"They have done no iniquity? When no iniquity? Not in the days of Isaiah their own prophet, who cries, "Ah! sinful nation, people laden with iniquity, seed of evil doers." Not in the days of Josephus their own historian, who sets forth scenes of depravity which turn common wickedness into virtue, and declares "that the earth would have swallowed them, if the Romans had not swept them from its face?" No iniquity in the ages since; throughout the cities of the dispersion, where they are proverbially dishonest, and professedly unfaithful." &c.. &c.
Now all this eloquent invective can be set aside so far as it affects my application of this prophecy by this simple remark; that this prophecy neither relates to the wicked Jews of the time of Isaiah, nor of Josephus, nor the ages since, but refers to "God's servant Israel" i. e., not to the rebellious and reprobate of the Jewish nation, but to those of the house of Jacob, who have, who do, and who shall adhere to God's law, and obey his commandments; for no others of them will God acknowledge as "his servants."[fn54]
I would also observe, that the stress which Mr. Everett lays upon the phrase "no iniquity," shows either great carelessness, or great ignorance of the idiom of the Hebrew Scriptures; because every man, familiar with those writings, knows that this expression is one of those called Hebreisms, which must be understood in a restrained sense. In proof of which, and a decisive one too, I would refer him to the prophecy of Balaam, recorded, Num. ch. xxii. 21. where Balaam exclaims in his prophetic enthusiasm, "He [i.e. God] hath not beheld iniquity in Jacob, neither hath he seen perverseness in Israel."
Now I suppose that the 53rd. of Isaiah, is a representation of what may be the reflections of the nations, who have despised and persecuted "God's servant Israel," through the influence of the prejudices of their mistaken religion, but who had become sensible of their error by seeing the tremendous interference of God himself in their behalf, predicted over and over again by the prophets as to happen. The natural consequence of this conviction in the minds of those nations, would be a revulsion of the feelings to the opposite extreme. They would exaggerate the merits, and extenuate the demerits of "God's servant." They would reflect with astonishment and commiseration on their past sufferings. "We considered them," they might exclaim, "as a God- abandoned race, and devoted to wretchedness by him for having crucified their king. But instead of being the victims of God's wrath, they were wounded through our cruelty, they were bruised through our iniquitous treatment. It is we who have sinned more than they. We having gone astray in our ignorance, being without the knowledge of God and his law. How passive and unresisting were they! They were oppressed, they were afflicted, and complained not: when through false accusations and mistaken cruelty, they were plundered and condemned to die, they went like a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before the shearer is dumb, so they opened not their mouth. They were taken from the dungeon to be slain; they were wantonly massacred, and every man was their foe; and the cause of the sufferers who condescended to examine? They had done no iniquity to merit this: for their adherence to their faith, which we charged upon them as a crime, we now see to be approved of by their God, as an acceptable instance of unexampled perseverance in the cause of truth."[fn55]
Mr. Everett proceeds, p. 145, "If any thing needs be added, the following observation is important, viz. that there is one passage so clearly inapplicable to the Jewish nation, and so totally incongruous with the rest of the interpretation, that Mr. English passes it over without even the attempt of an explanation. It is this: in a part of the prophecy which he puts into the mouth of the Gentiles we read, "for [the Hebrew I must remind Mr. Everett reads "by or through,"] the transgressions of MY PEOPLE was he stricken," This Mr. English paraphrases "for [it should have been "by or through"] the thoughtless crimes of my people he suffered. But what the Gentiles could mean by "MY PEOPLE" he does not say, and this difficulty is fatal to the whole interpretation.""
I will presently show Mr. Everett, that this formidable objection, so emphatically announced, is after all a mere man in buckram; and I am almost sorry that in doing this, I shall be obliged to expose one more proof of Mr. Everett's having neglected the study of "the beggarly elements," in order to devote himself, without distraction, to the understanding of the delectable types and allegories of the New Testament. Mr. Everett certainly is a scholar and a man of talents, but he does not perfectly know, nor will [fn56] understand, the contents of the Old Testament; and the above objection is a proof of it.
He maintains, that the expression "my people," could not be used by a Gentile, and that therefore my whole interpretation of the prophecy in Isaiah, is fatally affected by his objection. I request Mr. Everett to have the goodness to turn to the book of Ruth ch i. 16., where he will find this Gentile, "this Moabitish damsel" saying to her mother in-law "thy people shall be my people." Will Mr. Everett look a little farther to the 1 Sam. ch. v. 10. in the Hebrew, (not in a translation,) where he will find the Gentile Philistines saying, "They have brought about the ark of the God of Israel to slay me and my people?" (ac. to the Hebr.) again, v. 11. "Send away the ark of the God of Israel, and let it go to his own place, that it slay me not and my people." (ac. to the Hebr.)[fn57]
Mr. Everett, therefore, may understand from these examples, why I passed over this phrase "without even the attempt of an explanation;" because, truly, I never dreamed, that this formidable objection, would have been made: or that any man would write, upon the Jewish controversy, who did not first inform himself of the contents and phraseology of the Hebrew Bible.
Having, as I believe, shewn that the 53d. chapter of Isiah can be understood of "God's servant Israel," I will now attempt to shew the reasons why I think that it cannot relate to Jesus of Nazareth.
1st. Of the subject of this prophecy it is said v. 9. "and he appointed his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his deaths," in the plural. Now of Jesus we read in the gospels the direct contrary: for the gospels represent that his death was with the wicked, and his grave with the rich.[fn58]
2. The use of the word deaths, in the plural, appears to me to necessitate the application of the prophecy to a people, not to an individual. The same is evident distinctly from the Hebrew of v. 8. at the end of the verse, in the word "lamoo."
3. The subject of this prophecy is said to have been "oppressed", i. e. by pecuniary exactions: for that is the radical idea of the Hebrew word, as is shown and asserted in the lexicons of the Hebrew language.[fn59] This is peculiarly true of the Jewish nation, but was not true at all with regard to Jesus.
And to conclude, this prophecy is quoted repeatedly in the New Testament. Now, that none of the quotations in the New Testament from the Old can be maintained as prophecies fulfilled by Jesus, is the opinion of the learned Christians Michaelis, Eichorn; Semler, Eckerman, Lessing, &c. as is allowed by Mr. Everett: of course the 53d ch. of Isaiah in their opinions cannot be adduced as a prophetic proof of Christianity: and Mr. Everett, in maintaining the contrary, has to struggle not only against argument, but the strongest Christian authority that can be produced on any question of Biblical Criticism.
Mr. Everett, in several passages of his book, has thought proper to charge me with errors; but in the course of his discussion of my interpretation of the 53d. of Isaiah, has directly accused me of falsehood and of fraud, p. 148. of his work.
With regard to many of these errors, the situation and circumstances I am in at present, put it out of my power to defend myself, because I cannot get the books he refers to in order to test his statements;[fn60] but of the latter imputations, the work of Mr. Everett itself not only enables me to justify myself, but to fix those charges upon him.
He says in the 148 page of his work, remarking upon my assertion in "The Grounds of Christianity Examined."—"In a word the literal application of this prophecy [the 53d. of Isaiah] to Jesus is now given up by the most learned Hebrew scholars, who allow that the literal sense of the original can never be understood of him,"- "Why does not Mr. English name these Hebrew scholars? Simply because his assertion is not true." Indeed! Does not Mr. Everett himself say in the 247 p. of his work, that Eichorn in a view of a work of Dr. Ekerman says, that "the principle of accommodation, which the better interpreters had already applied to many violations [fn62] in the New Testament, is by this author extended to all." "Though this opinion of Dr. Ekerman," says Mr. Everett, must be allowed to savour a little of the extravagance of theory, Eichorn adopts it. As the work alluded to, the "Theological Contributions" has become a classical book with one class of the German divines, who are thought to excel in critical learning, there is no doubt that this doctrine is generally received among them. MICHAELIS we all know admits it; and Marsh is the only famous critic of the present day who does not embrace it.
