M- 
 
3- ^ 
 
 I TlIEOLCmCAL' SEMlN \\Ci\ 
 
 Booh\ No. 
 
 5c:: <C 
 
'JH/. 
 
^A_ 
 
 \ 
 
apj;' "71)-) 
 KOUL JACOB 
 
 IN 
 
 DEFENCE 
 
 OF 
 
 THE JEWISH RELIGION . 
 
 CONTAINING THE 
 
 ARGUMEJSTS 
 
 OF 
 
 THE REV C. F. FREY, 
 
 ONE OF THE COMMITTEE 
 
 OF THE 
 
 .London Society for the Conversion of the Jews y 
 
 AND 
 
 ANSWERS THERETO. 
 
 BY 
 
 JACOB NIKELSBURGER. 
 
 ....LIVERPOOL, PRINTED.... 
 
 J^EW-YORK: 
 
 RE-PRINTED FOR JOHN REID, BOOKSELLER. 
 
 No. ^9 WATER-STREET. 
 
 1816. 
 
PREFACE, 
 
 The Rev. C. F. FREY (a converted Jew,) 
 being in Liverpool, in the month of September 
 last, invited the Jews of that town, by public 
 advertisement, to attend a Lecture which he 
 proposed to give, on the subject of the Messiah. 
 — Always open to conviction, and ever ready 
 to listen to what those who differ from us in 
 opinion, have to say on this subject, the writer 
 hereof (a Jew) gladly attended at the time and 
 place appointed : but, so dissatisfied was he 
 with what he there heard, that he was anxious 
 to learn whether this Rev. Gentleman had not, 
 himself stronger grounds for having altered his 
 own opinions on this subject, than those he then 
 gave to induce others to follow his example. He^ 
 therefore, wrote to Mr. Frey, stating, that he ac- 
 cepted the challenge, which he understood had 
 been given by him to the Jews ; and was wil- 
 ling to meet him, at any time or place, (either 
 public or private,) which he (Mr. F.) would ap- 
 point, to dispute with him on the subject of the 
 Messiah. 
 
 This letter was put into the Post-Office, at 
 Liverpool, directed to Mr. Frey, at his lodgings, 
 on the 20th day of that month ; but no answer 
 was received thereto till the 26th, dated the 25th, 
 from Manchester : wherein Mr. F. states, that 
 he did not receive the letter written to him by 
 Mr, N. before he had left Liverpool ; and, con- 
 
IV 
 
 sequently, that he conld not meet Mr. N. as he 
 proposed ; but, that he should, at any time, be 
 g-ad to see him in London, for the same pur- 
 pose. Mr. N. not being such an enthusiast, as 
 to be tempted to make a journey to London, for 
 the sole purpose of disputing with Mr. Frey^ 
 wrote again to him, expressing his suspicion 
 that his letter mi: i have been received by Mr, 
 F. before he left Liverpool ; and proposing to 
 carry on the dispute in writing, if Mr. F. should 
 prefer that mode. 
 
 Mr. F. states, in a subsequent letter from Lon- 
 don, that he is surprised at such an injurious sus- 
 picion, and persists in the truth of what he 
 before said in regard to Mr. N.'s letter. Along 
 with this last letter of Mr. F.'s, he sent three 
 pamphlets, containing his arguments on the sub- 
 ject. — One of them in Hebrew, called " Debray 
 J\e^achony" and the translation thereof in Eng- 
 lish, marked No, 8, London Society : the other 
 in High German, called '' Deboj^ah V Israel!' — 
 All of them entitled, ^^ Proofs from the Ancient 
 Prophecies, that the Messiah must have come, 
 and that Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah ; se- 
 riously addressed to the attention of the Jewish 
 Nation." 
 
 A full and correct copy of each argument, is 
 here separately given, with Mr. N.'s answers 
 thereto. 
 
 The Author here begs leave to observe, that 
 this little tract has been written under great dis- 
 advantages. Owin«: to the numerous avocations 
 in which he is engaged, he has not been able to 
 devote so much of his time to th© consideration 
 
of this subject, as it deserves, and which he 
 could have wished to bestow upon it : nor, owing 
 to his situation in life, has he been able to refer 
 to the writings of others, whose learning has 
 rendered their opinions respected, and to bring 
 them forward in support of his own. Besides, 
 it has unavoidably , been written at various short 
 hitervals of time, which he has, with diificulty, 
 been able to snatch from the necessary attention 
 to business ; at which times it cannot be sup- 
 posed that his mind has been so clear and un- 
 incumbered with other matters, as is requisite 
 for the serious consideration of such a subject. 
 Doubtless there may be many faults and inac- 
 curacies, but he trusts himself to the indulgence 
 of a generous public : hoping, that for the above 
 reasons, and on account of his being a foreigner, 
 and not having been long enough resident in 
 this country to acquire a thorough knowledge 
 of the language, they will not be too severely 
 criticised. This he can say, that he has taken 
 pains not to deserve censure, and if it has been 
 to no purpose, it will not be his own fault* And 
 he flatters himself, that with all these disadvan- 
 tages, the liberal education given him by an in- 
 dulgent parent, will, at least, enable him to re- 
 fute, in a satisfactory manner, the weak argu- 
 ments of Mr. Frey. At the same time, that he 
 may not be too hastily censured, he begs leave 
 to request, that the reader will not form his opi- 
 nion of the w^ork, on reading only a part of it : 
 but that he w^ill, first, carefully examine and 
 consider the whole of it. For, though some ol 
 the first answers or arguments mav not appear 
 
so very forcible, when separately considered, the 
 whole together is so closely connected, that he 
 will discover them to grow stronger and strong- 
 er, as he proceeds in it : and what he may, on 
 first sight, conceive to be wanting in the b gin- 
 ning, he may, perhaps, discover to be satisfac- 
 torily given in the end. 
 
 Liverpool, 4th July, 1814. 
 
DEFENCE 
 
 OF THE 
 
 JEWISH RELIGION. 
 
 To the Reverend C. F. Frey^ Mount-Street^ Whitechapel^ 
 
 London, 
 
 Sir, 
 
 1 DULY received your letter, and the pamphlets 
 you so strongly recommend fi^r my serious perusal 
 and consideration. 1 have seriously perused and con- 
 sidered them, and in a candid and impartial manner 
 too ; but, so far am I from bein^ convinced by them, 
 of my former erroneous opinions, (as you please to call 
 them) on the subject to which they relate, that I am 
 only the more strongly satisfied of the weakness of the 
 grounds on which yours are founded. — Want of books 
 to which I might refer for my further satisfaction, and 
 want of leisure time to devote to the consideration of 
 this subject, are the reasons why you have not, before 
 this time, received ray thoughts and observations, on the 
 arguments adduced by you in the pamphlets. Hither- 
 to, I have been unable to meet with the books to which 
 I would wish to refer ; and, therefore, to delay my an- 
 swer no longer, I must trust to the recollection of what 
 I have read whilst at school -, and this, I trust, will suf- 
 
 % 
 
# 
 
 iicientlj enable me to answer your arguments in a sa- 
 tisfactorj manner. 
 
 f, at all times, wish to avoid religious controversy, 
 for many reasons ; but, as you have so repeatedly chal- 
 lenged the Jews to dispute with them, I could not re- 
 sist the impulse I felt to try your strength. I wish to 
 be understood, however, that 1 write merely in answer 
 to your arguments, and not against any religion what- 
 soever; being firmly persuaded that there are good 
 men of all religions, and that they all act from their 
 own particular motives and reasons, and conceive 
 themselves to be in the right. WhetherJ they are or are 
 not so, is not for you nor me to determine. Their motives 
 and reasons may be unknown to us, and, therefore, 
 there can be no dispute or argument against them. 
 We all serve one God at last, though in different ways. 
 It is very far from my wish to interfere with them, or 
 to give offence to any one. Much less do I, or any one 
 of my nation, wash or attempt to make proselytes to 
 our opinions ; and so contemptible an action do I con- 
 sider it to be, to endeavour to do this, that I cannot 
 bring myself to believe the different reports I have 
 heard, of some persons who offer bribes and rewards 
 to their fellow creatures, to tempt them to apostasy ; 
 but, could any of our nation be weak enough to be se- 
 duced by such means, we should consider him unwor- 
 thy of all society, and be glad to get rid of him. 
 
 My brethren, the Jev/s, no doubt, have their reasons 
 for not attending to your challenge. Perhaps they 
 may be of the above opinion. Or, perhaps, they may 
 suppose, that when a person finds it to be his interest, 
 to profess to believe any particular doctrine, the task 
 would be one of no little difficulty, to attempt to in- 
 
duce hitn to recant, and speak according to his convic* 
 tion : except by oflfers o( superior advantages. Could 
 I have availed myself of the abilities of some of the 
 learned of our nation, still more glaring errors and 
 contradictions might have been pointed out : for, weak 
 indeed must your arguments be, if I, (who consider 
 myself, in point of learning, as nothing, in comparison 
 with them) I, who am destitute of books to refer to, 
 and can spare but little time to devote to the conside- 
 ration of this subject, am able to discover so many ! 
 
 In your eagerness to convert the Jews to your way 
 of thinking, you make no scruple of converting and per- 
 verting the prophets, by turning their words to a 
 meaning, which you conceive to be best adapted to 
 your purpose : and, in doing this, you make them not 
 only flatly contradict each other, but themselves also. 
 
 Independent of the proofs I shall here bring forward 
 in answer to your arguments, I have it in my power 
 (and could show it you, if I thought it would be of any 
 avail) to bring forward many others, equally as unde- 
 niable and incontrovertible, both from the New and 
 Old Testament, in support of opinions diametrically 
 opposite to those you profess : and these, too, more 
 reconcileable with the prophets on whom you seem to 
 rely. But 1 shall confine myself, at present, entirely 
 to the examination of the proofs you bring forward in 
 support of your opinions, and of your arguments there- 
 on; and my object will be attained, when I show how 
 erroneous and contradictory they are from beginning 
 to end. 
 
 It is not my object to correct them, for it would 
 be folly to attempt to teach you the real significa- 
 "^ion of the prophecies, until you are satisfied aiid will 
 
 B 
 
10 
 
 candidly admit, that your own construction is erro* 
 neous. 
 
 I will proceed, without further comment, to the con- 
 sideration of them ; and endeavour to explain myself 
 as concisely and intelligible as I can, in a language 
 which is foreign to me : for, though 1 might have ex- 
 plained my ideas more clearly in the Hebrew Lan- 
 guage, yet I fear it would be easier for me to write, 
 than for others to understand. 
 
 You divide your subject into two parts : the former 
 to prove that the Messiah is already come ; and the 
 latter, to prove that Jesus of Nazareth was that Mes- 
 siah. The two parts must connect and correspond to- 
 gether ; the proofs of the one must not contradict the 
 other ; and if you fail in the first, the proof of the other 
 is rendered unnecessary. 
 
 The substance of your first proof or argument, that 
 the Messiah is already come, is as follows : 
 
 First. " Jacob foretels that the sceptre shall not depart from 
 " Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh shall 
 " come ; therefore, if the sceptre be departed from Judah, and if he 
 " have no longer a lawgiver, then Shiloh must be come; because 
 " his coming is represented as preceding the departure of the scep- 
 ^< tre and the cessation of the lawgiver from Judah." 
 
 In the first place, I shall take the liberty of transcri- 
 bing, from the English version of the Old Testament, 
 the words ascribed to Jacob; and perhaps, it may ap- 
 pear that you have omitted a few words, which materi- 
 ally affect the signification of the whole passage. Gen. 
 chap. xlix. v. 10. " The sceptre shall not depart 
 " from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet^ 
 " until Shiloh come, and unto him shall the gathering of 
 " the people 6e." In the next place, I beg leave to oh- 
 ^erve, that the literal signification of the word a^y here 
 
11 
 
 gendered sceptre^ but which you conceive to be better 
 rendered rod of the tribe, or tribual sceptre^ is neither 
 one nor the other ; nor can I help remarking the im- 
 propriety of departing from the literal signification of 
 the word, to render it by another, to which, (as you 
 observe), it may be turned by a common figure of speech^ 
 for the purpose of rendering the passage unintelli- 
 gible. 
 
 As, however, I profess to fight you with your own 
 weapons, I must take them in the state in which you 
 present them to me. Let, then, the interpretation of 
 the word remain undisturbed ; and I proceed to show 
 that in either sense, viz, as regal or tribual sceptre^ the 
 passage is rendered inconsistent, and contradictory. 
 
 It is universally acknowledged, that Shiloh should 
 come from the the seed of David^ who is from the seed 
 o( Judah ; and great pains have been taken by writers 
 of the New Testament to convince us by long genea- 
 logical tables, that Joseph was from the seed of iJavid^ 
 who was from the seed of Judah ; and yet this same 
 Joseph is not believed to be the father of Jesus. YoU 
 believe (upon what grounds I am not aware) that 
 Jesus was also from the seed of Judah. Let it be ad- 
 mitted for the sake of argument. INow, mark the con- 
 cluding words of the verse. " Unto him" (Shiloh, 
 whom you believe to be Jesus) " shall the gathering of 
 the people be." What can this mean more or less, 
 than that the people (then scattered) shall be gath- 
 ered to him, as their head and ruler, and lawgiver? 
 Then, if Jesus be the Messiah, or, if the Messiah be 
 from the seed ofJudah^ and " unto him shall the gather- 
 ing of the people be,''' of course the sceptre will remain in 
 Jiidah at his comino:. And, whether the spiritual or 
 
12 
 
 temporal sceptre may be contended to be meant, it ig 
 immaterial, for the spiritual must rule and include the 
 temporal sceptre. 
 
 According to these words of Jacobs it must be con- 
 cluded, that the sceptre shall not depart from Judah. 
 from the time they are made use of by Jacobs until^ {and, 
 not before^ Shiloh shall come (whom you believe to be 
 Jesus.) Now Judah had no sceptre nor lawgiver, even 
 tn Jacobus time^ nor for many years after ; and many 
 hundred years before the birth of Jesus ^ the Jews had no 
 sceptre nor lawgiver : they were a conquered nation, 
 and in bondage in Egypt and in Babylon, and were 
 subject to kings and laws of other nations. Even at 
 the time of the second temple, they were also without 
 a sceptre^ and subject to other kings. Then, if the scep- 
 tre did depart before the coming of Jesus, and it was 
 to depart after his coming, what must we make of Ja- 
 cob's blessinof ? 
 
 Jigain. — You are aware of the absurdity of the word 
 being rendered regal sceptre^ and therefore, inform us 
 that you are persuaded that the tribual sceptre is alone 
 meant. You further add : 
 
 " Jacob plainly speaks of something that should appertain to Ju- 
 " dah, from that very time, to the coming of Shiloh. Now Judah 
 " did not possess the regal sceptre until many years after, and he 
 " lost it at the Babylonian Captivity ; therefore the regal sceptre 
 '' cannot be meant ; and if not, the tribual sceptre must." 
 
 This conclusion, one is apt to consider as too hastily 
 drawn. According to the words of an old English 
 proverb, '' You are reckoning without your host." It 
 did so happen, that at the time mentioned^ Judah did 7iQt 
 possess the tribual sceptre; you admit it did not 
 possess the retral sceptre ; you agree with me also, 
 that Jacob plainly speaks of something that should ajjper- 
 
13 
 
 tain to Jiidah^ from that very time to the coming of Ski- 
 loh.'''' Therefore, the sentense as it stands, amounts to 
 no more nor less than this : That which you hive not 
 noiv^ shall not depart from you until Shiloh comt ! 
 
 For the sake of argument, let it be admitter! that Ju- 
 -dah had the tribual sceptre or rod of the tribe, in Ja- 
 cob's time. 
 
