was bold enough to take upon him to personate the prince expected. He
observes further, that in fact many such imposters did arise, and
deceived multitudes to their ruin and destruction.

I have laid these things together, because I do not intend to
dispute these matters with the Gentleman. Whether the Jews were a weak
and superstitious people, and influenced by false prophecies, or
whether they had true prophecies among them, is not material to the
present question: it is enough for the Gentleman's argument if I allow
the fact to be as he has stated it, that they did expect a victorious
prince; that they were upon this account exposed to be practised on by
pretenders; and in fact were often so deluded.

This foundation being laid, it was natural to expect, and I
believe your Lordship and every one present did expect, that the
Gentleman would go on to shew, that Jesus laid hold of this
opportunity, struck in with the opinion of the people, and professed
himself to be the prince who was to work their deliverance. But so
far, it seems, is this from being the case, that the charge upon Jesus
is, that he took the contrary part, and set up in opposition to all the
popular notions and prejudices of his country; that he interpreted the
prophecies to another sense and meaning than his countrymen did; and by
his expositions took away all hopes of their ever seeing the victorious
deliverer so much wanted and expected.

I know not how to bring the Gentleman's premisses and his
conclusion to any agreement; they seem to be at a great variance at
present. If it be the likeliest method for an imposter to succeed, to
build on the popular opinions, prejudices and prophecies of the people;
then surely an imposter cannot possibly take a worse method, than to