Produced by Charles Klingman
The Grounds of Christianity
Examined by Comparing
The New Testament with the Old
by George Bethune English, A.M.
First understand, then judge.
Bring forth the people blind, although they have eyes;
And deaf, although they have ears.
Let them produce their witnesses, that they may be justified;
Or let them hear their turn, and say, THIS IS TRUE.
ISAIAH.
Boston 1813
To the Intelligent and the Candid
Who are
Willing to Listen to Every Opinion
That is Supported by Reason;
And
Not Averse to Bringing their Own Opinions
To the Test of Examination;
THIS BOOK
Is Respectfully Dedicated
By
The Author
CONTENTS
Chapter I. Introductory,—Showing that the Apostles and Authors of the New Testament endeavour to prove Christianity from the Old.
Chapter II. Statement of the Question in Dispute.
Chapter III. The Characteristics of the Messiah, as given by the Hebrew Prophets.
Chapter IV. The character of Jesus tested by those characteristic marks of the messiah, given by the Prophets of the Old Testament.
Chapter V. Examination of the arguments from the Old Testament adduced in the New, to prove that Jesus of Nazareth was the Messiah.
Chapter VI. Examination of the meaning of the phrase this was done that it might be fulfilled.
Chapter VII. Examination of the arguments alledged from the Hebrew Prophets, to prove that Jesus was the Messiah.
Chapter VIII. Statement of Arguments which prove that Jesus was not the Messiah of the Old Testament.
Chapter IX. On the character of Jesus of Nazareth, and the weight to be allowed to the argument of martyrdom, as a test of truth, in this question.
Chapter X. Miscellaneous.
Chapter XI. Whether the Mosaic Law be represented in the Old Testament as a temporary, or a perpetual institution.
Chapter XII. On the character of Paul, and his manner of reasoning.
Chapter XIII. Examination of some doctrines in the New testament, derived from the Cabbala, the Oriental philosophy, and the tenets of Zoroaster.
Chapter XIV. A consideration of the gift of tongues, and other miraculous powers, ascribed to the Primitive Christians; and whether recorded miracles are infallible proofs of the Divine Authority of doctrines said to have been confirmed by them.
Chapter XV. Application of the two tests, said in Deuteronomy to have been given by God as discriminating a true prophet from a false one, to the character and actions of Jesus.
Chapter XVI. Examination of the evidence, external and internal, in favour of the credibility of the Gospel history.
Chapter XVII. On the peculiar morality of the New Testament, as it affects nations and political societies.
Chapter XIX. A consideration of some supposed advantages attributed to the New, over the Old, testament; and whether the doctrine of a Resurrection and a Life to Come, is not taught by the Old testament, in contradiction the assertion, that life and immorality were brought to light by the Gospel.
Conclusion
Appendix
Addenda
PREFACE
The celebrated Dr. Price, in his valuable Observation on the Importance of the American Revolution, addressed to the people of the United States, observes that, It is a common opinion, that there are some doctrines so sacred, and others of so bad a tendency, that no public discussion of them ought to be allowed. Were this a right opinion, all the persecution that has ever been practised would be justified; for if it is a part of the duty of civil magistrates to prevent the discussion of such doctrines, they must, in doing this, act on their own judgments of the nature and tendency of doctrines; and, consequently, they must have a right to prevent the discussion of all doctrines which they think to be too sacred for discussion, or too dangerous in their tendency; and this right they must exercise in the only way in which civil power is capable of exercising it—'by inflicting penalties upon all who oppose sacred doctrines, or who maintain pernicious opinions.' In Mahometan, countries, therefore, magistrates would have a right to silence and punish all who oppose the divine mission of Mahomet, a doctrine there reckoned of the most sacred nature. The like is true of the doctrines of transubstantiation, worship of the Virgin Mary, &c. &c., in Popish countries; and of the doctrines of the Trinity, satisfaction, &c., in Protestant countries. All such laws are right, if the opinion I have mentioned is right. But, in reality, civil power has nothing to do in such matters, and civil governors go miserably out of their proper province, whenever they take upon them the care of truth, or the support of any doctrinal points. They are not judges of truth, and if they pretend to decide about it, they will decide wrong. This all the countries under heaven think of the application of civil power to doctrinal points in every country, but their own. It is indeed superstition, idolatry, and nonsense, that civil power at present supports almost every where under the idea of supporting sacred truth, and opposing dangerous error. Would not, therefore, its perfect neutrality be the greatest blessing? Would not the interest of truth gain unspeakably, were all the rulers of states to aim at nothing but keeping the peace; or did they consider themselves bound to take care, not of the future, but the present, interest of man; not of their souls and of their faith, but of their person and property; not of any ecclesiastical, but secular, matters only?
All the experience of past time proves, that the consequence of allowing civil power to judge of the nature and tendency of doctrines, must be making it a hindrance to the progress of truth, and an enemy to the improvement of the world.
I would extend these observations to all points of faith, however sacred they may: be deemed. Nothing reasonable—can suffer by discussion. All doctrines, really sacred, must be clear, and incapable of being opposed with success.
That immoral tendency of doctrines, which has been urged as a reason against allowing the public discussion of them, may be either avowed and direct? or only a consequence with which they are charged. If it is avowed and direct, such doctrines certainly will not spread; the principles rooted, in human nature will resist them, and the advocates of them will be soon disgraced. If, on the contrary, it is only a consequence with which a doctrine is charged, it should be considered how apt all parties are to charge the doctrines they oppose with bad tendencies. It is well known that Calvinists and Arminians, Trinitarians and Socinians, Fatalists and Free-Willers, are continually exclaiming against one another's opinions, as dangerous and licentious. Even Christianity itself could not, at its first introduction, escape this accusation. The professors of it were considered as atheists, because they opposed pagan idolatry; and their religion was, on this account, reckoned a destructive and pernicious enthusiasm. If, therefore, the rulers of a state are to prohibit the propagation of all doctrines, in which they apprehend immoral tendencies, an opening will be made, as I have before observed, for every species of persecution. There will be no doctrine, however true or important, the avowal of which will not, in, some country or other, be subjected to civil penalties.
These observations bear the stamp of good sense, and their truth has been abundantly confirmed by experience; and it is the peculiar honour of the United States, that in conformity with the principles of these observations, perfect freedom, of opinion and of speech, are here established by law, and are the birthright of every citizen thereof. Our country* is the only one which has not been guilty of the folly of establishing the ascendancy of one set of religious opinions, and persecuting or tolerating all others, and which does not permit any man to harass his neighbour, because he thinks differently from himself. In consequence of these excellent institutions, difference of religious sentiment; makes here no breach in private friendship, and works no danger to the public security. This is as it should be; for, in matters of opinion, especially with regard to so important a thing as religion, it is every man's natural right and duty to think for himself, and to judge upon such evidence as he can procure, after he has used his best endeavours to get information. Human decisions are of no weight in this matter, for another man has no more right to. determine what his opinions shall be, than I have to determine what another mans opinions shall be. It is amazing that one man can dare to presume he has such a right over another; and that any man can be so weak and credulous, as to imagine, that another has such right over him.
As it is every man's natural right and duty to think and judge for himself in matters of opinion; so he should be allowed freely to bring forward and defend his opinions, and to endeavour, when be judges proper, to convince others also of their truth.
For unless all men are allowed freely to profess their opinions, the means of information, with respect to opinions, must, in a great measure, be wanting; and just inquiries into their truth be almost impracticable; and, by consequence, our natural right and duty to think and judge for ourselves, must be rendered almost nugatory, or be subverted, for want of materials whereon to employ our minds. A man by himself, without communication with other minds, can make no great progress in knowledge; and besides, an individual is indisposed to use his own strength, when an undisturbed laziness, ignorance, and prejudice give him full satisfaction as to the truth of his opinions. But if there be a free profession, or communication of sentiment, every man will have an opportunity of acquainting himself with all that can be known from others; and many for their own satisfaction will make inquiries, and, in order to ascertain the truth of opinions, will desire to know all that can be said on any question.
If such liberty of professing and teaching be not allowed, error, if authorized, will keep its ground; and truth, if dormant, will never be brought to light; or, if authorized, will be supported on a false and absurd foundation, and such as would equally support error; and, if received on the ground of authority, will not be in the least meritorious to its professors.
Besides, not to encourage capable and honest men to profess and defend their opinions when different from ours, is to distrust the truth of our own opinion, and to fear the light. Such conduct must, in a country of sense and learning, increase the number of unbelievers already so greatly complained of; who, if they see matters of opinion not allowed to be professed, and impartially debated, think, justly perhaps, that they have foul play, and, therefore, reject many things as false and ill grounded, which otherwise they might perhaps receive as truths.
The grand principle of men considered as having relation to the Deity, and under an obligation to be religious, is, that they ought to consult their reason, and seek every where for the best instruction; and of Christians and Protestants the duty, and professed principle is, to consult reason and the Scripture, as the rule of their faith and practice.
But how can these, which are practical principles, be duly put in practice, unless all be at liberty, at all times, and in all points, consider and debate with others, (as well as with themselves,) what reason and Scripture says; and to profess, and act openly, according to what they are convinced they say? How can we become better informed with regard to religion, than by using the best means of information? which consist in consulting reason and scripture, and calling in the aid of others. And of what use is it to consult reason, and Scripture at all, as any means of information., if we are not, upon conviction, to follow their dictates?
No man has any reason to apprehend any ill consequences to truth, (for which alone he ought to have any concern,) from free inquiry and debate.—For truth is not a thing to dread examination, but when fairly proposed to an unbiased understanding, is like light to the eye; it must distinguish itself from error, as light does distinguish does distinguish itself from darkness. For, while free debate is allowed, truth is in no danger, for it will never want a professor thereof, nor an advocate to offer some plea in its behalf. And it can never be wholly banished, but when human decisions, backed by human power, carry all before them.
We ought to examine foundations of opinions, not only, that we may attain the discovery of truth, but we ought to do so, on this account, because that it is our duty; and the way to recommend ourselves to the favour of God. For opinions, how true soever, when the effect of education or tradition, or interest, or passion, can never recommend a man to God. For those ways have no merit in them, and are the worst a man can possibly take to obtain truth; and therefore, though they may be objects of forgiveness, they can never be of reward from Him.
Having promised these observations in order to persuade, and dispose the reader to be candid, I will now declare the motives, which induced me to submit to the consideration of the intelligent, the contents of this volume. The Author has spared, he thinks, no pains to arrive at certain Truth in matters of religion; the; sense of which is what distinguishes man from the brute. And in this most important subject that can employ the human understanding, he has been particularly desirous to become acquainted with the Grounds, and Doctrines of the Christian Religion; and nothing but the difficulties, which he in this volume lays before the public, staggers his faith in it.
It may perhaps add to the interest the Reader may take in this work to inform him, that the Author was a believer in the religion of the New Testament, after what he conceived to be a sufficient examination of its evidence for a divine origin. He had terminated an examination of the controversy with the Deists to his own satisfaction, i.e. he felt convinced that their objections were not insurmountable, when he turned his attention to the consideration of the ancient, and obscure controversy between the Christians and the Jews. His curiosity was deeply interested to examine a subject in truth so little known, and to ascertain the causes, and the reasons, which had prevented a people more interested in the truth of Christianity than any other from believing it: and he set down to the subject without any suspicion, that the examination would not terminate in convincing him still more in favour of what were then his opinions. After a long, thorough, and startling examination of their Books, together with all the answers to them he could obtain from a Library amply furnished in this respect, he was finally very reluctantly compelled to feel persuaded, by proofs he could neither refute, nor evade, that how easily soever Christians might answer the Deists, so called, the Jews were clearly too hard for them. Because they set the Old and New Testament in opposition, and reduce Christians to this fatal dilemma.—Either the Old Testament contains a Revelation from God; or it does sot. If it does, then the New Testament cannot be from God, because it is palpably, and importantly repugnant to the Old Testament in doctrine, and some other things. Now Jews, and Christians, each of them admit the Old Testament as containing a divine Revelation; consequently the Jews cannot, and Christians ought not to receive and allow any thing as a Revelation from God which flatly contradicts a former by them acknowledged Revelation: because it cannot be supposed that God will contradict himself. On the other hand—if the Old Testament be not from God, still the New Testament must go down, because it asserts that the Old Testament is a revelation from God, and builds upon it as a foundation. And if the foundation fails, how can the house, stand? The Author pledges himself to the Reader, to prove, that they establish this dilemma completely. And he cannot help thinking, that there is reason to believe, that if both sides of this strangely neglected controversy had been made public in times past, and become known, that the consequences would have been long ago fatal at least to the New Testament.
