PAG. VINDICATION OF THE DOCTRINE OF SCRIPTURE, &c. BOOK I. THE DOCTRINE OF THE ANCIENT JEWS CONCERNING THE MESSIAH. CHA P. I. Of Dr Priestley's Hypothefis on this Subject; and of Philo's Doctrine concerning the Logos. IT 46 T is of confiderable importance, with refpect to the decifion of this controverfy, to know what was the faith of the Church before the coming of the Saviour. Dr Priestley, in the first form which he gave his work, introduced the prophets as his witneffes. "The Jews," he says, "were taught by their prophets to expect a Meffiah, who was to "be defcended from the tribe of Judah ;-but none of their prophets gave them an idea of any other than a man like "themselves, in that illuftrious character, and no other "did they ever expect, or do they expect to this day "." VOL. I. A * Hift. of Corruptions, vol. i. p. 1. The The learned Gentleman was himself fo fully fatisfied of the truth of these affertions, that, important as they are in their connexion, he does not seem to have thought it neceffary to add a fhadow of proof. He makes bare affertion the very bafis of his fabric, as if he meant fairly to shew the world what they were to expect from the whole. However, in the enlarged form in which the fame work makes its fecond appearance, the author defcends a little from this dogmatical elevation, and deigns to favour the reader with fome kind of evidence. But it is partial and inconclufive. He endeavours to prove that the Jews, without exception, at the time of our Saviour's appearance, expected no other than a human Meffiah; and that they had no higher expectations in any fucceeding period. But he offers no proof of his affertion with respect to the doctrine of the prophets. Indeed, if the determination of this dif pute were left to the prophets alone, and if their teftimony met with the fame justice, in interpretation, that is ordinarily allowed to human writings, the difpute would foon be at an end. It would appear, that, if there be any meaning in language, if the prophetical writings were not defigned as an impofition on the common fenfe of mankind, all the prophets, who particularly wrote of the Meffiah, give the most distinct idea of a divine Perfon. But as Dr P. leaves his affertion with refpect to them without fup. port, it is unneceffary to confider it particularly. He wishes to take a lefs tedious and difficult plan, than that of exploring the depths of prophecy. If he can firft establish it as fact, that the Jews expected merely a human Meffiah, it will, in his account, be a sufficient prefumption with refpect to the truth delivered to them in Scripture. That the generality of the Jews, at the time of our Saviour's appearance, had very confused ideas of the character of Meffiah, few, perhaps, will be difpofed to doubt. But it may afterwards appear that they entertain ed |