same name with the Messiah, THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS : and thus we have a fourth person in the God-head, a fourth sense, for adoration. And if this is untenable, neither, for the same reason, is it tenable, that Messiah is in any sense God: no matter what name he will be called.

"All this explains what seemed to the Jews a dilemma, or contradiction, for the branch of righteousness is an unseparated portion of God united to Messiah. And this branch is the ensign, this, the standard; this is God within, who enlightens the hearts of men; this the covenant written; and the light to enlighten the Gentiles and the glory of his people Israel. it is called the new covenant, by Jeremiah xxxi. 31. it is called in Isaiah 42, God's elect, or gift for a covenant of the people; and for a light of the Gentiles. Thus, according to Isaiah liv. the barren Gentiles that bid not bear nor travail, shall produce more children in God, than Israel of the old covenant; once the married wife of the Lord."

Has it indeed explained the dilemma? have you not rather fallen into a worse dilemma? Have you not in truth given up the doctrine of the Trinity of persons? and in its stead broached that of a trinity of senses? will not your......ian brethren call it the Nicholatian heresy revived? is this the strait you are driven to, my brother? and what want I more?

"This is called the new covenant." Has it not been shown by Dea in No. 3. of vol. 2. of the Jew, what the new covenant is? and does it not appear it is not this? you assert, my brother, and we look for argu

ment.

Is this called in Isa. xlii. God's elect? then Isaiah takes great lisence. "Behold my servant" (a sense, an idea) "whom" (which) "I uphold; mine elect," (a sense) "in whom" (in which sense) "my soul delighteth: I have put my spirit upon him ;" (upon this sense this idea,) "he' (it, this sense, this idea) "shall bring forth judgment to the Gentiles." I feel, I need not enlarge, for it never will be received as correct. "The barren Gentiles that did not bear nor travail," appears (by your account, my brother,) to remain steril, One, out of ten thousand! I hope better things of them; and that you, my brother, will be delighted in the discovery of the mistake. But is it not apparent that Isaiah liiii. in its obvious sense, treats of the literal city Jerusalem? the Jews of the dispersion, are called the children of the desolate, the Jews of Jerusalem before the dispersion, the children of the married wife; the Gentiles are no farther mentioned, than as an inheritance for the children of the desolate.

"Though the posterity of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, were to be innumerable as the stars: yet that seed (not seeds) in whom, or in whose spirit, all the nations of the earth (ie the Gentiles) were to be blessed; is God, who will not give his glory to another; or rather is that indivisible portion of himself, manifested in the Messiah, the rod

or offspring of David and Jesse, and the BRANCH of righteousness or ROOT of both Jesse and David.

"Seed not seeds" (again Paul speaks.) As sheep, fish, brick, and people, so is seed, a noun of multitude, and signifies many, or one, according to its application, and context: In thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed, is tantamount to, in thy decsendents shall all the nations of the earth be blessed the same as, and thy seed, (or descendents) shall possess the gates of their enemies. Seed, in both places is a noun of multitude, and signifies, the literal descendents or children. But you will perhaps ask me, how all nations can be blessed by, or in the Jews? I answer: The Jews being blessed, will be a blessing to all the world: the history of thy descendents, will be well known to all the world, for they will be dispersed among all nations, the world will during all this time be without the knowledge of true religion, in continual broil, turmoil, and war, a very unhappy and unblessed situation: thy seed, thy descendents will finally receive the reward of all their sufferings, and all things having eventuated exactly according to the literal sense of the prophets, as they will have held; the world, will by their agency be convinced of the truth: and on their receiving the dominion of, and over all the earth, they will cause the entire and utter cessation of war: and consequently be a blessing to all nations. Here you will say, carnal minded, but I say, scriptural minded: show me out of the scripture, that I am incorrect. In despite of the error of Paul, I say SEED is plural, and means, descendents.

The incontrovertably true, and obvious meaning of the text, is this. By myself have I sworn saith the Lord, for because thou hast done this thing, and hast not withheld thy son, thine only son. that I will assuredly bless thee, and assuredly multiply thy seed as the stars of heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea-shore; and thy seed shall possess the gates of their enemies. And through the means of thy seed, shall all the nations of the earth be blessed."

All the world shall be blessed through the means of thy seed, who shall be multiplied and have possession of the gates of their enemies. This is the promise made to Abraham, his oath to Isaac, and made steadfast or certain to Jacob, for an everlasting covenant; saying, to thy seed will I give the land of Canaan, the line of their inheritance. But Jesus was not in possession of the land of Canaan, nor any other individual; therefore neither Jesus, nor any indivdiual can be intended as the SEED: for by the text, it must be a multiplied seed, who are in possession of the gates of their enemies. And as the Jews, the literal seed of Abraham, have an assured promise of the repossession

of the land of Canaan, and are indeed multiplied; therefore they are the SEED, in whom all the nations of the earth will be blessed. O thou who ever didst, does, and ever will exist! thou God of Abraham and his seed, hasten the event of thy promise by oath to Abraham.

Hence my dear, and well intending brother, you will perceive, SEED does not intend God, as you propose.

What you can mean by, "unseparated portion;" I cannot say it appears to me an engastromuthism, a sound without meaning: a portion is a part, can you mean a part of the indivisible Deity? can a whole be divisible into portions, parts, or lots, and the portions not be separable from the whole? If ...... is a portion of the Deity, then is the Deity divisible! O God? forgive us! See my brother, to what straits you are driven.