 The words '' shall not depart until Shiloh come^''^ na- 
 turally import, that it shall depart as soon as Shiloh 
 shall cojue^ and not after Shiloh shall have come. 
 Now the tribual sceptre did not depart from Ju- 
 dah until many years after the death of Jesus, ac- 
 cordinor to your own admission, not until the con- 
 elusion of the seventy weeks of Daniel, which was 
 thirty-seven years after the death of Jesus — the year se- 
 venty of the christian a3ra 
 
 Jigaifi. — the rejecting of Jesus, is ascribed as the cause 
 of the punishment of the Jews — as the cause of the seep- 
 tre departing from them, and of their being dispersed 
 and scattered over the face of the earth. Now when 
 Jacob foretels that this shall be the case, if the rejecting 
 of Jesus be the cause of it, he consequently foretells that 
 Jesus shall be rejected. Jacob then must have been a 
 very cruel and unnatural father, if, knowing the cause 
 of his children being thus condemned to suffer, he hid 
 it from them, and did not advise them not to reject Je- 
 sus. And if he knew it not, and spoke only by the 
 command or inspiration of God, then he positively de- 
 clares and commands that they shall reject him ; else he 
 could not positively say that the sceptre shall depart at 
 his coming. Then, if he positively declares that the 
 Jews shall reject Jesus, does it not appear unjust that 
 they should be punished for doing what was command- 
 
14 
 
 ed by one vvhoai they were well pursuaded was a true 
 prophet, and spoke from divine inspiration : and be 
 blamed for rejecting Jesus, whom they did not know to 
 be a true one ? Their choice was taken away by pre- 
 ordination, and they did no more than they had been 
 commanded to do. — The argument against predestina- 
 tion cannot apply here ; for the knowledge of man 
 must not be compared with the knowledge of God. 
 Though incomprehensible to us, it is not impossible 
 that God may have the knowledge, and man the free 
 will : but admitting that Jacob speaks by divine inspi- 
 ration, and, consequently, that his words are the words 
 of God, then we have a communication of the know- 
 ledge of God, which is tantamount to an express com- 
 mand. 
 
 Upon the whole, you cannot but admit that the pas- 
 sage, as it now stands, is either completely inconsistent 
 and cojitradictory, or erroneously translated. 
 
 I must not conclude my observations upon Jacob's 
 prophecy, without noticing your apparent reluctance to 
 have any thing to do Vv^ith the words '• nor a laiogiver 
 from between his feet.''^ You appear particularly cau- 
 tious of approaching too near these ^cei of Judah^ hav- 
 ing great reason to fear, that the interpretation of the 
 original passage, and your arguments built thereon, 
 would receive a kick from them, which they would not 
 be able to survive. The words, " the sceptre shall not 
 depart from Jiidah nor a lawgiver from between his 
 feet,'' you wish to be understood thus : '' the sceptre and 
 the lawgiver shall not depart^^"' ^'c. In the different parts 
 of your arguments your words are, '' if the sceptre be 
 •' departed from Judah, and if he have no longer a law- 
 ■^ giver — the departure of the sceptre and the cessation 
 
" of the lawgiver — the sceptre, whether regal or tribaal, 
 " and ivith it the authorized laivgiver has departed.'''' Not 
 a word about "from between his feet.''' 1 challenge your 
 ingenuity, to give me such an explanation of these words, 
 as will correspond with your explanation of the other 
 part of the passage. 
 
 Now for your second proof : 
 
 *' Daniei, in his i'amous proi)liecy of the seventy weeks, fixes 
 " the coming of the Messiah to a certain period, to be calculated 
 *' from the going forth of some decree, to restore and to build Jeru- 
 •' salem. And he foretels, that after this advent of the Messiah, 
 •' the sacrifice and oblation sh;ill be caused to cease, that the end 
 *' of the Jewish nation shall be with a flood, or (agreeably to tlie 
 " language of prophecy,) a hostile invasion, and that their land 
 " shall be laid utterly desolate ; tliereibre, if the sacrifice and ob- 
 *' lation have been abolished — if the Jewish nation has been car- 
 '- ried away by a hostile invasion— if their land has been desola- 
 " ted — then the Messiah mast have come ; because Daniel repre- 
 *' sents him as coming before all these events should take place.'' 
 
 Let us first have the exact words, and then proceed 
 to argue on them, Dan. chap. ix. v. 24. "Seventy 
 '« weeks are determined upon thy people, and upon thy 
 •^ holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an 
 " end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, 
 "'• and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal 
 •' up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most 
 " holy. — 25. Know therefore and understand, that from 
 *Vthe going forth of the^ commandmentUo restore and 
 " to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the prince, shall 
 ^'v be seVen weeks, knd three-score and two vv^eeks : the 
 " street shall be built again, and the wall, even in trou- 
 '' blous times, — 26. And after thre^-scbre and two 
 *' weeks^ shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself; 
 " and the people of the prince that shall come, shall 
 •• destroy the city and the sanctuary ; and the end 
 
16 
 
 *• thereof shall be with a flood ; and unto the end of the 
 ^' war desolations are determined. — 27. And he shall 
 " confirm the covenant with manj for one week : and 
 -' in the midst of the week he sliall cause the sat^rifice 
 '* and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of 
 ^' abominations, he shall make it desolate, even unto 
 " the consummation, and that determined, shall be 
 ** poured upon the desolate." 
 
 The seventy weeks here mentioned, I believe are 
 universally allowed to be weeks of years, viz : one 
 week seven years, making in the whole, four hundred 
 and ninety years. This time, then, " is determined oa 
 " Daniel's people {the Jeivs) and his holy city, to finish 
 " their transgression, and to make an end of sins, and 
 " to make reconcihation for iniquity, and to bring in 
 " everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision 
 " and prophecy, and to anoint the most holy." — Either 
 these happy times are to commence within the seventy 
 weeks, or else, after the expiration thereof. We cannot 
 well conceive that they were enjoyed by the Jews, with- 
 in the seventy weeks, if we rely upon the next verse, 
 for-an account of what is to take place during that time, 
 viz. ; " To the time of Messiah the prince shall be se- 
 " ven weeks, and in three-score and two weeks after, 
 " the street shall be built, and the wall, even in trouble- 
 " soiue times^ and then the Messiah shall be cut off, 
 " and the people of the prince that shall come shall 
 " destroy the city end the sanctuary^ afid the end thereof 
 " shall be loiih a floods and unto the end of the war desola- 
 ." tionsy — Here we have an account of what shall take 
 place durino^ sixty-nine weeks, and then " during one 
 '^ week" (which makes up the seventy), " he shall con- 
 ^^ firm the covenant with many j and in the midst of the 
 
17 
 
 <• week, he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease ^^ 
 " and for the overspreading of abomination, he shall 
 ^^ make it desolate, even until the consummation ; and that 
 '• determined, shall be poured upon the desolate." 
 
 Do we find any thing here, like the " finishing of 
 " transgressions," the " end of sins :" '' reconciliation 
 " for iniquities," or " everlasting righteousness ?" — No. 
 — Then if we find not these happy times within the se- 
 venty weeks, w^e must naturally look for them after the 
 expiration thereof ; and conclude, that Banicl in the 
 three concluding verses of the chapter only describes 
 what miseries and troubles the Jewish nation will under- 
 go, during the seventy weeks^ which were determined on, 
 to finish their transgressions, previous to the commence- 
 ment of the promised happy times, and before the " an- 
 nointing of the most holy^ The hebrew words ^-^p^'^v 
 (here rendered " most holy,") are, literally, the sanc- 
 tum sanctorum, ov " holy of holies." But, whether you 
 may ap})ly it to the temple, or the Messiah^ it is imma- 
 terial ; for, according to your own calculation of the 
 seventy weeks, I think you cannot show me, that after 
 the expiration thereof there has yet been either a Messiah 
 or a temple anointed ; or that the Jews have enjoyed 
 those happy times, which appear to be there promised. 
 /jgain, — You say thai '-' Daniel fixed the coming of 
 '• the Messiah, to a certain period, to be calculated from 
 " the o-olno- forth of some decree to restore and to build 
 *' Jerusalem." — Now let us examine how the coming of 
 Jes^s (whom you believe to be the promised McssiaJi) 
 will correspond with the w^ords of the prophecy. In 
 verse 25, we are told, that the Messiah the prince will 
 appear at die end of the seventh week, before the re- 
 building of Jeruscdem, This, then, cannot be Jesu^: ar 
 
18 
 
 he was not bom till three hundred and fifty years after the 
 rebuilding of Jerusalem. The second temple is well 
 known to have stood four hundred and twenty years, ex- 
 clusive of the time employed in rebuilding it ; and, as 
 it was not destroyed till seventy years after the birth of 
 Jesus, it must have been built three hundred and fifty 
 years before his birth. 
 
 In verse 26, we are further told, that in three-score 
 and two weeks, or four hundred and thirty-four years af- 
 ter his appearance, the Messiah shall be cut off. As so 
 many years appear to have been allotted to this Mes- 
 siah, perhaps it may be concluded, that another Messiah 
 must have been meant ; though we are not previously 
 informed when he was first to make his appearance, or 
 how the other Messiah would be disposed of. There 
 is another reason also for supposing that they are not 
 one and the same, for there is a distinction made be- 
 tween them ; the first is styled Messiah^ the prince^ and 
 the next Messiah only ; which merely signifies, anoint- 
 ed., and was appHed in common to kings, prophets, and 
 high priests, if anointed. It cannot here be said to 
 mean a redeemer, for, at that time, the Jews were not 
 much in want of a redeemer ; they had been previous- 
 ly redeemed and gathered together, and their city and 
 temple restored and rebuilt. Besides, it would seem 
 strange that a redeemer should be sent only to witness the 
 '' destruction of the city and sanctuary," and " desolation 
 and hostile invasion,"^- which were immediately to follow 
 after his coming. However, allowing this to be a se- 
 cond Messiah, we are abruptly told only^ that he shall 
 be cut off. The word n-\2^ (careth) rendered " cut off," 
 does not signify put to death by man ; but destroyed 
 by heaven — cut off soul and body — ^totally annihilated. 
 
19 
 
 Let me first ask, whether you believe this to have 
 been the case with Jesus^ whom you consider to be the 
 Messiah mentioned ? and then, let me Inquire whether 
 Jesus was put to death at the same tinic^ viz : " on the 
 expiration of sixty-nine weeks — at the time of the de- 
 struction of the city — and half a week, or three years 
 and a half before the cessation of the sacrifice and obla- 
 tion ?" No, Jesus was put to death thirty seven years he- 
 fore the destruction of the city and sanctuary, (which 
 yourself acknowledge, was in the year seventy of the 
 christian sera) and more than ybr/y years before the ces- 
 sation of the sacrifice and oblation. 
 
 A man must be more than naturally shrewd, to dis- 
 cover in this prophecy of Daniel any thing at all rela- 
 ting to Jesus. The word Messiah Is twice used by 
 Daniel ; both of them (if two are meant) are equally 
 inapplicable to Jesus. If we consider them to be one 
 and the same, we find he was born three Imndred and 
 seventy one years before Jesus, and lived four hundred 
 and thirty-four— whereas, Jesus was only thirty-three 
 years old at the time he was put to death. And, if we 
 must suppose that Daniel promised two Messiahs, then 
 we find that the second Is not cut off till thirty-seven years 
 after Jesus was put to death ! Then, are we, wit!} our 
 eyes open, In the face of these Irreconcileable contradic- 
 tions, to believe that Jesus was the Messiah spoken of 
 by Daniel, merely because he made his appearance be- 
 fore the consummation of certain events predicted by 
 Daniel ? On the same ground of reasoning, we may 
 believe, that any other person born after the time of the 
 issuing of the decree to re-build Jerusalem, and hefore 
 the destruction of the Jewish nation, and the cessation 
 of the sacrifice and oblation, to have been the promis*^ 
 *!d Moseiah, 
 
20 
 
 The argument used before, when speaking of J acob'j:; 
 prophecy, as to predestination, may also be applied 
 here, to the prophecy of Daniel. For, if tlie rejecting 
 of Jesus was the cause o( the punishment which he fore- 
 tels shall be inflicted on the Jews, (as before observed) 
 their free choice or free will was taken away. But, 
 even if the choice had been left them, could it be rea- 
 sonably expected, that after knowing the crreat miracle 
 perforirsed by Daniel, who came alive out of the lion's 
 den, and also in DanieVs time by Shedrack, Meshack and 
 Abednego, who came alive out of the fiery furnace, and 
 yet did not presume to call themselves Gods^ — could it, I 
 saj, be reasonably expected, that they should choose to 
 contradict that great prophet, and to receive Jesus as a 
 GocI^ who did not show them any such miracles, tliough 
 lie called himself o/ic .^ When they knew that ^rea/er 
 miracles had been performed by those who v/ere not 
 looked upon as Gods^ and did not profess to be Gods, 
 does it not appear unjust, that they should be punished 
 for not I'eceiving Jesus as God, when he did not con- 
 vince them of his divine power, by even showing them 
 miracles at least as great as they showed ? For if we ad- 
 mit the truth of all the miracles said to be performed 
 by Jesus, they are not so great as lliose performed in 
 
 Daniel's time. ^/ 
 
 Your third proof : 
 
 -' Haggai speaks of the second temple as being far inferior in 
 *' glory to the first, and yet afterwards says, that the glory of the 
 " latter house, shall be greater than that of the former. The rea- 
 " son which he assigns for this apparent contradiction, is that the 
 *' iiesire of all nations should come, and that the Lord of hosts would 
 " thus fill the second house with glory. Blalachi similarly foretels. 
 " that the Lord Avhom the Jews were seeking or expecting, even 
 *• the messenger of the covenant, should suddenly come to his tem- 
 
21 
 
 •■^ pie. It appears, therefore, that the person styted, ' The deairn 
 = ' of all nations, and the messenger of the covenant,' was to shew 
 *' himself in the second temple ; consequently, if he was to shew 
 " himself in the second temple, he was to come while it was stand- 
 -' ing ; therefore if it be no longer standing, he must already have 
 = ' come." 
 
 You have here extracted from the two prophets. 
 Haggai and Malaebl, such passages as you conceive 
 will answer your purpose ; but you do not give us the 
 substance of what precedes and follows, though so 
 closely connected with them, that without it the sense 
 is vague and uncertain. Either you have not read the 
 whole of the two chapters from which you extract 
 these passages, or you do not understand them, or vou 
 have wilfully perverted the meaning thereof You 
 force a contradiction, where in fact none exists, 
 for the purpose of showing your ingenuity in reconci- 
 ling it in a manner, best adapted to your purpose. I 
 shall, therefore, again be under the necessity of tran- 
 scribing the exact words. Haggai, chap. ii. after 
 speaking of the second temple (which Avas then buil- 
 ding, and in an unfinished state,) as being inferior to 
 ilie first, says, verse 4. " Yet now be strong, O Ze- 
 *• rubbabel, saith the Lord ; and be strong O Joshua, 
 '* son of Josedech, the high priest ; and be strong all 
 ''- ye people of the land, saith the Lord, cmd work : for 
 ^' I am with you, saith the Lord of hosts — 6. Yet once, 
 •• it is a little while, and 1 will shake the heavens, and 
 • the earth, and the sea, and the dry land — 7. And I 
 ^' will shake all nations, and the Desire of cdl 7iations 
 '* shall come : and 1 will fill the house with glory, saitlj 
 -' the Lord of hosts.— 8. The silver is mine and the gold 
 - is mine, saith the Lord of hosts. — 9. The glory of this 
 •' latter liouse shall be greater than the former, saith 
 
22 
 
 ^^ the Lord of hosts : and in this place will I give peace, 
 " saith the Lord of hosts." 
 