Now the 53d. ch. of Isaiah is quoted in the New Testament,[fn63] of course, therefore, according to Mr. Everett's own representations of the opinions of these learned critics, they must deny that the prophecy of Isaiah has any reference to Jesus, and hold that it is quoted merely by way of accommodation. And if so how has Mr. Everett dared to accuse me of falsehood in representing, that "the literal application of this prophecy to Jesus is now given up by the most learned Hebrew scholars, who allow that the literal sense of the original can never be understood of him"?! There is undoubtedly a falsehood told in this affair, and a conscious suppression of truth, but it is not I who tell the first, or conceal the latter.
Mr. Everett then proceeds. "Priestley and Grotius are all he claims, [the reader may see by the above that I might have claimed more,] Priestley was a learned man, but he has no pretentions as a Hebrew scholar, and though Mr. English quotes Grotius, he does it incorrectly." He declares that "Grotius has applied it to Jeremiah, and says, that Jesus Christ has nothing to do with it except in a secondary sense, but that the whole of it from beginning to end refers to Jeremiah." "There are but few to whom I need say" continues Mr. Everett, "that the words of Grotius in his commentary are, "These marks have their first fulfillment in Jeremiah, but a more especial, sublime, and often indeed more literal fulfillment in Christ." Mr. Everett's work p. 148. I do not see how this passage of Grotius contradicts my representation of his opinion. The passage from Grotius quoted by Mr. Everett declares, "that these marks [i. e. the 53d. of Isaiah] have their first fulfillment in Jeremiah;" of course they could not be fulfilled by any other except in a secondary sense, as I have asserted. As for the "more especial, sublime, and often indeed more literal fulfillment in Christ," I have always supposed that this and similar expressions in other parts of Grotius' Commentary, were understood, by all who were acquainted with Grotius' history and the times in which he wrote, to be intended for a mere salvo, as a tub thrown out to that great whale the vulgar; to contradict directly whose opinions with regard to the prophecies, was in the time of Grotius very dangerous, as he himself, notwithstanding all his precaution and truckling, seriously experienced.[fn64]
"Also, [Mr. Everett goes on to say,] in adducing the authority of Priestley for his interpretation without reference or qualification, Mr. English gives cause to think, that he did not know, or knowing forbore to state, that Priestley pronounces it impossible, in one of his works, to explain this prophecy of any but Jesus Christ. What Hebrew scholars are to be named with Lowth and MICHAELIS, who both assert the literal application to Christ, Mr. English may one day learn, that asseverations like these whatever immediate effect they produce, will finally stand in the way of his character for veracity." p.149.
This has been to me the most irritating passage in Mr. Everett's book, because it is a tissue of impudent ignorance or impudent fraud, and as such I will prove it.[fn65]
I have always supposed, that in quoting the opinion of an author as authority, it is the fairest way to quote his last avowed opinions. Now the work of Priestley's which I refer to as applying the prophecy of Isaiah to the Jewish nation, as I do, is entitled "Priestley's Notes on Scripture," and was published after arrival in America, several years AFTER the work to which Mr. Everett. refers, wherein Priestley, maintained that it was impossible to explain this prophecy of any but Jesus Christ." Therefore this fact "gives cause to think, that Mr. Everett did not know, or knowing forbore to state (which I believe in my conscience is the truth) this circumstance" which completely acquits me at least of a suppressio veri.[fn66]
"What Hebrew scholars are to be named with Lowth and Michaelis!" Several—among whom Eichorn stands pre-eminent. Moreover, how has it happened that "the keen detector of dissonances" has contradicted himself in quoting Michaelis? Here, because he chooses to cling to the 53d. of Isaiah as favouring his cause, he quotes the name of MICHAELIS as asserting "its literal application to Christ." In another place, (p. 247.) where it is necessary to defend the New Testament from the charge of false application of the prophecies of the Old Testament to Jesus, he quotes again the great name of MICHAELIS as the patron of the system of accommodation, which system maintains that the 53d. of Isaiah has no application to Christ at all! but is quoted by the writers of the New Testament merely by way of allusion. Mr. Everett himself may live to learn, that such double dealing attempts to slander his opponent, and impose upon his readers, "whatever immediate effect they may produce, will finally stand in the way of his character for veracity," or at least for fairness and candour.
These are not the only instances in which Mr. Everett has calumniated me, and abused the good nature of his readers. For example—
I had maintained in my first work, that the gospel called of Matthew was a forgery, and not a translation from the ancient Hebrew gospel of Matthew, and had supported my opinion by saying, that learned Christians allowed that "it had not the air of a translation." This Mr. Everett contradicts as follows: "But Mr. English is aware that MICHAELIS, the highest authority on these subjects, pronounces that it is a translation, and maintains his proposition not less from the unanimous testimony of the ancients than from internal evidence." p. 472, of Mr. Everett's work.
I beg the reader after reading this to attend carefully to what is said by Mr. Everett in p. 464. "Semler's opinion of the origin and composition of the three first gospels, was the same as that of Le Clerc, MICHAELIS, Lessing, and Eichorn, and which has been illustrated and maintained by professor" Marsh. This opinion is that they were compiled from documents [not one document or gospel, but several] of our Lord's preaching and life, which had been committed to writing during his life, or immediately after, and which became after different additions, revisions and translations, the BASIS of our present gospels." Here the reader sees that when it is necessary to oppose my statements, in one place Mr. Everett avers that Michaelis maintained that the Greek gospel according to Matthew, was a translation of Matthew's Hebrew; in another place, where it is also necessary to oppose me, he avers that Michaelis believed that the gospel according to Matthew, Mark, and Luke were compiled compositions, and of course none of them were translations from any one work. "I would, says Mr. Everett, answer Mr. English fairly, or not at all." If this and the other instances quoted be specimens of Mr. Everett's fairness, what would be his conduct upon the very impossible supposition that he could be guilty of duplicity?
2. Mr. Everett tells his readers, that the Jewish Rabbies "are the most contemptible critics that have appeared;" that "they are so silly that he is almost ashamed to quote them;" that they were in short idiots. If so, of what value can their opinions be on controverted points, which must after all be settled by reason and scripture, and not by any bare human authority.[fn67] Nevertheless Mr. Everett is continually calling upon his reader to believe his arguments and statements upon the authority of these said Rabbies. If I were one of his Christian readers, I should consider myself insulted by such a procedure. It is almost tantamount to saying, "'it is true, my arguments are built upon the authority of fools, but yet they may serve to convince you."
3. I had accused the writers of the New Testament in my first publication, of having blundered in applying passages of the Old Testament as prophecies of Jesus Christ. Mr. Everett justifies them by maintaining in the 5th. chapter of his work, that it is true that these quotations cannot be supported as prophecies, but that they are excusable for the following reasons. The writers of the. New Testament were Jews; the Jews of their times believed that every text of Scripture had seventy-two faces, and that each one regarded the Messiah, and that the resurrection of the dead was also taught in every chapter of Scripture, though we might not be able to perceive it, and that the writers of the New Testament had been brought up in these silly prejudices, and therefore argued on these principles, i. e. that, notwithstanding their being inspired men and full of the spirit of the Almighty, they continued in this respect as silly as ever.