"This root in the man or seed of the woman, bruises the head of the serpent, and the serpent can hurt nothing but the flesh, which may be called the heel." What a pity the beneficent, the merciful God! did not say flesh, instead of heel or rather, what a pity the Romans, Jews, or Serpent, (for I will willingly join you, in laying the blame of the crucifixion, on the common enemy, or any body, or thing, even on an idea, or sense) did not pierce his heel, instead of his hands and feet: a little higher, and you might have cried out, A literal fulfillment of the promise. But as it is, that only the hands, feet, and side, are said to have been bruised; taking heel not to intend, literally the heel, but something else; you might as well suppose, hair was intended, or soul, as flesh. I see no reason why we shall depart from the literal meaning of the word: did the Omnicient want a proper word to express his meaning plainly? Or did he use a wrong word in a mistake? Or did he intend to deceive us? I see no force, no necessity, for departing from the literal meaning of the word, as is shown in Dea's letter, in this number. [To be concluded in our next.]

Subscribers in arrears, to "The Jew," are respectfully requested to forward the amount of their subscription.

THE JEW is published monthly, and delivered to subscribers in New-York, at their dwellings, and to distant subscribers, at the Post-Office in New-York, or any other conveyance ordered, for one dollar and fifty cents, per annum, payable semi-annually in advance.

to

THE JEW will be conducted with candour, temper, and moderation; the language to be always such as should not offend. Derision on subjects held sacred will never be admitted.

Communications, &c. must come free of expense, and be directed to S. H. Jackson, printer, No. 91 Mercer street, New-York.

BEING A DEFENCE OF JUDAISM AGAINST ALL ADVERSARIES, AND PARTICULARLY AGAINST THE INSIDIOUS

"And was not his heel bruised when Jesus was crucified about the end of the 70 weeks, or 490 years of Daniel, If 30 Messiah has come; and put an end to the sins and transgressions of the old and visible covenant, or law; by putting an end to the ceremonial law itself. For the law external being terminated, sin and transgression against it, are also ended: and thus Daniel's prophecy has been literally fulfilled: chap. ix. 24. &c. by the coming of the most holy in the flesh; and the end of the law by the death of the flesh. Thus he was a "mediator, by death, for the sins committed under the law;" and came to redeem the Jews from under the bondage of the law of types and ceremonies; and bring in everlasting righteousness, the Lord's law of his spirit written in the heart; which law is the new covenant to those who embrace it. “This law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul; this testimony of God is sure, making wise the simple." Ps. xix. 7."

The 70 weeks of Daniel you speak of, will in no shape suit the time of Jesus. It was, and is your province to show how they tally with his advent, as you term it. What was thereby intended will be shewn, God willing; at present, weightier matter must be first attended to: but your objection is naught, my brother; because you have only asserted, and not proved that they were fulfilled in Jesus: you have not shown that he was Messiah the Prince. (or Leader ;) neither have you shown him to be the Messiah, to be cut off after the 70 weeks: you should shew that he was cut off at the end, or after the 70 weeks; if you will do this, you will do that which has never yet been done; and your not having done this, superceeds the necessity of my explaining it at present: for I have nothing to combat. You should have shown when the 70 weeks, or 490 years began, and which made them to end with the cutting off, or crucifixion, and how all things in that prophecy was fulfilled; we then should have had an opportunity of Judging, and of either approving, or showing our reasons for not allowing it. You perhaps may say, others have already done it. Granted, but it has been explained by so many, and with so much difference, and contradiction between them, that you should have pointed out which you accepted as correct: when we should have

לו,that ואין

does

known which to consider: on our part, we dare not attack either in the present case, lest it is not the one you allow the correct explananation; for I believe there is not two......ian Commentators, who agree, and explain it alike; for these reasons I can only meet your assertion that he was cut off at the end of 70 weeks, by a contrary assertion, and I say, he was not crucified at the end of the 70 weeks of Daniel, nor anywise about that time. I further say not mean as translated in the English Bible, " And not for himself." As to the sins and transgressions, of what you are pleased to term, the old and visible covenant, which you say were put an end to, by the law external being terminated: you should have shown how the law was terminated. Daniel does not say any thing like it, his words are "to make an end, or finish sin or sinning," he says nothing about terminating the law..

If to act contrary to law, is crime or sin, what name shall we give to the subvertion of the law itself? According to you it makes an end of sin, when it is, itself, the greatest of all sins. The law is given by the Eternal, and by him commanded to be observed FOREVER. It always remains in force, and men may violate, but cannot disannul it; because it is of perpetual obligation.

You apply Psalm xix. to this New Testament: but it is plain David sings of the law of Moses; neither does he say a single word whereby we can have the least reason to suppose, any other was by him intended. Speaking of its faithful statutes, enlightening commandments, and righteous judgments, he takes the praise of guardedly observing them. Now what law did he observe, but the Mosaic Dispensation? And there is not the smallest colour of proof that he had the least thought of the New Testament. And I have already shown his language, when he does speak of it, in my explanation of Michtam Le David. Ps. xvi.

“If the sceptre, or right of Jewish sovereignty, was to belong to Judah from the time it commenced in David; and if none but such as descended from David or Judah, should be acknowledged king of the Jews, till Shiloh come; it is certain then, Messiah, or Shiloh, has come. You say the sceptre departed from Judah at the captivity of the Jews by Nebuchadnezzar. You might as well say the sceptre departed from Judah between the death of any one king, and the installation of his successor.-Did the Jews ever acknowledge any one to be their lawful king, before Herod the great? If you answer no, then Shiloh must have come about the time of Herod.-True ......ians have not three Gods, but one, Jehovah, and his spirit is their only sanctifier. To whom only I commend you dear Jews."

This objection, if it proves any thing, proves too much for the Messiahship of Jesus; even allowing it all the force it requires. "None but such as descended from David or Judah, should be acknowledged