UC-NRLF
SB
p
tf
o
fc
I I
J
<
o
h
hH
CO
W
&
o
LS
.
'0-
CD
S:
00
Octobe
C3
*i
^
i
SERIES OF LETTERS
ON THE
EVIDENCES OF CHRISTIANITY,
(AS THEY FIRST APPEARED IN THE OCCIDENT.)
BY
BENJAMIN BIAS FERNANDES.
PHILADELPHIA.
PUBLISHED AT 371 WALNUT STREET.
5614.
PREFACE
BY THE EDITOR OF THE OCCIDENT.
IT is now fully thirty years when there appeared, in the
city of New York, a monthly paper called *' The Jew," and
edited by Solomon Henry Jackson. The object of this
work was to lay before the public arguments in defence of
the Jewish religion, which was then, as now, assailed by
the agents and messengers of the association calling itself,
arrogantly, "The American Society for Meliorating the
Condition of the Jews." Mr. Jackson and his coadjutors
fiercely assailed the popular belief, and occasionally their
honest zeal hurried them into expressions which would have
been stronger had they been conveyed in gentler tones.
The work dragged along a painful existence for two years,
and died with the spring of the year 1825, when the editor
retired, having had sad experience enough of the public
indifference towards his laudable undertaking. The number
of Israelites, however, at that time in America, could not
have exceeded ten thousand, if there were so many ; hence
it was naturally a difficult matter to support any denomina-
tional work, irrespective of the fact that Mr. Jackson had
in all likelihood no acquaintance with general literature, and
" The Jew" contained little besides controversial papers.
Still it is a pity that it died so soon, with so little satisfac-
tion to the originators, and probably with a loss more con-
cm)
IV PREFACE.
siderable than the extent of his means permitted him to
bear. In short, like with many similar undertakings, Mr.
Jackson found out that journalism had more sorrows than
pleasures for nearly all who engage in it ; and for twenty
years nearly, no attempt was made again to start a Jewish
Journal in America.
One of the most attractive features of " The Jew/' were
the papers which appeared therein under the name of
"Dea's Letters/' of which seventeen had been printed
when the work stopped. They were noticed for their
cogency and gentlemanly tone, the arguments being not the
less striking for the gentleness with which the author
wielded his weapons. At that time, which was soon after
my arrival in America, it was a fruitless task to discover
who the writer was, as no one seemed able to give any
information on the subject. Not long after, however, an old
gentleman of Richmond, Virginia, where I then resided, the
late Jacob Mordecai, informed me that a little before the
commencement of the nineteenth century, persons connected
with the Simson family, of New York, had in vain endeav-
oured to find a printer in Philadelphia to give publicity to
a series of letters, probably the identical Dea's papers which
had appeared in " The Jew."
In the meanwhile I had the pleasure of making the
acquaintance of Sampson Simson, Esq., of Yenkers, New
York ; and when I had commenced " The Occident/' in the
month of April, 1843, and after the second number had
appeared, I paid him a visit for the purpose of procuring
the MS. of these letters, which I had ascertained were in his
possession, intending to print the whole of them should my
work survive sufficiently long. Mr. Simson was kind enough
PREFACE. 7
to put the MS. in my hands, consisting of four books, cov-
ering in all about four hundred pages. I learned from him
that, sometime before the American revolution, these letters
had been loaned to his father, Solomon Simson, by a person
to him unknown, and that they had been 'copied in the
present MS. by Mr. Jacobs, a clerk, if I recollect aright,
of Mr. S's father. More than this I did not learn.
On printing the first letter, in June, 1843, I at once sug-
gested that the name of the author had been wrongly spelled
in the MS., and should be Dias instead of Dea. Much to
my gratification I received, soon after, a letter from the late
lamented Grace Aguilar, informing me that I was right in
my conjecture, and that the author's name was Benjamin
Dias, her maternal great grand father, a merchant of Por-
tuguese origin, who came from Jamaica to England, where
he spent the latter part of his life, and where, in fact, these
important letters were written. It appears, likewise, from
her statement, that Mr. Dias wrote two copies of the work,
one of which he gave to his eldest son, Isaac, and the other
to his youngest son, Jacob. The latter, who was the grand
father of Miss Aguilar, lent his copy to a relative, and it
was never returned ; and only some years back the descen-
dants of Isaac, who reside in Jamaica, sent their copy to
their aunt, the venerable widow of Jacob Dias, and it was
greatly to the surprise of the family that they found the
letters published in " The Occident" identical with those in
their possession. Subsequently I ascertained that the other
copy was in this country, the owner having proposed to me
to have it stereotyped for general circulation; but having
stipulated with him that he should bear the expense of pub-
lication, which his ample means would have readily enabled
VI PREFACE.
him to defray, iny letter remained unanswered. This person
died some time ago, and an application through a friend in
the South to his son-in law, who is not an Israelite, for a
loan of the MS. to compare it with the one in my posses-
sion, was refused without assigning any reason. The Eng-
lish MS. neither has ever been in my hands ; so I am unable
to determine whether the present collection contains all the
writings of Mr. Dias or not. Any how it embraces all I
have ever seen, and it is given with strict fidelity, only that
I have made the necessary corrections in orthography and
punctuation, and occasionally, when absolutely requiste, I
corrected a few errors made by the transcriber or the author ;
a procedure absolutely requisite with all manuscripts, even
when one prints his own works.
I have ascertained, likewise, that the author's full name
was Benjaman Dias Fernandes ; and I regret that his rela-
tives in England either know nothing more than what is
given here, or that they did not care about communicating
it for publication. Nor has any account ever reached me as
to the reasons which induced Mr. Dias to write, or respecting
the persons to whom they were addressed; but I rather
think that nothing is known by his descendants on these
topics, or else there can be but little doubt that Miss Aguilar
would have informed me of them, as our correspondence for
some years was quite familiar. If this conjecture be correct,
Mr. Dias is but an addition to the many Israelites who have
laboured well for their people, of whose history, nevertheless,
we have nothing but their works.
It is possible that there may be other letters of Mr. Dias
than those in this collection. But as it is my intention to
take good care that Mrs. Aguilar, who still survives her
PREFACE. Vll
gifted daughter, shall see this book, it is to be hoped that she
will communicate these, in case they do exist, to be made
public hereafter.
The Israelitish reader has, accordingly, this work in his
possession, after it has lain for nearly a hundred years either
unpublished or scattered through the pages of " The Jew,"
and the " Christian Inquirer/' a magazine edited by the late
Barnabas Bates, of postage reform memory, in each of which
a portion appeared, and " The Occident," in No. 3 of which
the first letter was presented, and the dissertation on Genesis
xlix. 10,* in No. 128, the whole publication occupying a
space of ten and a half years. From the beginning these
papers have been eagerly read by Israelites living scattered
through the country ; and they have furnished them many
good opportunities to give convincing answers to those who
assailed them on account of their faith. It was in obedience,
therefore, to the request of many friends, that I announced,
several months ago, my intention of issuing them in book
form, and I am now happy that I have done so. It is to be
hoped that the work will attract, as it deserves, the attention
of all Israelites, especially of ministers and elders, that they
may give it the widest possible circulation ; as it is a sharp-
edged sword of faith to ward off the attacks which are so
frequently made, and which are not always so easily answered
* It is more than probable that Mr. Dias is not the author of the last
mentioned paper, as it is headed in the MS : " Not being satisfied with
the solution of this prophecy, as it is contained in the twenty-second
letter, and having myself written a letter on the subject, (which I have
hereunto annexed) I have made a few remarks in haste, which I here
subjoin for the perusal of my friend." Whether, therefore, this is a
subsequent remark of Mr. D., or orignating with the transcriber, or some
one else, is at present impossible to determine.
Vlil PREFACE.
as some may suppose in their self-conceit. But these letters,
if they are not always the best that can be advanced on a
particular topic, at least give always a candid view of the
question which they discuss, and in such a manner that
their force cannot be easily weakened or avoided.
This is the first publication of mine which does not
emanate from my pen ; but then these letters passed succes-
sively under, my review, and have a few, though but a very
few, notes of mine appended to them; and I trust that I
shall meet with so much encouragement as to induce me
to issue hereafter more works of the kind, so that this may
be " The Jewish Controversial Library, No. 1," as I had at
one time thought to print on the title page. We owe it to
ourselves to defend our religion ; and it would be a shame
if, with a free press at our command, we do not scatter light
all over the land, and "teach the sons of Judah to wield
the bow," the arrows of which slay unbelief and exter-
minate erroneous teaching.
ISAAC LEESER.
I November 14th, 1853.
j Marchegllvan 12t
DIAS' LETTERS.
LETTER I.
DEAR SIR: No distance between us shall hinder me,
now having leisure, from satisfying your curiosity, and
sending you my opinion concerning primitive Christianity,
and the foundation on which it is established. I believe,
when you required this task of me, you little thought of
the trouble and pains I should be at; and I have no doubt,
but you expected I should do this in about half a dozen
letters. If so, you will find yourself greatly mistaken ; for
as the subject is extensive, you will find that the considera-
tion of one thing will insensibly lead me to another. Your
curiosity, I am afraid, will cost you dear, and you are
likely to pay for postage more than perhaps any thing I
can say will be worth.
I intend my letters on this subject shall be separate,
that the thread of them may not be interrupted by any
thing foreign to the purpose. I likewise intend to keep a
copy, and to number them, and this is the first. By this
means I shall be enabled, should there be any miscarriage,
to transcribe another copy.
In the course of these letters 1 shall say, myself, as
i CD
BIAS* LETTERS.
little as possible; neither shall I assert any thing but
under the authority of Scripture, or of some eminent
authors. Of these there are three, (all in Spanish.) The
first is " Fortificacion de la Fe," by Isaac, the son of
Abraham, of whom take the following character from
Basnage :* " It must not be denied ," says he, " but that
they had their defenders, at the head of whom we may
rank Rabbi Isaac, the son of Abraham ; this man declares
that he spent his life in the courts of Germany, near
princes, who often gave him marks of distinction; he had
frequent conferences with Luther's disciples, and it was
against them he composed his { Buttress of Faith/ It
must be confessed his book is one of the most dangerous
that has been produced against Christianity. The author
runs through the whole gospel, and dwells upon all the
passages of the sacred story that can furnish him with any
objections; he enforces them briskly, and at the same time
refutes the Christian's answer." This book is translated
into Latin under the title of " Munumen Fidei." Cl It
were to be wished/' adds Mr. Basnage, lt the learned
translator had followed this author, step by step, and con-
futed him." The author wrote it originally in Hebrew;
the Spanish translator has added several notes and remarks
of his own. The second is the famous "Tratado de la
Verdad de la Ley," written by Saul Levy Morteria, of
whom no doubt but you have heard. The third is c< Pre-
venciones Divinas Contra La Vana Idolatria de las Gen-
tes," by the learned Doctor Isaac Orobio de Castro, of
whom Mr. Basnage makes mention.f This learned person had
* History of the Jews, B. 7, C. 30. f Ibid.
LETTEK I. O
a famous controversy with Limborch, concerning the Chris-
tian religion, which is published in Latin ; but I very much
doubt if the arguments on his side be fairly represented.
In the manuscript which I have, there appears so much
learning, solid argument, and sound judgment, that he must
have been entirely qualified to support the advantages ari-
sing from his cause, besides his being well versed in all the
doctrines of Christianity, and in their subtlety of subter-
fuges, which he continually exposes and explodes by his
solid reasonings. These are the principal Jewish authors,
who have written on controverted points, whose works are
all in manuscript. I am indebted to some eminent Chris-
tian authors, who have supplied me with many hints, which
I shall make use of occasionally ; as what they assert must,
when properly applied, give an additional strength to, and
illustrate whatever I shall assert.
I shall take care to settle and fix the proper meaning of
the terms, and to use them according to their true sense and
signification ; otherwise it will be impossible to avoid mis-
takes and confusion, as it happens when terms are made use
of, or introduced, which have no determinate meaning, or
have not proper ideas annexed to them ; for how, otherwise,
can we judge of the truth of any proposition? After all, I
am very sure that the subject will suffer greatly in my
hands for want of abilities equal to the task. For though I
shall take care to assert nothing but such truths as I am
convinced of, yet I cannot pretend to the happiness of being
able to set them forth to you with that clearness which the
importance of the subject requires; neither can I pretend,
or you expect, that I should follow that method and regularity
so necessary to be observed, and which oftentimes gives
4 BIAS' LETTERS.
additional light to a subject; and I assure you that nothing
less than the pleasure which I always take in obeying you,
together with a strong propensity, or desire in me, to search
into these matters (for my own satisfaction and information)
could induce me to undertake that which must expose my
ignorance, and which I only do on the condition that you '
keep these letters private ; and that you show them to no
person whatever.
LETTER II.
How unfortunate is it that there should not be any
authentic ancient writing of the transactions which are
related in the New Testament, on the veracity of which we
might depend. The disadvantage of being reduced to the
necessity of taking every particular from such as were
deeply engaged, and whose interest must naturally have led
them to relate things which, perhaps, never happened, and
many others in which they might be deceived, great as it is,
is nothing (were there any certainty that the evidence of such
authors is genuine) in comparison with what these writings
have ^ suffered, and the many alterations and additions they
have received, and this to such a degree, that I dare say no
learned man of the present day will be willing to assert of
any one single text that it may not have undergone some
change or alteration. Our first inquiry, therefore, must be
into the authority of the New Testament ; for no person can
have the least right over our understanding, or demand our
LETTER H.
\
assent to any proposition contrary to our conviction ; and we
may be sure that we cannot offend, when we make inquiry
into the nature of the evidence produced for our conversion,
since it is the only method we have to come at the know-
ledge of truth in any matter. Besides, in so doing, we
avoid as much as possible the being imposed on, and act as
reasonable creatures, and according to the dignity of our
natures.
" God himself," says the judicious Mr. Chandler, " who
is the object of all religious worship, to whom we owe the
most absolute subjection, and whose actions are all guided
by the discerned reason and fitness of things, cannot, as I
apprehend, consistent with his own perfect wisdom, require
of his creatures the implicit belief of, or actual assent to
any proposition which they do not, or cannot, either wholly
or in part understand; because it is requiring of them a
real impossibility, no man being able to stretch his faith
beyond his understanding."* Therefore, our inquiry into
the nature of any proposition is absolutely necessary ; par-
ticularly in matters offered for our conversion. And it is a
very just observation of Mr. Basnage, when he says, (t We
must prove the divine authority of the Gospel (to the Jews)
before we engage in the particulars of other controversies."^
And I add, till this is done, and the 'Jews admit the divine
authority of the New Testament, nothing can be urged from
it for their conversion ; for, in controversies, neither party
can, with the least shadow of reason, make use of any
authority which is not admitted or granted by the other. A
Mahomedan might as consistently urge the authority of the
* Introduction to his History of the Inquisition,
f History of the Jews, B. 7, C. 34.
6 BIAS' LETTERS.
Koran for the conviction of the Christian, as a Christian
make use of or urge any thing from the New Testament for
the conviction of the Jew. The absurdity of such a method
in either case is equally plain and obvious; for, as the
Christian does not admit the infallibility or divine inspiration
of the Koran, what force or validity could any argument
drawn therefrom have, or what regard would the Christian
pay to any such authority ? So, in like manner, what
regard can it be expected the Jew will pay to any proof
drawn from the New Testament, the authority or infallibility
of which they do not admit ? Can conviction be reasonably
expected from such grounds ?
By inspiration, I mean * ' God communicating his will, and
exciting a person to publish, by writing, or proclaiming by
words, such matters as are dictated to him." A person thus
actuated, either in his writings or words, is properly inspi-
red ; and whatever he writes or says, under such circ^um-
stances, must be infallible or true ; because, being under the
immediate influence or guidance t)f God, he cannot be liable
to error or deception. But the person, so actuated or influ-
enced, must necessarily lose his own free agency ; because
he thereby becomes an instrument which God makes use of,
under whose direction he acts ; for otherwise he would not be
infallible. Therefore, when I speak of the infallibility of
any book or writing, I mean thereby that its author was
under the circumstances afore-mentioned at the time of
writing; for if he was not under these circumstances, then
cannot his writings be infallible ; because he, like other free
agents, must be liable to deception, and may mistake the
things concerning which he writes, or may impose upon
others.
LETTER II. 7
It is a doubt with me, whether there is any considerate
person who believes in the infallibility of the New Testa-
men. For no person will undertake to say that every word
it contains was dictated by God to those who wrote it ; and
if they were not all dictated by God, then cannot the whole
be infallible.
That every word could not be dictated by God is plain,
from the contradictions it contains ; and if only some part
or parts of these writings should be thought infallible, such
difficulties must necessarily arise in settling what part is so,
and what part is not so, that it would be impossible to come
to any tolerable agreement concerning it. And I am sure
that nothing less than an inspired person could understand
it ; for otherwise there would be as many different opinions
as persons employed in the work ; and we should hear one
person give as fallible what another asserted to be infal-
lible.
Thus stands the case. Whoever now believes, or is
persuaded of the divine inspiration or infallibility of the
writings of the New Testament, must, I apprehend, have
his evidence and conviction from one of the following
means :
1. The immediate inspiration of the writer.
2. The immediate evidence of God's influence.
8. Immediate tradition from the inspired writer.
4. Distant tradition.
5. Education or authority.
6. Evidence arising from examination.
1. As to an immediate inspiration of the writer, or that
evidence which the writer has, at finding himself, at the
DIAS' LETTERS
time of writing, under the irresistible influence and imme-
diate guidance of God, whose dictates he is forced to set
down as an instrument, and (during the time) with the loss
of his natural free-agency, the person thus influenced and
excited may very consistently believe his writings to be
inspired, and consequently infallible; because the circum-
stance in which he found himself at the time of his writing
produced that conviction in him.
It is questionable whether those, who are so anxious to
impress on others the infallibility of the writings of the New
Testament, ever believed the writers thereof - under the
afore-mentioned circumstances j which they must necessa-
rily do, otherwise their infallibility falls to the ground ; but
if they believed they were, I should be glad to know from
what source their conviction arises ; for I have not yet met
with any thing to this purpose.
2. The next evidence, to that which the writer himself
has, is when God is pleased to impress on, or influence the
mind of a person by irresistibly forcing him, by some super-
natural means, to believe such and such writings to be in-
spired. It is very certain that God may do this ; but it is
a question if He ever did ; for no person did ever pretend
to these supernatural illuminations, without being suspected
by the more cool and sedate ; and all pretending to such a
gift never met with any credit from the most discerning,
who generally ascribe it to a distempered imagination.
However, they, like the writer, may very consistently
believe such writings to be infallible. But, then, neither
the writer or the person so influenced can be any evidence
to me, unless I attain to the certainty of it by the same
supernatural means.
LETTER H. 9
3. Immediate tradition from the inspired writer.* This
can be to me nothing but mere human fallible tradition ; for
if a person, whether really or pretendedly inspired, publishes
a book or writing, and declares that it contains doctrines
dictated by God to himself, his evidence to me is at least
but human evidence, and therefore, uncertain and precari-
ous : for if I believe it written by inspiration, it is on his
own authority, which is both human and fallible. This
being the case, how or in what manner shall I be able to
distinguish the truly inspired writer from the imposter, who
should pretend to the like privilege ? And if we take the
writers' words in all cases, or give heed to their own testimony,
we shall be liable to be deceived and imposed on by every im-
postor or pretender to revelation ; and the want of a certain
criterion, I apprehend, was the occasion that in the first
ages of the church so many different gospels appeared,
which by many were received with veneration, while others
rejected them as false and spurious : so that this immediate
tradition can be no evidence at all of the divine inspiration
or infallibility of any book or writing.
4. As to distant tradition, this evidence must be propor-
tionably less the farther it is removed from the original ;
and if immediate tradition be but human fallible evidence,
and a true revelation cannot by it be distinguished from a
false one, how can it be the better ascertained by being more
distant from the original tradition? for the farther it is
removed the more it is weakened.
5. The evidence arising from education or authority, if it
* This influence must also take away the free agency of the object so
irresistibly influenced, and, of a consequence, accountability also, as
there can be neither reward nor punishment for doing that we are, as
machines, impelled to do by the power irresistible. ED. JEW.
10 BIAS* LETTERS.
proves any thing, proves that all the different books which
give rise to the different religions in the world, are all inspi-
red ; for on this footing each person believes his to be so,
and therefore, this can be no evidence at all.
6. Evidence arising from examination. This is the only
one to be depended on ; but then it is entirely personal, and
can never extend farther than the person who examines :
that is, it may appear probable to me, on examination, that
such a book was written under God's immediate influence
and direction; but if a book appears to me to be probably
divinely revealed, this is no reason why another person
should believe the same, or that it should appear to him in
the same light, unless he likewise find it to be so on his own
examination.
LETTER III.
HAVING myself examined the writings of the New Testa-
ment, and likewise what is generally offered to support the
opinion of their inspiration, I declare it to be altogether
insufficient to me ; for there does not appear any one cir-
cumstance, whether alleged by others, or contained in the
writings themselves, sufficient to prove that either of the
writers, at the time of writing, was under the unerring
guidance or special influence of God. Besides, there is not
in all the gospels any one expression intimating any such
thing; neither do the writers thereof lay any claim, or in
the least pretend to -any such privilege or -authority ; nor
indeed could such a prerogative be consistently ever allowed
LETTER III. 11
them ; for if every one of them at the time of writing, had
been under the immediate guidance of Grod, they would, in
this case, all have given us the very same account of things,
without the least difference or variation ; for it is impossible,
if Gk>d dictated to them all the same history, that any vari-
ation or difference should be found, unless it could be sup-
posed that God could dictate different facts in different his-
tories of the same person. But that there are frequent
contradictions is evident.
From this circumstance, and many others, I conclude that
the writers of the New Testament could not be under the
infallible guidance of Clod ; neither do I find that they pub-
lished or gave out their writings as such. And if they did
not declare themselves inspired, what authority or founda-
tion could any one else have to declare them so ? On the
contrary, it very evidently appears that there were no wri-
tings deemed canonical in what is called the first ages of
Christianity, but the Old Testament ! The famous Dodwell
says, " We have at this day, certain most authentic ecclesi-
astical writers of the times, as Clemens Romanus, Barnabas,
Hermas, Ignatius, and Polycarpus, who wrote in the same
order wherein I have named them, and after all the writers
of the New Testament, except Jude and the two Johns, but
in Hermas you will not find one passage, nor any mention
of the New Testament; nor in all the rest is any one of the
Evangelists named ; and if sometimes they cite any passa-
ges like those we read in our gospels, you will find them so
much changed, and for the most part, so interpolated, that
it cannot be known whether they produced them out of our,
or some other apocryphal gospels; nay, they sometimes cite
passages which most certainly are not in the present gos-
12 BIAS* LETTERS.
pels."* The first who wrote is Matthew, but at what time
he did write is uncertain ; some fixing his date at one time,
and some at another. Again, some think he composed his
gospel in the Hebrew or Jerusalem dialect ; for it seems
the very language he wrote in is uncertain ; and it is con-
fessed on all hands that no account can be had of the origi-
nal ; so that if he wrote in this language, it has disappeared,
but how or in what manner nobody knows. And what is
still more extraordinary, the Judaizing Christians (for whose
use it is said he wrote) had a gospel under his name, but its
authenticity was not admitted by the other sects ; not because
they found, on comparing it with the original, that it was
corrupted, (for this they could not do for want of the origi-
nal,) but because it differed from or was contradictory to
the many other spurious gospels which they had received,
or to the opinion which the majority of that council which
settled the canon had embraced. But what will appear still
more surprising to you, is that the Christian should offer to
the world for acceptance, as inspired and infallible, a Greek
version, which is the one now existing, and which most
people mistake for the original of Matthew's gospel, without
any person's comparing this version with the original, or
indeed without knowing any thing either of the original 01
the author of the version. Should they not, in an affair of
such importance, and before they pretend to fix on it the
stamp of infallibility, be certain that it was at least a true
version ? But nothing of this kind is done, which appears
to me such a proceeding as nothing can justify.
They are not wanting, however, in giving it all the
authority that possibly can be given to it; and for this pur-
* Dissert. 1. In Iren.
LETTER III. 13
pose, and with this intention, some ascribe the version to
St. Matthew himself; others ascribe it to St. James^ bishop
of Jerusalem; others to St. John; others to St. Paul;
others to St. Luke ; others to St. Barnabas ; and others
again ascribe the translation to the joint labour of all the
Apostles ; so that the ascription to some one or other, or
all of the Apostles, proves nothing but their ignorance in
this important matter ; and their uncertainty and disagree-
ment prove how little dependence ought to be placed on it,
and their manifest intention of imposing on the weak and
credulous.
But can people be so serious in persuading others to admit
as infallible, the version of a book, without any knowledge
of the original, or without knowing whether it be a true ver-
sion, or without any certain knowledge of the person who
made this version ? For should it be admitted that St.
Matthew did write a gospel, how are we to know, or how
can it be ascertained, that the version we now have, is from
the original, or that it is a true and faithful one ? This we
know, that in the last century an Armenian translation was
discovered, which a doctor of the Sorbonne thought to be of
great antiquity, and was of opinion that it might be very useful
in correcting the Greek text. This shows that they do not
think it infallible, for if it were, it would require no human
correction.*
Of as little authority, or rather less, if possible, is the
gospel under the name of Mark. Some take this Evange-
list to be the disciple of Peter, and his interpreter; others
take him to be the same as John Mark, mentioned in the
* See all the particulars in Calmet's Dictionary on the word Matthew.
14 BIAS' LETTERS.
Acts ; some think him to have been a priest, while others
say he was Peter's nephew. And as regards the gospel,
some take him to be the author of it ; while others ascribe
it to Peter } others have it that he wrote from what he
heard from Peter by word of mouth, in his lifetime ; others
say that Peter dictated it to him ; while others affirm that
it was written after Peter's death.
The same difference of opinion we find in respect to the
place where it was written ; for while some affirm it to have
been written at Home, others affirm it to have been written
in Egypt. " All these different sentiments/' says our au-
thor, "are enough to prove that the circumstances of time
and place are uncertain, when and where St. Mark composed
his gospel. Men are as much divided as to the language it
was written in; some saying it was composed in Greek, and
others, in Latin ;"* and I add that these different sentiments
evidently prove that they know nothing concerning its infal-
libility, or the inspiration of its author. It rather appears
much more probable, (which, indeed, is generally believed,)
that this gospel is no more than an abridgement made from
Matthew ; and then it will signify but little who the author
was, where, when, or in what language he wrote. " For,"
says the aforecited author, "as far as maybe judged by
comparing the gospel of St. Mark with St. Matthew's, the
first is an abridgement of the second. St. Mark very often
uses the same terms, relates the same facts, and takes notice
of the same circumstances." So that, let it be an original
or an abridgement, its infallibility cannot be proved, and,
therefore, can be of no authority.
The third Evangelist is Luke, who, as he declares in his
* Calmet on the word Mark.
LETTER III. 15
Preface or Introduction to his Gospel, wrote only by hearsay,
and according to information given him by others, and
makes not the least pretension to supernatural illumination
or information; neither does he pretend to be an original
evidence of the facts which he relates : so that it will be
hard to say how infallibility came to be ascribed to his
writings ; for it was even impossible for him ever to vouch for
the truth of the facts which he relates; nor could his evidence
be admitted in any court of law or justice. I cannot here
forbear noticing how useless and how little known must the
Gospels, which were published, have been, when the writer
or author of one, knew not of the publication or writings
of the others, as is plainly demonstrable from the following
facts : Matthew published his Gospel many years before
Luke; yet when Luke published his, he takes no notice of
Matthew's ; for it is certain he thought no Gospel authentic
when he wrote ; for if he had, he would not have been
under the necessity of collecting his materials from others,
having an infallible guide in Matthew; so that either he
knew not that Matthew had written an infallible relation
of those facts, or he confounds the Gospel of Matthew
amongst the spurious ones that were abroad in those days ;
none of which he admitted as true and authentic.
Now, how a person of Luke's character should be igno-
rant of the infallibility of Matthew's Gospel ; or how, if he
was not ignorant of it, he should not make use of it, or send
it to his friend, rather than his own, is what I confess I
cannot comprehend.
"The Gospels," says a famous author, "continued
so concealed in those corners of the world where they
were written, that the latter Evangelists knew nothing of
16 BIAS* LETTERS.
what the preceding wrote, otherwise there could not have
been so many apparent contradictions, which, almost since
the first constitution of the canon, have exercised the wits
tff learned men. Surely if St. Luke had seen that gene-
alogy of otir Lord which is in St. Matthew, he would not
himself have produced one wholly different from the other,
without giving the least reason for the diversity ; and when
in the preface to his Gospel he tells the occasion of his
writing, which is, that he undertook it from being furnished
with the relation of such as were eye-witnesses of what he
writes, he plainly intimates that the authors of those Gos-
pels which he had seen were destitute of that help ; so that
neither having seen themselves what they relate, nor con-
sulted with diligence and care such as had seen them, their
credit was, therefore, dubious and suspected ; whence it
must necessarily follow, that the writers of those Gospels
which Luke had seen, were not at all the same as our present
Evangelists."*
To the foregoing observations I shall only add, that there
are the same doubts as to his person and character, profes-
sion and writings, as the others ; for it is not certainly
known whether he was a Jew or a heathen, a physician or a
painter ] and as to his Gospel, some think it properly St.
Paul's, whilst others say, that Luke only digested what St.
Paul preached to the gentiles ; and others again, that he
wrote with the help of St. Paul.f
The last is St. John ; and it is plain that he wrote with
the intention of establishing the divinity of Jesus, which
particular is not contained in the Gospels then extant ; he,
* Dodwell Dissert, in Iren.
f For particulars, see Calmet on the word Luke.
LETTER III. 17
for this reason, goes on a very different plan from the other
Evangelists. " His principal care in this undertaking/'
says Calmet, " was to relate such things as might be of use
in confirming the divinity of the son ; and to this purpose
says many things which the others are silent on, and omits
such matters in which the others are very particular, and
which are reckoned very principal and necessary in the
history. Thus, considering his very great care and tender-
ness for Mary, the mother of Jesus, he does but little hon-
our to her memory, in not relating those most remarkable
and wonderful transactions mentioned by Matthew and Luke,
(though with a wide difference,) concerning the miraculous
conception of Mary, and the birth of Jesus. And as Mary
continued to live with him from the time of Jesus' death,
surely he must have had many opportunities of informing
himself of those extraordinary affairs, from her own mouth,
with much more certainty than the others; for it must be
thought very extraordinary that the Evangelist, under the
circumstances aforementioned, should make no mention at
all of such an essential article as the most wonderful con-
ception of a virgin, and the birth of the person who was the
subject of his history. How far his neglect of relating so
important a matter, and likewise those extraordinary dreams
and visions which the others mention, weakens the authority
of their relation, or of his own, I shall not determine ; but
certain it is, that his Gospel met not with that reception
which one would think was due to a person of his authority,
for many rejected his Gospel ; the Alogians in particular
though they admitted the three others, yet rejected this;
and others believed a heretic was its author, one Ceren-
thius ; and no doubt but the difference in the point of doc-
2*
18 BIAS 7 LETTERS.
trine might be the occasion of it, or the want of sufficient
evidence of his being the author/ 7 *
The difficulties which must arise from the aforesaid con-
siderations, are such, in respect to the proof of the inspira-
tion or infallibility of the Gospels, as cannofc be got over ;
and yet this is not all ; for whoever is in any way acquainted
with the history of the ancients, and the observations of the
moderns, must be convinced of the many additions, altera-
tions, and interpolations, which the writings of the New
Testament have undergone, of which I shall collect some
accounts for your information.
LETTER IV.
THERE was not any one sect but complained of interpo-
lations and additions made to the Gospels ; nay, some sects
or parties went so far as to reject some one or other of
the Gospels, now received as canonical ,-t-and others the
whole of the New Testament.f Eusebius states the story
of the woman taken in adultery to be only in the Gospel
according to the Hebrews ; and consequently must have been
inserted after his time into the Gospel of St. John ; and
St. Jerome declares, that in his time the story was only
to be found in some copies. Both St. Jerome and St. Austin
complain of the great variety of the Latin copies of the
Evangelists, and how widely they differed from each other ;J
* See Calmet on the words John and Gospel,
t Eccles. Hist. lib. iii. c. 39.
% See Calmet on the word Bible.
LETTER IV. 19
and they likewise declare the same difference in the Greek
copies. St. Ambrose says of the Greek copies that they
were so different as to give rise to many controversies among
them ; (and these different copies must as naturally have
occasioned different opinions and doctrines.) St. Jerome
asserts that he found as many different versions as books.*
Now as there could not be any possibility of distinguishing
the true copy or version (had there been one,) so every one
followed that, which either suited with his interests or opin-
ions ; and to this end, every one added, omitted, or altered
whatever he thought most conducive to his purpose.
Origen says, " We found great difference in the copies,
and made use of what was convenient out of the Old Testa-
ment, making use of our judgment in such things, as out
of the Seventy seemed doubtful, and were not to be found
in the Hebrew ; and in other things, inserting and making
up the deficiency from the Hebrew. " Thus did every one
insert whatever he thought necessary, or agreeable to his
opinions ; and every one made use of that copy which best
suited his notions. Thus Grotius declares he made use of
the Yulgate ; because the author delivers no opinions con-
trary to the faith. f Now if liberty has been taken of cor-
recting, interpolating and altering the New Testament, what
person is there who can assert and prove that these are the
genuine writings of those persons whose names they bear ?
If it should be said that this was done only in matters of
small importance, I ask, what certainty have we, that any
thing was left untouched ? Surely those that found means
*Vide ib. on the word Vulgate.
t Grot. Pref. Annot. suas in Vet. Test.
20 BIAS' LETTERS.
of interpolating and inserting whole passages, would rather
do it in things which in their own conceit, were of greater
consequence, and which they might do either by the omis-
sion, transposition, or addition of a word, the which might
contribute towards maintaining their different doctrines,
more especially in such affairs, as in their opinions concerned
salvation, should such a procedure confer authority on them,
than in things either of small or no importance. And
this was no doubt the cause which gave rise to the many
different copies, not only of the four Gospels which they
now have and receive as canonical, but likewise to the many
other Gospels, which were received by the different parties,
without there being any possibility of knowing the true
from the false if indeed, any of them were true ; for they
could have no other criterion, than as the copies they did
receive agreed more or less with their different systems of
faith. And for this reason alone were the four Gospels we
now have preferred, or made authentic, rather than those
rejected as spurious; for it is certain no authority appeared
in these above the others. "The ancient heretics," says
Calmet, "began generally with attacking the Gospels, in
order to maintain their errors, or excuse them; some re-
jected all the genuine Gospels (that is, those which the
councils declared such) and substituted such as were spu-
rious in their room ; others have corrupted the true Gospels,
and have suppressed whatever gave them any trouble, and
have inserted what might favour their erroneous doctrines."
Thus the Nazareans corrupted the original Gospel of St.
Matthew, and the Mercionites mangled that of St. Luke,
which was the only one they received. The Alogians, seeing
their condemnation too plainly declared in St. John, re-
LETTER IV. 21
jected him, and admitted only the three other Evangelists.
The Ebionites rejected St. Matthew, and received the three
other Gospels. The Cerinthians acknowledged only St.
Mark; and the Yalentineans St. John only.* In Origen's
time, Celsus exclaims against the liberty which Christians
(as if they were drunk, says he) took of changing the first
writing of the Gospel, three, four, or more times. f The
Manicheans skowed other scriptures, and denied the genu-
ineness of the whole New Testament. Faustus, their bishop,
says, " You think that of all the books in the world, the
Testament of the Son only, could not be corrupted; and
that it alone contains nothing which ought to be disallowed,
especially when it appears it was neither written by himself,
nor his apostles, but a long time after, by certain obscure
persons, who, lest no credit should be given to the stories
they told, did prefix to their writings partly the names of
the apostles, and partly of those who succeeded the apos-
tles, affirming that what they wrote themselves was written
by these, wherein they seem to have been more injurious to
the disciples of Christ, by attributing to them what they
wrote themselves, so dissonant and repugnant, pretending
to write those Gospels under their names, which are so full
of mistakes and of contradictory relations and opinions, that
they are neither coherent with themselves, nor consistent
with one another." J Again, the same bishop says, " Many
things were foisted by your ancestors into the Scriptures of
our Lord which, although marked with his name, agree not
with his faith." The learned Dr. Mills gives an account
* Calmet's Dictionary on the word Gospel.
f Origen lib. ii. Contra Celsus.
$ Augustin Con. Faustus, lib. xxxii. c. 2. \ Lib. 33. o. 3.
22 BIAS' LETTERS.
of a general alteration of the Gospels, so low down as the
sixth century.* He likewise with great labour collected
and published all the readings of the New Testament, which
are so different and various, that the learned Doctor Whitby
declares, that " The vast quantity of various readings col-
lected must of course make the mind doubtful or suspicious,
that nothing certain can be expected from books where
there are various readings in every verse, and almost in
every part of every verse. "f Mr. Gregory, of Christ
church, in Oxford, declares, that " There is no profane au-
thor whatever, cseteris paribus, has suffered so much by the
hand of time as the New Testament has done."J How
willing and ready the priests have been at all times to en-
courage pious frauds, and continue impositions on the credu-
lity of the ignorant, need not be mentioned. One fact,
however, I cannot pass in silence, and that is a letter of
Cardinal Belarmine, who with the other divines attended
the correction of the Vulgate, in which he acknowledges
that there are still several faults, which, for good reasons,
the correctors did not think proper to remove. I shall
make no remark on this passage, but shall proceed to a
short account of the rest of the writings of the New Tes-
tament.
And first the book of Acts, which is said to be the
work of St. Luke, was rejected by many, particularly the
Marconites and Manicheans; many others described the
acts of the apostles, yet were they rejected, || for the same
* Mills' Prolegom. p. 98. fWhitby's Exam. Var. Lect. Milli. p. 3, 4.
J Preface to his posthumous works.
Calmet's Diet, on the word Vulgate.
U Calmet's Die. on the word Acts.
LETTER IV. 23
important reason that this was received, that is, because it
agreed better with the doctrines in vogue than the others.
St. Chrysostom complains that this book was little known,
and that the reading of it was much neglected, which shows
that even in his time it was not held in any degree of au-
thority. In this book St. Paul cites a saying of Jesus,*
which is not to be found in any of the gospels ; so that
either he had this passage out of some spurious gospel, or
it has been left out of the present copies since his time.
Concerning the authority and genuineness of the epistles,
there have been many debates, and I think all have been
doubted and rejected by some party or other, and this for
the same important reason above mentioned, according as
they either agreed or disagreed with the doctrines and opin-
ions embraced by the different sects ; particularly St. Paul's
epistles to the Hebrews, the epistle of James, the second
epistle of St. Peter, the second and third epistles of St.
John, and the epistle of Jude. But as the inspiration of
all or either of them can never be proved, I shall say
nothing concerning them, but refer you for a more particular
account of them to Calmet.f
As to the authority of the Apocalypse, or Book of Reve-
lations, as its author cannot be ascertained, how is it possi-
ble that its inspiration should ? For " Caius, priest of the
Church of Rome, who lived at the end of the second age,
seems to assure us that the Apocalypse, or Book of Revela-
tions, was written by the arch-heretic Cerinthus; and
Deonylas, Bishop of Alexandria, says, that some indeed
thought Cerinthus to be the author of it, that for his own
* Acts xx. 35. t On the different articles, and word Apocryphal.
24 BIAS' LETTERS.
part, he believed it to be written by a holy man named
John, but he would not take upon himself to affirm that it
was really the work of the apostle and evangelist of that
name. The Apocalypse, has not at all times been owned
to be canonical. St. Jerome, Amphilocus, and Sulpitius
Severus remark, that in their time there were many churches
in Greece that did not receive this book."*
On the whole, the writings of the New Testament appear
to me so far from being infallible, or written under the
immediate guidance and influence of God, that I am sur-
prised how it is possible that any persons should make them
the foundation or basis of their religion ; for the contrary
most evidently appears; and they are even destitute of
proof that they were written by the persons whose names
they bear ; nor, indeed, does it appear that those persons
ever ^ wrote any thing themselves. This uncertainty, to-
gether with the continual alterations they have undergone,
makes it impossible to credit them even as historians.
Moreover, it appears highly improbable thaC any of the
writings we now have, should be the genuine works of the
apostles ; because, had this been the case, they would have
published them as such, and nobody could have refused
them ; for they would then have been received by all with-
out contradiction, as every person had it in his power to
have satisfaction concerning their genuineness from the
apostle who published them: the contrary of all this is
very evident. Besides, common and usual facts, such as
may happen in the common course things, may, and do
generally receive credit on the evidence of the historian ;
* Calmet on the word Apocalypse.
LETTER IV. 25
but it would not be the same, were he to relate things out
of the common course of probability, or what appeared im-
probable; for the more extraordinary the facts are which
he relates, the more extraordinary ought the evidence to be.
But this evidence is nowhere to be had but in these writings
themselves, which ia no evidence at all, they being destitute
of proof, and therefore cannot be admitted or allowed.
The only thing which seems probable to me from the
account transmitted to us, is, that there were many who
wrote j -and, in order to give a greater repute to their writings,
they published them under the names of such persons as
would give them a greater degree of authority; and, as
these writings contained different facts and doctrines, very
opposite and contradictory to each other, so every one chose,
and made use of such or as many gospels as he pleased or
liked best. As these gospels were in private hands, the
possessors did not want for opportunities of changing, inter-
polating, adding, and curtailing whatever they thought con-
venient, or was agreeable to the opinions which they had
embraced. Under these circumstances, it was impossible
to have known the true gospel of either of the apostles,
had there been any; because it could have no mark of
authority, and the true one must have suffered equally with,
the false; for had there been any mark or criterion by
which the true might have been distinguished from the
false, every one would have received it. So that ifc is plain,
either that the apostles did not publish any gospels, or that
they fared no better than those which were published by
others, and were confounded with them.
It likewise appears to me, that the authors and trans-
cribers thought of nothing else but inserting and relating
3
26 BIAS' LETTERS.
surprising and marvellous events, such as would astonish
and catch the credulity of the vulgar, and also such things
as best suited with their prejudices and purposes ; for it
seems improbable that the apostles, whose labours and
sufferings are always represented as proceeding from their
love of mankind, and care of their salvation, should be
the authors of the writings we now have under their
names, which have caused such disputes, discord, hatred,
disorders, troubles, grievous persecutions, and even wars and
desolations and all this occasioned by these very writings ;
for every party authorizes its doctrines and its proceedings
by them. Surely, if they were such persons as they are
represented to be, they never would have published or
authorized any thing like it, unless they were determined
literally to fulfil the saying recorded of Jesus tf Think
not that I am come to send peace upon earth; I come not
to send peace, but a sword;"* which sword has been drawn
from the beginning, and which Christians have taken care
not to sheath. It is well for the doctrine of the infallibility
of these writings that the Christian laity or bulk of mankind,
take it on trust, and that few, very few, take any pains,
or make inquiry concerning the evidence of their inspira-
tion and infallibility; and that those who actually make
such inquiry are disposed or concerned, either through
interest or policy, not to publish their thoughts respecting
this matter, contenting themselves with keeping their dis-
coveries secret ; for, were the infallibility or inspiration
of any writings contrary to these to have no better founda-
tion, how would they publish their arguments against them,
and expose their insufficiency !
* Matth. x. 34.
27
LETTER V.
OUR next inquiry is, first, who were the persons that met
in council to establish a new canon ? and secondly, what
authority they had for so doing.*
As to the first question, they plainly appear to have been
a set of men entirely unqualified for such an undertaking ;
for from the best authority we may collect that a majority
in these councils was always formed by faction and intrigue ;
that the members were led by interest, prejudice, and pas-
sion ; and that they were contentious, ambitious, ignorant,
and wicked. The judicious Mr. Chandler gives such a
character of the Fathers, such a description of all general
councils, as must be very convincing how improper they
were, and what little authority their determinations ought
to have. I shall therefore transcribe a few passages from
him
As to the Fathers he says, " It is infinite, it is endlesss
labour to consult all that the Fathers have written; and
when we have consulted them, what one controversy have
they rationally decided ? how few texts of Scripture have
they critically settled the sense and meaning of? how
often do they differ from one another, and in how many in-
stances from themselves? Those who read them, greatly
differ in their interpretation of them, and men of the most
contrary sentiments all claim them for their own. Atha-
* The Council of Laodicea was the first that established the new
canon ; it met towards the end of the fourth century.
28 BIAS' LETTERS.
nasians and Ariajas, all appeal to the Fathers, and support
their principles by quotations from them. And are these
the venerable gentlemen, whose writings are to be set up
in opposition to the Scriptures ? are creeds of their dicta-
ting to be submitted to as the only criterion of orthodoxy ?
or esteemed as standards to distinguish between truth and
error ? Away with this folly and superstition ! the creeds
of the Fathers and Councils are but human creeds, that have
marks in them of human frailty and ignorance."*
Another eminent person declares himself thus: "The
Fathers, you say, whom you regard as the propagators of
the Christian religion, must necessarily have been men of
true piety and knowledge ; but it has been maintained and
proved to you by a great number of instances, that the
Fathers have not only fallen into very gross errors, and been
most profoundly ignorant of many things which they ought
to have known ; but farther, that most of them have more or
less suffered themselves to be led by passion \ so that their
conduct has been found frequently to be such as is neither
regular nor justifiable/' Again, "In the first ages of
Christianity, and those that followed after, the men most
applauded, and who bore the greatest character in the
church, were not always those that had the greatest share
of good sense, or were the most eniment for learning and
virtue."f
As to general councils, " I think it will evidently follow
from this account," says Mr. Chandler, ''that the deter-
minations of councils and decrees of synods as to matters
* Introduction to the History of the Inquisition, p. 111.
t Barbeyr. Hist, and Critical Account of the Science of Morality,
chap. x. See the whole chapter, as likewise the 9th.
LETTER V- 29
of faith are of no manner of authority, and carry no obliga-
tion upon any Christian whatsoever. I will mention here
one reason, which will be itself sufficient, if all others were
wanting ; viz., that they have no power given them in any
part of the gospel revelations, to make these decisions in
controverted points, and to oblige others to subscribe to
them ; and that therefore the pretence to it is an usurpation
of what belongs to the great God, who only has and can
have a right to prescribe to the conscience of men. But, to
let this pass, what one council can be fixed upon that will
appear to be composed of such persons, as upon impartial
examination can be allowed to be fit for the work of settling
the faith, and determining all controversies relating to it ?