 If you understand the Hebrew language, I must ei- 
 ther conclude that you have not taken the trouble of 
 comparing the original with the translation here given, 
 or else that you are afraid of informing us, that there is 
 a most palpable inaccuracy; lest, the prophecy turning 
 out to have a very different meaning, to what you apply 
 to it, your arouments built thereon should fall to the 
 ground. Now, if you do understand the language, I 
 beg you will take the trouble to refer to the original 
 Hebrew, and you will there find the word 1^21 (uba- 
 Hu.) 'This word is not singular^ but plural ; not he or 
 it shall come, but ^/le?/ shall come. Nor does the word 
 " desire," clearly convey the real signification of the 
 word men (cHEMDATH,) which follows it. It is also of 
 the plural number, the nominitive case of the above 
 verb tibahu^ and means, the most valuable effects, or 
 those things most prized or coveted by all nations. 
 And does not the following verse most plainly show, 
 what is meant by tlie word " chemdath ;" viz. " The 
 silver is mine, and the gold is mine, saith the Lord of 
 hosts .^" It will be evident to any person understand- 
 in o^ the orio-inal Hebrew, if he will take the trouble of 
 reading it, that it does not at all relate to the promised 
 Messiah. Haggai speaks of the second temple which 
 is then building, and reproves the people for their want 
 of diligence m completing it. He says, in chap, i. v. 2, 
 *• this people say. The time is not come, the time that 
 " the Lord's house shall be built. Verse 3. Then 
 " came the word of the Lord by Haggai the prophet, 
 ^' saying, — 4. Is it time for you, O ye, to dwell in 
 -' vour ceiled houses, and this house lie waste .'^" He 
 
23 
 
 then tells them, that God has punished thejn for aul- 
 fering the temple to remain in its then unfinished state 
 Verse 14. " And the Lord stirred up the spirit o\ 
 ♦' Zerubbabel and Joshua, and the spirit of all the rem- 
 *' nant of tlie people ; and they came and did work in 
 *' the house of the Lord of hosts their God." This ap- 
 pears to have been on the twenty-fourth day of the 
 sixth month, of the second year of Darius. In the fol- 
 lowing chapter, on the twenty-first day of the following 
 month, he says, verse 3, " Who is left among you that 
 " saw this house in her first glory ? and how do yofl 
 " see it now ? Is it not in your eyes in comparison oi 
 *' it as nothing .^" And then in the next verse, he en- 
 courages them, and says, " And now be strong, O 
 ♦' Zerubbabel and Joshua, and be strong all ye people 
 ^'* of the land, and ivorJc^ for 1 am Wiih. you." And in 
 verse 7, he says, " I will shake all nations, and the 
 '^things most coveted by all nations (in the English version, 
 the Desire of all nations) " shall come." Verse 8, 
 " The silver is mine, and the gold is mine :" And then 
 he adds, verse 9," The glory of the latter house shall 
 *' be greater than that of the former," viz. ; after the 
 work shall be finished, and after the 7nost valuable or 
 precious effects of all nations, or the things most coveted, 
 or desired by them — silver and gold, &cc. shall have 
 come, then it will be greater. Here there is no contra- 
 diction at all. It cannot be denied, that this is the real 
 signilicalion of Haggai, and that the intended meaning 
 of the word chemdath is evidently explained in the fol- 
 lowing verse. If the Messiah was meant, why should 
 silver and gold be spoken of in the next verse ."^ 
 What connection could there possibly be between 
 the Messiah and silver and gold ? Jesus (whom 
 
24 
 
 jou believe to be spoken oi) displsed the jlci^.e? 
 of this world. But it is utterly impossible, that 
 the word which precedes it (iibahu) can relate to the 
 Messiah ; for, as before observed; it is in the plural num- 
 ber, and does not signify, that he shall come, but they 
 shall come. To give forced meanings to clear passages, 
 is the sure way never to understand one another. — - 
 Observe again. In the same chapter, immediately- 
 preceding the words, "the desire of all nations shall 
 come;" he says, " the Lord w'ill shake all nations ;" and 
 for w^hom, but /or the Jews ? as he is promising them, 
 that the most valuable effects of all nations shall come 
 there, and that he will fill the house with glory. 
 And further, he says, " In this place will I give peace ;" 
 and yet. you believe that Jesus came to shake the Jews^ 
 and to take the sceptre and lawgiver away from them. 
 And according to the words of Daniel, that " the city 
 and sanctuary should be destroyed, and that there 
 should be hostile invasion, w^ar and desolations." 
 
 Whether Jesus came to give peace^ let us judge from 
 his own words. He says, Mat. x. v. 34. " Think not 
 " that 1 am come to send peace on earth ; I came not to 
 " send peace ^ but a sword — 35. For I am come to set a 
 ^' man at variance against his father, and the daughter 
 '^ against her mother, and the daughter-in-law against 
 " her mother-in-law — 36. And a man's foes shall be they 
 '• of his own household." 
 
 You say, 
 
 " Malachi similarly foreteJs, that the Lord, whom the Jews 
 •' were seeking, or expect'ng, even the messenger of the covenantj 
 *' should suddenly come to his temple." 
 
 Malachi chap. iii. begins, " Behold, I will send my 
 " messenjrer. and he shall prepare the way before me ; 
 
** and the Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to 
 *^' his temple, even the messenger of the covenant, 
 " whom ye delight in?'' — We do not find that any mes- 
 senger came Vj prepare the way before Jesas ; nor did 
 he come suddenly ; at least, it does not appear that lie 
 came more suddenly than other children usually come. 
 It is not pretended, that the virgin Mary did not go 
 her usual time with him ; and we are told, that he was 
 regularly begotten, and born at Bethlehem, near Jeru- 
 salem ; and, that he did not begin his ministry, before 
 he was thirty years old. And, I think you will not pre- 
 tend to say, that his being rejected and persecuted by the 
 Jews, was any very strong sign of their delighting in 
 him. 
 
 Tell me, now, what Malachi meant by the word cove- 
 nant ? and what covenant we have had since the birth 
 of Jesus, by which we may be induced to believe, that 
 he was the messenger o£ it ? 
 
 Is it the law that is meant by the covenant ? 
 
 The Mosaic law cannot be meant, as that was made 
 many hundred years before Jesus was born ; and as to 
 that^ Moses himself, would, with greater propriety, be en- 
 titled to be styled, " The Messenger of the Covenant." 
 — Is it what you call the new law ? Then, why did Je- 
 sus say, he came to strengthen the old law ? And why 
 did Malachi in the same chapter say, " / am the Lord^ 
 I change not.'''' But, you make him to make a double 
 change — you make him to change the law, and then^ 
 change his own words ! — But, kt it be admitted, that 
 the covenant means \he new law — you observe hereaf- 
 ter, from Jeremiah, chap. 31. v. 33, That " this law 
 will be put in their inward parts, and written in their 
 JwartSj''^ and this; (as appears from the preceding verse. 
 
26 
 
 which states that the old law was broken) was to bfe 
 done for the purpose of preventing it being broken again. 
 
 But, it does not appear to me, that either the old or 
 the new law has yet been written very .deeply in the 
 hearts of either Jews or Gentiles ; for we see too much 
 business in our courts of justice, and too many poHtical 
 dissentions, which drench the earth with human blood, 
 to be readily inclined to think so. 
 
 I do not suppose you would have us to believe, that 
 Malachi meant the covenant of which Jesus was the 
 messenger^ in Matthew x. v. 35, before mentioned. 
 
 Jtgain^ — Verse 2. He is said to be *' like a refiner's 
 " fire, and like fuller's soap'^ — 3. And he shall sit as a 
 " refiner and purifier of silver, and he shall purify the 
 " sons of Levi ^ and purge them as gold and silver, that 
 " they may offer unto the Lord an offering in righteous- 
 ^^ ness — 4. Then shall the offering ofJudah^ and Jeru- 
 " salem^ be pleasant unto the Lord, as in the days ofold^ 
 " and as in /ormer years." 
 
 Now, you would have us to believe, that Daniel and 
 Malachi, both spake of the same Messiah, whom 
 you believe to be Jesus — and yet Daniel says " that 
 at his coming the sacrifice and oblation shall cease^'^^ and 
 J\Ialachij " that it shall be pleasant unto the Lord^ as in 
 the days of old P'' — How are we to reconcile this con* 
 Iradiction ? Nor were the sons of Levi purified by Je- 
 sus, for they did not believe in him. 
 
 Perhaps you may contend, that the prophecy of Ma- 
 lachi was only conditional ; and, that if the Jews had not 
 rejected Jesus, they would have been blessed in the 
 manner he describes ; but then, as you make Jacob and 
 Daniel to have prophesied before^ that the sceptre should 
 depart, and that the sacrifice and oblation should cease^ 
 
27 
 
 &c. ; and, as Malachi cannot be supposed to have been 
 ignorant o( the writings of Jacob, and more particularly 
 of those of Daniel, with whom he was co-temporary, and 
 particularly acquainted, how are we to account for, or 
 reconcile this flat contradiction of each other, if we are 
 satisfied with your erroneous construction of these 
 prophecies ? 
 
 1 have now gone through your proofs, that the Mes- 
 siah (whom you believe to be Jesus) is already come ^ 
 and, I think, have pretty clearly shown, how strangely 
 you pervert them, and how weak are your arguments 
 founded thereon, if, then, I have satisfactorily disprov-^ 
 ed the first part of your subject, there is no necessity to 
 lake notice of the second ; which is so intimately con- 
 nected with the first, that if that falls, the other must 
 fall with it. But as I have begun, I have no objections 
 to go through with it ; and to take the pains of showing 
 you the errors and contradictions in the second part of 
 your subject. 
 
 You tell us, that 
 
 " Any person need only compare the prophecies contained iu 
 " the 52d and 63d chapters of Isaiah, with the history of the suffer- 
 *' ings and death of Jesus, as recorded in the Gospels, to be con- • 
 " vinced how exactly they tally together," 
 
 Now let us see how exactly they tally together. 
 
 Chap. 52 commences, " Awake, awake ; put on thy 
 '^ strength, O Zion ; put on thy beautiful garments, O 
 '' Jerusalem, the holy city: for henceforth there shall 
 '* no more come into thee the uncirciimciscd and the itn" 
 ^^ clean.''^ — 2d. "Shake thyself from the dust; arise, 
 " and sit down, O Jerusalem, loose thyself from the 
 " bands of thy neck, O captive daughter of Zion." — 
 After professing your belief, that, after the coming of 
 
28 
 
 Jesus, the city and temple should be destroyed, can jou., 
 consistently, believe, that this can relate to him ? One 
 would think that there is some difference between " de^ 
 struction^^'' and '''•putting on sirmgth^'''' and ''''loosing from 
 the bands ;'' indeed, the whole chapter speaks of re- 
 demption and 7iot of destruction, — I also ask you, whe- 
 ther, since the coming of Jesus, there have not been m 
 Jerusalem any more " uncircumcised and unclean .^" 
 
 Ver. 7. " How beautiful upon the mountains are the 
 " feet of him that bringeth good tidings, that publisheth 
 " peace : that bringeth good tidings of good, that saith 
 " unto him, thy God reigneth." — 8. " Thy watchmen 
 '* shall lift up the voice, with the voice together shall 
 " they sing : for they shall see eye to eye, when the 
 " Lord shall brino: ao;ain Zion." — 9. " Break forth 
 '* into joy, sing together, ye waste places of Jerusalem .* 
 " for the Lord hath comforted his people ; he hath re- 
 " deemed Jerusalem." — 10. " Depart ye, depart ye, go 
 " ye out from thence, touch no unclean thing ; go ye 
 " out of the midst of her : be ye clean that bear the 
 " vessels of the Lord." — IL " For ye shall not go 
 " out with haste, nor go by flight, for the Lord will go 
 ^' before you; and the Lord of Israel shall be your 
 " reward." 
 
 Who is hardy enough to deny, that Isaiah speaks of 
 the redemption of Israel ? In verse 9 he says, he had 
 " redeemed Jerusalem ;'' and in verse 10 he says, " De- 
 part ye, depart ye, go out from thence ;" — from whence. 
 but from the land of bondage ? — You will not say, that 
 since the birth of Christ, the Jews or Jerusalem^ have 
 ever yet been redeemed — just the contrary. 
 
 Ver. 13. " Behold my servant shall deal prudently;. 
 ^* he shall be exalted and extolled, and be very high." 
 
29 
 
 Surely the term servant^ would be very inapplicable 
 to Jesus, whom you consider to be God himself : nor, 
 have we any instances of his having been " cxdled^'' or 
 '' extolled^'' or " very. highP 
 
 Ver. 14. " As many were astonished at thee, his 
 " visage was so marred^ more than any man, and his 
 "/orm more than the sons of men.'' — Chap. liii. ver. 2d. 
 " For he shall grow up before him as a tender plaPit, 
 " and as a root out of a dry ground : he hath no form 
 " nor comeliness^ and when we shall see him, there is no 
 '* beauty that we should desire him." 
 
 In the first place, let me ask, who is this " he .^" or 
 where is this he to come from } — not a word of the seed 
 o( David ov Judah, in this chapter. — Was the visage of 
 Jesus " so marred more than any any man, and his 
 form more than the sons of men .^" — But, we are told, 
 immediately after, that he had no visage : — for this is 
 the real meaning of the word ^»"io (marah,) which, in 
 the 2d ver. of the r>3d chap, is improperly rendered 
 ^' form,'^ Had Jesus 720 visage nor comeliness^ and, when 
 he was looked upon, was he so misshapen., that nothing 
 could be seen in him, which any one could desire ? — 
 If so, he must have been a very different person, to 
 what you make Haggal say he should be, viz. " the desire 
 of all nations,^'' — But, pray, is it comeIi?iess that man 
 should desire in man ? 
 
 Ver. 3d. " He is despised and rejected of men; a 
 man of sorrows and acquainted with grief; and we hid 
 as it Avere, our faces from him : he was despised, and 
 we esteemed him not." 
 
 I believe the Jews never did hide their faces from Je- 
 sus ; but we have many instances of Jesifs having done 
 £0, for fear of the Jeivs^ 
 
30 
 
 Jlgain.—ki the time when Jesus preached in the 
 temple, he must have been etseemed, or he would not 
 have been suffered to preach there ; nor, would he 
 have been suffered, with impunity, to have made such 
 a commotion amongst the buyers and sellers, the mo- 
 ney changers and the sellers of doves, as we are told 
 he did. — St. Luke tells us, chap, iv. ver. 15, that " he 
 taught in their synagogues, and was glorified of all 
 men." 
 
 Ver. 4th, " Surely he hath borne our griefs, and 
 " carried our sorrows; yet we did esteem him stricken^ 
 « smitteil of God and afflicted." 
 
 If I mistake not, you admit that the word here ren- 
 dered " stricken^'''' v^jj (nogua) means, plagued with 
 the leprosy (see Levit. chap. xiii. ver. 13.) — We are not 
 told that Jesus was a leper^ for he professed to heal it. 
 Indeed, if he had been one, the Jews would not have 
 permitted him to have " disputed daily in the temple," 
 or, indeed, to to have come any where near it ; either 
 for that purpose, or " to cast out them that sold and 
 " bought, to overthrow the tables of the money chan- 
 ^' gers, and the seats of them that sold doves," or for any 
 other purpose whatever. — On the contrary, he would 
 have been expelled the city, and no communication held 
 with him ; until he had been cured and purified, ac- 
 cording to the law. — (Levit. the same chap.) 
 
 Ver 5th. ^' But he was wounded for our trans- 
 " gressions ; he was bruised for our iniquities ; the 
 " chastisement of owr peace was upon him, and with his 
 '^ stripes loe are healed." 
 
 You will not deny that Isaiah was a Jew^ and that 
 he is addressing himself 0^?/^ to the Jews. — Then if Je- 
 sus be the person here alluded to, the Jews should 
 
31 
 
 liave been '' healed by his stripes ;'' whereas, you say 
 they committed a great sin bv bruising him, and were 
 severely pwiished, instead of being healed. 
 
 And further, if Jesus be the person spoken of by Isai- 
 ali, how can you 'account for their being pimishcd for 
 doing what he told them should be done^ and by the do- 
 ing of which, he promised them they should be healed? 
 
 And again — after saying, in ver. 7, " he is brought 
 " as a lamb to the slaughter^''^ he says, in the beginning 
 of ver. 10, "yet it jyleased the Lord to bruise him :" 
 from which, and from what immediately follows, in the 
 same verse, we 'naturally cenclude that the " bruising''^ 
 means the " slaughter ^^"^ or the '• sacrifice.^'' Then again 
 I ask, if Jesus be meant, why the Jews should he pu- 
 nished^ for doing that which the prophet had communi- 
 cated to them, they would please the Lord by doing ? 
 or, which it pleased the Lord shouldhe done ? 
 
 I cannot help remarking here (though foreign to our 
 subject) that if it be true, as some people say it is, that 
 when Isaiah says, he was bruised for our iniquities, and 
 *' with his stripes we are healed," he means the Gen- 
 tiles ; and if it be true, as some people also say it is, 
 that Jesus is the person he alludes to, I cannot help re- 
 marking, I say, that the Gentiles are under great obli- 
 gations to the Jews, for having bruised him, and ought 
 to treat them with a little more courtesy than is usual : 
 for if the Jews had not bruised Xixm-^ihe Gentiles would 
 not have been healed. 
 
 Ver. 8th. " He was taken from prison, and from 
 "judgment ; and who shall declare his generation^ for 
 •' he was cut off out of the land of the living^ By tlie 
 words, " who shall declare his generation ?" we must 
 understand ivho shall know ivhohe was, or from whence 
 
32 
 
 he came. Bat if Jesus be meant, and he be Shiloh^ and 
 unto him be the gathering of all the nations ; of course, 
 all the nations will declare his generation. 
 
 It would seem from the Avords '• he was cut off out 
 of the land of the limng^'''' that the person alluded to 
 would be cut off from a place of livings to a place where 
 there is 7io living : for, it is not said, put to death, or 
 cut off from the earth, but " out of the land of the liv- 
 ing.'''' — And as you believe Jesus to have ascended into 
 heaven^ (which is more properly the place of the livings 
 than this earth, which is mortal) and, to live there for 
 ever, y6u cannot suppose he is the person spoken of by 
 Isa?ah. "'; • 
 
 Ver. 9th. " And he made his grave with the wicked 
 " and with the rich in his c/ea//i." 
 
