It would not be a difficult task to show that not only have these prophecies in relation to Edom been fulfilled in a general sense, but in their most minute particulars. But a sufficient amount of testimony has been adduced to show the blindness and folly of the Infidel who maintains that the writings of Isaiah are scraps picked up here and there, without connection or meaning; and also to prove the truthfulness of the prophets who denounced the judgments of Almighty God upon the land and cities of Edom.

The

The appeal is now confidently made to every candid reader, whether the Infidel has not been met upon his own ground, and his own requisition complied with? A number of predictions have been adduced, delivered in terms not only easy to be understood, but impossible to be misapprehended, and relating to events which no foresight or sagacity of man could ever have discovered or conceived. facts have been proved "by legitimate testimony; by witnesses who saw them, or other facts inconsistent with the non-happening of the facts in question." The prophecies adduced are only a very few out of a vast number. They have been selected, not because they are more striking than many others; but solely because the principal witness to their accomplishment in every respect stands high in the estimation of the adversaries; and as he was one of the most zealous and inveterate enemies of revelation, his testimony cannot be suspected. The Infidel, therefore, from his own showing is bound to believe "that the men who foretold these facts were prophets inspired of God."

It will not do for the Infidel now to fly from his own ground, and assert that the fulfillment of these prophecies is to be ascribed to chance, for as every effect must proceed from an adequate cause, reason and philosophy, as well as religion, must ascribe their fulfillment only to the inspiration of Almighty God. And if these predictions proceeded from God, the book which contains them is stamped with the seal of the Most High. The Bible is a revelation from heaven, and Infidelity must close her mouth in everlasting silence.*

* Persons who were present during the debate with Mr. Olmsted and the writer at Columbus, Mississippi, upon reading these pages, may feel disappointed at not finding in this chapter the argument by which the fulfillment of the prophecy of Moses, in relation to the present condition of the Jews, was sustained; and which, as was conceded by nearly all present, was a triumphant refutation of the false assumptions of Mr. Olmsted on that subject. The writer has omitted it for several reasons. 1st. Mr. Olmsted maintained that Ezra was the author of the prophecy, and that he suited the story to the event. Having in volume I. of this work clearly demonstrated the fallacy of this assumption, and thereby having utterly destroyed

SECTION I.

HAVING by unquestionable and legitimate testimony established that great truth, that the Seers of Israel were the true prophets of God, when it shall be shown that these prophets delivered predictions concerning the Messiah, numerous, pointed and particular; pointing out with singular exactness a variety of minute circumstances relating to times, places and persons, which human sagacity could neither have foreseen nor conjectured, and that all these found their accomplishment in Jesus Christ and the religion which he taught, then our last great argument will be concluded, and our work accomplished; for then it will be proved that he is the Son of God, and the New Testament a revelation from heaven.

That the great theme of the prophecies of the Old Testament was the coming of Messiah, is admitted not only by Jews and Christians, but by all intelligent Infidels. Jacob spoke distinctly of the coming of this illustrious personage. Moses prophesied of another lawgiver that God was to raise up in a future age. This personage is pointed out in many of the prophetical writings, such as the following: "thy King cometh thy salvation cometh: the Redeemer shall come to Zion: the Lord cometh: the Messenger of the covenant he shall come: blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord." So thoroughly have the Jews of every age been convinced that their prophets predicted the coming of this illustrious personage, that while they reject Jesus Christ as the promised deliverer, yet the expecta

the whole force of Mr. Olmsted's argument, if it had any force, it would have been out of place to combat it here.

2nd. The unreasonableness and absurdity of his argument is so apparent, and at the same time it is so lengthy, that to burden our pages with it, would answer no purpose, but to fatigue and disgust the reader. As its introduction was necessary to the proper understanding of the argument then delivered by the writer, he thought it best to omit it altogether.

3rd. Mr. Olmsted having called upon the advocate of revelation to prove the fact of the fulfillment of prophecy by legitimate testimony, and his requisition having been complied with; thereby the great question between him and the votaries of Christianity in relation to the inspiration of the prophets, has been settled, which, so far as he is concerned, renders all further discussion on this subject unnecessary. 4th. This work is by no means designed merely as a reply to the mass of false allegations of Mr. Olmsted. And as a sufficiency has been said thoroughly to expose the baselessness of his whole system of attack, it would be descending too much to notice all his worthless and contemptible cavils. Besides, much more formidable adversaries than he is, have had to receive a proper notice; and the space already occupied requires that this work shall be brought to a close as speedily as the na ture of the subject will permit.

tion of the Messiah has been so impressed upon their minds, that notwithstanding they have been dispersed throughout the world for eighteen centuries, and their hopes during all that period have been disappointed, yet it still forms their bond of union, which no distance can dissolve, and no earthly power can destroy.

The great question at issue is, Have, or have not, the prophecies of Messiah been fulfilled in the person of Jesus Christ? The Christian maintains the affirmative, the Jew and the Infidel the negative. Having clearly demonstrated the genuineness of the books of the New Testament, and having shown that the great leading facts detailed in them did occur, the settlement of this question is a comparatively easy task. As Jesus Christ himself, during his personal ministry on earth, referred the Jews, who were then his enemies, and afterwards his murderers, to their own sacred books, in order to learn who he was, and what was his office; and as after his resurrection and ascension, his disciples pointed them again to the prophecies which they read regularly in the synagogues, to convince them that he whom they had slain was the Messiah; to the same authority do we appeal for the settlement of this question.