I mean, in which the majority of the members may in
charity be supposed to be disinterested, wise, learned,
peaceable and pious men ? Will any man undertake to
affirm this of the Council of Nice ! Can any thing be more
evident, than that the members of that venerable assembly
came, many of them, full of passion and resentment ; and
others of them were crafty and wicked; and others ignorant
and weak ? Did their meeting together in a synod immedi-
ately cure them of their desire of revenge, make the wicked
virtuous, or the ignorant wise? If not, their joint decree
as a synod could really be of no more weight than their
private opinions, nor perhaps of so much; because it is
well known that the great transactions of such an assembly
are generally- managed and conducted by a few; and that
authority, persecution, prospect of interest, and other tem-
poral motives, are commonly made use of to secure a ma-
jority. The second general council were plainly the crea-
tures of the Emperor Theodosius, all of his party, and
3*
30 DIAS' LETTERS.
convened to do as ne bid them. The third general council
were the creatures of Cyril, who was their president, and
the inveterate enemy of Nestorius, whom he condemned for
heresy, and was himself condemned for rashness in this
affair. The fourth met under the awe of Emperor Marcian,
managed their debates with noise and tumult; were formed
into a majority by the intrigues of the Legates of Rome,
and settled the faith by the opinions of Athanasius, Cyril ;
and others. I need not mention more ; the farther they go
the worse they will appear. As their decisions in matters
of faith were arbitrary and unwarranted, and as the decisions
themselves were generally owing to court practices, intrigu-
ing statesmen, the thirst for revenge, the management of a
few crafty interested bishops, to noise and tumult, the pros-
pects and hopes of promotions and translations, and other
like causes, the reverence paid them by many Christians is
truly surprising."*
" All the world saw/' says M. Barbeyrac, "who quotes
an author who cannot be suspected of any ill-will towards
the Fathers, " the dreadful cruelties that were committed
in these unhappy centuries : they maintained seiges in their
monasteries; they battled in their councils; they treated
with the utmost cruelty all whom they but suspected to
favour opinions, which too often proved to be such as nobody
understood, not even those that defended them with the
greatest zeal and obstinancy." " These," says he, " are the
great lights of the church ! these are the holy Fathers
whom we must take for men of true piety and knowledge. "{
" One council/' says another historian, was summoned to
* Introduction to the Hist, of Inquisition, sec. iii. p. 100 to 102.
f Historical Ace. of the Science of Morality, sec. x.
LETTER V. 31
annul what another had done, and all things were managed
with that faction, strife and contention, as if they labored
to quench the spirit of meekness and brotherly love, so
often recommended in the gospel. Some were banished,
some were imprisoned, and against others they proceeded
with more severity, even to the loss of their lives. 7 '*
As to the second inquiry, " What authority they had to
establish a new canon ?" I should say that no other ap-
pears to me but their own ; which, considering what sort
of men they were, will never be allowed to be any authority
at all; they produced none from Jesus, none from the
apostles, neither had they any given but those very writings.
They had no criterion by which they could distinguish
among the variety of books that were then in the world
under the name of the apostles, (if any were truly theirs,)
which were so, and which not : and we do not hear a word
of the least pretensions to any extraordinary assistance or
revelation to this council from God ; so that the authority
which they imposed on these writings appears to have been
entirely accidental, and to have depended upon their having
a majority in their favour. This, I think, is most that can
be said of them, and the same might or would have befallen
any of those writings which were rejected as spurious, had
the majority of the council consisted of a contrary party;
but what authority the opinion of the majority of any coun-
cil, acting under the influence and motives before mentioned,
can have, is what every person must determine for himself.
* Echard, Roin. Hist. Vol. iii. p. 57.
LETTER VI.
I REMEMBER having read, but in what author I cannot
at present recollect, that in a controversy between a Christian
and a Jew, the latter made several objections to the authority
of the New Testament, to which the other, not being able
to clear them up, returned this remarkable answer : " The
authority or divine inspiration of the New Testament was as
well grounded as that of the Old ; and that there was no
objection which could be made to the New Testament, which
might not with equal propriety be made to the Old."
I think there cannot be a greater instance of distress, or
rather despair, than when a disputant, rather than yield, is
obliged to give up the very principles on which alone he can
support his cause. A fine method this to convince the Jews
of the authority of the New Testament, and at one stroke
to silence them. But if Christians have no other arguments
to establish its authority, we may declare they never will be
able to work their conversion } for how can a Christian
consistently call himself by that name, unless he admits the
authority of the Old Testament ? since, if he gives that up,
must he not give up his religion at the same time also ? It
is of such who, notwithstanding, would be thought Christian,
that an author very judiciously observes, " If they really
imagine that Christianity hath no dependence on Judaism,
they deserve our tenderest compassion, as being plainly
ignorant of the very elements of the religion they profess."*
* Warburton's Divine Legation, Vol. i. B. I. Sect. 1, p. 6.
LETTER VI. 33
They must therefore admit as a postulatum, its authority ;
for was not the Old Testament cited by the apostles for every
thing they pretended to prove ? and is it not the Old Testa-
ment which they pretend is fulfilled in the New ? Can
persons, then, pretend to be Christians, on rational princi-
ples, withour admitting the authority of the Old Testaments ?
Can they either deny or lessen its authority ? Therefore,
there needs not any proof from us to Christians for the
authority of the Scriptures called by them the Old Testament ;
to produce any, would be both labour and time lost, because
they must admit its authority, or they cannot be Christians.
The case of the Jews, in respect of the authority of the New
Testament, is quite another thing ; and this they must all
know and acknowledge.
Besides, they well know the doubts which subsist con-
cerning the books of the New Testament. The learned
Doctor Beveridge says : "No one can be ignorant that some
of the truly canonical books of the apostles were doubted of^
in the three first centuries of Christianity."* And again,
" Amongst all the more ancient writers of ecclesiastical
matters, you will hardly find two that agree in the same
number of canonical books."*)* u The writers of those times."
says the famous Dodwell, " do not chequer their works
with texts of the New Testament, which yet is the custom
of the moderns, and was also theirs in such books as they
acknowledged for Scripture ; but they most frequently cite
the books of the Old Testament, and would doubtless have
done so by those of the New, if they had been received as
canonical."!
* Codex Can. Vind. Edit. Elerico. p. 117.
t Apend. Anter. Bibl. Sacr. p. 376.
J Dissert. 1, in Iren.
34 BIAS 7 LETTERS.
Now, from all these particulars, and what I before ob-
served, it plainly appears, that the books of the Old Testa-
ment were the sole canon both of Jews and Christians; and
that in the first ages of Christianity no other writings were
accounted canonical; neither had they any other Scriptures but
the Old Testament; and all the evidence which is produced
to prove that Jesus is the Messiah, must be taken from
there ; for no other evidence can be of any validity or au-
thority. Neither could he claim the messiahship but from
the prophecies ; and, therefore, Jesus constantly refers to
the evidence of the Old Testament. (l In fine," says the most
ingenious Mr. Collins, " Jesus and his apostles do fre-
quently and emphatically style the books of the Old Testa-
ment ' the Scriptures/ and refer men to them as their rule
and canon ; but no new books are declared by them to have
that character, And if Jesus and his apostles have declared
no books to be canonical : I would ask who did, or who could,
afterwards declare or make any books canonical ? If it had
been deemed proper, and suited to the state of Christianity,
to have given or declared a new canon, or digest of laws : it
should seem most proper to have been done by Jesus or his
apostles, and not left to any after them to do ; but especially
not left to be settled long after their times, by weak, fallible,
factious, and interested men, who were disputing with one
another about the genuineness of all books bearing the
names of the apostles, and contending with one another
about the authority of every different book/'* "Indeed, to
speak properly/' says the same ingenious person, " the Old
Testament is yet the sole true canon of Scripture, meaning
thereby a canon, established by those who had a divine
* Grounds and Reasons, p. 13.
LETTER VI. 35
authority to establis a canon, and in virtue thereof, did estab-
lish a canon, as it was in the begining of Christianity.' 7 * The
Old Testament being, without dispute, the only Scripture
both of Jews and Christians, are we Jto judge from that
alone of the office and character of the Messiah ; and for
this purpose it will be proper to extract a few of the many
prophecies concerning the Messiah, his kingdom, and the
events to happen in his time, the better to compare them
with what is related of Jesus in the New Testament, in
which they are said to be fulfilled.
1. (l In those days the house of Judah shall walk with
the house of Israel, and they shall come together out of
the land of the North to the land that I have given for an
inheritance unto your fathers. 7 ' Jeremiah iii. 18.
2. " Thus saith the LORD GOD, behold, I will take the
children of Israel from among the nations^ whither they
be gone, and will gather them on every side, and bring
them into their own land, and will make them one nation
in the land, upon the mountains of Israel; and one king
shall be king to them all, and they shall no more be two
nations ; neither shall they be divided into two kingdoms
any more at all ; neither shall they defile themselves any
more their with idols, nor with their detestable things, nor
with any of their transgressions; but I will save them out of
all their dwelling places wherein they have sinned, and will
cleanse them, so shall they be my people, and I will be
their God. And DAVID my servent shall be king over
them, and they shall have one shepherd : they shall also
walk in my judgments, and observe my statutes, and do
* Grounds and Reasons, p. 16, 17.
t There is no such word in Hebrew as gentiles or heathen, as it only
means nations.
36 BIAS 7 LETTERS.
them. And they shall dwell in the land that I have given
unto Jacob my servant, wherein your fathers have dwelt,
and they shall dwell therein, even they, and their children,
and their children's children for ever; and my servant
DAYID shall be their prince for ever. Moreover I will
make a covenant of peace with them, it shall be an ever-
lasting covenant, and I will place them, and multiply them,
and will set my sanctuary in the midst of them for ever-
more. My tabernacle also shall be with them, yea, I will
be their God, and they shall be my people ; and the nations
shall know that I, the LORD, do sanctify Israel, when my
sanctuary shall be in the midst of them for evermore/'
Ezekiel xxxvii. 21-36.
3. "And I will gather the remnant of my flock out of
all countries whither I have driven them, and will bring
them again to their folds ; and they shall be fruitful and
increase. And I will set up shepherds over them which
shall feed them ; and they shall fear no more, nor be dis-
mayed; neither shall they be lacking, saith the LORD.
Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will raise
unto David a righteous branch, and a King shall reign and
prosper, and shall execute judgment and justice in the
earth. In his day Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall
dwell safely ; and this is his name whereby he shall be
called, The LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS. Therefore, behold
the days come, saith the LORD, that they shall no more say,
The LORD iiveth, which brought up the children of Israel
out of the land of Egypt; but the LORD Iiveth which
brought up and which led the seed of the house of Israel
out of the north country, and from all countries wherein I
had driven them ; and they shall dwell in their own land."
Jeremiah xxiii. 38.
LETTER VI. 37
4. " And in that day there shall be a root of Jesse, which
shall stand for an ensign to the people ; to it shall the gen-
tiles seek : and his rest shall be glorious. 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,
which shall be left from Assyria, and from Egypt, and from
Pathros, and from Gush, and from Elam, and from Shinar,
and from Hamath, and from the islands of the sea. And
he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assem-
ble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed
of Judah from the four corners of the earth. The envy
also of Ephraim shall depart, and the adversaries of Judah
shall be cut off ; Ephraim shall not envy Judah, and Judah
shall not vex Ephraim/' Isaiah xi. 1013.
5. " Therefore, thus saith the LORD GOD, now will I
bring again the captivity of Jacob, and have mercy upon
the whole house of Israel, and will be jealous for my holy
name, after that they have borne their shame and all their tres-
passes whereby they have trespassed against me, when they
dwelt safely in their land and none made them afraid. When
I have brought them again from the people, and gathered
them out from their enemies' lands, and am sanctified in
them in the sight of many nations; then shall they know
that I am the LORD their God, which caused them to be led
into captivity among the nations ; but I have gathered them
unto their own land, and have left none of them any more
there, neither will I hide my face any more from them; for
I have poured out my spirit upon the house of Israel, saith
the LORD GOD." Ezekiel xxxix. 25-29.
6. u And it shall come to pass in that day, that the LORD
shall beat off from the channel of the river unto the stream
BIAS' LETTERS.
of Egypt, and ye shall be gathered one by one, ye chil-
dren of Israel. And it shall come to pass in that day, that
the great trumpet shall be blown, and they shall come which
were ready to perish in the land of Assyria, and the out-
casts in the land of Egypt, and shall worship the LORD in
the holy mount at Jerusalem." Isaiah xxvii. 12, 13.
7. " Therefore will I save my flock, and they shall no
more be a prey ; and I will judge between cattle and cattle.
And I will set up one shepherd over them, and he shall feed
them, even my servant DAVID ; he shall feed them, and he
shall be their shepherd. And I the LORD will be their G-od,
and my servant DAVID a prince among them ; I the LORD
have spoken it. And I will make with them a covenant
of peace, and will cause the evil beasts to cease out of the
land, and they shall dwell safely in the wilderness, and
sleep in the woods. And I will make them, and the places
round about my hill a blessing ; and I will cause the shower
to come down in its season ; there shall be showers of blessing.
And the tree of the field shall yield her fruit, and the earth
shall yield her increase, and they shall be safe in their land,
and shall know that I am the LORD, when I have broken the
bands of their yoke, and delivered them out of the hand of
those that served themselves of them. And they shall no
more be a prey to the heathen, neither shall the beasts of the
land devour them ; they shall dwell safely, and none shall
make them afraid. And I will raise up for. them a plant of
renown, and they shall be no more consumed with hunger
in the land, neither bear the shame of the heathen any
more/' Ezekiel xxxiv. 22-29.
8. " And there shall be no more a pricking briar unto the
house of Israel, nor any grieving thorn of all that are round
LETTER VI. 39
about them that despised them ; and they shall know that
I am the LORD God. Thus saith the LORD God, When I
shall have gathered the house of Israel from the people
among whom they are scattered, and shall be sanctified in
them in the sight of the heathen, then shall they dwell in
their land that I have given to my servant Jacob. And
they shall dwell safely therein, and shall build houses, and
plant vineyards; yea, they shall dwell with confidence,
when I have executed judgments upon all those that despise
them, round about them and they shall know that I am the
LORD their G-od." -Ezekiel xxviii. 24-26. v
9. " As I live, saith the Lord God, Surely with a mighty
hand, and with an outstretched arm, and with fury poured
out, will I rule over you. And I will bring you out from
the people, and will gather you out of the countries wherein
ye are scattered, with a mighty hand, and with a stretched
out arm, and with fury poured out. And I will bring you
into the wilderness of the people, and there I will plead with
you face to face. Like as I pleaded with your fathers in the
wilderness of the land of Egypt, so will I plead with you,
saith the Lord God." Ezekiel xx. 33-36.
10. " I will accept you with your sweet savour, when
I bring you out from the people, and gather you out of the
countries where ye have been scattered, and I will be sanc-
tified in you before the heathen." Ezekiel xx. 41, 42.
11. "Hear the word of the Lord, ye nations, and declare
it in the isles afar off, and say, He that scattered Israel
will gather him, and keep him as a shepherd doth his flock.
For the LORD hath redeemed Jacob, and ransomed him from
the hand of him that was stronger then he." Jeremiah
xxxi. 10, 11.
40 BIAS' LETTERS.
12. " Fear not, for I am with thee; I will bring thy seed
from the east, and gather thee from the west ; I will say to
the north, give up ; and to the south, keep not back ; bring
my sons from far, and my daughters from the ends, of the
earth, even every one that is called by my name ; for I have
created him for my glory, I have formed him; yea, I have
made him." Isaiah xliii. 5, 6, 7.*
It is needless to transcribe more passages declarative of
these great events of which the prophetic writings are full.
From these and many other prophecies of the like nature,
we may collect the office and character of the Messiah. But
before we proceed, it is certainly necessary to explain the
meaning of the word Messiah. m#D Messiah or Mashiach,
as pronounced in Hebrew, signifies ''annointed," or " the
anointed one." It is applied to kings, priests and prophets,
as they were anointed to their office. Jews, therefore, by
way of eminence and emphasis, called, and continue to call,
that person whom God should raise up, and make the in-
strument for the accomplishment of such prophecies, as
particularly describe, and foretell the delivery and glory of
the nation, by this name. Now, if Christians will prove
that Jesus fulfilled these prophecies, they will then convert
the Jews, for they require nothing else.f
* Mr. Bias quotes the ordinary Bible version, which strengthens, if
any thing, his argument.
f With due deference to the author, we wish to observe that only his
mission as Messiah would thereby be proved, but not the character
which Christians assume for him ; since the one whom we expect is to
be a man acting under the power and guidance of the Lord, 'but not a
part of the divinity. Such a being is contrary to scripture and is not
the CHRIST whom we expect. ED. Oc.
41
LETTER VII.
I THINK it necessary, before we proceed, to clear up the
objections generally made against such prophecies, as declare
and foretell the deliverance of the Jews, from their present
dispersion, and the glorious restoration to God's favour }
and the different methods which are taken in he explana-
tion and application of those prophecies, And first
Some pretend that the promises were made good, and
that the prophecies received their accomplishment, at the
return from the Babylonish captivity ; and that consequently,
the hopes of a future deliverance are vain and without
foundation. In order to clear up this point, let the pro-
phecies be compared with what, as, Ezra and Nehemiah relate
befell the nation at their return from Babylon, and let us
see if all those glorious promises did then receive their ac-
complishments. To those passages which I transcribed in
my last, I shall here add one whole chapter of Isaiah, that,
according to his description of those glorious times, the
comparison may be made.
" Arise, shine, for thy light is come, and the glory of
the LORD is risen upon thee. For behold the darkness shall
cover the earth, and gross darkness the people; but the
LORD shall arise upon thee, and his glory shall be seen upon
thee, and the gentiles shall come to thy light, and kings to
the brightness of thy rising. Lift up thine eyes round
about and see : all they gather themselves together, they
come to thee : thy sons shall come from far, and thy
daughters shall be nursed at thy side. Then thou shalt see ;
42 BIAS' LETTERS.
and flow together, and thine heart shall fear, and be enlarged;
because the abundance of the sea shall be converted unto
thee, the forces of the gentiles shall come unto thee. The
multitude of camels shall cover thee, the dromedaries of
Midian and Epha ; all they from Sheba shall come : they
shall bring gold and incense ; and they shall show forth the
praises of the LORD. All the flocks of Kedar shall be
gathered together unto thee ; the rams of Nebaioth shall
minister unto thee : they shall come up with acceptance on
mine altar, and I will glorify the house of my glory. Who are
these that fly as a cloud, and as the doves to their windows ?
Surely the isles shall wait for me, and the ships of Tarshish
first, to bring thy sons from far, their silver and their gold
with them, unto the name of the LORD thy God, and to
the Holy One of Israel, because he hath glorified thee.
And the sons of strangers shall build up thy walls, and
their kings shall minister unto thee : for in my wrath I
smote thee, but in my favour have I had mercy on thee.
Therefore thy gates shall be open continually; they shall not
be shut day nor night ; that men may bring unto thee the
forces of the gentiles, and that their kings may be brought.
For the nation and kingdom that will not serve tlxee shall
perish ; yea those nations shall be utterly wasted. The
glory of Lebanon shall come unto thee, the fir-tree, the pine-
tree, and the box together, to beautify the place of my
sanctuary ; and I will make the place of my feet glorious.
The sons also of them that afflicted thee shall come bend-
ing unto thee : and all they that despised thee shall bow
themselves down at the soles of thy feet ; and they shall
call thee The city of the LO&D, The Zion of the Holy One
of Israel. Whereas thou hast been forsaken and hated, so
LETTER VII. 43
that no man went through ihee, I will make thee an eter-
nal excellency, a joy of many generations. Thou shall also
suck the milk of the gentiles, and shall suck the breast of
kings ; and thou shalt know that I the LORD am thy
Saviour and thy Kedeemer, the Mighty One of Jacob.
For brass I will bring gold, and for iron I will bring silver,
and for wood brass, and for stones iron : I will also make
thy officers peace, and thine exactors righteousness. Vio-
lence shall no more be heard in thy land, wasting nor
destruction within thy borders; but thou shall call thy
walls Salvation, and thy gates Praise. The sun shall be
no more thy light by day : neither for brightness shall the
moon give light unto thee ; but the LORD shall be unto
thee an everlasting light, and thy God thy glory. Thy sun
shall no more go down; neither shall thy moon withdraw
itself: for the LORD shall be thine everlasting light, and
the days of thy mourning shall be ended. Thy people also
shall be all righteous : they shall inherit the land for ever,
the branch of my planting, the work of my hands, that I
may be glorified. A little one shall become a thousand,
and a small one a strong nation : I the LORD will hasten it
in his time."*
This is the glorious state of the Jews, according to the
prophet's description. It will be tiresome to make extracts
from Ezra and Nehemiah, to prove that nothing like this ap-
peared to the nation at their return from Babylon. I shall,
therefore, refer you to the accounts which these writers give of
this miserable return, and the many hardships and interrup-
tions the buildings meet with, together with the weakness
* Isaiah Ix. Eng. Bible version.
44 BIAS* LETTERS.
and wickedness of those few who did return. I shall con-
tent myself with giving you a few passages from the
history now in the greatest vogue.
" It will be convenient (says the historian) to premise
some few things concerning the state of the Jews during
this new epoch ; for, from this time, they are no more to be
looked upon as that free, rich, and glorious people which
they had been, either under the former theocracy, as
Josephus justly terms it, or under their opulent and war-
like monarchs, and the direction of their prophets. Their
condition, government, manners, their very name is now en-
tirely changed; and though some of them we find to have
attained to very considerable posts, or growing exceeding
rich in the land of their captivity, yet these are but few in
comparison of those who groaned under the heavy hand of
their oppressors. Neither were they the former, but the
latter, that is, the poorer sort, that came back into Judea ;
and even of these, the whole number of all that came,
either with Zerubbabel, Ezra, or Nehemiah, scarcely amounted
to seventy thousand, among whom a multitude of strangers
were likewise intermixed, either by marriages or otherwise :
most of them so indigent, that they were forced to be sup-
ported in their journey by the charitable contributions of
those that stayed behind. They were indeed to be governed
by their own laws; but as they still continued in subjec-
tion to other nations, to the Persians, Greeks, and Romans,
that privilege, as well as the exercise of their religion,
very much depended upon the arbitrary will of their con-
querors. Even whilst they were under the Persians, the
lives and estates of the whole nation were on the brink of
LETTER VII. 45
being sacrificed to the ambition of a favourite/'* Now,
from this description, it plainly appears that none of the
prophecies did receive their accomplishments at the said
return, nor at any time after ; so that the promises therein
made are still unfulfilled.
I think proper, now we are on this subject, to observe
the exact description which Moses makes of the present
dispersion of the Jews, which according to the circumstances
he foretells cannot be applied to any other. " And the
LORD shall scatter thee among all people, from one end of
the earth even unto the other : and there thou shalt serve
other gods, which neither thou nor thy fathers have known,
even wood and stone. And among these nations shalt thou
find no ease, neither shall the sole of thy feet have rest:
but the LORD shall give thee there a trembling heart, and
failing of eyes, and sorrow of mind. And thy life shall hang
in doubt before thee, and thou shalt fear day and night,
and shall have none assurance of thy life."f
It is impossible that any historian could describe the
state of the Jews in their present dispersion more exactly ;
for what more could he say concerning their miserable
state, than they are scattered from one end of the earth to
the other ? that they are obliged to worship strange gods,
unknown to their ancestors, made of wood and stone ? that
they neither have ease nor rest ? continual fear and trem-
bling, both day and night, with never-ceasing sorrows and
doubts ? persecuted, imprisoned and delivered to the flames ?
This has been the miserable state of the Jews in many
* Universal History, Vol. vi. Chap. 10. | Deut. xxviii. 64-66.
46 BIAS' LETTERS.
places, and is still their case in Spain and Portugal.*
There is not in this prophecy the least resemblance of what
the Jews suffered in any other captivity. In the time of
the Judges they were often overcome, and made tributary,
but never dispersed. At the first destruction of Jerusalem
they were made captives, and carried to Babylon ; but so
far were they there from worshipping other gods, that it
entirely cured them from idolatry; so that from that
epoch the Jews are never accused of that henious crime.
And their being obliged to worship gods unknown to them
and their ancestors, plainly points out a new system of
idolatry, invented and introduced long after that time.
And as all the circumstances do wonderfully agree to their
present dispersion and oppressions, so their return (described
in the following passage), u That then the LORD thy God
will turn thy captivity, and have compassion upon thee ;
and will return and gather thee from among all the nations
whither the LORD thy God hath scattered thee : If any of
thine be driven out unto the utmost parts of heaven, from
thence will the LORD thy God gather thee, and from thence
will he fetch thee ; and the LORD thy God will bring thee unto
the land which thy fathers possessed, and thou shalt possess
it ] and he will do thee good, and multiply thee above thy
fathers/'f can only be from their present captivity, as the
circumstances which were promised them were never accom-
plished nor made good in any of their former deliverances.
Now if the promises made to the Jews by all the pro-
* It must be kept in mind that these letters were written about
1750, when many martyrdoms were witnessed in these countries for the
sake of the faith. ED. Oc.
f Deuteronomy xxx. 3-5.
LETTER vnr.
phets have not been fulfilled at the return from Babylon,
lor at any other time either before or since : it follows that
;heir hopes of a Messiah, or a person whom God is to ap-
3oint to make good his promise to the nation, in their de-
iverance and restoration, are just and well grounded ; and
t must be vain and presumptuous to pretend that the prophe-
sies have been fulfilled, whilst they find themselves in a
dtuation so very opposite to that which the prophets
fortell and describe; a contradiction so glaring, that I
Bonder any one should pretend to affirm it.
LETTER VIII.
THE difficulties, which arise from the prophecies concerning
lie delivery and return of the Jews not being completed,
ire obviated by pretending that none of these prophecies
mght to be taken in their plain, literal sense and obvious
neaning ; in other words, they will not allow the prophecies
,o have any meaning at all, in order to impose on all such
)rophecies, and likewise on many historical passages of
Scripture, what they call a spiritual, or figurative and
ypical sense and meaning of their own, such as best suits
nth their purposes; accommodating, by these means, pro-
)hecies and history to events with which neither the one
lor the other has the least connexion, contrary to the
express sense of the prophets and the passages cited ; and
herefore, they cannot expect that any credit should be given
hem. Of this, the most learned are sensible, and confess
hat they a can give no tolerable reason why the prophecies
48 BIAS* LETTERS.
concerning his (Jesus's) humiliation and sufferings should
be understood in a literal, and those of his exaltation and
glorious reign, in a spiritual sense. "* The case then stands
thus : the Jews must be convinced from the prophecies, that
Jesus was the glorious person therein promised for their
Messiah ; not according to the sense and meaning of the
words of the prophets, for they are entirely repugnant to
such pretensions, but according to the sense and meaning
which Christians shall be pleased arbitrarily to impose on
all the prophets, (without assigning any tolerable reasons,
as is confessed by them,) though that sense be the most
contradictory to the prophets' description; for otherwise
they can prove nothing. It is a very just and judicious
observation " that the Jew possessed the oracles of God,
and was firmly persuaded of the truth of them. The very
first thing, therefore, that he had to do, upon the appearance
of the Messiah, was to examine his title, by the character
given of him in the prophets; he could not, consistently
with the belief in God and faith in the ancient prophecies,
attend to other arguments, till fully satisfied and convinced
in this. All the prophecies of the Old Testament, relating
to the office and character of the Messiah, were immovable
bars to all pretensions, till fulfilled and accomplished in the
person."f This is so fair a state of the case, that none of
the parties can reasonably have any objection against it;
and there only wants proofs that Jesus did fulfil and accom-
plish the character given of the Messiah in the prophets.
Now if this be done according to the plain sense and mean-
* Universal History, vol. iii. p. 39.
f Sherlock on Prophecy, 6th Discourse, p. 157.
LETTER VIII. 49
ing of the prophecies, the character which they give us is so
contradictory and repugnant to that of Jesus, that his pre-
tensions can have no manner of foundation on that descrip-
tion ; for the plain sense of the prophecies is, and ever will
be, an immovable bar to his claim.
But if we are to judge of his title from the sense which
Christians impose on the prophets, then the character given
by the prophecies can be of no manner of signification, and,
therefore, it would be in vain to examine his title by the
character given of him in the prophets; since, let the
character be ever so ample and plain, yet such a meaning
would be imposed on the words of the prophets as might
make them answer very different purposes. And this is
actually the case ; for if we are to have no regard to the
plain sense and meaning of the prophets, and take a liberty
to depart from their literal and obvious meanings : how can
we distinguish the true Messiah from the vain pretender,
who may, by types and allegories, impose such a sense of
his own on the prophecies as may easily be made to answer
his pretensions, and by such means apply them to himself
and his purposes, construing them according to his fancy,
and, under a pretence of a refined spiritual sense, be able to
prove thereby all the passages of his life, both from pro-
phecy and Scripture history ? For, as no regard is to be had
to the prophets' literal meaning, no bounds can be put to
any person's imaginations; for all will be spiritualized.
But would not the Jews be in the most deplorable condition,
if they admitted allegory for proof? would they not be
liable to the grossest abuse and deception ? and could they
in any other way oppose such pretenders, but from the plain
and literal sense of the prophecies ? and must they not he-
ft
50 BIAS* LETTERS.
lieve that the prophets had but that one plain sense and mean-
ing, and argue accordingly from it ? For to suppose that
{t an author has but one meaning at a time to a proposition,
(which is to be found out by a critical examination of his
words,) and to cite that proposition from him, and argue
from it in that one meaning, is to proceed by the common
rules of grammar and logic, which, being human rules, are
not very difficult to be set forth and explained ; but to sup-
pose passages cited, explained, and argued from in any other
method, seems very extraordinary ."* And such a method
can only serve to open a door to fraud and imposition; for
when once we depart from the plain and obvious meaning
of an author, and put a different sense on his words, we
then commit such an act of violence as nothing can justify.
But it is still worse, when we do the like to inspired writ-
ings; for we, in such case, deprive the prophet of his
meaning, which is infallible, and in its place substitute our
own weak fallible sense, and that for no other reason but
because it best serves our purposes ; and it must give one a
very bad opinion of the cause which depends on such a
support. For et allegory is a figure in discourse which we
are then said to use, when we make the terms which are
peculiar to one thing to signify another."*)* This being the
case, can allegory or types prove any thing, much less a
Messiah, whose character and office are plainly revealed in
the Scriptures ? And pray, what is there which may not
be proved, when terms and words, peculiar to one thing,
are made to signify another ? What confusion must ensue
* Grounds and Reasons, p. 51.
j- Calmet's Dictionary, on the word Allegory.
LETTER VIII. 51
on such a scheme? How invalid must the proof of the
Messiah be, if founded on types and allegory ! For " alle-
gorical explanations may edify indeed/' (says a learned per-
son,) " but they are good for nothing else ; they cannot be
regularly produced as proofs of any thing/' St. Paul
founded Christianity on allegory, and though he says that
he uses great u plainness of speech/'* yet is all Scripture
by him turned into type. This he does even to the histo-
rical passages, and that when the literal sense is most clear.
To this end he declares himself and others to be " ministers
of the New Testament, not of the letter, but of the spirit,
for" (says he) "the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth
life." ]" It is by this invention that he pretends to prove
every thing; for he applies his allegories and types without
the least resemblance, or without the least likeness of the
types to the antitype. This is plain and evident from every
chapter of the writings which go under his name. Thus,
for example, he makes the patriarch's two sons, Isaac and
Ishmael, to typify two covenants.f
Again Abraham's concubine is with him a type of
Mount Sinai, in Arabia. This same Mount Sinai in
Arabia stands with him for a type of Jerusalem in bondage
with her children. He carries this type still farther; for
this same Jerusalem typifies that above, which he calls the
mother of all.|| After the same manner he makes Malchi-
zedek a type of Jesus, whom he declares to have been made
like the Son of God.^[ By the same art he turns the veil
which Moses put over his face, where it shone, into a type
* 2 Corinthians iii. 12, 16. f Ibid. 6. J Galatians iv. 22.
% Ibid. 25. || Ibid. 26. f Heb. vii. 3.
52 BIAS' LETTERS.
of the Jews not understanding the Scriptures, that is, his
spiritual sense of them.* In the same way he pretends that
God himself preached the gospel to Abraham. f By the
same help he declares the baptism of the Israelites unto
Moses. This he finds typified by their passing the Red
Sea, and their being under the cloud of smoke.J The
water which the Israelites drank from the rock Moses
struck, he calls spiritual drink ; and he not only makes that
rock to follow the camp, but will have the rock itself to be
the Messiah. By the same never-failing art he proves that
the tribe of Levi paid tithe some hundred years before its
existence. || In short, the passover, the tabernacle, and
every thing in it, the Israelites' wanderings in the wilder-
derness, their entering into the land of Canaan, and the
whole Jewish economy and history is, by St. Paul, turned into
types ; and he makes every thing subservient to his point.
But if this method proves any thing, it proves that the
same passages and figures might prove a thousand things
besides, for which they may be made to stand, and such
proofs would be, to the full, as conclusive as St. Paul's.
This must be the natural consequence of believing that
the letter killeth, or rather, of resolving to kill the letter;
because, otherwise the letter would kill their purposes : and
when once we embrace the opinion of making the terms
which are peculiar to one thing stand for another, the same
thing may be made to typify things the most opposite and
contrary to each other. Thus it is observed, that ''the
serpent was remarkable for an insidious cunning, and there-
* 2 Cor. iii. 13-15. f Galat. iii. 8. J 1 Cor. x. 1, 2.
I Ibid. 3. \ Heb. vii. 9, 10.
LETTER VIII. 53
fore stand as a proper emblem of a deceiver."* Another
asserts that " it cannot be doubted but under the name of
the serpent we ought to understand the devil. ^f Yet, not-
withstanding the serpent stands for, and means the devil,
one of the evangelists declares, "as Moses lifted up the
serpent in the wilderness, even so must the son of man be
lifted up :"J by which means the servent serves to typify
both Jesus and the devil. Such strange things are alle-
gories ! A fruitful imagination might still carry the allegory
farther, and show how the serpent caused the people to err
by the worship which was paid it.
Now let me seriously ask, can such whims be admitted
for proofs ? or can any one pretend the conversion of the
Jews on such evidence ? May we not as well believe Luther
to have been the antitype of Aaron, (as one of his followers
pretended,) because he first set up the candlestick of the
reformation ? or shall we believe Calvin to have been the
antitype of the same High Priest (as one of his followers
pretended), " because it was beyond all doubt/' (says he,)
" that if he had not taken the snuifers into his hand, the
candlestick must have given so dim a light that few people
would have been the better for it." Pray, is there not just the
same foundation for the idle dreams of Luther's and Calvin's
followers, in making each their master to be Aaron's anti-
type, as there is for those others made by St. Paul ? If
we believe the one, why not the other ? Can such reveries
pass ; because delivered under the name of this or that man ?
* Sherlock on Prophecy, p. 57.
f Calmet's Diet, on the word Serpent. J John iii. 14.
\ Le Clerc. Bibl. Tom. x. p. 313. See Likewise Universal History,
I Vol. iii. p. 404.
54 BIAS* LETTERS.
The authority of all men must be upon a level, if they
deliver things alike inconsistent, or equally contrary to
facts. How easily may Scripture be applied to every pas-
sage of a man's life, if such liberty be allowed! But
certainly any person would be deservedly laughed at who
should pretend to prove the actions of his life from thence
by turning it into types.
It is therefore evident that the prophecies ought to be
taken in their plainest and most obvious sense and literal
meaning : " for it is but justice to the omnipotent Being to
believe that HE speaks candidly and intelligibly to his
creatures/'* and it is highly derogating from the goodness of
God to think otherwise; and therefore the contrary method,
when made use of, must be incoherent and inconsistent,
enthusiastical and erroneous, invented for unwarrantable
purposes, and made use of to deceive and blind our eyes for
lack of better proof, excluding the Scripture from any mean-
ing at all; and, as it may be made use of to prove any thing,
and to square to every man's opinion, it can of course have
no force in argument, and therefore cannot be produced in
proof of any thing. Of this opinion was Bishop Smallbrook,
who says : " So very fanciful a thing is allegorical interpre-
tation, that not only different fathers build different alle-
gories on the same facts, but the very same father at dif-
ferent times, and on different subjects, makes different
applications of the very same literal story ;f and in his
preface he says : " Allegories prove any thing out of any
thing"!
* Independent Whig, No. 74.
f Vindication of the Miracles, chap. v. p. 254.
J Ibid. p. 8.
LETTER IX. 55
I cannot better conclude this letter, than with a passage
of the same bishop,* viz : All that I would desire of the
reader here, is to observe the great uncertainty of mystical
interpretation in itself, as it is a mere creature of fancy. "
LETTER IX.
THE literal meaning of prophecy is what Christian
writers would, if they could handsomely do it, get rid of ;
not because the prophecies are in themselves hard to be un-
derstood, or difficult to be explained, but because their
obvious meanings and plain drift run counter to the
system which they labour to establish ; for otherwise, they
are very fond of the plain sense and literal meaning,
provided there is any appearance in their favour, or resem-
blance by which they can make it square with their doc-
trines ; for they then exult as if that alone were sufficient
to prove their point, overlooking whatever else is neces-
sarily connected with, and belonging to the same subject;
they generally extract here and there little scraps and parts
of Scripture, and join them together, but which, considered
and examined in their proper places, and connected with
their proper subjects, mean quite a different thing.
But, notwithstanding their commentaries, their innum-
erable volumes to reconcile their contradictions, their
endeavours to drown or hide the insufficiency of their
proofs, by glosses and rhetorical discourses, their subtleties
* Vindication of the Miracles, chap. viii. p. 359.
56 BIAS' LETTERS.
and evasions, their declamations and subterfuges, their arts
and continual inventions, their types and their allegories,
they still find themselves greatly embarrassed and perplexed,
how, consistently, to prove the prophecies fulfilled. Neither
can they in any literal degree (not even to their own satis-
faction) fit the accomplishment to the prophecy, or the
type to the antitype. We are, indeed, told that " one
of the characters which Jesus claims and assumes in the
gospel is this that he was the person spoken of by Moses
and the prophets; whether he is this person or not must be
tried by the words of prophecy."* Undoubtedly it must;
but how the characters given of the Messiah by the prophets
answers the accomplishment in Jesus, by which we are to
judge of his claim, and whether he is that person or not, is
what ought to have been made clear and evident from the
prophecies ; for it is here that the difficulties lie. But the
learned prelate, instead of proving this point, and clearing
up the difficulties which attend it, most unaccountably shifts
the argument ; for, though he refers you to the prophets
for consideration, as the criterion by which you must form
a judgment, yet he tells you that, "'tis evident the word
of prophecy was not intended to give a clear and distinct
light in this case ;"f " that prophecy was never intended
to be a very strict evidence ;"J " 'tis absurd to expect clear
and evident conviction from every single prophecy as
applied to Christ/' How so ? must people be sent to
the prophecies to judge whether Jesus is the person spoken
of, and yet be told ' ( that prophecy was never intended to
* Intent and Use of Prophecy, page 42, f Ibid. p. 28.
J Ibid. 30. \ Ibid. 33.
LETTER IX. 57
be a very distinct evidence ; and that it is absurd to expect
conviction from that which we are sent to, and by which
we must try his claim'/" Why are we sent to the prophets
for conviction, if it is not to be had there ? or if it is ab-
surd to expect it? Bufc the absurdity does most certainly
centre in this learned prelate; for I would willingly know
on what other evidence it can be proved to the Jews, that
Jesus is the Messiah, but from the prophecies concerning
him in the Old Testament ? And* if these be clearly and
evidently fulfilled, as they pretend they are, then let them
abide* by the test; for it is ridiculous, first to send them to
the prophets to judge his claim, and then to take away the
force of their evidence, by declaring that they cannot expect
conviction from them ; and, consequently, that they can
have none !
The Bishop, as a means to establish the insufficiency of
the evidence from the prophecies, takes great pains to rep-
resent them as dark and obscure. You will no doubt think
his conduct strange ; and indeed he thinks so himself, and
makes the following apology for his behaviour : " You may
think it perhaps strange," says he, " that I should be here
pleading as it were, for the obscurity of ancient prophecy,
whereas you may very well conceive it would be more to
the purpose of a Christian divine to maintain their clear-
; ness. Now, as Moses in another case said, u I would to
[God all the Lord's people were prophets;" so say I, in
I this case ; I would to God all the prophecies of the Lord
I were manifest unto all his people ; but it matters not what
1 we wish or think. "* But there are those who maintain
* Intent and Use of Prophecy, p. 36.
58 BIAS* LETTERS.
their clearness, whether it be for the purposes of Christain
divines or not.
Whoever is any way acquainted with the writings of
such learned divines as have written in support and defence
of Christianity, must be fully convinced of the insurmount-
able difficulties under which they labour, in proving the
messiahship of Jesus from the prophecies, as applied to, and
said to be fulfilled by him. For some, proceeding on the
allegorical scheme, ground the pretensions of Jesus on the
turn which they are pleased to give the prophecies, and ap-
ply them as fulfilled in the sense which they impose on
them. Others unsatisfied with arguments drawn from such
proofs, oppose this scheme as weak and absurd, (though
thereby they oppose the evangelists and apostles) and en-
deavour to establish his messiahship, by pretending to a
literal application of the prophecies. The consequence is
they prove nothing but the glorious deliverance expected
by the Jews. Some, in these difficulties, fly for refuge to
his miracles, and pretend to prove his messiahship from
his works. Some fly to the goodness and soundness of
his doctrines, and from thence prove his messiahship.
Some invent a heavenly kingdom, and from that oppose the
prophecies. Others take on themselves, and usurp, the
names of Israel and Judah, and then prove the prophecies
accomplished in them. But after all, they seem so dissat-
isfied with these inventions of theirs, that at last they are
obliged to confess their insufficiency, and declare, and as
firmly believe, the restoration of the Jews, as the Jews do
themselves ; and this they prove by the same arguments,
and from those very prophecies on which the Jews ground
LETTER IX. 59
their hopes and expectations. All which I shall make very
clear to you.
Such are the methods which are made use of, and such
the contradictions and inconsistencies to be met with in
their writings, and often times in the same author. But
you must not impute this to their want either of abilities
or learning, for many of them are famous for both ; but you
must impute it to the cause, which in itself is inconsistent,
and not to be either supported or defended on any rational
principle whatever ; and they are reduced to such perplexi-
ties in defending the prophecies mentioned in the Old Tes-
tament, and said to be fulfilled by Jesus in the New, that
not being able to show their connexions and pertinency, it is
no wonder that they represent them as dark and obscure,
and give them up as difficult to be applied, and endeavour
to extricate themselves by placing the proofs on something
more to their purpose, though in their hearts they wish
they had more clear prophecies. But is it reasonable to
expect the conviction of the Jews but from the clearest
evidence ? Give me leave to ask, with the learned prelate,
(t Is not this now a choice account of the G-ospel ? Are we
still surrounded on all sides with darkness ?"* And pray
who can help it, if the plain sense and meaning of the
prophecies run counter to the intents and designs of that to
which they are applied ? And the fault does not lie in the
prophecies, for they are most clear, though very dark indeed
as they are applied. But the reason is plain and obvious ;
because they never were intended to prove that which they
are applied to, and for that reason will eternally be dark
* Intent and Use of Prophecy, p. 7.
60 BIAS' LETTERS.
and obscure, in like manner as any passage out of any
other author would be dark and obscure if it should be
applied contrary to the author's meaning and plain sense ;
but the darkness, in such case, would not be in the author,
but in the application. Nothing can be plainer, according
to the Gospel scheme, than, that the words of prophecy
were the foundation on which Jesus claimed the messiah-
ship ; and as a demonstration that he was the person fore-
told, he refers to them for conviction, and tells those he
spoke to, " Search the Scriptures ; for in them ye think ye
have eternal life ; and they are they which testify of me."*
" For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me ;
for he wrote of me."f " And he said unto them, these are
the words which I spake unto you while I was yet with you,
that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the
law of Moses and the prophets, and in the psalms concerning
me."J " And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he
expounded unto them in all the Scriptures the thing con-
cerning himself." Now let me ask, did Jesus apply the
prophecies to himself in their clear sense, and plain mean-
ing, or did he impose another sense and meaning on them ?
were they plain and clear prophecies by which he undertook
to prove himself the Messiah, such as carried their own con-
victions with them, or were they dark and obscure, such
as it is absurd to expect conviction from ? If he did it ac-
cording to the clear sense and plain meaning of the pro-
phecies, then, on the same foundation, he may still be proved
from the prophecies ; and it will be absurd, if this be the
case, to endeavour either to darken or throw obscurity on
* John, v. 39. t Ibid. 46. J Luke, xxiv. 44. Ibid. 2T.
LETTER IX. 61
them ; but if be proved bimself tbe Messiab from dark and
obscure prophecies, or, which is the same thing, if he ap-
plied the propecies in a dark and obscure sense, then must
such proof be insufficient to produce conviction ; for a
" figurative and dark description of a future event/ 7 says a
learned prelate, '' will be figurative and dark when the event
happens, and consequently will have all the obscurity of a
dark and figurative description, as well after, as before the
event, so that it can be no proof at all."* And let Chris-
tians say what they please, it is certain that the prophets
speak clearly and intelligibly concerning the Messiah and
his office ; and it is from them that we are to judge, who is
the true Messiah; consequently, if Jesus is the Messiah,
and they can prove him to be the true one, how absurd must
it be to represent the prophecies as dark and obscure ! or
to pretend that no conviction is to be expected from them,
when " all the prophets from Samuel, and those that follow
after, as many as have spoken, have likewise foretold these
days."f From the prophecies it was that the Bereans
found out that Jesus was the Messiah ; " for they searched
the Scriptures daily whether those things were so."J
Now if this foundation on which the Christian religion is
built, the foundation on which Jesus and his apostles estab-
lished it, can afford no distinct evidence, (t nor ever was in-
tended to give a clear and distinct light on the case :" what
must the consequence be of Jesus and his followers appeal-
ing to its evidence, and building on a foundation so preca-
rious ? for no superstructure can possibly be stronger than
the foundation. For if Jesus be clearly revealed in the
* Intent and use of Prophecy, Dis. 2, p. 33. f Acts iii. 24.
t Ibid. xvii. 11.
62 BIAS* LETTERS.
prophecies, then must the application of them to him be
evident ; if this be the case, then cannot the prophecies be
dark and obscure. But if, on the contrary, they be not
clearly and evidently applicable to him as the Messiah, then
is all their trouble and pretension vain and ineffectual; for
clear proofs never can be had from dark and obscure pas-
sages ; neither can the conclusion be stronger than the pre-
mises.
The prophecies concerning the Messiah, his kingdom, and
great glory, as well as that of the Jews, are foretold with
such particularity and plainness by all the prophets, as can-
not be surpassed by any one description that ever was made.