 The Hebrew word ^'^^J^^ (bemothov), here rendered 
 '• in his f/ea/V' is in the plural number, " in his deaths^^ 
 and we are not told that Jesus died more than once. 
 
 Ver. 10th. " Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise him ; 
 " he hath put him to grief : when thou shalt make his 
 " soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed^ he shall 
 " prolong his days, and the pleasure of the Lord shall 
 " prosper in his handP 
 
 Not a word about the resurrection is mentioned ! — 
 nor can I imagine, how an immortal soul can hesucrifi- 
 cedhy others ! — and pray who is that thvu^, and who is 
 that his ? 
 
 The word dn (aim), is here improperly rendered 
 " Avhen," the real import is " if;" so that this is only 
 a conditional promise — " if thou shalt make his soul an 
 " offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong 
 " his days, and the pleasure of the Lord shall prospe^r 
 ^'- in his hand : or, in other words, " If thou shall not 
 
33 
 
 *^ make his soul an offering for sin, he shall not see hi9 
 '• seed^ his days shall not be prolonged, nor shall the 
 ** pleasure of the Lord prosper in his hand. '' — Then, if 
 Jesus be the person spoken of — Jesus, whom you be- 
 lieve to be coequal with God — is this a language to be 
 made use of to him ? or, is there any condition with 
 God? 
 
 Jigain.-^^'- He shall see his seed^ The word child or 
 children may be indiscriminately applied to all, or any 
 of our fellow creatures ; and so we often find it, parti- 
 cularly in the scriptures : but the word seed cannot. It 
 is only applied to our own issue or descendants. Now, 
 we are not told, that Jesus was ever married ; or, 
 that he had any children^ whether he was so or not. If 
 he had any, perhaps the doctrine of the Trinity might 
 have been a little affected by it. 
 
 dgain. — " He shall prolong his days.'''' — To say no- 
 thing of the absurdity of these words being applied to a 
 God^ (which you believe Jesus to be,) we do not find 
 that the days of Jesus were prolonged ; but, on the con- 
 trary, that they were shortened : for, reckoning the or^ 
 difiary life of man, at three-score and ten years, Jesus 
 was cut off before he had lived half his days. Observe 
 also, that the word prolong,, cannot be applied, in a 
 spiritual sense, nor to what you have given him — " life., 
 everlasting :'''' for the word has a /mzVcc/ signification, and 
 merely imports, to make longer, or, to lengthen in du' 
 ration, 
 
 Ver. 11th. " He shall see of the travail of his souL, 
 and shall be satisfied ; by his knowledge, shall my 
 righteous servant justify many ; for he shall bear their 
 iniquities." Here we have again the term servant; 
 which, as before observed, is vcrv inapplicable to God^ 
 
 K • 
 
34 
 
 Ver. 12 til. " Therefore will 1 divide him a portion 
 with the greaf^ and he shall divide the spoil with the 
 strong^^'' &;c. — What, or where was i\ie portion of Jesus 
 with the greats and where, and when, did he divide the 
 spoil with the strong ? You can give no instance of 62- 
 ther whilst he was on earth ; and, if you should say It 
 would take place when he returned to heaven^ you make 
 it still stronger against yourself ; at least, so far as it af- 
 fects the attributes and godhead o( Jesus, as 1 proceed to 
 show. 
 
 In the first J)lace, the Hebrew word o'^na (burabim) 
 is improperly translated " with the great^'^ the real 
 meaning is '' with a mafiy.'^'' Taking the word, howe- 
 ver, in either sense, it is in the plural number. Then, I 
 ask you, who are the many or the great, and who are the 
 strong, with whom he is to have his portion divided, 
 and with whom he is to divide the spoil? and what 
 portion or what spoil is to be divided ? — Admitting the 
 doctrine of the Holy Trinity, we see that God himself is 
 speaking, and as you profess to believe, of Jesus, his 
 only Son ; so that the Holy Ghost only remains. — The 
 Holy Ghost could not be spoken of in the plural num- 
 ber, either as, with the many, with the great, or, with the 
 strong. But the word great or strong, being only in the 
 first degree of comparison, cannot be applied to God, who 
 is superlative. Then it must be applied to some inferi- 
 or to God : in which case, the power of Jesus would not 
 be only inferior to that of God, but also divided with oth- 
 ers, also inferior to him. — And, further, God says, ^^ I will 
 divide to him ;" which shows superiority in God ; and 
 also, that he is not consubstantial with Jesus, the person 
 you believe to be spoken of. — Besides, throughout, 
 could it be more evident, that the person spoken of, is a 
 
35 
 
 being inferior to the person speaking ? Tiic word ser- 
 vant^ is twice made use of, and promises of reward held 
 out, as from a master to a servant. 
 
 Now, after having carefully compared the two cliap- 
 ters of Isaiah, to which you refer me, if " tallying to- 
 gether ^^'^ mean flatly contradict, then I will agree witlv 
 you, that they do " exactly tally together with the histo- 
 ry of the sufferings and death of Jesus.'' I beg you 
 will excuse me, however, for observing, that in your 
 explanation of Isaiah, or of any of die other prophets> 
 you have called to your aid, you do not show, that you 
 are gifted with any uncommon share of penetration. 
 
 To coMvince you, more forcibly, how " exactly''"' Isai- 
 ah does not suit your purpose, I will make a few more 
 extracts from him, which will " exactly tally'''* v/ith a very 
 different construction^ to what you give of him, and other 
 prophets. 
 
 Isaiah^ chap 2, ver. 1. — " The word that Isaiah, the 
 " son of Amoz, saw concerning Judah and Jerusalem.''^ 
 — Ver. 2. " And it shall come to pass in the last days, 
 *' that the mountain of the Lord's house shall be esta- 
 " blished in the top of the mountains, and shall be ex- 
 ^' alted above the hills ; and all nations shall flow imtoit,^^ 
 — Ver. 3. " And many people shall go and say, come 
 " ye, let us go to the mountain of the Lord, of the house 
 " of the God of Jacob, and he will teach us of his ways, 
 " and we will walk in his paths, for out of Zion shall 
 ''^ go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Je- 
 
 " rusalemy Ver. 4. " ^/^nd he shall jffdge aniojig the 
 
 " nations, and shall rebuke many people : and they 
 " shall beat their swords into ploughshares, and their 
 " spears into pruning-hooks : nation shall not lift up 
 •' sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any 
 
36 
 
 '• more^ Ver. 5. " House of Jacob, come ye, and 
 ^' let us walk in the light of the Lord." 
 
 Here you see what we have to expect at the coming 
 of 0U7' Redeemer ; for, as we have not yet seen such 
 happ^ times, of course, we must expect them yet to 
 come. 
 
 Has there been no war since the birth of Jesus, or no 
 more use for arms ? Have not joloughshares and priming' 
 hooks rather been turned into sivords and spears, than 
 the reverse ? 
 
 The above, is a complete contradiction to what you 
 imagine Isaiah to have meant in chap. 53d ; and, to the 
 construction you put upon the prophecies of Jacob, 
 Daniel, and others. 
 
 We are here told, that out of Z ion shall go forth the 
 law ; and, that " all nations shall flow unto Judah,^'' and, 
 that he shall judge among the nations. — Is this any thing 
 ]ike the sceptre and the lawgiver departing from Judah, 
 at the coming of Shiloh, as you would persuade us was 
 xneant by Jacob ? 
 
 Chap ii. ver. 1 st. " And there shall come forth a rod 
 out of the stem of Jesse, and a branch shall grow out 
 of his roots." — Ver. 2d. " And the spirit of the Lord 
 shall rest upon him, the spirit of wisdom and under- 
 standing, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of 
 knowledge and of the fear of the Lord." — Ver. 3. 
 '' And shall make him of quick understanding in the 
 fear of the Lord ; and he shall not judge after the sight 
 of his eyes, neither reprove after the hearing of his 
 ears." — Ver. 4. " But with righteousness shall he judge 
 the poor, and reprove with equity for the meek of the 
 earth : and he shall smite the earth with the rod of his 
 mouth, and with the breath of his lips shall he slay tl^e 
 
37 
 
 wicked." — Ver. 5th. " And righteousness shall be the 
 girdle of his loins, and faithfulness the girdle of his 
 reins.'-— Ver. 6th. " The wolf shall dwell with the 
 lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid ; and 
 the calf, and the young lion, and the fatling together ; 
 and a little child shall lead them." — Ver. 7. " And ihe 
 cow and the bear shall feed ; their young ones shall 
 lie down together : and the lion shall eat straw like the 
 ox." — Ver. 8. " And the suckling child shall play at 
 the hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall put his 
 hand on the cockatrice's den." — Ver. 9. " They shall 
 not hurt nor detstroy in all my holy mountain : for the 
 earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord, as the 
 w^aters cover the sea." — Ver. 10th. " And in that day, 
 there shall be a root of Jesse^ which shall stand as an 
 ensign of the people ; to it shall the Gentiles seek : and 
 his rest shall be o:lorious." — Ver. II. " And it shall 
 come to pass in that day, that the Lord shall set his 
 hand again the second time, to recover the remnant of 
 his people." — Ver 1 2th. " And he shall set up an en- 
 sign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts 
 of Israel^ and gather together the dispersed of Judah^ 
 from the four corners of the earth." — Ver. 15th. " And 
 the Lord shall utterly destroy the tongue of the Egyp- 
 tian sea ; and with his mighty wind shall he shake his 
 hand over the river, and shall smite it in the seven 
 streams, and make men ffo over drvshod." — Ver. 16th. 
 " And there shall be a highway for the remnant of his 
 people, which shall be left from Assyria ; like as it was 
 to Israel in the day that he came up out of die land of 
 Egypt."— Chap. 30. ver. 26. " Moreover the light of 
 the moon shall be as the light of the sun, and the light 
 bf the sun shall be sevenfold, as the light of seven days> 
 
3a 
 
 in the day that the Lord bindeth up the breach of his 
 people, and healdh the stroke oi their wound." 
 
 These are the signs and the ivonders we are to expect 
 to see at the coming of Shiloh, Have we ever yet seen any 
 thing like them, either before, or since, the birth of Jesus? 
 You will not dispute, that Shiloh is spoken of by Isai- 
 ah, in the 11th chap. *' a root of Je^^e," who was the 
 father of David, who was from the seed of Judah.^-^ 
 Then we have a very different description of him here<, 
 to what we had in the 53d chap. : so that, if Isaiah 
 speaks of Shiloh, in that chapter, he must either have 
 forgotten, ,^w\rdt he had before written in this, or else he 
 must speak of another Shiloh ; which, I think, will not 
 be contended.— But, should it be so, it is hard that the 
 Jews should be punished for being satisfied with the one 
 first promised them, with whom they were to be bless- 
 ed above all the nations of the earth, and whose coming 
 they could not possibly mistake ; and for rejecting the 
 other, for whom they had no occasion ; and who, you 
 say, was to be " despised of men, and stricken and smit^ 
 smitten of God, and afflicted," and moreover, " without 
 form or comeliness," and whose " visage was so mar- 
 red more than any man's," and who, instead o( gather- 
 ing them together from the four corners of the earth, 
 was to disperse them, and to take away the sceptre and 
 lawgiver, and destroy their city and temple. 
 
 The Shiloh promised here, a 7'oot of Jesse, is from 
 the seed of Judah : and is it not said, that to him shall 
 the Gentiles (or nations) seek ? that " he shall judge 
 with righteousness, and smite the earth with the rod of 
 his mouth, and slay the wicked with the breath of his 
 lips .^" — Of course, then, Judah will have the sceptre 
 and laivoriver, or this could not be the case. But you 
 
39 
 
 tell us that Jacob and Daniel^ said Judah should not 
 have them at the coming of Shiloh, 
 
 We are also told here, " that Shiloh shall assemble 
 the outcasts of Israel^ and gather together the dispersed 
 of Judah from the four corners of the earth:" but you 
 tell us, that Jacob and Daniei say, " that they shall be 
 dispersed^ and that their city and temple shall be c/c- 
 stroyed^ at his coming." — We are also even told, that 
 man will beat peace with the wild beasts and reptiles, 
 and that they shall not hurt, nor destroy, in all the ho- 
 ly mountain." Then we must conclude, that men would 
 be worse than wild beasts and reptiles ; for you make 
 Daniel foretel, " that there should not be peace with 
 them, but war and desolation." 
 
 Perhaps you will contend that Isaiah, in the 2d, 
 11th, and 30th chapters, which I have here given, 
 speaks of the second coming of Jesus Now Jesus 
 says himself, that in those days, we shall " see the son 
 of man coming in the clouds, with great power and glo- 
 ry." If Isaiah was speaking of the second coming of 
 Jesus, he v/ould hardly have omitted mentioning, in 
 what a wonderful manner he would descend from hea- 
 ven. — But, so far is he from telling us that he would 
 descend at all from heaven, that lie rather says that he 
 will grow up from the earth : for, what else must he 
 mean, when he says, in chap. 11. " there shall come 
 forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a branch out of 
 his roots ?" To be sure Isaiah speaks figuratively ; but 
 I think if he had meant us to understand, that Jesus 
 would come in the clouds from heaven, he would have 
 found a figure better suited to his purpose : he would 
 rather have used a heavenly figure, than an earthly one. 
 
 But pray tell rae, how we are to reconcile Jpaiah'^' 
 
40 
 
 speaking of the second Messmh^ or, of the second coming 
 of the first Messiah, before he tells us anj thing about 
 the first ? You will have us to believe that Jesus is 
 spoken of, in verj plain t<^rms, in the 52d and 5'^^. 
 chapters. One would reasonably suppose, that if he 
 had wished to inform us of two different comings of 
 Jesus, he would hdiwe first spoken of the firsts and after- 
 wards of the second; and not in chaps. 2, 1 1, and 30, tell 
 us of his second comings and then, so far afterwards cis 
 chap. 5jJ, begin to speak of the first coming. It is 
 quite unreasonable and inconsistent. 
 
 He must suppose himself to be a very wise man, or 
 rather a prophet, that is presumptuous enough to re- 
 gulate all the prophets ; and to say, that this prophet, ia 
 this place, speaks o{ the first coming of S/iiloh ; and in 
 this other place, and this other prophet, of the second 
 coming: when thei/ themselves, in no part^ make use of 
 such an expression, as either fi7*st or second coming. 
 
 Admitting, however, that such passages, as do not ex- 
 actly agree with your doctrine of the^^r^/ coming of Je- 
 sus, relate to the second coming, you perceive, at any 
 rate, that the Jews are then to be exalted above all na- 
 tions, and are to have the sceptre and lawgiver."— Th\^ is 
 the very Redeemer we expect and seek. You say that 
 Jesus, according to Malachi, was the Lord whom we 
 seek ; and you call him our expected Messiah : though, 
 at the same time, you tell us, he was to bring us nothing 
 but troubles, war, captivity, destruction, and desolation ! 
 
 1 can hardly be brought to believe, that the Jews 
 would be over anxious in their expectations, or very 
 eager in their search of sucli blessings : nor, can 1 possi- 
 bly conceive, what reason there was for a Redeemer^ 
 to bring us them. We might just as well have had 
 
41 
 
 those troubles without one. And, indeed, I should 
 think, thej would rather lose, than seek such a Redeemer. 
 
 ^-ind, lastly — If these same passages relate to the 
 comino* of our expected Redeemer, what becomes of your 
 predictions from Jacob and Daniel ? 
 
 You will not pretend to argue, that the blessings 
 promised to the Jews, in these passages, were only 
 conditional, and, that they were only to have them, if 
 they would not reject Jesus : for you tell us yourself, 
 that Isaiah, in chap. 53, positively foretels that they 
 shall reject him ; and, consequently, it must have been 
 known to him. 
 
 I will now show you, what Ezekiel says on the sub- 
 ject. Chap 39, verse 22. " So the --House of Israel 
 shall know that I am the Lord their God from that day 
 and forward."— Ver. 23d. " And the heathen shall 
 know that the House of Israel went into captivity for 
 their iniquity : because they trespassed against me, there^ 
 fore hid I my face from them, and gave them into tlie 
 hands of their enemies." — Ver. 25. " Now will I bring 
 again the captivity of Jacob, and have mercy upon the 
 ivhole House of Israel:'— Vev. 28. " Then shall they 
 know that I am the Lord their God, which caused them 
 to be led into captivity among the heathen ; but I have 
 gathered them unto their own land, and have left none 
 of them any more there." — Ver. 29. " Neither will I 
 hide my face a72y more from them." 
 