The Author has been earnestly dissuaded from making public the contents of this volume on account of apprehended mischievous consequences. He thought, however, that the age of pious frauds ought to be past, and their principle discarded, at least in Protestant countries. Deception and error are always, sooner or later, discovered; and truth in, the long run, both in politics, and religion, will never be ultimately harmful. If what the Book states is true, it ought to be known, if it is erroneous; it can, and will, be refuted.
The Author therefore makes it public, for these reasons,—because he thinks, that the matter contained in the book, is true, and important,—because he wished, and found it necessary to justify himself from contemptible misrepresentations uttered behind his back; and to give to those who know him, good and sufficient reasons for past conduct, of which those to whom he is known, cannot be ignorant; and finally, he thought it right, and proper, and humane, to give to the world a work which contained the reasons for the unbelief of the countrymen of Jesus; who for almost eighteen hundred years have been made the unresisting victims of, as the reader will find, groundless misrepresentation, and the most amazing cruelty; because they refused to believe what it was impossible that they should believe, on account of reasons their persecutors did not know, and refused to be informed of.
If the arguments and statements contained in this volume should be found to be correct, he believes that every honest and candid man, after his first surprise that they should not have been made known before, will feel for the victims of a mistake so singular and so ancient as the one which is the subject of the following pages; and will think with the author, that it is time, high time, that the truth should be known, and justice be done to them.*
There is not in existence a more singular instance of the mischievous mistakes arising from taking things for granted which require proof, than the case before the reader. The world has all along been in total error with regard to the reasons and the motives which have prevented the Hebrew nation from receiving the system of the New Testament. They have been successfully accused of incorrigible blindness and obstinacy; and while volumes upon volumes have been written against them, and the arguments therein contained, supported and enforced by the power of the Inquisition, and the oppressions of all Christendom, these unfortunate people have not been willingly suffered to offer to the world one word in their own defence. They have not been allowed, after hearing with patience both arguments, and railing accusations in abundance, to answer in their turn; but have been compelled, through the fear of confiscation, persecution, and death, to leave misapprehensions unexplained, and misrepresentations unrefuted.
Is it then to be wondered at, that mankind have considered their adversaries as in the right, and that deserted by reason, and even their own Scriptures, they were supported in their opinion only by a blind and pertinacious obstinacy, more worthy of wonder than curiosity? Alas! the world did not consider, that nothing was more easy than to confute people whose tongues were frozen by the terror of the Inquisition!! But, thanks to the good sense of this enlightened age, those times are past and gone. There is now one happy country where freedom of speech is allowed, where every harmless religious opinion is protected by law, and where every opinion is listened to that is supported by reason. The time, I trust, is now come when the substantial arguments of this oppressed, and, in this respect, certainly calumniated, people, may be produced and their reasons set forth, without the fear of harm, and with, and with the hope of hearing from the intelligent and the candid. They, we believe, will be fully convinced, that their adversaries have for so long a time triumphed over them without measure, only because they have been suffered to do so without contradiction.
The reader is assured, that, notwithstanding the subject, he will find nothing in this volume but what is considered by the author to be fair and liberal argument; and such no honest man ought to decline looking in the face. He has endeavoured to discuss the important subject of the book in the most inoffensive manner; for he has no wish, and claims no right, to wound the feelings of those who differ from him in opinion. There is not, nor ought there to be, a word of reproach in it, against the moral character of Jesus, or the twelve Apostles; and the utmost the author attempts to prove is, that their system was founded, not upon fraud and imposture, but upon a mistake. After the deaths of Christ and his Apostles, it was indeed aided and supported by very bad means; but its first founders, the author believes, were guilty of no other crime than that of being mistaken; a very common one indeed.
He hopes, therefore, that such a discussion as the one now laid before the public, will be fairly met, and fairly answered, if answered at all, and that recourse will not be had to dishonest and ungentlemanly misrepresentations, and calling names, in order to prevent people from examining things they have a right to know, and in order to blind and frighten the public, the jury to which he appeals. It is infallibly true, that the knowledge of truth is, and must be beneficial to mankind; and that, in the long run, it never was, and never can be, harmful. It is equally certain, that God would never give a Revelation so slightly founded as to be endangered by any sophistry of man. If the Christian system be from God, it will certainly stand, no human power can overthrow it; and, therefore, no sincere Christian who believes the New Testament, ought to be afraid to meet half way the objections of any one who offers them with fairness, and expresses them in decent language; and no sensible Christian ought to shut his ears against his neighbour, who respectfully asks a reason for the faith that is in him.
The author has been told, indeed, that, supposing the Christian system to be unfounded, yet that it is reasonable to believe, that the Supreme Being would view any attempts to disturb it, with displeasure, on account of its moral effects. But is not this something like absurdity? Can God have made it necessary, that morals should be founded on delusion, in order that they might be supported? Can the God of TRUTH be displeased to have men convinced that they have been mistaken, or imposed upon, by Revelations pretended to be from Him, which if in fact not from him, must be the offspring either of error or falsehood? And if the Christian system be, in truth, not from God, can we suppose, that in his eyes its doctrines with regard to Him are atoned for, by a few good moral precepts? Can we suppose, that that Supreme and awful Being can feel Himself honoured, in having his creatures made to believe, that He was once nine months in the womb of a woman; that God, the Great and Holy, went through all the nastiness of infancy; that be lived a mendicant in a corner of the earth, and was finally scourged, and hanged on a gibbet by his own creatures? If these things be, in truth, all mistakes, can we suppose, that God is pleased in having them believed of Him? On the contrary, can they, together with the doctrine of the Trinity, I would respectfully ask, be possibly looked upon by Him (if they are not true), otherwise, than as so many—what I forbear to mention. But this is not all. The reader is requested to consider, that the Christian system is built upon the prostrate necks of the whole Hebrew nation. It is a tree which flourished in a soil watered by their tears; its leaves grew green in an atmosphere filled with their cries and groans; and its roots have been moistened and fattened with their blood. The ruin, reproach, and sufferings of that people, are considered, by its advocates, as the most striking proof of the Divine authority of the New Testament; and for almost eighteen hundred years the system contained in that book has been the cause of miseries and afflictions to that nation, the most horrible and unparalleled in the history of man.
Now, if that system be indeed Divine, all this may be very well, and as it should be. But if, perchance, it should turn out to be a mistake if it be, in truth, not from God; will not, then, that system be justly chargeable with all those shocking cruelties which, on account of it, have been inflicted on that people?
If that system be verily and indeed founded on a mistake, no language, no indignation, can do justice to its guilt in this respect. All its good moral effects are a mere drop of pure water in that ocean of Jewish and Gentile blood it has caused to be shed by embittering men's minds with groundless prejudices. And if it be not divine; if it be plainly and demonstrably proved to have originated in error; who is the man, that, after considering what has been suggested, will have the heart to come forward, and coolly say, that it is better that a whole nation of men should continue, as heretofore, to be unjustly hated, reproached, cursed, and plundered, and massacred, on account of it, rather than that the received religious system should be demonstrated to be founded on mistake?" No! If it be, in fact, founded on mistake, every man of honour, honesty, and humanity, will say, without hesitation, "Let the delusion (if it is one) be done away, which must be supported at the expense of truth, of justice, and the happiness and respectability of a whole nation, who are men like ourselves, and more unfortunate than any others, in having already suffered but too much affliction and misery on account of it." No! though the moral effects ascribed to this system of religion were as good, as great, and ten times greater than they ever have been, or can be, yet, if it is a delusion, it would be absolutely wicked to support it, since it is erected upon the sufferings, wretchedness, and oppression of a people who compose millions of the great family of mankind.
It is remarkable, that the ablest modern advocates for the truth and divine authority of the gospel, as if they knew of no certain, demonstrative proof which could be adduced in a case of so much importance, seem to content themselves, and expect their readers should be satisfied, with an accumulation of probable arguments in its favour; and it has been even said, that the case admits of no other kind of proof. If it be so, the author requests all so persuaded to consider, for a moment, whether it could be reconciled to any ideas of wisdom in an earthly potentate, if he should send an ambassador to a foreign state to mediate a negotiation of the greatest importance, without furnishing him with certain, indubitable credentials of the truth and authenticity of his mission? And to consider further, whether it be just or seemly, to attribute to the Omniscient, Omnipotent Deity, a degree of weakness and folly, which was never yet imputed to any of his creatures? for unless men are hardy enough to pass so gross an affront upon the tremendous Majesty of Heaven, the improbability that God should delegate the Mediator of a most important covenant to be proposed to all mankind, without enabling him to give them clear and, in reason, indisputable proof of the divine authority of his mission, must ever infinitely outweigh the aggregate sum of all the probabilities which can be accumulated in the opposite scale of the balance. And to conclude, I presume it will not be denied, that the authenticity and celestial origin of any thing pretending to be a Divine Revelation, before it has any claims upon our faith, ought to be made clear beyond all reasonable doubt; otherwise, it can have no just claims to a right to influence our conduct.
And as for the opinions and the arguments contained in this volume, I have but trembling hopes that they will meet with favour, merely because the author is sincere, and wishes to do right. Conscious that I make a perilous attempt, in daring to defend myself by attacking ancient error supported by multitudes, with no other seconds besides Truth and Reason, it would be bootless for me to ask indulgence for them on account of my good intentions; and as they can derive no credit from the authority of the writer, I am sensible they must fall by their own weakness, or stand by their own strength. I must leave them, therefore, to their fate; and I can cheerfully do it, without fear for the issue, if the reader will only be candid, and will comply with my earnest request—first to understand, and then judge.
Before I conclude these prefatory remarks, I would observe, that as the contents of this volume will be perfectly novel to nine hundred and ninety-nine out of a thousand, it is but justice to the public, and to myself, to avow, that I do not claim to have originated all the arguments advanced in this book. A very considerable proportion of them were selected, and derived, from ancient and curious Jewish Tracts, translated from Chaldee into Latin, very little known even in Europe, and not at all known there to any but the curious and inquisitive. And I reasonably hope, that discerning men will be much more disposed to weigh with candour the arguments herein offered, when they consider that they are, in many instances, the reasonings of learned, ancient and venerable men, who, in times when the inquisition was in vigour, suffered under the most bloody oppression, and whose writings were cautiously preserved, and secretly handed down to the seventeenth century in manuscript, as the printing of them would assuredly have brought all concerned to the stake. Some few other arguments were derived from other authors, and were taken from works not so much known as I hope they will be.
Finally, I commit my work to the discretion of the good sense of the reader, believing that if he is not convinced, he will at least be interested; and hoping that he will discover from the complexion of the book (what my own heart bears witness to) that the author is a sincere inquirer after truth, and perfectly willing to be convinced that he is in error by any one who can remove the difficulties, and refute the arguments, now laid by him before the public, with deference and respect.
September 28, 1813.
THE
EVIDENCES OF CHRISTIANITY
Examined by Comparing the
NEW TESTAMENT WITH THE OLD.
CHAPTER I.
Introductory,—showing that the Apostles and the authors of the
New Testament, endeavour to prove Christianity from the Old.
Christianity is founded on Judaism, and the New Testament upon the Old; and Jesus of Nazareth is the person said in the New Testament to be Promised in the Old, under the character and name of the Messiah of the Jews, and who as such only claims the obedience, and submission of the World. Accordingly, it is the design of the authors of the New, to prove Christianity from the Old, Testament; which is said Jo. 5:39, to contain the words of eternal life: and it represents Jesus and his Apostles, as fulfilling by their mission, doctrines and works, the predictions of the Prophets and the Law: which last is said to prophecy of, or to typify Christianity.
Matthew, for example, proves several parts of Christianity from the Old Testament, either by asserting them to be things foretold therein as to come to pass under the gospel dispensation; or to be founded on the notions of the Old Testament.