To suppose that the Almighty God should, in an affair of
the utmost importance, (an affair that concerned both
learned and ignorant,) deliver himself in such terms or words
as must introduce into our minds ideas the most opposite and
contrary to what his goodness intended to reveal and de-
scribe, is to suppose Him capable of deceiving those whom
He condescended to instruct and enlighten ; and, " it is
irrational and impious to suppose that the Almighty God,
the good, and merciful God, would give to his creatures in-
structions, commands, and advice, which were puzzling, ob-
scure, and uncertain, when their eternal salvation was de-
pending upon their conceiving or applying them aright "*
Can any thing more unjust be imputed to God than to pre
tend He reveals one thing and means another ? yet this is
the deplorable case. How many are the endeavours to make
out this very thing ! Learning, art, cunning, industry,
power, and every human invention is made use of for this
* Independent Whig, No. 74.
LETTER X. 63
purpose ; and to make way with their own senseless jargon,
they reject, set at naught the words, which, as coming
from God, are infallible ; and then they set up themselves,
and their explanations for such, as if they were neither
peccable, fallible nor interested, or were not liable to error,
deception, and imposition.
LETTER X.
HAVING mentioned the insurmountable difficulties which
attend the application of the prophecies concerning the Mes-
siah, according to their obvious plain sense and meaning, to
any person either pretending or claiming that character,
which is the only rational proof by which his character is to
be maintained and supported : I think some notice ought to
be taken of the shifts and evasions to which they have re-
course, in which they take shelter, and by which they en-
deavour and pretend to support a character, which, in reality,
is the most contradictory to that which the prophets de-
scribe j and to show the fallacy and invalidity of such appli-
cations. Their principal engine is the allegorical or typical
scheme, by the help of which they solve all difficulties ; for,
as it is but making one thing to mean another, they can,
by its help, answer all objections ; for, Proteus like, they
apply it in all shapes and to all things. It is from this
scheme that their various arts and inventions have their
64 BIAS' LETTERS.
rise. As I have already considered this scheme, I shall now
only observe,
1. They declare, " That the prophecies concerning the
coming, the character, the death, and passion of the Messiah,
are to be found in a multitude of places in the Old Testa-
ment, but after a mysterious and figurative manner."*
2. They declare, " That it does not prove that things had
originally any such sense, meaning, and construction, merely
because they are afterward referred to, in the way of alle-
gory, simile, or allusion."f
3. They declare, " That such proofs cannot alone estab-
lish any doctrinal truth ;J and also that they cannot be re-
gularly produced as proofs of any thing."
4. They maintain, notwithstanding, " That this is evi-
dently the scheme which the apostle Paul goes upon."||
The foregoing assertions plainly demonstrate the insuffi-
ciency of the allegorical and typical scheme, or that things
referred to for proof in the way of figure, simile, and allu-
sion, (which is confessedly St. Paul's scheme) can prove
nothing ] and, consequently, that all inferences or conclu-
sions from such premises, must be fallacious and invalid.
This appears very evident ; for if a prophecy be a future
event foretold,^ nothing but a proper fulfilling of that
event can be deemed a completion of the prophecy, and no
prophecy, can possibly receive its completion unless it be
fulfilled according to the event foretold : therefore it is ab-
surd to pretend that types, allegories, similes, allusions, and
figures, are the fulfilling thereof; for nothing but the entire
* Calmet on the word Mystery, f Divine Authority, v. ii. p. 181. % Ib.
$ Calmet on the word Allegory. || Divine Authority, v. li. p. 181.
TT Calmet on the word Prophecy.
LETTER X. 65
completion of the prophecy, by the event, can be deemed
valid j all other methods being thereby excluded. So much
for the allegorical or typical scheme.
Another method and invention whereby they endeavour
to solve difficulties arising from the most material prophe-
cies concerning the kingdom of the Messiah, is to remove
it to heaven. It was to this new invented heavenly kingdom
that " Jesus invited the high priest, and promised that he
should see him sitting at the right hand of power."* They
tell us it is in this kingdom he sitsf and reigns with great
amplitude of power and dominion, over a most glorious race
of spiritual beings and departed souls of true believers, who
alone are admitted to the enjoyment of that happiness
which, the prophets foretold, the Messiah should introduce
here on earth. They have, indeed, carefully guarded
against any possibility of searching, or having satisfaction
concerning this kingdom, by placing it out of the reach of
inquiring mortals ; therefore you must take it all on their
bare words.
Another invention to evade the prophecies is to pretend
that the kingdom of the Messiah, though they cannot deny
it to be of this world, was, nevertheless, not to consist of
mere worldly power and dominion, but was to be likewise
of a spiritual nature. As in this claim they confound a
temporal with a spiritual earthly empire, and as neither the
one nor the other is anywise capable of being applied to
Jesus I choose, for this reason, to set it forth in the words
of a famous divine :
<( It appears" (says he) " that the kingdom of the Mes-
siah, and that glorious state of things so much spoken of in
* Matthew xxvi. 64. f See the Creed.
66 BIAS* LETTERS.
the prophets, is not to be understood merely of a worldly
dominion or empire, under the government of a mere tem-
poral prince, that was to be a proper king of the Jews, and
of them only ; but of a kingdom of righteousness and peace,
of truth and holiness. The proper design was to spread the
knowledge and the practice of true religion among men
His dominion was to be over all nations. The blessing of
his reign was not to be confined to the Jews only, but was
to extend to all nations."*
This is not only a most glorious description of the cha-
racter of the Messiah, but likewise a most desirable one. I
think it wants only one thing to make it a complete character,
and I will add it ; it is this : That the Messiah was to gather
the dispersed Jews from all countries and restore them.
This appears from the twelve prophecies which I have cited, \
and from many others. If this, his distinguishing character,
be implied in the author's description, by his representing
him, " not as a mere king of the Jews, and of them only/'
I know not; but let that be as it will, it is plain that, ac-
cording to this author, the prophets speak much of a glorious
state of things under the Messiah; that worldly dominion
or empire was a principal part of his character; that he
was to be a proper king of the Jews ; that the Jews were
to enjoy the blessing of his reign. These qualities are
extended farther ; that is, under this glorious state of things
the Messiah was to introduce righteousness and peace, truth
and holiness, or the knowledge and practice of true religion.
He was not only to be a proper king of the Jews, but to have
universal empire ; for his dominion was to be over all nations,
* Divine Authority, Vol. i. pp. 358, 359.
f See Letter VI.
LETTER X. 67
and the blessings of his reign were not to be confined to the
Jews, and them only, but these blessings were to extend to
all nations likewise.
Now this being in part the glorious state of things so
much spoken of and described by the prophets, and the
distinguishing character of the Messiah : it would be an
easy matter to work the conversion of the Jews,' which
might be done only by making application of all this to
Jesus. But this they are not able to do ; and it is as im-
possible to prove his spiritual empire as his temporal; for
where will they find either the one or the other ? Surely
persecution and the different sects damning each other, can-
not be part of those blessings which were to extend to all
nations spiritually. Thus, with the same breath, they
endeavour to establish a spiritual kingdom, or empire,
which they affect to call a state of peace, and holiness, or
the practice of piety and virtue, but which they cannot
prove to have been generally practised at any time. They
very effectually establish the power, greatness, and earthly
dominion of the Messiah, in like manner as the Jews do ;
and it is worthy of observation how it weighs them down ; for
they never endeavour to soar above it, but directly sink
under it.
For, notwithstanding Jesus disowns and disclaims any
earthly power or authority, by declaring, " That his kingdom
was not of this world ; for if it were, his servants would fight
that he might not be delivered up :"* yet his followers cannot
avoid forcing it upon him, contrary to his expressed declara-
tion and renunciation; for they will have him to be, not a
mere king of the Jews, but a universal monarch.
* John xviii. 36.
68 DIAS ? LETTERS.
Another invention is, to pretend that the offices and
character of the Messiah clash, or are contradictory to one
another. The following passage will set this invention in its
true light : " The evidence appealed to by our Saviour" (says
Mr. West) " was the testimony of the Scriptures, in which
are contained not only the promises of a Messiah and Saviour
of the world, but the mark and description by which he was
to be known. Of these, there are so many, and those so
various so seemingly incompatible in one and the same
person, and exhibited, under such a multitude of types and
figures, that it was absurd for a mere mortal to pretend to
answer the character of the Messiah in all points."*
This is the light in which they represent that great and
noble character, which all the prophets so unanimously
describe. But the absurdity of representing it such as no
mere mortal could answer in all points, is owing to themselves.
It is nothing but a phantom of their own raising, by applying
to him passages which do not belong to him, or ever were
intended as any part of his character. This they are obliged
to do, that it may answer their purposes, and because the
plain characters by which he is described by the prophets,
are clearly a contradiction of their schemes. They, there-
fore, make his character a contradiction, that they may have
the opportunity of explaining the prophecies, and applying
other passages in such a manner as is most suitable to their
cause. Thus it was the custom of designing heathen priests
to deliver the oracles of their false gods, couched artfully
in dubious or ambiguous terms, " so as to be easily applied
to the event, let it fall out which way it would. "f For, as
they were ignorant of futurity, an ambiguous, or doubtful,
* Dis. on the Christian Revelation, pp. 101, 102. t Ib.
LETTER X. 69
reserved meaning, delivered in seemingly incompatible or
clashing terms, capable of different senses, meanings, and
constructions, would certainly bring their votaries to receive
the explanations of such oracles from them. This was agree-
able to their cause, a cause of darkness, deceit, fraud, lies,
error, and imposition. But, to suppose ambiguity, double
or hidden constructions, clashing or incompatible meanings
in the oracles delivered for our information and direction,
by THE ALL-WISE, GOOD, AND MERCIFUL GOD, THE FATHER
OF LIGHT, is either to suppose Him as ignorant of futurity, as
the priest who made use of that method, or to suppose Him
deceiving those whom He, in his great goodness, thought pro-
per to enlighten and instruct ; since for this end only did He
reveal those things. Therefore, whatever passages clash, or
are incompatible, can be no part of that character so often and
repeatedly uniformly described Such passages are, there-
fore, inconsistently ushered in, and made a part of it, by
artful and designing men, to answer their own interested
views, prejudices, and purposes.
Therefore, in justice to Him who only could foretell and
reveal future events with a fixed certainty, we must believe
that what He has revealed is candid, and easily to be under-
stood ; and that the characters which He describes are uni-
form, and have neither contradiction, double sense, hidden
meaning, or ambiguities; and that those who, represent
them in a contrary light, act inconsistently and absurdly.
Another invention which they make use of is, to take
and usurp the names by which the Jews are always meant.
Of this they stand in very great need } for, how otherwise
could they inherit the promises ? It is no wonder then that
they boldly use the name of Judah and Israel. The fol-
70 BIAS' LETTERS.
lowing passage shall describe this pretension : t( Whereas
the Messiah's kingdom seems sometimes to be described
with a particular regard to the Jews, and it is foretold that
he should reign over them, as their prince and shepherd,
and that in his days Israel and Judah shall dwell safely,
and in a happy state : there are two things which will en-
tirely take off the advantage ; the one is, that the terms
Israel and Judah, and the House of Israel, are not to be
understood, in the prophets, precisely of the seed of Jacob,
literally so called, or of the Jewish people and nation ; but
are sometimes designed for the church in general."*
This is the method by which the Jews are entirely to be
deprived of the advantages promised them. Here, then, by a
dash of the pen, you have the Jews stripped of their name,
and the advantages of thef promises to them made ; and
both the one and the other transferred to the church in
general. They, whenever they stand in need of it for their
purpose, (as sometimes they do,) why then, they make use
of it; but, their turn being served, they very willingly part
with it, and generally restore it to the right owner ; for,
whenever there is a calamity foretold, that should happen
to Judah or Israel, then the Jews are thereby meant ; and,
upon such an occasion, they are the literal seed of Jacob,
and they will most certainly find it fulfilled and accom-
plished. But whenever they find any promises of good
things, or happy days, then the Jews, or literal seed of
Jacob, have nothing to do with it; for the advantage of
their name must be taken from them, and such things only
* Divine Authority, Vol. i. p. 162.
f The remaining portion of this letter is wanting in our MS. We
copy therefore from the "Jew" in which paper it first appeared.
LETTER X. 71
belong to the Christian church, that is, to the mysterious
seed of Jacob.
Thus absurdly do they reason ; and make the prophecies
a two-edged tool, to cut which way they please. Should not
a reason be given why the literal sense should be applied
one time, and a different one at another ? Have not the
Jews a right to urge that the words of the prophets were
always understood and taken in the literal sense, whenever
they described or foretold either the exaltation or downfall
of any people or kingdom ? And are not such prophecies
always applied according to their plain sense, and literal
meaning ? Nay, is it not an argument made use of to prove
the inspiration of the prophets, that they did so clearly
foretell such events ? Would not the Jews, in their Egyp-
tian bondage, have had great reason to refuse the mission
of any person that should have pretended to persuade them
that the promises which Grod made to Abraham, of their
delivery from thence, and of possessing the land of Canaan,
were not to be taken in their literal meaning, but that these
promises meant, and should be applied and explained in a
spiritual sense ? Are not the promises made to the House
of Israel and of Judah of their delivery from their oppres-
sion and dispersion, and their return from all parts, as
express as those made concerning their delivery from Egypt?
If so, the Jews act consistently in rejecting the sense of a
spiritual delivery from their present dispersion : in like
manner as their ancestors would have acted judiciously to
refuse the mission of that person who should have pretended
their delivery from Egypt was only to be spiritual, and not
from their oppression, which was the promise made ; and as
God made good his promise, in delivering them literally
72 DIAS' LETTERS.
from Egypt, why should they not expect, and hope for, a
literal accomplishment of his promise in this other ?
How absurd would it appear, even to Christians, were
any nation or people to pretend that the promise to Abra-
ham, of the delivery of his seed from Egypt, was not
intended for his descendants, but meant themselves, who
were intend by that promise to have a spiritual deliverance !
The fallacy of such a supposition they would immediately
discover and detect ; and, dare I affirm, would agree very
much in favour of the delivery of the Jews, and very clearly
show how chimerical that people or nation's pretensions
were, and demonstrate the absurdity of such a claim, and
the vanity of usurping a name which was none of theirs.
Now if it be absurd in the one case, why not in the other ?
Besides, if the Jews are the natural seed of Jacob for their
calamities, why not for the promise of good things ? And
if they are literally fulfilled in one case, why should they
not be literally accomplished in the other ?
But the vanity of this pretension is plainly described by
the prophet, in these words : " One shall say, I am the
LORD'S; and another shall call himself by the name of
Jacob ; and another shall subscribe with his hand by the
name of Israel/'* From the prophet they have also the
answer: "Who, as I, shall call and shall declare it, and
set it in order for me, since I appointed the ancient people ?
and the things that are coming and shall come, let them
show unto them."")* " Is my hand shortened at all that I
cannot redeem, or have I no power to deliver ?"J
To conclude this long letter : it is by such arts and
* Isaiah xliv. 5. f Ib - ^ t Ib - L 2 -
LETTER XI. 73
inventions, without any authority, that they pretend to
reconcile the greatest difficulties and contradictions. Allow
them but the means, and they will attain their ends. Take
but their words, and every thing is made clear by the appli-
cation and explanation of terms and passages.
There are, besides, some other methods and inventions,
which I shall take notice of upon proper occasion.
LETTER XL
THE better to show the insufficiency of the arts and in-
ventions, mentioned in my last, it is necessary to instance
some prophecies, which being explained according to those
rules, you will then be the better able to judge the vanity
of all such arts, and how absurd it is to pretend by such
evasions to prove either the fulfilling of the prophecies, or
to support any claim. It is pretended, " that the prophets
intimated clear enough, that a new dispensation was to be
introduced, and a new covenant different from that which
God made with their fathers/'* To prove this they refer
to a passage of Jeremiah, which I will transcribe at length,
give you its literal meaning, and then consider it according
to" the application made by their arts. The passage is as
follows :
" Behold, the days come saith the LORD, that I will make
a, new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house
of Judah : not according to the covenant that I made with
* Divine Authority, Vol. i. p. 101.
74 BIAS* LETTERS.
their fathers, in the day that I took them by the hand
to bring them out of the land of Egypt ; which my covenant
(Berith) they brake, although I was a husband unto them,
saith the LORD. But this shall be the covenant that I will make
with the house of Israel. After those days, saith the LORD,
I will put my law ( Torali^} in their inward parts, and write it
in their hearts, and will be their God, and they shall be my
people. And they shall teach no more every man his
neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the
LORD ; for they shall all know me, from the least of them
unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD ; for I will for-
give their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.
Thus saith the LORD, which giveth the sun for a light by
day, and the ordinances of the moon and of the stars for a
light by night, which divideth the sea when the waves
thereof roar; the LORD of Hosts is his name : If those or-
dinances depart from before me, saith the LORD, then the
seed of Israel also shall cease from being a nation before me
for ever. Thus saith the LORD, If heaven above can be
measured, and the foundations of the earth searched out
beneath, I will also cast off all the seed of Israel, for all that
they have done, saith the LORD. Behold the days come,
saith the LORD, that the city shall be built to the LORD
from the tower of Hananeel unto the gate of the corner. And
the measuring line shall yet go forth over against it, upon
the hill Gareb, and shall compass about to Goath. And the
whole valley of the dead bodies, and of the ashes and all
the fields unto the brook Kidron, unto the corner of the
horse-gate towards the east, shall le holy unto the LORD } it
* ToraJi is the law of Moses; Berith is the covenant concerning its
observance.
LETTER XI. T5
shall not be plucked up nor thrown down any more for
ever."*
Now from this prophecy it plainly appears, that God was
to make a new covenant with the houses of Israel and Judah,
or Jewish nation, which covenant should not be broken like
that made with their fathers. The condition on the people's
part is, that they are to observe the law, (signified by God's
writing it on their hearts, and fixing it in their inward
parts,) and be God's peculiar people : and God, on his part,
was to forgive and forget their iniquity and sin, was to
restore, preserve them, and be their God, and cause their
city to be built, never more to be destroyed. This, in few
words, are the contents of the promised covenant,
according to the clear sense and obvious meaning of the
prophet, conformable and agreeable to the repeated promise
made to the nation, by all the prophets. The plain
meaning of this prophecy, and the peculiar terms in which
it is delivered, ought, one would think, to deter people
from practising their arts, and imposing meanings thereon,
so different from, and so entirely contradictory to that
of the prophet. He has entered into a particular des-
cription of the people who were to be parties or partakers
of the new covenant. And he has also particularized and
declared, not only its contents, but likewise in what it was
to differ from the former one. Thus it plainly appears, that
God would enter into a new covenant with the Jews } but
that a new law, or any new dispensation, was to be intro-
duced, has no manner of foundation. That the new covenant
was to be different from that which their fathers entered
%
* Jeremiah, Chap, xxxi., verse 31 to the end. Bible Translation.
76 BIAS 7 LETTERS.
into, is likewise plain and evident. But what has that to
do with a new dispensation which is pretended was to be
introduced? does not the prophet declare in what the
difference was to consist ? The former covenant had been con-
ditional; by it the nation's happiness and welfare were made
to depend entirely on the observance of that which they
stipulated ; but they continually failed, and broke the con-
ditions, and, in consequence, often received exemplary pun-
ishments. But the ne\v covenant was to be formed upon an
entirely new plan; by it the nation's happiness was to be
permanent, lasting, unconditional; for they were to have
such knowledge of God, from the least to the greatest, as
was to insure duty and fidelity ever after; apd this in such
a manner, that though all nations failed, yet the Jews should
never be cast off, or cease to be a nation ; for the same
Almighty Power that created the universe, and gave
laws to nature, would preserve and protect them. This,
then, are the contents and condition of the new covenant;
and the difference from the old to the new is this. By the
old, the nation's happiness was only conditional ; whereas,
by the new, it is to be absolute and unconditional. The
old they often broke, but the new they never should break ;
for it was to be as lasting as nature itself.
The reasoning of St. Paul on this passage is most remark-
able, and ought not to be passed in silence. He will have
Jesus to be the mediator of it,* and reasons, " that if the
first covenant had been faultless, there had been no place
for a second/'f To these two assertions, I shall only say,
1st, that the prophet neither points out Jesus, nor intimates
* Heb. viiu 6. f Ibid. 7.
LETTER XT. 77
any thing concerning a mediator; and 2dly, that, had
any other than St, Paul declared that what God did was
faulty, so many arguments would be urged against him by
Christian divines, and such a defence be made of God's
goodness and conduct, that the impossibility of his commit-
ting any fault would be made so evident as should silence all
such opinions. And there appears so little connexion be-
tween the new covenant promised by the prophet, and the
transaction related to have happened in the time of Jesus,
that I cannot see the least resemblance of the prophecy to
the completion. The comparing of a few instances may help
to set this in a clear light.
It is pretended that Jesus was the mediator of the new
covenant ; but how was this performed ? did he enter into
any agreement or covenant with the house of Israel ? No,
the Jews know of none, and history is entirely silent, as to
this circumstance, and not the least footstep of any such
contract is to be traced. Besides no contract can be made
without the consent of the parties ; and if they did not give
either their express or tacit consent, the covenant, or con-
tract, can never be either valid or binding. But was it at
that time that God entered into a special relation with the
houses of Israel and Judah, of being their God, and taking
them for his chosen people ?
Was it then that they were full of the knowledge of God,
even from the least to the greatest ?
Was it at that time that God forgave their sins and ini-
quity ?
Were they at that time restored, never more to be cast
off, or cease to be a nation ?
7*
78
BIAS LETTERS.
Was then the time in which their city should be rebuilt,
never after to be plucked up or thrown down ?
These particulars, it is well known, never came to pass,
neither then nor since. How, then, could the promised
covenant take place ? Should not every particular circum-
stance of the prophet's description be fulfilled and accom-
plished, before they lay their claims ? and are not things
represented in the very opposite, or contrary extreme?
For, instead of having God's law fixed in their hearts,
they are represented as the wickedest generation that ever
existed.
Instead of having a perfect knowledge of God, and being
his people, they are represented as the most abominable and
reprobate nation under heaven.
Instead of having their city and temple rebuilt, never
more to be destroyed, behold both miserably laid waste !
Instead of being a nation never to be cast off, behold them
struggling under every species of hardship, oppression and
dependence.
Instead of having their sins forgiven, they are represented
as committing, at that very time, the most heinous and
atrocious crimes, particularly that of refusing the Messiah,
and putting him to an ignominious death.
Instead of continuing a glorious nation, behold them
miserable, conquered, and dispersed throughout the four
corners of the earth, persecuted in turn by every nation.
How, then, is this prophecy fulfilled ? Has the applica-
tion the least shadow of agreement with the promise therein
contained ?
But here they take shelter in their evasions, and fly for
LETTER XI. 79
refuge to their arts and inventions, the strength of which let
us examine.
They say that by the names of Israel and Judah, not the
Jews, but the gentiles, are thereby intended and meant. It
is the Christian church, under those denominations, that
was to enjoy the peculiar privileges and advantages pro-
mised by the new covenant. Were they able to make out
their claim, it would be but reasonable to grant their pre-
tensions ; but it happens that the prophet is so minutely
circumstantial in his description, that it effectually excludes
any people or nation from being thereby intended, excepting
the literal house of Israel, or natural seed of Jacob. No-
thing, under the utmost violence done to the text, and a
most unnatural meaning imposed on it, can give it a con-
trary sense. But certainly the liberty of imposing a sense
and meaning on words different from that which they im-
port according to their first and known acceptation and
signification, is such a violation as ought never to be
admitted.
For, if words are made use of as signs to denote our ideas,
what a confusion and subversion of language must ensue,
if a meaning contrary to that which the words stand as a
known sign of, be arbitrarily imposed on them at pleasure ?
What is there, according to this scheme, that a person may
not be made to say ? But, as this is the greatest and
grossest abuse of language, the bare mentioning of it is
sufficient to expose its absurdity. However, I should be
glad to know from whence the authority of imposing an
opposite, contrary, or different sense on Scripture is derived.
I am sure no such liberty would be allowed to any person ;
no, not even in the most common affairs of life. Ought not
80 BIAS* LETTERS.
the pretenders to this privilege (supposing in this prophecy)
at least to have referred to some passage wherein mention
is made of the houses of Israel and Judah , and showing the
inconsistency and absurdity of applying these terms to the
literal seed of Israel or Judah, or the Jewish nation, and
then show their pertinency and exact agreement as applied
to the Christian church ? Was it for want of words in the
Hebrew language, that the gentiles are called by that very
name by which the Jews are always meant and intended ?
Can it be supposed that God would do that which must
appear highly absurd in man ? By no means ; the very
passage is plain and explicit against any such pretensions,
and puts it out of all doubt, that none but the literal houses
of Israel and Judah were intended. For the new covenant
was to be made with those whose fathers the Lord brought
up from the land of Egypt; with whose fathers He made
a former covenant; with those whose fathers had broken that
covenant, notwithstanding He had behaved like a husband
unto them. Now pray, whom does this description fit, the
Jews or the gentiles ? If the Jews, then it was with them
that God was to make the new covenant ; and as it is they,
literally, to whom the preceding particulars are alone appli-
cable, so it is with them literally that the covenant was
to be made. But since the gentiles are so fond of being
thought to be meant by the name of Israel, why do they
not undertake to prove that it was not the ancestors of the
Jews (literally) but theirs who entered, into a former cove-
nant that it was not the fathers of the Jews (literally)
who broke the covenant, and were punished, but theirs ?
and then, after they have properly made all this out, it will
be time to put in for that name, and claim the privilege of
LETTER XI. 81
the new covenant. But, as it is natural to think they can
never make out all this, they may, perhaps, make use of
another invention, and pretend that the new covenant was
to be spiritual. To this I answer that God made no such
distinction ; and, as the former covenant was worldly, so
also must the new one be; for it particularizes things
entirely of worldly nature, particularly, that the house of
Israel should never be cast off, nor cease to be a nation.
It may likewise be pretended that this covenant was to
take place in heaven, and you may be referred to paradise
for its accomplishment ; it is but putting heaven for Jeru-
salem, an invention often made use of. To this I answer,
that the prophet intimates the very contrary ; and, lest any
such pretension should be made, he carefully and minutely
describes the earthly Jerusalem, and describes the tower
Hanancel, the gates, the hill Gareb and Goath, the valley
of dead bodies and of ashes, the fields, the brook Kidron,
and the Horse-gate; all which puts it beyond dispute that
he meant Jerusalem literally and not paradise nor heaven.
Besides, the Words " shall not be plucked up or thrown
down any more for ever" imply that the place had been
destroyed, which never could be said of a heavenly one.
In short, it seems as if God had carefully provided that
his meaning should not be misapplied in any part of it, by
circumstantially describing every particular ; and that He
has done so minutely, as strongly enforces his plain mean-
ing in such a manner as to render it impracticable, consist-
ently, to apply this prophecy in any other sense.
These are the arts and evasions to which the most learned
and eminent men have recourse ; it is to these, and such
like subterfuges, that they fly for shelter; it is from such
82 BIAS* LETTERS.
chimerical and vain pretensions, that they undertake to
prove the fulfilling of prophecy. As they write to people
of the same persuasion and way of thinking, it is very rare
that their reasoning meets any Opposition ; but every thing
they say, though ever so absurd, is received with applause
and approbation, as if they had demonstratively proved their
point, or convinced their opponents. They exult and sing
Te Deum for their victory. They triumph and exclaim
against the Jews for wilfully shutting their eyes and hard-
ening their hearts against the plain arguments and dictates
of truth, concluding them to be under a national blindness,
an infatuation. They will, indeed, invite people to make
their objections; but wo then to the poor creatures who
undertake the task ; for they are to expect no quarter ;
heresy, infidelity, and apostacy, will be proved against
them; and defamation and ill-language will certainly ensue;
for they are generally very eloquent and expert at these
weapons.
Allow me, sir, to ask one question, and this is: " Sup-
posing a prophet had positive orders from God to promise
and fulfil any thing which was to happen and befall the
house of Israel or Judah, or their literal descendents ; would
it be possible for the prophet to deliver or make known
God's will, and reveal his purpose to them, in words and
terms naore significant and proper than those very words
which the prophet has, in the passage now under considera-
tion, delivered his commission in ?" I challenge any person
to do it in words more expressive and less liable to objec-
tions or exceptions; and if this be the case, as it certainly
is, what reasons are there to think that when He has chosen
the most unexceptionable terms, He has deceived those He
LETTER XII. 83
spoke to, and intended the contrary. Shall we impute that
to God which we should condemn as the greatest absurdity
and abuse in men ?
LETTER XII.
THE best method, and indeed the only sure guide we
have to come to the truth, is to examine the prophecies
which are cited in the New, from the Old Testament, and
applied as fulfilled by Jesus, and accomplished in him. It
is by such an examination only that a true judgment can
be formed of the validity of their application and accom-
plishment, the prophecies being the only criterion by which
the Messiah is to be known, since it is from them alone that
his character must be proved ; and we may be most certain
that such evidence must be, not only superior, but the most
sure, as St. Peter expresses it.* For what in nature can
be superior to plain and clear prophecies delivered to differ-
ent persons, and at different times, all unanimously and
uniformly foretelling, so long before, that which should hap-
pen or come to pass, being transactions so very extraordi-
nary that, when duly attended to, the prophecies compared
to the events, evidently, obviously, and literally fulfilled
and accomplished, must be the highest testimony any thing
can possibly be capable of ? This task is therefore absolutely
necessary, and I with pleasure undertake the examination.
1. The first prophecy taken from the Old Testament, and
* Peter i. 19.
84 DIAS ? LETTERS.
applied in the New, is that which concerns the conception
of Mary, and the birth of Jesus from a Virgin ; which St.
Matthew proves by applying a passage out of Isaiah :*
" Now all this was done, (says he,) that it might be fulfilled
which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying,
Behold a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a
son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, ")* Now it
happens that the passage cited from Isaiah, according to its
natural, plain, and obvious meaning, concerns neither the
birth of Jesus from a virgin t nor the birth of the Messiah
at all : this being no prophecy, the evangelist's citing it,
as fulfilled, can prove nothing. This will plainly and
evidently appear from a due consideration of the pro-
phet's design and intention in the sign, and also from the
nature of the sign, by him given to Ahaz, which was on
the following occasion, viz. In the days of Ahaz king of
Judah, Rezin king of Syria, and Pekah king of Israel,
laid siege to Jerusalem, but could not prevail." The
two kings being disappointed, conclude a new alliance, and,
with a greater force, agree to return again to the siege.
This confederacy struck great panic and terror in the house
of David and inhabitants of Jerusalem. On this occasion
Isaiah was sent by God to comfort Ahaz, and to assure
him in his name, that the confederate kings should not pre-
vail in their design ; and in order to convince Ahaz of its
certainty, the prophet, in (rod's name, tells him to ask a
sign of him. The incredulous king excuses himself, under
pretence of not tempting God. The prophet, after com-
plaining of the king's behaviour, tells him that the Lord
himself shall give him a sign, no doubt a clear, indisputable,
* Isaiah vii. 14. f Matthew i. 23.
LETTER XII. 85
immediate sign, and such an one, as should effectually
answer the intention and purpose for which it was given,
viz : That a young woman, (for so the word Almah signi-
fies,) should be delivered of a son, whose name should be
called Immanuel; that before this child should know how
to refuse the evil, or choose the good, that is, within a very
short time, " The land which he abhorred should be forsaken
of both her kings. "* Now, it is plain as words can make
it, that it was to convince Ahaz of the truth of the prophet's
prediction, that this sign was given him from the Lord;
and the nature of the sign given was most certainly calcu-
lated and adapted to answer the purpose for which it was
given, viz : that it might be a proof of and testimony to the
prophet's prediction ; and so it effectually was ; and it must
have been the greatest absurdity, and contrary to the very
intention of the sign, to have understood the prophet as St.
Matthew does, describing here the conception of Mary, and
the birth of her son Jesus, an event which was not to hap-
pen till seven or eight hundred years after. For how could
a sign, either of this pretended nature or so remote, have
confirmed Ahaz in the hope and expectation, which the
prophet gave him from the Lord, of the destruction of his two
great enemies, within a very short time ? 'But the certain
foretelling of a birth of a male child, and the declaring that
before it should have any knowledge, both the kings, his
enemies, should be destroyed, .appears a proper and well
adapted sign; because it must have shortly verified the
prophet's prediction. But a sign which was not to come to
pass till upwards of seven or eight hundred years after,
* Isaiah vii. 2 ; and 2 Kings xvi.
86 BIAS' LETTERS.
could never answer the purpose; for how could it be a sign
to the incredulous king, to prove that which was immedi-
ately to happen ? For the incredulity of Ahaz was the ac-
casion of God's given him a sign. But how could that sign
contribute to convince him, unless he saw the accomplish-
ment? And if he disbelieved the promise from God in
what was soon to happen, what credit could be expected he
should give to an event so very remote ? Would it not be
the greatest absurdity for a person to foretell a thing as im-
mediately, or soon coming to pass, and to give a sign, which
should not come to pass for seven or eight hundred years
after? When the thing foretold was over, could a sign
at that distance be any proof or confirmation of the truth
of the thing foretold? No, certainly, it must appear
useless to every person, and rather a banter than a sign,
and could only serve to add to the incredulity of those
concerned.
On the other hand, nothing can be clearer than that the
whole transaction was plainly fulfilled in the days of Ahaz,
within the time limited by the prophet, before the child
which was born could distinguished good from evil, or in
about two years, as is evident from sacred history ; for with-
in that time the king of Syria was slain, after the taking of
Damascus ;* and the king of Israel was smitten by Hosea,
who rebelled against him ;*(* by which means the land which
Ahaz abhorred was bereft of both her kings, which event
fulfilled the prophet's prediction, for which the prophet's
own child, (and not Jesus, as it is pretended,) was given as
the sign.
* 2 Kings xvi. 9. f *!>*. xv - 30 '
LETTER XII. 87
That it was so, the prophet himself declares, by saying,
" Behold, I and the children whom the LORD hath given me
are for signs and for wonders in Israel from the LORD of
Hosts."* Thus was the sign given to convince Ahaz ful-
filled, and the whole prophecy accomplished at that very
time, and consequently it excludes all their pretensions.
The word Almah, rendered " virgin" in the English Bible,
signifies no more than a young woman, whether maid, mar-
ried, or widow. When a virgin is intended, it is always
expressed by the word Betlmlali, which is the proper term
for a virgin; this is evident from the vrord^ Bethulah being
used for virgin throughout all Scripture. f
I cannot here forbear observing, how cautiously Father
Calniet treats, and explains the word Almah. He trifles
and imposes on his readers, and endeavours to hide from
them, as much as lies in his power, its true meaning, by
declaring, that, " The Hebrews had no term that more pro-
perly signifies a virgin than Almah " for though he at last,
(and as it were, contrary to his inclination,) is forced to
confess the contrary, he does it in such a manner, as disco-
vers his glaring chicanery ; for he says, " It must be con-
fessed, without lessening however the certainty of Isaiah's
prophecy, that sometimes, by mistake, any young woman
whatsoever, whether a virgin or not, is called Almah."
Now observe : First he assures you, that, " The Hebrews
have no term that more properly signifies a virgin, than
Almah" which is evidently false; secondly, when he
brings himself to the confession, " that any young woman
whatsoever" is called by this name, he will have it to be by
* Isaiah viii. 18.
j-Vide Gen. xxiv. 16; Levit. xxi. 3, 13; Deut. xxii. 23, 28, <fcc.
88 BIAS* LETTERS.
mistake, which is also false ; and lastly, for fear of prejudi-
cing or lessening the authority of the application of Isaiah's
prophecy by St. Matthew, he inserts a salvo by which he
excepts the word in that place, not to mean any young wo-
man whatsoever, but that it means a virgin. How vain,
nay, how ridiculous are such shifts and evasions.*
Let us return : There are many Christian commentators,
both ancient and modern, who do justice to this passage of
Isaiah, and acknowledge that the whole must be literally
understood of his own son, who was made the sign to Ahaz,
and was consequently accomplished in his days ; and then
content themselves, either with making Isaiah's son to be a
type of Jesus, or with barely contending for an accommo-
dation of phrases, made use of here by the evangelist. But
as neither of these inventions is of weight, or proves any
thing, it makes others, who are not at all pleased with the
aforesaid methods of accounting for the evangelist's saying
that a thing was fulfilled when in fact it was not, endeavour,
by various shifts and wretched evasions, to extend this pas-
sage of Isaiah to the miraculous conception of a virgin, and
birth of Jesus. These always take for granted, that the
term Almah means a virgin. At all this you must not be
surprised; for on such occasions, let the passage be ever so
plain, they must endeavour to fix on some other meaning,
and make it out some way or other ; this they will always
do rather than give up a point so essential, and on which
they place the very foundation of the Christian religion.
The authors of the Universal History furnish you with a
very remarkable instance, who, having put their own sense
on the prophecy, that the sceptre should not depart from
* See Calmet Diet, on the word Almah.
LETTER XII. 89
Judah, till Shiloh come to put an end to the kingdom,*
they tell you that the desponding king (Ahaz) could not be
ignorant of it ; as if the wise authors knew, and were cer-
tain, that Ahaz believed this prophecy of Jacob in the sense
given to that passage by Christians, after the establishment
of Christianity; when on the contrary, it very evidently
and plainly appears, that the sense of the whole Jewish
church and nation, not excepting even Jesus himself, the
evangelist, and apostles, who never made use of, or applied
that prophecy in any sense whatever, (a plain proof that they
never understood it in the sense since given it,) must ever
have been against any such application or explanation ; for
they did always ardently wish for, and expect the Messiah,
as the greatest blessing and happiness that could befall
them ; consequently they either did not believe Shiloh to
be the Messiah ; or if they did believe the Messiah to be
thereby meant, it must have been in a very different sense,
since the restoring of the kingdom and nation was that
which they expected at his coming ; otherwise, instead of
joyfully expecting him as the greatest blessing, they would
have had cause to dread his coming. Therefore Ahaz's fears
could never have proceeded from that passage; for if he knew
any thing of that passage, he must have considered it in a
different sense ; and it is much more probable, that he had
but little faith in prediction, to which he seems to have paid
but little regard, as appears from the whole history of his life.
It is surprising therefore, that the learned authors should
explain this passage by building on so inconsistent and so
false a foundation ; asserting as they do, " that this Shiloh
* Universal History, Vol. iv. p. 153.
8*
90 BIAS' LETTERS.
promised to Judah and David, who was to forerun the total
excision of the Jewish polity, was to be born in a miracu-
lous manner, and with a divine character, and other remark-
able circustances." But all this is a mere ramble of the
authors' own invention, and has no foundation at all, nor
any connexion with Isaiah's prophecy ; for the authors speak
of matters which could not be given for signs, either to
Ahaz or to any other persons : no, not even to those who
should live in the time of this pretended miraculous birth.
Therefore such signs must have been useless, and conse-
quently could answer no purpose at all ; for how could that
be given for a sign, which according to the nature and
frame of things, could never be made manifest, it being
impracticable to evidence the virginity of any woman?
Take me right, I am not here speaking against the possi-
bility of the thing, that not being the question at present ;
but what I urge is, the uselessness of such a sign ; because
it was of that nature, as made it impracticable to be wrought
in a manner capable to answer the purpose for which alone
a sign can be given, that is, conviction.
I am therefore only clearing and defending the prophet
from having any such design; for such a sign and miracle,
being by the nature of things invisible, could never have
been intended as a proof of that which should come
to pass; the same being actually contrary to the manner of
God's performing his miracles on all other occasions. For
unless they were manifest and public, how could they
be attended to, or how could the people be convinced by
them?
The same objections may also be urged against the con-
ception of a woman without the concurrence of a man : the
LETTER XII. 91
possibility of the thing is not here the question ; but the
impossibility of the same being made manifest, or evident,
is all I contend for, and which is sufficient for my purpose.
I need not urge the different accounts given by Matthew
and Luke ; from which many objections might be made ;
but there are some expressions, such as " The Holy Ghost
shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall
overshadow thee,"* which I should be glad to have explained
according to the rules of language ; for as they stand, they
may possibly introduce into unwary and ignorant minds
ideas very unbecoming God, or the Holy Ghost; at least it
may be thought to give too great a sanction to stories
feigned and invented by the heathens, concerning the amours
of their gods, with which their poets sometimes diverted
themselves : Homer in particular, very agreeably exposes
Mars and Venus, when Vulcan caught them in his net.f
But whether this be so or not, let us now return to the
authors of the Universal History. They say, " As for that
part of the prophecy, which is commonly urged on the other
side, namely, before this wonderful child shall know good
from evil, the land which thou abhorrest shall be forsaken
of both her kings," they think that by this ought to be un-
derstood, not the land of Syria and Israel, the land which
Ahaz abhorred, and which was to be forsaken of both her
kings, viz. Rezin and Pekah, his two great enemies, bufc
the land of Judah and Israel, which should be forsaken of
both her kings before the coming of the Messiah ; thus they
pretend to make a new version of the text. How stupid
must the commentators of so many centuries have been, not
/
* Luke i. 35. t See the eighth Book of the Odyssey.
92 BIAS* LETTERS.
to have found out this ? But facts are stubborn things, and
the destruction of Kezin and Pekah by violent deaths,
within the time limited by the prophet, puts it beyond
dispute what kings they were whom the prophet meant.
I must not pass in silence the art which the before-men-
tioned historians make use of to prejudice and blind their
readers ; by inserting the word WONDERFUL, cited as if it was in
the text, which only says, " For before the child shall know
how to refuse the evil and choose the good."* By this
means they endeavour to make Jesus to be this wonderful
child. But supposing the prophet had said this wonderful
child, how could he be proved to be so ? since it is im-
possible to do it, either from the conception of a woman
without the concurrence of a man, or from the nature of vir-
ginity ; both these being hidden and invisible. Had his
birth any thing wonderful, or was his person so? As for
his birth, for any thing that appears, it seems to have
been the same as that of other babes ; being formed in his
mother's womb, in the due course of time, and brought forth
into the world in the common manner. He does not ap-
pear to have been endowed with any thing superior to other
babes, and he required the same nourishment and nursing; and
as to his person, no doubt it was fashioned like other babes ;
nothing is recorded of any thing extraordinary in his body,
be that as handsome or perfect as they please. So that in
all things he appeared like other children that were begat
in the common way, and he grew in like manner as other
children do, and no person, from his fashion or make, ever
thought otherwise. From all which particulars one may
* Isaiah Chap. vii. 16.
LETTER XII. 93
with certainty draw a very fair and natural inference, and
that is, as he appeared in his birth, shape and growth, like
other men, so nothing which can be alleged, will be suf-
ficient to prove that he was not got by the same usual means
as others are.
This natural inference being founded on facts and occular
demonstration, no evidence can be superior to it ; since it
must always outweigh any other proof, unless it could be
made as demonstrable and visible to our senses. For this
reason some Christians believe that he was Joseph's son ;
but be that as it may, they cannot pretend to impose him
upon us as a wonderful child. One may indeed, with
Doctor Echart, admire, and " see the profound humility of
our blessed Saviour, who chose not to descend from heaven
with the glories of a triumphant monarch and deliverer, but
privately to enter into the womb of a mean virgin ; from
thence to be brought forth as an infant ; and then to appear
in the world in the form of the lowest rank of mankind. "*
I produce not this passage to make any observations, but
only to strengthen what I have asserted, viz. that nothing
wonderful, as is pretended, appeared, or was visible in him ;
and that consequently these historians misrepresent the
whole transaction which concerns the birth of Isaiah's child,
(as appears from the history of those times,) given as a sign
to Ahaz, which was accomplished in those days. Therefore
the evangelist's saying, " that it might be fulfilled," &c.
citing this passage, is at most but an accommodation of
phrases, and does not say that any thing was thereby
fulfilled.
* Introduct. to Eccle. History, p. 42.
94 BIAS' LETTERS.
. In like manner we shall find, as we proceed farther in
this examination, many other citations, made and accom-
modated to things which the places from whence they are
cited could have no reference to, according to their plain
sense and meaning; so that not being literally applied, they
cannot be proof of any thing.
I must beg pardon for having troubled you with so long
a letter, and have no other excuse but that it was required
from the importance of the subject, which drew me to this
length, notwithstanding I forebore saying and remarking
many things, as you may easily guess I might have done
on so copious a subject. But I shall conclude with one,
and that is, that no use was ever made by Jesus of his being
wonderfully conceived or born, nor offered by him as any
proof of his being the Messiah; which shows that these
transactions could not be intended as any proof of him, or
his office, and are consequently useless.
LETTER XIII.
II. THE next prophecy cited by Matthew, as fulfilled in
Jesus, is concerning the place of his birth, and greatness.
The place referred to is in Micah :* '* And thou Bethlehem
in the land of Judah, art not the least among the princes
of Judah: for out of thee shall come a governor that
shall rule my people Israel. "f This is said to be the
* Micah v. 2. f Matt. ii. 6.
LETTER XIII. 95
answer made to Herod by the chief priests and scribes,
when he inquired of them concerning the place of the
Messiah's birth; both he and all Jerusalem being trou-
bled at the news published by the eastern wise men,
of having seen his star in the east, by which they
knew of the birth of the king of the Jews.* This is the
account transmitted to us of this affair. But in this whole
transaction there seem some things, not only very improba-
ble, but even incredible : such as that Herod should gather
the chief priests and scribes to ask such a question, and
that they should return him such an answer ; that an ex-
traordinary star should appear in the east; or that its
appearance should be known to be a notification of the birth
of a child in Judea; that the wise men should take a
long journey to no purpose; that the star should make its
appearance to people who were nowise concerned in the
birth of the king of the Jews, and not to the Jews
themselves, who were the people chiefly interested; that
Jerusalem should be troubled at an event, which must
have been a matter of great joy and comfort to them ;{"
that an assembly of chief priests and scribes should fix the
place where their glorious king should be born, when it
seems to have been an established principle among them,
that they were not to know the place of the Messiah's
birth 7 J since there have followed many pretenders to that
character, without being born at Bethlehem ; and lastly,
that the star which the wise men had seen in the east,
should again appear to them when they had parted from
Herod, march before them, and make a stand " Over where
* Matt. ii. 1-4 f Luke ii. 10. J John vii. 27.
96 BIAS' LETTERS.
the child was/'* for no manner of purpose; since we hear
no more of these wise men, nor of any use that was made
of their journey ; all which seems to be such a piece of
extravagance, and such a continued series of impossibilities
and incredibilities, as nothing can equal. For how could
people, acquainted with the vast magnitude of the stars,
(for wise they were,) think that one went before them, to
show them their way from house to house ? And singe the
star must necessarily have travelled from the east, where it
first appeared, to Jerusalem, where the wise men again
found it, for it was the same starf which guided them to
the place where the child was, why did not the star guide
them directly from the place they set out from to Bethle-
hem ? for the guidance of the star from Jerusalem appears
needless, since Herod had directed them before. Besides,
so extraordinary a phenomenon must have drawn the atten-
tion of the whole city, and numbers of other people would
have followed it as well as the wise men, had it been seen ;
but of this the story takes no manner of notice. All the
aforesaid considerations make it probable, that the whole
was invented to make way for the application of this and
two other passages as fulfilled; for, as this gospel of Mat-
thew's was written for the use of the Jews, and they believ-
ing that the character of the Messiah could only be proved
by prophecy, and finding none in the prophets applicable to
him, according to their plain, obvious meaning, facts were
invented, to have an opportunity of introducing something
as having been fulfilled. This is only a conjecture of my
own ; but whether it was really so in fact or not, it is cer-
* Matt. ii. 9. f Matt. ii. 9.
