king of the Jews till Shiloh come;" you say, "It is certain then, Messiah or Shiloh, has come." Let us for argument sake, say he has come; in that case, it must have been before the sceptre departed from Judah, that is before the destruction of the first Temple; for then the sceptre departed: for after that, none who descended from David or Judah, did in any shape hold the sceptre. As to your question about Herod being our lawful king, and none before, what can you mean? from the time of Judah Maccabeas we had lawful kings from the Chashmunian Dynasty, who were Levites, Priests, and as to Herod, he was indeed king, but not lawful; for he was not one of our brethren, but an Idumean. How then can Jesus be the Messiah, when the Messiah must have come, according to your reading, before the departure of the sceptre; even in the time of the first Temple, nearly 400 years before Jesus.

Again my brother, please to consider you wish to establish arguments which destroy each other. Jacob foretold, according to you, that the sceptre should depart from Judah, when Shiloh came. This sceptre is the throne of David, which did depart when Jesus came. Again, you wish to establish, that Shiloh is the Messiah, and does sit on the throne of David, from his advent even for ever. If your first proposition is correct, then Jesus is not Shilo; for Jesus sits on the throne and the Scepter is even now in Judah; then Shiloh cannot be the Messiah; because according to you when he comes, the Scepter must depart from Judah. on the other hand, if Jesus is the Messiah is the Shilo, and has the Scepter, then Jacob did not foretell the truth, for according to you he said, the Scepter should depart from Judah on the coming of Shiloh.

You must therefore, either give up Jacob, or Jesus: take either horn of the dilemma.

For my part I hold with Jacob; for he has foretold the truth. But he did not say nor intend what you make him to say; his words literally and correctly rendered, are these; The Scepter's departure from Judah, and the Scribe's departure from detween his feet, shall not be forever; because Shiloh will come, (and restore both) and unto him shall the nations be obedient.

As to the number of gods of the true ...... ian, I am willing to believe you have but one. But you will please to allow every one to call himself true, and have as many as he pleases.

May the God of Israel, enlighten our minds, grant us his grace, and give us to see his salvation; and that we, together with the righteous of all nations, may be written in the book of eternal life. Amen.

DEA'S LETTERS.

Continued from page 439.

The absurdity, and inconsistency of the doctrines, treated of in my last letter, proves the impossibility of applying the prophecy, or making it answer the purposes intended thereby, as some pretend that a two-fold death was implied in the sentence, they infer that Adam and 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 to be both, God and men. 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 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, enquire into the foundation of this two-fold death. "In the day that thou eateth thereof, thou shalt surely die." (1)This in Hebrew is expressed, by the words, Moth Yumoth, 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 Shemei, the same phrase is made use of, "On the day thou goest forth, and passest over the brook Kidron, thou shalt know for certain, that thou shalt surely die. (2) Heb. Moth Yumoth. The prophet Elisha uses the same phrase to Hazeal, to denote thereby the certainty of the death of Ben-hadab King of Syria. "The Lord hath shewn me, that he shall surely die." (3) Heb. Moth Yumoth. When Saul doomed his son Jonathan to death, he makes use of the same expression: "Thou shalt surely die Jonathan." (4) Heb. Moth Yumoth, he also uses the same expression, when he sentenced the Priest: "Thou shalt surely die Ahimelech," (5) Heb. Moth Yumoth

From which passages, and from all others in scripture, where the same phrase is made use of, it is plain that nothing 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 eat the forbiden fruit, he should be mortal. That being the punishment to be inflicted, he was banished Paradise, that he might be exposed to want and calamities; that by a decay of

(1) Gen. ii. 17. (2) 1st Kings, ii. 37. (3) 2d Kings, viii. 10. (4) 1st Sam. xiv. 44. (5) 1st Sam. xxii. 16.