Mr. English, who is one of the most ingenious and plausible of the Infidel writers, maintains that the prophecies relating to the Messiah, found no accomplishment in Jesus Christ. The strongest of his arguments on this subject is drawn from the position of the Rabbi Isaac in his "Munimen Fidei.". In it he gives the following reasons why the Jews deny the Messiahship of Jesus Christ. 1st. Because of his genealogy. 2nd. His works. 3d. The time of his appearance. 4th. The prophecies of the things to take place in the time of the Messiah were not fulfilled in his age.

sus.

"As to what concerns his genealogy, it does not prove this necessary thing that Jesus was the son of David. Because he was not begotten by Joseph, as the gospel of Matthew testifies. For in the first chapter of it, it is written, that Jesus was born of Mary when she was yet a virgin, and had not been known by Joseph, which things being so, the genealogy of Joseph has nothing to do with JeThe descent and origin of Mary is still less known, but it seems from Luke's calling Elizabeth, who was of Levi, her cousin, that Mary was of the tribe of Levi, and not of Judah, and consequently not of David, and if she were, still Jesus is not the more the son of David, descents being reckoned from the males only. Neither is the genealogy of Joseph rightly deduced from David, but labors under great difficulties. Matthew, and Luke also, not only disagree, but ir

reconcilably and flatly contradict each other in their genealogies of Joseph. Now it cannot be that the testimony of two witnesses who directly contradict each other in the matter to be proved by them, can be received as true. But the prophets have directed us to expect no Messiah but one born of the seed of David." *

With respect to the genealogy of Jesus Christ, no such objection was urged by the ancient Jews, but, as has been already shown, Mary is, in the Talmudical writings, called the daughter of Heli; of whom, in the genealogy given by Luke, it is said that Joseph was his son. And the reason of this was: "As the Hebrews never permitted women to enter into their genealogical tables, whenever a family happened to end with a daughter, instead of naming her in the genealogy, they inserted her husband as the son of him who was in reality but his father-in-law." As has been already stated, Matthew gives the legal descent of Jesus Christ, and Luke gives his natural descent. Mary, therefore, was not of the tribe of Levi but of Judah, and descended from David; nor is there any thing contradictory to this in the statement that Elizabeth, her cousin, was of Levi, for the sister of the mother of Mary might have married a Levite, the father of Elizabeth, which satisfactorily solves this difficulty. So that there is no contradiction in the different statements of Luke, neither do the genealogies of Matthew and Luke contradict each other. And the only difficulty in the genealogy of Joseph, is the omission of Joakim, in the eleventh verse of our version, which, according to Griesbach, instead of reading, "And Josias begat Jechonias and his brethren," should read, as it is in many manuscripts, " And Josias begat Joakim, and Joakim begat Jechonias."

Our Infidel proceeds with his Jewish quotation, "As to the works of Jesus, we object to what he said concerning himself, "Do not consider me as come to establish peace on earth, for I have come to send a sword, and to separate the son from the father, and the daughter from her mother, and the daughter-in-law from her mother-in-law." But we find the prophecies concerning the Messiah to attribute to him very different works from these; nay, the very opposite. For whereas Jesus testifies concerning himself, that he did not come to establish peace in the earth, but division, fire, and sword; Zechariah says concerning the expected Messiah, "He shall speak peace to the nations." Jesus says he came to send fire and sword upon earth. But Micah says,

* English's Ground of Christianity Examined, pp. 58, 59.
See Dr. Clarke, in loc.

that in the times of the true Messiah "they shall beat their swords into ploughshares and their spears into pruning-hooks. Nation shall not lift up a sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more," &c. Jesus says "that he came to serve others, not to be served by them." But of the true Messiah it is said, “All kings shall bow themselves before him, all nations shall serve him." The same also is said in Zechariah, "His dominion shall be from one sea to the other, and from the rivers unto the ends of the earth." And so Daniel, "All dominions shall serve and obey him."

It is at once conceded that in these statements there are things apparently contradictory and irreconcilable; but they are not more so than the things which in the Old Testament Scriptures are foretold of the great Deliverer; they are precisely of the same nature, and their elucidation confirms the Messiahship of Jesus Christ, as will presently be shown. In some predictions which refer to the Messiah, he is represented as a mighty conqueror, who shall rule the nations with a rod of iron; as treading down the people in his anger, and bringing down their strength to the earth. But elsewhere it is foretold of him, that a bruised reed he will not break, nor quench the smoking flax, but raise it to a flame; that he shall not cry, nor lift up, nor cause his voice to be heard in the streets. Elsewhere he is represented as coming from Edom, with dyed garments from Bozrah, glorious in his apparel, traveling in the greatness of his strength; and in contrast with this it is elsewhere said, Behold thy King cometh unto thee; he is just and having salvation, lowly and riding upon an ass. He is also represented as despised and rejected of men, oppressed and afflicted; as giving his back to the smiters and his cheek to them that pluck off the hair. On account of these seeming contradictions, the later Rabbins have invented a distinction of a double Messiah," one who was to redeem us, and another who was to suffer for us;" for they say that there are two distinct persons promised under the name of the Messiah, one of the tribe of Ephraim, the other of the tribe of Judah; one the son of Joseph, the other the son of David; the one to precede, fight, and suffer death, the other to conquer, reign, and never die. But this distinction is false and of a modern date; and it is an incontrovertible fact, that the Jews in all ages, until long after the time of Jesus Christ, viewed all these prophecies, however apparently contradictory and irreconcilable, as referring to one person.

Mr. English continues his Jewish objections: "3. As to the time; we object to the Christians, that Jesus did not come at the time designated by the prophets. For the prophets testify that the