Now if there be a pious and sincere Christian in the world, and should have this hypothesis laid before him for his acceptance as the best means of defending the writers of the New Testament, from the charge of fraud or blundering in their application of the prophecies, I venture to say that that pious and sincere Christian would, without hesitation, believe the proposer of such an hypothesis to be ruining the cause he professed to defend. "What! he might say, are the quotations in the New Testament from the Old, indeed founded on folly, and alledged through stupidity? Have the writers of the New Testament, who are allowed to have been inspired by the Most High God with a perfect knowledge and understanding of the Christian religion, who are representing continually that Jesus Christ was foretold by the prophets, and that their own minds were opened by the Holy Ghost to understand the Scriptures, have they indeed though continually quoting the Old Testament, after all never quoted for us even one of the predictions on which they say their religion is founded? and have they spent all the time they devoted to writing for the salvation of the souls of men, in fooling with the Old Testament in the manner you aver? 'Tis false! 'Tis monstrous! Either your hypothesis is a fable, or Christianity, itself is like the dreams of the Rabbies."[fn68]
When I see such principles, and other like principles avowed in Mr. Everett's work, I feel myself authorized to propose to him the following questions, by which I hope he will not consider himself as put to the torture.
What, Mr. Everett, were your motives for quitting, so abruptly and unexpectedly, the most respectable society who had done you the honour to elect you their pastor, believing you to be the only man worthy to succeed the learned, eloquent and lamented Buckminster? This abandonment of your station took place after you had engaged yourself in the examination of the question between me, Mr. Cary, and Mr. Channing. If you felt doubts of the validity of the Christian religion, and were therefore scrupulous about going into your pulpit every Sunday to preach Christianity in the name of the God of Truth, and therefore resigned your post, your conduct thus far does you honour and not shame. But if, after this, you have allowed yourself to be overcome by the solicitations of interested friends (who might have been anxious that you should publish something, that would allay the suspicions and silence the rumours your conduct had occasioned) to give to the world your very singular book, you have acted a part unjust towards me, and injurious to yourself, for you now see the consequence. You are taken in the snare you had laid for me, and your violent dealing has come down on your own head.
I come now to the examination of the celebrated prophecy of the seventy weeks. This prophecy has always run [fn69] the crux Criticorum. It is unquestionably a very ambiguous one, since Mr. Everett himself informs us in a note, p. 167 of his work, that "Calovius whose day has passed a century ago, in a dissertation upon the mysteries of the seventy weeks, numbers twenty-five different Christian hypotheses," to which may be added at least two more, those of Michaelis and Blayney.
If so, I would ask what stress a reasonable man can lay upon a simple [fn70] prophecy which is allowedly so ambiguous, as to have led Christians, sincerely disposed to make a prophecy of Jesus Christ out of this passage, to interpret it at least twenty- seven different ways?
There appears to me to be a mistranslation at the root of the prophecy, which vitiates and confounds all the systems of interpretation; applied to it that I know of. I conceive that the prophecy should be translated thus.
"Seventy times seven [fn71] are determined upon thy people, and upon thy holy city, to finish transgression and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteoussness, and to seal [up] the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most holy things."
"Know therefore, and understand that from the going forth of the commandment to restore, and to build Jerusalem, unto the anointed Prince, shall be seven weeks; and [in] [fn72] threescore and two weeks the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times." [fn73]
"And after threescore and two weeks shall the anointed one be cut off, and have no successor; and the people of the Prince that shall come, shall destroy the city, and the sanctuary: and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end desolations are determined."
"And he shall confirm a covenant with many for one week, and in the midst of the [or, a] week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease; and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined be poured upon the desolate." Dan., ch. ix. 24, 27.
Whatever may be the true sigification of this prophecy, it is not, I conceive, favourable to the purpose to which Mr. Everett applies it, for the following reasons. 1. That in supposing what is commonly translated "seventy week's," to signify four hundred and ninety years, the prophecy would be falsified; for certainly the expiration of this period did not "finish transgression," nor "make an end of sins," nor "make reconciliation for iniquity," nor "bring in everlasting righteous," nor "anoint the most holy things," i.e. as I understand it, the new and eternal temple and its altar, predicted by Ezekiel in the last chapters of his prophecies. On the contrary, the Jews became more wicked than ever, and the temple then standing was destroyed to its foundations.
2. It follows from what is allowed by Mr. Everett himself, p. 159 of his work, that from the going forth of the word to restore and build Jerusalem, to the birth of Jesus Christ, was not seven weeks and sixty and two weeks, i. e. sixty-nine weeks, but EIGHTY-FOUR weeks, for he says there, that the duration of the second temple was "NINETY-FOUR weeks," i. e. six hundred and fifty-nine years. Now if my memory does not deceive me, Jerusalem was taken and the temple destroyed by Titus about the year seventy after the birth of Christ, which is equal to the prophetic weeks; therefore take ten weeks from the ninety-four weeks, (the time Mr. Everett states to have elapsed from the building of the second temple, to its destruction) and there remains EIGHTY-FOUR weeks, and not SIXTY-NINE. Which circumstance, appears to me to vitiate entirely the interpretation of Mr. Everett, who supposes the annointed one," spoken of as to be cut off after the sixty-nine weeks, to be Jesus Christ.
As to who the "annointed ones" were, the first I think entirely refers to Cyrus, and the last who was to be "cut off" and have no successor, may either mean the pious and good Onias mentioned in the book of Maccabees, who was the last I think of the legitimate Jewish High Priests, [for after his time History testifies that several, who had not the right of primogeniture as descendants of Aaron, obtained the priesthood by force, by intrigue, and by bribery;] or the last Jewish High Priest, Joshua [fn74] who perished during the siege of Jerusalem, according to Josephus. At any rate the anointed one who was to be cut off, cannot mean Jesus of Nazareth; because this anointed one was to be cut off in that same week of seven years, in which the city was destroyed, whereas Jesus was crucified forty years before that event; a circumstance I insist which excludes any application of this prophecy to Jesus.
The claims set up for Jesus of Nazareth are moreover evidently rejected by Daniel's prophecy, even according to Mr. Everett's interpretation, forasmuch as he did not appear at the expiration of sixty-nine weeks, but of EIGHTY-FOUR.
And to conclude this discussion, I would observe that Daniel, ch. iii, in his account of the image [seen in a vision by Nebuchadnezzar] whose head was of gold, breast and arms of silver, belly of brass, legs of iron, and feet and toes of iron and clay, is predicting the empires which have most influenced the fate of the Hebrew nation; i. e. the Babylonian, Persian, Grecian, and Roman, the last represented by "the iron legs," which did indeed bestride the world; these "iron legs" are represented as terminating in feet and toes part of iron and part of clay, which have no natural coherence; i. e. the Roman empire shall be divided into several kingdoms, partly strong and partly weak: a prophecy remarkably fulfilled in the history and condition of the kingdoms of Europe. The prophet goes on to say in ch. ii, that in the latter days of those kings or kingdoms, [which are yet subsisting] "the God of Heaven, would set up a kingdom which should never be destroyed," that of the Messiah. Of course the kingdom of the Messiah was not to be—not only not till after the destruction of the Roman empire—but not till the latter days of the kingdoms which grew up out of the ruins; whereas Jesus Christ was born in the time of Augustus, i. e. when the Roman empire itself was in the height of its splendour and vigour. Mr. Everett in p. 201, endeavours to escape the strong gripe of the prophet Daniel, by maintaining that these strong and weak parts, into which the Roman empire was to be divided, meant that it should be divided into "strong and weak institutions." Now to turn this sensible interpretation head over heels, [fn75] it appears to me to be only necessary to observe, that these strong and weak parts into which the Roman empire was to be divided, were, according to the prophet, ch. ii. 4.3. of Daniel, to "mingle themselves with the seed of men," i. e. make intermarriages; which, it appears to me to be a thing that "strong and weak institutions" cannot do. This, however has remarkably, been the case among the royal families of Europe, who intermarry too with the avowed design of cementing union and promoting peace and harmony. Nevertheless, agreeable to the prophet's prediction, they have not "cleaved together, but on the contrary have been almost constantly at war with each other.
