phecies in the preceding effential particu'lars, I am induced to fufpect, that the 'Athanafians, Arians, and Socinians have, more or less, mifreprefented the nature, 6 6 person, and birth, of the Jefus, who, near 1800 years agone, came into the ⚫ world, and their feveral mifreprefentations of him are a strong prefumptive argu ment with me for the reality of the past advent of the Meffiah. For, if the event had not been in itself a matter of fact, 4 it could never have entered into their thoughts to mifreprefent it. Even the fictions of Heathen poets and philofophers are founded on a grofs perverfion of facts. The deluge of Deucalion, however intermixt by Ovid, with a fabulous account of the re-production of mankind, by him and his wife Pyrrha, manifeftly origi'natesin a confused tradition of Noah's flood. Nor is it at all improbable, the ftrange 'propenfity of mankind to delight in what they call mysteries in religion confidered, that the Chriftian converts from among the Gentile philofophers fhould, from a 'falfe, but well-meant zeal to exalt, and 'give additional dignity to, their Jefus, • represent 3 represent this extraordinary finless man, • the fon of Jofeph and Mary, as a being • more than human; and, as he was of immediate lowly parentage, though of re'mote royal defcent, facrifice the plain truth of his ordinary nativity, originating ' in generation from a man, and in parturi⚫tion from a woman, to the lying wonder of a præternatural incarnation from the womb of a virgin unincarnated with a man. • When one lie is framed, a fecond, according to the old proverb, must be invented to make the first credible. Hence they proceeded, in a regular train of miraculous falfhoods, from the forgery of • the præternatural Socinian incarnation, to that of the præ-existent Arian demi-Godhead, of Jefus, till at length they ven• tured to ascribe to him the abfolute Athanafian apotheofis, the finishing ftroke of “these wonder-working metaphyficians. • To the Eleufinian, and other mysteries of their facred Pagan mythology they had been, from their childhood habituated, and, as habits contracted at that early pe'riod I 2. ⚫riod of life become, in a manner, conge⚫nial with the human nature, it cannot be a matter of astonishment, that they should introduce incomprehenfible mystery into ⚫ the fimple and intelligible system of Chrif • tian theology. Thus, in like manner, among us, the • Pharifees of old, and the Mifhnical • Doctors of more modern times, have corrupted the Law of Mofes, the one with ⚫ their oral traditions, and the other with the fables of their Talmud, and put them fo near on a level with the Word of God, that they have thereby made the law of little or no effect; though the latter have now little or no place, as you have done us the justice to own, as far as you know, in the public worship of our fynagogues. C • I am confirmed in my suspicions of these feveral metaphyfical misrepresentations of Jefus, by your refutation of the erroneous reafonings of their respective supporters, ' reasonings deduced from detached passages ' of the Christian Scriptures; which are either not well authenticated, or if genu 'ine, ine, appear, when examined by their respective contexts, to be misunderstood, and warped from their obvious and rational fignification. You have, moreover, produced various paffages of the New Teftament, which reprefent Jefus as "the fon of David, and of the feed of David." These ex actly correfpond with the prophetic defcriptions of the Meffiah as "the man, "whofe name is the branch," that branch ⚫ out of the root of Jeffe, in which the Gentiles should truft, that righteous branch, which the God of our fathers promised to raise up unto David that" Prince of "of Peace," "in the language of Ifaiah, of • whom this fublime prophet fpeaks, that "of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the " throne of David, and upon his kingdom, "to order it and to establish it with judge"ment, and with justice, from henceforth, " even for ever.". • Hence I conclude, that Jefus is indeed the Chrift or Meffiah, and confequently 'propof 13 'propofe to acknowledge him as fuch, if, ' on a more attentive fearch of the Christian Scriptures, than I have hitherto bestowed on them, I find, that they contain those paffages refpecting his defcent from David, • which you have cited from them; for in a point of fo great importance, I will take 'neither your word, nor that of any other 'man upon truft. < In cafe the truth of your citations 'fhould be the refult of my inquiry, as I ' verily believe it will, I shall cordially la'ment with you the pernicious effects of the abfurd doctrine which those three renowned fects of Christian sophists, the Athanafian, Arian, and Socinian, confpire 'to impofe on the world, in the inftance ' of maintaining, that Chrift may be faid to ⚫ be of the feed of David, because his mo ther was of the house and lineage of David; not confidering, that in order to confti Itute the Meffiah a man of the feed of David, the feed of a man lineally defcended from that king muft neceffarily be inftru'mental in begetting him. It is a plain' • cafe, |