 Here, you see, it is promised, that we shall be gather- 
 ed di^dAii to our oivn land ; and, consequently, if to our 
 own land, we shall have our own sceptre and lawgiver, — 
 And, we are further promised, that God will not 
 " hide his face any more from us." You see now, how 
 you make the prophets contradict one another. I d^U 
 
42 
 
 you to reconcile wliat I have here shown you, irom 
 Isoinh and Ezekiel, with the construction you put upon 
 Jacob and DanieU and the 5 2d and 53d chaps, of Isaiah : 
 and, you must either admit, that the prophets contradict 
 each other, or else, that your construction is false and er- 
 roneous. — 1 could also refer you to other passages, from 
 the same, and other prophets, equally strong ; but, I 
 think, these will be sufficient for you 
 You endeavour to prove, that, 
 
 " It cannot be, as the Jews suppose, that the coming of the Mes^ 
 siah is delayed on account of their sins." — You saj, that " the Jew- 
 ish commentator:* in the Talmud and Medrash, agree, that Isaiah, 
 in chaps. lii. and liii. speaks of the Messiah : and contend, that he 
 is there said, "fo have been wounded for our transgressions, to hav§ 
 been bruised for our iniquities, and to have been stricken for the trans- 
 gressions, of IsaiaKs people.''' — And, further, ^' that as the Lord laid 
 on him the iniquities of w.s all, and made his soul an offering for sin, 
 and that as he himself is said to justify many'' — you contend, I say, 
 that *' if such were to be the object of the iViessiah's advent — if he 
 were to come because iniquity abouniled, it is a palpable contradic- 
 tion, to sHy that the abounding of that very iniquity should delay 
 his coming." 
 
 I am glad to see, that you now acknowledge what 1 
 have before observed, that the Jews are meant by 
 Isaiah's people ; and, consequently, that, for the Jews 
 only., the Messiah (of whom, you say, Isaiah speaks, and 
 who you insist to be Jesus,) will be sacrificed ; and that, 
 by his stripes, they should be healed^ and their sins for- 
 given. — And yet, you believe, that they were punished 
 for sacrificinor him ; which is most unaccountable and 
 most inconsistent. 
 
 Jind., again. — According to your construction of 
 Isaiah, the Jews were to expect to be healedy and to be 
 forgiven their sins, only by the bruising, and wounding, 
 and sacrificing of the Messiah there mentioned : and, 
 
43 
 
 consequently, that, if Jesus (who you insist was the 
 Messiah) had not been bruised^ wounded^ and sacrificed^ 
 they could tiot be healed^ or he forgiven their sins. — And 
 yet, you most inconsistently believe, that they are pun- 
 ished for having sacrificed him. — Pray^ then, can you in- 
 form us, in what manner they were to be healed^ or to 
 ohidJm for givenef^s of their sins, by that Messiah at his 
 coming.^ For, if they had not sacrificed him, they 
 would not have been healed diud. forgiven their sins, but 
 would have been punished for them. — And, as they have 
 sacrificed him, if, by it, they are healed of their former 
 sins, you believe they committed a new sin by so domg, 
 and are punished for it ! — Then, what would you have 
 advised them to do, to avoid punishment^ and to obtain 
 forgiveness of their sins, which, you say, is promised by 
 Ipaiah at the coming of Jesus ? 
 
 jlgain. — You see by Ezekiel, chap. xxix. ver. 23d 
 which has been before spoken of, that the sins of the 
 Jews were the cause of their captivity : and we cannot 
 reasonably suppose, that they should be redeemed from 
 that captivity, till the cause of it should be removed. 
 
 Although you do not seem to understand the real 
 meanino- of what you cite from the Talmud and Me- 
 DRASH, yet, it seems, you do believe in them, else you 
 would not have quoted them to prove that the person 
 spoken of by Isaiah, in his 52d and 53d chaps, is the 
 promised Messiah.- -Then, as you do believe in them, 
 1 refer you to the Talmud, [Senhedrin p^'h p^q) where 
 you will find, that Joshua, the son of Levi, did ask the 
 Messiah, when he would come; and that he was an- 
 swered, " to-day ;" which is explained to signify any 
 day, even to-day, if the Jews be prepared for it by pe- 
 nitence, and will hearken to the voice of God. — There- 
 
44 
 
 fore, it is evident, from the Talmud, that the coming 
 of the Messiah is delayed by the sins of the Jews. 
 
 I refer you, also, to the Medrash, (na^« Lamentations) 
 and there you wiil find a long history of the Messiah : 
 how, and when, and where, he was born, and that he 
 remained on earth about fourteen days o??7^, and how 
 he was taken to heaven alive in a whirlwind ; which 
 will quite astonish you, and do away with all your ar- 
 guments at once. 
 
 In the next place you observe, 
 
 ** The Jews sometimes object to the Messiahship ofJeauPj 
 on the ground that the law of Moses was to be of perpe- 
 tual duration, inasmuch as it proceeded from God : w hereas Jesus 
 fias abrogated it, and has set his disciples free from all obedience 
 to it, so far as the ceremonial part of it is concerned. — This, they 
 think, cannot be done without impiety." You argue, that, " had 
 the ritual observance been of perpetual obligation, they would 
 have been so framed that all nations might be subject to them.'' 
 Tou then proceed to state, that " the Mosaical law commands all 
 its votaries to repair to Jerusalem three times in the year; conse- 
 quently, if this law was of perpetual obligation, then all nations, 
 in the times of the Messiah, must repair three times in the year to 
 Jerusalem. — But this would be plainly impossible. — Therefore, 
 the ordinance in question cannot be of perpetual obligation ; be- 
 cause, God would not command impossibilities,''^ 
 
 In answer to this, I refer you to Zechariah, chap. xiv. 
 beginning at ver. 16 — " And it shall come to pass, that 
 every one that is left of all the nations which came against 
 Jerusalem, shall even go up, from year to year, to wor- 
 ship the king, the lord of hosts, and to keep the feast 
 of tabernacles." — 17. "Audit shall be, that whoso 
 will not come up of all the families of the earth unto Jeru- 
 salem^ to worship the king, the lord of hosts, even upon 
 them shall be no rain." — 18. " And if the family of 
 Egypt go not up, and come not, that have no rain, 
 
45 
 
 there shall be the plague, wherewith the Lord shall 
 smite the heathen, that come not up to keep the feast 
 of the tabernacle.'' — 19. " This shall be the punish- 
 ment of Egypt, and the punlslnnent of all nations that 
 come not up to keep the feast of tabernacles." 
 
 Here you see, what you ha,ve foretold, is a contradic-^ 
 tion to the prophecy o[ Zechariah ; and that which you 
 call an iinpossibility, is not o\i\y possible to God, but ab- 
 solutely commanded by him. hi these days, which we 
 have never yet seen, but excpect to see, all the families of 
 the earth must go up to Jerusalem, to keep the feast of 
 tabernacles. 
 
 Again. — You say, that " Jesus has abrogated the law 
 of Moses, and has set his disciples free from the ob- 
 servance of it, so far as the ceremonial part of it is con- 
 cerned." — Now, you make Jesus contradict himself; 
 for, he says, that he did not come to destroy the law of 
 Moses, but to strengthen it. — And, we find, that he con- 
 formed most strictly to the Mosaic law, and observed 
 all the ceremonies enjoined by it, with only a few ex- 
 ceptions, (for ivhich, it appears, he was condemned) and 
 that he strictly kept the sabbath, and only excused his 
 disciples for plucking the ears of corn on that day, 
 on account of hunger ; and that he also observed the 
 holy days, the feast of tabernacles and passover ; 
 and that he ate unleavened bread, and abstained from 
 forbidden meats. — Nor do we any wtiere find, that he 
 gave authority for others to do otherwise. —■i am, there- 
 fore, very desirous of knowing, upon what authority yo\i 
 act otherwise. We are not told, that Jasus had ever a 
 vision of unclean beasts ; though, one would imagine, 
 that it would rather ha^e come to him, than to Peter, 
 It seems that Peter did not like to be prevented s^iiAsiy-' 
 
46 
 
 mg his appetite, for what was deemed unclean by the 
 Mosaic law ; and, therefore, had recourse to the fa- 
 mous vision It must be observed, though, that he took 
 care not to see this vision during the Hfe of Jesus, lest 
 he should be reproved by him : for he knew that Jesus 
 would not permit his followers to break the law of the 
 whole nation^ which, he had himself said, " he came to 
 strengthen,'^' for the sake of an individuaVs dream : espe- 
 cially, when he had cause to suspect, that the vision 
 knew that Peter was fond of unclean beasts, before it ap- 
 peared to him : — for one would suppose, that Peter had 
 shown a partiality for forbidden meats, even in the life- 
 time of Jesus ; for, in Mark, chap. viii. ver. 33, Jesus is 
 made to say to him, " get thee behind me, Satan, for 
 thou favourest not the things of God, but the things 
 that be of men." — It would seem, that in this particular- 
 people of similar tastes to Peter, are more inclined to 
 believe in Peter than in Jesus : w^hich appears some- 
 what surprising, when they recollect, that Peter was 
 not the strictest observer of truth. 
 
 Again. — You will observe, by this same law, which 
 Jesus came to strengthen, he was liable to suffer death. 
 — Deuter. chap. xiii. ver. 1. " If there arise among you 
 a prophet or a dreamer of dreams, and giveth thee a 
 sign or a wonder ; — 2. And the sign or the wonder 
 come to pass, whereof he spake unto thee, saying, let 
 us go after other gods, which thou hast not known, and 
 let us serve them,— 3, Thou shalt not hearken to the 
 words of that prophet or dreamer of dreams : — 4. And 
 that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams, shall be put to 
 death." But, as you tell us, that at the coming o{ Shi- 
 loh (whom you believe to be Jesus) the sceptre and law- 
 giver departed from Judah, Jesus could not have been 
 
47 
 
 condemned to death, by the laws of the Jeivs^ if they had 
 no laws at that time : and, therefore, we must conclude, 
 that the Roman law accorded with the Mosaic, and that 
 ke was condemned to death by the Roman law. 
 
 According to Mark, chap. xiii. ver. 21, Jesus says, 
 ** Ifany man shall say to you, lo, here is Christ, or lo, 
 he is there, beheve him not. — 22. For false Christs and 
 false prophets shall rise, and shall shew signs and won- 
 ders to seduce, if it were possible, even the elect." 
 
 Here you see, Jesus himself admits, that even false 
 prophets may perform wonders^ that would, if it were 
 possible, deceive even the elect. Then what greater 
 reasons could the Jews have, to believe him to be the 
 promised Messiah, rather than those who could perform 
 similar wonders to himself.^ Therefore, if the Roman 
 law agreed witJi the Mosaic law, as before observed, 
 Jesus was liable to suffer death, from his own words, 
 viz. not to believe a man who even performs great mi- 
 racles ; and as Jesus knew the law, he prophecied that 
 he should be condemned to death. 
 
 St. Mark, chap. xiii. ver. 3]st. makes him to say, 
 that " the son of man must suffer many things, and be 
 rejected of the elders, and chief priests and scribes, and 
 be killed." — Then if Jesus was a God, it was by his 
 own command tiiat he was put to death ; and the free 
 choice and free will of all people, was absolutely taken 
 away. And yet the Jews you say, are punished, when 
 it was not by their law that he was condemned ; or, 
 even if it were, when it was by his own command. 
 
 You further observe, that 
 
 " 11k(1 the Mosuic i-tw b en of eternal obligation, a new and 
 better covenant wou •{ cfrtain'y not have b« en promised. But 
 this was most positively asst^rted by Jeremiah, chap. xxxi. verses 
 
48 
 
 31, 32, 33,— Behold the dn.ys shal! come, snith the Lord, that I 
 will make a new covenant with the Hou^e of Israel, ana with the 
 House of Judah : not according to the covenant vhat I made with 
 their lathers, in the d&y that I took them by the hand, to bring 
 them out ol' the Ic^.nd of Egypt ; a h'ch :r>y covenant ihey broke, 
 although I was an husband unto ihcn:, s-ith the Lord.^Dut this 
 shall be the covenant that I will make with the House of Israel, 
 after those d;iys, saith the Lord — i will put my laws in their in- 
 ward parts, and write it in their hearts, and will be their God, and 
 they shall be my people." 
 
 From this jou argue, 
 
 " That a new covenant is both promised and described : that 
 it was not to be a covenant of rites and ceremonies, but a cove- 
 nant purely spiritual/' 
 
 1 am somewhat surprised, that you should have no- 
 ticed the chapter of Jeremiah, from which the above 
 is extracted ; for, from beginning to end, it is quite 
 against your arguments, and is the very chapter I 
 should have brought forward in support of my own. 
 In that chap. ver. 7. Jeremiah says, " Sing with glad- 
 ness for Jacob, and shout among the chief of the na- 
 tions : publish ye, praise ye, and say, O Lord, save thy 
 people, the remnant of Israel. — 8. Behold 1 will bring 
 them from the north country, and gather them from 
 the coasts of the earth, and with them the blind and 
 the lame, the woman with child, and her that travaileth 
 with child together: a great company shall return 
 thither. — 9. They shall ccme with weeping, and with 
 supplications will I lead them : I will cause them to 
 walk by the rivers of waters in a straight way, wherein 
 they shall not stumble : for I am a father to Israel, and 
 Ephfaim is my fiist-born. — 10. He that scattereth 
 Israel, will gather him, and keep him, as a shepherd 
 doth his flock. — il. For the Lord hath redeemed Ja- 
 cob, and ransomed him from the hand of him that was 
 
49 
 
 stronger than he. — 12. Therefore they shall come and 
 sing in the height of Zion ; and they shall not sorrow 
 any more at all — 38. Behold the days come, saith the 
 Lord, that the city shall be built to the Lord, &;c.— 
 40. It shall not be plucked up nor thrown down any 
 more for ever,'''' 
 
 Have these promises, which we are to expect at the 
 coming of our Redeemer, been yet fulfilled at the com- 
 ing of Jesus, or since his birth ? according to what you 
 say other prophets predicted, we have seen very differ- 
 ent times to these here foretold by Jeremiah. — Now^ 
 as Jeremiah does not speak of the new covenant till after 
 his prediction of the redemption of the Jews, after they 
 are promised " to be gathered together from the 
 coasts of the earth, and not to sorrow any more at all," 
 ' — we must naturally infer, that they are not to have 
 this new covenant till after their redemption : and then, 
 as Jeremiah says, when speaking of this new covenant, 
 '' I will be their God, and they shall be my people." — » 
 You will bear in mind, that the Jews are always spok- 
 en of, in these prophecies ; for, it appears, that you for- 
 get this sometimes, and seem to think that the promis- 
 es are made to believers in Jesus. — You look upon the 
 J\'ew Testament to be the new covenant : but, it does 
 not appear, that that was given to the Jews^ or that it 
 is ivrittcnin their hearts : had it been so, it would have 
 been out of their power to reject it.-— But, on the con- 
 trary, not being able to discover, that what w^s pro- 
 mised to them before they were to have this new cove- 
 nant, has been fulfilled; and, consequently, not consi- 
 dering it to be the new covenant alluded to^ they have 
 rejected it altogether. 
 
 You have said before, that, if the Mosaic law was of 
 G 
 
30 
 
 perpetual obligation, all nations would be subject to h* 
 You consequently admit,^ that the law of Moses was 
 given to all nations (and not to the Jews only), until 
 there should be a new law. You cannot but admit, that 
 the new covenant above mentioned (which you con- 
 sider to be the new law) is promised only to the Jews ; 
 for the express words of Jeremiah are, " Behold the 
 days come, that I will make a new covenant with the 
 House of Israel and with the Home of Judah^ — And 
 further, that it was not promised, even to them until 
 their redemption — until they should he gathered together^ 
 and sorrow no more. You find, also, that Jesus said, 
 that he did not come to destroy the law of Moses .^ but to 
 fulfil it. — Then, if the law of Moses was given to all 
 nations, until there should be a new law ; and if the 
 7iew covenant spoken of by Jeremiah (which you con- 
 sider to be the 7ieiv law,) was promised only to the Jews^ 
 and not to them even, until a certain time, which has 
 not yet arrived, or until the consummation of certain 
 events, which have not yet happened : — and, if Jesus 
 himself (whom you believe to be a God) came io fulfil 
 the Mosaic law: — I ask, upon what authority you 
 break the Mosaic law ? and upon what authority you 
 believe, that this new law was given only to the Gentiles, 
 when Jeremiah said, it was given only to the Jews ? 
 