Thus he proves Marys being with child by the Holy Spirit, and the Angels telling her she shall bring forth a son, and call his name Jesus; and the other circumstances attending his miraculous birth; Jesus birth at Bethlehem; his flight into Egypt; the slaughter of the infants; Jesus Dwelling at Nazareth, and at Capernaum, in the borders of Zabulon, and Naphtali; his casting out devils, and healing the sick; his eating with Publicans and sinners; his speaking in parables that the Jews might not understand him; his sending his disciples to fetch an ass, and a colt; the childrens crying in the Temple; the resurrection of Jesus from the dead; Jesus being betrayed by Judas, and Judas returning back the thirty pieces of Silver, and the Priests buying the Potters Field with them; and his hanging Himself; &c. &c. All these events, and many more, are said to be fulfillments of the Prophecies of the Old Testament, see Mat. 1, 2: and 4 chapters, and ch. 8: v. 16,17, and ch. 9: 11,13, and ch. 13: 13, ch. 21: 2—7. 15,16, ch. 22: 31, 32, ch. 26: 54, 56, ch. 27: 5—10.
Jesus himself is represented as proving the truth of Christianity thus. He, joining himself to two of his Disciples, (Luke 28: 15— 22,) after his resurrection, who knew him not, and complaining of their mistake about his person, whom they now took not to be the Messiah, because he had been condemned to death, and crucified; he, observing their disbelief of his resurrection, which had been reported to them by certain women of their acquaintance, upon the credit of the affirmation of angels, said unto them, O Fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the Prophets have spoken. Ought not Christ (i.e. the Messiah) to have suffered these things, and to enter into his Glory? and beginning at Moses, and all the Prophets, he expounded unto them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself.
Again he discoursed to all his Disciples, putting them in mind, that, before his Death, he told them (Luke 24: 44, 46, 47,) that all things must be fulfilled which were written in the law of Moses, and in the Prophets, and in the Psalms concerning him; adding, thus it is written, and thus it behoveth Christ (1. e. the Messiah) to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day; and that repentance, and remission of sins should be preached in his name, beginning at Jerusalem.
When the people of several nations, Acts 2:12, were amazed at the Apostles speaking in their several tongues, and when many mocked the Apostles, saying they were full of new wine, Peter makes a speech in public, wherein, after saying they were not drunk, because it was but the third hour of the day, he endeavours to show them, that this was spoken of by the Prophet Joel, and he concludes with proving the resurrection of Jesus from the book of Psalms.
Peter, and John, tell the people assembled at the Temple, that God had showed by the mouth of all his Prophets, that Christ should suffer, Acts 3:18.
Peter to justify his preaching to the Gentiles, concludes his
discourse with saying, Acts 10: 43—To Jesus gave all the
Prophets witness, that through his name whosoever (i.e. Jew, or
Gentile) believeth in him, shall receive remission of sins.
Paul also endeavours to prove to the Jews in the Synagogue of
Antioch, (Ib. v. 13) that the history of Jesus was contained in the
Old Testament, and that he, and Barnabas were commanded in the
Old Testament, to preach the gospel to the Gentiles.
On the occasion of a dispute among the Christians whether the Gentile converts were to be circumcised after the Law of Moses, and to observe the Law, we find, that after much disputing, the point was settled by James by quotation from Amos.
The Bereans are highly extolled (Acts 17: 11,) for searching the Scriptures, i.e. the Old Testament, daily, in order to find out whether the things preached to them by the Apostles were so, or no: who if they had not proved these things, i.e. Christianity from the Old Testament, ought, according to their own principles, to have been rejected by the Bereans, as teachers of false doctrine.
Paul, when accused before Agrippa by the Jews, said (Acts 26; 6,) I stand, and am judged for the hope of the promise made of God unto our fathers, i.e. for teaching Christianity, or the true doctrine of the Old Testament, and to this accusation he pleads guilty, by declaring in the fullest manner, that he taught nothing but the Doctrines of the Old Testament. Having therefore (says he) obtained help of God, I continue unto this day, witnessing both to small, and great, saying now other things than those which the Prophets, and Moses did say should come, that the Christ should suffer, and that he should be the first who should rise from the Dead, and should show light unto the People, and unto the Gentiles.
The Author of the first Epistle to the Cor. says, 15 ch. v. 4, that Jesus rose again from the dead the third day, according to the Scriptures, that is, according to the Old Testament, and he is supposed to ground this on the history of the prophet Jonas, who was three days and three nights in the fish's belly: though the cases do not seem to be parallel, for Jesus being buried on Friday evening, and rising on Sunday morning, was in the tomb but one day and two nights.
But most singular is the argument of the Apostle Paul (in his Epistle to the Galatians) to prove Christianity from the Old Testament. Tell me (says he, Gal. 4: 21,) ye that desire to be under the Law, do ye not hear the Law? For it is written, that Abraham had two Sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a free woman. But he who was of the bond woman, was born after the flesh; but he who was of the free woman was by promise. Which things are an Allegory. For these are the two covenants, the one from Mount Sinai which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar. But this Agar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem that now is, and is in bondage with her Children. But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the Mother of us all. For it is written (Isaiah 54: 1,) Rejoice thou Barren that bearest not, break forth, and cry thou that travailest not, for the desolate hath many more children than she which hath an husband. Now, we Brethren, as Isaac was, are children of the Promise. But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the spirit, even so it is now. But what saith the Scripture (Gen. 21: 10, 12,) Cast out the bond woman, and her son, for the son of the bond woman shall not be heir with the son of the free woman. So then, Brethren, we are not the children of the bond woman, but of the free. Stand fast, therefore, in the Liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.
In fine, the Author of these Epistles reasons in the same singular manner from the Old Testament throughout; which is, according to him, (2 Tim. iii: 15,) able to make men wise unto Salvation: asserting himself and others to be ministers of the New Testament, as being ministers, not of the letter but of the Spirit, (2Cor. iii: 6.) That is. Of the Old Testament, spiritually understood; and endeavouring to prove, especially in the Epistle to the Hebrews, that Christianity was veiled and contained in the Old Testament, and was implied in the Jewish history, and Law, both which he considers as types and shadows of Christianity.
CHAPTER II.
STATEMENT of THE QUESTION IN DISPUTE.
How Christianity depends on the Old Testament, or what proofs are to be met with therein in behalf of Christianity, are the subjects of almost all the numerous books written by divines, and other apologists for Christianity, but the chief and principal of these proofs may be justly supposed to be urged in the New Testament itself, by the authors thereof; who relate the history of the first preaching of the Gospel, and profess themselves to be apostles of Jesus, or companions of the Apostles.
Some of these proofs, as a specimen, have been already adduced. And if they are valid proofs, then is Christianity strongly and invincibly established: on its true foundations.
It is established upon its true foundations, because Jesus and his Apostles did, as we have seen, ground Christianity on those proofs; and it is strongly and invincibly established on those foundations, because a proof drawn from an inspired book is perfectly conclusive. And prophecies delivered in an inspired book are, when fulfilled, such as may be justly deemed sure, and demonstrative proof; and which Peter (2 Peter 1: 19) prefers as an argument for the truth of Christianity, to that miraculous attestation (whereof he, and two other Apostles are said to have been witnesses,) given by God himself to the mission of Jesus of Nazareth. His argument appears to be as follows. Laying this foundation, that Prophecy proceeds from the Holy Spirit, it is a stronger argument than a miracle, which depends upon eternal evidence, and testimony. And this opinion of Peters is corroborated by the words of Jesus himself, who, in Mat. xxiv: 23, 24, Mark xiii: 21, 22, affirms, that miracles wrought in confirmation of a pretenders being the Messiah, are not to be considered as proof of his being so—though they show great signs and wonders, believe it not, is his command to his disciples.
Besides, prophecies fulfilled, seem the most proper of all arguments to evince the truth of a new revelation which is designed to be universally promulgated to men. For a man who has the Old Testament put into his hands, which contain prophecies, and the New Testament afterward, which is said to contain their completions, and is once satisfied, as he may be with the greatest ease, that the Old Testament existed before the New, may have a complete, internal, divine, demonstration of the truth of Christianity, without long, and laborious enquiries. Whereas, arguments of another nature, such, for instance, as relate to the authority and genuineness of the books, and the persons, and characters of authors, and witnesses, require more application, and understanding, than falls to the share of the bulk of mankind; or else are very precarious in themselves, since we know that in the first centuries there were numberless forged Gospels, and Apocryphal writings imposed upon the credulous as apostolic and authentic; and there were in the Apostles times, as many, and as great heresies and schisms as perhaps have been since in any age of the Church. So that, setting aside the before mentioned internal proofs from prophecy, (which were the Apostle's proofs and in their nature sufficient of themselves) we should have no certain proof at all for the Religion of the New Testament.
On the other hand, if the proofs for Christianity from the Old Testament, are not valid, if the arguments founded on that Book be not conclusive, and the Prophecies cited from thence be not fulfilled, then has Christianity no just foundation; for the foundation on which Jesus and his Apostles built it is then invalid, and false. Nor can miracles, said to have been wrought by Jesus, and his Apostles in behalf of Christianity, avail anything in the case. For miracles can never render a foundation valid, which is in itself invalid; can never make a false inference true; can never make a prophecy fulfilled, which is not fulfilled; and can never designate a Messiah, or Jesus for the Messiah, if both are not marked out in the Old Testament; no more than they could prove the earth to be the sun, or a mouse a lion.
Besides, miracles said to have been wrought, may be often justly decided false reports, when attributed to persons who claim an authority from the Old Testament, which they impertinently alledge to support their pretentions. God can never be supposed often to permit miracles to be done for the confirmation of a false, or pretended mission. And if at any time he does permit miracles to be done in confirmation of a pretended mission, we have express directions from the Old Testament (acknowledged by Christians to be of divine authority) Deut. xiii. 1, 2, not to regard such miracles; but to continue firm to the antecedent revelation given by Himself, and contained in the Old Testament, notwithstanding any signs or wonders; which, under the circumstance of attesting something contrary to an antecedent revelation, we are forewarned of as being no test of truth. No new revelation, however supported by miracles, ought ever to be received as coming from God, unless it confirms, or at least does not contradict, the preceding standing revelation, acknowledged to be from God.
Accordingly, we find from the New Testament, that all the recorded miracles of Jesus could not make the Jews believe him to be the Messiah when they thought that he did not answer the description of that character given by the Prophets; on the contrary, they procured him to be crucified for pretending to be what to them he appeared plainly not to be.
Nor had his miracles alone any effect on his own brethren, and kindred, who seem (Mark vi. 4; Jo. vii. 6,) to have been more incredulous in him than other Jews. Nor had they the effect, they are supposed to have been fitted to produce, among his immediate followers, and Disciples; some of whom did not believe in him, but deserted him, and particularly had no faith in him when he spake of his sufferings; and thought that he could not be their Messiah when they saw him suffer, notwithstanding his miracles, and his declaration to them that he was the Messiah. And so rooted were the Jews in the notion of the Messiah's being a temporal Prince, a conquering Pacificator, and Deliverer, even after the death of Jesus, and the progress of Christianity grounded on the belief of his being the Messiah, that they have in all times of distress, particularly in the apostolic sera, in great numbers followed impostors giving themselves out as the Messiah, with force, and arms, as the way to restore the kingdom of Israel. So that the Jews, who it seems mistook in this most important matter, and after the most egregious manner, the meaning of their own Books, might, till they were set right in their interpretation of the Old Testament, and were convinced from thence that Jesus was the Messiah, might I say, as justly reject Jesus asserting his mission, and Doctrines with miracles, as they might reject any other person, who in virtue of miracles would lead them into idolatry, or any other breach of their law.
In fine, the miracles said to have been wrought by Jesus, are, according to the Old Testament, the gospel scheme, and the words of Jesus himself, no absolute proof of his being the Messiah, or of the truth of Christianity; and Jesus laid no great stress upon them as proving doctrines, for he forewarned his disciples, that signs and wonders would be performed, so great and stupendous, as to deceive, if possible, the very elect, and bids them not to give any heed to them.*
CHAPTER III.
THE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE MESSIAH, AS GIVEN BY THE HEBREW PROPHETS.