"The children of Israel shall abide many days without a king, and without a prince, and without a sacrifice, and without an image, and without an ephod, and without teraphim; afterwards shall the children of Israel return, and seek the Lord their God, and David their king, and shall fear the Lord and his goodness in the latter days." Hos. iii, 4, 5.
"I will set up one shepherd over them, even my servant David, he shall feed [or govern] them, and he shall be their shepherd: and I the Lord will be their God, and my servant David, a prince among them." Ezech, ch. xxxiv. 23.
"David my servant shall be king over them, and there shall be one shepherd,"———" my servant David shall be their Prince for ever." Ezek. ch, xxxvii. 24, 25.
"They shall serve Jehovah their God, and David their king, whom I will raise up unto [or for] them." Jer. xxx. 9.
"Incline your ear and come unto me: hear and your soul shall live; and I will make an everlasting covenant with you, even the sure mercies of David. Behold I have given him for a witness, to the peoples, a leader and commander to the peoples." Is. Iv. 3, 4.
From such passages I inferred, in my first publication, that the name of the true Messiah, was to be DAVID, and not Jesus. To avoid the force of these passages Mr. Everett has recourse to allegory and analogy.
Jesus is prophecied of in these passages, says he, by the name of DAVID, because "there was an analogy between these two distinguished servants of God. David, from a low and humble estate, was raised to be the founder of the temporal glories of his kingdom; and Christ, not less humble in his origin, was the author of the spiritual distinction of Israel; David was the most illustrious political and Christ the most distinguished moral instrument of the Lord. David was commanded to entrust to his successor the election of the famous temple, which was the centre of the Jewish worship; and Christ has founded through the agency of his apostles that CHURCH by which his religion has been preserved, and diffused in the world."
"To laugh, were want of dignity, or grace, "And to be grave exceeds all power of face."
I assure Mr. Everett, that the days of Type and FIGURE are gone by, and have been succeeded among Biblical Critics by a stricter style of reasoning, and are now considered as "pious whims."[fn76]
In the present advanced state of sacred Criticism even the beautiful allegory in Paul's Epistle to the Gal. ch. iv. which makes Hagar, Abraham's maid, nothing less than "Mount Sinai in Arabia;" and Sarah, Abraham's wife, to be the "Jerusalem, that is above the mother of us all!" has come to be regarded as "rather queer."
I had also objected that the coming of the true Messiah, was according to the Old Testament, to be preceded by the appearance of Elijah the prophet on earth; and that he had not appeared before the era of Jesus, nor ever since.
In answer to this, Mr. Everett endeavours to show 173. & seq., that a man named John the Baptist—a righteous person,—whose raiment was of camels hair,—and whose meat was locusts and wild honey, who lived in the age of Jesus of Nazareth, was Elijah, and had a right to be so considered—by a figure.
To this I answer, that the prophecy of Malachi does not say "Behold I will send you one like Elijah, or "an Elijah,"—-but it says explicitly, and expressly, "Behold, I will send you Elijah the Prophet, before the coming of the great and terrible day of the Lord; and he shall turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the hearts of the children to their fathers." Mal. iv. 5,6.
Now who is "Elijah the Prophet?" undoubtedly the great prophet of Israel, who called down fire from heaven—who raised the dead to life—and who ascended alive to heaven in a chariot of fire; God by such a translation sufficiently intimating that he had in reserve for him, some extraordinary commission. Moreover the coming of this Elijah the prophet, was to be followed by. "the great and terrible day of Jehovah," by which name the prophets call the personal descent of Jehovah upon the earth, to take vengeance on the wicked, and to punish the oppressors and persecutors of his people.[fn77] Was the appearing of John the Baptist followed by this event? or has it yet occurred, though that man lived eighteen hundred years ago? His appearance, instead of being followed by the interposition of God to avenge Israel of its enemies, was on the contrary, followed by giving Israel into the hand of its enemies, who, "for the overspreading of abominations," made Jerusalem a desolation, and delivered over its sinful population to the chains of slavery, and the bands of Death.
Elijah the Prophet is to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the hearts of the children to the fathers." Did John the Baptist do this? On the contrary, the morals of his countrymen, in His age, instead of growing from bad to better, went on from bad to worse, till there was no remedy, and the Sword of God did his work.
Indeed, and indeed Mr. Everett you are wrong; And your superannuated allies, TYPE and FIGURE, whom I disdain to combat, cannot aid you to defend what is indefensible.
The Law of the Pentateuch, is pronounced by the Old Testament to be intended for a permanent and eternal Code for the Jewish nation. Mr. Everett denies this. Let us see nevertheless, if it cannot be proved.
The promulgation of the ordinance imposing circumcision on the descendants of Abraham, is in these words. "And God said unto Abraham, Thou shalt keep my covenant therefore, thou and thy seed after thee in their generations. This is my covenant which ye shall keep, between me and you, and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised.—He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised; and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant. And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant." Gen. ch. xvii. 9.— 14.
The ordinance of the Passover is also declared to be everlasting, "and this day [i. e. the feast of the Passover] shall be unto you for a memorial; and ye shall keep it a feast unto the Lord throughout your generations; ye shall keep it a feast by an ordinance forever." Ex.ch.xii. 14. see also v. 15.—in v. 17. it is said "ye shall observe this day in your generations by an ordinance for ever."
The ordinance of the day of atonement, is declared to be a perpetual institution, "It shall be a statute for ever unto you," Lev. ch. xvi. 29. "It shall be a Sabbath of rest unto you, and ye shall afflict your souls, by a statute for ever." v. 31. "and this shall be an everlasting statute unto you." v. 34.
The feast of offering the first fruits of the year, is declared Lev. ch. xxiii. 14. "to be a statute for ever throughout your generations, in all your dwellings."
The feast of the Pentecost, is also declared in the same ch. of Lev. 21. to "be a statute for ever, in all your dwellings throughout your generations." See also v. 41.
The ordinance of the Sabbath is pronounced a perpetual institution, "Verily my sabbath ye shall keep: for it is a sign between me and you, throughout your generations—Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the sabbath, to observe the sabbath throughout their generations for a perpetual covenant: It is a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever." Ex. xxxi. 13—17.
As it is clearly evident from such passages as the above, that the law of Moses was intended to be a perpetual rule for the Israelites "throughout all their generations," as long as they should exist, Mr. Everett, in order to get rid of their force, has thought proper to annihilate the Jewish nation with a stroke of his pen. He maintains p. 350. of his work, that no such nation exists as the Jewish nation! This unexpected stroke was to me a confounding one—not on account of its force—but on account of its amazing effrontery.
The Jews not a nation! ask the histories of mankind; ask all writers who give an account of the different nations and peoples into which the race of Adam is divided! and Mr. Everett will find that they all consider the Jews as "a distinct and peculiar people." "But, says Mr. Everett, p. 350, if they are a nation, we can be told whereabouts they dwell, and what cities they inhabit." Undoubtedly Mr. Everett can be told all this if he will take the trouble to ask their chiefs; and if he does he will be surprised to learn that the Jews, in cities and countries that can be named and pointed out, amount probably to ten millions of people, governed by their own law, so far as relates to their religion and intercourse with each other, and yet Mr. Everett maintains that the Jewish nation does not exist. [fn79]
But I have a solemn answer from immortal lips to give to Mr. Everett's assertion, which he may possibly, if he be a religious man, hearken to, and tremble.
"Thus saith Jehovah, which giveth the sun for a light by day, and the ordinances of the moon and the stars for a light by night; which divideth the sea when the waves thereof roar; JEHOVAH OF HOSTS is his name; if those ordinances depart from before me saith Jehovah, then the seed of Israel shall cease being A NATION before me FOR EVER.
Thus saith Jehovah, if heaven above can be measured, and the foundations of the earth searched out beneath, I also will cast off all the seed of Israel, for all that they have done saith Jehovah." Jer. ch. xxxi. 35, 36, 37.
But, says Mr. Everett, p. 352, "above all, the Jews have no national existence in respect of their religion; which is really the principal point to be urged. The tribe of Levi which was separated to the service of the temple, and the family of Aaron, exonerated [fn80] to the priesthood, and ordained to be "a perpetual duration" have both been long extinct, At least have long since ceased to be traced."
This is incorrect. The tribe of Levi is not extinct, neither has the family of Aaron ceased to be traced. Hundreds, perhaps thousands of Jews at present existing, are recognized by their brethren as of the tribe of Levi, and the descendants of Aaron to this day have the privilege of blessing the people in the Synagogues on solemn days, in a peculiar form which no other Jews are allowed to employ.
This marvellous fact, that the descendants of David and Aaron should yet be discriminated amidst the general confusion of the tribes, is an illustrious verification of the following promise of Him whose word never fails, which I now oppose to the last rash assertion of his creature who has denied it.
"Thus saith Jehovah, David shall never want a man to sit upon the throne of the house of Israel, neither shall the priests the Levites want a man before me [fn81] to offer burnt offerings, and to kindle meat offerings, and to do sacrifice continually. Thus saith Jehovah: if ye can break my covenant of the day, and my covenant of the night, and that there should not be day and night in their season; then may also my covenant be broken with David my servant, that he should not have a son to reign upon his throne, and with the Levites the priests my ministers. As the host of heaven cannot be numbered neither the sand of the sea measured, so will I multiply the seed of David my servant, and the Levites the priests that minister unto me." "Considerest thou. not what this people have spoken, saying, the two families which Jehovah hath chosen, he hath even cast them off? Thus have they despised my people that they should be no more A NATION before them. Thus saith Jehovah, If my covenant be not with day and night, and I have appointed, the ordinances of heaven and earth; then will I cast away the seed of Jacob, and David my servant, so that I will not take any of his seed to be rulers over the seed of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, FOR I WILL CAUSE THEIR CAPTIVITY TO RETURN AND HAVE MERCY UPON THEM." Jer. xxxiii. 17—26.
I presume that the CHRISTIAN CLERGYMAN who has contradicted his BIBLE and his GOD, is ready to exclaim like humbled Job; "I have uttered what I understood not; things too wonderful for me which I knew not; wherefore I abhor myself, and repent in dust and ashes." Job ch. xlii. See Appendix. H.
Shall I proceed to the consideration of some little arguments of Mr. Everett against the intended perpetuity of the Mosaic law derived from some expressions in the Psalms and the Prophets? Is it possible that Mr. Everett the scholar and the clergyman, is ignorant, that according to the idiom of the Hebrew language all such passages are merely expressive that God lays no stress upon sacrifice, and burnt offering, if unsanctified by righteousness and good works: Mr. Everett has blindly recommended a passage to my serious attention, p. 358, which ought to have made him sensible of this.
"Thus saith the Lord of Hosts, the God of Israel, put your burnt offerings to your sacrifices, and eat the flesh thereof. For I spake not unto your fathers, nor commanded them in the day I brought them out of Egypt concerning burnt offerings and sacrifices. But this thing commanded I them saying, obey my voice." Jer. ch. vii. 23, 24. What! might a critic of the cast of Mr. Everett exclaim, did not God indeed command the children of Israel, when he brought them out of Egypt, concerning burnt offerings and sacrifices? are not the books of Leviticus and Numbers filled with regulations concerning them? Very true, might a rational scholar reply to him, but this and several other expressions in the Psalms and Isaiah are Hebraeisms, i. e. peculiar idioms of the language, expressing comparison not rejection; this passage in Jeremiah implying that when God brought the children of Israel out of Egypt, in giving his law to them he laid no stress upon burnt offerings and sacrifices, in comparison with moral duties.
Finally, I would ask Mr. Everett, whether he believes it was the intention of David, of Isaiah, and Jeremiah, to declare to the Jews of their times that God would no more accept of burnt offerings and sacrifices! and that the ceremonial law was ipso facto abolished; because, if such passages do signify the abolishment of the Mosaic law, it must be considered as having been a dead letter ever since David, Isaiah., and Jeremiah uttered these expressions.
But, says Mr. Everett, p. 357, "the positive declaration of God, puts the matter [the repeal of the Mosaic law] beyond a doubt."
"Behold the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel; and with the house of Judah, not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers, in the day that I took them by the hand, to lead them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was a husband unto them, saith the Lord: but this shall be my covenant that I will make with the house of Israel, after those days, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people." Jer. xxxi. 31, &c.
I would observe first, that Mr. Everett in applying this passage to the purpose for which he has adduced it, has against him the opinions of all those Christian critics whom he allows to excel in critical learning; viz. Michaelis, Ekerman, Lessing, Eichorn, &c. For this passage is quoted to the same purpose in the Epistle to the Hebrews, ch. viii. 8. and all the critics above mentioned maintain, as Mr. Everett allows, that none of the passages of the Old Testament quoted in the New, can be supported as prophecies of the things to which they are applied, but hold that they were quoted merely by way of accommodation or allusion.
2. I would observe, that this passage is one out of several more in the prophets, which represent that after the general restoration of Israel to their country, God will put a new spirit in them, and cause them to obey his voice, (which was not done at the giving of the law, the Israelites being left to obey it or not; after being given to understand what should be the rewards of obedience and the curses of disobedience,)' this very chapter of Jeremiah, from which this quotation is taken, expressly representing, that this new covenant is to be made AFTER the Israelites are restored to their own land: which completely excludes the idea that this new covenant can relate to a new religion, fabricated seventeen hundred years ago; and renders the solemnity with which Mr. Everett has introduced it, somewhat ridiculous.
This new covenant also, is not to put the old law out of remembrance, but is to "write it on their hearts." "Behold, I will gather them out of all countries whither I have driven them in mine anger, and in my fury, and in great wrath; and I will bring them again into this place, and I will cause them to dwell safely: and they shall be my people, and I will be their God: and I will give them one heart, and one way, that they may fear me for ever, for the good of them and their children after them. And I will make an everlasting covenant with them, that I will not turn away from them, to do them good; but I will put my fear into their hearts, that they shall not depart from me. Yea, I will rejoice over them to do them good, and I will plant them in this land with my whole heart and with my whole soul." Jer. xxxii. 37—41. [fn82]
In order to manifest that the prophecy of the new covenant, quoted from Jeremiah by Mr. Everett, had no reference to the promulgation of the new [fn83] law, I had said in my first publication, "that though the prophet speaks of a "new covenant" he says nothing of a new law. On which Mr. Everett labours greatly to prove, See p. 357 &c. of his book, that the expression "making a new covenant," must signify making a new law, and cannot signify reimposition of the old.
There is a history in the Bible which convicts this opinion of mistake, which I propose in my turn to Mr. Everett's serious attention.
"These are the words of the covenant, which the Lord commanded Moses to make with the children of Israel in the land of Moab, beside the covenant which he made with them in Horeb. And Moses called unto all Israel, and said unto them; ye stand this day all of you before the Lord your God, your captains of your tribes, your elders, and your officers, with all the men of Israel; your little ones, your wives, and the stranger that is in thy camp, from the hewer of thy wood to the drawer of thy water; that thou shouldest enter into covenant with the Lord thy God, &c. Deut. ch. xxix.
And what was the covenant? why, as the reader may find by perusing the rest of this piece of history in the Pentateuch, it was the reimposition of the Law of Moses upon the new generation of Israelites, who were children when their fathers came out of Egypt. So that Mr. Everett must see, that God's making a new covenant, can be accompanied with a reimposition of the law, since in the instance considered, he has actually done it once before.
I have, however, another passage in reserve, which must compelMr. Everett to resign his unfounded opinions on this subject.
Moses, the giver of the law, after predicting most exactly what should befall the Jewish nation for disobedience to it, in the 28th chapter of Deuteronomy, proceeds in the 30th ch. to inform them, that the time would come, when "the Lord their God will turn their captivity and have compassion upon them, and will return and gather them from all the nations whither the Lord their God hath scattered them."
"If thy dispersion,[fn84] (says the lawgiver) shall be unto the utmost parts of heaven, from thence will the Lord thy God gather thee, and from thence will he fetch thee. And the Lord thy God will bring thee unto the land which thy fathers possessed, and thou shalt possess it; and he will do thee good and multiply thee above thy fathers, and the Lord thy God will circumcise thy heart, and the heart of thy seed, to love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, that thou mayest live. And the Lord thy God will put all these curses upon thine enemies, and on them that hate thee, and which persecuted thee. And thou shall return, and obey the voice of the Lord, AND DO ALL HIS COMMANDMENTS WHICH I COMMANDED ON THAT DAY." Deut. ch. XXX. [fn85]
In accordance with this express prediction of Moses, that when the Israelites should be gathered out of all countries into their own land, God would give them a heart and disposition to love the Lord their God, and to do all his commandments which Moses was then delivering to them are the prophecies of Ezekiel; who in his last chapters, after giving a prophecy of the general return of the descendants of Jacob to their own land, proceeds to predict the division of the country, between the Mediterranean and the Euphrates, among the restored tribes; and minutely describes the plan, parts, offices, and ceremonies, of a new and eternal temple to be raised upon the ancient site of that of Solomon, that is to be consecrated by the re-establishment of the magnificent ritual of Moses, with augmented splendour.
That the prophecy of Moses, and those of Ezekiel, referred to, have never yet been fulfilled, is undeniable; and that they will be fulfilled, will not be doubted by a Christian; and can hardly be disbelieved by a Sceptic, who will take the trouble to compare the history of "the eternal people,"[fn86] with the predictions concerning it which have been fulfilled to the letter.
Mr. Everett, in the 449 page of his work, speaks rather contemptuously of the law of Moses. It is somewhat unusual to see a descendant of savage wanderers of the woods, who painted themselves blue in order to look handsome,[fn87] and whose posterity, and among them Mr. Everett himself, might so far as religion and morals is concerned, but for the instruction originally derived from the law of Moses, be still in the same respectable state, speaking lightly of a Book to which every nation on the Globe, who have any rational ideas of God or futurity, are absolutely indebted for that invaluable knowledge. The Jewish, Christian, and Mohammedan religions, by which so many of our unfortunate race have been brought to a knowledge of God, and made candidates for an eternity of bliss, are all founded on, and derived from the Pentateuch. If that Book had never existed, those religions could not have existed. All that part of mankind who have any claims to reason in their Religion, are therefore indebted to this Jew Book for the benefit.
Nor is this all the wonder. The sublime and fundamental Doctrine of the Pentateuch—One God—Eternal and Supreme—-the Almighty Creator and tremendous Avenger—can be traced up to Abraham, that wandering shepherd who at the command of God left his country and his father's house, to go to a foreign land., where he lived and died a stranger and a pilgrim.
What ideas should we entertain of a man whose tent was frequented by angels, and with whom the Supreme "conversed face to face, as a man talketh with his friend!" of a man who lived and died a shepherd, yet to whom it was predicted four thousand years ago, by Him whose word never fails that "his name should be great, that it should be a blessing, and that in his seed should all the nations of the earth be blessed." Sceptic! has not this prophecy been fulfilled? Is not the name of Abraham a theme of blessing to the Jew—the Christian—the Magian—and the Musselman? Is not his name pronounced with reverence throughout the four continents of the Globe. Has not the earth been blessed in his seed? Is there a nation or people upon it, who have any rational ideas of God or futurity, who have not derived them from Moses, Jesus, or Mohammed? Are we not indebted to these descendants of this wonderful man,[fn89] for the consolations which support the soul under the trials of life, and for the faith and hope that smooth the bed of death? assuredly— assuredly. The events of past ages have verified the divine origin of the prediction, and ages to come will still farther confirm it.
Mr. Everett objects to the law of Moses, its multiplied forms and ceremonies; but these were mostly not obligatory upon the whole nation, but upon one tribe set apart to this duty, and who had nothing else to do.[fn90]
The influence of these rights [fn91] and ceremonies—and no religion can perpetually exist without them, for after all the [fn92] man is the slave of his senses, and powerfully affected by the impressions made upon them—cannot be doubted by one who attentively considers their amazing magnificence.
A temple blazing with the most precious productions of the mine,[fn93] and inaccessible to all but the consecrated descendants of one man, standing at the extremity of an immense area covered with variegated marble, and surrounded by magnificent corridors and porticos; a gorgeous host of nearly forty thousand priests,[fn94]: to minister at the ever smoking altar, and to nourish the eternal fire; the golden ewer containing the hallowed blood of atonement, and the censer streaming [fn95] clouds of fragrance, in the hands of the trembling descendant of Aaron approaching the inner sanctuary of the INVISIBLE AND ALMIGHTY; three hundred sons of song, accompanied with psaltery and cymbal, and "the harp with a solemn sound," resounding the attributes of HIM WHO IS, AND EVER SHALL BE;[fn96] and hundreds of thousands of worshippers prostrating their foreheads on the pavement in awe and extacy, as the temple shines forth with the Shechinah, streaming its rainbow glories into the heart of heaven, and covering the earth with its effulgence, plainly showing that GOD IS THERE! This, all this Mr. Everett pronounces, "all calculated to occupy the attention of a simple and unfeeling [fn97] people." p. 344.[fn98] There is, not however, a philosopher on earth that would [fn99] walk barefoot over its whole circumference to witness such a sight.
With this terminates my reply to Mr. Everett. I leave it to his consideration, whether he has fulfilled the magnificent promises held out to the public in the splendid table of contents prefixed to his book, from which it should seem as if I were actually crushed into the dust; and I leave it to the consideration of my abused and deluded countrymen, whether the heavy artillery of the law and the prophets, which I have wheeled but from the Old Testament, has not fairly blown the old board fences behind which a crazy superstition is ensconced, and which Mr. Everett has painted up to look like real fortifications, and mounted with quaker guns, to splinters and fragments.
WHAT was the real history and character of Jesus Christ?
Mr. Everett had a right to consider my expressions, relative to this subject contained in my first work, as "far from being explicit;" for in fact I hardly knew what to think of the unparalelled son of Mary. That he was a pious and blameless man, I conceived that no man of good heart could doubt, while the supposition that he claimed to be the Messiah, I believed and still believe to be incompatible with such a character as his.
With the reader's permission, I will now state what I conceive may have been the real truth with regard to him.
I believe that Jesus of Nazareth was certainly a righteous man, and probably one who wished to bring back his countrymen, to a rational observance of the law, and to abandon their traditions.
He appeared in an age when the religious part of the Jewish nation had made the law in many respects of none effect by those traditions, and had rendered their religion a stumbling block to the Gentiles, by reason of the puerile superstitions they had added to it: thus counteracting the express design, for which they had been set apart from other nations, viz. to bring them to the knowledge and acknowledgement of the unity and supremacy of God;) and violating the command of Moses, "ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it; for this is your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the nations, which shall hear all these statutes, and say, surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people." Deut. ch. iv.— and when the irreligious part of the nation, had become dreadfully corrupt.
The Jewish people at that time were oppressed and despised; the prophets of the Old Testament had taught them to believe that at a time when their oppressions should be at their height, their Messiah should appear. Of consequence the appearance of such a man as Jesus Christ, at that time when they considered themselves as crushed under the Roman yoke, possibly led them or some of them to believe that he might be their expected deliverer. But the Jewish nation at that time were unworthy of such a deliverance. They longed for their Messiah, not for righteousness, but for vengeance sake; not to hail him as the benefactor of the human race, but as the avenger of their wrongs upon all the world who had crushed and despised them.
Such a people were not the lawful candidates for the happiness of the eternal kingdom; and they afterwards learned, by the event of their struggle with the Romans, that they must not expect deliverance till they had become less unworthy of it.
Jesus, by preaching against the traditions of the elders, by not observing the Sabbath day so rigidly as the Pharisees, by denouncing them as hypocrites, tithers of mint anise and cummin, washers of plates and platters, and neglecters of the weightier matters of the law, justice, judgment, and mercy, as serpents, a generation of vipers, whited sepulchres, and what not, had enraged these superstitious fanatics to the last degree. But they could not wreak their vengeance, because he was protected, by the people whom the gospels represent as expecting with the most anxious impatience, that he would announce himself as their deliverer.[fn100] But when repeated importunity, accompanied by an attempt to seize upon him and by compulsion oblige him to head them, terminated only in causing Jesus to escape and withdraw himself from their wishes [fn101] the people were disgusted, and abandoned him.
The Chief Priests and Pharisees took advantage of this abandonment, to seize him and deliver him to the Roman governor as a dangerous man, who either was willing to head the people against the Romans, or who might be made the pretext of an insurrection, as the people had shown a disposition to recognize him as the Messiah. [fn102] Such I believe to be as near an approximation to the true history of Jesus Christ, as can be made at this day.
Let us now review the points I have endeavoured to establish in this work.
1. I have endeavoured to show that the miracles, supposed by Mr. Everett to have been wrought by Jesus in proof of his Messiahship, cannot be proved; because that the New Testament is not to be depended on as competent testimony for the real history and real doctrines of Jesus of Nazareth; and therefore, that the question of his Messiahship must in all events be decided by an appeal to the Old Testament.
2. It has been shown, that the prophecies of the Messiah contained in the Old Testament, have not been fulfilled in Jesus; and that those prophecies which Mr. Everett regards as proofs of the Christian religion, were also not fulfilled in Jesus.
3. It has been shown that the law of Moses was intended for a perpetual law for the Jewish nation, "through all their generations forever;" and of course that it is, and must be perpetually obligatory upon them; and consequently whether JESUS BE THE MESSIAH, OR NOT, the Jews are bound to adhere to the law of Moses.[fn104]
4. It has been shown, that [fn105] it is absolutely impossible to know the real history of Jesus with certainty; the Jews and Christians ought for the future to consider his character, not as a subject of dispute, nor an occasion of quarrel, much less as a cause of mutual aversion, but merely as a matter of speculation.
Should these positions ever be recognised by the Jews and Christians as reasonable and true, let us consider what, may be the consequence.
1. The Christians become sensible, that the New Testament is not to be depended on, would cease to hate, to persecute, and to annoy the unfortunate Jews, on account of their rejecting its doctrines.
2. The Christians would themselves adhere to the Old Testament, as the rock and rule of faith and morals; and would worship with the Jews the One Jehovah, without equal or companion, and obey the moral law of the Old Testament, leaving the observance of its ceremonial institutions to the nation for whom they were intended:[fn106] like the "devout Gentiles" in the time of Josephus and Christ.
3. The Jews, seeing the Christians Unitarians as well as themselves, would cease to regard the Christians as impious idolaters, and cruel enemies.
4. Both parties would worship and serve God as brethren, and children of the same father; and await in faith and hope the appearance of the GREAT PERSONAGE, who is to make them and all the good part of mankind, perfectly happy.
Should what I have written have any tendency to promote union and friendly feelings, between the parties to a dispute which has for nearly eighteen hundred years occasioned such cruel oppressions and bloody persecutions to the side which is in the right, I shall not have lived in vain; and though the cause in which I have exerted myself has occasioned me much detriment and distress,[fn107] and may possibly ultimately oblige me to die in a foreign land, without a friend to close my eyes; I comfort my heart with the hope, that I may have done somewhat for the great cause of truth, justice, and humanity, and for the promotion of mutual regard and friendly feelings, among a very large portion of the human race.
For instance, it is said in the 2d. ch. of the Gospel called of Mathew, that Jesus, when brought out of Egypt by his parents, "came and dwelt in the city called Nazereth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet. "He shall be called a Nazerene."
Now there is no such passage as this throughout the Old Testament: the author of the Gospel called of Mathew must therefore, it seems to me, have forged this supposed prophecy out of his own head, or must have mistaken the sense of some passage in the Old Testament: if he was capable of either, he was not the honest and inspired Mathew, the Apostle of Jesus Christ. There is a passage in the Old Testament, which might have led a Gentile, ignorant of the Jewish Scriptures into this mistake, but could not have misled a Jew. In the history of Sampson Judges xiii. 5. it is said, "that he should be a Nazarite unto God from the womb." But a Nazerite was one thing and a Nazarene another: the first was a man who had a peculiar vow upon him, described Numbers. 7. ch., but a Nazarene was a man belonging the city of Nazereth in Palestine. The quotation is a proof with me, that the author of the Gospel ascribed to Matthew was a Gentile, of course not Matthew who was a Jew, and incapable of making such a blunder.[fn108]
Again, in the Gospel called of Matthew ch. xxvii. a passage is quoted as a prophetic proof text from Jeremiah, says the author. "Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet saying, and they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him that was valued, whom they of the children of Israel did value; and gave them for the Potters field, as the Lord appointed me." There is no such passage as this in "Jeremy the prophet," nor in any of the Books of the Old Testament. But Jerom asserts, that it was taken from an Apocryphal Book ascribed to Jeremiah; he says that he saw the apocryphal book from whence this is taken. See Jerom's Commentary upon Matthew tom. iv. p. 1. p. 134, See also Marsh's Michaelis Vol. I. p. 490. as quoted by Mr. Everett.
It appears to me, that an honest man would not quote, as prophetical authority, a forged book ascribed to Jeremiah: and an inspired man as the Christians suppose Matthew to have been, still less.
In short the quotations in the New testament from the Old, adduced as prophecies of Jesus and the Religion of the New Testament, are so very inapplicable to that purpose, that the most celebrated of the Christian. Theologians of the present day, have found themselves obliged to abandon all attempts to support them as prophecies fulfilled in the events to which they are applied. They maintain, as will appear hereafter in the course of this work, that not one of the passages, quoted in the New Testament from the Old, was quoted as a prophecy, but merely by way of accommodation or allusion. If so, it may be replied, that it is very extraordinary, that the authors of the books of the New Testament who are almost continually representing that Jesus was predicted by the prophets, should after all never have adduced one of those predictions, although they are perpetually quoting the Old Testament. But the truth of the matter probably is, that the writers of the New Testament, did firmly believe that the passages they have quoted, were really predictions of the events and doctrines to which they refer them. This is clear from the Epistle to the Hebrews for instance, it is a deliberate and formal defence of the Doctrines of Christianity, addressed to the Jews, or Jewish Christians, in which the author attempts to show from the Old Testament, allowed by the Jews as oracular, that the Pre- existence, Divinity, Priesthood, and Atonement of Jesus Christ, as supposed by the Christians, were predicted in the Old Testament, and proved by his citations.[fn109]
Who is so blind as not to see, that this system of Defence is merely one of the last resort, adopted in circumstances of distress for want of a better?
Sure I am, that the believing part of the Christian Laity will never adopt this System, (though the unbelieving part probably gladly will) but would be extremely shocked on being told by their Clergy, that the passages quoted from the Old Testament by the writers of the New, which they and their predecessors from the 2nd century downwards have been accustomed to regard as veritable predictions of Jesus, and introduced too by such solemn prefaces as the following, "all this was done that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying" &c, or, "in this was fulfilled that which was spoken by the prophet saying" &c—were not after all adduced as prophecies, but merely by way of allusion.[fn110]
"Shiloh shall come, and to him shall the obedience of the peoples be." Ac. to the Hebr. Gen. xlix. 10.
"The adversaries of Jehovah shall be broken in pieces; out of Heaven shall He thunder upon them; Jehovah shall judge the ends of the earth; and he shall give strength unto his king, and exalt the horn of his Messiah." I Sam. ch. il. 10.
"These be the last words of David. David the son of Jesse said, and the man who was exalted on high, the Messiah of the God of Jacob, [See the Hebr.] and the sweet Psalmist of Israel. The Spirit of Jehovah spake by me, and his word was [fn111] in my tongue. The God of Israel said, the Rock of Israel spake to me. He that ruleth over mankind [or the human race. See the Hebr.] shall be just, ruling in the fear of God, And he shall be as the light of the morning when the sun ariseth, even a morning without clouds; as the tender grass springing out of the earth by clear shining after rain.—But the sons of Belial shall be all of them as thorns thrust away, because they cannot be taken with hands; but the man that shall touch them must be fenced with iron, and the staff of a spear; and they shall be utterly burned with fire in the same place." 2. Sam. ch. xxiii, 1.—7.
" I have set my king upon my holy hill of Zion, I will declare the decree, Jehovah hath said unto me. Thou art my son, this day have I begotten thee; ask of me, and I shall give thee the nations for thy inheritance, and the utmost parts of the earth for thy possession. Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron: thou shall dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel." Ps. 2. See also Ps. 21.
"He shall judge thy people with righteousness, and thy poor with judgment. The mountains shall bring peace to the people, and the little hills by righteousness. He shall judge the poor of the people, he shall save the children of the needy, and shall break in pieces the oppressor. They shall fear thee as long as the sun and moon endure throughout all generations. He shall come down like rain upon the mown grass: as showers that water the earth, [compare 2. Sam. ch. xxi. [fn112] 3. 4.] In his days shall the righteous flourish; and abundance of peace as long as the moon endureth. He shall have dominion also from sea to sea, and from the river unto the ends of the earth. [" his dominions shall be from sea even to sea, and from the river even unto the ends of the earth." Zech. ix: 10.] they that dwell in the wilderness shall bow before him, and his enemies shall lick the dust, The kings of Tarshish and of the isles [i. e. of Europe and the west,] shall bring presents; the kings of Sheba and Seba shall offer gifts. All kings shall fall down before him: all nations shall serve him. For he shall deliver the needy when he crieth; the poor also, and him that hath no helper. He shall spare the poor and needy, and shall save the souls of the needy. He shall redeem their soul from deceit and violence: and precious shall their blood be in his sight. And he shall live, and to him shall be given of the gold of Sheba; prayer also shall be made for him continually; and daily shall he be praised—His name shall endure for ever: his name shall be continued as long as the sun: and men shall be blessed in him: all nations shall call him blessed. Blessed be Jehovah God, the God of Israel, who only doeth wondrous things. And blessed be his glorious name for ever; and let the whole earth be filled with his glory. Amen, and Amen.[fn113] Ps. 72.
"Thou speakest in vision of thy holy [or pious] one, and saidst, I have laid help upon one that is mighty: I have exalted one chosen out of the people. I have found David my servant; with my holy oil have I anointed him: with whom my hand shall be established: mine arm also shall strengthen him. The enemy shall not exact upon him: nor the sin of wickedness afflict him. And I will beat down his foes before his face, and plague them that hate him. But my faithfulness and my mercy shall be with him: and in my name shall his horn be exalted. I will set his hand also in the sea, and his right hand In the rivers. He shall cry unto me thou art my father, my God, and the rock of my salvation. Also I will make him my first born, higher than the kings of the earth, My mercy will I keep for him for evermore, and my covenant shall stand fast with him. ["although my house be not so with God: yet he hath made with me an everlasting covenant, ordered in all things and sure." 2. Sam. ch. xxiii. 5.] His seed also will I make to endure forever, and his throne as the days of heaven.—My covenant will I not break,-nor alter the thing that is gone out of my lips. Once have I sworn by my holiness that I will not lie unto David. His seed shall endure for ever, and HIS THRONE AS THE SUN BEFORE ME. It shall be established for ever as the moon, and as a faithful witness in the heaven." Ps. 89.
"Jehovah said unto my Lord, sit thou on my right hand, until I make thy enemies thy footstool. Jehovah shall send the rod of thy power out of Zion: rule thou in the midst of thine enemies.— Jehovah at thy right hand shall strike through kings in the day of his wrath. He shall judge among the nations; he shall fill the places with the dead bodies: he shall wound the heads over many countries." Ps. 110.
"It shall come to pass in the last days, that the mountain of Jehovah's house shall be established in the tops of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and all the nations shall flow unto it. And many peoples shall go and say, Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of Jehovah, to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for out of Zion shall go forth the Law, and the word of Jehovah from Jerusalem. And he shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many peoples: and they shall beat their swords into ploughshares, and their spears into pruning-hooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more." Is. ch. ii.
" Unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given; and the Principality shall be upon his shoulder; and the Wonderful Counsellor, The Mighty God, The everlasting Father shall call his name the Prince of Peace.[fn114] [See. the Heb.] 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 judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of Jehovah of Hosts will perform this."' Is. ix: 6, 7.
"There shall come forth a rod out of the stem (or stump, i. e. the roots of a tree cut down) of Jesse, and a branch shall grow out of his roots, and the spirit of Jehovah shall rest upon him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and the fear of Jehovah, and shall make him of quick understanding in the fear of Jehovah; and he shall not judge after the sight of his eyes, neither reprove after the hearing of his ears: but with righteousness shall he judge the poor, and reprove with equity for the meek of the earth; and he shall smite the earth with the rod of his mouth, and with the breath of his lips shall he slay the wicked. And righteousness shall be the girdle of his loins, and faithfulness the girdle of his reins. The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid: and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them. And the cow and the bear shall feed: their young ones shall lie down together; and the lion shall eat straw like the ox. [fn115] And the sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the cockatrices den. They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain: for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of Jehovah, as the waters cover the sea. And in that day there shall be a root of Jesse, which shall stand for an ensign of the peoples; to it shall the Gentiles seek; and his seat shall be glory." [See the Hebr.] Is. ch. xi. "And it shall come to pass in that day, that Jehovah shall set his hand again the second time to recover the remnant of his people which shall be left, from Assyria, and from Egypt, and from Pathros, and from Cush, and from Elam, and from Shinar, and from the islands of the sea. And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth." Is. ch. xi.