 Jlgain. — According to your construction of Jeremi- 
 ah, a new covenant is promised to the Gentiles, at the 
 coming of Jesus. Though I have so clearly proved 
 the contrary, yet, for the sake of argument, let it now 
 be admitted. — But you are not satisfied, with thus far 
 outstripping the bounds of common reason, but you 
 will make us believe, that a new covenant is a new late. 
 If your construction were right, Jeremiah would con- 
 
51 
 
 tradict Malaclii ; for he says, chap iii. ver. C, " I am 
 the Lord; I change not :" and in chap. iv. ver. 4, (af- 
 ter speaking of times which have not yet come to pass) 
 he further says, " Remember ye the law of Moses^ my 
 servant, which I commanded unto him in Horeb, for 
 all Israel, with the statutes and judgments." — If, in the 
 times Malachi speaks of, God commands the Jews to 
 remember the law of Moses^ either Malachi or Jeremi- 
 ah must be a false prophet ; for you make Jeremiah 
 say, that in those times there shall be a new law. 
 
 You are either ignorant, or wish to make others so, 
 that Jeremiah only speaks of a new covenant about an 
 old law. The passage speaks for itself, and tells iis 
 what this covenant is, viz. ver. 33, " This shall be the 
 covenant that 1 will make with the House of Israel after 
 those days^ saith the Lord, I will put my law in their in- 
 ward parts, and will write it in their hearts. The cove- 
 nant, or as it is called before, the new covenant^ is not to 
 be written in their hearts ; but God will make a new 
 covenant to write the old law in their hearts. 
 
 Now we come to the point. — What laiv, I ask you? 
 is any thing said of a new law ? Not a word ! Then 
 what law can be meant .^^ Must we not conclude, that 
 Jeremiah means the law which himself and the other 
 prophets have so often mentioned ? — the old law — the 
 Mosaic law— the law which was observed in their own 
 times ? But there is no need of surmises. — I will show 
 you, beyond contradiction, that the old law of Mo- 
 ses, and no other law, is here meant. — The pas- 
 sage from Jeremiah (v. 33) given before is erronc- 
 omly translated^ and the meaning thereof flagrant- 
 ly perverted. If you have not forgot your Hebrew, you 
 need only refer to this passage in your Hebrew bible, 
 
to be convinced of the truth of what 1 say. — Lest, how- 
 ever, this should be the case, I will take the trouble of 
 pointing out to you the error I allude to. The verb 
 ''J^nj (notati^^ there used, is in the past tense, and signi- 
 fies " I did give,''^ The real translation is thus, " Mfter 
 those days^ the law which I did give them before, 1 will 
 WRITE IN their HEARTS." In the place of the words 
 in the original, " the law which I gave them before^'^'^ the 
 English translation has " / will put my law in their in- 
 ward parts ;" and there is no such expression there. 
 The word oanpj (bekirbom^ does not signify " in their in- 
 ward parts^^'' but " amongst theni.^'^ — The passage can- 
 not possibly be turned or twisted any way, to signify 
 more or less than this, " After those days," (viz. after 
 the days there predicted, and which we have not yet 
 seen,) " the law which I did give them btfore^'^ (viz. in 
 times now past) " I will write in their hearts." — So 
 that it appears, that in former times, the law which was 
 given to them, was not written in their hearts, and they 
 were liable to break it ; but then^ God promises to make 
 a new covenant with them, and to write the same law in 
 their hearts, and make it durable and lasting. 
 
 You next 
 
 *' Call the attention of the Jews to (what you call) a very re- 
 markable, and, so far as they are concerned, a very awful prophe- 
 cy of Hosea. 
 
 " Chap. iii. ver. 4th and 5th — " The children of Israel shall a- 
 bide many days without a prince, and without a sacrifice, and with- 
 out an image, and without an ephod, and without teraphim : af- 
 terwards shull the children of Israel return and seek the Lord 
 their God, and David their king, and shall fear the Lord and his 
 goodness in the latter days." 
 
 From this you argue, that 
 
 " If the Jews are at length to return and seek Jehovah their 
 God, it necessarily follows, that during their whole continuance 
 
53 
 
 in the state described by Hosea, they are living without Jchovnh j 
 otherwise, if they had been living in communion with him, they 
 could not be said to return and seek him ; for, we can on!y return 
 to what we have left — we can only seek what we have lost, l^ut» 
 they are not only to retura and seek Jehovah their God, but like- 
 wise Davivl their king. Tiiis being the case, if 1 hey are to return 
 and seek the Messiah whom they have lelt, they must seek some 
 Messiah whom they have lost. The Messiah, therefore, here 
 spoken of by Rosea, cannot be a Messiah who shall then, for the 
 first time, manifest himself; but must be a Messiah wiio had lon-^ 
 since come ; whom the Jews had originally denied and rejected, 
 and to whom they are at length to return : for, as before observed, 
 they cannot return to a person whom they never rejected. Dou- 
 bly awful, therefore, is the condition of the Jews ; according to 
 the prophecy of Hosea, they are living, w^ithout Jehovah flieir 
 God, and they have denied the mystical David their king." 
 
 You observe, that we can only return to what we 
 have left^ and seek what we have lost ; and therefore 
 contend, from the above prophecy, that the Jews have 
 lost their God^ and are living ivithout him, and tliat they 
 will seek him hereafter. — I wonder you should suffer 
 sech a shameful expression to appear in print ; and 
 more, that you should take such great pains, to deco- 
 rate so weak and feeble an argument. — It is something 
 like a man building a large house for himself, of rotten 
 wood, and painting it on the outside, to deceive peo- 
 ple's eyes in regard to the strength and stability of it ; 
 and behold a little wind arises, and throws it down in a 
 moment.— If " rc/z/77i" be only applied to what has been 
 left, and '• seck^^ to what has been lost, the passage that 
 " the children of Israel will return and seek the Lord 
 their God, and David their king," can only mean, that 
 after having sought him before, and left it off, they will 
 return and seek him again. So that it appears, that vou 
 suppose God has been twice lost, and required tivice to 
 be sought. — But, Indeed, if we are to apply these words 
 
54 
 
 of Hosea, about seeking and findings to Jesus, we are 
 told, that the Jews did seek him, and by candlelight too, 
 and also that ihey found him. — (Though I cannot help 
 remarking here, how unaccountable it appears to me, 
 that, when J esus was so well known to the people in 
 Jerusalem, " amongst whom he daily preached and 
 disputed in their temple," and to whom, the great mi- 
 racles he performed, must have rendered him particu- 
 larly notorious, — I say, it appears rather unaccountable 
 to me, that the Jews should have been under the ne- 
 cessity of bribing one of his own apostles, not only to 
 inform them where he was, but also to identify him.) — 
 But, if the w^ords seeking diud finding can be applied to 
 Jesus, they surely cannot be applied to God : for, do 
 you suppose, that God is lost, or in some corner, and that 
 it is necessary to seek him by candle light ? Pray how, or 
 ivhere, or tvhen, are we to seek for him ? or, to whoui are 
 we to apply for information where he is to be found ? 
 Is not God omnipresent and eternal ? Is he not always 
 every where ? and is it possible to live, even a moment 
 without his support and assistance ? — If we can only he 
 said to seek what we have lost, from what is said in 
 Zechariah xii. ver. 9, " I will seek to destroy all the na- 
 tions that came against Jerusalem," we must suppose, 
 that God had also lost something, and was obliged to 
 seek for it. 
 
 You have before shewn us from Malachi, chap, iil 
 that " the Lord v^hom ye seek, even the messenger of 
 the covenant, shall suddenly come," &;c. — and you say, 
 that Malachi speaks of Jesus at his first coming. — 
 Then, according to your learned definition of the word 
 seek, which, you observe, can only be applied to what 
 is lost, either Jesus must have come ^c/br^ what you call 
 
95 
 
 his first comings or else the Jews were then seeking what 
 they had not lost: — both of which appear incompre- 
 hensible. 
 
 We must also suppose, from what Isaiah says, chap, 
 xi. ver. 9, " to him (the Messiah) shall the Gentiles 
 seek,'' — that they also, as well as the Jews, have lost 
 him. 
 
 But God himself has even promised, that he will 
 never be lost to W5, but that he will always be with us, 
 even when we are in captivity, and that he will keep 
 his covenant with us. — See Levit. xxvi. ver. 44. " And 
 yet for all that, when they be in the land of their ene- 
 mies, I will not cast them away."— 45, " But I will for 
 their sakes remember the covenant of their ancestors, 
 whom I brought forth out of the land of Egypt, in the 
 sight of the heathen, that I might be their God." 
 
 The Hebrew word which signifies seeking for what 
 is lost, is a'ls^n {chipush,) but the word in the passao-e 
 you extract from Hosea, is ^"'p:5i (ubikshu,) which sig- 
 nifies to beseech or entreat, to desire or request. — There 
 can be no other way o^ seeking God, but by penitence 
 and prayers. 
 
 Therefore, the signification of Ilosea's prophecy, 
 can be neither more nor less, than that the children of 
 Israel, after having abided many days without a kina-^ 
 and without a sacrifice, &c. will return from their sins, 
 and return to iheiv former state, which they had lost, to 
 have a king and sacrifice, and they will entreat tlie Lord 
 with prayers, and the son of David their king :"— (not 
 yours, hut theirs — and theirs, is only king, not God.) 
 
 I wonder how you explain the concluding' words of 
 the last verse : viz. " and shall fear the Lord and his 
 goodness^" — For my part, I cannot comprelicnd the 
 
^6 
 
 meaning ot fearing the Lord's goodness : and in the ori- 
 ginal Hebrew you will find the word *?« (<;/,) which 
 signifies " to ;" so that we have it, " to the Lord and to 
 his goodness^^'' which renders it still more obscure — " to 
 fear to the Lord, and to his goodness /" 
 
 Now we come to the last argument in your first 
 pamphlet. 
 
 Zechariah xii. ver. 10. "I will pour upon the House of David^ 
 and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of 
 supplications, and they shall look u[)on him whom they have pierc- 
 ed, and (hey shall mourn for him as one mourneth for his only 
 son, and shall be in bitterness for hira as one that is in bitterness 
 for his first born." 
 
 The person here spoken of, you believe to be Jesus. 
 
 You have taken a surprising liberty, in the above tran- 
 script from Zechariah: for, though the word '^^ (alai,^ 
 which any child knows to be, " to me," is rendered in 
 the English version of the Old Testament, " upon mc," 
 you do not think the translation erroneous enough to 
 suit your purpose, and, therefore, alter it to " upon htmy 
 — I think " me" ought to have been consulted, before 
 " me" was changed for '^ /i/m." For my part, I would 
 not wish to change me for him : — but, it appears, you 
 are fond of changing. In your pamphlet, in Hebrew 
 you show a similar propensity : for, in an extract from 
 Haggai, as before noticed, the word i-^^^ {iibau^^ which 
 is in the p/wrc// number, you have changed to n^^"> {waiabo^^ 
 which is singimr, 
 
 <" However, we will take the word as It is in the Eng-* 
 lish translation. 
 
 There are here two persons spoken of-—" they shall 
 look upon me^ and they shall mourn for him^ — Now^ 
 who is this " m^," and who is this " him .^" — Is Jesus 
 t(j be there, at the time spoken of, or is he not to be 
 
4t 
 
 ther6, and v)ho is the person that speaks ? If Jesus be 
 not there, he cannot be the Messiah (much less God 
 himself;) nor can he be looked upon ^s the person pier- 
 ced, if he be not there, to be looked upon. — If he 
 be there, then who is the person that speaks ? If it be 
 Jesus himself, and he says "they will look upon 
 me whom they have pierced ;" then he also should 
 have added, (if they were to mourn upon the Messiah, 
 whom you believe to be Jesus,) " and they will mourn 
 upon mc," — not upon him.—'li another speaks^ and 
 if Jesu^ be " /i/m," on whom they are to mourn, why 
 should they look upon another^ whom they did not 
 pierce ? And why, or for what, are they to look upon 
 the other^ and why not upon Jesus himself? 
 
 1 have put questions, which you cannot possibly an* 
 swer, so as to correspond with your construction of the 
 passage taken from the English version of Zechariah. 
 
 As you bring forward Zechariah in proof of what 
 you advance, you cannot object that I should also make 
 use of him in answer to you. — If you will refer to Zech- 
 ariah, you will find, that, both before and after the pas- 
 sage yOu extract from him, he speaks of the redemption 
 of the Jews : — that wonderful events, which we 
 have not ^et seen (but which we expect to see^ at the 
 coming of our Messiah,) are there predicted by him ; 
 and that we shall then have the sceptre and lawgiver^ 
 and that Judah will be exalted : — contrary to your pre- 
 dictions from Jacob and Daniel, — In the same chapter ia 
 Zechariah^ from which you have made the above extract, 
 V. 4. you will find the follov/ing : — " In tliat day, .Saith 
 the Lord, will I smite every horse with astonishment, 
 and his rider with madness. I will open mine eyes 
 upon the House of Judah, and will smite everv horse 
 
 H 
 
o7 
 
 of the people with bUndness.— 6. In that day, will I 
 make the governors of Judah, like an hearth of fire 
 among the wood, and like a torch of fire in a sheaf ; 
 and they shall devour all the people round about, on 
 the right iiand and on the left : and Jerusalem shall be 
 inhabited again, in her own place, even in Jerusalem. — 
 9. In that day, shall the Lord defend the inhabitants of 
 Jerusalem :— 9. And it shall come to pass, in that day, 
 that I will seek to destroy all nations that come against 
 Jerusalem."— Chap. viii. ver. 23. " In those days it shall 
 come to pass, that ten men shall take hold, out of all 
 languages of the nations, even shall take hold of the 
 skirt of him that is a Jew, saying, v/e will go with you, 
 for we have heard that God is with you."— Chap. xiv. 
 ver. 4. " And his feet shall stand on that day upon the 
 mount of ohves, which is before Jerusalem on the east ; 
 and the mount of olives shall cleave in the midst there- 
 of, towards the east and towards the west, and there 
 shall be a very great valley ; and half of the mountain 
 shall remove towards the north, and half of it towards 
 the south, — 7. But it shall be one day which shall be 
 known to the Lord, not day, nor night : but it shall 
 come to pass, that at evening time it shall be light. — 
 9. And the Lord shall be king over all the earth : in 
 that day shall there be one Lord, and his name otw ;" — 
 (which shows that in former days, whoever believed 
 on more than one, was wrong.) — Ver. 10. " All the land 
 shall be turned as a plain from Geba to Rimmon south 
 of Jerusalem : and shall be lifted up and inhabited in 
 her place, from Benjamin's gate and from the tower of 
 Ilannaniel, unto the king's wine presses. H. And men 
 sball dwell in it, and there shall be no more utter de- 
 struction ; but Jerusalem shall be safely inhabited.-- 
 
59 
 
 12. And this shall be the plague wherewith the Lord 
 will smite all the people that have fought against Jeru- 
 salem ; their flesh shall consume away while they stand 
 upon their feet, and their eyes shall consume away in 
 their holes, and their tongue shall consume away in 
 their mouth. — 13. And it shall come to pass in that day 
 that a great tumult from^he Lord shall be among them, 
 and they shall lay hold every one on the hand of his 
 neighbour, and his hand shall rise against the hand of 
 his neighbour. — 21. Every pot in Jerusalem and in 
 Judah shall be of holiness unto the Lord of hosts; and 
 all they that sacrifice shall come and take of them, and 
 seethe therein : and in that day there shall be no more 
 the Canaanite in the house of the Lord of Hosts." 
 
 Can you now suppose, that Zechariah should so Mi- 
 ]y contradict Jacob, and much more Daniel, with whom 
 he was cotemporary ? — But, should you say, that Ze- 
 chariah speaks of a second Messiah, it must appear 
 somewhat singular, that Daniel should choose to pro- 
 phesy of the coming of the first Messiah, and Zecha- 
 riah of the second. 
 
 Jesus, you contend, to be the first Messiah predicted 
 by Daniel ; and as you bring forward the passage from 
 Zechariah, before observed upon, where it is said, 
 *• they will look upon him whom they have pierced," 
 — you must also contend, that Zechariah speaks of the 
 same Messiah, and that Jesus is to make his appear- 
 ance a second time : then, of course, Zechariah must, at 
 the same time, have foretold, that the Jews would pierce 
 him, and, consequently reject him : else he could not 
 aay, they would pierce him — Now, as Zechariah kntio 
 that the Jews would reject Jesus, at his first coming, 
 how could he be sure that they would not reject him 
 
00 
 
 again, at his second coming : for it appears he was stir^ 
 of it ; else he would not have predicted such blessings 
 for them : as, according to your belief, such blessings 
 would not be bestowed, if thej should reject him.— - 
 Therefore, w^e must suppose, that Zechariah, knowing, 
 and foretelling, that such miraculous events would come 
 to pass, at his coming, that the Jews could not possibly 
 doubt of his divine mission, knew also, that thej w^ould 
 7iot reject him. — It is strange then, and unaccountable, 
 why Jesus, described by you as a good and merciful 
 God^ should not, at his first coming, have had recourse 
 to the same method of convincing the Jews, that he was 
 the promised Messiah ; and, consequently, causing them 
 not to reject him, and sparing them the punishment^ which 
 you say they have brought upon themselves, by so 
 doins:. 
 