Having shewn from the New Testament, and proved from the nature of the case, that the whole credit and authority of the Christian religion, rests and depends upon Jesus' being the Messiah of the Jews; and, having stated the principles which ought to govern the decision of this question, and established the fact, that the pretensions of any claiming to be considered as this Messiah, must be tested solely by the coincidence of the character, and circumstances of the pretender with the descriptions given by the prophets as the means by which he may be known to be so—it is proper, in order that we may be enabled to form a correct opinion, to lay before the reader those passages of the Old Testament which contain the promise of the appearing, and express the characteristics of this hope of Israel, this beneficent saviour, and august monarch, in whose time a suffering world, was, according to the Hebrew prophets, to become the abode of happy beings.
Leaving out for the present the consideration of the Shiloh mentioned in Gen. xlix., the first prophecy we meet with, supposed to relate to this great character, is contained in Num. xxiv. 17,19, There shall come a star out of Jacob, and a sceptre shall rise out of Israel, shall smite the corners of Moab, and destroy the children of Seth. Geddes interprets the latter clause—shall destroy the sons of esdition; but it probably means, according to the common interpretation, that this monarch was to govern the whole race of men, i. e. the children of Seth; for Noah, according to the Old Testament, was descended from him; and of the posterity of Noah, was the whole earth overspread. And in verse 19, it is added out of Jacob shall come he that shall have dominion.*
God says to David, 2 Sam. vii. 12, And when thy days shall be fulfilled, and thou shall sleep with thy fathers, I will set up thy seed after thee, which shall proceed out of thy bowels; and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build a house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom for ever. I will be his Father, and he shall be my Son—if he commit iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the children of men. But my mercy shall not depart from him, as I took it from Saul, whom I put away before thee. And thy house, and thy kingdom shall be established before me, and thy throne shall be established for ever. Mention is made of this promise in several of the Psalms, but it certainly suggests no idea of such a person as Jesus of Nazareth, but only that of a temporal prince of the posterity of David. It implies, that his family would never entirely fail for though it might be severely punished, it would recover its lustre again. And connecting this promise with that of the glory of the nation in general, foretold in the books of Moses, it might be inferred by the Hebrews, who believed them to be of Divine authority, that after long and great calamities (the consequences of their sins,) the people of Israel would be restored to their country, and attain the most distinguished felicity under a prince of the family of David. This is the subject of numberless prophecies throughout the Old Testament.
Passing over all those prophecies in which the national glory is spoken of without any mention of a prince or head; I shall recite, and remark upon the most eminent of those in which mention is made of any particular person, under whom, or by means of whom, the Israelitish nation, it is said, would enjoy the transcendent prosperity elsewhere foretold.
The second Psalm is no doubt well known to my readers, and supposing it to refer to the Messiah, it is evident, that it describes him enthroned upon mount Zion, the favorite of God, and the resistless conqueror of his enemies.
The next prophecy of this distinguished individual is recorded in Isaiah ix. 6—Unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given, and the government shall be upon his shoulder; and the Wonderful, the Counsellor, the mighty God, the everlasting Father shall call his name* the Prince of Peace. [For thus it is pointed to be read in the original Hebrew, and this is the meaning of the passage, and not as in the absurd translation of this verse in the English version.] Of the increase of his government there shall be no end upon the throne of David, and his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment, and with justice from henceforth and for ever: the zeal of the Lord of Hosts will do this. Here again we have a mighty monarch, sitting upon the throne of David, upon earth; and not a spiritual king placed in heaven, upon the throne of the mighty God, the everlasting Father.
The next passage which comes under notice, is in the eleventh chapter of Isaiah, in which a person is mentioned, under whom Israel, and the whole earth was to enjoy great prosperity and felicity. He is described as an upright prince, endued with the spirit of God, under whose reign there would be universal peace, which was to take place after the return of the Israelites from their dispersed state, when the whole nation would be united and happy.
There shall spring forth a rod from the trunk of Jesse, and a scion from his roots shall become fruitful. And the spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him; the spirit of wisdom, and understanding; the spirit of counsel, and strength; the spirit of knowledge, and the fear of the Lord. And he shall be quick of discernment in the fear of the Lord; so that not according to the sight of his eyes shall he judge, nor according to the hearing of the ears shall he reprove. With righteousness shall he judge the poor, and with equity shall he work conviction# on the meek of the earth. And he shall smite the earth with the blast of his mouth; and with the breath of his lips shall he slay the wicked one. And righteousness shall be the girdle of his lions, and faithfulness the cincture of his reins. Then shall the wolf take up his abode with the lamb; and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf, and the young lion, and the fatling shall come together, and a little child shall lead them. And the heifer, and the she bear shall feed together, and the lion shall eat straw like the ox. And the suckling shall play upon the hole of the asp; and upon the den of the basilisk shall the new weaned child lay his hand. They shall not hurt, nor destroy in my holy mountain, for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord as the waters cover the sea. And it shall come to pass in that day, the root of Jesse which standeth for an ensign to the people, unto him shall the nations repair, and his resting place shall be glorious.
As the scion here spoken of is said to spring from the root of Jesse, it looks as if it were intended to intimate, that the tree itself would be cut down, or that the power of David's Family would be for some time extinct; but that it would revive in the latter days.
The same Prince is again mentioned, chap xxxiii. 1, 3, where the people are described to be both virtuous, and flourishing, and to continue to be so. (v. 15—17.)
Behold a king shall reign in righteousness, and princes shall rule with equity. And the man shall be a covert from the storm, as a refuge from the flood, as canals of waters in a dry place, as the shadow of a great rock in a land of fainting with heat. And him the eyes of those that see shall regard, and the ears of them that hear shall harken, * * * * till the spirit from on high be poured out upon us, and the wilderness become a fruitful field, and the fruitful field be esteemed a forest. And judgment shall dwell in the wilderness, and in the fruitful field shall reside righteousness. And the work of righteousness shall be peace, and the effect of righteousness perpetual quiet, and security. And my people shall dwell in a peaceful mansion, and in habitations secure, and in resting places undisturbed.
The same Prophet, chap. lxii 1, speaks of a person under the title of Gods Servant, of a meek disposition, raised up by God to enlighten the world, even the Gentile part of it; to bring prisoners out of their confinement, and to open their eyes; alluding, probably, to the custom too common in the East; of sealing up the eyes, by sewing or fastening together the eyelids of persons, and then imprisoning thorn for life. It is doubted, however, whether the Prophet meant, or had in view, in this passage, the Messiah, or his own nation.
Behold my servant whom I will uphold, mine elect in whom my soul delighteth; I will make my spirit rest upon him, and he shall publish judgment to the nations. He shall not cry aloud, nor raise a clamour, nor cause his voice to be heard in the public places. The bruised reed shall he not break, and the dimly burning flax he shall not quench, he shall publish judgment so as to establish it perfectly. His force shall not be abated, nor broken, until he has firmly seated judgment in the earth, and the distant nations shall earnestly wait for his Law.
Thus saith the Lord, even, the Eternal, who created the heavens, and stretched them out; who spread abroad the earth, and the produce thereof, who giveth breath to the people upon it, and spirit to them that tread thereon. I the Lord have called thee for a righteous purpose,* and I will take hold of thy hand, and I will preserve thee; and I will give thee for a covenant to the people, for a light to the nations; to open the eyes of the blind, to bring the captive out of confinement, and from the dungeon those that dwell in darkness. I am the Eternal, that is my name, and my glory will I not give to another, nor my praise to the graven images. The former predictions, lo! they are to come to pass, and now events I now declare; before they spring forth, behold I make them known unto you. See also chap. xlix. 1,12, and chap. liv. 3, 5.
In the 3d chapter of Hosea, verses 4 and 5, it is said by the Prophet, that the sons of Israel shall abide many days without a king, and without a prince, and without sacrifice, and without a statue, and without an ephod, and without Teraphim. Afterward shall the sons of Israel return, and shall seek the Lord their God, and DAVID their King, and shall fear the Lord, and his goodness in the latter days.
Micah chap. v. speaks of the Messiah thus, And thou Bethlehem Ephratah, art thou too little to be among the leaders of Judah? Out of thee shall come forth unto me, him who is to be ruler in Israel; and his goings forth have been from old, from the days of hidden ages. Therefore will He (God) deliver them up, until the time when she that bringeth forth, hath brought forth, and until the residue of his brethren shall return together with the sons of Israel. And. he shall stand and feed his flock, in the strength of the Lord, in the majesty of the name of the Lord his God, and they shall abide, for now shall he be great unto the ends of the earth, and he shall be Peace. Jeremiah also speaks of the restoration of the Israelites under a Prince of the family of David, chap. xxiii. 5, 8.
Behold the days are coming, saith the Lord, that I will raise up unto David a righteous branch, and a king shall reign, and act wisely, and shall execute justice, and judgment in the earth. In his days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell in security, and this is the name by which the Eternal shall call him, OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS.# [Heb.] The same is mentioned in chap. xxx. 8, 9. And it shall be in that day, saith the Lord of Hosts, I will break his yoke from off his neck, and his bands will I burst asunder, and strangers shall no more exact service of him. But they shall serve the Lord their God, and DAVID their King, whom I will raise up for (or to) them. * * * The voice of joy, and the voice of mirth, the voice of the bridegroom, and the voice of the bride, the voice of them that say. Praise ye the Lord of Hosts, for the Lord is gracious, for his mercy endureth for ever, of them that bring praise to the house of the Lord. Thus saith the Lord of Hosts, yet again shall there be in this place that is desolate (Jerusalem and Palestine,) without man and beast, and in all the cities thereof, an habitation of shepherds folding sheep, in the cities of the hill country, and in the cities of the plain, and in the cities of the south, and in the land of Benjamin, and in the environs of Jerusalem. * * * Behold the days come, saith the Lord, that I will perform the good thing which I have spoken concerning the house of Israel, and concerning the house of Judah. In those days, and at that time, [he that readeth, let him observe] I will came to grow up of the line of David a branch of righteousness, and he shall execute judgment and justice in the earth. In those days Judah shall be saved, and Jerusalem, shall dwell securely, and this is he whom the Lord shall call—OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS. [Heb.] Surely, thus saith the Lord, there shall not be a failure in the line of David, one to sit upon the throne of the house of Israel, neither shall there be a failure in the line of the Priests, the Levites, of one to offer before me burnt offerings, and to perform sacrifice continually." See ch. xxxiiii. 14. In this place, the perpetuity of the tribe of Levi, as well as that of the house of David, is foretold. See also Jer. ch. xxx. 9.
Contemporary with Jeremiah was Ezekiel. He likewise describes this happy state of the Israelites under a king of the name of David, chap. xxxiv. 22.
Therefore will I save my flock, and they shall no more be a prey: and I will judge between cattle, and cattle. And I will set up one Shepherd over them, and be shall feed them, even my servant DAVID: he shall feed them, and he shall be their shepherd, and I the Lord will be their God, and my servant DAVID a Prince among them. I the Lord have spoken it. And I will make with them a covenant of peace, and will cause the evil beasts to cease out of the land; and they shall dwell safely in' the wilderness, and sleep in the woods. And I will make them, and the places round about my hill, a blessing, and I will cause the shower to come down in the season: there shall be showers of blessing. And the tree of the field shall yield her fruit; and the earth shall yield her increase; and they shall be safe in their land; and shall know that I am the Lord, &c.
In another passage this prophet says, that the two nations, Israel and Judah, shall have one king, and that this king shall be named DAVID, who shall reign for ever, chap. xxxvii. 21—28. Say unto them, thus saith the Lord God, behold I will take the children of Israel from among the heathen, whither they be gone, and will gather them on every side, and bring them into their own land. And I will make them one nation in the land, upon the mountains of Israel, and one king shall be king to them all, and they shall be no more two nations, neither shall they be divided into two kingdoms any more at all. Neither shall they defile themselves any more with their idols, nor with their detestable things, nor with any of their transgressions; but I will save them out of all their dwelling places wherein they have sinned, and will cleanse them, so shall they be my people, and I will be their God. And DAVID my servant shall be king over them, and there shall be one shepherd. They shall also walk in my judgments, and observe my statutes and do them. And they shall dwell in the land that I have given unto Jacob my servant, wherein your fathers have dwelt, and they shall dwell therein, even they, and their children, and their childrens children for ever, and my servant DAVID shall be their prince forever. Moreover I will make a covenant of peace with them: it shall be an everlasting covenant with them, and I will place them, and multiply them, and will set my sanctuary in the midst of them, for evermore. My tabernacle also shall be with them, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. And the heathen shall know, that I the Lord do sanctify Israel, when my sanctuary shall, be in the midst of them for evermore.