LETTER XIII. 97
tain that this citation could never be an} 7 description of
Jesus ; the whole passage as it is in Micah, is, throughout,
very justly and judiciously applied to Zerubbabel ; and every
circumstance in the description excludes Jesus from being
thereby meant, or intended, since the person there spoken
of, " was to be a ruler in Israel; 7 ' and farther the prophet
declares, " that this man shall be the peace, when the As-
syrian shall come into our land, and when he shall tread
into our palaces; then shall we raise against him seven
shepherds and eight principal men. And they shall waste
the land of Assyria with the sword, and the land of Nimrod
in the entrances thereof; thus shall he deliver us from the
Assyrian, when he cometh into our land, and when he
treadeth within our borders/' " And the remnant of Jacob
shall be in the midst of many people as a dew from the
LORD/' &c. See the whole chapter, and the impossibility
of applying it to Jesus literally. For unless it be so ac-
cording to its primary sense and meaning, it can neither be
deemed to be fulfilled, nor produced to prove any thing.
III. One of the passages, or prophecies, which is cited
by St. Matthew, and said by him to be fulfilled, in conse-
quence of the needless discovery made to Herod by the wise
men, is the following, and is the next which the said evan-
gelist cites. It is from that discovery that he tells us, how
that Joseph dreamed that an angel appeared to him, and
ordered him to flee with the child and its mother into Egypt,
which being done, he says, " that he was there till the death
of Herod, that it might be fulfilled what was spoken of the
LORD, by the prophet saying, Out of Egypt have I called
my Son."* These words are taken from Hosea, where
* Matt. ii. 15.
y BIAS 7 LETTERS.
they very evidently appear not to be prophetical, but to
have relation to a past action, viz., the call of the children
of Israel out of Egypt. The prophet's words are, " When
Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out
of Egypt;"* so that this passage could not be fulfilled in
Jesus' s return, according to the literal meaning of it. Give
me leave to observe, that Luke in all these things contra-
dicts Matthew ; for according to him, they brought Jesus to
Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord, and to offer the
appointed sacrifice ;f where u when they had performed all
things according to the law of the Lord, they returned into
Galilee, to their own city of Nazareth/' j which, if true,
Matthew must be out in his whole narration.
IY. The other passage or prophecy which I think to be
cited by Matthew, and said by him to be fulfilled in conse-
quence of the discovery which the wise men made to Herod,
is the following, being the next cited by him, on occasion
of the slaughter which, he says, Herod made of the babes in
Bethlehem, and the coasts thereof, from two years and
under. " Then (says he) was fulfilled, that which was
spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying, In Rama was there
a voice heard, lamentations, and weeping, and great mourn-
ing, Rachel weeping for her children and would not be
comforted, because they are not." This passage is taken
from Jeremiah, 1 1 and it evidently and plainly relates to the
sufferings of the ten tribes, and their glorious return, ac-
cording to its obvious literal sense, as is evident from the
whole chapter. Indeed to apply "and they shall come
again from the land of the enemy," ^[ to the slaughter of
* Hosea xi. 1. t Luke ii. 21-24. J Ibid. ii. 39.
% Matt. ii. 16-18. || Jer. xxxi. 12. ^ Ibid.16.
LETTER XIII. 99
the babes, must appear to be a very great absurdity. This
is so plain, that Father Calmet declares : " As to what St.
Matthew says that at the time, when the innocents were
massacred, the accomplishment was seen of this prophecy
by Jeremiah ; ' a voice was heard in Rama/ &c., it is our
opinion, that the primary sense of this prophecy relates to
the carrying away of the ten tribes into captivity ; and that
St. Matthew accommodated it to the circumstances in ques-
tion/'* And in another place it is said : "St. Matthew
has made an application of this passage, of the mourning
of Rachel, to the massacre of the infants of Bethlehem b^
Herod. But it is plain, that that was not the literal and
historical sense of this passage of Jeremiah ;"*[* so that this
is not literally to fulfill the prophecy.
I am confirmed in my conjecture, that the story of the
wise men was invented, to usher in the accommodation of
the three last cited prophecies, and citing them as fulfilled by
way of allusion, from Luke's silence in all these matters, and
his giving a very different relation of things. For he is en-
tirely silent as to the story of the wise men and the star
which appeared to them, and was their guide, and, in its
place, substitutes the story of the shepherds who kept
watch ; J to which you may turn for your edification. I
have observed before his differing also concerning the jour-
ney to Egypt. So, neither does he make mention of the
massacre of the innocents by Herod, which to do him
justice he could not have consistently done; because Jesus
was born when Cyrenius was made governor of Syria, that
* Calmet's Diet, on the word Innocents.
t Ibid, on the word Rama. t Luke ii. 8-20.
100 DIAS' LETTERS.
is long after Herod's death,* Judea (as Josephus observes)
being already annexed to Syria ; " For it was Cyrenius's
province to tax and assess those people, and make seizure
of the moneys and moveables of Archelaus."f It was on
this occasion, that Joseph and Mary went to Bethlehem to
be taxed. " And so it was, that, while they were there, the
days were accomplished, that she should be delivered ; and she
brought forth her firstborn son ;"J so that it was a grand
mistake to place the birth of Jesus under Herod. But
had he been born in Herod's life, it must appear very sur-
prising and incredible, that none but Matthew should relate
this most barbarous and inhuman act. Josephus is very
circumstantial, and very particularly describes the cruelties
which this barbarous king committed ; and yet says not a
word concerning this bloody deed, which he would most
certainly have related had it been true ; for he was never
sparing of his character. It is mere trifling to pretend, as
some do, that Josephus purposely concealed this butchery,
to avoid giving countenance to the evangelist. For, sup-
posing he had recorded it, it could only prove that Herod
was grown jealous from the information given him; but it
could never be a proof, that the king, whom the Jews ex-
pected as Messiah, was really born. Because the proof of
this must have depended not on the information, and the
slaughter which ensued, but on the accomplishment of those
things which he, according to the prophecies, was to per-
form. But surely they cannot, and dare not tax St. Luke,
with having any such design ; yet 'tis plain, from his plac-
* Luke ii. 2 t Basnage ; Jos. Ant. B. xviii. ch. i.
t Luke ii. 4-8. I Universal Hist. Vol. x. p. 495.
LETTER XIV. 101
ing the birth of Jesus when Cyrenius was governor of
Syria, (that is, when Judea was made a province of his
government, which happened after the death of Herod,)
that Jesus, could not be born during his reign ; and the
argument in this particular of Josephus and Luke's, to-
gether with the silence of this evangelist in all these affairs,
and his never mentioning any thing to have happened
under Herod, is equal to a demonstration against the facts
as recorded by Matthew.
LETTER XIY.
Y. THE next citation made by St. Matthew, and said by
him to be fulfilled, is the following : " And he came and
dwelt in a city, called Nazareth, that it might be fulfilled,
which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a
Nazarene."* But as none of the prophets declare any such
thing, or have any such passage, nothing could thereby be
literally fulfilled ; for his dwelling in the city of Nazareth
could not denominate him a Nazarene or Nazarite ; because
this term denotes a person's being under a particular vow ;f
and none could be called by that name unless he was ac-
tually under the vow. Commentators puzzle themselves,
and are at a loss to find out the place referred to, to make
out the fulfilling mentioned by the evangelist ; to this end
they have recourse to, and make such shifts, as shows their
* Matt. ii. 3. f Consult Numb. vi.
102 BIAS' LETTERS.
perplexities, the reading of which has often made me smile.
As I am only showing that the passages, or prophecies, said
to be fulfilled in Jesus, are not literally applied, and none
pretending that this is literally fulfilled, it is not my place
to take notice, or make any remarks on what they say con-
cerning this passage. But the solution of Doctor Echard is
certainly very curious, who after relating Jesus' return to
his former habitation, adds, " which being a mean and des-
picable place, it afterwards gained Jesus the reproachful
title of a Nazarene, according to the aim and turn of sev-
eral propecies, as St. Matthew observes."* But here the
Doctor is mistaken, for the title of Nazarene was honourable,
being the term by which those under a special and religious
vow were called, and which none despised, nor was it given
by way of reproach. This he very well knew, as also, that
his dwelling in Nazareth could not denominate him to be
what he was not, a Nazarene, or Nazarite ; for we never
heard that he was under that vow. Had the evangelist
cited, as fulfilled, any particular passage, declarative that
Jesus should dwell in the city of Nazareth, he might then
have called him Jesus of Nazareth, but to call him a Naz-
because he dwelt in Nazareth, and for such circum-
* Ecclestiac. Hist. Vol. i. p. 7.
f Mr. Dias seems to take the terms Nazarene and Nazarite as
synonymous. This they certainly are not, as the one would signify a
person who belongs to Nazar, therefore an inhabitant of that place ; but
the term Nazarite is a corruption of the word Nahzeer, or one who has
taken a vow of separation for the time being from wine and all manner
of uncleanness. The error, however, is referable to the author of the
gospel more than to Dias, as he evidently meant to call Jesus one sepa-
rated from the world at large. But, as is observed in the text, no such
passage as to make him a Nazarene or Nazarite does any where exist in
our Bible. ED. Oc.
LETTER XIV. 103
stances to say the prophecies are fulfilled, seems very ex-
traordinary.
VI. The next citation made by St. Matthew concerns
the preaching of John. " For this is he that was spoken
of by the prophet Esaias, saying, The voice of one crying
in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, and
make his paths straight/'* But the context of the text
whence this citation is taken, very evidently shows, that
John was not the person spoken of. For it says, lt Comfort,
comfort ye my people, saith your God. Speak ye com-
fortably to Jerusalem, and cry unto her, that her warfare is
accomplished, that her iniquity is pardoned ; for she hath
received of the LORD'S hand double for all her sins/'f which
verses precede that cited by St. Matthew. Now what com-
fort it was that John brought to the Jews and Jerusalem,
has not yet been made out. How could their warfare be ac-
complished, when the greatest vengeance was at that time
to be poured out ? how could their iniquities have been par-
doned, when it is said, that at that very time they contracted
the highest guilt ? or how could the prophet declare that
they had received double for all their sins, when the great-
est punishment was still to be inflicted on them ? from which
circumstances in the prophecy, it is plain that this passage
is not literally cited, at least not literally fulfilled. For the
prophecy is, according to its plain obvious meaning, decla-
rative of times and circumstances entirely different from
those which came to pass at that time, therefore it could not
relate to John.
VII. The next citation made by St. Matthew is to prove
* Matt. iii. 3. f Isaiah xl. 1-2
104 BIAS* LETTERS.
that Jesus' removal from Nazareth, and settling at Caper-
naum, was foretold. " This Jesus did, that it might be
fulfilled, which was spoken by Esaias the prophet ; saying :
MATTHEW iv. 15, 16. ISAIAH ix. 1, 2.
"The land of Zabulon, and the '-'Nevertheless, the dimness shall
land of Nephthalim, by the way of not be such as teas in her vexation,
the sea, beyond Jordan, Galilee of when at the first he lightly afflicted
the Gentiles; the people which sat the land of Zebulun, and the land
in darkness saw great light; and to of Naphtali, and afterward did more
them which sat in the region and grievously afflict her by the way of
shadow of death light is sprung the sea, beyond Jordan, in Galilee
up." of the nations. The people that
walked in darkness have seen a
great light; they that dwell in the
land of the shadow of death, upon
them hath the light shined."
I have put the citation and text in different columns, that
you may see the difference. The prophet's plain meaning
is, to declare the joy which the inhabitants of those regions
should have, in the midst of their sorrow and affliction,
occasioned by the army of the king of Syria, which was
to be totally vanquished, whilst they were to be delivered
from their dreadful enemy; which event relates no more to
the removal of Jesus from one place to another, than it does
to your removal from London and dwelling in Naples.
VIII. The next prophecy cited by St. Matthew, and said
to be fulfilled by Jesus, in his casting out devils, and heal-
ing all the sick. His words are : ( ' When the even was
come, they brought unto him many that were possessed
with devils ; and he cast out the spirits with his word, and
healed all that were sick ; that it might be fulfilled, what
LETTER XIV. 105
was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying, Himself took our
infirmities and bare our sicknesses/'* which citation, thus
said to be fulfilled, is this : " Surely he hath borne our grief,
and carried our sorrows.' 'f Now, whoever can, from this
passage of the prophet, draw a sense, importing the casting
out devils out of men's bodies, and the healing of sicknesses,
must do it by the help of some uncommon rule, or art, to
us unknown ; for, literally, it can mean no such thing. But
supposing it did mean, that a person should cure the sick,
and cast out devils, and that it was really fulfilled by Jesus'
performing these cures literally, must it not overset some
people's reasoning, who extend the same passage to the cure
of sin, and spiritural infirmities, by his death ? for if it be
fulfilled (literally I mean) in the one case, then it cannot
be literally fulfilled in the other ; and the pretending it to
mean spiritual cures must, of course, be contrary to St,
Matthew, who says the passage was fulfilled by those bodily
cures. I think Doctor Echard seems to have been sensible
of this, and therefore says, (by what authority I know not,)
that it was, " In some measure accomplishing the prophecy
of Isaiah, which says, He took our infirmities upon himself,
and bore our diseases."! Now I wish the learned Doctor
had told us by what rule or means he found this out in the
prophet's saying, not infirmities and diseases, as he does, but
grief and sorrows. He ought also to have tol'd us the rea-
* Matt. viii. 16, 17. f Isaiah liii. 4. J Eccle. Hist. Vol. i. p. 89.
$ There is a note appended to the above in the MS. of the letters,
probably by the transcriber, in these words: '* Notwithstanding the
remark made on Dr. Echard's version on the text, the Hebrew will very
well bear that sense, i. e. infirmities or disease. The other remark has
more weight." Thus far the note ; only there should have been sug-
106 BIAS' LETTERS.
son why it was only " in some measure accomplished/' and
not actually fulfilled, as the evangelist, (who I suppose knew
as much of the matter as he) says it was. For if it was
not actually fulfilled, it must be absurd in St. Matthew to
say it was, and proving it by referring to the passage, which
he could only do with that intention. For otherwise how
shall we know from the use of that term, and from the ci-
ting or referring to a passage said to be fulfilled, whether it
be so or not ?
Is not this striking at the authority of the evangelist ?
Thus much for this passage, which let them settle it in what
manner they will, it is not certain, that "he hath borne
our griefs and carried our sorrows" can ever be fulfilled by
casting outs devils and curing diseases. I mean literally;
for as to a fulfilling in a different sense, I have nothing to
do with.
IX. The next citation made by St. Matthew is, when
Jesus in order to persuade the people to believe that John
was Elias, says, " And if ye will receive it, this was Elias
which was for to come."f The promise and purpose of Elias'
coming you will find in Malachi : " Behold I will send you
Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dread-
ful day of the LORD, and he shall turn the heart of the
fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to the
fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse. "
This was a great and glorious work, which that great prophet
gested that the Hebrew words ought to be rendered " diseases and pains."
At all events, let the translation be as it may, the fulfilment was not
according to the prophecy ; for it says there " he bore/* not " removed
them." ED. Oc.
* Matt. xi. 14. f Malachi iv. 5, 6.
LETTER XIV. 107
was to be sent to do, and to be employed in ; and it should
not be wondered that the Jews, on a promise so express,
should found the hope of Elias' or Elijah's coming for this,
so desirable and beneficent a purpose ; at least those, who on
another occasion, do firmly believe, that not only Elias, but
Moses too, did really come down from heaven in a bodily
shape, (for how otherwise could the disciples know it was
they, or to what end should they desire to build a tabernacle
for their abode ?*) to answer no purpose at all that we know
of, ought not to be surprised at their having such hopes. But
be that as it will, thus much is certain, Elias or Elijah was
promised to be sent, that is, a person who bore that name,
and was so called; consequently, neither John's nor any
other person's coming can be deemed a literal fulfilling of
the promise.
X. The next citation made by St. Matthew, and said by
him to be fulfilled by Jesus, is the cures that he wrought
on the multitude of his followers, and his charging them
not to make it known : Ct All this happened/ 7 says St. Mat-
thew, "that it might be fulfilled, which was spoken by
Esaias the prophet, saying, Behold my servant whom I
have chosen ; my beloved, in whom my soul was well
pleased : I will put my spirit upon him, and he shall shew
judgment to the gentiles. He shall not strive nor cry ;
neither shall any man hear his voice in the streets. A
bruised reed shall he not break, and smoking flax shall he
not quench, till he send forth judgment unto victory. And
in his name shall the gentiles trust."f This citation is
made from Isaiah,J with some difference, particularly the
* Matt. xvii. 1-4 ; Mark ix. 4, 5 j Luke ix. 30-33.
f Matt. xii. 15-21. J Isaiah xlii. 1-4.
108 DIAS' LETTERS.
last sentence, " And in his name shall the gentiles trust/'
which is an addition of the evangelist's. I confess, that
considering the citation, and what is said thereby to be ful-
filled, I cannot comprehend the least resemblance, nor find
the least connexion to the matter intended ; for how can the
passage cited be said to be fulfilled, either by the multi-
tude's following Jesus, or by his healing them, or by his
charging them not to make him known ? Can the passage
cited be fulfilled by his doing those things, when it men-
tions nothing like it ? I know that it is pretended, " that
by the secrecy which Jesus imposed on those he cured, the
passage is fulfilled, because it represents his quiet, humble,
and meek temper/'* To this I answer, that his imposing
silence on those he cured, did not proceed from his quiet,
humble, and meek disposition, but from other motives ; and
for the truth of this I appeal to Dr. Echard himself, f to
Mr. Lock,! and to the authors of the Universal History,
who assign very different motives for his imposing secrecy j
therefore this citation neither proves one thing nor the other
to be thereby fulfilled.
* Echard's Eccles. Hist. Vol. i. p. 96, 97. f Ibid. 89-90.
J Reas. of Chris, ed. 4, Vol. ii. p. 522, 523. g Uni. Hist. Vol. x. p. 558.
109
LETTER XV.
XL THE next citation made by St. Matthew is occasioned
by Jesus' speaking in parables, that he might not be under-
stood by the people he spoke to, lest otherwise they should
understand him, and be by that means converted and healed ;
for though it is pretended that he came to save, yet, as St.
John says, they were to have their eyes blinded, and their
hearts hardened, " that they should not see with their eyes,
nor understand with their heart."* " Therefore (says St.
Matthew of Jesus) speak I to them in parable; because,
they seeing see not ; and hearing they hear not, neither do
they understand. And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of
Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not
understand ; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not per-
ceive. "{ The prophecy said here to be fulfilled, relates,
according to its plain sense and meaning, to the obstinacy
of the people in his own time, to those to whom he spoke ;J
consequently it has not the least relation to those who lived
in the time of Jesus, and is therefore no literal fulfilling;
and indeed it could be no fault of the Jews that they were
not converted, being not only blinded and hardened, but
spoken to in such a way that it was impossible for them to
understand.
XII. St. Matthew makes another citation, and says it
was fulfilled by Jesus' speaking in parables : a All these
* John xii. 40. f Matt. xiii. 13, 14. J Isa. vi. 9 to the end.
10
110 DIAS' LETTERS.
things (says he) spake Jesus unto the multitude in para-
bles, and without a parable spake he not unto them."
Matt. xiii. 35. "That it might Psalm Ixxviii. 2, 3. "I will
be fulfilled which was spoken by open my mouth in a parable ; I
the prophet, saying, I will open my will utter dark sayings of old,
mouth in parables,- I will utter which we have heard and known,
things which have been kept secret and our fathers have told us."
from the foundation of the world."
You have in different columns the citation, and the place
from which it is cited, by which it appears, that nothing is
thereby fulfilled, neither has the psalm any thing in it which
can be extended or made in anywise applicable to the Mes-
siah, as it concerns things past; besides this, the evangelist
has adulterated the text, and qualified it to his purpose,
which, to say no worse, is unfair.
XIII. The next prophecy, said by St. Matthew to be ful-
filled by Jesus, concerns his entry into Jerusalem } it is also
mentioned by the other three evangelists, who refer to the
same prophecy cited from Zechariah : " Rejoice greatly,
daughter of Jerusalem ; shout, daughter of Zion ; behold
thy King cometh unto thee; he is just and having salva-
tion, lowly and riding upon an ass."* I think it is not of
much importance to settle on what sort of a beast it was
that Jesus made this his triumphant entry into the capital
of his kingdom; you may, if you please, follow St. Matthew,
and believe he sat both on the colt and ass ; or you may
follow Mark and Luke, who say it was on a colt ; or, if you
please, let it be with St. John, the ass alone. You may
also believe this evangelist, when he tells you that the beast
* Zech. ix. 9.
LETTER XV. Ill
was found by Jesus, and not sent for on purpose, as the
others pretend. And in respect to the different discourses
which are related to have passed between the owner of the
beast and those who went for it, you may follow and believe
that which you think most probable. Jesus having got the
beast, or, as St. Matthew says, the ass and colt, the disci-
ples put their clothes on them, and then set Jesus thereon.
To see a king thus mounted, a great -concourse of people
was gathered ; for certainly such a cavalcade must have
been worth the seeing : and that it might be alike grand in
>all things, " A very great multitude spread their garments
in the way, others cut down branches of trees, and strewed
them in the way; multitudes going before, others following,
crying, Hosannah !" " All this (says St. Matthew) was
done that it might be fulfilled, which was spoken by the
prophet, saying, Tell ye the daughter of Zion, behold thy
King cometh unto thee," &c.* " Hereby (as Dr. Echard
very justly observes) giving him those honours that were
used only in the triumphs of kings and emperors/ 'f with
which Jesus seems not to have been in any great degree
transported ; for we are assured by the same learned Doctor,
that he " did not repair to the palace. "J But to give the
people a just taste of his power, and to show his authority,
he drove out all the buyers and sellers from their places,
overthrew the table of the money-changers, and the stalls of
the dove-sellers. Thus he manifested his power, and his
subjects their passive obedience ; for we do not hear that
they made any resistance: and if happiness consists in
* Matt. xxi. See also Mark xi., Luke xix., John xii.
f Eccl. Hist. p. 169. J Ib
J Ibid. p. 107.
112 BIAS' LETTERS.
triumphs, great acclamations, and being honoured like kings
and emperors, or in the exercise of unlimited power, we may
say that Jesus was the greatest temporal monarch upon the
earth ; for all these he had in the highest degree, though all
this exaltation seems entirely inconsistent with the meek,
low, and humble disposition which always accompanied his
actions, and by which it is said the prophecy of Isaiah is
fulfilled : " He shall not strive nor cry, neither shall he
make any man hear his voice in the streets ; a bruised reed
shall he not break, and smoking flax shall he not quench;"*
which I think may as well be applied here, as to the place
where the evangelist has placed it, and in both places with
equal propriety. Be that as it will, this his greatness was
but of very short duration } for it is plain, that this famous
cavalcade, and his refusing to silence and disperse the mob
when he was ordered, soon brought him unto his untimely
end ; for by taking on himself so much power, state, and
pomp, and by the encouraging of the mob to proclaim him
king,f it gave the priests and scribes an opportunity to
accuse him ; for from his behaviour, and the unruliness of
the frantic mob, they rightly inferred (t that if we let him
thus alone, all men will believe on him, and the Romans
(hearing that a king was set up) shall come and take away
both our place and nation : therefore it is expedient for
us that one man should die for the people, and that the
whole nation perish not."J This seemingly political advice
was, it seems, the dictates of the Holy Ghost, and was
spoken by the spirit of prophecy, being suited also to the
* Matt. xii. 19. f Luke xix. 37-40.
J John xi. 48-50. \ Ibid. 51.
LETTER XV. 113
circumstances which the nation was then in; therefore it
was necessary, for the preservation of the whole, to lay hold
of this so fair a pretence which Jesus furnished them with
on this occasion, and prevent the impending mischief; all
which was very natural and consistent, an advice not un-
worthy to be dictated by God or the Holy Ghost. But to
take this speech of Caiaphas, as a prophecy, that Jesus ought
to be put to death for the nation, in any other sense, is a
very great absurdity; for can there be a greater contradic-
tion, than to pretend that for following this advice (which
as coming from God must have been good) the whole nation
was condemned and doomed to destruction, instead of being
saved, for performing that which the Holy Ghost directed ?
Nothing can be more inconsistent. Excuse this digression,
and let us return. A person's riding upon an ass, or any
other beast, can never be a sure mark of the Messiah;
because this would be a circumstance within any pretender's
power to fulfil : did the proof of his character depend upon
such a cavalcade, how liable to counterfeits would we be ?
This then is no prophecy of the Messiah, but of Zerubbabel;
and cannot be literally fulfilled in Jesus, since Jesus was no
king, neither was his appearance any matter of rejoicing to
Jerusalem, but much the contrary, as they pretend; for
instead of the promised victory and defence,* war and deso-
lation followed; and the prophecy therefore could not be
literally fulfilled in Jesus.
XIV. The next citation made by St. Matthew, and said by
him to be fulfilled, concerns Judas returning the thirty pieces
of silver, with which was bought the potter's field. " Then
* See the remainder of the 9th chapter of Zechariah.
10*
114 BIAS* LETTERS.
(says the evangelist) was fulfilled that which was spoken
by Jeremy the prophet, saying, And they took the thirty
pieces of silver, the price of him that was valued ; whom
they of the children of Israel did value, and gave them for
the potter's field, as the Lord appointed me."* It happens
somewhat unluckily, that the saying of Jeremy is nowhere
to be found, and is therefore invented. Neither is any such
saying to be found in all the prophets. In Zechariah, there
is a passage concerning thirty pieces of silver given to the
prophet as a recompense, which he, by God's command,
returned to the treasurer of the temple. f The translators
of the New Testament refer to this passage ; but this is con-
trary to the thing intended by the evangelist; for he repre-
sents it as a prophecy spoken or foretold, which the passage
in Zechariah is not ; for there it is presented to us as an
act, and not as a thing prophetically spoken of or foretold.
Besides, what has the prophet's receiving thirty pieces of
silver for his price, and returning them by GocFs command,
to do with Judas' selling or betraying his master, and
returning the price of his iniquity in a remorse of con-
science ? or what has the treasurer's receiving it for the
service of the temple, to do with the chief priest's refusing
to put those returned by Judas in the treasury, and pur-
chasing a field to bury strangers ? In short, there is no
such prophecy in the whole Bible, and therefore none can
be said to be fulfilled ; besides, it is quoted from Jeremy,
where there is no mention made of the whole matter ; it is
therefore invented.
XV. The next citation, and the last contained in St.
* Matt, xxvii. 3-10. f Zech. xi. 13.
LETTER XVI. 115
Matthew's gospel, and said by him to be fulfilled, is the
circumstance of dividing Jesus' vestments ; " That it might
be fulfilled, which was spoken by the prophet, They parted
my garments among them, and upon my vesture did they
cast lots, "*alluding to one of the Psalms, that which
plainly appears, from its contents, to have been composed
by David under the utmost affliction and distress,f proba-
bly after he had fled from Jerusalem. His expressions are
adapted throughout his Psalms to the circumstances he was
then in, describing at the same time his trust in God and
his prayer to be delivered. Therefore to imagine that on
such an occasion he prophesied or was foretelling how the
Roman soldiers were to divide Jesus' garments, appears not
only very absurd, but quite foreign and trifling, and cannot
be made to answer any end at all; for surely none will
place the proof of a Messiah on such a circumstance ; and
the whole having relation to David himself, no part can be
by any other circumstance literally fulfilled.
LETTER XVI.
XVI. HAVING in my four last letters examined all the
quotations produced by St. Matthew, and said by him to be
fulfilled in Jesus, and found them not to be so, in their
proper, plain and literal sense : you will, I am sure, excuse
* Matt, xxvii. 35. Ps. xxii. 18.
t 2 Sam. xv. 13-17, and 30-32. Ibid. xvi. 5-14.
116 BIAS' LETTERS.
my not doing the like by the other quotations in the other
evangelists, as it would be not only tedious, but would oc-
casion you a needless expense for postage. However, I
can with truth assure you that, having carefully examined
every one of them, they all appear to me to be such, as
either do not concern the Messiah, or are not applied accord-
ing to their literal sense and plain obvious meaning. This
you will soon find, if you will be at the trouble of comparing
the passages, said to be fulfilled, with their plain meaning in
the prophet ; the very same fate happens to those quoted in
other parts of the New Testament. There is one, however,
which I shall treat on, in this letter, that deserves our
attention; because it is famous with some people, and is
produced, as one that is plainly accomplished and fulfilled
in Jesus.
The passage . I mean is twice alludod to, and quoted in
the Acts.* " I will raise them up a prophet from among
their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words into
his mouth, and he shall speak unto them, all that I shall com-
mand him/ 7 ')* From hence Dr. Leland concludes, that
" Moses tells the people, that God would raise up from
among them a prophet like unto him ; that is, not an ordi-
nary prophet, but one of peculiar eminence; that should,
like Moses, give them laws in the name of God himself, and
to whom they were indispensably obliged to hearken, and to
pay an entire obedience. "J Had this learned divine pointed
out the particulars, by which Jesus distinguished himself
to be this eminent person, prophet, and lawgiver, like
Moses, he had done something to the purpose ; and then we
* Acts iii. 22. t Deut xyiii. 15.
J Divine Authority, Vol. I. p. 100.
LETTER XVI. 117
should be enabled to judge of their exact agreement and
likeness. This he has not done ; . but this is what I shall
now examine ; and as we have on record the principal ac-
tions of both, it is not difficult to make the comparison. But
first I must observe, that Moses, having nothing foretold,
either concerning his person, or character, had, consequently,
no description to answer; so .that this circumstance alone
makes a wide difference in the character of Moses and that
of the Messiah . Had there been any description of Moses,
he must undoubtedly have, in a very exact manner, an-
swered that description, or it would have been vain and
absurd in him, to have expected to be received by the
people. Moses therefore, proceeds on a very different plan.
To draw the attention of those to whom he was sent, he
discovers his commission ; in confirmation of which, and to
engage them, he wrought sundry miracles ; and at last happily
executed his promise, in delivering the Israelites from the
Egyptian bondage. Then it was, and not till then, that
the people were convinced, that he was a person sent from
God for that purpose. It was his performing this essential
part of his commission and promise, that wrought in them
this belief. "Thus the LORD saved Israel, that day, out
of the hand of the Egyptians ; and Israel saw the Egypti-
ans dead upon the sea-shore ; and Israel saw that great
work, which the LORD did upon the Egyptians and the
people feared the LORD, and believed in the LORD, and Moses
his servant,"* Now had Moses failed in the essential part
of his commission could or would any of his miracles, how-
ever stupendous, have proved him to have been sent from
* Exod. xiv. 30, 31.
118 BIAS' LETTERS.
God with such a commission ? Certainly not. And as it
was absolutely necessary, that Moses should accomplish the
delivery of the Israelites, according to his promise : so it
was necessary, that the Messiah should perform those things,
which are foretold concerning him. His character and
office we have a description of; therefore, whoever pretends
to it must, undoubtedly, answer it, and must never be re-
ceived, until he attests his character by fulfilling the prophe-
cies, which describe him, the prophecies being, as I have
proved, the test, or touchstone, by which alone those he
was promised to were to judge, if he were the person there-
in described or not. The most stupendous wonders and
splendid miracles would not, in this case, afford any proof
of his character, because it had no dependence on them.
It must stand or fall, according as his actions agreed, or
disagreed with the prophecies, or as he did or did not
fulfill them.
If Jesus' pretentious were true, he ought to have per-
formed, and done those things, which were foretold; and in
so doing, have given an undeniable proof. This would have
convinced the people, that he was the promised person, be-
yond all objections; and he would then have acted consis-
tently. The character of the Messiah, you will find in my
sixth letter, (which see) collected from the prophecies
their mentioned. The following is a short description
or epitome of his office : " And he shall set up an
ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of
Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah, from
the four corners of the earth."* This was the criterion
* Isaiah xi. 12.
LETTER XVI. 119
given, by which the people were to judge, and distinguish
him from all pretenders. In this description there is no
room left to cavil ; his office is described as it concerns the
nations, for whom he is to " set up an ensign," that they
might enter, and be partakers of the blessing of his govern-
ment ; and next we have his office as it concerns the Jews,
and what he was do for them, viz. : "He is to assemble the
outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of
Judah, from the four corners of the earth." Had Jesus ful-
filled this prophecy, he would then have proved himself to
be the Messiah, or person meant under that denomination,
and would have drawn the whole Jewish nation after him.
How it came to pass that he did not prove himself by doing
so, is not my business to inquire ; but that he did not, is
very evident. The names of Israel and Judah cannot be
usurped here; because the prophet having described his
office with regard to the gentiles, he next describes it as
regards the Jews; and that the prophet's true meaning
might not be misapprehended, he farther describes them
by the epithets of outcasts and dispersed. Surely Christians
will not understand themselves as meant, under these dis-
tinguished circumstances ; neither do I believe they will
refer the accomplishment of his prophecy to their invented
heavenly kingdom ; for that would be doing the outcasts and
dispersed too much honour, to assemble and gather them
there ; and they will hardly allow them that in heaven, of
which they deprive them here on earth. Besides, they are
not ignorant, that " A king shall reign and prosper, and
shall execute judgment and justice in the earth : in his
* Jer. xiii. 5.
120 BIAS' LETTERS.
days shall Judah be saved, and Israel dwell safely."*
The contrary and reverse of all which happened in the days
of Jesus : how then could he be that person ?
Here then we have a very material difference between
Moses and the promised Messiah : the one had no character
or description to answer, the other had. But it is plain,
that Jesus did not answer it ; and in order to show that
Jesus was not the prophet like Moses, let us make a short
comparison. Moses was prepared by G-od with a sign, when
the Israelites should demand it ; but Jesus constantly re-
fused any sign."|* Moses did mighty wonders, and wrought
such stupendous miracles, as convinced those who beheld
them; these he did not do after the manner of jugglers,
before chosen witnesses, or in corners, but in public, and
in the presence of all the people, whom he assembled for
that purpose ; he performed them in the presence of his very
opponents, who were sometimes made to feel the truth and
effects of them. The magicians, who endeavoured to rival
him, confessed that it was the hand of God. Thus acted
Moses. But Jesus took quite a different method; those
miracles which are related of him, were wrought in secret,
performed before chosen witnesses, and on believers only, in
corners, and by-places ; the very persons who partook of
the benefits were hindered from mentioning them, and were
enjoined secrecy; his very brethren and relations disbelieved
them.J The difference is manifest; for one convinced his
enemies and' rivals, the other could not even convince his
brethren and nearest relations. The more Moses' opponents
doubted or denied his commission or power, the greater and
Jer. xxiii. 5. f Matthew xii. 39. j Ibid. xiii. 54.
LETTER XVI. 121
more surprising were the proofs he gave them. But Jesus
did the very reverse : " For he did not many mighty works
there, because of their unbelief/'* Had he acted like
Moses, he ought to have performed other great wonders ]
for the greater their unbelief, the greater ought his miracles
to have been, and the greater would the honour have been
by their conviction ; so it was that Moses did and acted.
It is not certain from what cause this unbelief arose ; it is
not possible, however, that the greatness of his miracles
should have occasioned it ; because these would naturally
have had a contrary effect. Who knows but their unbelief
might be owing to some discovery made in the method of
his performing his miracles, at which they might take
offence; of which discovery "He," (Jesus being ignorant
of the true cause,) "marvelled, because of their unbelief 1"
This I only offer as a conjecture ; pray, consult the evange-
lists, to sec if what they say concerning this affair will bear
this sense.f
Let us continue the comparison : Moses was greatly
honoured and esteemed by his brethren and countrymen ;
but Jesus was quite the contrary; for he declares himself,
that no prophet is accepted in his own country. J Moses
delivered the Israelites from the Egyptian bondage : did
Jesus deliver the Jews from the power and yoke of the
Romans ? He indeed promised to " gather them, as a hen
did her brood. " But this he never performed, nor even
attempted ; though he knew this to be the chief part of
the Messiah's character, and the desire and hope of the
* Matthew xiii. 58. f Ibid. xiii. 58.
t Luke iv. 24. g Ibid. xiii. 34.
11
122 DIAS* LETTERS
nation : yet he pretends to excuse himself by saying, " they
would not/' when the contrary is really true.
Moses was forty days and forty nights with G-od on the
mount; but of Jesus, it is declared that he was there as
many days and nights with very different company, detained
contrary to his will, famished, tossed, and led about by the
devil, who must have been very superior in power to him,*
or he could not so disrespectfully have used him. Moses
governed the Israelites forty years : did Jesus do the like,
or had he any command, post, or dignity ?
Moses solemnly prepared the people, and appointed a time
for the whole body of the nation, to gather themselves in
one place, to the end that they all might receive the law :
did Jesus do the like ? Moses delivered to the Israelites a
system of laws, moral, ritual, and political, by which they
were to be governed, both in church and state: did Jesus
do any thing like this ?
I know it is pretended that he introduced a new dispen-
sation ; but this is so far from being clear, that the cause
of his mission has always, is, and will for ever, be disputed.
And I should be glad to be informed which of his laws, (I
mean those which are practicable,) are new, and not com-
manded or known before : I have searched the evangelists,
and do not find one. If this be the case, how can he be
made to answer the description given of him, " of his giving
laws like Moses, in the name of God himself?" If he did,
which is the state or kingdom governed by them ? It is
evident from the different, or rather opposite governments,
in both, that he gave none ; and they so widely differ in
* Matthew iv. 1, 2.
LETTER XVI. 123
that of the church, (which one would think, ought to be
his peculiar care,) that the different denominations, or sects
of Christians, do most uncharitably condemn each other,
and what one party follows as right, the rest condemn as
sinful. Surely this could never have happened, had he,
like Moses, delivered laws for the government of both
church and state. Moses published his laws in the most
authentic manner; they were attested by God himself:
were those of Jesus published or attested in like manner ?
Moses took the people's express consent, who bound them-
selves, and posterity, to observe and obey : did Jesus do
any thing like it ? Moses, to convince the people that his
laws were from God, enacted immediate rewards as a recom-
pense, and blessing if they kept them ; and on the contrary,
immediate pains and penalties, if they neglected or forsook
them. But Jesus refers them, both for rewards and pun-
ishments, to a state after their deaths. The nature of the
first was convincing; the latter was not. In short, Moses
proved himself to the satisfaction of all, that he was a per-
son sent by God : Jesus did not. From these, and many
other instances, I think that it is very evident and clear,
that a more opposite character, to that of Moses, cannot be
produced, either in their lives, or deaths. If even, there-
fore, we suppose, what is pretended, that a person was
promised, who should be like Moses, and like him give
laws : yet Jesus can never have been that person ; for this
passage cannot be consistently applied to him. On the
other hand, it plainly and evidently appears from the con-
text, that Moses promised a prophet to succeed him, or
rather a succession of prophets ; for he having therein for-
bidden the people the abominations of other nations, such
124 BIAS' LETTERS.
as divinations, observing times, practising enchantments, or
the consulting of witches, familiar spirits, wizards, and ne-
cromancers,* he then promises to raise them a prophet, &c.,
to whom they should resort, apply, and have recourse to, on
all proper exigencies, for the knowledge of some future
events. This is the true scope and intention of this pas-
sage ; and in this, its plain, obvious sense, it is understood
by persons of the greatest learning and knowledge, both
Christians and Jews. Father Calmet, very justly and ju-
diciously asserts this to be the true meaning. I will trans-
cribe what he says ; " As to the Hebrews," says he, " who
lived in the midst of these idolatrous people, accustomed to
receive oracles, to have recourse to their diviners, magicians,
and their interpreters of dreams : what temptation would
they not have been under, to imitate these practices, these
impieties, and superstitions, if G-od had not provided against
it by affording them certain means of knowing some future
events, in their most urgent necessities, by having recourse to
the Lord, to his priests, and prophets ? Thus, when Moses
had forbidden the Israelites to consult magicians, witches,
enchanters and necromancers, he promised to send them a
prophet of their own nation, who should instruct them, and
discover the truth to them, * The LORD thy God will raise
up unto thee a prophet from the midst of thy brethren, like
unto me ; unto him ye shall hearken/ ; 'f It is needless
to produce more authorities ; the passage best explains its
own meaning.
But notwithstanding the clearness of this passage, the
authors of the Universal History pretend that Joshua could
* Deut. xviii. 9-13. f See Cal. Diet, on the word Oracle.
LETTER XVI. 125
not be that prophet like Moses, whom God promised to
raise, and commanded the people to obey under heavy
penalties, because Joshua received directions from Moses
to consult the Urim and Thummim, upon all emergencies j*
and from thence they urge and say, " How could he, there-
fore, be the head prophet and director of such a numerous
nation, who wanted a director himself? or how could the
people be charged to hear, and obey him who was to receive
his orders from the high priest. "f To this objection I
answer partly in their own words, from a remark of theirs :
" That his (Joshua's) great character, drawn by Jesus the
son of Sirach, mentions his succeeding that lawgiver, (mean-
ing Moses,) in the prophetic spirit ;" and concerning his
book, they tell us, " That both Jews and the generality of
Christians, have acknowledged it as his, and as a canonical
book.^J To this we may add what they also assert, " That
Joshua was the only inspired writer of that age that we
read of." Thus these historians are obliged to assert, not
only his inspiration, but his being the head prophet; for
they read of no other, notwithstanding their endeavours to
depreciate his character, to serve a turn. In like manner
they are obliged to make him the director and governor of
"'such a numerous nation," when they say, " Providence
had by this time so far signalized him, that he became
reputed by the whole Jewish nation." || And they assert
in another place that " After this Joshua governed the
Israelitish commonwealth peaceably,"^]" and they do, through-
out their history, give repeated instances of his being the
* Numb, xxvii. 21. f Univ. Hist. Vol. iii. p. 436. J Ibid. 483.
I Ibid., || Ibid. 479. \ Ibid. 482.
11*
126 DIAS' LETTERS.
governor, and also of the obedience being paid him. Thus
do these historians contradict themselves. But whatever
they may think or say, we have a superior evidence and
guide ; to that then let us go ; I mean the Bible ; from
which it is plain, <( That he was the man in whom was the
spirit/ 7 * as the text expresses it. It is also plain, that it
was he whom the people were to obey.")" It is plain like-
wise, that those who did not regard that which he com-
manded were severely punished. J This answered to what
God promised : " That whosoever will not hearken unto my
words, which he shall speak in my name, I will require it
of him." Jesus^ therefore could not be here meant; be-
cause to him, there happened the very reverse ; neither can
Christians, consistently, claim this passage for Jesus, because
there is in it a clause, declaring that u The prophet which
shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have
not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the
name of other gods, even that prophet shall die."|| A pro-
vision this, which there could be no necessity for making,
had the promise concerned Jesus ; who, they, if consistent,
must allow could never come under it. Be that as it will,
it is plain that God spoke to Joshua immediately, without
the intervention of any other person or thing, in like man-
ner as he did to Moses.^f Of this we have repeated in-
stances ; and God himself tells him, " As I was with Moses,
so will I be with thee ; I will not fail thee, nor forsake
* Numb, xxvii. 18. t Ibid. SO.
J Compare the 17th and 18th verses of the 6th ch. of Joshua, with
the 22d and sequel of the 7th ch.
g Deut. xviii. 19. |] Ibid. 20.
fl Josh. i. 1 } iv. 1-15 ; v. 2 ; vi. 2 ; vii. 10 ; viii. 1 <fcc.
LETTER XVII. 127
thee."* In consequence of this promise, " God magnified
him in the sight of all Israel, that they might know, that
as I was with Moses, so will I be with thee."f And we
accordingly find that the people " feared him, as they did
Moses, all the days of his life." J These instances are enough
to show that Joshua succeeded $[oses as a prophet, director,
and governor; that Grod revealed, and spoke to him, imme-
diately, in like manner as he did to Moses, in whose place
he was appointed and substituted ; that he was obeyed and
feared, in like manner as Moses was, all the days of his life ;
and to think otherwise, or to imagine that Jesus is meant
here is, in every respect, inconsistent and absurd, he being
the most unlike the person promised, as is evident from all
the circumstances of his life.
LETTEE XVII.
I INTEND this letter shall contain an examination of
another citation made in the Acts ; and also a few quota-
tions produced by St. Paul. In the method of applying
them, we shall find the insufficiency of proving the things
which are thereby intended : not one being made according
to the primary sense and plain literal meaning.
XVII. When it was debated in the first council, whether
the gentile converts should receive circumcision, and submit
to the law of Moses, a passage is produced by St. James,
* Josh. i. 5. t Ibid. iii. 7 , iv. 14 J Ibid.
128 DIAS' LETTERS.
by which the matter then in debate was decided; (for
sayeth he) " To this agree the words of the prophet ; as it
is written/'
ACTS xv. 16. AMOS ix. I.
"After this I will return and " In that day I will raise up the
build again the tabernacle of David, tabernacle of David, that is fallen,
which is fallen down ; and I will and close up the breaches thereof,
build again the ruins thereof, and I and I will raise up his ruins, and I
will set it up, that the residue of will build it, as in the days of old,
men might seek the LORD, and all that they may possess the remnant
the gentiles upon whom my name of Edom, and all the heathen which
is called, saith the LORD who doeth are called by my name, saith the
all these things." LORD that doeth this."
You see how the text is adulterated, and that there is not
the least connexion between the prophecy and the applica-
tion ; for it is obvious and plain, that the prophecy promises
the re-establishment of the fallen kingdom, as in the days
of old; the next verse declares the joy on that occasion, and
the return of the captivity of Israel, with the building and
inhabiting of the waste city, concluding with the following
promise : "I will plant them upon their land, and they
shall no more be pulled out of their land, which I* gave
them, saith the LORD their God."f Whenever this is
proved to have happened literally in the days of Jesus, it
will then work the conviction of the Jews, which no appli-
cation of text denoting very different manners has ever been
able to do.
XVIII. It is just in the same manner that St. Paul en-
deavours to prove the call of the gentiles, when he says,
* En. Bib., " have given." f Amos xi. last v.