nature and frame, 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 conduct reconcilable to the gooduess and merey of God? (6) Supposing a Legislature instituted a Law, and enacted a certain penalty, or punishment, to be inflicted on those who transgressed that Law: could any other, greater punishment be inflicted on the transgressor, besides that which had been enacted? would it not be a very great injustice, to impose a greater punishment, on the offender? and if this would be so in human laws, and tribunals, how much more so would it be in the Merciful God? In what a woful, and miserable state must the whole human race be in, if notwithstanding they in all respects obeyed the word of God, by which they were intitled to mercy, should notwithstanding continue, and be under his wrath and heavy displeasure! both here and hereafter! to what purpose did he give laws, if those who practised the duties enjoined by them, were not to be benifitted thereby? can this be made consistent? NO. This is invented, to give a colouring, to what is not on any ground whatever to be maintained, or supported. To support the doctrine before mentioned, it is pretended that this history of the fall, ought not to be taken literaly. I cannot better answer this objection, then in the words made use of by the authors of the Universal History. "It cannot be denied" say they, "that some of the philosophers affected such an allegorical way of writing; to conceal 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 relate 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."(7) Notwithstanding this assertion, these authors, immediately declare themselves of opinion, that it was the devil, who made use of the serpents body. That this beast stands for and means the devil, is also the opinion of every ..ian commentator, and is particularly asserted by Doc. Sherlock, who has taken great pains, to establish this point: but conscious, that the passsge as it stands, could not bear that meaning, he adds, "You'll say what an unreasonable liberty of interpretation is this? 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 ......'s miraculous conception, and birth, in this common expression? tell us also how, bruising the serpent's head, comes to signify, destroying the power of sin, and the redemption of mankind by (6) Univ. Hist. Vol. I. pa. 125. (7) Univ. Hist. Vol. I. pa, 135.

...... as the prophecy stands, (he ought to have said, the history,) there appears nothing, to point out this particular meaning, much less to confine the prophecy (the history) to it." (8) And I think that many good reasons ought to be given to his own objections: and a proper authority produced, for giving this history, any other sense : since as he himself owns, and readily allows, that the expressions do not imply this sense, necessarily. "We allow farther, (says he) that there is no appearance, that our first parents, understood them in this sense or that God intended, they should so understand them. (9) Yet notwithstanding, he has, on doctrines, our first parents knew nothing of, on doctrines which God never intended they should understand, placed and established all the hopes, and comforts of religion. (10)

But whatever may be pretended, (although, Adam by his fall forfeited that, whatever it was, which he for a very short interval, hád possesed, and was reduced to a state of labour, and subjected to sorrow,) yet it no where appears, that they were bereft "of a rational foundation for their future endeavours, to reconcile themselves to God by a better, obedience."(11) The best foundation, and indeed the only one, on which they could place their hope. And which I prefered to give you in the Bishop's words, and whenever this foundation has been neglected, and dependence on a mediator introduced, you may then be sure, that false religion, and false worship, takes place: for it would be very easy to prove, that it was such schemes, aud inventions, which gave the first rise to idolatry; and defaced true religion.

But whatever hopes, this learned person makes our first parents to have had, different from a better obedience; or whatever foundation he is pleased to make necessary for the preservation of religion, by the hopes "that their posterity would one day be restored," thus much is certain, that any such dependence, must have been ill grounded; for if his posterity, was to be restored by the satisfaction made by Jesus on the cross, nothing like it was effected; for the serpent still labours under the curse, women still bear children in pain, and continue in subjection to their husbands, (which some of them think the worst part of the curse,) the men still labour and sorrow; and death makes as much havock now as it did before. Let them represent things in what light they please, they still continue as they were before. Such inconsistencies, puts 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,

(8) Intent and use of Pro. pa. 59. (9) Intent and use of Pro. pa. 70-71. (10) Ibd. 60-61. (11) Ibd. 61.

curse.

advancing inconsistencies and contradictions; rolling as it were a stone up a steep mountain, with all his might, and then being obliged to let it fall, not able to stop it: beholding his lost labour. To establish these doctrines, they will have the serpent, stand for and be the devil; but can any thing 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 it with the brute creation; the devil I thiuk has nothing to do in this part of the The serpent was to go on his belly, in this punishment, the devil is also excluded; he was to eat dust all the days of his life, very improper food for the devil! therefore 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 bruise the other's heel; that being the part which he could 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, to denote plainer, that the whole concerns, the serpent and his seed and not the devil: and that the woman and her seed, is 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 serpent only; he is represented at the very first mention, as a cunning creature; "Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made,” (13) and for making a bad use of his subtility, 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 agreement between God the father, and God the son: indeed such an agreement, must be inconsistent, and proves different wills, in the God-head; that is, there must have been one, willing to make satisfaction, and another willing to recive it, whilst a third remained passive or neuter: acts as contrary to each other, as any distinct beings are capaple of: and incousistent with the same God.

Thus you see the impossibility of proving, what they pretend to do from the first eight verses, of this chapter, and how contradictory it is in every respect. The remainder will be seen to be the same. Vers. 9. "And he made his GRAVE, with the WICKED, and with (12) Intent and use of Pro. pa. 70. (13) Gen. iii. 11.