The natural construction of this seems to be this, that a descendant of David, called by that name, should reign over the Israelites for ever.
In the very circumstantial description which Ezekiel gives of the state of the Israelites in their own country, yet expected by the Jews, he speaks of the prince, and the portion assigned him, chap. xlv. 78. And in his description of the temple service, he moreover speaks of the gate, by which the prince is to enter into it. See chap. xlvi. 1, 2.
The next, and last, passage I shall quote, is from the book of Daniel, who, in the first year of Belshazzar king of Babylon, had a vision of four beasts, representing the four great Empires. At the close of his account of which, he speaks of one like the son of man being brought into the presence of God, and receiving from the Eternal an everlasting kingdom (chap. vii. 13)—I saw in the night visions, and behold one like the son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and come to the ancient of days; and they brought him near before him. And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed.
I have now gone through the prophecies which are allowed both by Jews and Christians to relate to one person whom they call the Messiah. It must be evident from all these passages, that the characteristics of this, to both parties, highly interesting personage, as described by the Hebrew prophets, are these:—
1. That he was to be a just, beneficent, wise, and mighty monarch, raised up and upheld, and established by God, to be the means of promoting universal peace, and happiness. That Israel should be gathered to him, and established in their own land; which was to be the seat of dominion, and the centre of union, and of worship to all the people, and nations of the earth; who were to live under the government, and receive, and obey the law of this beneficent prince; and enjoy unspeakable felicities on the earth, then changed to a universal paradise. And for all this happiness, they were to worship, and glorify the true God only, and glorify the Eternal, and give thanks to Him because He is good, and his mercy endureth forever.
2. That this prince was to be of the line of David, and as it should seem, called by that name, and was to reign on his throne in Jerusalem.
3. That according to Micah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel, (see the quotations)
his manifestation, and (and the restoration of Israel) were to be contemporaneous. See Hosea, chap. iii. 4, 5. And from Jeremiah xxxiii. 15, and from Micah v. 2, it should seem also, that he was not to be born, till the time of that restoration should be nearly arrived.
The prophecies concerning the Messiah of the Jews being now laid before the reader, we have only to apply these descriptions to know whether an individual be their Messiah, or not. For, (according to the principles laid down, and established in the preceding chapter) where the foregoing characteristics given by the prophets do centre and agree, that person is the Messiah foretold; but where they are not found in any one claiming that character, miracles are nothing to the purpose, and nothing is more certain, than that he has no right to be considered as such; and could he with a word turn the sun black in the face, in proof of his being the Messiah, he is, nevertheless, not to be regarded; for, whether such a person has yet appeared, can certainly only be known by considering, whether the world has ever yet seen such a person as this Messiah of the Hebrew prophets.
CHAPTER IV.
THE CHARACTER OF JESUS TESTED BY THOSE CHARACTERISTIC MARKS OF THE MESSIAH GIVEN BY THE PROPHETS OF THE OLD TESTAMENT.
Had Jesus of Nazareth come into the world merely as a person sent with a revelation from God, he would have had a right to be attended to, and tried upon that ground. And if his doctrines and precepts were consistent with reason, consistent with one another, and with prior revelations, really such, and all tending to the honour of God, and the good of men; his miracles, with these circumstances, ought to have determined men to believe in him.
But since he claimed to be the Messiah of the Jews, foretold by their prophets, it is requisite, that that claim should be made out; and it is reasonable in itself, and just to him, and necessary to all those who will not take their religion upon trust, that ho should be tried, by examining whether this claim can be made out, or not. The argument from prophecy becomes necessary to establish the claim of the Gospel: and as truth is consistent with itself, so this claim must be true, or, it destroys all others.
Besides, what notions of common morality must he have, who pretends to come from God, and declares (Jo. v. 37,) that the Scriptures testify of him, if, in fact, the Scriptures do not testify of him? What honesty, or sincerity could he have, who could begin at Moses, and all the prophets, and expound unto his disciples in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself, if neither Moses nor the prophets ever spake a word about him? The prophets, therefore, must decide this question, and the foundation of Christianity must be laid upon them; or else, to avoid one difficulty, Christians will be forced into such absurdities, as no man can palliate, much less can extricate himself out of.
Furthermore, this claim must be made out to the satisfaction of the Gentile, as well as the Jew. For since the fundamental article of Christianity is, that Jesus is the Christ; (Jo. xx. 31) that is to say, that he is the Messiah prophecied of in the Old Testament; whoever comes into the world as such, must come as the Messiah of the Jews, because no other nation did expect, or pretend to, the promise of a Messiah. Moreover, whoever comes as this Messiah of the Jews, must at least pretend to answer the character of their Messiah plainly delivered in the writings of their prophets. And the Jews themselves receiving those writings as divine, were not bound to, neither could they consistently with their duty, receive, any, who did not answer in all points to the description therein given.
Let us now test the character of Jesus of Nazareth by the description of the Messiah given by the Hebrew prophets. If his character corresponds in all respects with that given by those prophets, he is undoubtedly to be acknowledged as the king of Israel foretold; but if they do not exactly correspond, if there be the slightest incongruity, he certainly was not this Messiah. For it is evident, that some of the characteristic marks given may belong to. many illustrious individuals, but the whole can belong to, and be found in, only one person.
The first characteristic of the Messiah, the reader will recollect, was, according to the prophets, that he was to be the Prince of Peace, in whose times righteousness was to flourish, and mankind be made happy. That he was to sit upon the throne of David judging right; and that to him, and their own land, was Israel to be gathered, and all nations serve and obey him; and worship one God, even Jehovah.
But of Jesus we read, that he asserted, that his kingdom was not of this world. Instead of effecting peace among the nations, he said, Think not that I am come to send peace on earth, I have come to send a sword, I have come to put division between a son, and his father; the mother, and the daughter; the daughter-in-law, and her mother-in-law. Think ye, (said he to his disciples) that I have come to put peace on earth, I tell you nay, but rather division. Again, I have come to put fire on the earth. These are not the characteristics of the Messiah of the prophets of the Old Testament. For of him Zechariah (ch. ix.) says, that He shall speak peace to the nations; and of him Isaiah says, Nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war anymore. And so far from being the author of division, sword, and fire; according to Malachi, in the times of the Messiah, the heart of the parents was to be converted to the children, and the heart of the children to their parents.
In the times of the Messiah, wars were to cease, righteousness was to flourish, and mankind be happy. Whether this has yet taken place, the experience of almost nineteen centuries, and the present state of the world, can enable every one to determine for himself.
In the times of the Messiah, Israel was to be gathered, and planted in their own land, in honour, and prosperity. But not many years after the death of Jesus of Nazareth, the Jewish nation underwent the most dreadful calamities; and to this day, so far are they from being gathered, they are scattered to the four quarters of the globe. Instead of being in honour and prosperity, their history, since his time, is one dreadful record of unparalleled sufferings, written in letters of blood by the hands of murder, rapine, and cruelty.
Again; the true Messiah was, it seems, to be called DAVID, and was to reign at Jerusalem, on the throne of David; but the name Jesus is not the same as David, and Christians have assigned him a spiritual kingdom, and a throne in heaven! But was the throne of David in heaven? No! it was in Jerusalem, and no more in Heaven, than that of the Caesars.
Lastly, it appears from the prophecies of Hosea, Micah, and Jeremiah, Isaiah, and Ezekiel, quoted in the last chapter, that the manifestation of their Messiah was to be contemporaneous with the restoration of Israel, and from the quotations adduced from the three first mentioned prophets, it should seem that his birth was not to take place many years before that glorious event. But Jesus of Nazareth was born almost two thousand years ago; and the children of Israel yet expect a deliverer. And to conclude, it was foretold by Malachi, and believed by the Jews then, and ever since, that Elias the prophet, who did not die, but was removed from the earth, should precede the coming of the Messiah, and prepare them for his reception. But the prophet Elias certainly has not yet appeared!
Indeed, nothing appears to be more dissimilar than the character of the Messiah, as given by the Hebrew prophets, and that of Jesus of Nazareth. It seems scarcely credible, that a man who, though amiable and virtuous, yet lived in a low state, was poor, living upon alms, without wealth, and without power; and who (though by misfortune) died the death of a malefactor, crucified between two robbers, (a death exactly parallel with being hanged at the public gallows in the present day) should ever be taken for that mighty prince, that universal potentate, and benefactor of the human race, foretold in the splendid language of the prophets of the Old Testament.
CHAPTER V.
EXAMINATION OF THE ARGUMENTS FROM THE OLD TESTAMENT ADDUCED IN THE NEW, TO PROVE THAT JESUS OF NAZARETH WAS THE MESSIAH.
But since one would esteem it almost incredible, that the apostles could persuade men to believe Jesus to be this Messiah, unless they had at least some proof to offer to their conviction, let us next consider, and examine, the proofs adduced by the apostles and their followers, from the Old Testament for that purpose.
Of the strength or weakness of the proofs for Christianity out of the Old Testament, we are well qualified to judge, as we have the Old and New Testament in our hands; the first containing what are offered as proofs of Christianity, and the latter the application of those proofs, and we should seem to have nothing more to do, but to compare the Old and New Testament together.
But these proofs taken out of the Old Testament, and urged in the New, being sometimes not to be found in the Old, nor urged in the New, according to the literal and obvious sense, which they appear to bear in their supposed places in the Old, and, therefore, not proofs according to the rules of interpretation established by reason, and acted upon in interpreting every other ancient book— almost all Christian commentators on the Bible, and advocates for the religion of the New Testament, both ancient and modern, have judged them to be applied in a secondary, or typical, or mystical, or allegorical, or enigmatical sense; that is, in a sense different from the obvious and literal sense which they bear in the Old Testament.
Thus, for example, Matthew, after having given an account of the conception of Mary, and the birth of Jesus, says (ch. i.,) All this was done that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying, Behold a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel. But the words as they stand in Isaiah ch. vii. 14, from whence they are taken, do, in their obvious and literal sense, relate to a young woman in the days of Ahaz, King of Judah, as will appear, considering the context.
When Rezin, King of Syria, and Pekah, King of Israel, were confederates in arms together, against Ahaz, King of Judah, Isaiah the prophet was sent by God, first to comfort Ahaz and the nation, and then to assure them by a sign, that his enemies should in a little time be confounded.—But Ahaz refusing a sign at the prophets hand, the prophet said (see the chapter,) The Lord shall give you a sign. Behold a virgin, or young woman (for the Hebrew word means both as was truly and justly asserted by the Jews in the primitive ages against the Christians, and is now acknowledged, and established beyond dispute by the best Hebrew scholars of this age,) shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil and choose the good. For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land which thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings. And this sign is accordingly given Ahaz by the prophet, who, ch. viii. v. 2, 18, took two witnesses and went to the said young woman, who in due time conceived, and bare a son, after whose birth the projects of Rezin and Pekah were, it appears, soon confounded, according to the prophecy and sign given by the prophet.
And the prophet himself, puts it beyond dispute, that this is the proper interpretation of the prophecy, by express words, as well as by his whole narration; for he says, Behold I, and the children whom the Lord hath given me, are for signs, and for wonders in Israel from the Lord of Hosts, that dwelleth in mount Zion. Isaiah viii. 19.
This is the plain drift and design of the prophet, literally, obviously, and primarily understood; and thus he is understood by one of the most judicious of interpreters, the great Grotius. Indeed, to understand the prophet as having the conception of Mary, and the birth of her son Jesus from a virgin mother literally, and primarily in view, is a very great absurdity, and contrary to the very intent and design of the sign given by the prophet.
For the sign being given by Isaiah to convince Ahaz that he brought a message from God to him, to assure him that the two kings should not succeed in their attempt against him, how could a virgins conception, and bearing a son seven hundred years afterwards, be a sign to Ahaz, that the prophet came to him, with the said message from God? And how useless was it to Ahaz, as well as absurd in itself for the prophet, to say, Before the child, born seven hundred years hence, shall distinguish between good and evil, the land which thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings, which would be a banter, instead of a sign.