LETTER XVII. 129
" Even us whom be hath called, not of the Jews only, but
also of the gentiles, as he saith also in Osee, I will call
them my people, which are not my people, and her beloved,
which was not beloved. And it shall come to pass that
in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not
my people ; there shall they be called, The children of the
living God."* Here he jumbles together two very different
texts, and applies them as spoken of the gentiles, which
plainly concern none but the Jews, as is evident from the
texts to which please to turn, which are prophetical of very
different times than those in which Jesus lived. The plain
case is as follows : The prophet being ordered to take a wife
of immoral habits, she bore him a son, who was called Jez-
reel, for reason there given ; she then bore a daughter, who
was called Lo-Ruchamah (i. e., not beloved) ; she next bore
another son, who was called Lo-Ammi (i. e., not my peo-
ple) : in the very next verse the prophet himself makes
application of these names, for, says he, " Yet the number
of the children of Israel shall be as the sand of the sea,
which cannot be measured nor numbered ; and it shall come
to pass that in the place where it was said to them, Ye are
not my people, there it shall be said to them, Ye are the
sons of the living God." " Then/' continues the prophet,
" shall the children of Judah, and the children of Israel be
gathered together, and appoint themselves one head, and
they shall come up out of the land ; for great shall be the
day of Jezreel."f Does all this concern any but the Jews,
and their Restoration ? can it be applied to any besides
them ? was any thing like this fulfilled in those times ?
* Rom. ix. 24-26. t Hosea i. throughout.
130 BIAS* LETTER,
XIX. In the very same epistle St. Paul says, " For
Moses deseribeth the righteousness which is of the law, that
the man which doeth these things shall live by them. But
the righteousness which is of faith speaketh on this wise,
Say not in thine heart, Who shall ascend into heaven ? (that
is to bring Christ down from above :) or, Who shall descend
into the deep ? (that is to bring up Christ from the dead.)
But what saith it ? The word is nigh thee, even in thy
mouth, and in thy heart : that is, the word of faith, which
we preach."* An excellent comment this, truly ! who but
St. Paul could find that Jesus was here intended by Moses to
be brought down from above, and then again from below ?
or that the works recommended by Moses in the plainest
manner, as being in every one's power to do and perform,
meant the faith preached by St. Paul ? Now compare St.
Paul with Moses. The passage referred to is the following :
" For this commandment which I command thee this day,
it is not hidden from thee, neither is it far off; it is not in
heaven, that thou shouldst say, Who shall go up for us to
heaven and bring it unto us, that we may hear it and do it ?
neither is it beyond the sea, that thou shouldst say, Who
shall go over the sea for us, and bring it unto us, that we
may hear it and do it ? But the word is very nigh unto
thee, in thy mouth, and in thine heart, that thou mayest
do it."f If prophecies and passages of Scripture be thus
applied, what wonder, that it should produce unbelief!
XX. St. Paul, in one of his epistles, says, "Now to
Abraham and his seed were the promises made ; he saith
not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy
* Rom. x. 5-8. t Deut. xxx. 11-14.
LETTER XVII. 131
seed, which is Christ/' By this and such like reasonings,
one would think, St. Paul intended to convince by gross
impositions; how great must the difficulties under which
he laboured have been, when ; in order to prove his point,
he is forced to such shifts, and reduced to prove it by such
unnatural interpretations. Who is there that is the least
acquainted with the Hebrew language, but could tell St.
Paul, and prove that the word in Hebrew is always used
to signify many ? Was the land of Canaan to be possessed
by Christ alone, when the promise was made to Abraham
in his seed ? For if " thy seed" be Christ, as St. Paul
pretends, then was none else to have a share in it ? The
false reasoning is too plain to be admitted, and confutes
itself.
XXI. The same apostle in another place says, " When
he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave
gifts unto men. Now that he ascended, what is it but that
he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth ?
He that descended, is the same also that ascended up far
above all heavens, that he might fill all things/'* Here you
have reasoning in a most extraordinary manner. The place
referred to is, u Thou hast ascended on high, thou hast
led captivity captive ; thou hast received gifts for men/'*}"
The Psalmist says he received gifts, St. Paul says he gave
gifts. But nothing can qualify the passage to his purpose ;
for the text speaks of Moses, when he ascended Mount
Sinai to receive the law, as is plain and obvious from the
context; and there is not the least hint that he descended
first into the lower parts of the earth, as St. Paul has it.
* Eph. iv. 8-10. t Psalm Ixviii. 18.
132 BIAS' LETTERS.
XXIT. St. Paul, in his epistle to the Hebrews, has the
following passage, "For unto which of the angels said he
at any time, Thou art my son, this day have I begotten
thee ?" And again, " I will be unto him a father, and he
shall be to me a son "* The first part is plainly of David,
and declares the pre-eminence which God gave him over the
other kings of the earth, who had counselled against him,
and his victory over them ;f the other refers to a passage
in Samuel : "I will be his father, and he shall be my son;
if he commit iniquity, I will chastise him with the rod of
men."J This plainly and literally concerns Solomon, and
accordingly excludes any other from being thereby meant.
Could Jesus commit iniquity ? or could he for his offence
be chastised ? this surely will never be allowed.
XXIII. In the same epistle St. Paul says, "And again,
when he bringeth in the first begotten into the world he
saith, And let all the angels of God worship him." This
refers to a passage in the Psalms, wherein the Psalmist,
setting forth the glory of God, says, " The heavens declare
his righteousness, and all the people see his glory. Con-
founded be all they that serve graven images, that boast
themselves of idols ; worship him all ye angels ;" or, if you
please, gods, as the word Elohim is translated in the Eng-
lish Bible. || The worship here recommended is to God;
nothing in it concerns the worship of the Messiah, or first
begotten, as St. Paul styles him, nor of his being brought
into the world.
XXIY. St. Paul says in another epistle, " And hath
* Heb. i. 5. f Psalm ii. J 2 Sam. vii. 14
2 Heb. i. 6. [| Psalm xcvii. 7,
LETTER XVII. 133
put all things under his feet, and gave him to be head over
all things to the church. "* This superiority he pretends
to prove from the following passage : " Thou madest him to
have dominion over the work of thine hands ; thou hast
put all things under his feet."*}* But this is no prophecy;
for the Psalmist here speaks of men, and the power given
them over the brute creation, as is plain from the verse next
following, mentioning: "All sheep, and oxen, yea the
beasts of the field and the fowls of the air, and the fish of
the sea;" as also from the context; and therefore, it is not
applicable to the dominion of Jesus. These instances are,
I think, sumcient, and prove beyond contradiction that the
application made by the apostles and evangelists, of prophe-
cies and passages of Scripture, are not made according to
their plain, obvious, literal meaning ; their primary sense
being of persons and things, which neither relate to Jesus,
nor what passed in his time.
In some of my former letters (particularly my 8th, which
please to peruse again) I have shown the insufficiency and
absurdity of applying prophecies and passages in a different
sense, for which reason I shall not now trouble you with
repetitions; but conclude with applying to the evangelists
and apostles, what a judicious person observed, viz. :
" They argue from types, antitypes, parables, metaphors,
allegories, allusions, inferences, patterns, resemblances,
figures and shadows ; and by such means can fetch every
thing out of any thing/'J It is necessary to complete our
inquiry (that nothing, though but seemingly material, es-
cape our examination,) to attend to such other arguments
* Eph. i. 22. t Psalm viii. 6. J Indep. Whig, No. 48.
134 BIAS' LETTERS.
and proofs as are made use of, as an addition to the proofs
and evidence contained in the New Testament. Indeed, one
might be led to imagine that the evangelists and apotles
being inspired (as is pretended,) must have known, if not
of themselves, yet from the assistance, or rather guidance
of the spirit, the prophecies and passages which contained
proofs of what they advanced, and one might conclude that
they, under the circumstance aforementioned, must have
known, and taken in, and mentioned all the material passa-
ges which concerned their cause ; to suppose that they did
not, seems to me, to reflect on the foundations of Christi-
anity, and to strike at their inspiration. It is in some sort
accusing them of not making use of the most proper, effi-
cacious and convincing passages, and is nothing less than
giving the preference to their own discoveries, as thinking
them superior to those produced by the inspired writers.
Whether this be really the case, or whether the evangelists'
and apostles' reasonings and proofs be not by them deemed
convincing, I shall not determine ; but my next work shall
be to examine some other prophecies, on which the greatest
weight is laid, not taken notice of or applied by the writers
of the New Testament, which are, notwithstanding, urged
to evidence the messiahship of Jesus.
135
LETTER XVIII.
THE doctrine of the trinity is the most extraordinary in-
vention ever attempted, and so contradictory to Scripture,
reason, and sense, that no proposition, whatever impossi-
bilities or contradictions it may consist of, can equal it. It
is likely that this doctrine owed its first rise to the plurality
of gods worshipped by the heathen, the more easily to gain
them over to Christianity ; and it was no hard matter so to
apply some passages, and impose such a sense and meaning
on phrases in the New Testament, as should confirm it,
more especially as those converts must have been entirely
ignorant of the true import and meaning of the phrases
there used. I was led to the consideration of this doctrine,
on examining the application of such passages to Jesus, as
are not mentioned by the writers of the New Testament.
The authors of the Universal History quote two prophesies
as having relation to the birth and divinity of Jesus. The
first is that passage of Josiah, " Behold a virgin shall con-
ceive/' &c., which, being already considered, I shall say
nothing concerning. The other is, "Unto us a child is
born ; unto us a son is given ; and the government shall be
upon his shoulders, and his name shall be called Wonder-
ful, Counsellor, the mighty God, the everlasting Father,
the Prince of Peace;"* all which titles and epithets are
ascribed to Jesus, as being G-od and man, urging that they
are of such a nature, as not capable of being applied to mere
* Isaiah, ix. 6.
136 BIAS' LETTERS.
humanity ; pretending, in consequence, that this was a cha-
racter of a divine child, who was wonderfully conceived,
wonderfully born, and 'wonderfully manifested.* His won-
derful conception, I have heretofore considered, as also his
wonderful birth. As to his wonderful manifestation, these
historians make it to consist in that "the babe was /wrapped
up in swaddling clothes, and laid in a manger. "f They
may believe it, if they please, on this or any other circum-
stances; it is not more extraordinary than their believing
that the ancient Jews worshipped a trinity,! or that this
person, or Jesus the Messiah, made frequent appearances
before his incarnation; and they give us several instances
of his conversing with mortals. But the most extravagant
opinion, I think, is that of Mr. Whiston, quoted in the
Universal History, which declares, " That it was the same
person, that is, Jesus the Messiah, who gave the Law on
Mount Sinai, and who took the title of the God of Israel,
and was adored by the children of Israel." || But leaving
these ridiculous opinions, some are confirmed in the notion
of the trinity from the word Eloliim being plural ; and to the
same purpose do they allege that passage, * ' let us make
man in our image, "^[ which they pretend was a consulta-
tion of the trinity. I have put all these passages together,
tending, as is pretended, to prove the divinity of Jesus, and
the doctrine of the trinity ; the which I shall consider.
As to that passage of Isaiah,** it plainly concerns the per-
son and character of king Hezekiah, who was born about
the time in which he delivered that prophecy, The word
* Univ. Hist, Vol. x. p. 459. f Ibid. J Ibid. Vol. iii. p. 10.
g Ibid. pp. 261, 288, 355, 486. || Ibid. Vol. i. p. 91.
f Gen. i. 26. ** Isaiah ix. 6.
LETTER XVIII. 137
El, translated God, I shall prove to be an appellation given
to a great or a mighty hero, and ought to be rendered in
this place as in Moses' song, where Ele Moab, is rendered
" the mighty men of Moab."* AbiAd, rendered ll everlasting
father/' is, rightly translated, Pater Seculi, u father of the
age/' by Arias Montanus,not "everlasting father ;" for this
even Jesus never pretended to be. Indeed there is the highest
probability to think that no other than Hezekiah was meant;
for on him a wonderful cure was wrought, and for him the
sun's shadow went back ten degrees. For the character of
this prince, I refer you to his history.f I cannot, however,
forbear quoting a passage from an ingenious author :
" Justin Martyr, (says he,) cites the following passage of
the same prophet, 'Unto us a child is born, and a young
man given, and the government shall be upon his shoulder;'
which he (Justin Martyr) says is a prophetic description
of the power of the cross, to which Jesus applied his shoul-
der at his crucifixion ; though the passage as it stands in
Isaiah relates in its obvious and primary sense to Hezekiah,
and that part of it, whereon Justin Martyr lays stress, most
manifestly relates to the bearing the office of a civil magis-
trate, and not to carrying the cross. "J As to the word
Elohim, it is well-known to such as are acquainted with the
Hebrew language, that it bears very different senses in
Scripture ; and is accordingly made use of to denote very
different things. For instance, " And the LORD said to
Moses, See I have made thee a god (Elohim) unto Pha-
raoh/^ Here it means a superior. " And Manoah said
* Exodus xv. 15.
t 2 Kings xviii. to xxi., and 2 Chron. xxix. to xxxiii.
J Grounds and Reasons, p. 259. Exodus vii. 1.
12 *
138 BIAS* LETTERS.
unto his wife, We shall surely die, because we have seen
god (Elohim)."* Here it signifies an angel, which Manoah
in the preceding verse is declared to have seen. " Then
the master of the house shall be brought to the judges (Elo-
him). "{ Here it is made use of for the magistrate. Here,
then, to produce no more examples, you have the same
word used to denote different things : would it not be
absurd to suppose in these applications of the word, that,
because it is plural, it therefore signifies a plurality of
persons in each case ? that Moses, by having the word
applied to him, was a triune person ? that when applied to
the angel it meant not one, but three? or that a judge sig-
nified a trinity ? Now, if it be absurd to put such a con-
struction on the word Elohim, when used to denote these
three persons, or oflices, how much more must it be to put
the like construction on the word when applied to God, who
is also named in the singular ; for instance, " Then he for-
sook God (Eloah) ;"J " Now consider this ye that forget
God (Eloah). " Besides, if Elohim implies more than one,
why not more than three ?
It is equally absurd to pretend that, because the Scrip-
ture says, " Let us make man," that the consultation was
made with the other persons in the Trinity; for either the
other persons knew it, or were ignorant of it; if the first,
then was the consultation needless ; if the latter, then were
both the other persons deficient in knowledge, and conse-
quently could neither be gods, nor of the same essence with
God ; to this dilemma must they be reduced, who interpret
* Judges xiii. 22. f Exodus xxii. 28.
% Deut. xxii. 28. I Psalm 1. 22.
LETTER XVIII. 139
this verse as referring to a trinity. Besides, the Scripture
presently says, "So God created man in his own image, in
the image of God created he him,"* all which is in the
singular. The whole passage very plainly indicates that
God, being about to make an extraordinary creation, con-
descended to consult the angels, to whom he thought proper
to impart beforehand so important an event. Besides which,
this mode of speaking in the plural for the singular is com-
mon and agreeable to the majesty of the Hebrew language.
Thus one of Job's companions tells him, " How long will
it be ere you make an end of words ? mark and afterwards
we will speak. "( Daniel, when he was speaking to the
king, says, " And we will tell the interpretation."! Thus
it is also said, " The sons of Dan, Hushim," which, how-
ever, was only one; and again, "The sons of Pallu,
Eliab/'|| But these things are so plain, and so well-known
to you, that I shall trouble you no farther; tbo' I cannot
forbear inserting a passage from one, who will not be ac-
cused of favouring the Jews. The person I mean is Father
Calmet, who thus delivers his sentiments on the word :
u Elohi ; or Eloi, Elohim, one of the names of God, Angels,
Princes, Great Men, Judges ; and even false gods are some-
times called by this name ; the sequel of the discourse is
what assists us in judging rightly concerning the true mean-
ing of this word. It is the same as Eloah, one is the singu-
lar, the other is the plural ; nevertheless, Elohim is often
* Gen. i. 27.
f Job. xviii. 23, this I think not conclusive, as there were probably
more than one present.
J Ch. ii. 36. I Gen. xlvi. 23. |] Num. xxvi. 8.
140 DIAS' LETTERS.
construed in the singular number."* According to which
rule, whenever this name is applied to men, it cannot imply
any divinity in them ; therefore, the word El Gibbor cannot
mean mighty God, as it is rendered (in the ninth chapter
of Isaiah) in the English version, but means, as it does in
other places, a great or mighty person, or hero.
Thus have I examined the passage from which they pre-
tend to prove the divinity of Jesus, or the trinity. I shall
in my next show how repugnant such doctrine is, not only
to the Old Testament, but also prove from the new, that
Jesus had no such pretensions, and how contradictory such
doctrine is to many passages therein contained, and conclude
the whole from some of the most learned and eminent men.
LETTER XIX.
PROTESTANTS very justly reject the doctrine of transubstan-
tiation ; because it is manifestly contradictory to reason and
sense; for as the eye cannot forbear seeing that the object
continues the same, notwithstanding any form of words, so
the understanding cannot forbear either assenting or dis-
senting, according to the agreement or disagreement of
ideas ; we having as sure a guide in the conduct of our un-
derstanding, as we can possibly have in that of our senses.
Was any person to assure me that one is three, and that three
are but one ; or that one simple unit was three simple units,
* Calmet on the word Elohim.
LETTER XIX. 141
and three simple units were but one simple unit : I should take
such a person to be either mad, or of having some intentions to
impose on me in the grossest manner. And were such a person
to tell me that he had a positive command from God to teach
me any such propositions, I should certainly call his integrity
in question ; for my understanding would immediately give
him the lie ; for as God had not given me faculties to com-
prehend the proposition, how could He expect my assent ?
And, in justice, He could not command me to believe that
which He had not enabled me to comprehend. On the con-
trary, God has laid down such propositions as are diametri-
cally opposite to the doctrine of the trinity. To instance in
a few : u Hear, Israel, the LORD our God is one LORD;"
or rather, " the LORD is one."* " That the LORD, he is
God in heaven above, and upon the earth beneath ; there is
none else."f " Unto thee was it shown, that thou mightest
know, that the LORD he is god, there is none else besides
him. "| te See now that I, even I, am He : and there is no
god with me ; I kill, and I make alive, I wound, and I heal ;
neither is there any that can deliver out of my hand."
Let the Arians, or trinitarians, reconcile the trinity, or deified
persons, to these texts, or to the following passages :
" And thou shalt know no other god but me, for there is no
saviour besides me."|| " Have not I told thee from that
time, and have declared it ? ye are even my witness. Is
there a god beside me? Yea, there is no god; I know not
any."^[ " I am the LORD, and there is none else, there is
no god besides me."** " Look unto me and be ye saved, all
* Deut. vi. 4. f Ibid. iv. 39. J Deut. iv. 35.
\ Ibid, xxxii. 39. || Hosea xii. 4. \ Isa. xliv. 8. ** Ibid. xlv. 5.
142 BIAS' LETTERS.
the ends of the earth ; for I am God, and there is none
else."* u To whom will ye liken me, and make me equal,
and compare me, that we may be alike ?"f " Remember
the former things of old ; for I am God, and there is none
else; I am God, and there is none like me."J In short, if
there is no other "god but He/' ''if there is none with
Him, (or, if you please, in his essence) ; if there is none be-
besides Him ;" " if there is none like Him ;" " if He has
no equal, nor any god able to save besides Him," and if
God declares that he " knpws not any other god :" how vain
and impious is it to worship any other, or to pretend to put
any such meaning on any part of Scripture !
In the New Testament there are many passages which
directly contradict the divinity of Jesus. To instance a
few : we are told that " Jesus increased in wisdom and
stature, and in favour with God and rnan" which is declar-
ing him to be merely human; for what greater absurdity,
than to say that God increases in wisdom, or that he was
grown in favour with himself ? Jesus declares, < e My doc-
trine is not mine, but his that sent me;"|| by which he de-
clares himself to be only an agent, to do the will of his
superior, and consequently could not be the same as he that
had the power of sending; as he that sends, or commands
another to go, cannot be the same as he who goes and is
commanded by a superior ; for to command and to obey are
different acts, inconsistent in the same person, unless a
person, can be said, not only to command himself, but also
to obey himself, which is absurd. Of the like passages we
* Isa. xlr 22. t Ibid. xlvi. 5. J Ibid. 9.
g Luke. ii. 52. || John vii. 16.
LETTER XIX. 143
have many, Again, Jesus declares of himself, " I go unto
the Father ; for my Father is greater than I."* Conse-
quently, he that has a superior cannot be God. In another
place he has the following passage : " And now, Father,
glorify thou me with thine own self, with the glory which
I had with thee before the world was,"f Here he invokes
his superior for that which he not only had not, but
could not obtain of himself. For either he had that glory, or
he had it not : if he had it, it was absurd to pray for what
he had ; and if he had it not, then could he not be God ; for
he that had the power to grant it, and to whom he prayed,
must have been his superior. Besides he prays for a thing
which he had '< before the world was," of which (to make
the passage sense) he must have been divested ; but how
absurd it is to suppose that the Deity divests himself, or is
divested by another of his glory or any of his attributes !
Another remarkable expression of his is that concerning his
knowledge of the day of judgment, declaring, " Of that day
and that hour knoweth no man, no not the angels which
are in heaven, neither the son, but the Father,"! by which
he excludes himself of having that knowledge, confessing
his ignorance, as it is declared to be known only to the
Father
Now how can he be God, or of the same essence with the
Father, and yet be ignorant of what the Father knew ? Or can
that person be God who is deficient in knowledge in not know-
ing that which another knows ? These passages are sufficient,
and unanswerable, and clearly prove that Jesus pretended not
to any divinity and so far was he from taking any of the divine
* John xiv. 28. f Ibid. xvii. 5. + Matt. xiii. 32.
144 BIAS' LETTERS.
attributes to himself, that he rebukes one for only calling
him " Good master," and tells him 6t Why callest thou me
good ? there is none good but one, that is, God."* I
think a more express declaration cannot be had, and so
persuaded was he of this, and that worship was only due
to God, that he tells the devil, (who it seems would per-
suade him to the contrary,) " Get thee hence, Satan : for it
is written, thou shalt worship the LORD thy God, and him
only shalt thou serve ;"f a saying that ought to be strictly
followed.
One of the phrases which I make no doubt, might have been
misapplied by those who propagated the doctrine of the trinity,
either through policy, design, or ignorance, is that of " Son
of God," so often used in the New Testament ; but it ap-
pears very plain that this phrase means not either a divine
person, or one co-equal with God, but was synonymous with
Messiah : either or both being used indifferently to signify
the same thing. This is evident from the use of these terms
throughout the New Testament. To prove this I will make
use of the words of Mr. Locke, who in his Reasonableness
of Christianity,! cites the following passage (John, i. 41) :
Andrew says to Simon, " We have found the Messiah ;"
and Philip, on the same occasion, (45) says to Nathaniel,
" We have found him of whom Moses in the law did write,
Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph." Nathaniel who dis-
believed this, upon Christ's speaking to him was convinced
of it, when he declares his assent in these words, " Rabbi,
thou art the Son of God, thou art the King of Israel ;"
from which it is evident, that to believe him to be " Him
* Matt. xix. 17. t Ibid. iv. 10. t p. 519.
LETTER XIX. 145
of whom the law and the Prophets did write," or to be tC Son
of God," or to be " King of Israel," was in effect the same
as to be the Messiah. " When the priests and Levites sent
to John the Baptist to ask who he was," (John, i. 19) he,
understanding their meaning, answered, " I am not the Mes-
siah ;" but he bears witness that Jesus is the " Son of
God," that is the Messiah. (See p. 520.) This also was
the declaration of him at his baptism, by a voice from
heaven, " This is my beloved son, in whom I am well
pleased," (Mat. iii. 17,) which was a declaration of him, of
his being the Messiah. (See p. 521.) He asks his disci-
ples, " Whom do men say that I am? And they answered,
John the Baptist ; but others say Elias, and others, one of
the prophets," (so that it is evident that those who believed
him an extraordinary person knew not yet who he was,
though it was the third year of his ministry, and not a year
before his death ;) and he says unto them, " But whom say
ye that I am ? And Peter answered and said unto him,
Thou art the Messiah." Luke iv. 41, " And devils also came
out of many, crying out and saying, Thou art Christ, the
Son of God. And he rebuking them suffered them not to
speak; for they knew that he was Christ." Mar. iii. 11,
12. " Unclean spirits, when they saw him, fell down be-
fore him, and cried, saying, thou art the Son of God. And
he straitly charged them, that they should not make him
known." Here again we may observe, from the compar-
ing of the two texts, that {t thou art the Son of God," or
"thou art the Messiah," were indifferently used for the
same thing. And again, " Where confessing Jesus to be
the Son of God," is the same as " confessing him to be the
Messiah," those two expressions being understood, amongst
13
146 BIAS' LETTERS.
the Jews, to signify the same thing, (p. 531.) He inquired
of his disciples (Mark, viii. 27, whom the people took him
for ; and they telling him, for John the Baptist, or one of the
old prophets risen from the dead, he asked, what they them-
selves thought, and here again Peter answers in these words,
(Mark viii. 29,) " Thou art the Messiah." (Luke ix. 20,)
lt Thou art the Messiah, the Son of the living God/' which
expressions we may hence gather, mean the same thing. (See
p. 533.) "How calling him the son of God, came to sig-
nify that he was the Messiah, would not be hard to show j
but it is enough that it appears plainly, that it was so
used, and had that import among the Jews at that time,
which, if any one desires to have further evidence to him,
he may add Matt. xxvi. 63; John vi. 69, xi. 27, 30, 31,
and those places occasionly take notice of." (See p. 531.)
In his first vindication he quotes the words of Doctor Pat-
rick, Bishop of Ely, viz : u To be the Son of God, and to
be Christ, being but different expressions of the same thing."
And again, from the same prelate, "It is the very thing
to believe that Jesus is the Christ, and to believe that
Jesus is the Son of God; express it how you please."
(See p. 598.) These passages, and many others to the
same purpose, he defends and confirms in his vindication ; but
what I have here collected is sufficient to my purpose, which
is to show the signification of the phrase, Son of God, and in
what sense this phrase was used in the New Testament.
The following remarks will set this in a clear light.
We have a passage in the gospel of a question proposed
by Jesus to the scribes and pharisees, namely, " Whose so.n
they thought the Messiah was to be T' To this they an-
swered, " The son of David." He saith unto them, " How
LETTER XIX. 147
doth David in spirit call him Lord, saying, The Lord said
unto my Lord, sit thou at my right hand, till I make thine ene-
mies thy footstool ?" To which he added, " If David then
did call him Lord, how is he his son ?"* " And no man was
able to answer him." The authors of the Universal History
remark on this passage, that " it doth not indeed appear
that they had any notion of his divine nature, and therefore
might be easily puzzled to answer this question,""}* which
plainly shows, that the calling him Son of God, could not
be owing to any notion of his divinity. For had they un-
derstood his pretensions, they might have easily answered,
that David could not have intended to call the Messiah
Lord, or thought him God; for if he had, he would not
have made him stand in need of another's assistance to
make his enemies his footstool ; because it must be incon-
sistent and absurd ; for he that stands in need of another's
help could neither be Lord, nor of the same essence with
God ; and thus might Jesus have been nonplussed.
The passage refers to Psalm ex., which though at the
top is put a Psalm of David, is still not of his composing,
any more than the twentieth and twenty-first Psalms are,
which bear the same title. This is evident from the con-
tents of those and this Psalm, which, like many more, were
composed by others, such as Ethan, Yeduthun, the sons of
Korah, and Assaph, &c. This Psalm, in particular, seems
to me to be dedicated to David, on his escape from the
imminent, danger his life was in, in the encounter with the
giant Ishbi-benob, which caused his men to swear, that he
should not go out to battle any more,J but that he should
* Matt. xxii. 42, and sequel f Univ. Hist. Vol. x. p. 586.
I 2 Sam. xxi. 16, 17.
148 DIAS' LETTERS.
abide in Jerusalem whilst the Lord chastised his enemies,
and he ruled like Melchizedeck, or a just king, (which that
word signifies) ; the word coJien, rendered priest, signifies
also chief ruler, and is rightly so translated in another
place,* where it says, " and David's sons were (cohanim)
chief rulers/' not chief priests ; and in like manner it ought
to be translated here, in this Psalm, which represents David
as chief ruler, and acting like a just king in Zion, whilst,
without danger of his life, the Lord should make his ene-
mies his footstool. This is the intent and scope of the
Psalm, as is evident from every part of it; and the title
Lord, therein given David, imports no divinity, no more
than it does in many other places. This Psalm cannot be
applied to Jesus, nor can it be made to correspond to him ;
for it is evident that to him there happened the very reverse.
And if Jesus' s authority avails any thing, from it might be
proved, that when such titles are given to men they imply
no divinity ; for when he was in danger of being stoned,
because, that being a man, they apprehended from his dis-
course that he made himself a god, Jesus answered in his
own excuse, " Is it not written in your law, I said ye are
gods ? If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God
came, why should you think me a blasphemer that am sent
of God, for declaring myself the Son of God ?"f By which
expression it is evident he pretends to no divinity, no more
than those who were called gods did.
2 Sam. viii. 18. t John x. 34, &c.
149
LETTER XX.
THE doctrine of the Trinity being once introduced, and
made a fundamental article of Christianity, all persons pre-
tends to support their different opinions concerning it, and
all appeal to the witnesses of the New Testament to prove
that, which they themselves declare to be incomprehensible
and unintelligible.
The very terms contradicting one another, and showing
the folly of pretending to explain that which none can
either understand or comprehend, soon occasioned such divi-
sions amongst Christians, as are not to be paralleled in
history } each party damning, excommunicating, banishing,
imprisoning, fining, and even murdering the other, in such
a manner, that I have often wondered that people who are
so ready to apply G-od's judgment on other occasions, should
not bethink themselves that these troubles came on the
Church, as a judgment for their manifold absurdities and
impieties.
The creed which establishes this doctrine, is so full of
contradictions and inconsistencies, that I challenge any per-
son to compose, within the same compass of words, any-
thing equal to it, or more repugnant to reason and common
sense. For the truth of this, I shall refer you to the Atha-
nasian Creed, which is crammed down the throats of be-
lievers, a as necessary to salvation," inflicting on unbelievers
the cruelest punishments, even that of " perishing everlast-
ing," concluding by saying : {t This is the Catholic Faith,
which except a man believe he cannot be saved." But as
13*
150 BIAS' LETTERS.
it is impossible for any intelligent, reasonable man to be-
lieve the doctrine of the Trinity, those who pretend to it^
assert such things as are almost incredible. The pious
Bishop Beveridge (as he is commonly called) is an instance
of this. Concerning this article of the Trinity he has the
following passage : " This, I confess, is a mystery which I
cannot possibly conceive ; yet it is a truth which I can
easily believe; yea, therefore it is so true, that I can easily
believe it ; because it is so high that I cannot possibly con-
ceive it ; for it is impossible anything should be true of the In-
finite Creator, which can be easily expressed to the capacities
of a finite creature ; and for this reason I ever did, and ever
shall look upon those apprehensions of God to be the truest,
whereby we apprehend Him to be the most incomprehensible,
and that to be the most true of God which seems the most im-
possible unto us."* Who after this can believe the Trinity,
since it gives us notions of God so contradictory in them-
selves, and so inconsistent to his attributes ? But this is
not all; for the Bishop continues: a IJpon this ground,
therefore, it is that the mysteries of the Gospel, which I
am less able to conceive, I think myself the more obliged
to believe, especially this mystery of mysteries, the Trinity
in Unity, and Unity in Trinity, which I am so far from
being able to comprehend, or indeed to apprehend, that I
cannot seriously set myself to think of it, or to sum up my
thoughts a little concerning it, but I immediately lose my-
self in a trance or ecstacy. That God the Father should
be one perfect God of himself; God the Son, one perfect
G-od of himself; and God the Holy Ghost one perfect God
* Thoughts on Religion, Article 3.
LETTER XX. 151
of himself; and yet these three, should be but one perfect
God of himself; so that one should be perfectly three, and
three perfectly one ; that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost,
should be three, and yet but one but one, and yet three !
heart-amazing thought, devouring, inconceivable mystery !
who cannot believe it to be true of the glorious Deity?
Certainly none but such as are able to apprehend it ; which
1 am sure I cannot, and I believe no other creature can ; and
because no creature can possibly conceive how it should be
so, therefore I believe it to be so." I am tired of trans-
cribing this nonsense, which is really what Christians must
believe, a faith, or cause of faith, however, that I shall
never be able to attain ; neither do I believe the Bishop
himself ever did, if he was a rational, reasonable creature.
Thus you see to what absurdities, inconsistencies, and in-
credibilities, those are led to believe, who contrary to
Scripture, to reason, and to common sense, set up the
Trinity.
I know of but one passage in the whole New Testament
which can lead to this doctrine, and that is : u Go ye there-
fore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of
the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost ;"*
which passage I will, on another occasion, take into conside-
ration, and prove, from many circumstances, its spurious-
ness, inserted long after Matthew's time, when the doctrine
of the Trinity took place, and baptism had been instituted
as a sacrament, in order to authorize both the one and the
other. There is, however, one method made use of to baffle
all inquiries concerning this, and other articles of the
* Matthew xx. 19.
152 BIAS* LETTERS.
Christian faith, which is, to make them mysteries; every-
thing which is contrary to reason and common sense (as
everything peculiar to Christianity is) is a mystery. They
have but little regard to what St Peter advises them to
"Be always ready to give an answer to every man that
asketh you a reason concerning the hope that is in you."*
They choose rather to answer the character which Paul the
Apostle gives of some in his days, namely : " Desiring to
be teachers of the law; understanding neither what they
say, nor wherefore they affirm. "f To such we may say in
St. Paul's words, " So likewise you, except ye utter by the
tongue words easy to be understood, how shall it be known
what is spoken ?"J Ct Therefore if I know not the meaning
of the voice, I shall be unto him that speaketh a barbarian ;
and he that speaketh shall be a barbarian unto me." All
which is a very just way of reasoning ; for if the meaning
of the voice may be known and explained, then it ceases to
be mysterious ; but if they utter with their tongues things
not understood : or if they form propositions contradictory
in themselves, " How shall it be known what is spoken," or
how shall people believe if they " Know not the meaning
of the voice?" Must not such doctrine be rejected on St.
Paul's principles ? But alas ! they not only subscribe to
these doctrines, but swear to the belief of them; and are
therefore under an obligation to support them, an unhap-
piness this, greatly to be lamented, as a hindrance to truth
and sincerity.
Mahomed, whatever he might have been in other respects,
merits the highest praises for his just and true notion of
* 1 Pet. iii. 15. 1 1 Tim. i. 7. % 1 Cor. xiv. 9. 1 1 Cor. xiv. 11.
LETTER XX. 163
God, and for inculcating the same to his followers. The
ingenious Mr. Sale does him justice by declaring : " That
both Mahomed, and those among his followers who were
reckoned orthodox, had and continue to have just notions of
God and his attributes, (always excepting their obstinate
and impious rejecting of the Trinity.")* Now, how a per-
son can be called impious, who has just notions of God and
his attributes, merely because he does not admit of a
Trinity, is what I cannot comprehend. But if Christians
think them obstinate, they are, however, consistent in re-
jecting this doctrine ; for Mahomed declares, " Whoever
shall give a companion unto God, God shall exclude him
from paradise, and his habitation shall be hell-fire. They
are certainly infidels, who say God is the third of three; for
there is no God besides one God."f In another chapter he
says, " Say not there are three gods ; forbear this, it will be
better for you God is but one God."J And why may they
not urge that those, who admit a generation in the deity,
reason inconsistently ? for if it only produce the same God,
then it is useless ; and if another, unnecessary ; an argu-
ment not to be answered by either Arians or Trinitarians.
I shall conclude this article with the opinions of the great-
est geniuses of our age. The first is Mr. Wollaston, who
says, " He who exists of himself, depends in no regard upon
another, and (as being a Supreme Cause) in the foundation
of existence to other beings, must exist in the uppermost
and best means of existing ; and not only so, but (since He
is infinite and illimited,) He must exist in the best manner,
* See his Prelim. Disc. Sec. iv. p. 71.
f Alcoran, chap. v. J Ibid. chap. iv.
154 BIAS' LETTERS.
illimitedly and infinitely ; now, to exist thus, is infinite
goodness of existence ; and to exist in a manner infinitely
good, is to be perfect. There can be but one such being,
that is, as it appears by Prop. 3d, that there must be at
least one independent being, such as is mentioned in Prop.
1st, so now that, in reality, there is but one ; because his
manner of existence being perfect and illiinited. That man-
ner of being, (if I may speak so) is exhausted by Him, or
belongs solely to Him; if any other could partake with
Him in it, He must want what that other had, be deficient
and limited ; infinite and illimited inclose all. If there
could be two beings, each by himself absolutely perfect,
they must be either of the same, or different natures ; of
the same it cannot be; because, thus both being infinite,
their existence would be coincident; that is, they would be
but the same one. Nor can they be of different natures ;
because if their natures were opposite, or contrary, one to
the other, being equal, (infinite both, and everywhere meet-
ing the one with the other,) the one would just destroy, or
be the negation of the other/'
The following is a translation of part of Mr. Locke's
Letter to Mr. Limborch, dated 2d April, 1698. (See his
Works.) " The question you propose is reduced to this,
6 How the unity of God may be proved/ or in other terms,
' How it can be proved that there is but one Grod To
resolve this question, it is necessary to know, before we
come to prove the unity of Grod, what we understand by the
word Grod. The ordinary idea, and I believe the true idea
we have of Grod, and of such who know his existence, is
that he is an infinite Being, eternal, incorporeal, and all-
perfect. Then, from this known idea, it seems to me easy
LETTER XX. 155
to deduce the unity of God. In effect, a being all-perfect,
or otherwise perfectly perfect, cannot be but solely ; be-
cause a being all-perfect cannot want any of its attributes,
perfections, or degrees of perfection, which imports him
more to possess than to be deprived of; for otherwise he
would want as much as would make him entirely perfect.
For example : to have power is a much greater perfection
than to have none ; to have still greater power, is a greater
perfection than to have less ; and to have all power, which
is to be almighty, is a greater perfection than to want any
part of it. This proved, two beings, almighty, are incom-
patible j because we should be obliged to suppose, that one
would necessarily will that which the other would, and, in
that case, one of the two, in which the will is, must neces-
sarily determine the will of the other, who could not be free,
and would, consequently, want that perfection, which we
have treated of. For it is better to be free, than to be sub-
missive to the determination and will of another. And if
they are not reduced to the necessity of willing always one
and the same thing : in such case, the one might act that
which the other would not ; and then the will of the one
would prevail over the will of the other, and he of the two,
whose power could not second his will, cannot be al-
mighty ; for he cannot do as much as the other. Of course,
then, there are not two almighty beings, nor can there be
two almighty beings ; consequently there cannot be two gods.
By the same idea of perfection we attain to the knowledge
of G-od being omniscient ; so that the supposition of two
distinct beings which have a power, and one distinct will, is
an imperfection that one cannot screen his thoughts from
the other, but if one can sever his thoughts from the other,
156 BIAS' LETTERS.
then cannot the other be omniscient ; for not only does he not
know that which may be known ; but, likewise, does not
know what the other knows. The same may be said of
God's omnipresence. It is better he should be in the vast
extent of infinite space, than to be excluded from the small-
est part of space ; for if he is excluded from any part of
space, he cannot operate, nor know what is done in that
space, and consequently, can neither be almighty nor omni-
scient. If against this reasoning it should be said that the
two gods which they suppose, (or the two hundred thousand,
for by the same reasoning that there may be two, there may
be two million, for there is no method of limiting the num-
ber, I say if they suppose, that several gods have one per-
fect almighty, that is exactly the same power; and have
also the same knowledge, the same will, and that they
equally exist in the same place ; it is only multiplying the
same being. But in the end, they do but reduce one sup-
posed plurality to one true unity. For to suppose two intel-
ligent beings, who know, will, and do incessantly the same
thing, and have not a separate existence, is nothing more
than to suppose, in words, one plurality, and to admit,
effectually, one simple unity. For the being inseparably
united by the will, by the understanding, by the action,
and by the place, is as great an union as one intelligent
being can possibly be united to himself; and, consequently,
the supposing that where there is such an union, there can
be two beings, is to suppose a division where there can be
none, or a thing divided with itself." There requires no
addition to the plain, clear, and convincing reasoning of the
foregoing learned persons. I shall only apply to the sub-
ject of these letters, the words of the excellent Archbishop
LETTER XXI. 157
Tillotson, when he tells us, "That if all the great mathe-
maticians; of all ages, Archimedes, and Euclid, and Appo-
lonius, and Diophantus, &c., could be supposed to meet in a
general council, and should there declare in a most solemn
manner, and give it under their hands and seals, that twice
two did not make four, but five, that this would not in the
least move him to be of their mind ;"* and of this opinion
must all reasonable people be, by what names or epithets
they may be called. I am, &c.
LETTER XXI.
JACOB' s blessing to* Judah is famous both among the
Jewish and Christian commentators ; the latter pretend, that
it is a plain prophecy of Jesus, and consequently take great
pains to show its literal accomplishment in him. But to be
convinced that it is neither plainly nor literally fulfilled in
Jesus, one need but observe, not only the variety, but the
contrariety of opinions which their commentators have run
into. The terms which the Patriarch has made use of are
such as increase the difficulty and divisions, every one ex-
plaining and deriving the sense and meaning of the words
shebetj mecliokelc, ad, and Shiloh, and fixing their import as
best suits their different purpose. This you will find to be
the real state of the case on consulting a few out of the
many different authors, who have" commented on, or ex-
* Six Sermons p. 13.
14
158 BIAS' LETTERS.
plained this famous passage, which is rendered in our Eng-
lish Bible, " 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 be." (Gen.
xlix. 10.) I do not suppose you expect I should enter into
a critical examination, much less a confutation of the many
different and contradictory opinions. This would be need-
less, since there is not one interpretation and application
that ever was made, but what has been objected to and con-
futed by some author or other, amongst themselves ; so that
you will find this task amply and fully done to your
hands.
There is, however, of late, a new interpretation and appli-
cation, started by the authors of the Universal History,
who, I suppose, dissatisfied with interpretations hitherto
made, have opened a new and different plan from all other
commentators. A few observations are therefore necessary
on their hypothesis. They pretend ''that the Jews did not
lose their sceptre, Sanhedrin, or highest court of judicature,
and supreme legislative power, till the heathen became con-
verts to Christianity, of whom Cornelius was the first, that
event denoting the gathering of the people, as foretold by the
Patriarch." (Yol. x. p. 317.)
In consequence of this opinion, they (contrary to all
other commentators) place the accomplishment of this pro-
phecy in the Sanhedrin's retaining, until that event, the
supreme legislative power, and conformably thereto they
represent Jesus' trial before Pilate in a suitable light:
" In order (say they) to set those right who, from the no-
tion of the whole power of life and death being taken away
before this time, have inferred that the sceptre spoken of by
LETTER XXI. 159
Jacob was departed from Judah."* It was hitherto a
matter of difference amongst commentators, where to fix the
sceptre's departure from Judah, which was generally placed
in the supreme power of the Sanhedrin j but its departure, by
the Sanhedrin' s loss of that power, was what they all agreed
in, (indeed the only thing they did agree in,) and this was a
circumstance deemed necessary to make out the accomplish-
ment of this prophecy. A few quotations from some authors
of note will set this in a clear light. One author declares,
"That the Sanhedrin had lost the power of life and death;
and when they were crucifying the Messiah, they acknowl-
edged that the sceptre was departed from Judah ; since the
Jews said to Pilate, <It is not lawful for us to put any man
to death/f This is the first period (says this author) of
the accomplishment of the oracle/ 'J Another asserts,
" That the Romans, who were masters of the country, had
taken from them the power of life and death ; they might
pronounce a man guilty, but not condemn him in form, nor
order his execution ; they (for this reason) carried him be-
fore Pilate, the Governor of the Province. " Another,
speaking of Herod, says, " This was the first foreigner to
whom the Jews became immediately subject, so that the
ancient prophecy of the sceptre's departing from Judah, is,
by the best critics, supposed to begin to take place at this
time." || Another learned author declares, that "Cyrenius
having reduced Judea into the form of a Roman province,
and instead of their former governor of their own nation,
placed a Roman Procurator over them, then began the fulfil-
* Un. His. Vol. x. p. 594. f John xviii. 3. J Basnage Book iv. 21.
g Calmet's Diet, on the word Jesus. || Ech. Ecc. His., Intro, p. 16.
160 BIAS' LETTERS.
ling of this prophecy. For then, that is, at the time of this
redaction of Judea to a Roman province, the sceptre and
the lawgiver from between their feet began to be taken
away.* But then (says the same author) when Coponius
was made Governor of Judea, the power of life and death
being taken away from them and placed in a foreign gover-
nor, and justice being thenceforth administered by the laws
of Rome instead of their own nation, then truly began the
sceptre to depart from Judah, and the lawgiver from be-
tween his feet."f Thus you see how unanimous they all
are in placing the departure of the supreme power, in which
they make the sceptre to consist, before the coming of Jesus,
contrary to the authors of the Universal History.
These different opinions prove what I intimated in a
former letter (X), of their making two-edged tools of the
prophecies, to cut which way they please, or as it best suits
or serves their turn. For if the sceptre, which they place
in the supreme legislative power, departed, or was before that
time taken away from the Sanhedrin, as is generally asserted,
(no matter when,) why, then they do, from that remark-
able circumstance, pretend to prove, that the prophecy was
literally fulfilled at that time. But if on the contrary, the
sceptre, or supreme legislative power, did still subsist, or
was possessed by the Sanhedrin, why, then they do, from
that contrary or opposite circumstance, also pretend to prove
the accomplishment of the same prophecy, literally too, to
be sure, so that nothing, however inconsistent or contra-
dictory in itself, stands in their way. The literal applica-
tion of this prophecy and its accomplishment in Jesus, is
* Prid. Connec. Vol. iv. p. 932. t Ibid. p. 953.
LETTER XXI. 161
therefore far from being as clear and evident as they pre-
tend ; and for the truth of this, I appeal to Dr. Sherlock,
who says, that a there are so many interpretations of this
prophecy, some peculiar to the Jews, and some to Chris-
tians, and so many difficulties to be accounted for, whatever
way we take."* And again he declares, " That there is no
prophecy in the Old Testament, that has undergone so many
interpretations and critical disquisitions as this now before
us. It would make a volume (says he) to report exactly
the various sentiments of learned men upon this subject."f
You see now, how much learned men differ, notwithstanding
they pretend it to be so clear, that " The oracle doth not
now admit of any difficulty ;"J all which, unless you take
their word, will appear in fact to be the very reverse ; for
though they have been canvassing, commenting, and illus-
trating this passage, and that by the ablest pens and most
acute wits : yet such irreconcilable differences still subsist,
both in explaining and applying, as also in the chief circum-
stances of its accomplishment, to make it dark and intricate
now, as applied to Jesus, as ever it was. For if it be a
plain prophecy of Jesus, why such contradictions and variety
of opinions concerning its accomplishments ?
Let us now examine, whether the supreme legislative
power, (in which the sceptre promised to Judah, is made to
consist,) was held by the Sanhedrin ; but on examination
it appears very plain that it was departed, or taken away
from it, long before that period, and its authority, reduced
* Intent and Use of Proph. Dis. vi. p. 146. f Ibid. iii. p. 254.