 Perhaps, you may say, that they were led to them- 
 selves, and th^t God was only trying them^ if they 
 would or would not reject him. But, we no where 
 find, that God has ever tried, that he vmj punish; but? 
 on the contrary, always, that he may reward. — Yet ad- 
 mitting it, surely it is somewhat strange and inconsist- 
 ent, that the Jews, after having shown themselves too 
 weak for such a trial, and after they had not only r^- 
 jectcd him, but also most crueWy pierced h'lm, and there- 
 by (as you contend) brought upon themselves such 
 great punishment, I say, it is strange, that, at his second 
 coming, thct/ should be so exalted ^.boYe all other nations .* 
 which nations, so far from piercing or rejecting him, had 
 received him, and believed in him ; and, that those very 
 naiians should afterwards be debased, disgraced m\^ hum- 
 bled before the Jeu^s, in such a manner as described in 
 chap. viii. ver. 23 : and that Jesus (a God) should 
 
change his mind, and, at his second cominiy, exalt \ho 
 Jeivs. ^iboYe the very nations^ for which^ at his first com- 
 ing, he shewed such affection^ and for which he even 
 sacrificed himself- — Here is a reward for evil^ and a pu- 
 nishment (or good ! 
 
 1 ask, also, if the Jews, when once tried, had failed, 
 why should they not be tried again^ at his second com- 
 ing ? 
 
 Should you profess to believe, that the Jews could 
 not be redeemed^ unless Jesus had been previously sacri- 
 ficed by them ; then why should they he punished for so 
 doing, when, in the first place, it was so pre-ordained. 
 and in the next, they could not have been redeemed, 
 either before or after ? — And lastly, whether the Mes- 
 siah here spoken of by Zechariah, be Jesus or not, or, 
 whether the first or second coming of a Messiah be 
 meant, we see, that, at his coming, the Jev;s are to have 
 the sceptre and lawgiver^ and are to be exalted above all 
 nations, and are still to retain the sacrifice. Then what 
 becomes of your prediction from Jacob and DanieU that 
 the sceptre and laivgiver will depart, at the coming of 
 Shiloh ; and that the sacrifice shall cease, and that there 
 shall be v)ar and desolation ? 
 
 I have now gone through all your arguments contain- 
 ed in the first pamphlet; and, if you be at all open to 
 conviction, you cannot but be convinced, that thcv arc, 
 altogether, weak and without foundation ; and, that 
 your constructions of the prophecies you bring forward, 
 are completely erroneous, and render them contradic- 
 tory, and incompatible with all reason and Kptn'mojl 
 sense. ^, ^ 
 
 Your next pamphlet, which you call Deborah Vlsracly^ 
 m High German, contains only one argument. 
 
^2 
 
 You observe, 
 
 *• That according to (he Old Testameut, (he Jews can only ob- 
 tain forgiveness of their sins, by the shedding of (he blood of (he 
 sacrifice : and your ask, how can (he Jews now expect to obtain 
 for<^iveness of their sins, v. hen they have been without temple or 
 sacriftce for more than 1 700 years ?" 
 
 This pamphlet in High German, will be of little use 
 to your new cause, as the low in Germany will not be 
 able to understand it ; and the high have higher sense, 
 than to be led away by what is there contained, as they 
 know better what was the use or purport of the sacri- 
 fice, and that their sins may be forgiven without it. — 
 Did not our prophet Samuel say, chap. xv. ver. 22. 
 '• Hath the Lord as great delight in burnt offerings and 
 sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the Lord. — Be- 
 hold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken, 
 than the fat of rams." 
 
 Here you see, that obeying the voice of th€ Lord, is 
 more pleasing to him than burnt offerings and sacri- 
 fice. — Was not the loiUingness of our forefather Abra- 
 h,am, to sacrifice his only son Isaac, more agreeable to 
 God than all the sacrifices in the world ; and did he not 
 obtain from God, for such his ready obedience to his 
 will, promises to himself and his descendants, to the 
 latest generation, of greater rewards than ever n^an 
 obtained before or after him } — Gen. chap. xxii. ver. 15. 
 " By myself have I sworn, saith the Lord, for because 
 thou hast done this thing, and hast not withheld thy 
 son, thine only son ; — 17. That in blessing I will bless 
 thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the 
 stars of the heaven, and as tljfi sand u|)on the sea shore, 
 and thy seed shall possess tiie gate of his enemies ; — 
 18. And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth 
 be blessed : because thou hast obeyed my voice." 
 
63 
 
 I cannot help remarking here, that, if we had been 
 told that Isaac, when he was bound by his father 
 Abraham, and upon the very point of being sacrificed 
 by him, had called out "- My God, my God, why hast 
 thou forsaken me !" we should not have been much sur- 
 prised ; for Isaac was not a God, and he was truly in a 
 perilous situation. — But, far from doing this, or utterino- 
 the least complaint, and far from looking upon himself 
 ^s forsaken by God, he considered himself to be glori- 
 fied by him, in consenting to receive him for a sacrifice. 
 — ^And, it was for this very reason, that it was so accept- 
 able to God : for, as Samuel observes, he does not want 
 sacrifice, but the will and the heart. — The ivill, in this 
 case, was considered by God, equal to the deed : which 
 clearly shows, X\\dLi forgiveness may be obtained, without 
 sacrifice of beasts. 
 
 Now, after this promise made by God to Abraham 
 and his descendants, in consequence of his willingness 
 to sacrifice Isaac his son, have not the Jeivs greater rea- 
 son to expect forgiveness of their sins, through that, 
 than the Gentiles have, through ihe sacrifice oi Jesus ? 
 for, you will not find any where in the scriptures, that 
 God makes to them any promise like the above. — And 
 here, also, if the will be equal to the deed, there was a 
 greater sacrifice than that of J esus : for we have first, 
 the will of Abraham to sacrifice his only son, and then 
 the will of Isaac to be sacrificed. 
 
 And again, if the sacrifice of Isaac, would liave been 
 more beneficial to the descendants of Abraham, whv 
 did not God permit it ? — And as he did not permit it, 
 but was equally satisfied with the pure will, it prove- 
 what Samuel says, that " to obey is better than sacrifice.'^' 
 — Then, we naturally ask, why did he syfer Jesus, his 
 
64 
 
 f^wn only son^ to be ^acrificed^ when he spared Isaac, the 
 only son of Abraham ? Was it because he was not so 
 convinced of the impHcit obedience to his command, as 
 he was with regard to Isaac ? 
 
 The ancient sacrifice was never supposed to be ac- 
 ceptable to God, unless accompanied with a true con- 
 fession of sins, and sincere penitence.— It was acknow- 
 ledged by the person making the sacrifice, that his fife 
 w^as justly forfeited by his sins ; and, he believed that 
 God, in his great goodness, would accept the blood of 
 a beast, instead of his own. — Under this conviction, see- 
 ing with his own eyes the blood of an innocent creature 
 shed for him, he is more deeply afflicted with sorrow 
 — his repentance then is more sincere, and his resolu- 
 tion of amendment more strong and determined— at the 
 same time, he feels the greatest degree of gratitude 
 towards God, in accepting the sacrifice of a beast in- 
 stead of himself : and, under the influence of such feel- 
 ings, w^ould not only be ready and willing^ at the same 
 time, to sacrifice himself, should God require it, but 
 would also, like Isaac, consider himself to be glorified 
 by it. Without these sensations, all the sacrifices in 
 the world avail nothing. 
 
 The sacrifice has only been resorted to by our fore- 
 fathers, as a means of producing the feeling of mind, 
 which may induce them to expect to obtain forgiveness 
 of their sins. — And now, at this time, without doubt, 
 tiiough we have no sacrifice^ it is in the power of eve- 
 ry person, truly penitent, (if he can bring himself to the 
 slate of mind before described) to obtain forgiveness ol 
 his sins. This, to be sure, may be done, though not so 
 easily as with the sacrifice to assist and promote it. 
 
 But, it seems, you think, that the Almighty is not 
 
66 
 
 mighty enough to forgive sins without sacrifice ; then, 
 pray, how do you expect to be forgiven ; since, as you 
 say, the sacrifice and oblation have long ceased ? — You 
 will reply, by the sacrifice of Jesus, — Be it so. — You 
 contend, then, that the sacrifice of Jesus was a general 
 sacrifice for all sins, committed both before and since it 
 took place. — Saying nothing of the absurdity of sup- 
 posing, that an all powerful God could not j ardon sin, 
 without the assistance of his son, — without sending him 
 into the world to be sacrificed, we must, is. the first 
 place, conclude, that all those hundreds of millions of 
 beings, both good and bad^ who were unacquainted with 
 the sacrifice^ and who were born before the sacrifice of 
 Jesus, remained (at the least) in a condemned state, from 
 the time of their respective births, until the sacrificing 
 of Jesus : and if so, it is incompatible with God's ap- 
 parent goodness and mercy, that Jesus was not sacri- 
 ficed nearly 40U0 years before he really was ; and ra- 
 ther extraordinary that God should, as it were, have ^e- 
 thought himself, after such a lapse of time, that such a sa- 
 crifice was necessary : — for, in case he had been sacri- 
 ficed at the creation of the world, those hundreds of 
 miUions of poor creatures, would not have continued so 
 long in a state of condemnation : and besides, the lives 
 of millions of poor innocent lambs and other beasts, 
 which have been since sacrificed, might have been 
 spared. 
 
 If, by the sacrifice of Jesus, all sin was pardoned, not 
 only that which had been before committed, but also 
 what might be committed afterwards, man may live at 
 ease, — may indulge in all his evil propensities, and com- 
 mit what sins his nature may incline him to, if he can 
 but evade the laws of society ; for he need have no 
 
 I 
 
66 
 
 dread of punishment heve^iheT, all his sins being jpctre/on- 
 ed hy anticipation. 
 
 And further, if all sin was pardoned by the sacrific* 
 of Jesus, of course the sin committed by the Jews in sa- 
 criticinsj him (if they did commit sin by it) must also be 
 pardoned. — But, from what Jesus himself said, they 
 were innocent^ for they knew not what they did. — Did 
 he not say, Luke xxiii. ver. 34, " Father forgive them, 
 for they know not what they do." Now, if Jesus de- 
 sired that they chould be forgiven — if Jesus was 
 the Messiah^ and if the Messiah be God — then, the 
 Jews, whether guilty or not, were certainly forgiven : 
 for, in God, the desire and the consummation thereof are 
 one and the same. 
 
 Jesus said, that the Jews were ignorant of what they 
 did ; and if he were God^ he certainly knew whether 
 they were or not. — And, indeed, if he were the true 
 Messiah, and it was pre-ordained ihdX they should sacri- 
 fice him, it was absolutely necessary that they should be 
 kept in a state of ignoraiice of it ; or else they would 
 not have rejected him, and, consequently, not have sacri- 
 ficed him : — in which case, the world would have been 
 deprived of the inestimable benefits, which, you say, 
 result from that sacrifice. — Then would it he just, that 
 the Jews should be punished for being ignorant, when it 
 was necesary that they should be so, and were really 
 made so by God himself.'* 
 
 Upon the whole, supposing that Jesus was the true 
 Messiah — if the sacrifice of him was so beneficial to the 
 world, and if Jesus came /or ^Ae ^w^o^c of being sacri- 
 ficed, of course, it must have been ordained by God, 
 that the Jews should reject him ; else they would not 
 have sacrificed him.— Then, if they were obliged to re- 
 
67 
 
 jcct him, God himself must have kept them in a state 
 of ignorance^ that he was the true Messiah, else they 
 would not have rejected him. — Perhaps, it was on this 
 account, that he was sent in such a suspicious manner : 
 for one would suppose, that, if God would have had us 
 to know, that he was really the promised Messiah, he 
 would have sent him in such a manner, as would, at 
 once, remove all doubts concerning him : — he might 
 have sent him in the same supernatural manner, in 
 which we are told, he will make his appearance at his 
 second coming, viz. " in the clouds, with great power 
 and gloryy — But, as in this case, according to your be- 
 lief, the Gentiles would not have received the great bene- 
 fits, which are said to have resulted from his sacrifice, it 
 seems that he was ^Jtirposely sent in such a doubtful man- 
 ner, that the Jews might be kept in a state of ignorance 
 of his being the true Messiah, and should reject and sa- 
 crifice him. — JNow, if they were so kept in a state of ig* 
 norance, they were innocent : and, if on that account, 
 Jesus himself declsired them innocent, and pardoned them, 
 I cannot possibly comprehend, why, in consequence of 
 their having sacrificed Jesus, they should be punished 
 in that severe manner, which you make Jacob and 
 Daniel predict they would. 
 
 1 must not pass over a remark made by you, m this 
 same pamphlet in High German, that it would be ad- 
 visable, that the Jews should have the scriptures trans- 
 lated into the language of the different nations they in- 
 habit. — It is very right it should be so, for the reasons 
 you mention, provided the translation be correct and im- 
 partial. — But long before your birth, and before this 
 your sage advice was given, in almost every country, 
 there was a translation of the scriptures, in the lan- 
 guage of that country. 
 
68 
 
 In answering the different arguments contained in 
 your pamphlets, though 1 have carefully studied brevity 
 and conciseness, yet the subject has, already, far ex- 
 ceeded the limits I at first supposed it would extend 
 to ; but, notwithstanding this, 1 must not pass over, in 
 silence, a passage contained in your last letter, relating 
 to the doctrine of the Holy Trinity ; lest, you should 
 be thereby induced to conclude, that 1 coincide with 
 you In opinion thereon. 
 
 You say, that 
 
 *' A very slight acquaintance with the Christian religion, would 
 soon convince me, that the Christian, as well as the Jew, believes 
 in no more than one Jehovah.. — But, that a slight acquaintance, 
 also, with the Old Testament, and the Medrashim, would easily 
 convince me, that our Fathers and Rabbis believed the same as the 
 Christians do, thaiiiyi the one Jehovah^ there is a plurality, viz. Fa- 
 ther, Son, and Holy Ghost." 
 
 It is only by reasoning coolly and dispassionately, 
 that we can possibly expect to discover the truth or ab- 
 surdity of such an abstruse doctrine. 
 
 As a first step towards this, let us endeavour to 
 prove, that there is a Jehovah, a Supreme Being; and 
 what such Supreme Being muat be : and then we 
 will proceed to argue thereon. 
 
 By the three following proofs, it is clearly demon- 
 strated, that there must be a Supreme Being, who is 
 the causer of all causes, and the creator of all the dif- 
 ferent spaces and creations, simple or compound :— 
 that he himself does not occupy any space, but governs 
 all space ; and, consequently, that he is of no sub- 
 stance : — that, there was no being whatsoever before 
 him, to cause his being ; but, that he is the beginner of 
 all beginnings, and is himself without beginning and 
 without end, both in point of time and space ; and. 
 
69 
 
 consequently, that no word applying to time or mea- 
 surement, can be applicable to him: — and, lastly, that 
 he is immutable, indivisible, and eternal. 
 
 1^/ Proof. — All things or beings in the universe, whe- 
 ther simple or compound, must occupy difl'erent spaces 
 therein ; and, neither those difierenl beings could have 
 existed^ or been caused to exist, nor could the limits or 
 boundaries of those dilferent spaces have been defined 
 or regulated^ if there had not been a Being existing be- 
 fore them, to cause them to exist., and their limits and 
 boundaries to be defined and regulated. — for, they could 
 not create themselves., nor cause themselves to be created^ or 
 their limits and boundaries to be defined and regulated. — , 
 Should it be said, that that were possible, it must, at the 
 same time, be admitted, that such a being or such a 
 space must either cause or create or define itself, 6e/brc 
 it was itself \n existence, or after it was in existence. — 
 If it were to cause or create or define itself, before it 
 was itself in existence, it was then nothing ; and, out of 
 nothings something cannot come. — Were it to cause or 
 create or define itself, after it was itself in existence, 
 the being or space was already created or defined, m 
 its own existence ; and there could be no occasion to 
 create or define itself o^am. 
 
 Much less is it possible, for any compound thing or 
 being, composed of different particles, to compose or cre- 
 ate itself, without the assistance of a pre-existing Being, 
 to collect, adjust and compose those different particles, 
 and form them into one. 
 
