As to the difficulty that is raised against this explication from the words at the end of Deuteronomy—­“that there arose not a prophet since in Israel like unto Moses whom the Lord knew face to face.  In all the signs and wonders which the Lord sent him to do,” &c.—­ it is nothing at all.  For every one perceives, that the word “like” may be, and frequently is, used in scripture, and in common language, to signify, similarity in some, though not in every, particular; and every prophet, who speaks by God’s direction, is a prophet “like unto Moses,” who did the same, though he be not like, or equal to, him “in doing signs and wonders,” which is all that is affirmed in the last chapter of Deuteronomy.

And, finally, there is nothing to limit this prophecy to Jesus of Nazareth, if we allowed (what we reject) the Christian interpretation; since God might to-morrow, if such were his will, raise up a prophet like unto Moses in every respect, which Jesus certainly was not; therefore, it cannot be applied and restrained to the purpose for which it is quoted by Peter.

There is in the same sermon, in the 2 chap. of Acts, another passage quoted by Peter from the Psalms, and applied by him to prove the resurrection of Jesus, and on which he lays very great stress, which after all seems to be nothing to the purpose.  Peter says, “Him (i. e., Jesus) God hath raised up, having loosed the pains [or bands] of death, because it was not possible that he should be holden of it.”  And why?  “For [because] David speaketh concerning him, ’ I foresaw the Lord always before my face, for he is on my right hand, that I should not be moved.  Therefore did my heart rejoice, and my tongue was glad; moreover also my flesh shall rest in hope.  Because thou wilt not leave my soul in Hades, [the place of departed Spirits] nor suffer thy holy one to see corruption, thou hast made known to me the ways of life; thou shalt make me full of joy with thy countenance.’  Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day.  Therefore, being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit upon his throne.  He, seeing this before, spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in Hades, neither did his flesh see corruption.”

How imposing is this argument!  How plausible it appears!  And yet it is irrelevant, as Dr. Priestly frankly confesses, who tries to save the credit of the apostle by the convenient principle of accommodation!  The whole force of Peter’s reasoning depends upon the word “corruption.”  David did see corruption; therefore, he could not mean himself, but “being a prophet,” &c., he meant Jesus Christ.  Now, the whole of Peter’s argument is grounded upon two mistakes; for, 1st, the Hebrew word translated “corruption,” here signifies “destruction, perdition;”