J Basnage, B. iv. ch. 21.
$ Thus far these letters were published before they appeared in The
Occident.
14*
162 BIAS' LETTERS.
to a mere nothing, a very shadow of authority,* was made
dependent on the Roman governors; consequently those
governors, and not the Sanhedrin, had the supreme power.
This is easily shown from those very historians, though they
assert, and pretend to make out the very reverse, to serve a
turn. They tell us themselves, that from a change which
Gabinus made in the government (long before the birth of
Jesus) the Jews "fell under the subjection of a set of
domineering lords/ ' and consequently lost their powerf by
the change ; and, though Hyrcanus had afterwards a grant
of the government, both as Prince and High Priest, with
privilege of judging all causes, J it is evident that whatever
power wherewith he invested the Sanhedrin, it must have
been very precarious, far short of the supreme legislative
power. This appears from their suffering Herod to appear
before them, " though summoned as a criminal, in such
guise as gave them to understand that he came not as a
private person to be judged by them." And how could
they possess the supreme power, without either the freedom
of judging or enforcing their sentence ? That they had not
that privilege, is very plain from the letters which Sextus
Caesar wrote to intimidate the Sanhedrin, and that in their
judicial capacity. Can it be said they were the supreme
legislators, and yet have their jurisdiction disclaimed by
Herod, 1 1 who cruelly put to death all the members excepting
two, and that too, for their proceeding in that very council ?
How insignificant must their power have been if they could
not hinder the abolition of their ceremonies, and the intro-
* Prid. Connexions, Vol. iv. p. 933. t Univ. Hist. Vol. x. p. 376.
$ Jos. Ant. lib. xiv. ch. 17. I Univ. Hist. Vol. x. 385.
|| Ibid. p. 386.
LETTER XXI. 163
ducing of foreign customs, contrary to law :* neither could
they hinder a law of Herod's being imposed on them, not
only contrary to the laws of Moses, but also contrary to
the inclination of the whole nation. If these be not proofs,
that they had lost the supreme legislative power, and that
it was never restored to the Sanhedrin, I know not what can
be deemed so.f
Besides if they had not lost that power, would they
have dared to tell Pilate such a notorious fasehood, as that
(( it was not lawful for them to put any man to death/' who
certainly must have known the contrary? As for the
motives which they allege, pretending that the Sanhedrin
acted in the manner " they did, 1st, To throw the odium
of his death as much as possible upon Pilate and the Ro-
mans; and 2d, To make him undergo a more severe and
ignominous punishment,"! it will be sufficient to observe,
that if it be true, as they pretend, that the Sanhedrin had
at that time the supreme legislative power, they could have
nothing to fear from either the people or the Romans.
From the first they must have had the power to challenge
obedience, that in all governments, (and much more so in
the Jewish,) being due to those who have the supreme
authority; besides, from the people they had nothing to
fear, for they were, it appears, clamorous for his execution.
And as for the Romans, if the Sanhedrin could try,
condemn, and execute, by their own sole authority, then
* Univ. Hist. Vol. x. p. 386.
f Dr. Warburton, applying this prophecy in a different sense, " thinks
the continuance of the power of life and death amongst a tributary
people a perplexed question/'
I Univ. Hist. Vol. x. p. 593.
164 BIAS* LETTERS.
were they safe "in doing so, with respect to them. Besides,
the Romans knew nothing of Jesus, and their usage of him
shows how little they valued him ; and therefore the Sanhed-
rin could have run no risk, had they asserted their own
supreme power. The second motive, has as little founda-
tion. For it is not at all probable or consistent that the
supreme legislature, tenacious of their power and privileges
and a strict adherence to the laws, which they deemed
sacred, should here all at once, not only give them up, but
act contrary to the very constitution, and that in an affair
the most trivial, nothing more than the inflicting one kind
of death instead of another; for the power of punishing
with death is what they say the Sanhedrin had, to prove
which they instance the case of Stephen, and say, " He was
regularly tried, condemned and stoned by their single au-
thority."* Now I think that the contrary to this represen-
tation is plain from the passage itself: Stephen might
indeed be brought to his examination as is related; but
there is no regular condemnation, nor sentence pronounced.
The fact was this : The people, being exasperated at his
behaviour, tumultuously ({ ran upon him with one accord,
and cast him out of the city and stoned him."f It mani-
festly was a violent act of the people, without either con-
demnation or sentence, and in this very light it is repre-
sented in the Acts ; so that I think nothing offered by these
historians any way proves their point, or carries the least
colour of probability. I find it said by way of excuse,
< ' That if Jesus Christ and his Apostles did not make use
of this passage to prove the coming of the Messiah, it was
* Univ. Hist. Vol. x. p. 593. t Acts vii. 57, 58.
LETTER XXI. 165
because then the completion of this prophecy was not suffi-
ciently manifest."* In one of my letters I took notice of
the authors of the Universal History affirming, " that King
Ahaz could not be ignorant from this prophecy that the
sceptre was not to depart from Judah till Shiloh was come;"*)*
by which means, these historians honour Ahaz with having
a more minute and perfect knowledge of this prophecy,
eight hundred years before the completion in Jesus, than
either Jesus himself, or his Apostles ; for if it was not suffi-
ciently manifest, either to the person in whom it was accom-
plished, or to those who lived and wrote long after the con-
version of Cornelius (nay, St. John wrote even after the
destruction of Jerusalem) who had all those manifesting
circumstances to guide them in applying it, and an oppor-
tunity from thence of proving his character, how absurd
must it appear to make Ahaz have any such knowledge !
For how could it be plain to Ahaz, who had not those mani-
festing circumstances to guide him, which Jesus and his
Apostles had ? circumstances, indeed, so very dark when
they happened, as to be incapable of guiding the persons
themselves whom it concerned, and gave no proof, even to
those (the inspired) whose business it was to show its com-
pletion ; and, since neither from the event, nor from the as-
sistance of the Spirit which guided them, they could discern
or discover the accomplishment, we may reasonably conclude,
that this passage concerned not Jesus at all, and also that
Ahaz was entirely ignorant of its having any such meaning.
There is another thing which I must take notice of, and
* Cal. Die. on the word Shiloh.
t See my 12th Letter; also, Univ. Hist. Vol. x. p. 155.
166 BIAS' LETTERS.
that is, that Jacob gave each of his children a particular,
separate blessing, considering each of his sons in their pos-
terity as twelve different tribes ; consequently the blessing
was peculiar to each tribe; for <f all these are the twelve tribes
of Israel, and this is it that their father spake unto them, and
blessed them; every one according to his blessing, he
blessed them."* The blessing to Judah must therefore be
limited to his particular tribe or his descendants. I make
this observation, because Christian commentators do artfully
transfer the supreme legislative power (in which they make
the sceptre to consist) to those who held the power or magi-
stracy in the land of Judea ; though that power had long
before departed from Judah, in the person of Zedekiah, the
last of Judah' s descendants that held the power or sceptre,
never afterwards returning in any of his descendants, ex-
cepting Zerubbabel, who held it by the appointment of
another, and that only for a limited time, the government
being afterwards in the tribe of Levi, and others, but not in
the tribe or descendants of Judah, as is manifest from the
history of those times. Therefore it is absurd to pretend to
extend the blessing of Judah, which was his particular
privilege, to others.
LETTER XXII.
I CONCLUDED my last with the observation that the
Patriarch's blessing was particular to each tribe. " For
since Jacob gave his blessing to every one of his children, no
* Gen. xlix. 28.
LETTER XXII. 167
doubt but he promised there some particular advantage to
the tribe of Judah ; and notwithstanding (says Basnage)
that opinion has not appeared favourable to Christians,
truth must always be preferred to interest."* I shall now
give that explanation of the famous passage, which to me
seems the plainest and most conformable to the literal mean-
ing and import of the text. The following advantages are
then promised to Judah :
1st. That this tribe should be respected by the others
for its courage and intrepidity.
2dly. That it was to hold the sceptre, or have pre-eminence
above the other tribes.
3dly. That it should have its lawgiver or supreme legis-
lature within itself, independent or separate from the rest
of the tribes.
4thly. That these advantages they should possess till
the coming of Shiloh, who was to unite the people under
his obedience and government,
5thly. A more considerable inheritance.
These are the advantages promised to Judah, and the
blessing will then run thus :
Judah, (says the Patriarch,) thou shalt have the praise
of thy brethren; thy father's children shall bow down to
thee; for thy courage and intrepidity shall draw their re-
spect and obedience ; the sceptre (or pre-eminence) shall not
depart from Judah, (the tribe collectively,) nor a lawgiver
(or supreme legislature and independent power within it-
self) from between his feet, until Shiloh (or him to whom
it belongs) shall come, (to whom all the people shall be
* His. and Rel. of the Jews, Book iv. cb. 21.
168 DIAS' LETTERS.
gathered ; ) [or] unto him shall the gathering of the people
be : binding his foal unto the vine, &c. To avoid needless
disputes concerning words, I shall fix the meaning of those
made use of by the Patriarch in a sense given them by
Christian commentators.
1st. By the word shebet (or sceptre) I with Basnage
" understand a degree of pre-eminence which distinguished
the tribe of Judah, as kings are distinguished in their own
dominions. Judah carried the sceptre (says he) because it
had a great pre-eminence/'
2dly. *By the word mechoJceJc, (translated lawgiver,) I
with the generality of commentators understand a supreme
legislative power.
3dly. By the word Shiloh, I with sundry (and in particu-
lar with the authors of the Universal History) understood,
he to whom it belongs, drawing it from Shiloh. f
4thly. By the word 'ad, I take in the sense in which it
is rendered in the English version, (until.) Having fixed
the meaning of the words in the sense given them by the
adversaries, that no exception may be made, it remains now
that we show how this prophecy received its accomplish-
ments. I shall confine myself to those propositions which
are matter of controversy ; for as to the first, that is, the
tribe of Judah being respected for its numbers, courage, and
intrepidity, as likewise its having a larger share of the land
and the most fertile soil, it is, I think, agreed on all hands.
The sceptre or pre-eminence which the tribe of Judah held
above the rest, is made evident from Scripture. It was
foremost in the encampment, J and had precedence in march-
* Bas. His. and Rel. of the Jews, Book iv. ch. 21.
f Vol. iii. p. 318. J Numb. ii. 3.
LETTER XXII. 169
ing.* When the altar was dedicated, this tribe by its
prince had the privilege of the first day's offering,-)* and by
God's appointment led the van in battle.J " In short,
Judah prevailed over his brethren, and of him came the
chief ruler. " That the sceptre or this pre-eminence over
the other tribes never departed from Judah, is evident from
the words of David. " The LORD God of Israel (says he)
chose me before all the house of my father, to be a king
over Israel for ever; for he hath chosen Judah to be the
ruler; and of the house of Judah, the house of my father ;
and among the sons of my father, he liked me, to make me
king over all Israel/ 7 1| Having proved the pre-eminence
or sceptre which this tribe held over the rest, we must now
proceed to prove its supreme legislative power, independent
of the other tribes, which with the pre-eminence (or sceptre)
was to last till the coming of the Shiloh, him to whom the
kingdom belonged, under whom all the tribes should be
united. The independency of the tribe of Judah, its con-
stituting a particular separate republic, and consequently its
having its lawgiver or supreme judicature within itself,
appears from the following circumstances :
1st. After the victory which Deborah obtained over Sisera,
she in her song upon that deliverance praises and mentions all
the tribes excepting Judah, (the most numerous and most
valiant of all;)^f from which it is inferred that this tribe was
not under the subjection of Jabin, but being independent
from the rest, and constituting within itself a separate republic,
did not think itself engaged to join the others in a war in
* Num. x. 4. f Num. vii. 12. J Jud. i. 20, & xx. 18.
I 1 Chron. v. 2. || Ibid, xxviii. 4. f Jud. v.
15
170 BIAS' LETTERS.
which it was not concerned; for had this tribe partaken or
been under the same government as the rest, it must neces-
sarily have joined them ; and if it had, it would have shared
in the praises bestowed on the others.
2dly. It appears that this tribe was not under the same
government as the others, from their binding and delivering
up Samson, the judge of Israel, to the Philistines, when he
took shelter among them ; which shows that they were not
under his government, and consequently they must have
been a particular separate republic.*
3dly. From this tribe being named and numbered separa-
tely from others, which shows that they were deemed sepa-
rate and independent from the rest.f
4thly. When the love which the people bore to David is
expressed, distinct mention is made of Judah as in contra-
distinction to Israel, which shows them a distinct people,
independent of the rest.J
5thly, and lastly. That they had a distinct, independent
government is very plain from their anointing David their
king, whilst the other tribes, or all Israel, adhered to Ish-
bosheth, from whence it is evident and plain that they were
neither bound by the decision of the other tribes. nor
paid they any regard to their decrees, being a different and
independent government, which continued till they were
united under David, the Shiloh or Sbilo he to whom the
kingdom belonged. This prophecy received its accomplish-
ment in David, to whom the people were gathered. When
Israel and Judah united under one monarch or head, the
Shiloh, or he to whom the kingdom belonged by God's own
* Jud. xv. 9, 13. f 1 Sam. xi. S. ; Ibid, xviii. 16.
IMTMi \\ll 171
appointment, & descendant of Judah, took possession ; for to
him oaino all the tribes of Israel, and spoke, saying: "Bo-
nd thy it -t. whon
Saul *ai kiu:: OH* us. thou wast ho that loil out. ami brought
i shall be 4 oapfcuu over Israel ; so nil
the elders of Israel came to the king of Hebron to anl-
OYC Israol :uul all tho ivst nl>o ot' Israol \voiv of ouo
heart to make David kiug."f Hwo then \N
plisliuicut of oTOpy part of this prophooy according t
u ,t tho Patriarch! who gave a particular diatmct
blessing to each tribe, and conM^uoutlv ouo to Judah.
'* This sense/' (to use tho words of the authors of tlu Uni-
versa! History,) ** seems the most easy, natural, and agree-
able to the original." We difier in the ftllo*
law 4
1st. They will have the sceptre to mean tho supreme
po\viT of tho Saulu'ilriu, \vluoh thoy }>V(-t(Mhl was possosM\l
by that council, though in reality they had lost it long
before ; whilst I, agreeable to some of their writers, make
tho svvptvo M oonsist iu tho ,A\ Jmlah hohl
ovor tho v, -: : , : ; ,
N In like manner they will have the law^wr to b<
tho Sauhoilriu, whioh I inako to OOUMSI in tin . ,N
ing a distinct judicature within itself, independent of the
rost.
8dly. They will have Shiloh to b
* 1 SAM. Y. 1-& 1 1 Chrtk xiU S3. t S* Vol. iii. n>. 817, 319.
172 BIAS 7 LETTERS.
the king of kings; whilst I think the passage most applica-
ble to David, the literal king of Israel and Judah.
4thly. They will have the gathering of the people to
mean the conversion of Cornelius; whilst I think it was
literally fulfilled when all the tribes gathered to make David
king, and by their union under his government.
Now which of us has better applied the prophecy, or
best kept to its most literal sense and meaning, is what you
must determine. According to my hypothesis, there is no
necessity of having recourse to forced constructions, unnatu-
ral interpretations, or imaginary events, mere " ipse dixits,"
nor of transferring the events from the tribe of Judah to
that of Levi, or to any person whatsoever. I have often
wondered at the pains which is taken to make out Jesus' s
lineal descent from David, which being attended with insur-
mountable difficulties, they have not hitherto been able to
do. It has also been surprising to many that they have not
taken refuge in the easy mystic tropological sense, and so
fall on some method of spiritualising the Shiloh promised to
Judah. This might be done in like manner as they have made
aome passages and things to stand for and mean their very
opposites. Have they not changed earth into heaven ?
Jerusalem and Zion into Christian churches ? placed the
gentiles for Israel and Judah ? turned glorious times in
the most troublesome ? deliverence and liberty into slavery
and oppression, &c. ? why might not any person besides a
descendant of David be made to stand for Shiloh, and save
themselves the necessary trouble of doing that which is im-
possible, that is, showing him to be descended from David ?
Were they to defend Jesus' s descent from David to give him
possession of his throne, kingdom and government, they
LETTER XXIII. 173
would then act consistently ; but to these Jesus never laid
the least claim; notwithstanding which they think it abso-
lutely necessary that Jesus should be descended from the
royal house of that monarch, without which they think he
could neither be the Shiloh promised, nor lay claim to the
messiahship. This then being a matter of importance, I
shall in my next examine the evidence of his descent from
David.
LETTER XXIII.
THE Messiah's descent from David being (as I observed
in my last) deemed by Christians a necessary circumstance
or qualification in the person who should pretend to that
character, more than ordinary pains are taken to make out
Jesus' s descent, as a thing of the utmost importance. In
vain do commentators puzzle themselves to make out this
descent : the genealogies delivered by Matthew and Luke
do but increase the difficulties, and they are reduced to
shifts and assertions peculiar to the cause. " Notwithstand-
ing our Saviour's voluntary appearance," says Doctor
Echard, ' ' under these mean circumstances, we are to re-
member that even in his human capacity he was true heir
to the kingdom of Israel, which had been by God entailed
upon David and his posterity, so that he was the king of
the Jews in a natural and legal, as well as spiritual and
divine sense ; and this appears not only from former pro-
174
DIAS' LETTERS.
phecies, types, and other circumstances, but also from the
genealogy of our Saviour's ancestors, given us by the evan-
gelists Matthew and Luke, which genealogies, though
they have their difficulties and their seeming disagreements,
yet they both manifest him to be of the line of David;
the former draws the pedigree of his reputed father Joseph,
and the latter that of his mother Mary."* But this is a
mere invention, a direct contradiction to the genealogies,
which are only of Joseph, and of him only, he being the
person mentioned in both to be the descendant of those ances-
tors, and not a word is said of Mary. The authors of the
Universal History assert the same, and declare them both
of the house and lineage of David, and in their notes add :
" We have taken notice in a former volume that the Jews
had a law which expressly forbade heiresses to marry out
of their own tribes. It is true, the Virgin Mary seems to
have been far enough from being one of that sort, at least
in possession, whatever there might be in reversion, or by
virtue of the jubilee laws; but there was still a much
greater tie which kept the virgins of the tribe of Judah,
but especially those of the house of David, from marrying
into another tribe or family, namely, the sure expectation
which they had that the Messiah was to be of that lineage,
and to be born in Bethlehem, the city and patrimony of
that monarch ; and how careful every family was to preserve
their genealogy, needs not to be repeated." And they then
add : " It is therefore vain that the Jews exclaim against
the uncertainty of Christ's being the seed of David, because
Joseph's and not Mary's genealogy is deduced from him by
* Introd. to His., Vol. i. p. 42.
LETTER XXIII.
the two Evangelists, who is yet affirmed by them to have
had no share in his conception. The certainty of the Vir-
gin's descent from that house is rendered evident enough
by what we have observed above, especially if we add the
testimony of the Evangelists themselves, who call her mira-
culous child the son or descendant of David. If it be
asked, Why they choose rather to give us that of her hus-
band ? it may be answered, that they conformed in it to the
ciistom of the Hebrews, and even of the sacred writers, who
deduce their genealogies from the male rather than the
female line ; for if Christ, the son of Mary, was the son or
descendant of David, it must follow that his mother must be
so too. 7 '* I have cited these historians at length, that you
might better take a view of their arguments and chain of
/reasoning; and now let us consider their proofs as to their
asserting that both Joseph and Mary were of the lineage of
David ; as it is of no weight it is their proofs which we
must consider. The first proof is the Jews, having a law
forbidding their heiresses marrying out of their tribes ; but
as they tell us Mary was far enough from being an heiress,
this, of course, is no proof that she was a descendant from,
or of the line of David, even though she had been an heiress.
Their second proof is an invention, " A tie which they pre-
tend was upon the virgins of the tribe of Judah, and espe-
cially on those of the house of David, from an expectation
that the Messiah was to proceed from that lineage, and to
be born in Bethlehem ; for which reason they were not to
marry in another tribe or family." But this can be no
proof that Mary was of that lineage ; the proof that she was
* Vol. x. p. 451.
176 BIAS' LETTERS.
lineally descended from that monarch should first have been
made manifest ; that done, then the proofs, that the virgins
of the tribes of Judah were under that tie, would have been
right. But here no proof is brought of Mary's lineal
descent, nor any proof that the virgins of that tribe were
under any such tie ; and their asserting this without any
authority is a sufficient confutation. Besides, is it probable
or reasonable to think that the virgins of that tribe would
put themselves under the disadvantageous tie of refusing a
good offer for that which they knew nothing of? for the
Messiah might as well be born from a woman of any other
tribe married into that of Judah ; consequently they had
but little chance, and at most it could only have been the
privilege of one of them. No such consideration, I am sure,
would actuate the young ladies in any other country ; why,
then, should we think those of Judah should act contrary
to the innate inclinations of their sex without any appear-
ance of advantage ? But nothing can be more ridiculous
than their saying, that l( It is therefore in vain that the
Jews exclaim against the uncertainty of Christ being of the
seed of David/' One would think they had, beyond all
dispute, made out Jesus's descent, and so ridiculed the
Jews for their vanity in objecting to that which they had
so plainly made out ; and, indeed, as they say that " the
certainty of the Virgin's descent from that house is ren-
dered evident enough from what they observe above/' it
put me upon examining what they had said to prove this
point, but was surprised to find the only arguments made
use of to be those of the " heiresses' being forbid marrying
out of their tribe," and the pretended tie on the virgins of
" the tribe of Judah, in expectation that the Messiah was
LETTER XXIII. 177
to be born of them." But how these assertions prove Mary
to have been descended from the royal house of David, is
past my abilities to find out. Thus much is certain, what-
ever they may pretend, Joseph's and not Mary's genealogy
is deduced from David by the two Evangelists, so that
from the genealogies, which they give us, nothing can be
drawn or extended to Mary. This is all that the Jews pre-
tend ; for though these historians insinuate as if the Jews
affirmed that Joseph had no share in his conception, yet
they well know it is not the Jews who say so, but the
Evangelists who declare it : " And he (Joseph) knew her
(Mary) not till she had brought forth her first-born son."
Therefore it is the Christians, with the Evangelists at their
head, who affirm it. The Jews knew nothing concerning
these transactions : all that the Jews pretended to insinuate
is, that if Joseph be not Jesus' father, he from those gene-
alogies cannot be proved to be a descendant from David,
neither are Christians able to make it out.
To the foregoing proofs they " add the testimony of the
Evangelists themselves, who call her miraculous child the
son or descendant of David ;" but this proves nothing.
1st. Because the Jews admit not their authority. 2dly. Be-
cause their calling him the son of David* can be no proof
of his descent because, as we proved from Mr. Locke, the
calling him so means no more than that he was the Mes-
siah. 3dly. By the same rule that Luke supposes him to
be Joseph's son, or, if you please, being, as was supposed,
the son of Joseph,*)* when in fact he was not, since " he
had no share in his conception/' so might the other Evan-
* Matt. i. 1.
178 DIAS ? LETTERS.
gelist suppose him to have been the son of David, though in
fact he might not be so. In short, it is from facts alone
we are to form our judgment, and none of the Evangelists
mention any thing concerning his ancestors. " The Scrip-
ture," says Calmet, " tells us nothing of her parents, not
so much as their names."* All that they say concerning
her parentage is, that she was related to Elizabeth, who, we
are told, was of the daughters of Aaron. f " If it be
asked/' continue the historians, " why they choose to give
us that of her husband : it may be answered that they con-
formed in it to the custom of the Hebrews, and even of the
sacred writers, who deduce their genealogies from the male
line." This proves that the male line alone constituted a
right, and that it was of no consequence of what line the
mother was, or from whom she descended. Now if he was
not Joseph's son, he was no more the son or descendant of
David than of Jeroboam, for any thing that appears, and
consequently could not claim the kingdom of that monarch
by his lineal descent. The Messiah's right to the kingdom
of Israel is so necessary a qualification give me leave to
repeat it that " we ought to remember," says Dr. Echard,
" that even in his human capacity he was true heir to the
kingdom of Israel, which had been by God entailed upon
David and his posterity ; so that he was the king of the
Jews in a natural and legal, as well as spiritual and divine
sense ; and this appears not only from former prophecies,
types, and other circumstances, but also from the genealogy
of our Saviour's ancestors, given by the two Evangelists,
Matthew and Luke, which genealogies, though they have
* See his Dictionary, on the word Mary. f Luke i. 5.
LETTEE XXIII 179
their difficulties and seeming disagreements, yet they both
manifest him to be of the line of David/'* which might
possibly be, had he been the son of Joseph, whose ancestors
those genealogies describe ; but his not being Joseph's son,
the genealogies, though full of difficulties and contradictions,
can give him no legal right.
And the learned Doctor seems to have been so possessed
with the divine indefeasible right, that he again takes up
the subject. " Jesus/' says he, "being rightful and legal
king of the Jews, and that only by his reputed father's
side" (if so, how could his title descend to Jesus ?) u is
an unanswerable argument both against those who affirm
Joseph to have had other children by a former wife, as also "
against those who deny the perpetual virginity of Mary,
affirming that Joseph had often children by her after the
birth of Jesus; for had Joseph had any children, either by
Mary or any other wife, they, as coming from the elder
branch by Joseph, their father, must have claimed the in-
heritance of his kingdom in his right, and not Jesus, the
son of Mary, who descended from a younger line, and there-
fore could not legally inherit but upon default of issue from
Joseph, the only remaining heir of the elder j so that Joseph
was the very last of the royal line of David, which was fully
terminated in him."f I know that you see the fallacy of
all this ; yet it is on such evidence that foundation is laid
for raising a most extraordinary superstructure. Now if
Jesus was that rightful and legal king of the Jews, how
came he to declare "his kingdom was not to be of this
world ?" If his title was so clear, how came the Jews to
* Introd. to his History, p. 42. f Ibid. p. 43.
180 BIAS* LETTERS.
disown him ? Did lie ever claim his inheritance then pos-
sessed by Romans ? No doubt but the reverend Doctor can
prove that he did ; for if no claim was to be made, why so
much pains to prove the right? I think Joseph acted the
most prudent in maintaining himself by his labour rather than
to engage in a contest, or exert his right. And why might
not Joseph's children have sat down contented and easy in
like manner as their father did ? for who in his senses
would claim such a kingdom, or be such a king ? so that
it is no argument, much less an unanswerable one, either of
Joseph's not having other children, or of Mary's perpetual
virginity. But that he had other children is plain; for
when the Evangelist relates how Jesus was despised by his
countrymen, the people say : " Is not this the carpenter's son?
is not his mother called Mary ? and his brothers, James, and
Joses, and Simon, and Judas ? And his sisters, are they not
all with us ?"* And though his behaviour, either towards his
mother or brethren, is not represented in the best light,f yet
it proves Joseph had other children, and those probably by
Mary; since the Evangelist declares " that he knew her not
till she had brought forth her first-born," plainly indicating
11 that he had knowledge of her afterwards." But that
Jesus was the last of the royal line of David, his whole
posterity becoming extinct in him, is as extraordinary an
assertion as any of the rest. In short, they grope in the
dark, and care not either what they say or what they affirm ;
if they could but establish their point, no matter for the
evidence, or whom they contradict.
To return to the authors of the Universal History, their
* Matt. xiii. 55, 56. f Ibid. xii. 47; Mark iii. 31 j Luke viii. 20.
LETTER XXIV. 181
last proof is this: "If Christ, the son of Mary," say they,
ft was the son or descended of David, it follows that his
mother must be so too " but this is a fallacious proof,
(rather begging the question;*) for the question is, Whether
Mary (for Joseph, not being his father, is consequently out of
the question,) is a descendant of David. Had they made that
out, then they might have concluded that her son was so too.
Here the thing to be proved is taken for granted, and then
a conclusion is drawn from it; but the Jews will say : If
there be no proof that Mary is descended from David, there
can be, consequently, none that Jesus was, the latter pro-
ceeding from the former, and not the mother from the son.
This is inverting the order of things : therefore if Mary's
descent cannot be proved, the consequence is that her son's
cannot. I shall take no notice of the ineffectual endeavours
made to reconcile the different genealogies of Matthew and
Luke : this labour is not only vain, but even absurd ; for
after all, neither of them can serve their cause, because
they reject Joseph, Mary's husband, from being Jesus'
father, and the genealogies concern him, and him only ; so
that if Shiloh was to be of the tribe of Judah, it does not
appear that Jesus was he, his descent not being ascertained
or proved.
LETTER XXIV.
EXTRAORDINARY are the pains which have been taken,
and the stress laid by Christian commentators on the famous
prophecy of Daniel's seventy weeks, as if Christianity could
182 BIAS' LETTERS.
not subsist without it ; or, as if the very being of religion
depended on the application of this prophecy to Jesus,
whom they make to be the Messiah, or Anointed, there men-
tioned. It is thus translated in the English Bible :
" At the beginning of the supplications," (says the angel
to Daniel,) " the commandment came forth, and I am come
to show thee; for thou art greatly beloved : therefore, un-
derstand, the matter, and consider the vision. 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 ever-
lasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and proph-
ecy, and to anoint the most Holy. Know therefore and
understand, that from the going forth of the commandment
to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the
Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks :
the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troub-
lous times. And after threescore and two weeks shall Mes-
siah be cut off, but not for himself : and the people of the
prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctu-
ary ; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto
the end of the war desolations are determined. And he
shall confirm the covenant with many for one week : and in
the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and obla-
tion to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he
shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that
determined shall be poured upon the desolate."*
The computations which are made of these seventy weeks,
by the most learned, are so different and contradictory to
* Daniel ix. 23, to the end.
LETTER XXIV. 183
each other, and the calculations do so vary from one anoth-
er's hypothesis, as ought, one would think, to convince them
of the impracticableness of making the application of it to
Jesus, and consequently, of the impossibilities of making
it answer their purpose. Its obscurity is confessed by all,
and you will hardly find two intelligent persons who agree
in their computations ; difficulties surround them which-
ever way they take ; how to make or strike out Jesus for
the Messiah or Anointed, who was to be cut off, is the thing
they aim at ; but where to begin the computation of the
weeks, how to continue them, and what time to end them,
so that every period may have a proper epoch, are matters
of the greatest difficulties and differences amongst the ex-
positors. To make the prophecy answer the event they
would apply it to, they shorten or lengthen the chronology
of those times, (which of itself is dark and perplexed,) ex-
tending or diminishing the reigns of Persian monarchs, as
may best square with their different hypotheses which, after
all the trouble and pains they take, are liable to most potent
objections and insurmountable difficulties. The authors of
the Universal History, after mentioning in very contemptu-
ous terms, (as is their custom,) the differences which subsist
among the Jewish authors, and asserting their ignorance as
chronological calculators, proceed to give us the following
account :
"The Christians (say they) are not exactly agreed, either
in the placing the beginning or end of these weeks 7 or in
the calculations of those lunar or Jewish years ; both differ-
ences, however, are inconsiderable if duly attended to ; the
former is entirely owing to our imperfect knowledge of the
chronology of those times ; had we a sure guide in it, the
184 BIAS* LETTERS.
points would not be long unsettled ; but, whilst in this un-
certainty, one author will place the beginning at the decree
of Cyrus, another at that of Darius, a third at that of Ar-
taxerxes Longimanus, and each of them' endeavours to
stretch or shorten the chronology of each interval, as best
suits with his hypothesis, it is no wonder there is so little
agreement among them, and so little certainty to be gath-
ered from the whole dispute."*
If these things are thus, can the Jews be blamed in re-
jecting their application of this prophecy, computed as is
acknowledged " both without any perfect knowledge of the
chronology of those times, or any sure guide in it 1" Upon
what grounds, then, can they pretend either to fix or urge
this prophecy ? and does it not betray pitiful shifts (or
something worse) in thus shortening and stretching each in-
terval as best suits their different views, and is it not using
unfair and unwarrantable means ? Here let me observe, that
which in the Jewish authors betrayed their ignorance, and
showed their pitiful shifts,")* passes unanswered in the others ;
though one should think that design (for ignorant they
must not be supposed) deserved not less rebuke than igno-
rance. These authors having made mention of lunar years,
by which some reckon in order to bring the time nearer to
the event, to which they endeavour to make application of
this prophecy : it will be sufficient to observe with the judi-
cious Prideaux, that, " when Daniel had this prophecy
revealed unto him, by the angel Gabriel, there was not any
form of year purely lunar any where in use ; but of the
ancients, we find none who followed this form ; and who can
* Univ. Hist., Vol. x. p. 446. t Ibid. p. 447.
LETTER XXIV. 185
think then, that in the collective sum of seventy weeks or
four hundred and ninety years, of them the angel should
intend a computation, which was then nowhere in practice
the whole world over ?"* " Waving (what these authors
call) some minute differences" they proceed to give us the
system most universally received, and they tell us that,
" The difference of time is trifling at most, but nine or ten
years between those who make it longest and those who
make it shortest ; and who can wonder at it or urge it as
an objection against this prophecy/' &c. ?f Against the
prophecy none will j neither will the Jews wonder at the
difference, and will give this reason, because the event, to
which it is applied, could not be that intended by the angel ;
for whatever trifling difference they may think of nine 01
ten years, yet where there is a determined portion of timt-
fixed, the accomplishment must be exact ; otherwise, instead
of seventy weeks, the angel ought to have said seventy-one
weeks and a half; therefore, it is a very material difference;
for it makes the time extend farther than the determined
bounds set by the angel. Their hypothesis is to begin the
seventy weeks from the decree granted to Nehemiah, by Ar-
taxerxes, in the twentieth year of his reign, and end them
at the death of Jesus; but to this computation, there are
great objections; for it exceeds the four hundred and ninety
years by ten years, as their historians acknowledge, or rather
thirteen, as Dean Prideaux makes it appear. "And
therefore, (says he,) if the four hundred and ninety years
of the seventy weeks be computed from thence, they will
over-shoot the death of Christ thirteen years, which being
* Connect. Vol. ii. p. 404-6. f Uni. Hist. Vol. x. p. 448.
Irt *
186 BIAS* LETTERS.
the grand event to be brought to pass at the conclusion of
these weeks, it is certain they can never there have their
beginning from whence they can never be brought to this
ending/'* To remedy this evil, some have invented (though
without the least foundation or authority) that Artaxerxes
reigned ten years with his father, and so pretended it to
be only the tenth of his reigning alone, making up by in-
vention what is wanting in exactness ; but there is nothing
(says Prideaux) in the history of those times that can give
countenance to this conjecture. f Besides, according to this
hypothesis, they make one continued series of time without
making any epochs to the division, as made by the angel,
and notwithstanding, the angel declares the commandment
to have gone forth, yet they contradict him and make that
commandment to be one that was given near ninety years
after. I suppose, with Prideaux, that the commandment
mentioned by the angel to be that of Cyrus, which he very
learnedly proves to be the decree literally meant by the
angel, declaring that it " can be applicable to no other re-
storing and rebuilding of Jerusalem, than that which was
decreed and commaned by Cyrus, at the return of the captiv-
ity ;J and therefore, if these words of the prophecy to restore
and rebuild Jerusalem are to be understood in a literal sense,
they can be understood of no other restoring and building of
that city, than that which was accomplished by virtue of that
decree; and the computation of the seventy weeks must
begin from the granting and going forth thereof." Accord-
ing to which, the literal accomplishment of this prophecy
* Connect. Vol. ii. p. 403. f Ibid. p. 408.
t Ibid. p. 382. \ Ibid. p. 386.
LETTER XXIV. 187
must have its completion from the going forth of that de-
cree ; and whoever begins the same from any other, cannot
pretend to make it a literal prophecy. Other difficulties
there are which arise from this hypothesis in common with
others, such as the confirmation of the covenant with many
for one week, (to which they are entirely silent,) the time
of the Messiah's being cut off, the overspreading of abomi-
nations, which shall be taken notice of in my observations
on the next hypothesis, that of the learned Prideaux, which
these historians recommend.
The Doctor very judiciously objects to the calculations and
hypotheses which terminate in Jesus different from his,
showing their absurdity, and the impossibility of terminating
them in that event ; and therefore begins his own computatiou
of the seventy weeks, from the seventh of Artaxerxes, when
Ezra began to execute his commission.* For reckoning or
calculating the time backward, he finds, from the death of
Jesus to the execution of the said commission, just four hun-
dred and ninety years :| he therefore takes the commandment
of the seventy weeks, or four hundred and ninety years, not
literally, but in a figurative sense,J and this he does for a
very obvious reason ; for having proved, as I before obser-
ved, that the commandment for restoring and building Je-
rusalem, could be no other but Cyrus' decree, *<If (says
he) the computation be begun so high, the four hundred and
ninety years of the said seventy weeks cannot come low
enough to reach any of the events predicted by the pro-
phecy, (he means those to which Christians would extend the
prophecy ;) for from the first of Cyrus to the death of Christ,
* Con. Vol. ii. p. 377. f Ibid. 381. + Ibid. 382.
188 BIAS' LETTERS.
were five hundred and sixty-eight years ; and, therefore, if
the said four hundred and ninety years be computed from
thence, they will be expired a great many years either be-
fore the cutting off, or the coming of the Messiah/'* As
he sets out, or begins his computation from a supposed figu-
rative prediction of the angel, so he continues the events
in the same sense, making the streets and city to mean figu-
ratively, church and state. "j* And the ditch, he makes a
figurative expression, for good constitutions and establish-
ment.! Indeed, he is not silent (as the authors of the Uni-
versal History are), concerning the confirming the covenant
with many for one week, he says this " was done by Jesus
confirming for one week, that is, for the space of seven
years, the covenant of the gospel with many of the Jews."
Now how, or from what authority he does this, when Chris-
tians as well as himself, declare and assert that his gospel
u was not a temporal law, as was that of Moses; but to last
for ever, and to be a guide unto all righteousness as long as
the world should last,"|| and yet reduce it to only a seven
years' covenant, seems very strange and contradictory. They
find it not less difficult how to make out the fulfilling of
that part of the prophecy, which declares that the sacrifice
and oblations should cease in the midst of the last week,
which none in fact pretended did literally happen ; because
they continued for a long time after, even to the destruction
of the city. This difficulty is got over, not by pretending
they actually did cease, for it is acknowledged that they did
not so "till the destruction of the temple, about forty years
after ; but by pretending that they lost their efficacy, and
* Con. Vol. ii. p. 386. f Ibid. 415. Ibid. 416.
I Ibid. 416. 1J Ibid. 380.
LETTER XXIV. 189
became useless and insignificant, after the grand sacrifice of
the saviour of the world;"* but for this you must take
their word. Most remarkable is the fulfilling of this part of
the prophecy, as made out by Prideaux ; for he has not the
patience to wait till the death of Jesus, but anticipates it by
half a week ; for he tells us " that he should in the half
past week, that is, in the latter part of it, cause the sacri-
fice and oblations of the temple to cease, and in the conclu-
sion of the whole, that is, in the precise ending of the
seventy weeks, be cut off and die, and accordingly (this he
asserts with great assurance) all this was exactly fulfilled,
and was brought to pass ;"f so that according to him, they
must have lost their efficacy before the death of Jesus : and
if this be so, what becomes of all the types of Christ's
sacrifice, which they are made to prefigure ? They pretend,
by what rule of language I know not, that the overspread-
ing of abominations "Sufficiently prefigures the Roman
eagles set up in the temple ;" J which is false in fact, none
being set up there, as the same was in flames before it was
taken ; neither did the Romans set up there any idolatry
at all. They are all so greatly perplexed how to make out
and apply that part of the prophecy which mentions, " the
people of the prince that shall come/' some applying the
passage to the Romans under Titus, others to Jesus himself.
But the first it cannot be, because the whole extent of the
prophecy terminates at the death of Jesus, and all the events
mentioned, were to happen within that space ; consequently,
Titus with the Romans, who laid seige to Jerusalem many
years after, cannot be the person intended; neither can it
* Uni. His. Vol. x. p. 449. f Prid. Con. Vol. ii. p. 416.
J Uni. His. Vol. x. p. 449. $ Ibid. 663, 664.
190 BIAS' LETTERS.
be Jesus who had been cut off long before. The pro-
phecy declares positively, that the Messiah or Anointed was
to be cut off after the sixty -second week; whereas the
authors of the Universal History stretch it to the sixty-
ninth week, and Prideaux to the seventieth, which is a con-
tradiction of the prophecy ; for, if the Messiah was not to
be cut off till the sixty-ninth or seventieth week, that period
would undoubtedly have been fixed by the angel, and not
the sixty-second. In short, considering their assertions
made without the least foundation, and contrary not only to
the prophecy, but also to facts, you will have less cause to
be surprised at what is generally asserted by them concern-
ing the finishing of transgression, making an end of sins,
reconciliation for iniquities, and the bringing in everlasting
righteousness, on which, and the sealing up the vision and
prophecy, and the anointing the most Holy, they run out
and descant most notably ; an instance of this you have in
Prideaux, all which he makes to be accomplished, " in the
great work of our salvation, undertaken by Jesus, fully com-
pleted by "his death, passion, and resurrection. Being born
without original sin, and living without actual sin, he was
the most holy of all he was anointed with the Holy Ghost,
and with, power to be king, priest, and prophet, which
offered himself a sacrifice upon the cross, making thereby an
end of sin, in so doing he did work reconciliation for us
with our Grod," It is a pity that the learned author had not
proved every one of these particular points ; for it is im-
possible that any one can consider all these events thus put
together, and think that they came to pass, or were brought
about by Jesus. A transition of our thoughts, and a little
reflection on the wickedness of the times in which he lived,
LETTER XXV. 191
the perpetual divisions, and continual crimes or unrighte-
ousness of the church from the beginning down to this
time, must surely make it not only impossible, but ridicu-
lous to pretend to do it ; the contradictions must appear so
glaring to any person anywise acquainted with the history
of the church and its proceedings, as must occasion {force)
a conclusion entirely opposite } for it must naturally lead
him to think, that nothing like that which is pretended
ever happened, and that consequently the prophecy could
never terminate in Jesus.
I am, &c.
LETTER XXV.
WE are told by Father Calmet that there are many dif-
ferent hypotheses concerning Daniel's seventy weeks, even
among Christian writers some begin them from the first
year of Darius, the Mede, which is the epoch of Daniel's
prophecy, and make them determine at the profanation of the
temple, which happened under the persecution of Antiochus
Epiphanes. Others begin them from the first year of Cyrus
at Babylon, and place the end of them at the destruction of
the Temple by the Romans. Others fix the beginning at
the first year of Darius the Mede, in which the revelation
was made to Daniel, and put the end at the birth of Jesus
Christ ; Julius Africanus begins the seventy weeks at the
second year of Artaxerxes, and makes them terminate at
192 BIAS' LETTERS.
the death of the Messiah.* This Julius Africanus flourished
in the third century, and, if I mistake not, was the first
that calculated the seventy weeks to apply them to Jesus,
which none of the New Testament writers, or any other had
yet done, or found out any such meaning, though they lived
long enough, every one having written after their pretended
accomplishment at Jesus' death. Thus you see nothing is
left unattempted to make out the accomplishment of this
prophecy. But " let them understand by week, weeks of
years (though there be no foundation in the Old Testament
-for the use of the word), or what other portion of time they
think fit ; let them understand by a year the Jewish or
Chaldean, a lunar or solar year; let them begin the weeks in
the year of Cyrus, or Darius, or Xerxes, or in the seventh
or twentieth of Aataxerxes Longimanus, or when Daniel had
his vision ; let them fix the time of Jesus' birth, or begin-
ning to preach, or death, when they please; and let them
assign the time of the expiration of the seventy weeks, which
is variously fixed, when they please : yet cannot this pro-
phecy be made to square to the event they would refer it to,
and will after all be subject to great difficulties.'^ " Many
other writers (says Mr. Woolston) besides the Bishop of
Litchfield, such as Dr. Clark, Dr. Marshall, Mr. Whiston,
and Mr. Sykes, have to their power urged this prophecy
against the author of the Grounds ; and indeed it was una-
voidable, and not to be passed over in silence by them; since
that author, by his insinuations, had objected to the obscu-
rity of this prophecy, the difficulty of its application, and
the difference amongst expositors in the computation of the
* Vide the article "Weeks. f Grounds and Reasons, p. 250.
LETTER XXV. 193
time mentioned in it ; and therefore the said writers against
the Grounds were in the right on it, almost every one to con-
tend for the truth of this prophecy, and to illustrate it ; and
if they had all jumped in their numerical and chronogical
notions with the least show of exactness, they had done
somewhat to the purpose. But alas ! they are so unhappily
divided amongst themselves as any before them, in their way
of arithmetic and chronology : and good Mr. Whiston is so
offended with the Bishop of Litchfield and Dr. Clarke for
their computation of Daniels' weeks, that he could not for-
bear writing against them."*
These differences are enough to make us say, that where
there is so little agreement, little certainty can be expected ;}*
and you will less wonder at finding some of the most emi-
nent Christian chronologists and expounders give up the
application of this prophecy and its accomplishment in
Jesus, and endeavour at a different computation and appli-
cation, ending the seventy weeks, and the events therein
mentioned in the times of Antiochus Epiphanes, this being
the epoch assigned to the prophecy also by some of the best
Jewish authors, the other event being neither satisfactory
nor literally fulfilled. For the truth of this we may appeal
to almost every Christian commentator. I shall instance
in this the judicious Prideaux, who, after the great trouble
and pains he had been at to fix his own, and overthrow all
other hypotheses, concludes by declaring, et that there are
many difficulties in it, must be acknowledged; the per-
plexities which many learned men have been led to, in their
explications of it ; do sufficiently prove it ; and the under-
* Dissert, on Daniels' Weeks, p. 4. t Un. Hist. Vol. x. p. 448.
194 BIAS* LETTERS.
standing in a literal sense, what is there meant in a figurative,
hath not been the least cause thereof/'* Let them give up
all pretensions, and not lay any stress or urge it against the
Jews, unless they are able to clear it of the many difficulties
with which it is clogged; and experience ought to convince
them of the impracticability of doing it. I shall now give
you that explanation and application of this prophecy which
to me appears the best.
I was once of opinion that no person could ever be able
to know or ascertain the true meaning and import of this
prophecy ; it always appeared to me to be a particular reve-
lation made to Daniel, who was favoured with the foreknow-
ledge of many future events, particularly with some remark-
able transactions which should within a limited space of
time befall his people ; and as it was not necessary that any
other person should have, or attain to, the like knowledge,
it was for that reason revealed in such terms as should evade
the conjectures of all inquirers. The divisions amongst ex-
positors, who hardly agree in any one circumstance, helped to
confirm me in this opinion, and their endeavouring to apply
and extend the prophecy to a favourite event, or a particular
hypothesis, rather than sincerely endeavour to find out its
true meaning, greatly increases the difficulties. I have al-
ready shown the impossibility of extending it to one event
to which it has, with great pain and labour, been endeav-
oured to make it answer. It now remains that I make it
square with a very different event, to which I think it bet-
ter corresponds. Probability is in my opinion the highest
degree we can arrive at. It was the angel indeed who made
* Connect, ii. p. 441.