But a prophecy of the certain birth of a male child, by a particular female within a short time, seems a proper sign, as being not only what could not with certainty, be foretold, except by a person inspired, but considered as soon coming to pass, it, consequently, evidences itself to be a divine sign, and answers all the purposes of a sign. And such a sign is agreeable to Gods conduct on like occasions; witness his conduct to Gideon and Hezekiah. Jud. vi.; 2 Kings xx.
This prophecy, therefore, not being fulfilled in Jesus, according to the literal and obvious sense of the words as they stand in Isaiah, it is supposed that this, like the other prophecies cited in the New Testament, is fulfilled in a secondary, or typical, or mystical sense; that is, the said prophecy, which was literally fulfilled by the birth of the son foretold by the prophet, was again fulfilled by the birth of Jesus, as being an event of the same kind, and intended to be secretly and mystically signified either by the prophet or by God, who directed the prophets speech. If the reader desires further satisfaction that the literal and obvious sense of this prophecy relates to a son to be born in Isaiah's time, and not to Jesus, he is referred to the commentator Grotius, and to Huetius Demonstrat. Evang. in loc., to the ancient fathers, and to the most respectable of the modern Christian. commentators, who all allow and show, that the words of Isaiah are not applicable to the birth of Jesus in their literal sense, but only in a mystical, or figurative, or allegorical sense.
Again, Matthew gives us another prophecy, which he says was fulfilled. He tells us, that Jesus was carried into Egypt; from whence he returned after the death of Herod, (Mat. ii.) that it might be fulfilled, which was of the Lord by the prophet, saying, out of Egypt have I called my son. Which, being word for word in Hosea, (ch. xi. 1) and no where else to be found in the Old Testament, are supposed to be taken from thence; where according to their obvious sense they are no prophecy at all! but relate and refer to a past action, viz., to the calling of the children of Israel out of Egypt, which will, I think, be denied by few. This passage, therefore, or as it is styled, prophecy, of Hosea, is said by learned men among Christians to be mystically, or allegorically, applied, in order to render Matthews application of it, just; and they say all other methods of some learned men to solve the difficulty arising from Matthew's citation of this passage, have proved unsuccessful.
Again, Matthew says, (ch. ii.) Jesus came, and dwelt at Nazareth, that it might be fulfilled, which was spoken by the prophet, saying, he shall be called a Nazarene; but as this passage does not occur in the Old Testament at all, we are precluded from ascertaining whether it be literal, mystical, or allegorical.
Jesus says of John the Baptist, (Mat. xi. 14) This is Elias that was for to come, wherein he is supposed to refer to these words of Malachi, (ch. iv. 4) Behold I will send you Elijah the prophet, before the coming of the great and terrible day of the Lord, which, according to their literal, and obvious sense, are a prophecy, that Elijah or Elias was to come in person (which we know from the New Testament, as well as elsewhere, was the constant expectation of the Jews.) Besides, this Elijah was to come before the great and terrible day of the Lord, which has not yet arrived; and, therefore, this prophecy of Malachi, referred to by the evangelist, was certainly not literally, but only mystically, fulfilled in John the Baptist.
Again, Jesus (Mat. xiii.) cites the prophecy of Isaiah (Is. vi. 9,) By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and he assures us, that it was fulfilled in his time in those to whom he spake in parables, (which, by the way, he did, it is said, in order to fulfil a passage of the Psalms) though it is manifest that the prophecy of Isaiah quoted, according to its literal sense, undoubtedly relates to the obstinate Jews who lived in the time of Isaiah.
In fine, these, and the many other passages cited as prophecies from the Old Testament by the authors of the New, do so plainly relate, in their obvious and primary sense to other matters than those which they are adduced to prove, that it is allowed by the most learned defenders of Christianity, that to pretend that they prove in a literal sense what they are adduced to prove, is to give up with both hands the cause of Christianity to the enemies thereof, who can so easily show in so many undoubted instances, the Old and New Testament to have no manner of connection in that respect, but to be in an irreconcilable state.
These proofs from the prophets being so different from what we should expect, it behoves us to enquire what could induce Jesus and his apostles to quote the Old Testament in such a manner?
The Jews shortly answer this question, by saying, that they did so, because they did not understand the meaning of the books they quoted. But it has been answered by some learned Christians, that Jesus and the apostles did not quote in the manner they did through caprice or ignorance bat according to certain methods of interpretation, which were in their times of established authority among the Jews.
The rules of interpretation, which were supposed to be irrecoverably lost afterwards recovered to the world by the learned Surenhusius, professor of the Hebrew language in the illustrious school of Amsterdam. He made an ample discovery to the world of the rules by which the apostles cited the Old Testament, and argued from thence, wherein the whole mystery of the apostles applying scripture in a secondary, or typical, or allegorical sense, seems to be unfolded. I shall, therefore, state this matter from Surenhusius.
He (Surenhusius) says, that when he considered the various opinions Of the learned about the passages of the Old Testament quoted in the New, He was filled with grief, not knowing where to set his foot; and was much concerned, that what had been done with good success upon profane authors, could not be so happily performed upon the sacred.
He tells us, that having had frequent occasions to converse with the Jews (on account of his application to Hebrew literature from his youth) who insolently reflected upon the New Testament, affirming it to be plainly corrupted, because it seldom or never agreed with the Old Testament, some of whom were so confident in this opinion, as to say, they would profess the Christian religion, if any one could reconcile the New Testament with the Old. I was the more grieved, because, (says this honest and well meaning man) I knew not how to apply a remedy to this evil. But the matter being of great importance, he discoursed with several learned men about it, and read the books of others, being persuaded that the authors of the books of the New Testament had written nothing but what was suited to the time wherein they lived, and that Christ and his apostles had constantly followed the method of their ancestors. After he had long revolved this hypothesis in his mind, at last he met with a Rabbi well skilled in the Talmud, the Cabbala, and the allegorical books of the Jews. This Rabbi had once embraced the Christian religion, but was again relapsed to Judaism on account of the idolatry of the Papists, yet not perfectly disbelieving the integrity of the New Testament. Surenhusius asked him, what he thought of the passages of the Old Testament quoted in the New, whether they were rightly quoted or not, and whether the Jews had any just reason to cavil at them, and at the same time proposed to him two or three passages, which had very much exercised the most learned Christian commentators.
The Rabbi having admirably explained those passages, to the great surprise of Surenhusius, and confirming his explications by several places of the Talmud, and other writings of the Jewish commentators, and allegorical writers, Surenhusius asked him what would be the best method to write a treatise in order to vindicate the passages of the Old Testament quoted in the New? The Rabbi answered, that he thought the best way of succeeding in such an undertaking would be to peruse a great part of the Talmud, and the allegorical and literal commentators; to observe their several ways of quoting and interpreting scripture, and to collect as many materials of that kind, as would be sufficient for that purpose.
Surenhusius took the hint immediately: he read such books as were recommended, observed every thing that might be subservient to his design, and made a book upon the subject. And in the third part of that book he gives us the rules so long sought after, viz., the ten ways# used, he says, by the Jewish doctors in citing scripture. And here they are:—
1. The first rule is—reading the words of the Hebrew bible, not according to the points placed under them, but according to other points substituted in their stead, as is done by Peter, Acts iii. 3; by Stephen, Acts vii. 43, and by Paul, 1 Cor. xv. 54; 2 Cor. viii. 16, and Heb. iii. 10; ix. 21; xii. 6.
2. The second rule is—changing the letters, whether those letters be of the same organ (as the Hebrew grammarians speak,) or not, as is done by Paul, Rom. ix. 33; 1 Cor. xi. 9; Heb. viii. 9, and x. 6; and by Stephen, Acts vii. 43.
3. The third is—changing both letters and points, as is done by Paul, Acts xiii. 41, and 2 Cor. viii. 15.
4. The fourth is—adding some letters, and taking away others.
5. The fifth is—transposing words and letters.
6. The sixth is—dividing one word into two.
7. The seventh is—adding other words to those in the text, in order to make the sense more clear, and to accommodate it to the subject they we upon.
8. The eighth is—changing the order of words.
9. The ninth is—changing the order of words, and adding other words.
10. The tenth is—changing the order of words, adding words, and retrenching words, which, (says he) is a method often used by Paul. Of the application of all these rules, he gives examples taken from the New Testament.
It is not necessary to make many observations upon these rules, they speak for themselves most significantly; for what is there that cannot be proved from the Old Testament, or any other book, yea, from Euclids Elements! or even an old almanac! by the help of altering words and sentences; adding; retrenching; and transposing, and cutting words in two, as is stated above by a learned and good man, and sincere Christian who found out, and brought forward, these rules, as the best means of getting the authors of the New Testament out of a difficulty, which had long shocked and grieved their best friends.
CHAPTER VI.
EXAMINATION OF THE MEANING OF THE PHRASE THIS WAS DONE THAT IT MIGHT BE FULFILLED.
It may be objected from divers learned authors, who have been very sensible of the difficulties stated in the preceding chapters, and have, sensible of the difficulties stated in the preceding chapters, therefore, taken other ground than their predecessors, in order to defend themselves the better; I say, it may be objected to what I have advanced, that Christianity is not in fact grounded on the prophetical, or other, quotations made from the Old, in the New, Testament; but that those quotations being allegorically applied by the authors of the New Testament, are merely arguments ad hominem, to convince the Jews of the truth of Christianity, who allowed such a method of arguing to be valid, and are not arguments to the rest of mankind.
To which I answer—That this distinction is the pure invention of those who make the objection, and not only has no foundation in the New Testament, but is utterly subverted by its express declarations; for the authors of the books of the New Testament always argue absolutely from the quotations they cite as prophecies out of the books of the Old Testament. Moses and the prophets are every where represented to be a just foundation for Christianity; and the author of the Epistle to the Romans expressly says, ch. xvi. 26, 26, The gospel, which was kept secret since the world began, was now made manifest by the scriptures of the prophets (wherein that gospel was secretly contained) to all nations, by the means of the preachers of the gospel who gave the secret or spiritual sense of those scriptures; for to the ancient Jews, according to them, the gospel was preached by the types of their law, and, therefore, must have been considered as truly contained in it.
Besides, the authors of the books of the New Testament were convinced long before the publication of them, that the gospel was to be preached to the Gentiles as well as the Jews, to both of whom, therefore, they reasoned allegorically in their books, as Peter and others did in their sermons, though with greater success on Gentiles than on Jews; and as Paul did before Felix, when he said he took his heresy, or Christianity, from the law, and the prophets. Acts xxiv., as also he did before Agrippa. It would, therefore, seem strange, that books written to all the world by men equally concerned to convert Gentiles as well as Jews, and that discourses made expressly to Gentiles as well as to Jews, should be designed to be pertinent only to Jews, much less to a very few Jews! Indeed, I am ashamed at being thus long engaged in showing what must be self evident; and did I not fear being further tedious to my readers, I would undertake to bring together passages from the New Testament, where the meaning and intention of the writers is obvious, in such abundance, as would immediately and entirely put the hypothesis of our opponents out of countenance.
These quotations from the. Old Testament are certainly urged, and spoken of as direct proofs, as absolute proofs in themselves, and not as mere proofs ad hominem to the Jews; for if these prophecies are only urged by the apostles as proofs to the Jews, and intended only as proofs founded on the mistaken meanings of the Old Testament of some Jews of their time, what sense is there in appealing upon all occasions to the prophets, and recommending the reading and search of the Old Testament for the trial and proof of what was preached? for that was to proceed on weakness itself, knowing it to be so. Certainly nothing, but a real persuasion, that the prophecies of the Old Testament were really fulfilled in Jesus, could make them every where inculcate and appeal to the fulfilling of prophecy. In order to support their hypothesis, Christians have been forced to seek evidence to prove, that the phrase—this was done that it might be fulfilled, so frequent in the New Testament, meant no such thing, but was only a habit the Jews had got of introducing by such phrases a handsome quotation, or allusion, from the Old Testament. But this evasion must be given up, upon two accounts. 1. Because most of the European biblical critics of the present day (the learned annotator on Michaelis Introduction to the New Testament, Dr. Marsh, among others) frankly acknowledge it not to be tenable; and 2. Because it can be proved not to be so from the New Testament itself. For example, when John represents (Jo. xix. 28,) Jesus upon the cross saying, I thirst that the scripture might be fulfilled, doth he not plainly represent Jesus as fulfilling a prophecy which foretold that the Messiah should thirst, or say, I thirst, upon the cross? Nay, does he not suppose him to say so, in order to fulfil, or that he might fulfil, a prophecy? Is it not also suitable to the character of Jesus, who founded his Messiahship on the prophecies in the Old Testament, and could not but have the accomplishment of those prophecies constantly in view to fulfil, and to intend to fulfil them? And is it not unsuitable in John, in describing his master dying upon the cross, to represent him as saying things, whereby he only gave occasion to observe, that he fulfilled, i. e., accommodated a phrase! not a prophecy!!
