other

proper. 'But, in what tolerable Senfe, car God Almighty be faid to beget David? Indeed, God Almighty is a common Father to us all, by reafon of his creating us, and providing for us; but then no one fays, upon this Account, God Almighty begets us; but that he made us, or takes Care of us. But Dr. Hammond, who, with Socinus and Grotius, is for running every Prophefy into a primary and fecondary Senfe, that he may with more Congruity apply thefe Words to David, brings in a like Expreffion, as he thinks, of Spartian the Historian, in the Life of Adrian, Natalis adoptionis erat 5 Id. Auguft. &Natalis Imperii. And fo might David, if he pleafed, have called his Inauguration-Day his Birth-Day, without any great Impropriety. But to fay, God begot him that Day, is fuch an odd and unmannerly fort of Metaphor, which neither Spartian, nor David, nor any Man of tolerable Senfe, can be fuppofed to be guilty of. But by the By, when the Apoftie, Heb. i, argues from this wonderful Generation, the Superiority of Chrift above all the Angels; it is hardly decent for any Chriftian to make this begetting (efpecially when it is ufhered in with fuch a remarkable Preface) to be nothing elfe but God's placing David upon the Throne. God Almighty. is recorded in Scripture to have done feveral mighty Things for other Perfons; but he is never faid to beget them; and no Inftances can be produced of this Nature, Befides, God Almighty is faid to have given the Perfon here fpoken of, the Heathen for his Inheritance, and the uttermoft Parts of the Earth for his Poffeffion. But when, I pray, was David in Poffeffion of the uttermoft Parts of the Earth? His Kingdom was bounded within the Territories of a fmall Country. And what Heathen Nations was he the Governour of? He exhorts to Kifs the Son, which was the EafternWay of Adoration in Divine Worfhip; and therefore David cannot be fuppofed to require it to himfelf. Nay, what Place in all Scripture can be alleged where any Perfon is called emphatically The Son, befides Chrift? Blessed are all they that put their Truft in him! fays the Pfalmift here. But what a blasphemous

Bb3

Exprefe

372

373

fion is this, for David to fay of himself! Any one has look'd into David's Pfalms, knows that it is his trine, That Men fhould put their Truft only in cd. Therefore, I conclude, this Truft, which has fuch Bleffednefs entailed upon it here, must be a Trust in God, and not a Truft in the Power and Defence of a Prince, which, in many, Places of Scripture, has a Curfe entailed upon it, as particularly fer. xvii. 5. Curfed is he who trufteth in Man. All these are fuch manifeft Characters of the Meffias, and can fo little agree to David, that any impartial Reader muft allow fome other Person to be understood here; which Perfon the Church of God, in all Ages, has agreed to be the Meffias. I will now only give you fome curfory Reflections upon the LXXII. & CX. Pfalm, which you object against; and then I hope I fhall have cleared this Matter pretty well.

LXXII

falm, a Irophesy of Chrift.

As for the LXXII Pfalm, I own it might be a Defign of David, when he compofed it, to write of his Son Solomon, after he had been anointed for his Succeffor in the Kingdom by Zadok; and David, his Father, had feen him publickly inaugurated, 1 King i. 1. And therefore King David defigns to make use of this Pfalm, as a Form of Prayer, to commend his Son to the Bleffing of God, upon that great Undertaking. But the Holy Spirit of God, which infpired this prophetick Prince, carried off his Thoughts from his firft defigned Subject; and by fome imperceptible Means of moving his Mind, made him fpeak all along afterwards of the Meffias. It is plain, that at firft he began to write of Solomon by this, Give the King thy Judgments, O God, and thy Righteousness unto the King's Son, V. I. But then, on a fudden, he falls a defcribing the Kingdom of a Perfon, which is perfectly unlike that of Solomon. His Kingdom shall laft as long as the Sun and Moon endures, throughout all Generations, v. S. And univerfal Peace and Righteoufnefs is faid to be in his Days, 7 & 8. But when did Solomon's Government extend to the Ends of the Earth, v. 8. and all Nations ferve him? v. 11. How can it be understood of this Prince, that all Nations fhould be beffed in him; when

ས་

perhaps

perhaps half the Nations of the World never heard of him? Thefe Confiderations weighed fo much with the Jews, that they, in all Ages, have explained this Pfalm of the Meffias. And I queftion not but David himfelf, when the uses the Words, All Nations of the World fhould be blessed in him, had regard to that old Promife of the Meffias to Abraham, Gen. xviii. That in his Seed fhould all the Nations of the Earth be blessed. The two Jewish Commentators, R. Obadiah, and Aben Ezra, fay this Pfalm is a Prophefy of the Meffias. And the Midrash, or Expofition upon the Pfalm, upon thefe Words, Give thy fudgments to the King, fays, This is the King Meffias. And in the Talmud, when the Queftion is asked, What is the Name of the Meffus? It is answered *Finnon, from the 17th Verse of this Pfalm, His Name fhall endure for ever. And R. Solomon farchi, and Kimchi, fay, that all their old Rabbins explained this Pfalm of King Meffias; and Kimchi particularly fays, that this is to be understood properly of the Chrift, but hyperbolically only of Solomon.