LETTER XXV. 195
Daniel to know and understand (with a fixed certainty no
doubt) its import, meaning and application ; but as no other
person was ever favoured with the like privilege, it would
appear presumptuous to attempt it. As this prophecy is
largely and fully handled by many express expositors, both
Jews and Christians, who apply it to the same event, with
little variation, in their hypothesis, I shall refer you to them,
and therefore shall be very short. It appears, from Daniel's
prayer, and also from the angel's revelation and answer,
that he prayed, not only for the return of his people, but
likewise for the complete restoration and righteous times*
described by Jeremiah and the other prophets, of which he,
from their wickedness, judged there was but little prospect^
at that time. These were his supplications. To this
prayer the angel answers that seventy weeks were shortened,
reduced, or abbreviated (for so neclitach signifies), that his
people might finish their transgressions, make an end of sins,
and reconciliation for iniquities, that so they might return
to God, and bring in everlasting righteousness, for which he
prayed, and seal or fulfil the prophecy, which foretold this
event, and annoint the (Kodesli HakkodasMm) sanctum
sanctorum. The angel then describes, or makes Daniel to
know and understand some extraordinary events that should
happen to, or befall his people during that space of tinie.
But it does not follow that, because there were seventy weeks
decreed or abbreviated before his nation should be restored,
the same should take effect at that period; because this, ac-
cording to all the prophecies, is made to depend on their
turning to God and making themselves worthy of it. All,
* Dan. ix. 13. f Ibid. ix. 5, 11.
196 BIAS* LETTERS.
therefore, which the angels intimates, is that the time given
being accomplished, they were entitled to it should they be
deserving of it.
There is a very great difference concerning the promises
relating to the duration of the Egyptian bondage and Baby-
lonish captivity, and to that restoration prayed for by Daniel ;
the first two were absolute and unconditional; but that
which was to be the fulfilling of the prophecies, the restora-
tion which Daniel prayed for, had no time fixed ; therefore,
what the angel reveals is. that after such a time it depended
on his people's rendering themselves deserving by their re-
formation, which was only to be obtained by the finishing of
transgression, making an end of sin, and reconciliation of
iniquity,, which would bring in everlasting righteousness,
the completion of prophecies, and restoration of divine ser-
vice, or anointing the kodesh hakkodashim, that is, the res-
toration of the Jews, an event expected both by Jews and
Christians.
I shall now proceed to mark out the events which the
angel declares to Daniel should happen during the limited
time and divisions. The first division is that, " from the
going forth of the word or prophecy (for so dabar signifies)
to restore and build Jerusalem, unto Messiah the Prince
shall be seven weeks/' Here then we have a beginning and
ending of this epoch, which is, that from the word or pro-
mise made to Jeremiah of a return from captivity, in the
fourth of Jehoiakim,* where the weeks begin, unto Cyrus,
called by Isaiah the Lord's anointed, Messiah, or Christ, "f
where they end, are seven weeks, or forty-nine years. Then
* Jer. xxv. 1, 12. t Isa. xliv. 1.
LETTER XXV. 197
beginning from the same time, the sixty-two weeks (for they
are abbreviated), that is four hundred and thirty-two years,
they end or terminate in Judas Maccabeus, during which
space, " the streets and walls were to be built even in trou-
blous times ;" and that it did so ^ happen is evident from
history, the people and city undergoing sundry revolutions
and changes. After this epoch, that is, after the sixty-two
weeks, shall Messiah (Christ or Anointed) be cut off, that
is, Onias, who was the legal, anointed high priest, an upright
person and of great holiness, was cruelly put to death, just
after the sixty-second week.* Here, then, we find the two
Christs or Messiahs ; the first is Cyrus, the Prince Messiah,
to whom, from the going forth of the prophecy, revealed to
Jeremiah, was to be seven weeks, he having the honour of
that denomination from God himself; the second Messiah
is Onias, the legal high priest, and in fact anointed, or
Messiah, a person of great sanctity,f and of whom it is said,
that there are few persons to whom the Scriptures give greater
praises,^ who was to be killed after the sixty-two weeks, or
four hundred and thirty-four years, " without help. 7 ' The
words ve-en lo can never be made to mean, "not for himself,"
it is much more proper, as they are in the margin of the
English Bible " and shall have nothing ;" they are very
exactly rendered in the Spanish y-no-ae-l. To make ve-en lo
significant, something ought to be added, and nothing so
proper, as I have rendered them, or "unto him no help/' or
"he had none to help him;" so that in these two Messiahs
we have a most literal accomplishment of the prophecy.
They were to be different, since to the first were to be seven.
* 2 Mace. iv. t Ibid. iii. 33. f Diet, on the article Onias.
198 DIAS' LETTERS.
weeks, or forty-nine years, and the other was to be put to
death , or cut off, after sixty-two weeks, or four hundred and
thirty -four years.
Nothing can be more contradictory to the text, than to
make the angel say (as those do who would extend the pro-
phecy to Jesus), that there shall be seven weeks and sixty-
two weeks unto the Messiah Prince; for if the angel meant
sixty-nine weeks, it must have been absurd thus to divide
the time and make two reckonings, where he meant but one,
contrary to all the rules of language and modes of speech.
My meaning, therefore, is not only most agreeable to the
text, but also conformable to chronology ; besides which,
Cyrus and Onias have both an inherent right of being
termed or called Messiahs. But Jesus' right to that title
is not so evident; for it will not be admitted as an adequate
proof, what they assert, " That he was anointed with the
Holy Ghost/' which is a phrase, when it comes rightly to
be considered, which will amount to an empty sound, without
any meaning at all.
But to proceed. The next part of the prophecy is, "And
the people of the Prince that shall come, shall destroy the
Holy City, and the sanctuary, and the end thereof shaft be
with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are
determined/' which is a description of the persecution and
transactions of Antiochus Epiphanes and his army, who laid
the city and temple waste, and like a flood overpowered every-
thing, causing great desolation during the war.* u And he
shall confirm the covenant with many for one week." This
is the covenant made with many who left the law, to follow
* I Mace. i. 20-24; 30-39 ; 2 Mace. v. 11-16; 24-26.
LETTER XXV. 199
the ordinances of the heathen.* " And in the midst of the
week, he shall cause the sacrifices and oblation to cease, and
for the overspreading of abominations, he shall make it deso-
late, even until the consummation/' which happened accor-
dingly; for he forbade in the middle of the week "burnt-
offerings, and sacrifices, and drink-offerings, in the temple^
and that they should profane the Sabbath and festival days."*)*
" Now in the fifteenth day of the month Kislev, in the one
hundred and forty-fifth year, they set up the abomination of
desolation upon the altar, and builded idol altars through-
out the cities of Judah on every side,"J so that this part
of the prophecy received the literal accomplishment ; and the
author plainly allude to this circumstance in his description.
And that " determined shall be poured out upon the desolate."
This last part seems to want some word to make up the
sentence, and may with propriety be thus made up : " And
in the end the desolator shall have vengeance poured on him/'
that is, in the end the Jews shall take vengeance on their
enemies; which did so happen, under the conduct of the
valiant Judas Maccabeus, who overthrew their forces, and
recovered the city and temple, and restored the temple ser-
vice, in commemoration of which deliverance, a feast was
ordained, which has ever since been religiously kept. Thus,
sir, have I expounded and explained this famous prophecy,
which ends with the war and persecution of Antiochus Epi-
phanes. The whole prophecy seems throughout a repre-
sentation of the events which happened during that space,
as the events themselves are a literal fulfilling of it, and in
every respect agree with the history of those times. But
* 1 Mace. i. 11-15. t Ibid. 45. J Ibid. 54.
200 BIAS' LETTERS.
whatever your opinion may be of this performance, one
thing I may venture to assert, and that is, that it can be no
prophecy of Jesus ; for to him it cannot be applied without
doing the utmost violence to the prophecy, and departing
from its plain meaning; and if a figurative explanation and
application be admitted, I doubt not such a one may be
made out as will be much disliked by Christians ; and why
it should not be admitted, or be on the same footing, as
those which they invent, will be hard for them to show a
sufficient cause.
I am, &c.
LETTER XXVI.
THE 53d chapter of Isaiah is famous amongst Christian
expositors ; the whole is applied to and explained of Jesus.
They tell us that he is therein described and represented
as a person despised and rejected, as a man of sorrow and
acquainted with grief; as one on whom the sins of the
whole world were to be laid ; as one who should offer him-
self to an ignominious death, and be chastised for our trans-
gressions and iniquities, thereby redeeming lost mankind
and working their reconciliation with an infinite and offended
God, atoning with his life and suffering for original and
actual sin ; the whole human race (as they pretend) being
slaves of the devil, and under God's wrath and damnation,
as partakers of Adam's sin; God requiring infinite satis-
LETTER XXVI. 201
faction, which not being in the power of any finite creature
to make, could only be done by Jesus as being both God
and man. It is really surprising to what lengths they
stretch these doctrines } asserting that no person can be
saved by his own merits, making salvation attainable only
by the merits of Jesus, (that is declaring we are only to be
saved by proxy;) and they will have all good or benificent
works to be sinful without faith in Jesus, holding all ac-
cursed who believe they shall be saved by the law, or sect
which they follow. Thus one absurdity giving rise to
another, they banish that charity which on many occasions
they pretend to be the distinguishing characteristic of their
religion ; but with what little foundation I appeal to their
creeds ; as these doctrines and inventions are the foundation
of the present system of Christianity, and are the conse-
quences of, and have their foundation on original sin, from
whence they draw a pretence for Jesus' sufferings and ig-
nominious death, and the necessity of infinite satisfaction,
that is the necessity of one God dying to satisfy another, or
the same God. It will be necessary to sift this matter and
show its absurdity, and prove that there is no manner of
foundation either in reason or Scripture for such invention ;
for as is judiciously observed, one of God's revelations can-
not contradict another, because He gave us the first to judge
all others by.* It will be, therefore, vain to pretend that
these doctrines are above reason, if they contradict reason
and common sense ; that being the criterion by which all
doctrines must be judged. It is very plain and evident that
Adam, and the rest concerned in original sin, had sentence
* Warburton Div. Leg. Vol. i. p. 83.
202 BIAS' LETTERS.
pronounced on them by God himself, which sentence was
inflicted on the offenders ; we have it in the following words :
t( And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou
hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle and above
every beast of the field ; upon thy belly shalt thou go and
dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life ; and I will put
enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed
and her seed, it shall bruise thy head and thou shall bruise
his heel. Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply
thy sorrow and thy conception, in sorrow shall thou bring
forth children, and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and
he shall rule over thee. And unto Adam he said, Because
thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast
eaten of the tree which I commanded thee, saying, Thou
shall not eat of it, cursed is the ground for thy sake, in sor-
row shall thou eat of it all the days of thy life/'* &c. This
was God's own definitive sentence, which being executed on
the different (or several) offenders, will any one say that
God required either a greater or- a different satisfaction than
that which He himself imposed ? Can any one say ; that He
was not satisfied with his own judgment ?
Go wiser thou, and in thy scale of sense
Weigh thy opinions against Providence. Pope.
Can there he a greater absurdity and contradiction, than
to pretend that God himself must suffer that He may par-
don? How inconsistent (not to say impious) are such
doctrines ! how unacquainted must those who propagate,
and inculcate such notions, be with God and his attributes !
* Gen. iii. 6-14.
LETTER XXVI. 203
Is it to be imagined that the sin of our first parents, after
judgment and sentence were executed, should again be revived
after some thousands of years ? What tribunal or court of
justice would allow this ? Or who could be the appellants ?
Was it Adam that appealed against his Maker, or did the
Almighty appeal against himself, or his sentence ? Is not
such a proceeding, in fact, inflicting punishment on the
Deity, as if He were the aggressor for giving a merciful
sentence against Adam ?
Snatch from his hand the balance and the rod,
Rejudge his justice, be the God of God. Pope.
Can anything be more ridiculous ? and shall we believe
people, nay learned people, are serious, when they pretend to
impose such absurdities for doctrines ?
It is pretended that God being infinitely offended, required
infinite satisfaction ; but can God require of his creatures
that which He never put in their power to give ? Can we
consistently with the natural notion we have of God, think
He can act thus with his creatures, or that He in his infinite
goodness can ever require more than is in our power to
give ? or can finite creatures give infinite offence ? But for
argument's sake let us suppose that such a satisfaction was
necessary ; and then let them tell us how it was possible that
it should be made at all ; for if God the son (as is pre-
tended) be of the same essence with God the Father, how can
one suffer and not the other? Besides, original sin must
have equally offended the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, since
they are all but one, or of one and the same essence, for
which reason all three must have required the like satisfac-
tion ; for, as they all can have but one will, none could par-
204 BIAS' LETTERS.
don without it ; and why might not the Father or Holy
Ghost be mediators as well as the Son, and if one could par-
don or did not require infinite satisfaction, why not the other ?
And if we are told that nothing suffered by this satisfaction
made on the cross but only the human nature : then they
cannot make out the satisfaction which they pretend was
necessary ; for if human sufferings were sufficient, there was
no necessity for any satisfaction to be made by Jesus, as
God and man. Adam, or any of his descendants, would
have done as well. But let us inquire farther, Did Jesus
make full satisfaction, or did he do it only in part ? If the first,
pray what was it that was pardoned ? Why nothing ; for the
debt being fully paid, or satisfaction given, there was then, of
course, no pardon ; for supposing you owe me a sum of
money, can it be said that I pardon you anything, on re-
ceiving payment, or satisfaction to the full amount ? Would
it not be ridiculous for me to say, I pardon you, having re-
ceived the whole ? Is it not equally absurd to say, par-
don was obtained, when full satisfaction was made and
given ? But we may be told, that though full satisfac-
tion could not be made, yet, that God accepted it, and took
it for such; if so, then must they allow, that God can par-
don without full satisfaction, which, if he can, how absurd
must it be to say, He required infinite satisfaction; and
why He might not pardon Adam, on the punishment he in-
flicted, will be impossible for them to show. In short, they
are reduced to this dilemma : If Jesus made full satisfaction,
then was there no pardon ; and if he did not make full satis-
faction, then was there no necessity for either his sufferings
or death. The Messiah, say they, was to die for the sins of
the world ; grant he did so ; the natural consequence must
LETTER XXVI. 205
then be, that mankind were restored j but nothing like this
is pretended, for inquire in what the restoration consisted,
and it vanishes to a mere nothing. Was the human race
restored to any of its forfeited dignities ? no ; was there any
alteration in their affairs ? no ; did the Jews, to whom the
Messiah was promised as the greatest worldly blessing, re-
ceive any benefit or advantage by his coming ? no ; on the
contrary, it is pretended, that the doing that which was
necessary to be done brought on their ruin. Can there be
any thing more inconsistent or contradictory, than to pre-
tend that the salvation of the whole world could only be
brought about by the ignominious death of a person, and
that the very act that introduced this salvation excluded
those very people, through whose means it was obtained,
from the benefit of it ? How the Jews are upbraided for
that very act, let all their writers witness ; one and all agree,
that for this sin not only their city and temple were de-
stroyed, but that they brought thereby damnation on them-
selves and posterity. There is something very unaccount-
able in this affair ; for Jesus must die that the world might
be saved, and the Jews must be damned for the same rea-
son. That Jesus was to suffer an ignominious death was
pre-ordained, a thing settled by agreement ; to this end and
purpose, it is pretended, " he came into the world, the kings
of the earth stood up, and the rulers were gathered together
against the Lord, and against his Christ; for of a truth
against the holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, both
Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the people
of Israel, were gathered together, for to do whatever thy
hand and thy council determined before to be done."* That
* Acts iv. 26.
206 BIAS' LETTERS.
this was so, is evident from what Jesus himself tells Pilate :
t( Thou couldst have no power at ail against me, except it
were giveri thee from above."* Who can forbear lamenting
this contrivance ; who can forbear crying, fatal necessity !
Is it thus that the Almighty, the good, the merciful God
deals his blessings to mankind, thus to deceive and doom to
destruction the unhappy instruments which He was pleased
to make use of in saving the world ? Who could have sus-
pected or believed that the Deity, who fills all things, should
so contract his existence as to be contained in the womb of
a woman,*)" that he should take a human shape, and appear
among us in disguise, doing all he could to hide from those
to whom he was sent not only his divinity, but also the cha-
racter of Messiah ?J Was it to be imagined that the Mes-
siah would in his discourses make use of nothing but dark
sayings and parables, that he might not be known ? or, as
he expresses himself, "that seeing they, may see and not
perceive, and hearing they may hear and not understand,
lest at any time they should be converted and their sins
should be forgiven them ?" Is this conduct worthy of
God ? is this the Messiah promised the Jews as their greatest
good ? Behold him using all the art he can from manifest-
ing himself, " lest at any time they should see with their
eyes, and should understand with their heart, and should
be converted, and I should heal them."|[ Could it be
* John xix. 11.
t It is (as it were) to cancel the essential differences of things, to re-
move the bounds of nature, to bring heaven and earth (and what is
more), both ends of a contradiction together. (Vide, Dr. Youth's Ser-
mons, Vol. iii. p. 367.)
t Matt. xvi. 20. I Ibid. iv. 12. || Ibid. xiii. 15.
907
LETTER XXVI
imagined, that the Messiah would hinder the Jews in ob-
taining the means of being healed and forgiven ? " And
he said, Unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the
kingdom of God: but to others in parables; that seeing
they might not see, and hearing they might not under-
stand."* The Jews did all in their power to be rightly
informed, and only desired a sign.f But lest they should
be convinced, they are refused ; and a resolution is taken to
give them no sign but the sign of Jonas,! which in fact
was no sign, as it was never made good to them ; for they
were excluded from being present or seeing any of those
transactions related of his resurrection ; and I cannot help
thinking, that if his death brought on the desolation of
Jerusalem, and the damnation of the Jews, it was none of
their fault ; since the grand secret was never disclosed to
those who ought to have had the information; of this
Jesus himself seems to have been sensible ; " Father forgive
them, for they know not what they do," were his last and
dying words ; and St. Peter declares the Jews guiltless,
" And now, brethren, I wot, that through ignorance ye did
it, and so did your rulers." || It is, therefore, a great ab-
surdity to pretend, that the destruction of the city and
temple and the dispersion of the Jews were occasioned by put-
ting Jesus to death. Was the destruction of the kingdom
of Israel (which happened seven hundred years before Jesus)
owing to his death ? was the destruction of the city and
temple by the Babylonians owing to his death ? were the
many and frequent calamities which befell the Jews owing
* Luke yiii. 10. f Matt. xvi. 1. j Ibid. 4.
Luke xxiii. 34. I! Acts iii. 17.
208 BIAS' LETTERS.
to his death ? were the frequent profanations and pollutions
of the temple, and its being so often taken by different ene-
mies, owing to his death ? No ; the Jews will be told, that
all these calamities were brought on them by their manifold
crimes; and, if so, why is not the last destruction of city
and temple imputed to the same cause ? The history of
those times furnish such scenes of wickedness and profane-
ness, as are not to be equalled at any other epoch : besides,
were not the Jews subject to the Romans long before the
coming of Jesus ? were they not barbarously oppressed and
ill-treated by their extortionate governors, both before, in
his time, and afterwards ? was not this, together with a
desire of recovering their liberties, and the being misled by
some crafty and wicked leaders, that which occasioned their
revolt ? They might as well pretend that all the misfor-
tunes, which befell the Jews before the coming of Jesus,
were owing to his death, as to pretend, that what afterwards
befell them was owing to that event; when it evidently
appears, that this was brought about by so many concurrent
causes. I am, &c.
LETTEE XXVII.
THE doctrine of satisfaction and the necessity of Jesus 7 suf-
ferings and death, appear very plainly to have been invented
by his followers ; his whole conduct very evidently contra-
dicts it. We are told that, " as Jesus sat at meat in the
LETTER XXVII. 209
house, behold many publicans and sinners came and sat down
with him and his disciples. And when the Pharisees saw it
they said unto his disciples, Why eateth your master with pub-
licans and sinners ? But when Jesus heard that, he said
unto them, Tliey that be whole need not a physician, but they
that are sick. But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will
have mercy, and not sacrifice : for I am not come to call the
righteous (says he) but sinners to repentance."* Nothing
can be more express than this declaration of his ; but how
contradictory to the present system of Christianity let any
one judge. Jesus declared that they that be whole need
not a physician, but only those that are sick ; but Chris-
tians insist that unless both the whole and sick have one,
they must be damned. Jesus freely declares that he came
not to call the righteous, but sinners, to repentance ; but
Christians insist that without faith they must be damned,
repentance not being deemed by them sufficient. Jesus de-
clares from Hoseaf "that God will have mercy and not
sacrifice/' but Christians contradict him, and strenuously
insist that God could have no mercy without sacrifice. Is it
possible that Jesus should have made such a declaration, if
he knew that he himself was to be made a sacrifice, nay a
necessary sacrifice, to which he had, as Christians pretend,
devoted and offered himself willingly and freely f But it is
very plain that all pretensions of this sort have no manner
of foundation ; since it was with the utmost reluctance that
he suffered. " My soul is exceeding sorrowful, unto
death,"J (says he;) he prayed very fervently, "0 mj
Father ! if it be possible let this cup pass from me."
* Matt. ix. 10, 13. t Hosea vi. 10.
J Matt. xxvi. 38. I Ibid. 29.
210 BIAS' LETTERS.
/
" Father, if thou be willing remove this cup from me."*
Here is what he earnestly desired, and what he be-
sought in the utmost agonies, such as even made the
sweat that came from him a as it were great drops of blood
falling to the ground."f The whole of this transaction,
therefore, evidently evinces that he had not made any such
agreement ; for either he knew his death to be necessary, or
he was ignorant of it : if the first, then was his praying to
be exempted from that which was necessary, from that to
which he had devoted himself, and from that which he came
to perform, absurd and ridiculous, and would have been
thought so had any common person acted in the like manner ;
for how could he so earnestly pray to be exempted from that
which he knew was necessary for him to undergo, having
freely offered himself? was the desire of saving the world a
matter of such indifference to him ? was his love to man-
kind abated ? But if he knew not that his sufferings were
necessary, or that, by his means, the world was to be saved :
then could he not be that divine person which Christians
make him ; and consequently, if infinite satisfaction was ne-
cessary, or the death of God requisite, he could not be the
person that could make it; that he could not be God, is
plain, not only from his whole conduct, but also from the
circumstance of the angel's descent from heaven to strengthen
him.J Now, for God to be either in such agonies, or to
stand in need of another's assistance, appears to be such an
absurdity, as surely ought not to be mentioned; for of what
service or use would the divine nature be, if it could not
prevent human frailties and fears from getting the better of
* Luke xxii. 42. f Matt. xxvi. 44. J Luke xxii. 43.
LETTER XXVII. 211
it, nor prevent its triumphing over it ?* On the whole, I
think there redounds no honour to Jesus from the represen-
tation of this whole affair ; sioce he prayed to be excused
from it, and besought it with bloody sweats, it being done
contrary to his inclination. il Not as I will," says he, "but
as thou wilt/'f or, " Not my will but thine be done;"J so
that, if he was a divine person, he must have had an opposite
will to that of the Father, which, if so, it will be difficult to
make it consistent ; and either the Jews contracted no guilt,
since there could be no salvation obtained without his suffer-
ings; or salvation must be made the consequence of an ob-
noxious wicked act ! To these sad dilemmas are they re-
duced. We are told "that the whole economy of man's re-
demption is everywhere represented to us as an unsearchable
mystery of divine wisdom and goodness, and as the object
of our belief, and not of our comprehension j but, as this
is the foundation on which the whole superstructure is built,
I think that if the same be proved to be false, everything
that is built thereon must fall ; for can that be made a mat-
ter of belief, which we not only do not comprehend, but is
contradictory in itself ? Neither can it be made to answer
any end or purpose at all; for as to original sin, they do not
pretend that it is atoned for, it being an article of faith that
all that arc born are enemies to God, and slaves of the devil,
and children are doomed by the Romish Church to limbo if
they die before baptism, and the reformed condemn those
that are born of parents not baptized to damnation ; this
* Tho learned Dr. South says concerning the person of Christ, that
were it not to be adored as a mystery, it would be exploded as a con-
tradiction. Sermons, Vol. iii. p. 316. f Matt. xxvi. 39.
t Luke xxii. 42. a Uni. His. Vol. x. t>. 591.
212 BIAS' LETTERS.
they do for original sin, of which the children are most in-
nocent ; so that Jesus' death was of no service. And as to
actual sin, we are as subject to be carried away by the flesh
as our forefathers were; the same inclination, the same
proneness to vice predominates in our weak natures, and .ex-
perience will teach us that there is not the least alteration ;
so that his sufferings wrought in us no cure. And, as to any
spiritual benefit, it is plain that by this scheme the world is
in a worse condition than it was before ; for the Jews by
the law of Moses, and the gentiles by that of nature, ob-
tained salvation ; but now the elect only are to be saved,
and this saving doctrine is contracted to such narrow limits
that it extends no farther than a particular sect; for the
Roman Catholics send the reformed of all sects to the devil,
and these in their turn do the like not only by them, but by
all of different sects ; for salvation is engrossed, and made
the sole privilege of those within their own pale ; and to the
rest of mankind they show no mercy, as appears by their
creeds. What was it, then, that his death redeemed the
world from ? Was it the cause of introducing true religion ?
his death for that purpose was needless, and it might have
been done without his suffering. But where, or among
what sect or party is this true religion to be found ? Is it
in the Romish Church? This the others contradict. Is it
to be found in many particular sects ? This will be denied
by all. This now being the case, of what benefit were Jesus'
sufferings and death ? Could they, in fact, show the ben-
efit thereof, and demonstrate the cures pretended to be
wrought by them : then indeed they might boast, and have
some reason to apply the prophecy to him ; but to pretend
to impute it to him without proving the effects, is very
LETTER XXVII. 213
extraordinary. How inconsistent are Christians to their doc-
trines ! They tell us that Jesus atoned and made satisfac-
tion for original sin, and yet declare that children are born
with it. But again they pretend that it is done away by
baptism, his death benefitting those only who received it,
all others continuing under its penalty, the same as if he
had not suffered ; so that to be free from original sin (for
which no one ever thought himself in any wise accountable)
his death is not sufficient ; the atonement being made to con-
sist in baptism, or in being sprinkled with water. And after
all, they place the efficacy of the cure in the imagination ;
for they will tell you that Jesus did his part, and by his
death freed every one from this sin; but it is necessary
that you think so, for otherwise you can receive no benefit
from it. You must therefore first think yourself under
God's curse and indignation, and then imagine Jesus has
freed you from it; that is, you must imagine yourself sick,
and then imagine Jesus has cured you, and then you are
sound and well ; but if you have not strength of imagina-
tion sufficient to make you think yourself sick, and conse-
quently, that you stand in no need of medicine, why then,
and in such case, Adam's eating the forbidden fruit will
rise in judgment against you, and you must be eternally
damned. Is not mankind by this redemption scheme in a
much worse condition than it was before ? Was this the
inestimable blessing which the world received by his death.
Perhaps one in a thousand will be saved, and all the rest
are to be damned. Now, how he carried our sorrows and
our griefs, or how he bore our iniquities and our transgres-
sions, or how he made atonement for our sins, and in what
manner he justified us, are things which I confess I ain not
214 DIAS' LETTERS.
Almighty Grod has declafed that on our repenting and
turning to Him with a reformed life, He would accept and
pardon us ;* such acceptance on our repentance and amend-
ment being also agreeable to reason, and to G-od's mercy and
goodness. The case must always have been so, had Jesus
suffered or not. Besides, if Jesus made satisfaction for the
sins of the world, the past, present, and to come, then can it-
it be of no importance whether we be good or bad ; for if
that be so, our reward or happiness -must be secured thereby,
without good works or virtuous actions on our part. But
it may be pretended that our reward depends partly on our
own merits, and partly on the satisfaction which Jesus made,
imputing part of his own righteousness to make up our
own deficiency. To this I answer, By this scheme Jesus
was only a saviour in part, and the redemption must then
be as incomplete as it is absurd, besides that it takes from
him the merits of having saved the world ; for if our personal
righteousness be necessary, or our repentance and amend-
ment, then cannot his death be any advantage to us, because
upon these terms, "as I before observed, we ever had assurance
of being accepted. Nothing can be more contradictory than
to pretend that a person (and he a just one, too,) was to
suffer, that the wicked might receive reward ; for if that be
the case men would be rewarded without regard to their
merits; for personal merits must necessarily belong to the
agent, and are connected with the very individual, inherent
in himself, and no transfer can be made of them from one
agent to another ; consequently, to claim another's merits
is the most absurd and incoherent scheme that ever was
* See Isaiah Iv. 7, and Ezek. xxxiii. 11.
LETTER XXVII. 215
invented. Is it reasonable that a person plead another's
merits, and pretend to justify himself by faith ? will this
plea of justification avail the greatest villain ? and shall
one who practises all the moral duties of life be damned,
because he lacks that faith ? Can it be made consistent
with either Scripture or reason (to make faith the reward of
the wicked), that the wicked be rewarded through faith,
and to impute it to them for righteousness; whilst they
deny to the good, who have led a life of goodness and
virtue, the reward due to their merit$? If God accepts
faith, let them trust to it, and let there be no distinction
between moral good and evil ; but if good works be deemed
necessary, why shall not he who practises them be benefitted
thereby, let him belong to what sect or society, either choice
or chance may have placed him in ? Shall the merits of one
person benefit all that will plead them, and shall not per-
sonal acts and righteousness avail those who practise them ?
can anything be more inconsistent with God's justice and
mercy ? Thus you see to what absurdities the scheme of
Jesus' sufferings and passion leads them. But in truth this
is only an invention, and entirely fictitious ; for let them
suppose that the Jews had received Jesus as their Messiah ;
that they had believed him to be God himself, and that they
had paid him, whilst living, the adoration paid to him by
Christians since his death : what must have been the con-
sequence ? Must not the world have been damned ? This must
have been the consequence, because, no atonement, no justi-
fication, no imputed righteousness, no faith could then have
been pleaded, and of consequence all must have perished ever-
lastingly. Are they, therefore, not obliged to us for preforming
the act, though wicked, as represented, since it brought them
216 BIAS 7 LETTERS.
salvation ? how ungrateful are they for this benefit Jesus
underwent' a momentary pain, and for that they reverence
and adore him ; the Jews were involved in the same act,
they were appointed to the work, but they brought destruc-
tion and damnation on themselves and posterity by doing
their part, and are yet despised, ill treated, and abused by
those very persons who pretend to reap the benefit. These
are the absurdities attending this incomprehensible scheme ;
they are in the right therefore, to call it et an unsearchable
mystery/ ' and as such let those who can believe it.
I am, &c.
LETTER XXVIII.
THE absurdity and inconsistency of the doctrines treated
of in my two last letters prove the impossibility of applying
the prophecy, or making it answer the purposes intended
thereby, as some pretend, that a twofold death was implied
in the sentence. They infer that Adam and his posterity
were condemned both to a natural and spiritual death, from
which they could only be released by the sufferings and
passion of one, who was both God and man. They say an
agreement being made between God the Father and God the
Son, the latter offered himself to be made a sacrifice on the
cross, to appease the wrath of God the Father, and to atone
by this ignominious death for Adam's sin; restoring the
human race thereby to God's grace and favour, freeing them
LETTER XXVIII. 217
from the power of the Devil, and from the penalties under
which they must have continued, as no other satisfaction
could have been accepted or deemed sufficient. We shall
now, therefore, inquire into the foundation of this twofold
death ; " In the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely
die,"* which in Hebrew is expressed by the words moth
tahmuthy very properly rendered in the margin of the English
Bible, " Dying thou shalt die/' which phrase denotes the
certainty of its being inflicted ; as will very evidently appear
by considering the use and intent of the same phrase in
other places. When Solomon passed sentence on Shirnei,
the very same phrase is made use of, "On the day thou
goest forth, and passest over the Brook Kidron, thou shalt
know for certain thou shalt surely die," Heb. Moth tahmuth.-f
The prophet Elisha uses the same phrase to Hazael, to
denote thereby the certain death of Benhadad, king of Syria.
" The LORD hath shown me that he shall surely die/'
(Heb. Moth tahmuth.)^ When Saul doomed his son Jona-
than to death, he makes use of the same expression, " Thou
shalt surely die, Jonathan." (Heb. Moth tahmuth.*) He
also uses the same phrases when he sentenced the priest,
" Thou shalt surely die, Ahimelech," Heb. Moth tahmuth.\\
From which passages, and from all others in Scripture
where the same phrase is made use of, it is plain that noth-
ing but a corporeal death could be intended. Thus you see
, the foundation on which this grand superstructure is built.
The sentence, therefore, only imports that on the day Adam
ate the forbidden fruit, he should commence to be mortal,
or be liable to death. That being the punishment, which was
* Gen. ii. 17. t 1 Kings ii. 37. J 2 Kings viii. 10.
1 Sain. xiv. 44. || Ibid, xxii, 16.
19
218 DIAS' LETTERS.
to be inflicted, he was banished from paradise, that he might
be exposed to want and calamities, that by a decay of nature
and frame of body it might come on him. The punishment
being thus inflicted on the aggressor, would it be just to
doom his race to eternal damnation ? is such a conduct re-
concilable to the goodness and mercy of God ?* Supposing
a legislator instituted a law, and enacted a certain punish-
ment to be inflicted on those who transgressed that law :
would any other punishment be inflicted on the transgressor,
besides 'that which had been enacted? would it not be a
very great injustice to inflict a greater punishment on the
offender ? If this would be so in human laws and tribunals,
how much more so would it be in the All-merciful God !
In what a woful and miserable state must the whole human
race be, if, notwithstanding, they in all respects obeyed the
will of God, by which they were entitled to mercy, they
should ever continue, to be under his wrath and heavy dis-
pleasure, both here and hereafter ? to what purpose did He
give laws, if those who practised the duties enjoined by them
were not to be benefitted thereby ? Can this be made con-
sistent? No, this opinion is invented to give a colouring
to what is not on any grounds icJiatever to be maintained or
supported.
To support the doctrine before mentioned, it is pretended
that the history of the fall ought not to be taken literally.
I cannot better answer this objection than in the words
made use of by the authors of the Universal History. u It
cannot be denied (say they), that some of the ancient phi-
losophers affected such an allegorical way of writing to con-
* See Univ. Hist. Vol. i. p. 125.
LETTER XXVIII. 219
ccal their notions from the vulgar, and keep their learning
within the bounds of their own school ; yet it is apparent
Moses had no such design; and as he pretends only to re-
late matters of fact just as they happened, without art or
disguise, it cannot be supposed but that the history of the
fall is to be taken in a literal sense as well as the rest of his
writings."* Notwithstanding this assertion, these authors
immediately declare themselves of opinion, that it was the
Devil who made use of the serpent's body. That this beast
stands for, and means the Devil, is also the opinion of al-
most every Christian commentator, and is particularly as-
serted by Dr. Sherlock, who has taken great pains to estab-
lish this point. But conscious that the passage as it stands,
could not bear that meaning, he adds : l '' You'll say, What
an unreasonable liberty of interpretation this is ; tell us by
what rules of language the seed of the woman is made to
denote one particular person (that is, Jesus,) and by what
art you discover the mystery of Christ's miraculous concep-
tion and birth in this common expression ? Tell us, like-
wise, how bruising the serpent's head comes to signify
destroying the power of sin, and the redemption of mankind
by Christ? As the prophecy stands there" (he ought to
have said, the history) " nothing appears to point out this
particular meaning, much less to confine the prophecy (the
history) to it."f And I think that many good reasons
ought to be given to his own objections, and a proper au-
thority produced for giving this history any other sense ;
since, as he himself owns, and readily allows, the ex-
pressions do not imply necessarily this sense. " We allow
* Univ. Hist. Vol. i. p. 135. f Intent and Use of Prophecy, p. 59.
220 DIAS' LETTERS.
farther (says lie), that there is no appearance that our first
parents understood them in this sense, or that God intended
they should so understand them/'* Yet notwithstanding this
he has, on doctrines of which our first parents knew nothing,
on doctrines which t( God never intended they should un-
derstand/' placed and established all the hopes and comforts
of religion.f
But whatever may be pretended, Adam by his fall for-
feited that, whatever it was, which he for a very short
interval had possessed, and was reduced to a state of labour,
and subject to sorrow : yet it nowhere appears that they (he
and Eve) were bereft " of a rational foundation for their
future endeavours to reconcile themselves to God by a better
obedience,"J the best foundation, and indeed the only one,
on which they would place their hope (which I choose to
give you in the Bishop's words). ; and whenever this founda-
tion was neglected, and dependence on a Mediator intro-
duced, you may then be sure that false religion and false
worship took place ; and it would be very easy to prove that
it was such schemes and inventions which gave the first rise
to idolatry, and defaced true religion.
But whatever hopes this learned person makes our first
parents to have different from a better obedience ; or what-
ever foundation he is pleased to make necessary for the pres-
ervation of religion, by the hopes " that their posterity should
one day be restored :" this much is certain, that any such
dependence must have been ill-grounded ; for if Adam's
posterity was to be restored by the satisfaction made by
Jesus on the cross, nothing like it was effected; for the
* Intent and Use of Prophecy, p. 70, 71. f Ibid. p. 60, 61. J Ibid. p. 61.
LETTER XXVIII. 221
serpent still labours under the curse ; women still bear
children in pain, and continue in subjection to their hus-
bands (which some of them think the worst part of the curse);
the men still labour and endure sorrow ; and death makes
the same havoc now as is did before. Let them represent
things in what light they please, they still continue as they
were. Such inconsistencies put me in mind of what this
learned bishop says, " When unbelievers hear such reasoning,
they think themselves entitled to laugh ;"* and in truth who
can forbear it ? I pity any person of his learning and parts
advancing inconsistencies and contradictions, rolling (as it
were) with all his might a stone up a steep mountain, and
then being obliged to let it fall, not able to stop it, behold-
ing his labour lost.
To establish these doctrines they will have the serpent
stand for, and be the Devil. But can anything be plainer
than that every part of the sentence is only applicable to a
literal serpent, a beast of the field, the being more accursed
than any other beast, or above all cattle ? Rank him with
the brute creation : the Devil, I think, has nothing to
do in this part of the curse. The serpent was to go on his
belly j in this punishment the Devil is also excluded. He
was to eat dust all the days of his life ; very improper food
this is for the Devil, therefore it is not intended for him.
The serpent and his seed, and the woman and her seed were
to be in continual enmity ; the woman and her descendants
were to bruise the serpent's head, whilst the serpent and his
seed, being by nature or by the curse made reptiles, should
bite the others' heels, that being the part which they could
* Intent and Use of Prophecy, p. 70.
19*
222 BIAS* LETTERS.
most conveniently come at. This being a conflict between
the woman and the serpent, and their offsprings, has the
Devil any concern in this strife ? Can words be made use
of plainer to denote that the whole concerns the serpent and
his seed, and not the Devil ? and that the woman and her
seed are Eve and her descendants, and not Jesus in particular,
as is pretended ? that in this enmity or strife each should
hurt the other as they had it in their power? Could the
Devil hurt or bite Jesus, or has he any seed or posterity at
all ? It is plain, therefore, that the curse concerns the ser-
pent only ; he is represented at the very first mention, as a
cunning creature : u Now the serpent was more subtle than
any beast of the field which the LORD God had made ;"*
and for making a bad use of his subtlety he was punished.
Now had the serpent been actuated by the Devil, he could
deserve no punishment. In short, there is nothing in the
sentence which concerns the Devil. Neither can I find in
this whole history, any promise of a Messiah, nor any agree-
ment between God the Father and God the Son. Indeed
such an agreement must be inconsistent, and would prove
different wills in the Godhead ; that is, there must have been
one willing to make satisfaction, and another willing to re-
ceive it, whilst a third remained passive or neuter ; acts as
contrary to each other as any distinct beings are capable of,
and inconsistent in the same God.
Thus you see the impossibility of proving what they pre-
tend to, from the first eight verses of this chapter, and how
'Contradictory it is in every respect. The remainder will
appear not less so. Verse 9th. " And he made his grave
* Gen. Hi. 2.
LETTER XXVIII. 223
with the wicked and with the rich in his death ; " this hap-
pened the very reverse ; for he died with the wicked, being
crucified between two thieves, and was buried in the tomb
belonging to Joseph of Arimathea ; who is represented as an
honourable, just man, and a councillor.
Yerse 10. ft He shall see his seed, he shall prolong his
days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his
hand/' Here are three blessings, of which none can be
applicable to him (Jesus). The first is, that he should see his
seed or descendants ; but children we do not hear that he had
any. The second is length of days, or long life ] this he
had not, for he was cut off in the thirty-third year of his
age. Thirdly, prosperity, of which he had none, as appears
from the account of his life and sufferings. To make out
these blessings, they have recourse to the mystical applica-
tion, though they pretend this whole chapter to be literal
of him ; they say that seed here does not mean children or
descendants, but that the phrase denotes the church, or his
followers, spiritually so called. But this has not the least
foundation, the word Zerang being used always to denote
descendants or posterity, and there is no such thing in all
Scripture as spiritual seed or spiritual descendants. In the
same manner they explain his length of days, and pretend,
it means immortality. But this is trifling ; since immor-
tality could not be given as a privilege, but is general and
common to every soul, the privilege even of the wicked and
the damned ; so that length of days in the next world could
be no peculiar blessing, since immortality takes place there.
Length of days, therefore, could only be an earthly blessing,
As to ft the pleasure of the LORD prospering in his hands/'
or prosperity here as they cannot make it out here, they
224 IAS' LETTERS.
send us to his heavenly kingdom ; but as they know nothing
at all of it, you must therefore take it from their guesses.
Verse 11. " By this knowledge shall my righteous ser-
vant justify many. 7 ' This I have shown very plainly he
did not ; therefore I shall say nothing more on this head.
Verse 12. " Therefore will I divide him a portion with
the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong. "
This part of the verse is in no ways applicable to him ; for, far
from dividing a portion with the great, or having any spoil
allotted him, he never possessed anything of his own; of
this he complains himself. " Because he poured out his soul
unto death/ 7 this being contrary to his will, and forced on
him, he could not pretend to any merit from it. How <l he
bore the sin of many/' or " made intercession for trans-
gressors/' I have already considered.
Thus, sir, from the objections and considerations afore-
said, it is evident that they cannot apply this chapter to
Jesus, neither can they prove the benefit which they pre-
tend must be the necessary consequence of their doctrine.
It now remains that I give a different application. The
generality of Jewish commentators explain this prophecy,
and apply it to the whole body of the Jews. They tell us
that Isaiah, in his 51st chapter, speaks great matters con-
cerning the redemption of Israel, and denounces God's
wrath and indignation against the oppressors and afflicters
of his people. In the next, or 52d chapter, the prophet
continues the same subject, and this he does in the most
endearing terms that can be expressed ; and under the deno-
mination of a servant,* exalts and extols Israel above all
* This term is not used to describe a state of servitude, but a servant
of God is the highest character. Note of the copier.
LETTER XXVIII. 225
nations, this term best describing the low and despicable
state to which that people should be reduced, and what it
should be made to suffer ; but from which it should be de-
livered. They prove that the whole body of the Jews are
often mentioned under this epithet, and in particular that
Isaiah calls them by this name. " Yet now hear, Jacob,
my servant." "Fear not, Jacob, my servant." " Thou
art my servant, Israel." (See Isaiah xl. 1, 2, and
xlix. 3.) And in the passage now under consideration:
" Behold my servant shall deal prudently," he shall be u ex-
alted and extolled, and be very high." (Verse 14.) At this
exaltation the world will be astonished; and the more so,
because like a servant he Was oppressed and despised, and
that in such sort as hardly to appear like other sons of men.
At this change (verse 15th), even kings or great men should
be astonished, and shut their mouths ; for, in this unexpected
exaltation, they should see that which had not been told
them, and consider that which they had not heard. The
admiration which this event should occasion is continued by
the prophet, and he breaks out, chapter 53, verse 1, with,
" Who could believe our report, or that the power of the LORD
should be manifested as revealed to this despicable people,"
or that (verse 2), u a tender plant should sprout from a
root out of dry ground, which had neither form nor comeli-
ness to make it desirable? (Verse 3.) Being such as was
always despised and rejected and made to undergo much
sorrows and grief; hiding our faces from him, as not worthy
of esteem ; for (verse 4), it was always thought that he
was stricken, and smitten of Q-od; and for that reason made
to undergo much sorrow and grief; for (verse 5) we con-
tinually wounded him with our transgressions, and bruised
226 BIAS' LETTERS.
him with our iniquitous proceedings against him, the weight
of which we made him feel ; and laid on him the chastise-
ment of our peace, i. e. y persecuting him in times of peace
and leisure, sporting with his sufferings ; thinking that by
his stripes we should atone for our sins,* (as is the case
actually in Portugal and Spain, where it is believed that the
merit of persecuting the Jews atones for all crimes.) But
(verse 6) in so doing we strayed like sheep (say the gentiles),
and turned every one to his own way, God permitting us to
do that to him which we deserved ourselves ; (verse 8)
though he was taken from prison and from judgment, and
made to undergo torments and death, in the midst of his
best days, all which is brought on him for the transgres-
sion of my people } (verse 9) making his grave with the
wicked, or like the worst of malefactors (for he is denied
even burial, as thinking him unworthy of it) : notwith-
standing this, his death was honourable, as he was not
brought to it for either violence or deceit (verse 10) but
merely because it pleased the LORD to afflict him and punish
his soul for his sin." His sufferings and afflictions have
now an end in his exaltation and restoration ; for "he shall
see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of
the Lord shall prosper in his hands. (Verse 11.) He shall
see the travail of his soul, and be satisfied ; by his know-
ledge shall my righteous servant justify many;" for he
shall bear or clear them of their iniquities, teaching them
the ways of the LORD, and making them acceptable; for
many will join themselves to the Jews, as is declared, "Also
* At the time these letters were written the Inquisition was still in
full force in Spain and Portugal. ED. Oc.
LETTER XXVIII. 227
the sons of the strangers that join themselves to the LORD
to be his servants, every one that keepeth the Sabbath from
polluting it, and taketh hold on my covenant : even them
will I bring to my holy mountain, and make them joyful
in my house of prayer; their burnt offerings and their
sacrifices shall be accepted upon mine altar ; for my house
shall be called a house of prayer for all people ; so saith the
LORD God which gathereth the outcasts of Israel ; yet will
I gather others unto him." (Isaiah Ivi. 6-8.) " For the
LORD will have mercy on Jacob, and will yet choose Israel,
and set them in their own land ; and the stranger shall be
joined with them, and they shall cleave to the house of
Jacob." (Isaiah xiv. 1.) " Therefore," continues the pro-
phet, (liii. 12,) will I divide him a portion with the great,
and he shall divide the spoil with the strong ;" and that
for the merits of " having poured out his soul unto death/'
in witness of God's holy NAME, for which "he was num-
bered with the transgressors," patiently bearing the sinful
and unrighteous behaviour of many, and now in his exal-
tation interceding for (these) transgressors.