Besides, they who set up this accommodating principle of accommodation, do, in some cases, take the term fulfilled in its proper sense, and do allow it, (when convenient) to relate to a prophecy really fulfilled. But I would ask them, what rule they have to know when the apostles mean a prophecy fulfilled, and when a phrase accommodated, since they are acknowledged to use the strong expression of fulfilling in the latter case no less than in the former?
In a word, unless it be granted, that the citations were intended by the authors of the New Testament, to be adduced, and applied, as prophecies fulfilled; if you do suppose them not intended to be adduced, and applied, as prophecies; then, the whole affair of Jesus being foretold as the Messiah, is reduced to an accommodation of phrases! and it will, assuredly, follow, that the citations of Jesus and his apostles out of the Old Testament, are like and no better than the work of, the Empress Eudoxia, who wrote the History of Jesus in verses put together, and borrowed out of—HOMER! or that of Proba Palconia, who did the same, in verses, and words taken out of—Virgil!
In fine, one of two things must be allowed, either (which is most probable) the authors of the New Testament conceived their citations to be indeed prophecies concerning Jesus, and then they were ignorant and blundered, and, therefore; were not inspired; or, they knowingly used them as means to deceive the simple and credulous into a belief of their being testimonies sufficient to prove what they themselves knew they had no relation to;—and then they were deceivers: there is no other alternative, and each horn of the dilemma, must prove as fatal as the other.
Perhaps it may be said, It is to no purpose for you to object to the quotations or the arguments of Jesus and his apostles, for God was with them confirming their doctrine by signs following, they had from God the power of working miracles, and, consequently, their interpretations of Scripture, however strange they may appear to your minds, must be infallible, they being men inspired.
To this argument it can be justly answered, first, that the question whether Jesus be the Messiah, entirely depends, as proved before, upon his answering the characteristics given of that personage by the Jewish prophets; and all the miracles in the world could never, from the nature of the case, prove him to be so, unless his character does entirely agree with the archetype laid down by them, as had been already abundantly proved.
Secondly,—That whether these miracles were really performed, or not, depends entirely upon the credibility of the authors themselves who have thus quoted! which, as shall be shown hereafter, may be disputed; and, thirdly, it could be retorted upon Protestants, that this same argument is the same in principle with the often refuted popish argumentation. The Papists pretend to derive all their new invented and absurd doctrines and practices from the scriptures by their interpretations of them; but yet, when their interpretations are attacked from scripture, they immediately fly from thence to the miracles wrought in their church, and to the visions of their holy men and saints, for the establishment of their interpretations, by which they support those very doctrines and practices. And particularly they endeavour to prove thus the doctrine of transubstantiation, from the numerous miracles affirmed to have been wrought in its behalf, which reasoning Protestant Christians assert to be an argument absurd and inconclusive, therefore, they should not use it themselves.
We allow, that if these interpretations of the sense of the Old Testament had been in existence before the Christian era, it might be something. But we beg leave to remind them, that it is certain, that these interpretations were not published till after the events to which they are referred took place, which is a circumstance of obvious significancy.
In fine, to this argument I would answer, as in Cicero (de Natura Deor. Ed. Dav. p. 209) Cotta did to Balbus—rumoribus mecum pugnas, ego autem a te roitones requiro.
CHAPTER VII.
EXAMINATION OF THE ARGUMENTS ALLEGED FROM THE HEBREW PROPHETS, TO PBOVE THAT JESUS WAS THE MESSIAH.
But it may be asked, how it was possible, that wise and good men could have been led to embrace the religion of the New Testament, if there were not in the Old Testament some prophecies which might be conceived by them to supply, at least, plausible arguments to prove that Jesus of Nazareth was the Messiah? Are there no other passages in the prophets besides those quoted in the New Testament, and are there not a few passages quoted in the New Testament, which appear more to the purpose than those we have been considering? To this I candidly answer that there are, and this chapter will be devoted to the consideration of them.
Two of these prophecies, one from Genesis, and the other from Daniel, are thought by the advocates of Christianity, (because they conceive them to point out and to limit the time of the coming of the Messiah,) to be stronger in their favour than any of those quoted in die New Testament. If so, it is a very singular circumstance, that the inspired authors of the New Testament did not make use of them, instead of others not so much to the purpose. This circumstance of itself should teach us to examine the prophecies in question with caution, and also with candour, since many worthy and religious men have thought them sufficient to prove that Jesus was indeed the Messiah. These prophecies I shall reserve last for consideration, and shall now begin with the others usually adduced, taking them up pretty much in the order in which they stand in the Old Testament.
The first passage is taken from Deut. xviii. 15, The Lord thy God will raise up unto thee a prophet from the midst of thee, like unto me, unto him ye shall hearken. According to all that thou desiredst of the Lord thy God in Horeb, in the day of the assembly, saying. Let me not hear again the voice of the Lord my God, neither let me see his great fire any more, that I die not. And the Lord said unto me, they have well spoken that which they have spoken. I will raise them up a prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and I will put my words into his mouth, and he shall speak unto them all that I command him. And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto my, words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him.
This passage is pertinaciously and solely applied to Jesus, by many Christian writers, because it is so applied by Peter in the 2 chap. of Acts, in his sermon to the Jews, just after he had received the full inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and of course must be considered as infallible. Nevertheless, these words of Moses are supposed by many learned men, both Jews and Christians, to be spoken of Joshua, whom Moses himself afterwards, at the command and appointment of God, declared to be his successor, and who was endowed with the spirit which was upon Moses, (see Deut. xxxi. 33, xxxiv. 17,) and to whom the Jews then promised to hearken, and pay obedience to, as they had done before to Moses. But others understand them to be a promise of a succession of prophets, to whom the Jews might upon all occasions have recourse; and one or the other of these seems to be the certain meaning of the place. From this consideration, that from the context it appears Moses was giving the Jews directions of immediate use; and, therefore, in promising a prophet to them, to whom they should hearken, he seems to intend an immediate prophet who might be of use to the Jews, and answer their common exigencies, and not a prophet two thousand years to come.
But I take the words to promise a succession of prophets, and for that sense wherein Grotius and Le Clerc, and most of the Jews, take them. I shall give my reasons, for this, and show that they do not necessarily refer to Jesus Christ.
Moses, in the verses preceding this prophecy in the same chapter, (Deut. xviii. 9—14) tells the Israelites from God, that when they came into Canaan, they should not learn to do after, the abominations of the people thereof; and, particularly, that there should not be found among them any one that useth divination, or an observer of times, &c., or a consulter with familiar spirits, &c. For all, says he, that do these things are an abomination to the Lord; and because of these abominations the Lord thy God doth drive these people out from before thee. For these nations which thou shalt possess hearkened unto observers of times, and unto diviners. But as for thee, the Lord thy God hath not suffered thee to do so. Then follow the words about the prophet, The Lord thy God will raise unto thee a prophet from the midst of thee of thy brethren like unto me, unto him ye shall hearken. All which is as much as to say, When you come into Canaan, do not hearten to a diviner, &c., as the Canaanites do, for the Lord will give you a prophet of your own brethren inspired like me, to guide any instruct you, to whom ye shall hearken. Or rather, Do not hearken to diviners, &c., but to prophets, who shall be raised up among you.
Now that the words cited must relate to a succession of prophets to begin upon the Israelites taking possession of the land of Canaan, is manifest; because, the raising up of a prophet, to whom they were to hearken, is the reason given why they should not hearken to a diviner, &c., when they came to that land; which reason could have no force unless they were to have, 1st,—an immediate prophet in Canaan; for what sense is there, or would there be, in saying, Dont hearken to such diviners as are in Canaan, when you come there, for you shall have a prophet of your own, to whom ye shall hearken two thousand years after you come there!
Secondly,—As the context shows that the prophet to be raised up, was an immediate prophet, so it also shows, that the singular number here stands for the plural, according to the frequent custom of the Hebrew language, as is shown by Le Clerc and Stillingfleet, in loco; for one single prophet to be raised up immediately, who might soon die, could not be a reason why Jews of succeeding generations should not harken to diviners in Canaan.
Finally,—The words of God by Moses, which follow the promise of a prophet, evidently show that by that promise prophets were intended, in laying-down a rule for the test or trial of the prophets before mentioned, in such a manner as implies, that that rule was to be applied to all prophets pretending to come from him. See the words in Deut. xviii., 19—22.
I shall conclude this explication, by adducing, in confirmation of it, the paraphrase of the words given in the Targum of Jonathan. The nations you are about to possess, (says the Jewish paraphrast) hearken to jugglers and diviners; but you shall not be like them; for your priests shall enquire by Urim and Thummim, and the Lord your God shall give you a true prophet. And this explication is the one adopted by Origen,—[Contra Celsum, p. 28.]
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 Gods 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 Peters 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 Peters argument is grounded upon two mistakes; for, 1st, the Hebrew word translated corruption, here signifies destruction, perdition; and in the next place, instead of being thy holy One, in the singular, it is in the Hebrew thy saints, in general. The passage is quoted from the 16th Psalm; and I will give a literal translation of it from the original, which will make the propriety or impropriety of Peters quotation perfectly obvious. The contents and import of the Psalm, according to the English version, are as follow; David, in distrust of his merits, and hatred of idolatry, fleeth to God for preservation, He showeth the hope of his calling, of the resurrection, and of life everlasting. And the passage in question, according to the original, reads thus:—I have set the Lord always before me: Because he is on my right hand, I shall not be moved: Therefore my heart is glad, and my glory [i. e., tongue] rejoiceth: My flesh also shall rest in hope. For thou wilt not leave my soul in Hades, neither wilt thou suffer thy saints to see destruction. Thou wilt show me the path of life: In thy presence is fullness of joy, and at thy right hand are pleasures for evermore. That is—Because I have ever trusted in thee, and experienced thy constant protection, therefore I will not fear death; because thou wilt not for over leave my soul in the place of departed spirits, nor suffer thy saints to perish from existence. Thou wilt raise me from the dead, and make me happy for ever in thy presence.#
In the 4th chap. of the Acts, the apostles are represented as praying to God, and referring in their prayer to the 2d Psalm why did the heathen rage," &c., as being a prophecy of the opposition of the Jews to Jesus; with how much justice may be seen from these circumstances.
1. That the nations, as it is in the original, did not assemble together to crucify Jesus, as this was done by a few soldiers. 2. The kings of the earth had no hand in it, for they knew nothing about it. And 3rdly, Those who were concerned did by no means form vain designs, since they effected their cruel purposes. And lastly, From that time to the present, God has not set Jesus as his king upon the holy hill of Sion, as the Psalm imports, nor given him the nations for his inheritance, nor the uttermost parts of the earth for a possession.
The next prophecy usually adduced to prove that Jesus is the Messiah, is The passage quoted from Micah v. 2, in the 2d chapter of Mat.—But from Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the chiefs of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me, that is, to be ruler in Israel, whose goings forth have been from old, from the days of hidden ages. This passage probably refers to the Messiah, but by no means signifies that this Messiah was to be born in Bethlehem, as asserted by Matthew; but only, that he was to be derived from Bethlehem, the city of Jesse, the father of David of famous memory, whose family was venerable for its antiquity, being of the days of hidden ages. And this interpretation is known, and acknowledged, by Hebrew scholars. But in order to cut short the dispute, w will permit the passage to be interpreted as signifying that Bethlehem was to be the birth place of the Messiah. What then? Will a mans being born in Bethlehem be sufficient to make him to be the Messiah foretold by the Hebrew prophets? Surely it has been made plain in the beginning of this work, that many more characteristic marks than this must meet in one person in order to constitute him the Messiah described by them!
In Zechariah ix. 9, it is written, Rejoice greatly, O Daughter of Sion, Shout, O Daughter of Jerusalem! Behold thy king cometh unto thee, the righteous one, and saved, or preserved [according to the Hebrew] lowly, and riding upon an ass, and upon a colt, the foal of an ass. This has been applied by the evangelists to Jesus, who rode upon an ass into Jerusalem.