But as for the CX Pfalm, I look upon that, from CX Pfalm, the beginning to end, to be a Prophefy only of Chrift. Prophely And fo did thofe, who lived about the Time of the of Chrift. Preaching of the Gofpel, as appears by that Question of our Saviour to the Pharifees, about the Meffias, out of this Pfalm. The Lord faid unto my Lord, &c. If David call him Lord (fays he) how is he his Son? Which plainly fhews, that the Jews, to whom he put this Queftion, explained this Pfalm of the Meffias. And fo this Pfalm is explained of Chrift, Heb. i. 13. and x. 13. And fo likewise it is interpreted by Trypho, in Justin Martyr. And tho' fome of the modern Jews, out of Spight to Christianity, have interpreted this Pfalm as wrote upon Abraham or Melchizedeck, though without any Ground; yet there are not wanting fome of them, who attribute it to the Melias. Although the Midrash upon the Pfalms interprets this of Abraham, The Lord faid unto my Lord, &c. yet it is added, And this is likewife the Speech

* Vid. Glaffii Phil. Sacr. p. 99.

of God to the Meffias. R. Obadiah, upon this Pfalm, explains the whole of the Meffiah; fo doth R. Saadia Gaon upon Daniel; and fo do two ancient Rabbins, R. Barachias, and R. Levi, quoted by R. Mofes Ben. Nachman. It is plain, therefore, that the most unprejudiced and ancient Jews have interpreted this Pfalm of the Meffias, as well as the Chriftians; and if you attentively confider the Matter, you will find they had great Reason fo to do. For the Title of this Pfalm fays, it is a Pfalm of David; therefore David must be the Person that speaks. And now fee, if any other tolerable Senfe can be pur upon the Words, befides that which the Generality of Chriftians, and ancient Jews, underftand them in; The Lord faid unto my Lord, &c. What Perfon, befides the Meffias, could Jehovah fpeak unto, whom David could properly call Lord; and that with a particular Emphasis, my Lord? He was an independent Prince, and owed Subjection to no one in the World; and therefore he cannot be fuppofed to call any one Lord, but a Person of the Godhead, who was the fupreme Lord of all Things. The Apostle, Heb. i. 13. does very well argue, That it is a Character above that of the fupreme Angels, to say to any one, Sit thou on my Right Hand, and agreeing only to that of the eternal Son of God. Who, befides our bleffed Saviour, could be faid to be a Prieft for ever? Surely, not David himself, in whofe Time there was no Priesthood known but the Aaronical, and when no fuch unwonted Honour, as the Melchizedechian Priesthood, was ever heard of? For the fame Perfon to be a King and a Priest, was a Thing never ufed in thofe Times; and therefore the Expreffion must refer to the Time of the Meffias. Under the old Law, the Priesthood was a Thing perfectly distinct from the Kingly Office; and we find, 2 Chr, xxvi. 20. that King Uzziah was fmote with a Leprofy, for his ufurping it. And therefore I cannot but wonder at the Perverfenefs of fome of the Modern Jews, who will, with fo much Force and Straining, interpret this Pfalm otherwife than of the Meffias; contrary to the univerfal Opinion of their Fore

fathers

fathers, and in Oppofition to all common Senfe. And, as I obferved to you before, I cannot but as much admire, how much the Truth of the Chriftian Religion doth difplay itself, in making ufe, all along the New Teftament, of those ancient traditionary Explications of the Prophefies, which were from the first uttering of them retained in that Nation; whilft many of the Jews themselves, pertinaciously to defend their Errors, have been forced to defert them.

Phil. But by the By, Credentius, I do not find any Fault in the Jews for this; for it is never a Crime to rectify an Error, and if they found their ancient Explications would not hold Water, let them find out fome other Expofitions that will. That old traditionary Faith of theirs, which you, it seems, fet fo much by, was as much run down by Jefus Chrift: And for my Part, E cannot think but thefe ftrained fort of Expofitions you have dwelt fo long upon, are as ridiculous as their wafhing of Platters and Cups, and their false Notion of the temporal Kingdom of the Meffias.

Cred. You very much mistake the Matter, Philologus: For our Saviour does not find any Fault with the Jewish Explication of the Prophefies, but with their falle Gloffes upon feveral Moral Duties of the Law, and with their taking more Care to be exact in legal and ritual Performances, than in a good Life. He endeavours to fet them right in the Nature of the Kingdom of the Meffias; telling them it was not of this World, when they grofly imagined it was to be a temporal Kingdom. And in thefe Points, their falfe Comments, for which they vouched ancient Tradition, though fallely, needed Rectification and Amendment; but you do not find that our Saviour ever blames them for ill explaining the Prophefies, and taking thofe Places for Predictions of the Meffias, which were not. These were Things, which they received, in their Books and Traditions, uncorruptly from their Forefathers; because no Byafs of any corrupt Affections, or finifter Ends, could give them Temptation to make any Variation in them. Nay, the Notions of the Meffias,

long