Thus, sir, have I given you a sort of paraphrase on this
famous chapter of Isaiah. To me this appears to be the
true and genuine sense ; and I am confirmed in my opinion,
both from the subject of the preceding chapters, and from
that which follows, containing a description of the deliver-
ance to be wrought, which the prophet concludes with the
following remarkable words : " thou afflicted, tossed with
tempest and not comforted, behold I will lay thy stones with
fair colours, and lay thy foundation with sapphires ; and I
will make thy windows of agates, and thy gates with car-
buncles, and all thy borders of pleasant stones, And all
228 BIAS' LETTERS.
thy children shall be taught of the LORD, and great shall be
the peace of thy children. In righteousness shalt thou bo
established ; thou shalt be far from oppression, for thou
shalt not fear; and from terror, for it shall not come near
thee. Behold they shall surely be gathered together, but
not by me ; whosoever shall gather together against thee,
shall fall for thy sake. Behold I have created the smith
that bloweth the coals in the fire, and that bringeth forth
an instrument for his work ; and I have created the waster
to destroy. No weapon that is formed against thee shall
prosper ; and every tongue that shall rise against thee in
judgment thou shalt condemn. This is the heritage of the
servants of the LORD, and their righteousness is of me,
saith the LORD." (Isaiah liv. 11, &c.) There are those
who apply this prophecy of Isaiah liii. throughout to King
Josiah ; but there are many things, in my opinion, which
do not answer to his character. The great Grotius I think
with better success, applies it to the prophet Jeremiah ;
there are many things in his life and persecutions which
make the application to fit him more probably; though I
cjaoose to give you the explanation which is more generally
followed. But, let the prophecy concern the Jews in gene-
ral, let it concern Jeremiah or Josiah, this much is evident,
it cannot be applied to Jesus ; and of this opinion must
the New Testament writers have been, or they would have
quoted and made application of it. I am, &c.
229
APPENDIX.
GENESIS XLIX. 10.
REMARKS ON LETTER XXII.
2d Prop. It is asserted "That it was to hold the sceptre
or pre-eminence above the other tribes." I conceive that
the shebet nowhere stands for pre-eminence, but, as I have
elsewhere observed, when it is applied to government, always
signifies absolute independence. The pre-eminence above
the other tribes is expressed in the same prophecy in other
terms, namely, Juddhj thou shalt be he whom thy brethren
praise, or rather (as yoducha implies), shall confess and
acknowledge as the superior. 3d Prop. It is supposed in
this letter, " that the mechokek (ppHD) means the legisla-
tive power within itself, independent of or separate from
the other tribes." This I take to be far from the meaning
here intended. For as the first, viz : legislative power, or
supreme legislation, there could be no such power in the
Jewish commonwealth } such a power supposes a right of
enacting, abrogating, and new-modelling, or altering former
ones. This is absolutely contrary to the Theocratic govern-
ment of that commonwealth. The power lodged in the
supreme magistracy among the Israelites was only the
explanation and execution of the Divine laws, such a power
as the king and council have in Great Britain, relative to the
20
230 APPENDIX.
present constitution, which power is included in the shebet
or sovereignty annexed to the regal one. I have explained
the mechokek in my letter. 2nd. In regard to the tribe of
Judah having a distinct government within itself, I conceive
that this was not peculiar to that tribe ; I imagine every
tribe was alike independent before the royalty was established ;
every tribe constituted a separate state by itself, independent
and sovereign, save only in matters of general concern, in
which case all the tribes (or their deputies) assembled, as
was done in extraordinary cases ; then indeed there was, if
I may so speak, a determination of the states-general, which
every tribe was obliged to obey, as well Judah as the other
tribes. But in what concerned each particular tribe, as
such, each was independent. 4th Prop. That this was to
continue till the coming of Shiloh, who was to unite the
people. I have no concordance to ascertain what I am
now to assert, but am pretty clear that I am right, viz. :
that whenever the people or house of Israel are intended
in the law, they are always mentioned by 'am in the
singular; and that when 'ammim is used, it is always
expressive of the Gentiles as well as the Jews. If this be
so, as I think it is, then this gathering or rather obedience,
must refer to the nations in general, as well as the Jews,
and not to the establishing the royalty in the House of
David.
What I have here to offer, is in substance but a copy of a
letter, which I wrote some years ago, to a clergyman of the
Church of England, on some part of the 49th chapter of Gen-
esis, in which I have endeavoured to show, that as the trans-
lation of the 10th verse of this chapter now stands in the
English Bible ; it implies a contradiction, and that the use to
GENESIS XLIX 10. 231
which it is applied, of determining the time for the advent
of the Messiah to be already past, has no foundation in the
text. But on the contrary, if truly translated, it will afford a
very strong presumption that he cannot be yet come } this
will be plain to any one that considers the consequences,
which will be the result of the subsequent arguments, which
must speak for themselves, and for which I shall make no
apology here, but proceed to the consideration of the sub-
ject.
And here I must first beg leave to observe in general, that
to explain a prediction (and the more so if obscure, or where
the terms in which it is couched, be capable of different
meanings,) before the. completion, is attended with much
more difficulty, than to reduce a fact once supposed, to such
prediction. This being premised, it cannot be expected
that I should pretend to anything farther than a probable f
solution of the text, without pretending to certainty. What
I shall first attempt here, will be to show, that as this text is
rendered in the English version, it may be reduced to a con-
tradiction. But before I proceed farther, it will be necessary
to fix the meaning of the word shebet, especially, as I shall
use the same term used in that translation, but in its genu-
ine sense, which I shall prove to be independent sovereignty,
whereas in the application of the word shebet, it is made to
signify anything but that. Shebet then admits three dis-
tinct meanings. The first, and perhaps original sense, is
sceptre, the second, tribe, and the third, a rod.* The first-
is the sovereign power, whether lodged in the hands of one
or many. The second is any collective body of people,
* Also a walking staff, and a pen or pencil. Ps. xxiii. 4, & Judg. v. 14.
232 APPENDIX.
supposed to proceed from one head. The third is a rod
and frequently means that of correction, and is applied
either to an immediate punishment inflicted by Almighty
G-od, or to that of the civil magistrate in punishing offen-
ders, or lastly, to the private correction in particular fam-
ilies. Now whenever this word is used in Scripture, it
retains that sense distinctly to whichsoever it belongs. To
instance in the present text which runs thus : xS, 11D- 1 D3ty
&c., when if the word shebet be taken in the second sense,
it ought to be thus translated : u Judah shall not cease
being a tribe," &c., which though the only way it can be
rendered if shebet should here mean tribe, yet I think it would
be very indifferent grammar to be thus translated ; however,
as a prediction, it would be still true, for Judah has not
ceased being a tribe, though it were an enslaved one. But
this I am satisfied cannot be the meaning of the text ; and
if we take the shebet to mean a rod, the translation would run :
"The rod shall not depart from Judah," &c. This would
be also true, since that tribe, as well as the others, has not
been often free from a variety of calamities ; this, however,
does not appear to be the meaning of the text, the sliebet
here being the promise of a blessing, not a curse. I shall
now consider the shebet, as applied to royalty, and let the
Scriptures determine the meaning. Now, if in every place
wherein it is used in Scripture for royalty, it be confined in
its sense to an independent sovereignty, then it will be but
reasonable to suppose that it signifies the same thing here ;
and that it does signify such an independent sovereignty
only, will easily appear to any one that will be at the pains
of examining the subsequent text.
" There shall come a star out of Jacob, and a (shebet)
GENESIS XLIX. 10. 233
sceptre shall rise out of Israel/'* This is applied to the
Messiah by both Jews and Christians. I therefore take it
for granted, it will be allowed in this place to mean an inde-
pendent sovereignty. " Thy throne, God, is for ever and
ever; the (shebet) sceptre of thy kingdom is a right scep-
tre. ^f As this is applied to Almighty God, I presume no
one will dispute its being an independent sovereignty.
" The LORD hath broken the staff of the wicked, and the
(shebet) sceptre of the rulers. "J Here, the destruction of
the Babylonian monarchy is predicted by the sceptre of the
rulers being broken, or in other terms, the loss of their inde-
pendence. " And she had strong rods for the sceptre (shebet)
of them that bare rule, &c., so that she hath no strong rods
to be a (shebet) sceptre to rule, &c." By holding the
sceptre (shebet) in the former text is shown Israel's indepen-
dence, and the loss of it in the latter a contrary mark. u I
will break also the bar of Damascus, and cut off the inhabi-
tants from the plain of Aven, and him that holdeth the
(shebet) sceptre from the house of Eden."|| " And I will
cast off the inhabitants from Ashdod, and him that holdeth
the (shebet) sceptre from Ashkelon, &c."^f The cutting off
him that swayeth the sceptre here, is the mark of their loss
of independence; and the departure of the sceptre from
Egypt implies the same thing. " And the pride of Assyria
shall be brought down, and the (shebet) sceptre of Egypt
shall depart away."** These are the only places in the
Scriptures that have come to my knowledge, where the shebet
is applied to royalty, and in every one it signifies an absolute
* Num. xxiv. 17. t Ps. xlv. 6. f Isa - xiy - 5 - 2 Ezek. ix. 11-14.
|| Amos i. 5. 1f Ibid. 8. ** Zech. x. 11.
234 APPENDIX.
independent sovereignty. It is ; then, but reasonable to con-
clude that the shebet, in the text before us, signifies the
same independent sovereignty, and not that vague indeter-
minate sense of any subordinate government, to which it is
here applied by those who would make this text subservient
to their system. Having thus fixed the sense of the shebet
by the Scriptures when that word is applied to government,
the next thing I propose is to show the inconsistency of the
English version with itself, granting the shebet to signify
what I have above shown it to mean. And here it will
be necessary to transcribe the text, the better to keep it in
view ; English version thus, " The sceptre shall not depart
from Judah, nor the lawgiver from between his feet, until
Shiloh come ; and unto him shall the gathering of the peo-
ple be." From which it would be natural to conclude that
the sovereignty should devolve upon Judah, and with it a
continual legislative power, which should uninterruptedly so
continue, until Shiloh, or the Messiah come, and on his
coming there should be an ingathering of the people to him.
This, I believe, is no more than may be fairly taken for the
sense of the text, as there rendered. Now, if this be the
sense of it, as I think it appears to be, what shall we say,
if from the Scriptural account, which we have of that tribe,
(viz., Judah,) it was never completed ? And to be con-
vinced that it really never was so, no more is necessary than
to examine the history of that tribe, which will make it very
clear. To begin, then, we are told in the Scriptures that
from the time of Joshua until there was a royal establish-
ment in the family of Saul, the Israelites were in a state of
anarchy, without any regular government, every one doing
what to him seemed best, save only when God appointed ex-
GENESIS XLIX. 10. 235
traordinary Judges, pro tempore, for some particular deliver-
ance; at all other times no traces of a regular common-
wealth appear. Then God, at their earnest desire, gave the
people Saul for their king : the royalty in his family soon
had its period. By the same divine appointment, David
succeeded in the government, which, after his death, de-
volved on Solomon, and in him ended the sovereign power
in Judah over all Israel ; for henceforward the sovereignty
of Judah was confined within itself and the tribe of
Benjamin. This also was comparatively but of short
duration, and had its period in the person of Zedekiah, with
whom ended the sovereignty of Judah ; and this, according
to the English translation, ought to have been the time of
the advent of the Messiah. But nothing like that appeared,
unless Nebuchadnezzar be set up for that GREAT PRINCE.
I shall here pass by what might be said on that head, and
just take notice of another thing necessary by that transla-
tion, which is, that the Lawgiver, or the legislative power,
ought to be a prerogative of that tribe ; whereas it is to be
observed that neither the kings of Judah, nor the priests,
nor the extraordinary judges, nor the whole people joined
to them, ever pretended to such power, a power utterly
inconsistent with the Mosaic constitution ; for all the laws,
moral, political, and ceremonial, were immediately enacted
by God himself in sight of the people, as at the giving of
the law (ten commandments), or mediately by the hands of
Moses, as the greater part of the law ; wherefore it would
have been an affront to the Divine Legislator, and the
highest presumption in any prince of that people, to assume
the power of making laws, without special directions from
the same Almighty Author of the laws of Israel ; and in
236 APPENDIX.
such case it would be only the promulgation of a Divine law,
and not a legislative power in the prince. The Israelitish
government being a proper theocratic government, the
holders of the sovereign power therein were only executors
of the law, and not, as in other states, legislators. To go
on here would carry me beyond my design, having just
touched on this by the by : so I will return to the history
of the tribe of Judah.
When the kingdom of Judah was totally destroyed, and
the commonwealth dissolved by Nebuchadnezzar, then did
the sceptre depart from Judah, and is accordingly taken
notice of by Ezekiel, in that sense, in the passage I before
cited, xix. 14. This is the departure of the sceptre in the
most limited sense the text can be taken in; for there
seems some reason to suppose that Judah's sovereignty
should extend over all Israel, as well as be independent him-
self, from the tenor of this prophecy, which represents his
brethren as his dependents ; and if this was really the case,
the sceptre departed long before this, as far back as the re-
volt of the ten tribes. However, be that as it will, at this
time the sceptre departed from Judah to all intents and pur-
poses ; Judah, us well as Israel, being enslaved, and their
government being entirely dissolved by the Chaldeans, and
themselves made captive, and carried to Chaldea and else-
where, their country being all laid waste, their cities burnt,
their commonwealth, their laws, religion, and liberty, at an
end. Now, if this be not a departure of the sceptre, if this
be not the loss of sovereignty, it may be as well affirmed
that, when Alexander became master of the empire of Per-
sia, after the death of Darius, and the captivity of his
family, and destruction of his capital, and after laying all
GENESIS XLIX. 10. 237
waste before him, I say after Alexander's having performed
all this, it may, with as much reason, be affirmed that the
sovereignty, or sceptre, had not departed from Persia ; and,
indeed, with much better reason; for Alexander himself
adopted the Persian manners, and, as far as he was able,
became a Persian; but the Jews, on the other hand, in
Chaldea, forgot their own language, and in a degree became
naturalized to the country and customs of their masters.
Notwithstanding that the conquered Persians nearly sub-
dued their masters, by their falling in with the Persian
manners, yet it is true the Scriptures fix the dissolution of
the Persian empire. The same reasoning will hold good
with regard to all the revolutions which have happened in
the world ; for if the entire conquest of the kingdom, and
the transmigration of the' people, be not the departure of
the sceptre, or which is the same thing, loss of independence,
then may Constantinople be said to be the metropolis of the
Greco-Roman, and not of the Turkish empire; but this is
too obvious to be farther insisted upon. I have yet to ob-
viate one objection which is alleged against what I have
here advanced, it is this : It is said the departure of the
sceptre at this time was of too short duration to be taken
notice of in the text. To this it may be answered, that
seventy years' captivity, or the loss of independence for
that space, is absolutely a chain in time, where it was to be
one continued series of time ; that, as the loss of one link
in a chain destroys that connexion necessary to its being one
chain : so here this chain in time, of seventy years, as much
destroys that uninterrupted continuation of the sceptre's
residence in Judah, and as much denies the truth of the
prophecy which expresses an absolute non-departure of the
288 APPENDIX.
sceptre, as if the captivity had continued seven centuries.
The question not being how long the sceptre might be gone,
but whether it was to depart at all.
In the 39th chapter of Ezekiel, the desolation of Egypt is
foretold in the strongest terms, when at the same time, it is
expressly declared, that that captivity should be for only
forty years, when a restoration was to take place ; which is
enough to satisfy us that the term of duration of the loss of
independence does not affect the point in question, the depar-
ture of the sceptre. But supposing for once, that seventy
years' captivity was too short a space to be taken notice of
in this prophecy, the restoration under the Persian monarchy
does in no wise answer the intent of the sceptre, or sover-
eignty of the text, which I think I have already proved to
be an independent sovereignty. -So this confession would be
of no real use to our adversaries ; because that restoration
of the Jews was still subordinate to the Persian government,
and may be considered only as a colony, sent to resettle a
waste country. This colony of Jews were sent by the Per-
sian government to repeople the country which had formerly
belonged to their ancestors, and which they were now to
hold under the protection and suffrage of the kings of
Persia.
Their governor, though a Jew, held the government by
patent from the king of Persia, over the new province of
Judea, with some particular privileges to the Jews, but still
considering them as his subjects ; and although the king of
Persia favoured the Jews with a governor of their own nation,
yet the tribe to whom the governor appertained was not at
all considered. After the time of Cyrus, the privileges of
the Jews were very precarious, and not confirmed till after
GENESIS XLIX. 10. 239
sundry embassies to and from the Persian court, as appears
from the Book of Ezra and Nehemiah. It seems the lieu-
tenants of Syria looked upon Judea as a province included
in their commission, which they did not care to part with, till
express orders came from the Persian court for that purpose,
This must give us a very mean notion of the sceptre, if it
were one. This I am sure of, that it is nothing like an
independent one, such as Jacob speaks of, and which by way
of eminence he calls shebet. When the Persian empire was
swallowed up by the Grecians, Judea, as a province of Per-
sia, fell under new masters, even before the entire reduction
of Persia, Alexander taking this in his way ; and it now
became a province of the Grecian empire. This was nearly
the situation that Judea continued in, until Antiochus, by
his oppression, cruelty, and irreligion, rendered it necessary
for the Jews to recover their liberty, or entirely abandon
their religion, and embrace idolatry; under such circum-
stances to revolt and set up for themselves, became abso-
lutely necessary. Then, indeed, and not before, did the
Jews become once more independent, under their leaders of
the Maccabean family, who were, however, not of the tribe
of Judah, but of Levi ; so that now the sovereignty was
transferred from the tribe of Judah to that of Levi ; nay,
the whole form of government was quite altered, and in
many respects different from what it was during the govern-
ment of the royal family of David. In his family, the kings
were so by divine right,' in the strictest sense ; but here, it
was partly by military force, from generals becoming kings,
through favour of the soldiery, and partly by the choice of
the people, who, finding themselves in desperate circum-
stances, were glad to see some able person at their head, and
240 APPENDIX.
readily received that family for sovereigns, judging that
those who had so well defended them, were most capable to
govern them : add to this, that as this family were priests,
they might have had very considerable interest with the
people, previous to the troubles that brought about this revo-
lution.
Still this is certain, let the Maccabean family have ac-
quired the royalty by whatsoever means, or the government
been what you please, from the time that the royalty was
abolished in the house of David, in the person of Zedekiah,
till this time, Judah was, as I before observed, but a province
at best, which will establish the vacancy in the sovereignty
of Judah for several seventy years. During this last form of
government, under the Maccabean family, Judea was sub-
dued by the Romans, and made a province of that empire ;
for notwithstanding the Romans allowed the princes of the
Maccabean family the title of kings, it was, however, a bare
empty title ; it being well known that the conquered princes
under the Roman empire were often cited to appear at Rome
for trial, and sometimes at the suit of their own subjects.
The kings of Judea were upon the same footing. Moreover,
the Romans struck at the very root of the Jewish constitu-
tion, when they appointed Herod king of Judea ; for by the
constitution no alien could be king, and Herod, as an alien,
could not legally be their king; yet by the power of the
Romans he enjoyed that dignity to his death. This shows
the servile condition to which Judea was then reduced.
Having thus run through, as briefly as I could, the his-
tory of the tribe of Judah, which compared with Jacob's
prophecy, as it stands translated, I cannot see what con-
nexion there is between them, nor in what manner it has
GENESIS XLIX. 10. 241
been completed, granting the shebet to imply an independent
royalty, which I have already shown to be the sense of it,
it will reduce us either to give up the text itself as untrue,
or that translation which reduces it to a contradiction. The
latter, I presume, ought to be given up, not the former.
This will lead us to consider whether a translation may
not be given that will free us from the before-mentioned
contradictions, and admit a reasonable solution. This is
what I shall now attempt, and explain myself thereon.
The text, then, I imagine, ought to be rendered thus :
"The sovereignty shall not depart from Judah, nor the
scribe from between his feet for ever, when Shiloh cometh ;
and to him shall the nations render obedience," or, if you
please, " to him shall be the ingathering of the nations/'
Any objections which might be made against the term " sove-
reignty," which I here use as the most intelligible, is, I
believe, already obviated. I have ventured to use another
term for the mechokek also, by rendering it a '' scribe or
secretary," instead of lawgiver, which I have already shown
to be incompatible with the theocratic constitution of the
Jewish government. Although it must be granted, there
will not be altogether the same reason against the legisla-
tive power being vested in the person of the Messiah, as
there was against its being vested in the nation under their
former kings ; as the power vested in the Messiah will be
much more extensive, as well as more unlimited, than any
other prince's whatsoever a Prince on whom will rest the
Spirit of God in a very eminent manner : yet I am, notwith-
standing, of opinion that no more is here meant by the
(ppno) mechokek than a secretary in common with all other
states. The radix, from which mechokek is derived, I take
21
242 APPENDIX.
to be a word that signifies " to engrave ;" hence the word
Chok (pn), "statute," from statutes, &c., being engraved. In
Scripture, mechokek is used for lawgiver, as Num. xxi. 19,
there applied to Moses ; the same, Deut. xxxiii. 21 ; in
Judges v. 9, 14, it is rendered rulers, it there may, I think,
also signify scribes. In Ezek. viii. 10, it is used for por-
traying. The next term, which I rendered differently from
the English version, and whereon is laid much weight is the
word ny. Here, I do not pretend that it is always made
use of in the sense I shall give it in this place ; all I aim at
is only to prove that the word will admit that meaning for
it is evident enough that ny generally signifies " until. 7 '
But then this rule must always hold good, that whenever
any equivocal term is used, which is capable of more than
one sense, that only ought to be understood which best
explains the author that makes use of it, and is most conso-
nant in the sense it gives to that particular passage, to the
whole tenor of the author's writings, and to the system of
which it is a part ; and that meaning which would reduce
the author to contradict himself ought to be rejected. This,
I think, is but fair dealing. This being granted, then, it
will be certain that ny, in this place, ought not to be under-
stood " until/' if capable of being rendered u for ever, or
evermore ;" and as it will be proved capable of meaning the
latter, and that the latter will also render the author consis-
tent with himself, and the system of which his writings are
a part, so it is but reasonable to understand the word here
in this latter sense. It is now necessary to show that iy
often does signify for ever \ that it does so will evidently
appear from the subsequent texts, where ny is used by itself,
or absolutely in that sense. Thus, Num. xxiv. 20, 24, ny
GENESIS XLIX. 10. 243
ON, "is to perish for ever and ever/' and in Job. xx. 4,
^D-Tj; nyT, " Hast thou known this from everlasting 1" also,
Psalms xcii. 8, DID^n 1 ? H# "ty, " For to cause them to per-
ish for evermore ;" Psalms cxxxii. 12, Tj; Hj? DrpJS DJ :
"Also their children for evermore ;" Psalms cxxxii. 14,
Ty Hy TiniJD nx?, " And this is my rest for ever and ever."
So, in Isa. ix. 5, ly ^x : " Everlasting Father, or father of
the age" ; Isa xxvi. 4 : ny "ty V 3 intoa, " Trust in the LORD
for ever and ever ;" Isa. xlv. 17, "tj; 'oSiy "iy ID^DH *6l :
"Nor shall ye be confounded for ever and ever;" Isa. xlvii.
15, ID# t^npl "ly jDty, " He that inhabiteth eternity, whose
name is Holy;" Isa. Ixv. 18, ~\y ny iSui Wl^ DN O, "But
rejoice and be glad for ever and ever;" and in Hab. i3fl3rn
"Hiri *\y, u And the everlasting hills were scattered." Be-
sides the texts above cited, the words lyh and i;n occur in the
Scriptures, in above thirty places, to signify duration, which
I think is sufficient to convince any one that ij will admit
the sense I have here given it. Now, if so understood in
this place, then it will follow that the particle "D ought
also to be rendered when, as it is always regulated in con-
struction according to the sense of the preceding and sub-
sequent parts of a sentence, and is rendered "that, when,
because," &c., as is well known to any one that has but a
moderate knowledge of Hebrew. The word nnp' occurring
only once more in Scriptures, and that in Prov. xxx. 17,
where it is necessarily rendered "obedience," makes it very
probable that it has the same meaning here ; especially as
the Messiah will have a universal sovereignty, and be truly
God's vicegerent on earth, it will be reasonable to suppose
that universal obedience will be paid him ; and if any other
passage in Scripture hint an ingathering of the nations, it
244 APPENDIX.
cannot be taken but in a very remote sense. Having thus con-
sidered the words of the text grammatically, it now remains
to see whether the text, in this light, does not appear more
natural, and more consonant with the other parts of the
Scripture than the translation rejected. To have a clearer
view of which, it will be necessary to observe that the bles-
sing given to Judah seems to consist of three parts.
The first, beginning at the 8th verse, proposes some
special privileges to be enjoyed by that tribe, as such, viz :
to be reverenced by the other tribes, to be powerful ; hence
Judah is compared to a lion ; he was also to be successful
against his enemies, implied in that phrase, thy hand shall
be on the neck of thine enemies. Each of these prerogatives
was actually conferred on that tribe ; Judah had the first
place in the camp, was superior in number to the other
tribes, and after the death of Joshua was appointed leader
in the conquest of Canaan. The second part contains this
notable prediction : that when Shiloh or the Messiah should
come, the sovereignty should be vested in Judah, in the
person of the Messiah himself, and should never depart
from it, nor should the scribe or secretary ever fail attending
the royalty, and that the nation should be obedient to his
government.
At what precise time this great event should take place,
is not there said, only that it shall certainly come to pass.
Agreeable to this is that of Isaiah : li There shall come a
Redeemer unto Zion," &c., lix. 20; but he is much more
expressive and clear in the llth chapter of his book; there
he describes the Messiah as yet to come, and is negatively
precise in regard to the time, that is, that it should not be
till after the second captivity. In respect to the person of
GENESIS XLIX. 10. 245
the Messiah, he is also clear as to his tribe and family,
which was to be of the tribe 'of Judah, and family of David.
(Jesse). He also speaks with precision in regard to his char-
acter, affirming that he should be invested with the power and
sovereignty from on high; that he should be vested with right-
eousness, mildness, indeed, with every virtue in the greatest
perfection ; that he should administer justice from an intui-
tive knowledge ; that the nations should cheerfully obey
him, and that they should earnestly repair to his standard.
He was also to unite the house of Israel and Judah, and
heal that breach which has so long subsisted between them.
Finally, that he should restore universal peace on earth, and
universal righteousness was to obtain throughout the world.
As these singular blessings were to be the effects of this
great prince's administration, so were all mankind to be
partakers of pure wisdom; and the whole earth (as the
prophet expresses it) was to be filled with the knowledge of
the Lord. Much to the same purpose is Jeremiah, wherein
(chap, xxxiii. 4, to the end) the restoration of the House of
Judah and Israel it promised under the HD " branch" of
David, and which, I think, cannot so much as be pretended
to have been literally accomplished. This branch he then
describes as a most upright and perfect prince. These
prophecies are all delivered in a very pompous and sublime
style, and in the most emphatic terms, suitable to the dig-
nity of the subject. Ezekiel, who wrote later, in the 37th
chapter of his book, from v. 21 to the end, gives us a more
particular description of the union of the Houses of Judah
and Israel, together with the promise of their final restora-
tion under the Messiah, than either of the before-mentioned
prophets, and with this circumstance, that when this predic-
21*
246 APPENDIX.
tion took effect, then they should be no more divided or dis-
persed ; but that the government should be established and
firm under their prince, Messiah, in this respect corres-
ponding with Jacob's prophecy, that when Shiloh came, the
sovereignty should evermore continue in Judah, and agreea-
ble to the other part of the same prophecy, that the people
should render him obedience. As the Messiah was to be a
just and perfect prince, the prince of peace, being a subject
under such government is the greatest happiness, which is
nearly the same that Ezekiel says should happen at the res-
toration of universal peace and equity upon earth, and
which is the consequence of a cheerful obedience to a just
government.
Thus far, then, Jacob, Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel
agree. Another thing alluded to in this prophecy, is extent
of dominion; David repeats the same thing, Psal. Ixxvii.
17, both regarding the same person ; indeed, the whole is
so often included in Scriptures by the greatest part of the
prophets, that it becomes unnecessary to produce more au-
thorities where the thing is so evident.
The third part of this prophecy has a more special rela-
tion to the fertility of the inheritance of the tribe of Judah ;
part of this has been accomplished ; but it is to receive its
full completion in the latter and final restoration under the
Messiah, which is also a circumstance not omitted by the
later prophets, though the latter seem to regard the whole
of the land of promise, and Amos in particular. I shall
therefore transcribe chap. ix. 13, &c., " Behold, the days
come, saith the LORD, that the ploughman shall overtake the
reaper, and the trader of grapes him that soweth seed; and
the mountains shall drop sweet wine, and all the hills shall
\
GENESIS XLIX. 10. 247
melt. And I will bring again the captivity of my people Is-
rael, and they shall build the waste cities, and inhabit them ;
and they shall plant vineyards, and drink the wine thereof;
they shall also make gardens, and eat the fruit of them.
And I will plant them upon their own land, and they shall
no more be pulled out of their land which I have given
them, saith the LORD thy God." This is so very plain,
that it requires no comment to show the resemblance it bears
to Jacob's prophecy. Thus we see the English version in
this particular cannot be true; because it makes the text
inconsistent with the tenor of the whole Scriptures, so far
as it has any concern with any part of it ; and from what
has been said, it affords a strong presumption that the Mes-
siah is not yet come ; because when he comes the sceptre is
not to depart from Judah ; but the sceptre not being now
in Judah, it follows the Messiah has not yet come.
And the prophets say, when the Messiah comes, things
are to assume a new face ; and peace and righteousness are
universally to obtain among mankind; but as peace, &c.,
does not obtain universally, it follows, &c. Farther, the
prophets say, the Messiah is to restore Israel, and their
country is to be repeopled by them ; but Israel is not resto-
red, &c., therefore the Messiah has not yet appeared, &c.
The prophets say, the whole house of Israel is to be miracu-
lously gathered from all their dispersions ; but as they are
yet dispersed, therefore the Messiah, &c.
P. S. Throughout the foregoing piece, I have considered
the text as it stands pointed in our Bible ; but it is now well
known, and has been fully proved, that the points are but
a modern invention, and it is not improbable that the word
248 APPENDIX.
Ty might be originally read as if pointed with cholem ; this
would alter the sense, and instead of u for ever/' it would
be i;? 'od, u anymore, or again ;" which would imply that
the sceptre having departed once or oftener, it should, when
Shiloh came, depart no more, but remain fixed in the tribe
of Judah \ this would be still plainer than supposing it iy
'ad, for ever.
It is observable, the word my " anymore" is written once
or twice* in Genesis without the l ; ny, whereas I think it is
written nowhere else so
MR. DIAS ON THE SECOND PSALM.
The following is in answer to a paragraph of a letter re-
lating to my translation of the 2d Psalm :
In regard to my translation of the 2d Psalm, I have no
concordance ; so I cannot examine if the word bar is made
use of for son in any other part of the Hebrew writings of
the Old Testament or not. But I think (and I believe I
am not mistaken) that Mr. Nieto, who ought to understand
the language, translates it as I do; and if I am not greatly
mistaken, I followed him therein. But, be that as it may,
* This occurs in Gen. iii. 22, and xix. 12 ; the Massorah notes other
passages, as Job ii. 9, and several others not now remembered. ED. Oc,
PSALM II. 249
the translating the word bar in that place son gives no man-
ner of advantage to the cause of Christianity; as I think
the whole psalm refers to King David. But if it had really
any reference to the Messiah, what then ? Does the word
son make a divinity ? Are not all the house of Israel called
sons of God, Banim attem ladonai elohechem? (Deut.
xiv. 1;) and, in the second verse, Ki am kadosli attain
" For thou art a holy people unto the Lord thy God ?" I
know Raslii renders it, " Gird yourselves with purity/'
But if a text that the Christians think a great prop to their
cause (though, in truth, none at all) should be altered,
would it not look as if they had some foundation, if for
that reason another meaning were introduced, and a rea-
son required for so doing ? I have not now time to enter
into a farther disquisition of this matter ; another occasion
may offer, when I may give you my sentiments more at
large on this text. But, in the mean time, take this
along with it, that, let whoever be meant, it is in no wise
adapted to Jesus, without he had really proved himself the
Son of God, in a manner more particular than any other of
the sons of Israel, which he has not done, any more than
he has proved himself the Messiah. The arguments in the
foregoing sheet, prove how little claim he or any other has
yet had to that high character.
January 19. In my letter of this date (the foregoing,)
I told you I had no concordance, and therefore could not
say whether the word bar in the Hebrew writings of the
Old Testament was anywhere used for son. I had thought
for some time that I had seen it used in that sense, but
could not recollect where. This evening I took a Hebrew
Bible, and I fancied I had in my mind a passage wherein it
250 APPENDIX.
was made use of, and in a very little time found it in Pro-
verbs xxxi. 2 : " What my son ? and what the son of my
womb ? and what the son of my vows ?" Every word son
is here in the text bar. I have cited the text as it is in the
English Bible, though I think the word here rendered what
ought to be wherefore. However, this is nothing to the
present purpose. I shall, notwitstanding, observe to you
that the text from Daniel, which I have transcribed, is also
from the same version. I have this evening looked over
that also in the original, where I think there might be made
some amendments in the translation. If, on farther scru-
tiny, it appears in a clearer light than what the present ver-
sion shows it, it may afford me an opportunity of giving it
to you in the light it may appear to me. It is now past
eleven o'clock at night, so must conclude, &c.
AN ABSTEACT
FROM CHIZZUK HA-EMUNAH, IN A LETTER TO A FRIEND
THIS author, after having pointed out several passages in
the law and prophets, which plainly speak of this present
general dispersion of Israel and their redemption therefrom,
as well as the destruction of the Fourth or Roman Empire,
proceeds to show, from several prophecies relating to the
restoration of Israel, and the establishment of the kingdom
of the Messiah (which being all unaccomplished,) that the
CHIZZUK HA-EMUNAH. 251
Messiah cannot be already come, but is yet to be expected,
viz. :
First. The gathering together of the ten tribes and their
union with the tribe of Judah, in which Benjamin is in-
cluded, and their being subject to one king, who is to be
of the seed of David; the prophets calling that prince,
" David, my servant." (Ezek. xxxyii. 16, to end.)
Secondly. The invasion of G-og and Magog, and their
overthrow in the land of Israel. (Ezek. xxxviii. 39.) The
same thing is alluded to in Zech. xiv. 12 ; and Isaiah Ixvi.
19, seems to have reference to the same subject.
Thirdly. The dividing the Mount of Olives in a most ex-
traordinary manner. (Zech. xiv. 4 and 5.)
Fourthly. The destroying of the tongue of the Egyptian
Sea } the smiting of the river into seven streams, and caus-
ing a highway for the remnant of his people as it was to
Israel, when he came out of Egypt. All these things were
to happen, when the Messiah shall assemble the outcasts
of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from
the four corners of the earth. (Isaiah xi. 12, to the end.)
Fifthly. The flowing of living waters from Jerusalem
out of the sanctuary, &c. (Ezek. xxxvi. 1 to the end of 12,
and Zech. xiv. 8.)
Sixthly. That ten men from all the different nations
shall take hold of the skirt of him that is a Jew, &c. (Zech.
viii. 23.)
Seventhly. The going up of the remnants of all the na-
tions, which came up against Jerusalem, to worship the
King, the LORD of Hosts, and to celebrate the Feast of
Tabernacles. (Zech. xiv. 16.)
Eighthly. The universal observance of the new moons
252 APPENDIX.
and Sabbaths, for the times appointed for coming to worship
before the LORD. (Isaiah Ixvi. 23.)
Ninthly. The extirpation of idolatry, and even the mem-
ory thereof; together with the fake prophets and unclean
spirits, from the earth, as appears from Zech. xiii. 2, Isaiah
ii. 18 ; and confusion and shame are denounced against idol
worship. (Isaiah xlii., and Psalm xcvii. 7.)
Tenthly. That the divine law (to wit : that law which
God gave unto Israel by the hands of his servant Moses)
should obtain throughout all the world, and one faith uni-
versally prevail. (Isaiah xlv. 11, &c., and 23 ; Ibid. In. 1,
&c. ; Ibid. Ixvi. 17, &c. ; Zech. ix. 7 ; Ibid. xiv. 9.)
Eleventhly. That one general dominion or universal mon-
archy, that is, the kingdom of Israel, which Daniel, ch. vii.
v. 27, calls the holy ones of the Most High, should obtain
without ever failing. (Numbers xxiv. 17 ; Isaiah xlix. 23 ;
Ibid. Ix. 11 ; Daniel, in the place above cited.)
Twelfthly. That after the war of Gog and Magog, uni-
versal peace should obtain throughout the world, and man-
kind should have no farther use or occasion for weapons of
war, &c. (Isaiah ii. 4 ; Hosea ii. 18 ; Zech. ix. 10.)
Thirteenthly. That in the land of Israel, the beasts of
prey should cease to be so, and live quietly with the tame
cattle, and not hurt one another, much less mankind ; that
even the most noxious reptiles should become entirely inof-
fensive. (Isaiah xi. 6 ; Ibid. Ixiv. 25 ; Ezek. xxxiv. 25
and 28 ; Hosea ii. 18.)
Fourteenthly. That there will be, in a great measure, an
end of iniquity and sin ; but in an especial manner among
the people of Israel. (Deut. xxx. 6 ; Isaiah Ix. 21 ; Jer.
iii. 17 ; Ibid. 1. 20 ; Ezek. xxxvi. 25 ; Ibid, xxxvii. 23 ;
Zephan. iii. 13.)
CHIZZUK HA-EMUNAH. 253
Fifteenthly. That all distress, anguish, ana sorrow shall be
no more in the land of Israel ; but the people of God, the
seed of Jacob, shall inherit that land, and long enjoy virtu-
ous and happy lives. (Isaiah Ixv. 9, 14, &c., to the end.)
Sixteenthly. The glorious return of the Divine Presence
to Israel, as in the days of old, when prophecy and wisdom
shall abound in Israel. (Ezek. xxxvii. 26, to the end.)
Seven teenthly. The coming of Elijah the Prophet, which
is to precede the great day of the LORD. (Malachi iv. 5.)
Eighteenthly. The building of the future temple, accord-
ing to its figure, dimensions, and order, &c., as described in
Ezek. xl. to xlv.
Nineteenthly. The division of the land, for the inheri-
tance of the twelve tribes of Israel, according to the portion
of each tribe. (Ezek. xlvii. 13, to the end of the book.)
Twentiethly. The resurrection of the dead, at least of
some particulars. (Deut. xxxii. 39 ; Isaiah xxvi. 19 ;
Daniel xii. 2.) (
These, and many more prophecies of the same import,
being yet unaccomplished, are, all of them, still to be ful-
filled ; and, thereby prove that the Messiah described by the
prophets, whose coming we await, is not already come, but
is yet to be expected with certainty.
The author, after the foregoing proofs, adds : If these
appear insufficient, you have yet farther evidence in the
Book of .Daniel. The place referred to is chap. ii. v. 31 to
45. I shall not here confine myself to a translation, but
follow the hints he has given me in the interpretation of the
text, which I shall, in the first place, transcribe, that you
may have it before you, whereby you may more easily judge
how the explication accords with it.
22
254 APPENDIX.
u Daniel, chap. ii. v. 31. Thou, oh King, sawest and
behold a great image : this great image, whose brightness
was excellent, stood before thee, and the form thereof was
terrible.
"32. This image's head was of fine gold, his breast and
his arms of silver, his belly and thighs of brass.
" 33. His legs of iron, his feet part of iron and part of
clay.
" 34. Thou sawest, till that a stone was cut out without
hands, which smote the image upon his feet, that were of
iron and clay, and brake them to pieces.
" 35. Then was the iron, the clay, the brass, the silver,
and the gold broken to pieces together, and became like the
chaff of the summer's thrashing-floors ; and the wind car-
ried them away, that no place was found for them ; and the
stone that smote the image became a great mountain and
filled the whole earth.
" 36. This is the dream ; and we will tell the interpreta-
tion thereof before the king.
" 37. Thou, oh King, art a king of kings ; for the Grod
of Heaven hath given thee a kingdom, power, and strength,
and glory.
" 38. And wheresoever the children of men dwell, the
beasts of the field and the fowls of the heaven hath he
given into thine hands, and made thee ruler over them all.
Thou art this head of gold.
" 39. And after thee shall rise another kingdom, inferior
to thee, and another third kingdom of brass, which shall
bear rule over all the earth.
" 40. And the fourth kingdom shall be strong as iron ;
forasmuch as iron breaketh in pieces and subdueth all things,
CHIZZUK HA-EMUNAH. 255
and as iron that breaketh all these, shall it break in pieces
and bruise.
"41. And whereas thou sawest the feet and toes, part of
potter's clay and part of iron, the kingdom shall be divided;
but there shall be in it of the strength of iron ; foras-
much as thou sawest the iron mixed with miry clay.
" 42. And as the toes of the feet were part of iron and
part of clay, so the kingdom shall be partly strong and
partly broken.
" 43. And whereas thou sawest iron mixed with miry
clay, they shall mingle themselves with the seed of men ;
but they shall not cleave one to another, even as iron is not
mixed with clay.
" 44. And in the days of those kings shall the God of
Heaven set up a kingdom which shall never be destroyed ;
and the kingdom shall not be left to another ; but it shall
break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms ; and it
shall stand for ever.
"45. Forasmuch as thou sawest that the stone was cut
out of the mountain without hands, and that it brake in
; pieces the iron, the brass, the clay, the silver, and the gold;
j the great God hath made known to the king what shall come
1 to pass hereafter; and the dream is certain, and the inter-
j pretation thereof sure/'
The image here described consisted of five parts, of as
j many different materials, viz : the gold, the silver, the brass,
the iron, and the iron and clay; indicating four great em-
pires, which were, respectively, to have almost universal
dominion, so far, at least, as to have no rivals in power
when at the summit of their greatness. Each of these, in
their turn, had dominion over the people of God. It is
256 APPENDIX.
generally agreed that the gold was descriptive of the Baby-
lonian empire, the silver, the Persian, the brass, the Gre-
cian, and the iron, the Koman. The prophet allots to the
fourth monarchy two parts of the five, the iron alone, and
the iron and the clay. He declares, also, that the destruc-
tion of the image is to begin by being smitten on the feet,
composed of the iron and the clay. The power which is to
effect this is the kingdom which the God of Heaven is then
to set up. That is the kingdom of the people of the saints
of the Most High (Dan. vii. 27), or the kingdom of Israel,
who are called the Holy People, as will appear by the texts
hereto annexed. This universal empire, the kingdom of
the Messiah, was to destroy the image by smitting it on
the feet of iron and clay. This is a circumstance very
worthy of notice ; for, the fourth monarchy, in its greatest
strength, is described as consisting of iron only. This was
the state of the Roman empire until its decay. This, then,
was not the time of the kingdom of the Messiah.
The fourth monarchy, in its first state of iron, is well
enough understood ; but in its state of iron and clay it is
not so clear. I sometime was inclined to think that the
German empire, which yet retains the name, and, in some
respects, something of the form of the Koman empire,
though weakened and divided, to be meant by the iron and
clay. It is in this particular that this author has hinted to
me something that I had not before thought of. From the
time of Daniel, the world was to have four principal Gentile
monarchies, the fourth, by much the most potent, as well
as most extended, and, while in the iron state, was in pos-
session of almost all Europe, a great part of Asia, together
with Egypt, and most of the coast of Africa bordering on
CHIZZUK HA-EMUNAH. 257
the Mediterranean. The several nations inhabiting this
very extended dominion were all parts of the fourth mon-
archy in its connected state of iron, or strength. During
the greater part of this period of the Roman empire, they
patronized the religions of all the parts of their empire ; and
there was little or no distinction made on that head. Before
the decay of the empire, Christianity made its appearance.
This, by its increase, became obnoxious to the government
for some time, and that only occasionally. But, before the
total subversion of the empire in its iron state, it became the
religion of the court. Whether the state of the iron and
clay may be said to commence at the dividing of the empire
into the Western and Eastern, or not, I will not undertake
to say. However, the empire now became weaker every
day, and was dismembered. In this condition of the empire
it was that Mahomedanism made its appearance in the world,
and in a little time became possessed of all the Roman pro-
vinces of Asia and Africa, and at last got possession of the
eastern, and, indeed, at that time, it may be said in some
measure, the sole capital of the empire. At this time, if
not before, it may be said with propriety that the fourth
monarchy became iron and clay. Our author supposes that
the Christian and Mohonaedan nations, which were the com-
ponent parts of the ancient Roman empire, are now the same
fourth monarchy in its debilitated state of iron and clay.
The iron and the clay, being so contrary to each other as
not to incorporate, though blended together, indicates, as
he thinks, the Roman Christian and the Roman Mahomedan
parts of the empire, which, though intermixed in regard to
habitations and dominions, yet do not intermarry, but re-
main separate, and hold each other in contempt. It is during
22*
258 APPENDIX.
this divided and weak state of the fourth monarchy, and not
before, that the fifth monarchy, the kingdom of the Mes-
siah, which is in no wise included in the image, is to
reduce the iron and clay, as well as the other component
parts of the image, or, in other words, the several kingdoms,
nations, and people, which either are or were the component
parts of the several monarchies included in the image, and
that in such manner as no traces of those monarchies will
afterwards remain, as well as to establish and extend the
kingdom of God over all the world : when the knowledge
of Grod, with universal righteousness and charity, shall pre-
vail throughout the whole world. Then shall the Lord be
One, and his name One; which Grod grant speedily. Amen.
The texts referred to above, proving the Israelites to be
called the Holy People, are the following, besides others
that may be omitted, viz: Exod. xix. 6; ibid. xxii. 31;
Deut. vii. 6; ibid. xiv. 1; Isaiah Ixii. 12; ibid. Ixiii.
18 ; Jer. ii. 3 ; Daniel (before cited) vii. ; ibid. xii. 7, and
to the end. The several passages produced by the author
in proof of the expected restoration of Israel speak very
plainly for that wished-for event under the government of the
Messiah, as well as for the reduction of all nations under
that happy dominion, so plainly, as the author observes,
that any one that attends to the import and meaning of
these predictions cannot, without doing violence to his
understanding, deny his assent to the foregoing propo-
sitions.*
* Alluding to the propositions he had advanced in his book.
YA 02862
BL
58476 TT
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY