as a peculiar sign or token of their present deliverance. Ahaz himself had before refused such a sign. But God only shows the reason in general why he would not utterly cast them off, although they wearied him, but would yet deliver them as at other times; and this was because of that great work which he had to accomplish among them, which was to be signal, marvellous, and miraculous. And this he calls אוֹת, "a sign," in its absolute, not relative sense, as denoting a work wonderful, such as sometimes he wrought to evidence his great power thereby. In this sense אוֹתוֹת, "signs," are joined unto מֹפְתִים, "prodigies," Deut. 6:22, Jer. 32:20, Neh. 9:10, where the works so called were great and marvellous; not signs formally of any thing, unless it were of the wonderful power of God whereby they were wrought. So the miracles of our Saviour and the apostles, in the New Testament, are called σημεῖα, "signs," for the same and no other cause. And the word is thus absolutely used very often in the Old Testament.
(2.) Besides, that which is secondly alleged, that a thing that shall come to pass many ages after cannot be made a sign of that which was to be done many ages before, is not universally true. The thing itself in its existence, it is true, cannot be so made a sign, but it may in the promise and prediction of it. And many instances we have of things promised for signs, which were not to exist in themselves until after the accomplishment of the things whereof they were signs, as Exod. 3:12; 1 Sam. 2:34; Isa. 37:30; 1 Kings 22:25; God intending by them the confirmation of their faith who should live in the time of their actual accomplishment.
(3.) This sign had the truth and force of a promise, although it was not immediately to be put in execution; and that is the reason that the words here used are one of them, חָרָה, "conceive," in the preterperfect tense, the other, יֹלֶדֶת, in benoni, or participle of the present tense, to intimate the certainty of the event, as is usual in the prophetical dialect. Their assurance, then, from this sign consisted herein, that God informs them that, as surely as he would accomplish the great promise of bringing forth the Messiah, and would put forth his marvellous power therein, that he should be conceived and born of a virgin, so certain should be their present deliverance, which they so desired.
32. It is further insisted on by them, that the deliverance promised was to be wrought before the child spoken of should know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, or should come to years of discretion, verse 16; and what was this unto him that was to be born some hundreds of years after? Ans. (1.) That the הַנַּעַר mentioned verse 16 is the same with the בֵּן promised verse 14, doth not appear. The prophet, by the command of God, when he went unto the king with his message, took with him Shear-jashub his son, verse 3. This certainly was for some especial end in the word or message that he had to deliver, the child being then but an infant, and of no use in the whole matter, unless to be made an instance of something that was to be done. It is therefore probable that he was the הַנַּעַר, the young child, designed verse 16, before whose growing up to discretion those kings of Damascus and Samaria were to be destroyed. Or, (2.) The expression may denote the time of any child's being born, and coming to the maturity of understanding, and so, consequently, the promised child. 'In as short a space of time as this promised child, when he shall be born, shall come to know to refuse the evil and choose the good, shall this deliverance be wrought.'
33. Their remaining cavils are of little importance. The child intended chap. 8, was to be the son of the prophet and prophetess, and so not this child that was to be born of a virgin. Besides, he is plainly promised as a sign of other things than those treated of in this chapter, yea, of things quite contrary unto them. Again, this child, they tell us, was to be called Immanuel, whereas the son of Mary was called יֵשׁוּעַ, or, as they maliciously write it, יֵשׁוּ. But this name is given to signify what he should be and do, and not what he should be commonly called. He was to be God and man in one person, to reconcile God and man,—to be every way Immanuel. And this kind of expression in the Scripture, when a thing is said to be "called" that which it is, the name denoting the being, nature, and quality of it, is so frequent that there is nothing peculiar in it as here used. See Isa. 1:26, 8:3, 9:6; Jer. 23:6; Zech. 8:3. The like also may be said to that which they except in the last place, namely, that they know not that Jesus of Nazareth was brought up with butter and honey, which is foretold concerning this child; for the expression signifies no more but that the child should be educated [i.e., nourished] with the common food of the country, such as children were in those places and times nourished withal, it being the especial blessing of that land that it flowed with milk and honey. And thus have we asserted and vindicated the third characteristical note of the true Messiah. He was to be born of a virgin; which none but only our Lord Jesus ever was from the foundation of the world.
34. There remain yet other descriptive notes of the Messiah, consisting in what he was to teach, and do, and suffer,—all of them guiding the faith of the church unto our Lord Jesus, who in all things fully answered unto them all. I shall briefly pass through them, according unto our design and purpose, and begin with what he was to teach. This Moses directs us unto, giving that great predescription of him which we have, Deut. 18:18, 19, "I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him. And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto my words, which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him." This is that signal testimony concerning the Messiah which Philip urged out of Moses unto Nathanael, John 1:45; which Peter not only applies unto him, but declares that he was solely intended in it, Acts 3:22, 23; and Stephen seals that application with his blood, chap. 7:37. Neither do nor can the Jews deny that the Messiah was to be a prophet, or that he was promised unto the church in the wilderness in these words. But we shall consider the particulars of them.
35. Sundry things are here asserted by Moses concerning the Messiah; as, —(1.) In general, that he should be a "prophet," a teacher of the church, and not a king only. The Jews, indeed, who greedily desire the things which outwardly attend kingly power and dominion in this world, do principally fix their thoughts and expectations on his kingdom. The revelation of the will of God which was to be made by him, they little desire or inquire after. But the common faith of their ancestors, from this and other places, was, that the Messiah was to be a prophet, and was to reveal unto the church the whole counsel of God, as we shall evince in our comment on the first words of the Epistle. (2.) That this prophet should be raised up unto them "from among their brethren." He shall be of the posterity of Abraham, and of the tribe of Judah, as was promised of old, or "made of them according unto the flesh," Rom. 1:3, 9:5. So that, as to his original or extract, he was to be born in the level of the people. From among his brethren was he to be raised up unto this office of a prophet and teacher of the church. (3.) That he must be "like unto Moses." The words are plain in many places, that, in the ordinary course of God's dealing with that church, among the prophets there was none like unto Moses, neither before nor after him. Hence Maimonides, with his followers, conclude that nothing can ever be altered in their law, because no prophet was ever to arise of equal authority with him who was their lawgiver. But the words of the text are plain. The prophet here foretold was to be "like unto him" wherein he was peculiar and exempted from comparison with all other prophets, which were to build on his foundation, without adding any thing to the rule of faith and worship which he had revealed, or changing any thing therein. In that is the prophet here promised to be like unto him; that is, he was to be a lawgiver to the house of God, as our apostle proves and declares, Heb. 3:1–5. And we have the consent of the most sober among the Jews to the same purpose. The words of the author of Sepher Ikharim, lib. iii. cap. x., are remarkable: המשיח מלך שחרי ממנו גדול או לעולם כמוהו יקום שלא איפשר ואי שלא אלא לעולם כמוהו יקום סלא אינו כמוהו קם לא פירוש אבל ממנו גדול או כמוהו יהיה עד אחריו הנביאים שנמכו זמן אותו שבכל לומר דצה או יחידי מה בתואר כמוהו קם ממנו גדול או כמוהו ימצא כבד בעתיר אבל כמוהו קם לא מהם הנבואה שנפסקה;—"It cannot be that there should not at some time arise a prophet like unto Moses, or greater than he; for Messiah the King should be like him, or greater than he: but thus these words, 'There arose none like him,' ought to be interpreted, not as though none should ever be like him, but that none should be like him as to some particular quality or accident; or, that in all the space of time wherein the prophets followed him until prophecy ceased, none should be like unto Moses, but hereafter there shall be one like him, or rather greater than he." This is that which we affirmed before. In the whole series of prophets that succeeded in that church, building on Moses' foundation, there was none like unto him; but the prophet here promised was to be so, and in other regards, as appears from other testimonies, far greater than he. This was of old their common faith, from this prediction of Moses. And wherein this likeness was to consist, our apostle declares at large in his third chapter. Moses was the great lawgiver by whom God revealed his mind and will as to his whole worship, whilst the church-state instituted by him was to continue. Such a prophet was the Messiah to be, a lawgiver, so as to abolish the old and to institute new rites of worship; as we shall afterwards more fully prove and confirm. (4.) This raising up of a prophet like unto Moses declares that the whole will of God, as to his worship and the church's obedience, was not yet revealed. Had it so been, there would have been no need of a prophet like unto Moses, to lay new foundations, as he had done. Those who succeeded, building on what he had fixed, and therefore said not to be like unto him, would have sufficed. But there are new counsels of the will of God, as yet hid, to be finally and fully revealed by this prophet; and after his work is done, there is no intimation of any further revelation to ensue. (5.) The presence of God with this prophet in his work is set down. He would "put his words into his mouth," or "speak in him," as our apostle expresseth the same matter, Heb. 1:1, 2. And, lastly, his ministry is further described from the event with respect unto them who would not submit unto his authority, nor receive the law of God at his mouth. God would "require it" at their hands; that is, as these words are interpreted by Peter, they should be "cut off from among his people," or from being so. And this signal commination, in the accomplishment of it, gives light unto the whole prediction. Some of the Jews from these words have fancied unto themselves another great prophet, whom they expect, as they did of old, before the coming of the Messiah. So in their dealing with John the Baptist, they asked him whether he were Elias; which he denied, because, though he was promised under that name, yet he was not that individual person whom they looked for,—that is, the soul of Elias the Tishbite, as Kimchi tells us, with a body new created, like unto the former: whereon they further demand whether he were ὁ προφήτης, "the prophet" promised by Moses; which he also denies, because that prophet was no other than the Messiah, John 1:21. To this purpose also is it that the Spirit of the Lord is promised to rest upon the Messiah, to "make him of quick understanding in the fear of the LORD," that he might "not judge after the sight of his eyes," etc., Isa. 11:3–5. So also chap. 61:1, 2. And from this great prophet were the isles of the Gentiles to receive the law, chap. 42:1–4. The sum of all is, the Messiah was to be a prophet, a "prophet like unto Moses,"—that is, a lawgiver,—one that should finally and perfectly reveal the whole will and counsel of God; and with that authority, that whosoever refused to obey him should be exterminated and cast out from the privilege of being reckoned among the people of God.
36. We are then, in the next place, to consider the accomplishment of this promise in the person of Jesus of Nazareth. Now, this the story of him and the event do abundantly testify. That he was a prophet, and so esteemed by the Jews themselves, until, through the envy of the scribes and Pharisees, and their own unwillingness to admit of the purity and holiness of his doctrine, they were stirred up to oppose and persecute him,—as they had done all other prophets who, in their several generations, foretold his coming,—is evident from the records of the evangelical story. See John 6:14, 7:40; Acts 3:22, 23. Their present obstinate denial hereof is a mere contrivance, to justify themselves in their rejection and murder of him. But this is not all. He was not only a prophet in general, but he was that prophet who was foretold by Moses and by all the prophets who built on his foundation, who was to put the last hand unto divine revelation, in a full declaration of the whole counsel of God,—the peculiar work of the Messiah. And this we shall evince in the ensuing considerations of his doctrine and prophecy, with the success and event of them.
37. First, The nature of the doctrine taught by this prophet gives testimony unto our assertion. Whatever characters of that truth which is holy and heavenly can rationally be conceived or apprehended, they are all eminently and incomparably imprinted on the doctrine of Jesus Christ. Whatever tends to the glory of God, as the first cause and last end of all things; as the only sovereign ruler, judge, and disposer of all; as the only infinitely holy, wise, righteous, good, gracious, merciful, powerful, faithful, independent Being,—is clearly, evidently, and in a heavenly manner, revealed therein. Whatever is useful or suitable to excite and improve all that is good in man, in the notions of his mind or inclinations of his will; and to discover his wants and defects, that he may not exalt himself in his own imagination above his state and condition: whatever is needful to reveal unto him his end or his way, his happiness or the means conducing thereunto: whatever may bring him into a due subjection unto God and subordination unto his glory: whatever may teach him to be useful in all those relations wherein he may be cast, within the bounds and compass of the moral principles of his nature, as a creature made for society: whatever is useful to deter him from and suppress in him every thing that is evil, even in those hidden seeds and embryos of it which lie beneath the first instances that reason can reach unto the discovery of, and that in an absolute universality, without the least indulgence, on any pretence whatever; and to stir him up, provoke him unto, and direct him in, the practice of whatever thing is true, honest, just, pure, lovely, of good report, that is virtuous or praiseworthy, that may begin, bound, guide, limit, finish, and perfect, the whole system of moral actions in him in relation unto God, himself, and others:—it is all revealed, confirmed, and ratified, in the doctrine of the gospel of Jesus Christ. It hath stood upon its trial above sixteen hundred years in the world, challenging the wit and malice of its adversaries to discover any one thing, or any circumstance of any thing, that is untrue, false, evil, uncomely, not useful or not convenient in it; or to find out any thing that is morally good, virtuous, useful, praiseworthy, in habit or exercise, in any instances of operations, in any degree of intension of mind, any duty that man owes to God, others, or himself, that is not taught, enjoined, encouraged, and commanded by it; or to discover any motives, encouragements, or reasons, unto and for the pursuit of that which is good and the avoidance of evil, that are true, real, solid, and rational, which it affordeth not unto them that embrace it. This absolute perfection of the doctrine of this prophet, joined with those characters of divine authority which are enstamped on it, doth sufficiently evidence that it contains the great, promised, full, final revelation of the will of God, which was to be given forth by the Messiah. Add hereunto, that since the delivery of this doctrine, the whole race of mankind hath not been able to invent or find out any thing that, without the most palpable folly and madness, might be added unto it, much less stand in competition with it, and it will itself sufficiently demonstrate its author.
38. Secondly, We have declared, in the entrance of this discourse, that the Messiah was the means promised for the delivery of mankind from that woful estate of sin and misery whereinto they had cast themselves. This was declared unto all in general; this they believed whom God graciously enabled thereunto. But how this deliverance should be wrought in particular by the Messiah; how the works of the devil should be destroyed; how God and man should be reconciled; how sinners might recover a title unto their lost happiness, and be brought to an enjoyment of it,—this was unknown not only unto all the sons of men, but also to all the angels in heaven themselves. Who, then, shall unfold this mystery, which was hid in the counsel of God from the foundation of the world? It was utterly beyond the reason and wisdom of man to give any tolerable conjecture how these things should be effected and brought about; but all this is fully declared by this prophet himself. In his doctrine, in what he taught, doth this great and hidden mystery of the reconciliation and salvation of mankind open itself gloriously to the minds and understandings of them that believe, whose eyes the god of this world hath not blinded,—and to them alone; for although this promise of the Messiah was all that God gave out unto Adam, and by him unto his posterity, to keep their hopes alive in their miserable condition in the earth, yet such was its obscurity, that, meeting with the minds of men full of darkness, and hearts set upon the pursuit of their lusts, it was, as to the substance of it, utterly lost to the greatest part of mankind. Afterwards the thing itself was again retrieved unto the faith and knowledge of some, by new revelations and promises; only the manner of its accomplishment was still left hid in the depths of the bosom of the Almighty. But, as we said, by the preaching of Jesus both the thing itself and the manner of it are together brought to light, made known, and established beyond all the power of Satan to prevail against it. This was the work of the promised prophet, this was done by Jesus of Nazareth; who is therefore both Lord and Christ.
39. Thirdly, We have also declared how God, in his wisdom and sovereignty, restrained the promise unto Abraham and his posterity, shadowing out among them the accomplishment of it in Mosaical rites and institutions; and these also received manifold explications by the succeeding prophets. From the whole, a system of worship and doctrine did arise, which turned wholly on this hinge of the promised Messiah, relating in all things to the salvation to be wrought by him. But yet the will and mind of God was in this whole dispensation so folded and wrapped up in types, so veiled and shadowed by carnal ordinances, so obscured and hid in allegorical expressions, that the bringing of it forth unto light, the removal of the clouds and shades that were cast upon it, with a declaration of the nature, reason, and use of all those institutions, was a work no less glorious than the very first revelation of the promise itself. This was that which was reserved for the great prophet, the Messiah; for that God would prescribe ordinances and institutions unto his church, whose full nature, use, and end, should be everlastingly unknown unto them, is unreasonable to imagine. Now, this is done in the doctrine of our Lord Jesus Christ. The spiritual end, use, and nature, of all those sacrifices and typical institutions,—which, unto them who were conversant only with their outside, servile performance, were an insupportable yoke of bondage, as the Jews find them unto this day, being never able to satisfy themselves in their most scrupulous attendance unto them,—are all made evident and plain, and all that was taught by them accomplished. This was the work of the prophet like unto Moses. He fulfilled the end and unveiled the mind of God in all those institutions. And he hath done it so fully, that whoever looks upon them through his declaration of them cannot but be amazed at the blindness and stupidity of the Jews, who, rejecting the revelation of the counsel of God by him, adhere pertinaciously unto that whereof they understand aright no one tittle or syllable; for there is not the meanest Christian, who is instructed in the doctrine of the gospel, but can give a better account of the nature, use, and end, of Mosaical institutions, than all the profound rabbins in the world either can or ever could do, he that is least in the kingdom of God being greater in his light and knowledge than John Baptist himself, who yet was not behind any of the prophets that went before him. This, I say, is that which the promised prophet was to do; and, moreover, he was to add the institutions of his own immediate revelation, even as Moses had given them the law of ordinances of old. And in this super-institution of new ordinances of worship, thereby superseding those instituted by Moses, was he like unto him, as was foretold.
40. Lastly, The event confirms the application of this character unto the Lord Jesus. Whosoever would not receive the word of this prophet, God threatens to "require it of him;" that is, as themselves confess, to exterminate him from among the number of his people, or to reject him from being so. Now, this was done by the body of the Jewish nation. They received him not, they obeyed not his voice. And what was the end of this their disobedience? They who, for their despising, persecuting, killing the former prophets, were only corrected, chastened, afflicted, and again quickly recovered out of the worst and greatest of their troubles, upon their rejection of him and disobedience unto his voice, are cut off, destroyed, exterminated from the place of their solemn worship, and utterly rejected from being the people of God. Whatever may be conceived to be contained in the commination against those who disobey the voice of that prophet promised, is all of it, to the full and in its whole extent, come upon the Jews, upon and for their disobedience unto the doctrine of Jesus of Nazareth: which, added unto the foregoing considerations, undeniably prove him to have been that prophet.
41. There is yet another character given of the Messiah in the Old Testament,—namely, in what he was to suffer in the world in the discharge of his work and office. This being that wherein the main foundation of the whole was to consist, and that which God knew would be most contrary to the apprehension and expectation of that carnal people, is, of all other notes of him, most clearly and fully asserted. The nature and effects of the sufferings of the Messiah, and how they were to be satisfactory to the justice of God (without which apprehension of them little or nothing of the promise or of Mosaical institutions can rightly be understood), because we must treat of them in our explication of the Epistle itself, shall not here be insisted on. It is sufficient unto our present intention that we prove that the Messiah was to suffer, and that, as many other miseries, so death itself. And this his suffering is foretold as a character to know and discern him by. That Jesus of Nazareth, by so many other demonstrations and evident tokens proved to be the Messiah, did also suffer the utmost that could be inflicted on a man, and in particular the things and evils which the Messiah was to undergo, we shall not need to prove. The Jews confess it, and even glory that their forefathers were the instrumental cause of his sufferings. Neither doth it at present concern us to declare what he suffered from God himself, what from man, what from Satan, in his life and death, in his soul and body, and all his concernments; it being abundantly sufficient unto our present purpose that he suffered all manner of miseries, and lastly death itself, and that not for himself but for the sins of others.
42. The first evident testimony given hereunto is in Ps. 22, from the beginning to the 22d verse. That sufferings, and those very great and inexpressible, are treated of in this psalm the Jews themselves confess, and the matter is too evident to be denied. That dereliction of God, tortures and pains in body and soul, revilings, mockings, with cruel death, are sufferings, is certain; and they are all here foretold. Again, it is evident that some individual person is designed as the subject of those sufferings. Most of the Jews would interpret this psalm of the body of the people, to whom not one line in it can be properly applied; for besides that the person intended is spoken of singularly throughout the whole prophecy, he is also plainly distinguished from all the people, of what sort soever;—from the evil amongst them, who reviled and persecuted him, verses 7, 8; and from the residue, whom he calls his "brethren" and the "congregation" of Israel, verse 22. It cannot, then, be the congregation of Israel that is spoken of; for how can the congregation of Israel be said to declare the praises of God before the congregation of Israel? which is the sum of Kimchi's exposition. Some of them, from the title of the psalm, הַשַּׁחַר עַל־אַיֶּלֶת, "For the hind of the morning," would have it to be a prophecy of Esther, who appeared as beautiful as the morning in the deliverance of Israel. But as the title is of another importance, respecting the nature of the psalm, not the person treated of in it, so they are not able to apply one verse or word in it unto her. Others of them plead that it is David himself who is intended; and this is not without some shadow of truth, for David might in some things propose his own afflictions and sufferings as types of the sufferings of the Messiah. But there are many things in this psalm that cannot be applied unto him absolutely. When did any open their lips and shake their heads at him, using the words mentioned, verse 8? When was he, or his blood, poured forth like water, and all his bones disjointed, verse 14? When were his hands and feet pierced, verse 16? When did any part his garments, and cast lots on his vesture, verse 18? When was he brought to the dust of death, before his last and final dissolution, verse 15? And yet all these things were to be accomplished in the person of him who is principally treated of in this psalm.
43. This whole psalm, then, is a prophecy of the Messiah, and absolutely of no other, as may further be evidenced from sundry passages in the psalm itself: for, first, It treats of one in whom the welfare of the whole church was concerned; they are, therefore, all of them invited to praise the Lord on his account, and for the event and success of his sufferings, which they had the benefit of, verses 22, 23. Secondly, It is he by whom "the meek shall be satisfied," and obtain life eternal, verse 26. Thirdly, Upon his sufferings, as the event and success of them, the Gentiles are to be gathered in unto God: Verse 27, "All the ends of the world shall remember and turn unto the LORD, and all the kindreds of the nations shall worship before thee." And this, by the confession of the Jews, is the proper work of the Messiah, to be effected in his days, and by him alone. Fourthly, The preaching of the truth and righteousness and faithfulness of God in his promise unto all nations, that is, of the gospel, ensues on the sufferings described, verse 31; which they also acknowledge to belong unto his days. So that it is the Messiah, and he alone, who is absolutely and ultimately intended in this psalm.
44. Now, the whole of what is here prophesied was so exactly fulfilled in Jesus of Nazareth, in all the instances of it, that it appears to be spoken directly of him, and no other. The manner of his suffering is scarcely more clearly expressed in the story of it by the evangelists than it is here foretold by David in prophecy; and therefore many passages out of this psalm are expressed by them in their records. He it was who, pressed with a sense of God's dereliction, cried out, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" he it was that was accounted a worm and no man, and reviled and reproached accordingly; at him did men wag their heads, and reproach him with his trust in God; his bones were drawn out of joint by the manner of his sufferings; his hands and feet were pierced; and upon his vestures lots were cast; upon his suffering were the truth and promises of God declared and preached unto all the world: so that it is his suffering alone which is beforehand described in this psalm.
45. But the Jews except against our application of this psalm unto the Lord Jesus, as they imagine, from our own principles, and greatly triumph in their supposed advantage,—indeed in their own blindness and ignorance. "Jesus," they tell us, "in the opinion of Christians, was God; and how can these things be spoken of God? How could God cry out, 'My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?' how could men pierce the hands and feet of God?" And sundry of the like queries are made by Kimchi on the several passages of this psalm. But we know of how slender importance these things are. He who suffered was God, but he suffered not as God, nor in that wherein he was God; for he was man also, and as man, and in that wherein he was man, did he suffer. But their ignorance of the union of the divine and human natures in the person of Christ, each nature preserving its distinct properties and operations, is a thing which they would by no means be persuaded to part withal, because it stands them, as they suppose, in great stead, as furnishing them with those weak and pitiful objections that they use to make against the gospel.
46. We have yet another signal testimony unto the same purpose, Isa. 53. As the outward manner of the sufferings of the Messiah, with their actings who were instrumental therein, is principally considered in Ps. 22, so the inward nature, end, and effect of them, are declared in this prophecy. There are also sundry passages relating unto the covenant between the Lord Christ and his Father, for the carrying on of the work of redemption by this way of suffering; which the ancient Jews, not understanding his personal subsistence before his incarnation, referred unto his soul, which they imagined to have been created at the beginning of the world. Nor is there any prophecy that fills the present rabbins with more perplexities, or drives them to more absurdities and contradictions. It is not our present business to explicate the particular passages of this prophecy, or to make application of them unto the Messiah. It hath been done already by sundry learned men; and we also have cast our mite into this treasury on another occasion. That which we insist on is obvious to all,—namely, that dreadful sufferings in soul and body, and that from the will and good pleasure of God, for ends expressed in it, are here foretold and declared. Our inquiry is only after the person spoken of; for whoever he be, the Jews will not deny but that he was to suffer all sorts of calamities. That it is the Messiah, and none other, we have not only the evidence of the text and context, and nature of the subject-matter treated of, with the utter impossibility of applying the things spoken of unto any other person, without the overthrow of the whole faith of the ancient church, but also all the advantage from the confession of the Jews that can be expected or need to be desired from adversaries. For,—
47. First, The most ancient and best records of their judgment expressly affirm the person spoken of to be the Messiah. This is the Targum on the place; which themselves esteem of unquestionable, if not of divine authority. The spring and rise of the whole prophecy, as the series of the discourse manifests, is in verse 13 of chap. 52; and there the words, עַבְדִּי יַשְׂכִּיל הִנֵּה, "Behold my servant shall prosper," or "deal wisely," are rendered by Jonathan, משיחא עבדי יצלח הא, "Behold my servant the Messiah shall prosper." And among others, the 5th verse of chap. 53. is so paraphrased by him as that none of the Jews will pretend any other to be intended: ונדנתינהי עלנא יסגי שלמא ובאלפנה בעויתנא אתמסר בחובנא דאתחל מקדשנא בית בני ישתבקון חובנא לפתגמוהו לנא; —"And he shall build the house of our sanctuary, which is profaned for our sins and delivered for our iniquities; and in his doctrine shall peace be multiplied unto us: and when we obey his word, our sins shall be forgiven us:" wherein though he much perverts the text, yet [it is] to give us that sense which, by their own confession, is applicable only to the Messiah; whereby, as by other parts of his interpretation, he stopped the way unto the present rabbinical evasions. The translation of the LXX. they have formerly avouched as their own; and this also plainly refers the words to the Messiah and his sufferings, though somewhat more obscurely than it is done in the original.
In the Talmud itself, Tractat. Sanhed. Dist. Chelek, among other names they assign unto the Messiah, חוליא is one; because it is said in this place, נשא הוא חלינו אכן,—"Truly he bore our infirmity." We have their ancient rabbins making the same acknowledgment. To this purpose they speak in Bereshith Rabba on Gen. 24:17: "This is Messiah the King, who shall be in the generation of the wicked, and shall reject them, and choose the blessed God and his holy name, to serve him with his whole heart." ונתן בעדם ולהתענות לצום ישראל בעד רחמים לבקש לבו את;—"And he shall set his heart to seek mercy for Israel, to fast, and to humble himself for them." מפשעינו מחלל והוא שב׳;—"As it is said, Isa. 53, 'He was wounded for our transgressions." נרפא־לנו ובחברתו שכ״ רחמים עליהן מבקש הוא הוטאים ובישראל; —"And when Israel sinneth, he seeketh mercy for them; as it is said again, 'And by his stripes are we healed.' " So Tanchuma on verse 13, chap. 52: משיח מלך זה,—"This is King Messiah." And not to repeat more particular testimonies, we have their full confession in Alshech on the place, with which I shall close the consent: משיח מלך על וקבלו קיימו אחד פה רזל״ הנה; —"Behold, our masters, of blessed memory, with one consent determine, according as they received by tradition, that it is concerning Messiah the King that these words are spoken." And therefore Abarbanel himself, who of all his companions hath taken most pains to corrupt and pervert this prophecy, confesseth that all their ancient wise men consented with Ben Uzziel in his Targum. So that we have as full a suffrage unto this character of the Messiah from the Jews themselves as can be desired or expected.
48. We have strength, also, added unto this testimony by the weakness of the opposition which at present they make unto our application of this place unto the Messiah. It is rather rage than reason that here they trust unto, and seem to cry, "Pereant et amici, dummodo et inimici pereant." Let Targum, Talmud, Cabbal tradition, former masters, be esteemed liars and deceived, so that Christians may be disappointed. New expositions and applications of this prophecy they coin, wherein they openly contradict one another,—yea, the same man (as Abarbanel) sometimes contradicts himself! and when they have done, they suggest such things as are utterly inconsistent with the faith of the ancient church concerning the Messiah, with follies innumerable, no way deserving our serious consideration. The chief things which they most confide in we shall speedily remove out of our way.
(1.) Some of them say that this prophecy indeed concerneth the Messiah, but not Messiah Ben David, who shall be always victorious; but Messiah Ben Joseph, who shall be slain in battle against Gog and Magog. But,— [1.] This figment wholly overthrows the faith of the true Messiah, and they may as well make twenty as two of them. [2.] That Ben Joseph, whom they have coined in their own brains, is to be a great warrior from his first appearance, and after many victories is to be slain in a battle, or at least be reputed so to be; but this prophecy is concerning a man poor, destitute, despised, afflicted all his life, bound, imprisoned, rejected, scorned, condemned, and slain under a pretence of judgment,—no one thing whereof they do or can ascribe unto their Ben Joseph.
(2.) Others feign that the true Messiah was born long ago, and that he lives amongst the leprous people at the gates of Rome, being himself leprous and full of sores; which, as they say, is foretold in this prophecy! Such monstrous imaginations as these might not be repeated without some kind of participation in the folly of their authors, but that poor immortal souls are ruined by them, and that they evidence what a foolish thing man is when left unto himself, or judicially given up to blindness and unbelief. We are ready to admire at the senseless stupidity of their forefathers (they do so themselves), who chose to worship Baal and Moloch rather than the true God, who had so eminently revealed himself unto them; but it doth no way exceed that of those who have lived since their rejection of the true Messiah, nor do we need any other instance than that before us to make good our observation. And yet neither doth this prodigy of folly, this leprosy, in any thing answer the words of the prophecy, nor, indeed, hath any countenance from any one word therein, that single word they reflect upon signifying any kind of infirmities, or sorrows in general.
(3.) Some of them apply this prophecy to Jeremiah, concerning whom Abarbanel affirms, and that truly, that no one verse or line in the whole can with any colourable pretence be applied unto him; which also I have in particular manifested on another occasion. Himself applies it two ways:—[1.] To Josiah; [2.] To the whole body of the people, contradicting himself in the exposition of every particular instance, and the truth in the whole. But it is the whole people, in their last desolation, that they chiefly desire to wrest this prophecy unto. But this is,—[1.] Contrary to the testimony of their Targum and Talmud, all their ancient masters, and some of the wisest of their later doctors: [2.] To their own principles, profession, and belief; for whereas they acknowledge that their present misery is continued on them for their sins, and that if they could but repent and live to God, their Messiah would undoubtedly come, this place speaks of the perfect innocency and righteousness of him that suffers, no way on his own account deserving so to do; which if they once ascribe unto themselves, their Messiah being not yet come, they must for ever bid adieu to all their expectations of him: [3.] Contrary to the express words of the text, plainly describing one individual person: [4.] Contrary to the context, distinguishing the people of the Jews from him that was to suffer by them, among them, and for them, verses 3–6: [5.] Contrary to every particular assertion and passage in the whole prophecy, no one of them being applicable unto the body of the people. And all these things are so manifest unto every one who shall but read the place with attention and without prejudice, that they stand not in need of any further confirmation. Hence Johannes Isaac confesseth that the consideration of this place was the means of his conversion.
49. Again; The whole work promised from the foundation of the world to be accomplished by the Messiah is here ascribed unto the person treated of and his sufferings. Peace with God is to be made by his chastisement, verse 5; and healing of our wounds by sin is by his stripes. He bears the iniquity of the church, verse 6, that they may find acceptance with God. In his hand the pleasure of the Lord for the redemption of his people was to prosper, verse 10; and he is to justify them for whom he died, verse 11. If these and the like things here mentioned may be performed by any other, the Messiah may stay away; there is no work for him to do in this world. But if these are the things which God hath promised that he shall perform, then he, and none other, is here intended.
50. Neither are the cavils of the Jews about the application of some expressions unto the Lord Jesus worth the least consideration: for besides that they may all of them be easily removed, the whole being exactly accomplished in him, and his passion set forth beyond any instance of a prophetic description of a thing future in the whole Scripture, let them but grant that the true and only Messiah was to converse among the people in a despised, contemned, reproached condition; that he was to be rejected by them; to be persecuted; to suffer; to bear our iniquities, and that from the hand of God; to make his soul an offering for sin, by that means spiritually to redeem and save his people, —and as themselves know well enough that there is an end of this controversy, so the Lord Jesus must and will on all hands be acknowledged to be the true and only Messiah.
51. But that we may not seem to avoid any of the pretences or exceptions that they make use of when they are pressed with this testimony, I shall briefly consider what their later masters,—who think themselves wiser than the authors of their Targum and Talmud and all their ancient doctors, who with one consent acknowledge the Messiah to be intended in this prophecy, and wrest it unto the people of the Jews themselves, unto whom not one line or word of it is applicable,—do object unto our interpretation of the place. First, then, They say, it is not the prophet from the Lord, nor in the persons of the people of the Jews, but the kings of the earth which formerly had afflicted them, who are mentioned, chap. 52:15, who utter and speak the words of this chapter, in an admiration of the blessed estate that the Jews shall at length attain unto. Ans. Any man that shall but view the context will easily see the shameful folly of this evasion; for,—(1.) Where is there any instance in the whole Scripture of the like introduction of aliens and foreigners, and the prophet's personating of them in what they say? and why should such a singular imagination here take place? (2.) How could they say, "Who hath believed our report," or the doctrine that we had heard and taught concerning this person, or these persons? Had the kings and nations so preached the misery and happiness ensuing of the people of the Jews, that they are forced to complain of the incredulity of men, that they would not believe them? And who would not believe them? The Jews?—they believe it well enough. The nations and their kings?—they are supposed to be the men complaining that they are not believed. So that the fondness of this imagination is beyond expression. (3.) How can they say, "For the transgression of my people was he stricken?" verse 8. Who are they, when the people themselves are supposed to speak? In brief, let all the Jews in the world find out one expression in the whole prophecy tolerably suited unto this hypothesis of theirs, and I shall be contented that the whole of it be granted unto them and be used according to their desires.
52. Secondly, They add, that the subject of this prophecy is spoken of in the plural number, and so cannot intend any one singular person. This they endeavour to prove from these words of the Lord, verse 8, מִּפֶּשַׁע לָמוֹ נֶגַע עַמּי; which they render, "A transgressione populi mei plaga illa." " 'Lamo' is of the plural number, and so cannot respect any single person, but must denote the whole people." Ans. (1.) But what perverseness is this! Whoever is intended in this prophecy, he is spoken of twenty times as a single person, and such things spoken of him as cab by no artifices be suited unto any collective body of people; and shall one expression in the plural number outweigh all these, and be made an engine to pervert the whole context, and to render it unintelligible? (2.) Suppose yet the word to denote many, a people, and not one single person, will it not unavoidably follow that here is mention interserted occasionally of some other persons besides him who is the principal subject of the prophecy; and so the sense can be no other but that the people of the prophet, that is the Jews, should assuredly be punished for their rejection of him whose person and work he prophesied about. (3.) The truth is, the word hath not necessarily a plural signification. לָמוֹ, "lamo," is most frequently put for לוֹ by the insertion of מ, whereof we have sundry instances in the Scriptures: Gen. 9:26, "Blessed be the LORD God of Shem," לָמוֹ עֶבֶד כְנַעַן וִיהִי,—"and Canaan shall be his servant." "Lamo" for "lo." Job 20:23, "God shall cast the fury of his wrath upon him," בִּלְחוּמוֹ עָלֵימוֹ וְיַמְטֵר,—"and shall rain it upon him whilst he is eating." עָלֵימוֹ for עָלָיו. So again the same word is used, chap. 22:2. Ps. 11:7, "The righteous LORD loveth righteousness;" פָנֵימוֹ יֶחֱזוּ יָשָׁר, —"his countenance doth behold the upright." פָנֵימוֹ for פָנָיו. And in this prophet, chap. 44:15, "He maketh it a graven image," וָיִּסְגָּד־לָמוֹ,—"and he falleth down to it." "Lamo" for "lo." And this is so known that there is scarce any grammarian of their own who hath not taken notice of it: so that this exception also is evidently impertinent.
53. They yet urge further these words, verse 10, "He shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days." "This," say they, "is not agreeable unto any but those who have children of their bodies begotten, in whom their days are prolonged." Ans. (1.) It were well if they would consider the words foregoing, of his making his "soul an offering for sin,"—that is, dying for it,—and then tell us how he that doth so can see his carnal seed afterwards, and in them prolong his days. (2.) He that is here spoken of is directly distinguished from the seed, that is, the people of God; so that they cannot be the subject of the prophecy. (3.) It is not said that he shall prolong his days in his seed, but he himself shall prolong his days after his death; that is, upon his resurrection he shall live eternally, which is called length of days. (4.) The seed here are the seed spoken of Ps. 22:30, "A seed that shall serve the Lord, and shall be accounted unto him for a generation,"—that is, a spiritual seed; as the Gentiles are called the children of Zion, brought forth upon her travailing, Isa. 66:8. Besides, how the Messiah shall obtain this seed is expressed in the next verse: "By his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many." They are such as are converted to God by his doctrine, and justified by faith in him. And that disciples should be called the "seed," the offspring, the children, of their masters and instructors, is so common among the Jews and familiar unto them, that no phrases or expressions are more in use. Thus speaks expressly this prophet also, chap. 8:18, "Behold, I and the children whom the LORD hath given me." And who were his children he declares, verse 16, "Bind up the testimony, seal the law among my disciples." These were the "children" whom the Lord had given him. And this is the sum of all that which, with any appearance of reason, is objected against our application of this place unto the Messiah; which how weak and trivial it is, is obvious unto every ordinary understanding.
54. We may yet add some other testimonies to the same purpose. Daniel tells us, chap. 9:26, מָשִׁיחַ בָּרֵת,—"Messiah shall be cut off," that is, "from the land of the living;" and that "not for himself." And, Zech. 9:9, it is said he shall be עָנִי, "poor," and in his best condition "riding on an ass;" which place is interpreted by Solomon Jarchi and others of the Messiah. He was also to be "pierced," chap. 12:10, being the "shepherd," chap. 13:7,—the מלכא, the "king," as the Targum,—that was to be smitten with the sword of Lord; the "judge of Israel," that was to be "smitten with a rod upon the cheek," Mic. 4:1;—all denoting his persecution and suffering.
55. Agreeably unto these testimonies, the Jews themselves have a tradition about the sufferings of the Messiah, which sometimes breaks forth amongst them. In Midrash Tehillim on Ps. 2, "Rabbi Hana, in the name of Rabbi Idi, says that the Messiah must bear the third part of all the afflictions that shall ever be in the world." And R. Machir, in Abkath Rochel, affirms that "God inquired of the soul of the Messiah, at the beginning of the creation, whether he would endure sufferings and afflictions for the purging away the sins of his people; to which he answered, that he would bear them with joy." And that these sufferings of the Messiah are such, as that without the consideration of them no rational account can be given of any of their services or sacrifices, shall in our Exposition be fully declared. Now, upon these testimonies, it is evident that the great argument used by the Jews to disprove Jesus of Nazareth from being the true Messiah,—namely, his meanness, poverty, persecutions, and sufferings in this world,—doth strongly confirm the truth of our faith that he only was so indeed.
56. Unto these characters given of the Messiah we may also subjoin sundry invincible arguments proving our Lord Jesus Christ to be him that was promised. I shall add only some few of them, and that very briefly, because they have been by others in an especial manner at large insisted on.
First, then, He testified of himself that he was the Messiah, and that those who believed not that he was so should perish in their sins. Now because, according unto a general rule, he granted that although the testimony which he gave concerning himself, being the testimony of the Son of God, was true, yet it might be justly liable to exception amongst them, for the confirmation of his assertion he appeals to the works that he wrought, issuing the difference and question about his testimony in this, that if his works were not such as never any other man had wrought, or ever could work, but the Messiah only, they should be at liberty as to their believing in him. "The works," saith he, "that my Father hath given me to finish, the same works that I do, bear witness of me, that the Father hath sent me," John 5:36; that is, to be the Messiah. His own record he asserts to be true, appeals also to the testimony of John, but shows it withal to be inferior to those other witnesses which he had, namely, the Scripture and his own works. And so also, chap. 10:37, "If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not."
57. Many things might be insisted on for the confirmation of this argument. I shall only point at the heads of them; nor is there more necessary unto our present purpose.
First, All true, real miracles are effects of divine power. Many things prodigious, marvellous, or monstrous, beside the common and ordinary productions of nature, may be asserted and brought forth by an extraordinary concurrence of causes not usually falling in such a juncture and coincidence; many may be wrought by the great, hidden, and to us unknown power of wicked spirits; many things may have an appearance of prodigy and wonder, by the force of some deceit, pretence, or delusion, that attends the manner of their declaration. But real miracles are effects so above, beside, or contrary to, the nature and efficacy of any or all natural causes, that by no application or disposition of them, though never so uncouth or unusual, can they be produced; and therefore they must of necessity be the effects of an almighty creating power, causing somewhat to exist in matter or manner out of nothing, or out of that which is more adverse unto the being or manner of existence given unto it than nothing itself. Such are the works of raising the dead, opening the eyes of men born blind, etc. And this position the Jews will not deny, seeing they make it the foundation of their adherence unto the law of Moses.
58. Secondly, When God puts forth his miracle-working power in the confirmation of any word or doctrine, he avows it to be of and from himself, to be absolutely and infallibly true, setting the fullest and openest seal unto it which men, who cannot discern his essence or being, are capable of receiving or discerning. And therefore when any doctrine, which in itself is such as becometh the holiness and righteousness of God, is confirmed by the emanation of his divine power in the working of miracles, there can no greater assurance, even by God himself, be given of the truth of it.
59. Thirdly, The Lord Jesus, in the days of his flesh, wrought many great, real miracles, in the confirmation of the testimony that he gave concerning himself, that he was the Christ, the Son of God. So John 5:20, 7:31, 10:25, 12:37. Greater confirmation it could not have. Now, that the Lord Jesus wrought the miracles recorded by the evangelists, with others innumerable that are not recorded, John 20:30, 21:25, we have in general all the testimony, evidence, and certainty, that any man can possibly have of things which he saw not done with his own eyes. And to suppose that a man can have no assurance of any thing but what he sees or feels himself, as it overthrows all the foundations of knowledge in the world and of all human society, yea, of every thing that as men we either do or know; so, being once granted, it will necessarily follow that we know not the things that we see any longer than whilst we see them,—no, nor perhaps then either, seeing the evidence we have of knowing any thing by our senses proceeds from principles and presumptions which we never saw, nor can ever so do. And as for the Jews, we have all the advantage for the confirmation of what we affirm that either we are capable of or need to desire.
60. (1.) We plead our own records, that were written by the evangelists. And herein we have but one request to make unto the Jews,—namely, that they would lay no exceptions against them which they know to be of equal force against the writings of Moses and all the prophets. If they declare themselves to be such bed-lamites as to set their own houses on fire, for no other end but to endanger those of their neighbours; if they will destroy the principles of their own faith and religion, to cast the broken pieces of them at the heads of Christians; if they cry, "Pereant amici dummodo et pereant inimici;"—they are not fit to be any longer contended withal. I desire, then, to know what one exception the Jews can lay against this record, which, "mutatis mutandis," may not be laid against the Mosaical writings. And if they have always concluded all such exceptions to be invalid as to an opposition unto those grounds and evidences on which they believe those writings, why will they not give us leave to affirm the same of them in reference unto those which we receive and believe on no less certain testimonies and evidences? Unless, then, they can except any thing to the credit of our writers, or disprove that which is written by them from records of equal weight with them,—which they can never do, nor do they attempt it,—they have nothing reasonable to plead in this cause. To tell us that they do not believe what is written by them, neither did their forefathers, is, as to themselves, no more than we know, and as to their forefathers, nothing but what those very writers testify concerning them; and to look for their consent unto that in any record, which that record witnesseth that they dissented from, is to overthrow the record itself and all that is contained in it. The Jews, then, have nothing to oppose unto this testimony but only their own unbelief,— which, for all the reasons that have been insisted on, cannot be admitted as any just exception; story or circumstance they have none to oppose unto it.
61. (2.) We plead the notoriety of the miracles wrought by Christ, and the tradition delivering them down unto us. This also the Jews plead concerning the miracles of Moses. They were, say they, openly wrought in the sight of all Israel; and that they were so wrought, the testimony of Israel in succeeding ages is, next to the writing itself, the best and only witness they have of them. And wherein doth our testimony come short of theirs? Nay, on both accounts,—of their first notoriety and succeeding tradition,—it far exceeds what they have to plead; for as the miracles of Moses were wrought openly, so the most of them were so only in the sight of that one people, whom he had under his own conduct, in a wilderness, remote from any converse with other nations, and that in those dark times of the world wherein men were generally stupid and credulous, as having not been imposed on by the delusions which the following ages were awakened by. The Jews also lay no greater weight on any miracles than they do on those which were wrought in the wilderness of Midian, which had no witness unto them but that of Moses himself. But the miracles of Jesus were all, or most of them, wrought before the eyes of multitudes, envying, hating, and persecuting him; and that in the most knowing days of the world, when reason and learning had improved the light of the minds of men to the utmost of their capacity; and in and upon multitudes, for sundry years together; being all of them sifted by his adversaries, to try if they could discover any thing of deceit in them. And although his personal ministry was confined to one nation, yet the miracles wrought by his disciples, in his name and by his power, for the confirmation of his being the Messiah, were spread all the world over; so that all mankind were first filled with the report of them, and then satisfied with their truth, and lastly the generality of them with faith in him which they directed unto. The notoriety, therefore, of his miracles far exceedeth that of those of Moses. And for the means whereby the certainty of them is continued unto us, whether we respect the number of persons confirming it, or their quality, or their disinterest as to any carnal advantage, or their suffering for their testimony, it is notorious that the Jews' condition, confined merely to themselves, is no way to be compared with it. So that we may truly say, that no Jew can possibly, on any rational account, give credit unto the truth of the miracles wrought by Moses, and deny it unto them wrought by the Lord Jesus.
62. But yet there seems somewhat further necessary in this case. Though there were miracles wrought by our Saviour, yet they might be every way inferior unto them wrought by Moses, and so not sufficient to testify unto a doctrine and authority removing and abolishing the laws and customs instituted by Moses. And this the Jews of old seem to have had respect unto, in their endless tumultuary calling after signs and miracles. And hence, though the Lord Christ sometimes pleaded with them the works that he wrought, leaving them to stand or fall according unto the evidence of them, John 10:37, 15:24 (as also did the apostles afterwards, Acts 2:22), unto the astonishment of all, and satisfaction of the less obdurate, Mark 7:37, John 7:31;—yet both he himself constantly refused to gratify their curiosity and unbelief, when they required any sign or miracle of him, Matt. 12:38, 39, 16:4, Luke 11:29; and the apostle Paul expressly condemneth the whole principle in them, as that which, in the preaching of the gospel, was not to be gratified nor much attended unto, 1 Cor. 1:22. But yet neither is there any strength wanting unto our argument on this account also; for although it be not at all necessary that he who comes with an after-revelation of the will of God, reversing any thing before established, should be attested unto with more miracles, or those that are more signal, than he or they were who were the instruments of the first revelation of things to be repealed (seeing no more is required but that he be sufficiently evidenced to be sent of God, which may be done by one true, real miracle as well as by a thousand), yet the wisdom of God hath so ordered things, that the miracles wrought by the Lord Jesus did on many accounts exceed those wrought by Moses, as by a comparison in some particular instances will appear.
63. First, the number of them gives them the pre-eminence. The Jews contend that there were seventy-six miracles wrought by Moses, whereas those of all other prophets, as they observe, amount but unto seventyfour; for so do they lay hold on every occasion to exalt him who yet judgeth and condemneth them. To make up this number they reckon up sundry things that happened about his birth and death,—far enough from miracles wrought by him or in the confirmation of his ministry. They add also every extraordinary work of God that fell out in his days to the same purpose. Be it so, then, that so many miracles were wrought by Moses, as we are far from diminishing any thing of the glory of his ministry, yet what are these compared unto those wrought by Christ, and his apostles in his name, and by his power and authority? Those that are recorded of his own are not easily reckoned up, and yet those that are written are far the least part of what he did perform, and that in the space of three or four years, whereas those of Moses were scattered over the whole course of his life for an hundred and twenty years. Thus John assures us that he did many more signs besides those that are written, chap. 20:30, 31; and that his testimony is equal unto that of Moses we have proved before. He adds, that "the world could not contain the books" that might be written of his miracles, chap. 21:25; by which usual hyperbole a great multitude is designed.
Nor did the writers of the story of the gospel agree to give an account of all the miracles that were wrought by the author of it, but only to leave sufficient instances on record of his divine power in the effecting of them. For this end they singled out some works that were occasionally attended with some disputes or preachings, tending unto the opening and confirmation of the doctrine of the gospel. Thus, upon the coming of the disciples of John unto him, it is said, Luke 7:21, "In that same hour he cured many of their infirmities and plagues, and of evil spirits; and unto many that were blind he gave sight." The particular stories of none of these are anywhere mentioned; nor had that season been at all remembered, but upon occasion of those persons who were sent unto him, the present works which they saw being made the ground of that answer which he returned unto their master, verse 22, "Go your way, and tell John what things ye have seen and heard; how that the blind see," etc. Considering, therefore, what is elsewhere written, of all the regions about bringing in their sick, weak, and impotent, and of the cure of persons by the touching of his garment, it is evident that his personal miracles amounted unto thousands; which might well give occasion to the hyperbole used by John in recounting of them. Hence, some among the Jews were convinced that he was the Messiah, not only by the greatness but also by the number of his works: John 7:31, "Many of the people believed on him, and said, When Christ cometh, will he do more miracles than these which this man doeth?" And what are the seventy-six miracles of Moses unto those as to number, which in the first place the Jews glory in? And if we may add those which were wrought by his power by them that preached the gospel on his commission, as they are all of the same efficacy unto the end proposed, or confirmation of his being the Messiah, they amount not unto thousands only, but probably unto millions; for of this sort were all the miraculous gifts of the Holy Ghost that were granted unto the church all the world over. So that as to the number of miracles, he was sufficiently by them attested to be the Messiah, the great Lawgiver of the people of the new covenant.
64. Again, the Jews much insist on this, that all other prophets wrought miracles by the intervention of prayer, Moses alone without it, at his own pleasure. The rod, they say, was committed unto him as a kingly sceptre, to denote that authority whereunto the whole nature of things gave place. It is true, indeed, it is not recorded that Moses prayed in words before every miracle that was wrought by him or in reference unto his ministry; but yet this is plain in story, that he wrought no mighty work but either upon his prayer, or some express command and direction from God in particular; which everts the Judaical pretence of an abiding power remaining with him, enabling him to work miracles when and how he would. But this, which they falsely ascribe unto Moses, was eminently true of the Lord Jesus. Those thousands of miraculous works which he wrought were the arbitrary effects of a word of command, without any especial direction for every new work; arguing the constant presence of an infinite power with him, exerted according to his will. "Come out of him," "Come out of the grave," "I will, be thou clean," "Be opened," and the like expressions, he used as signs and pledges thereof. Thus was it not with Moses, as the story manifests, yea, he himself greatly doubted of the greatest effect of the divine power put forth by him, when he smote the rock to bring forth water.
65. The nature of the miracles also wrought by the one and the other may be compared, and we shall see from thence on which side the preeminence will be found. For those wrought by Moses, or by God himself whilst he employed him in the service of giving the law and the delivery of the people, they were for the most part portentous prodigies, suited to fill men with wonder, astonishment, and fear Such were all the signs of the presence of God on Mount Sinai The effects also of most of them were evil and destructive, proceeding from wrath and indignation against sin and sinners. Such were all the mighty works wrought in Egypt, such those of the swallowing up of Dathan and Abiram in the wilderness. Those that tended unto the good and relief of mankind, as the bringing of water from the rock, were typical and occasional. And these kinds of works were suited unto that ministry of death and condemnation which was committed unto him. But, on the other side, the mighty works of the Lord Jesus were evidently effects of goodness as well as of power, and consisted in things useful and helpful unto mankind. Healing the sick, opening the eyes of the blind and the ears of the deaf, giving strength to the lame, casting out devils, feeding hungry multitudes, raising the dead, are things amiable and useful. And though terrible prodigies may more affect and astonish carnal minds, such as the Jews were filled with, yet works of grace and goodness do more allure those who attend unto the dictates of right reason. Evidences they were of a gracious ministry, tending unto salvation and peace in every kind, such as that of the Messiah was promised and foretold to be. As miracles, then, were the tokens of their several ministries, and bespake the nature of them, those of the Lord Christ were exceedingly more excellent than those of Moses.
66. Furthermore, as Moses had not a power of working miracles constantly resident with him, which he might exert according unto his own will, so he was very far from being able to communicate any such power unto others. God, indeed, took of the spirit that was on him and gave it unto the elders that were to be joined with him in the government of the people, Num. 11:25; but yet neither was there a power of working miracles going along with that spirit, but only ability for rule and government, nor yet was that communication of it any act of Moses at all. But now our Lord Jesus, as he had the divine power mentioned always with him, so he could give authority and power unto whom he pleased, to effect all such miraculous works as were any way necessary for the confirmation of their doctrine. Of this nature was the commission which he gave the twelve when he sent them forth, Matt. 10:8, "Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out devils;" as also that unto the seventy, Luke 10:17–19. Yea, he promised them (which also came to pass), that, by his power and presence with them, they should do greater things than those which they had seen him do, John 14:12; Mark 16:17, 18. And this difference is so eminent that nothing can be objected against it. This more evidently confirmed him to be the Messiah than all the mighty works which he wrought in his own person on the earth.
67. Again, All the miracles of Moses ended with his life. The Jews indeed, some of them, tell us a company of foolish stories about his death, which, as their manner is, they would fix on these words, Deut. 34:5, "And Moses died יְהֹוָה עַל־פִּי," "by the mouth" (or "word") "of the LORD;" as, namely, how he contended with המות מלאך, "the angel of death," and drove him away with his rod, so that he could not die until God laid his mouth unto his, and so took out his soul from him. But these figments are shameful, and such as become none but themselves. However, these things extended only unto his death; therewith ended his ministry and miracles. But now the greatest miracle of our Lord Jesus was wrought by him after the violent and cruel death which he under-went for our sakes; for he took his life again, and raised himself from the dead, John 10:17, 18. This being performed by him after the dissolution of his human nature, in the open, visible separation of his body and soul,—in which state it was utterly impossible that that nature should put forth any act toward the retrievement of its former condition,—manifested his existence in another superior nature, acting with power on the human in the same person. And this one miracle was a sufficient vindication of the truth which he had taught concerning himself,—namely, that he was the Messiah, the Son of God. And though any should question his being raised again from the dead by his own power, yet the evidence is uncontrollable that he was raised again by the power of God, without the application of the means and ministry of any other; whereby the holy and eternal God of truth entitled himself unto all that he had taught concerning his person and office whilst he was alive. And this leaves no room for hesitation in this matter; for this being granted, none will deny but that he was the Messiah; and what principles we proceed upon for the proof of it unto the Jews hath been before declared.
68. Unto what hath been summarily recounted, we may lastly add the continuance of the miracles wrought by his power after his leaving of this world and his ascension into heaven. And there is in this an additional evidence unto what hath been insisted on: for whereas the miraculous works that were wrought by himself and his disciples, whilst he conversed with them in the flesh, were confined, as we observed before, unto the land of Canaan, those who afterwards received power from above, by his grant and donation, continued to assert the like mighty works and miracles all the world over; so that, within the space of a few years, there was scarce a famous town or city in the world wherein some of his disciples had not received the miraculous gifts of the Holy Ghost. And this also distinctly confirms him to be the promised Messiah; for whereas the isles of the Gentiles were to wait for and to receive his law, it was necessary that among them also it should receive this solemn kind of attestation from heaven.
69. Now, from what hath been spoken, it appears not only that the miracles wrought by Jesus were sufficient to confirm the testimony which he gave concerning himself,—namely, that he was the promised Messiah, the Son of God,—but also that they were so much more eminent than those wherewith God was pleased to confirm the ministry of Moses in the giving of the law, that the Jews have no reason to doubt or question his authority for the reversing of any institution of worship which they had formerly been obliged unto.
70. To close this argument, I shall only manifest that the Jews of old were convinced of the truth of the miracles wrought by the Lord Jesus; and therein a little discover the vanity of those pretences whereby they attempt to shield themselves from the natural consequence of that conviction.
First, For those who lived in his own days, see Matt. 12:23; John 7:31, 9:16, 11:47; Acts 4:16, 19:13. Neither did they at any time dispute his works, but only the power whereby they were wrought; of which afterwards.
Secondly, The fame and reputation of them was such amongst them, that those who made an art and trade of casting out of devils used the invocation of the name of Jesus over the possessed; which the notoriety of his exerting his divine power in that kind of work induced them unto. See Acts 19:13. They adjured the spirits by the name of Jesus, whom Paul preached, observing the miracles that he wrought in that name: for they being ignorant of the true way and means whereby the apostle wrought his miraculous works, after the manner of magicians, they used the name of him whom he preached in their exorcisms; as it was ever the custom of that sort of men to intermix their charms with the names of such persons as they knew to have excelled in mighty works. And that this was common among the Jews of those days is evident from Luke 9:49; which could no otherwise arise but from a general consent in the acknowledgment of the works wrought by him.
Thirdly, We have also hereunto the suffrage of the Talmudical rabbins themselves,—the most malicious adversaries that ever the Lord Jesus had in this world. They intend not, indeed, to bear witness unto his miracles; but partly whilst they relate stories that were continued amongst them by tradition, partly whilst they endeavour to shield their unbelief from the arguments taken from them, they tacitly acknowledge that they were indeed wrought by him. This I say they do, whilst they labour to show by what ways and means those prodigies and wondrous works which are recorded of him were wrought and effected; for they who say this or that was the way whereby such a thing was accomplished, do plainly acknowledge the doing of the thing itself. Greater evidence of their selfconviction it is impossible they should give in, nor need we desire.
71. First, in the Talmud itself they have traditional stories of miracles wrought by the disciples of Jesus, and by others, in his name; which although they are, like the rest of their narrations, foolish and insipid, yet they evidence the tradition that was amongst them from the forementioned conviction. Thus in Aboda Zara they have a story concerning James, who lived longest amongst them. "It happened," they say, "that Eleazer the son of Dama was bitten by a serpent, and James of the village of Sechaniah" (that is, Bethany) "came to cure him, in the name of Jesus the son of Pandira; but R. Ishmael opposed him, and said, 'It is not lawful for thee, thou son of Dama:' " so owning that miracles and cures were wrought by James in the name of Jesus. And in Sabbat. Hierusal. Distinct. Schemona Scheratikin, they tell us that "the son of Rab. Jose, the son of Levi, had swallowed poison. A certain man came and communed with him in the name of Jesus the son of Pandira, and he was healed. But when he was gone out, one said unto him, 'How didst thou adjure him?' He said, 'By such a word.' The other replied, 'That it had been better for him to have died than to have heard that word.' " I mention these things only to show that they were never able to stifle the tradition that passed among themselves concerning the miracles wrought by Jesus and his disciples.
72. But this conviction more evidently discovers itself in their endeavours to assign his mighty works unto other causes, so that they may not from them be forced to acknowledge his divine power, and the presence of God with him. And there are two pretences which they make use of. The first is that of their forefathers, Matt. 12:24. They would have the devil to be the author of them, and that he wrought them by magical incantations. This they pleaded of old, and this some of them pretend to adhere unto to this day; the folly of which blasphemy both reflects upon themselves, and is demonstratively removable from him whom, to their eternal ruin, they seek to reproach. For,—
(1.) Do they not know that their own Moses was generally esteemed, by the wisest of the heathen, to have been skilled and exercised in magic. So Pliny and Apuleius testify; and that he wrought wonders by virtue thereof, Celsus contends at large. And can they fix on a readier course to confirm such a suspicion in the minds of atheistical scoffers, than by their own taking up the same accusation against the author of more and greater miracles than those wrought by Moses? What colour of answer can they return unto their reproaches, whilst themselves, with more open impudence, manage the same accusation against the Lord Jesus? Besides, as is confessed, Egypt was the spring of magical incantations, the world's academy for that diabolical cunning, where almost alone it was had in honour and reputation. There, in the king's court, had Moses his education and conversation forty years. How much more just, then (though sufficiently unjust), might a suspicion seem concerning him, of his being skilled in that falsely-called wisdom, than concerning our Lord Jesus, who was persecuted thither, and returned thence in his infancy, which they childishly object unto him! So that in this whole vain pretence they do nothing but attempt to cast down their own foundations.
(2.) Neither, indeed, do they account skill in and use of magical incantations a crime, but an excellency. Josephus would have us believe that the art of magic and the invention of incantations was part of the wisdom of Solomon; and their Talmudical doctors do expressly approve of that diabolical art. Nothing, then, but extreme malice and desperation could put them upon inventing this cloak for their infidelity, which not only casts down the foundation of their own profession, but involves also a contradiction unto those principles which at other times they avouch. So that Rabbi Achor was mistaken when he gave out that as a prophecy, which was indeed a history, namely, that a generation of ungodly men among the Jews would not believe the things that the Messiah should do, but should affirm that he doth them by magical art.
73. For the blasphemy itself, there needs no other answer be given unto it but what was returned by our Lord Jesus of old. If those things had been done by magical incantations, and consequently by the assistance of the devil, it must needs be upon a division of those wicked spirits among themselves, and that upon the main design of their kingdom, dominion, and interest in this world. The open and proclaimed work of our Lord Jesus in this world, was by all ways and means to overthrow the kingdom of Satan and his works. This he privately taught, this he publicly declared, to be the main end of his coming into this world. The works and miracles which he wrought were very many, innumerable of them exercised on devils themselves, to their shame, terror, and dispossession of the habitations they had invaded. In and during this work, he declares them to all the world to be evil, wicked, malicious, unclean, and lying spirits, reserved for everlasting destruction in hell, under the wrath of the great God. For this cause they, on the other side, ceased not to oppose him, and to stir up all the world against him, until they thought they had prevailed in his death. If men, therefore, shall imagine or fancy that the works of Christ against the interest of Satan, upon his person, unto his shame;— wrought to confirm a doctrine teaching all the world to avoid him, abhor him, fight and contend against him; commending every thing that he hates, with promise of life eternal unto them who forsake him and maintain his quarrel against him; threatening every thing that he loves and labours to promote in the world with eternal vengeance,—were wrought by his help and assistance, they had more need to be sent unto the place where the maladies of those distracted in their wits are attended, than to have an answer given unto their folly.
74. They have yet another pretence, to preserve themselves from the efficacy of this self-conviction. But this is so perfectly Judaical,—that is, so full of monstrous, ridiculous figments,—that nothing but an aim to discover their present desperate folly, and with what unmanly inventions they endeavour to cover themselves from the light of their own conviction, can give countenance unto the repetition of it. Besides, the fable itself is vulgarly known, and I shall therefore only give a brief compendium of it, seeing it may not be wholly avoided.
The story they tell us is this: There was a stone in the sanctum sanctorum, under the ark, wherein was written "Shem Hamphorash" (so the Cabbalists call the name Jehovah). He that could learn this name might, by the virtue of it, do what miracles he pleased. Wherefore the wise men, fearing what might ensue thereon, made two brazen dogs, and set them on two pillars before the door of the sanctuary. And it was so, that when any one went in and learned that name, as he came out those dogs barked so horribly that they frighted him, and made him forget the name that he had learned. But Jesus of Nazareth going in, wrote the name on parchment, and put it within the skin of his leg, and closed the skin upon it; so that though he lost the remembrance of it at his coming out, by the barking of the brazen dogs, yet he recovered the knowledge of it again out of the parchment in his leg: and by virtue thereof he wrought miracles,— walked on the sea, cured the lame, raised the dead, and opened the eyes of the blind. That alone which from hence we aim to evince, is the conviction that the most stubborn of the Jews had of the miracles of our blessed Saviour. Had they not been openly performed, and undeniably attested, no creatures that ever had the shape of men, or any thing more of modesty than the brazen dogs they talk of, would have betaken themselves to such monstrous foolish figments for a countenance and pretence unto the rejection of him and them. He that should contend that the sun did not shine all the last year, and should give this reason of his assertion, because a certain man of his acquaintance climbed up to heaven by a ladder and put him in a box, and kept him close in his chamber all that while, would speak to the full with as much probability and appearance of truth as the grand rabbins do in this tale. Every word in their story is a monster. The stone, the writing of the name of God on it, the virtue of the pronunciation of that name, the brazen dogs, the entrance of a private man into the sanctum sanctorum, the barking of the dogs, are dreams becoming men under a penal infatuation and blindness, not much distant from those chains of darkness wherewith Satan himself is kept bound unto the judgment of the great day.
75. Fourthly, We must not forget the testimony of his disciples, who conversed with him, and were eye-witnesses of his miracles, especially of his rising from the dead. These, with multitudes ascertained of the truth by their testimony, to witness it unto the world willingly forewent all temporal interests, exposing themselves to dangers innumerable, and lastly sealed their testimony with their blood, shed by the most exquisite tortures that the malice of hell could invent; all in expectation of acceptance with him and a reward from him, which depended on the truth of the miracles which they asserted him to have wrought and performed. From all these considerations, we may safely conclude that it is utterly impossible that the nature of man should be more ascertained of any thing that ever was in this world, than we may be of the miracles wrought by our Lord Jesus. Now all these, as we have declared, were wrought by the divine power of God, to confirm the truth of his being the promised Messiah. And if this were not so, it is impossible that God should ever more require an assent unto any revelation of his mind or will, none being capable of a more evident and full confirmation so to be than this hath received of Jesus being the Christ. The application of this consideration in particular unto his resurrection from the dead hath been the special subject of so many writers, that I shall not further insist upon it.
76. One argument more, taken from the success that the doctrine of Jesus hath had in the world, shall close this discourse. What was his outward condition in this world we acknowledge, and the Jews triumph in. The poverty of it, the contempt and reproach that it was exposed unto, was one of the chief pretences that they had, and have to this day, for their refusal of him. The time wherein he came was that, as hath been showed, wherein the Jews were in daily expectation of their Messiah, and when the residue of mankind were in the full enjoyment of all that light, wisdom, and knowledge, which the principles of nature could attain unto. In this state of things, a poor man, living in an obscure village of Galilee, not taught by men so much as to read, begins to preach and to declare himself to be the Messiah, the Son of God, the Saviour of the world. With this testimony he declares a doctrine destructive of the religion and sacred worship of all and every man then living in the world;—of the Jews as to the manner of it, which they esteemed above its substance; and of all others in its very nature and being;—and presseth a course of obedience unto God decried by them all. To encourage men to believe in him and to accept of his testimony, he gives them promises of what he would do for them when this life should be ended. No sooner doth he undertake this work, but the Jews amongst whom he conversed, almost universally, at least all the great, wise, learned, and esteemedly devout amongst them, set themselves to scorn, despise, reproach, and persecute him. And this course they ceased not, until, conspiring with the power of the Gentiles, they took him out of the world as a malefactor, by a bitter, shameful, and ignominious death. After which he riseth again from the dead, and shows himself neither unto Jews nor Gentiles in common, but only to some poor men chosen by himself to be his witnesses and apostles. These begin to teach both Jews and Gentiles the things before mentioned. The Jews, more deeply engaged than formerly, by having slain their Master, immediately persecute them, and that unto death. The Gentiles at first deride and scorn them, but quickly change their note, and set all their wit and power at work to extirpate them and their followers out of the world. The Jews, on many accounts, looked upon themselves as ruined and undone for ever, if their testimony were admitted. The Gentiles saw that, on the same supposition, they must forego all their religion, and therewith every thing wherewith they pleased themselves in this world. Invisible infernal powers, who ruled in the world by superstition and idolatry, were no less engaged against them. With them was neither human wisdom or counsel, nor external force; yea, the use of both in their work was by their Master severely interdicted unto them. Had not the truth and power of God been engaged with them and for them, it is such a madness to suppose that this undertaking could have been carried on unto that issue and event, in the conquest of mankind, which it at length obtained, as no man not utterly forsaken of reason, or cursed with blindness of mind, or made senseless and stupid by the power of his lusts, can make himself guilty of. Many are the branches of this argument, many the considerations that concur in a contribution of evidence and strength unto it; all which to examine and improve is beyond our present design. The bare proposal of it is sufficient to cause all Jewish exceptions to vanish out of the minds of sober and reasonable men. From it, therefore, with them that went before, we conclude the third part of our general thesis concerning the Messiah,—namely, That Jesus of Nazareth, whom Paul preached, was he.
———
