7. We, secondly, in the pursuit of our argument, affirmed that no other person came at or within the time limited that could pre- tend to be the Messiah. This the Jews themselves confess, nor can they think otherwise without destroying themselves; for if any such person came, seeing they received him not, nor do own him unto this day, their guilt would be the same that we charge upon them for the refusing of our Lord Jesus. There is no need, then, that we should go over the tragical stories of Bar-Cochba, Moses Cretensis, David el David, and such other impostors; for whereas none of them came or lived within the time determined, so they are all disclaimed by themselves as seducers and causers of great misery unto their people and nation. Herein, then, we have the consent of all parties concerned; which renders all further evidence unnecessary.
8. From what, therefore, hath been spoken and disputed, it re- maineth that either our Lord Jesus was and is the true Messiah, as coming from God in the season limited for that purpose, or that the whole promise concerning the Messiah is a mere figment, the whole Old Testament a fable; and so both the old and present religion of the Jews a delusion. At that season the Messiah must have come, or there is an end of all religion. If any came then, whom they had rather embrace for their Messiah than our Lord Jesus, let them do so, and own him, that we may know who he was, and what he hath done for them. If none such there were that can be so esteemed,
SECT. 7-10.| THE ONLY TRUE AND PROMISED MESSIAH. 375
as in truth, and as themselves universally acknowledge, there was not, their obstinacy and blindness in refusing the only promised Messiah is such as no reasonable man can give an account of who doth not call to mind the righteous judgment of God in giving them up to blindness and obstinacy, as a just. punishment for their reject- ing and murdering his only Son. And this argument is of such importance, as that, with the consideration of the doctrine of Christ and his success in the world, it may well be allowed to stand alone in this contest.
9, Our second argument is taken from those characteristical notes that are given in the Scripture of the Messiah. Now, these are such as by which the church might know him, and upon which they were bound to receive him. All these we shall find to agree and centre in the person of our Lord Jesus. Some of the principal of them we shall therefore insist upon and vindicate from the excep- tions of the Jews. The stock whereof he came, the place and manner of his birth, the course of his life and death, what he taught, and what he suffered, axe the principal of those signs and notes that God gave out to discover the Messiah in his appointed time; and as they were very sufficient for that purpose, so upon the matter they com- prise all the signs and tokens whereby any person may be prede- signed and signified.
10. First, For the family, stock, or lineage, whereof he was to come, there was a threefold restriction of it, after the promise had for a long time run in general, that he should be of the seed of the woman, or take his nature from among mankind. The first was unto the seed of Abraham, Gen. xii. 3; and under that alone there was no more required but that he should spring from among his posterity, until God added that peculiar limitation unto it, “In Isaac shall thy seed be called,” chap. xxi. 12. After this, in the family of Isaac, Jacob peculiarly inherited the promise; and his posterity being branched into twelve tribes or families, the rise or nativity of the Messiah was confined unto the tribe of Judah, Gen. xlix. 10. This made it further necessary that from him, by some one of the numerous families that sprang of him, he should proceed. Out of that tribe God afterwards raised the kingly family of David, to be a type and representation of the kingdom of the Messiah; and hereupon he restrained the promise unto that family, though not unto any particular branch of it. Hereunto no other restriction was ever afterwards added.
It was not, then, at any time made necessary by promise that the Messiah should proceed from the royal branch or family of the house of Dayid, but only that he should be born of some of his posterity, by what family soever, rich or poor, in power or subjection, he de- rived his genealogy from him. His kingdom was to be quite of
376. JESUS OF NAZARETH [EXERC. XVII.
another nature than that of David or Solomon; nor did he derive his title in the least thereunto from the right of the Davidical house to the kingdom of Judah. Thus far, then, it pleased God to design the stock and family of the Messiah: He was to be of the posterity of Abraham, of the tribe of Judah, of the family of David. And although this evidence in its latitude will conclude only thus far, that no one can be pretended to be the Messiah whose genealogy is not so derived by David and Judah unto Abraham, yet by the addition of this circumstance, in the providence of God, that no one since the destruction of the city and temple can plead or demonstrate that original, seeing this was given out for a note and sign to know him by, it proves undeniably that he whom we assert was the true Messiah; for to what end should this token of him be given forth to know him by, when all the genealogies of the people being utterly lost, it is impossible it should be of any use in the discovery of him ? 11. First, then, as for Abraham, there is no question between us and the Jews but that the Lord Jesus was of his offspring and pos- terity ; neither do they pretend any exception to his being of the tribe of Judah. The apostle in this Epistle asserts it as a thing notorious and unquestionable. Chap. vii. 14, I1péd_Aov yap, saith he, dri 2& *Iobda dvarérurney 6 Kbpiog huavr-—“ It is every way” (or “altogether”) “mani- fest that our Lord sprang of Judah.” IpédyA0v is in Greek authors not only “manifest,” but openly and conspicuously so. Thus he is said Javery xpodsrwg, in Sophocles, [ Aj. 1311,] who died openly and glori- ously by all men’s consent. Thus was the birth of our Saviour among the Jews themselves, as to his springing from the tribe of Judah. The apostle declares that it was dvavrippqrws, without any contradiction received amongst them and acknowledged by them; nor unto this day do they lay any exception unto this assertion. It remains that we prove him to have been of the family of David by some one signal branch of it; for, as we said, there is nothing in the promise restraining his original to the first, reigning family or the direct pos- terity thereof. Now this is purposely declared by two of the evan- gelists; who being Jews, and living amongst them, wrote the story of his life in the age wherein he lived, for the use of the Jews them- selves, with the residue of mankind. Matthew, who calls his record of it B/CAov yevecews, or navin 18D, “The roll of his genealogies,” shows in the front of it that he wrote it on purpose to declare that he was, according to the promise, of the posterity of Abraham and of the family of David: “Of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham ;” that is, who was promised to Abraham and David to spring from their loins. Luke also, who derives his genealogy from the first giving of the promise unto Adam, brings it down through the several restrictions mentioned, by Abraham, Judah, and David. Other testimony or evidence in this matter of fact it is utterly impos-