 Then, as all things, or beings, or spaces, in the uni- 
 verse, could not have created themselves, nor caused 
 themselves to be created, or their hmits and boundaries 
 to be defind or regulated, we must come to this 
 
10 
 
 \st Conclusion. — ThcU there must be a Supreme Beings 
 who is the beginner of all beginnings, the creator of all 
 creations, and the causer of all causes — before whom, there 
 laas no other being whatsoever, to cause his being. 
 
 And, further, — as every space must have had a 
 
 pre-existing being, to define and regulate the boundaries 
 
 and liniits thereof, which pre-existing being must be the 
 
 Supreme Being, we come to this 
 
 2d Conclusion — That the Supreme Being is of no 
 . up ace. 
 
 And, further, — as he is of no space, and, as every 
 substance must occupy space, we must come to this 
 
 3c/ Conclusion — That the Supreme Being is of no sub- 
 stance. 
 
 And, further, — as, if such Supreme Being should 
 have been composed of other beings, it Avould have re- 
 quired a pre-existing being to compose those different 
 beings into one, in which case, it would not be the first 
 and Supreme Being, we must come to this 
 
 4:th Conclusion — That the Supreme Being i^ not com- 
 posed of different particles. 
 
 Now, as it is before proved, that all beings, simple or 
 compound, and all spaces, must have had a being ex- 
 isting in time before them, to create them, or cause 
 them to be created or defined ; it consequently follows 
 that such beings, or spaces, must have had a beginning, 
 both in time and in space ; because, that pre-existing 
 being must have caused or created or defined them 
 sometime. 
 
 From which it is evident, that the beginning of time 
 and the beginning of space are inseparably connected to- 
 gether : and, that whatever has had a beginning in one, 
 must also have had a beginning in the other ; as there 
 
71 
 
 must have been a pre-existing being, to cause the be- 
 ginning in space^ sometime. — And, it is also evident, that 
 what has not had a beginning in one of them, must be 
 an uncreated being, — a being, before which there was 
 not a pre-existing being, to begin it in that one ; and, 
 consequently, it cannot have had a beginning in the 
 other, 
 
 2d Proof, — As every thing, or being, or space, in the 
 universe, (as before proved) must have had a beginning 
 in time and in space^ from a pre-existing being, such 
 thing, or being, or space, must have an end^ also, from 
 the same pre-existing being in time after its beginning : 
 and also, an end in space, wherever the space next to it 
 begins : which other space must also end at the begin- 
 7iing of the next space. — For, as there are numberless and 
 distinct spaces, each begin where the preceding space 
 c/26/^,and end where the folloiving space begins ; and so on. 
 
 Then, a being, of a power so wonderful and incom- 
 prehensible, as to exist without a beginnings and conse- 
 quently, without diUy pre-existing cause to begin it, either 
 in time or space, cannot have an end^ either in time or 
 space : for, as that being itself must be the creator and 
 ruler of both time and space, it must, consequently, be 
 itself oi^ 710 time nor space ; and, every thought or word 
 implying time or space, must be totally inapplicable to 
 him — as to him, they are words of no import or signifi- 
 cation. 
 
 And, further, — it is clear, that whatever has an end, 
 either in time or space, must have had a beginning be- 
 fore, both in time and space, from the pre-existing being 
 who made that end: — for, as before proved, if it has 
 
 * Observe, tliat the word " em/," here used, is not meant to signify an 
 end in existence ; but, an end only of tlie measurement or limits of beinjs 
 
 or spacer 
 
72 
 
 not had a beginning, it could not have an endf neither iu 
 ^iW nor space. 
 
 And, also, — a being which has no etid, neither in 
 time nor space, cannot have had a beginning ; for, as be- 
 fore proved, if it has had a beginning, it must also have 
 an end. 
 
 Now, we sura up the conclusions from the above 
 reasoning, as follow : viz. — that the beginning of time 
 and space , and the end thereof, are inseparably connect- 
 ed ; — that whatever has had a beginning in time and 
 space, must have an end also in both; — that whatever 
 has an end, must have had a beginning ; — that what- 
 ever has not had a beginniiig, cannot have an end; — 
 and, that whatever has not an end, cannot have had a 
 beginning. 
 
 From which, it is evident, that every thing, or being, 
 or space, in the universe, of which we can see or ima- 
 gine depart, where we may choose to make, or conceive 
 there is, either a beginning or an end of the whole, at the 
 end of the next space to it ; or, at which part, we may 
 imagine the whole might have begun or endid ; I say* 
 every such thing, or being, or space, must have had a 
 beginning and an end, both in time and in space, — Then, 
 as every thing which has had no beginning in time and 
 space, cannot have an end in either ; and, as it has been 
 before proved, that the Supreme Being could not have 
 had a beginning in either, we come to this 
 
 5th Conclusion — That the Supreme Being cannot have 
 an end either in time or in space. 
 
 And, as he has no end, we come again to the \st con- 
 elusion — that he cannot have had a beginning. 
 
 And, further, — as there is no space in the universe, of 
 which we cannot sec. on at least, imagine some part. 
 
73 
 
 where wc may form to ourselves, a beginning or an end 
 of the ivhole^ at the end of the space next to it ; and, con- 
 sequently, (ag before proved) as every space must have 
 both a beginning and an end^ and as the Supreme Being 
 has neither^ we come again to the 2d and 3d conclusions 
 — that the Supreme Being cannot be of any space ; and^ 
 consequently^ of no substance, 
 
 3d Proof — A being without substance and without 
 space — without beginning and without 6wc?-and, to which, 
 consequently, no word implying time or measurement^ 
 such as larger or smaller^ &;c. can be applied ; such a 
 being, I say, must be indivisible. — For, were we to ima- 
 gine that it were possible that even such a being conld 
 be divided, or, that a part could be taken away from it, 
 even momentarily, then there must be a beginning and 
 an end of both parts^ at the place where the division 
 should be made. — But, whether we must suppose, that 
 the part taken away, has or has not a beginning and an 
 end^ is immaterial : for, even if we were to imagine, that 
 it has no beginning nor end, it cannot be denied, that 
 the remcdning part, after such other part having been 
 taken away from it, must be, by so much, less than it 
 was before. — And if we are to suppose, that the remain- 
 ing pxirt, though by so muoh le^s than it was before, is 
 still without beginning and end, we must then conceive 
 it to be possible, that one being ivithout beginning and 
 end, may be larger than another being without beginning 
 and end. — In which case, the words larger and smaller^ 
 may be applied, even to beings without beginning and 
 end ; which, as shown before, is quite incompatible 
 with reason. 
 
 Then, as it is before proved, that the Supreme Being 
 
 K 
 
74 
 
 is df of no substance nor space^ and without beginning and 
 end^ we must noio come to this 
 
 6//i Conclusion — That the Supreme Being is indivisible. 
 These proofs are incontrovertible : and if they be 
 seriously considered, and connected, and if, at the 
 same time, it is borne in mind, that the first man, 
 or i\ie first of every creature, was composed of the four 
 elements 5 and, that even the universe itself is composed 
 of different planets, which occupy different spaces^ and 
 each of which has its own separate and distinct limits 
 and regulations appointed and allotted to it, and a dis- 
 tinct duty to perform, Avithout change or deviation, all 
 tending to one great and general purpose or design : 
 I say, when this is seriously considered, we cannot but 
 be convinced, that there is one supreme and immutable 
 being, who caused all these creations and spaces, and ap- 
 pointed and allotted to them their several limits and 
 regulations, and who rules and governs them : — that 
 such supreme being is himself o/" 720 space whatsoever : — 
 that he is the beginner of all beginnings, and that there 
 must have been no being whatsoever before him, to 
 cause him to be : — that he is 7iot compound or composed 
 of different particles : — that he is of no substance what- 
 soever : — that he is without beginning and end, both in 
 time and space : — that he is indivisible, and that no word 
 implying time, or space, or measurement, such as larger 
 or smaller, &;c. can be applicable to him :— and lastly, 
 that he is immutable and eternal 
 
 Now, I have laid a foundation, upon which I must 
 endeavour to build arguments, in support of my opin- 
 ions on this subject. 
 
 You say, that " the Gentiles, as well as the Jews, 
 believe only in 07ie Jehovah ;" and further add, " that 
 
7^ 
 
 a slight acquaintance with the Qld Testament and Me- 
 drashim, would easily convince me, diat our Fathers and 
 Rabbis believed the same as Christians do, that in the 
 one Jehovah there is a plurality^ viz. Father,' Son, and 
 Holy Ghost." 
 
 Now, I beheve, I have a slight acquaintance with the 
 Old Testament and Medrashim, and yet 1 have not 
 been convinced of what you tell me a slight acquaint- 
 ance would easily convince me : and, therefore, the 
 above slight assertion will not induce me, so easily^ to 
 slight that slight acquaintance. 
 
 In the first place, let me ask you, whether the son 
 came after the father, and was created by the father? — 
 If so, we ought to serve only the father, who created the 
 son (and, perhaps, many other sons unknown to us) and 
 all creation. 
 
 Is the son co-eternal with the father, and each of them 
 without beginning and end? — If so, (though the word 
 son does not properly accord with this idea, as we aro 
 accustomed to think, that a son naturally comes at a 
 lime after the father^) I ask you, whether they are, or 
 can be divided, and whether ecch of them is capable of 
 godhead, and is independent of the other ? — U this should 
 be the case, it seems, that it is their will that we should 
 not know it ; as, otherwise, they could easily convince 
 us of it, by specimens of no more nor less than three 
 separate and distinct creations of each being, or, at least, 
 of some of them, such, by which they could separately 
 be distinguished, — Then, if we are kept ignorant that it 
 is so, it is not reconcilcable with justice, that we should 
 ha punished for serving only one of them, by the title of 
 father. — Indeed, it would be well, if we could serve that 
 one as we ou<rht to do. 
 
7G 
 
 But, even, if we were to know that there are three^ if 
 each of the three be capable of godhead^ and is indepen- 
 dent of the other ^ then, as we serve one of them, which you 
 denominate father^ one would think it to be quite suffi- 
 cient ; for, he being capable of doing the same as all the 
 three^ we cannot have any occasion for the other two. — 
 And, as we cannot well suppose, that the three should 
 he jealous of each other ; or, indeed, if they should be 
 so, they being co-equal in power, and, consequently, one 
 of them being capable oi protecting us from the effects of 
 the jealousy of the o/^cr5, pray, by which of the /Arcc are 
 we punished ? 
 
 And further, if they are three distinct beings, they 
 must have three different spaces ; and as before proved, 
 every space must have a beginning and an end^ both in 
 time and space : therefore, each of these three distinct 
 supreme beings must have had a beginning and an end^ 
 both in time and space : which, as before proved, the 
 Supreme Being cannot Imve in either. 
 
 Are they consubstantial and indivisible, as well as co- 
 eternal : and is one of them incapable o{ godhead without 
 the other ? 
 
 If so, I cannot conceive how they can be particulari- 
 sed, and distinguished by three different names, when they 
 must be of no substance nor space, and without begin- 
 7iing and end. — (Indeed, we ourselves give several gen- 
 eral names to the father only ; but the word son, whe- 
 ther general or to distinguish a part only, I should think, 
 *is quite inapplicable to God.) 
 
 And further, — If they can be distinguished, then, as 
 they are consubstantial, they must be composed — one Je- 
 hovah composed of three ;— and,it is before proved, that a 
 compound being requires a pre-existing being, to collect, 
 
adjust, and compose the (liferent particles, of which it is 
 composed, and to form them into one. — Then, of course, 
 we ought to serve that composer who composed and 
 formed the three into o/?c ; as he himself onli/ must be 
 the Sifpreme Being ; and not the comjoosition which he 
 composed. 
 
 And further, — you behove, that the Virgin Mary 
 conceived a part of the Holy Ghost, and, that by that 
 conception, the son, as a^ar/from the three came to this 
 w^orld. Now I have already proved, that it cannot pos- 
 sibly be imagined, that a being, such as the Supreme 
 Being must be, without beginning or end, and without 
 substance and space, can have ^part divided from it, evcu 
 momentarily : — and, besides, such part would have a 
 beginning and an end, both in time and in space, and the 
 remaining part would be left incomplete, and incapable of 
 the full powers o( godhead. 
 
 And lastly, — if the three be consubstantial and co-eter- 
 nal and indivisible, and form together one Jehovah, still 
 you acknowledge, that we do serve that one Jehovah 
 as well as the Christians, — Then, it appears, that the 
 only dispute between us, is as to the composition of this 
 one Jehovah ; you pretending to be better informed on 
 that subject than we are; though that Jehovah himself, 
 who created us as we are, and who knows us to be z;i- 
 c«;96/6/c of conceiving what he really is, has not thought 
 proper to communicate to us in an indubious manner, that 
 he is compiosid of more than one. — But surely it is im- 
 material to us, whether he be, or be not composed, or 
 whether he be composed of three or three hundred, so 
 long as w^e serve that Jehovah, in the state that he is. — 
 IS or can we suppose, that it could make any difference 
 to Jehovah himself : or, that he should punish us 
 
78 
 
 for not hiowing that lie is <:omposcd^ when we be- 
 lieve in him, in whatever state he is.— —And yet, you 
 contend, that the Jews are severely punished for 
 rejecting Jesus : but if Jesus be included in that one 
 Jehovah^ then, even if we did reject him, when 
 he was separated from that Jehovah, still we must have 
 believed in him, at the very same time : because, if we 
 believed in that Jehovah^ and Jesj/s was icnluded m 
 him, and was one and the same with him, of course 
 we could not but believe in Jesus^ even at that time ; 
 and much more rww^ when he is not separated from Je- 
 hovah. If the component parts be all one^ insepa- 
 ble and indivisible^ we cannot worship any part ^ because 
 there cannot be any part. If we worship Jehovah^ and 
 if that Jehovah be composed^ we must, of course, wor- 
 ship his whole composition. — Then, after all our reason- 
 ing, it seems, at last, that you agree to what I said in 
 the beginning of my answer, that we all serve one God 
 at last, though in different ways :" — then, I cannot see 
 that there is any occasion, for you and others to take 
 so much pains to endeavour to convert the Jews, or 
 for me to endeavour to convert you : for, as you ac- 
 knowledge, that both Jews and Gentiles serve one Jeho- 
 vah ; in whatever state he is, whether he be, or be not 
 composed^ is quite immaterial to us. — And yet you most 
 inconsistently endeavour to persuade us, that what is 
 quite immaterial to ourselves^ is so 'material to Jehovah, 
 that he, all merciful as he is, should be so unmerciful 
 with us, as to punish us on this account, (though innocent^ 
 in the manner you make /aco^ and Daniel to have pre- 
 dicted ! 
 
 I must not take my leave of you, without observing, 
 that through the whole of my answer, I have confined 
 
79 
 
 myself, as strictly as I could, to the different arguments 
 contained in your pamphlets and letters ; and have 
 carefully abstained from introducing any extraneous 
 matter. — I have studied, also, to avoid giving offence to 
 any one ; and I am not aware, that any thing that I 
 have written, can be looked upon in that light, or can 
 be considered to be any ways offensive. 
 
 In your pamphlet, you say, that " what you have 
 written, you have written w^ith a view of stirring up the 
 Jews, to a serious examination of the great question at 
 issue between them and the Christians," and that '' you 
 would likewise reason and argue with them, from their 
 own sacred books, and from the writings of tiieir ac- 
 credited commentators." — After this and after the re- 
 peated public challenges, which you have given them, 
 to dispuie and argue on this subject, surely it cannot, 
 by any one, be considered a culpable act, to accept of 
 such challenge, in defence of my own religion, and (af- 
 ter having seriously considered your arguments) to ven- 
 ture, at your own instance, to give ray humble opinion 
 thereon. — My only wish, and my only motive in writ- 
 ing, is to be convinced 5 and the only way to come at 
 conviction, is by reasoning. If I err, 1 am open to con- 
 viction ; and, w hatever you write in reply to me, you 
 may depend upon being seriously and impartially con- 
 sidered.— Neither bigotry nor superstition are in the 
 way to prevent my listening to reason. 
 
 But, so far as we have gone, the conviction on my 
 mind is, that the errors are on your side of the ques- 
 tion : and I am induced to hope, that you also will be 
 convinced thereof; and that you will return and seek 
 the true explanation of the prophets ; and that you 
 may be saved W\i\\o\\i sacrifice. 
 
 J, MKELSBURGER, 
 
.#*^ 
 
 m 
 
 ^-'¥ 
 
 Cl: ■ ^