But in the first place, it is to be observed, that there seems to have been a blunder in this transaction; for according to the Hebrew idiom of the passage quoted above, the personage there spoken of, was to ride upon an ass colt; whereas, the apostles, in order to be sure of fulfilling the prophecy, represent Jesus as riding upon an ass, and the colt, too! "They spread their garments upon them, and set him upon them."[See the evangelists in loc.] In the next place, a man may ride into Jerusalem upon an ass, without being thus necessarily demonstrated to be the Messiah. And unless, as said before, every tittle of the marks given by the prophets to designate their Messiah, be found in Jesus, and in any other claiming to be that Messiah his being born in Bethlehem, and riding upon an ass into Jerusalem, will by no means prove him to be so. Besides, those who will take the trouble to look at the context in Zechariah, will find, that the event spoken of in the quotation, is spoken of as contemporaneous with the restoration Israel, and the establishment of peace and happiness, which seems to cut up by the roots the interpretation of the evangelists. And to conclude the argument,—Jesus being born in Bethlehem, and riding into Jerusalem, allowing it to be true, would not, we think, frustrate these prophecies of a future fulfillment—for no one can disprove, that if so be the will of God, such a person as the Messiah is described to be, might be born in Bethlehem to-morrow, and ride in triumph into Jerusalem, twenty years afterwards.
The next passage which has been offered, as a prophecy of Jesus, is to be found in the 12th chap. of Zech. v. 10, and part of it has been misquoted by John. And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and supplications, and they shall look on me whom they have pierced. So it stands in the English version; but, before I state what it ought to be, I would observe, that before the evangelist, (who in his account of the crucifixion applies this passage as referring to Jesus being pierced with a spear) could make this passage fit his purpose, he had to substitute the word him for me, as it is in the Hebrew; confirmed by, I believe, all the versions, ancient and modern, without exception. Yet, with this change, it will by no means answer his purpose; for the Hebrew word here translated pierced, in this place signifies blasphemed, or insulted, as it is understood by Grotius, who confirms this rendering from the Hebrew of Levit. xxiv. 11, where in this passage the Israelitish woman's son blasphemed the name of the Lord. The Hebrew word translated blasphemed is from the same root with the Hebrew word translated pierced in the passage in Zechariah quoted above. So that the passage ought to be translated thus:—I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and supplications, and they shall look towards me whom they have blasphemed. [To look towards God is a phrase frequently met with, and well understood.] Now, to enable us to understand more perfectly this passage, let us consider the context, where we shall find that it states, that there was to be a war in Judea, and a siege of Jerusalem, and then a deliverance of the Jews, by the destruction of all the nations, that should come up at that time, against Jerusalem. Immediately after which matters, follows the prophecy under consideration—I will pour upon the house of David, &c. Now, from these things thus laid together, I crave leave to argue in the words of Dr. Sykes [Essay, &c., p. 268]—Did any one circumstance of all this happen to the Jews about the time of the death of Jesus? Or rather, was not every thing the reverse of what Zechariah says; and instead of all nations being destroyed that came about Jerusalem, Jerusalem itself was destroyed: instead of a spirit of grace and supplications, the Jews have had their hearts hardened against the Christ; instead of mourning for him whom they have pierced, they condemn him and his followers even until this day.
But it is tiresome thus to waste time in proving that parts and ends of verses, disjointed from their connexion, and even the words quoted, some of them changed and some transposed, (though even done according to the rules given by the venerable Surenhusius) prove nothing. We must, therefore, devote the remainder of this long chapter to the consideration of the three famous prophecies, on which Christians have not hesitated, with triumphing confidence, to rest the issue of their cause. These are the prophecy of Shiloh, Gen. 49; the 53d ch. of Isaiah; and Daniels prophecy of the seventy weeks. I will consider them in order, and thus wind up the chapter.
I have some where read in a catechism, the following question and answer:—Q. How can you confound the Jews, and prove, from prophecy, that the Messiah is already come? A. From these two prophecies—The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, &c.—Gen. xlix.; and this—Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people, &c.—Dan. ix. 24.
But, notwithstanding these overwhelming proofs, the stubborn
Jews refuse to be confounded! on the contrary, they in fact laugh at
Christians for being so easily imposed upon.
The prophecy concerning Shiloh, the Jews acknowledge, refers to their Messiah. But they do not allow that it defines or limits the time of his coming.
And that it in fact does not, will be perfectly, evident to all who will look at the place in the Hebrew bible, which they will find pointed to read not—The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, and a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come, &c.; but thus—The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, for ever; for Shiloh shall come, and to him shall the gathering of the people be. So that the prophecy does not intimate that the Messiah should come before the sceptre be departed from Judah; but that it should not depart for ever, but shall be restored when Shiloh comes. This is the plain and obvious sense of the prophecy; and, moreover, is the only one that is consistent with historical fact. For, in truth, the sceptre had departed from Judah several hundred years before Jesus of Nazareth was born. For from the time of the Babylonish captivity Judah has never been free, but in subjection to the Persians, the Syrians, the Romans, and all the world.
If my readers desire further satisfaction with regard to this interpretation of this famous prophecy, I refer them to the dispute upon this subject between the celebrated Rittangelius, and a learned Jew, (preserved in Wagenseils Tela Ignea,) where he will find Rittangelius first amicably inviting the Hebrew to discuss the point, who does so most ably and respectfully toward his Christian antagonist, and unanswerably establishes the interpretation above stated, by the laws of the Hebrew language, by the ancient interpretation of the Targum, by venerable tradition, and by appealing to history. Rittangelius begins his defence by shuffling, an ends by getting into a passion, and calling names; which his opponent, who is cool, because confident of being able to establish his argument, answers by notifying to Rittangelius his compassion and contempt.
The next prophecy proposed to be considered, is the celebrated prophecy of Isaiah, consisting of part of the 52nd, and the whole of the 53rd, chapter. It is the only prophecy which Paley thinks worth bringing forward in his elaborate defence; and it must be confessed, that if this prophecy relates to the Messiah, it is by far the most plausible of any that are brought forward in favour of Jesus Christ. It merits, therefore, a thorough discussion, and I shall endeavour that it shall be a candid one. This prophecy is quoted by Jesus himself in Luke xxii. 39, and by Philip, when he converted the Eunuch, (Acts 8,) for beginning at this prophecy, he preached unto him Jesus.
It will not be necessary to cite the passage at length, it being one perfectly familiar to every Christian. I will, then, before I consider it, first premise, that since it has been heretofore abundantly made evident, that the Messiah of the Old Testament was not to suffer, and die, but to live and reign, it is according to the rules of sound criticism, and I think sound theology too, to interpret this solitary passage, so that it may not contradict very many others of a directly contrary import. Now, if this passage can relate only to the Messiah, it will throw into utter confusion the whole scheme of the prophetical scriptures. But if it can be made to appear, that it does not necessarily relate to him; if it can, consistently with the context, be otherwise applied, the whole difficulty vanishes. Now, the authors of the New Testament have applied this prophecy to the Messiah, and to Jesus as the Messiah; and for doing so, they have been accused of misapplication of it-from the earliest times; since we know from Origen, that the Jews of his time derided the Christians for relying upon this prophecy; alleging that it related to their own nation, and was a prophecy of their suffering and persecuted state, and of their ultimate emancipation and happiness. And this interpretation of the prophecy the learned Vitringa, in his commentary upon Is. in loc., allows to be the most respectable he had met with among the Jews, and, according to him, to be by no means dispised.
In order that the fitness or unfitness of this application of the prophecy may be made apparent, and evident, we will new lay before the reader this famous prophecy, part by part, each part accompanied by the Jewish interpretation.
Isaiah lii. 13, Behold, my servant shall prosper, he shall be exalted, and extolled, and be very high. Interpretation—My servant Israel, though he be in great affliction for a time, yet hereafter shall be released from captivity, and be honoured and raised to elevation very high among the nations of the earth. [That the Jewish nation is spoken of, in the singular number and under the title of Gods servant frequently in the Old Testament, is well known, and will be here made certain by a few examples. Isaiah xli. (the chapter preceding the prophecy,) But thou Israel my servant, thou, Jacob, whom I have chosen, presently afterwards, saying to thee, thou art my servant. Again, chapter xliv.— Now, therefore, hear Jacob my servant, and so frequently in the same chapter. See also ch. xlv., and Jer. ch. xxx., and Ps. cxxxvi., and Isaiah throughout, for similar examples.]
And many were astonished at thee (his visage was so marred more than any man, and his form more than the sons of men.) That is—And many were astonished at thee, on account of thy abject state, and miserable condition, being squalid with misery, and suffering more than any men.
So shall he sprinkle many nations, the kings shall shut their mouths at him; for that which had not been told them, shall they see, and that which they had not heard, shall they consider.
Interpretation—As the Gentiles wondered at their abject state, so as to make them a proverb of reproach, so shall they admire at their wonderful change of circumstances, from the depth of degradation to the height of prosperity and honour. So that they shall lay their hands upon their mouths, which had beforetime reproached them, when they shall see their felicity to be so far beyond what had been told them, and they shall attentively consider it, and they shall say to each other—
Who hath believed our report, and the arm of the Lord to whom was it revealed? For he grew up [Hebrew, not he shall grow up, as in the English version] before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry soil; he had no form nor comeliness; and when we saw him, there was no beauty that we should desire him.
The sense is—The Gentiles shall say to each other in wonder, Who believed what we heard concerning them? And to whom was the interest the Lord took in them made known? For it was a dispised people, feeble, and wretched, like a tender plant springing up out of a thirsty soil. Their appearance was abject, and there was nothing attractive in their manners.
He was despised and rejected of men, a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief: and we hid, as it were, our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not.
That is—They were despised, and held in abhorrence: they were men of sorrow, and familiar with suffering. We looked upon them with dislike: we hid our faces from them, and esteemed them not.
Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows.
Interpretation—Surely their sufferings are as great as if they had borne the sins of the whole world; or, they are, nevertheless, the means appointed to remove the sufferings of an afflicted world, for God hath connected universal happiness with their prosperity; and the end of their sufferings, is the beginning of our joys.
Yet did we esteem him smitten of God, and afflicted.
Interpretation—Nevertheless, we considered them as a God- abandoned race, and devoted to wretchedness by him, for having crucified their king.
But he was wounded for [or by] our transgressions, he was bruised [for or by] our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and through his stripes we are healed.
That is—But, instead of being the victims of Gods wrath, they were wounded through our cruelty, they were bruised by our iniquitous treatment, we being suffered to do so, to chastise them for their sins, and to prove their obedience; and this chastisement is that by which our peace is to be effected; for their chastisement and probation being finished. God will by them impart and diffuse peace and happiness.
All we like sheep have gone astray, we, have turned every one to his own way, and the Lord hath caused to meet upon him the iniquity of us all.
But it is we who have sinned more than they: we have all gone astray in our ignorance, being without the knowledge of God, or of his law. Yet the Lord hath permitted us to make them the subjects of our oppressive iniquity.
He was oppressed, [or exposed to pecuniary exactions] and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he was brought as a lamb to the slaughter; and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he opened, not his mouth. He was taken from prison and from judgment, and who shall declare his generation, [into his manner of life, who stoopeth to look? according to the Hebrew] for he was cut off out of the land of the living; for, [or by] the transgression of my people was he stricken. And he made his grave with the wicked; but with the rich were his deaths, [or tomb] because he had done no violence, neither was deceit in his mouth.
Interpretation—How passive and unresisting were they, when oppressed!—They were afflicted, and they complained not; when through false accusations, and mistaken cruelty they were plundered, and condemned to die, they went like a Iamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers 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; for by the thoughtless crimes of my people, they suffered. Yet notwithstanding their graves were appointed with the wicked; yet they were rich in their deaths. This did God grant them, because they had not done iniquity.
Rabbi Isaac, author of the famous Munimen Fidei#, renders the original—on account of impieties was he given to his sepulchre, and on account of his riches was his death, because he did no violence, neither was deceit in his mouth—which he interprets thus:—We (the former speakers) raised against them false accusations of impiety, on account of their religion, and refusing to worship our idols; but their riches was the real cause why we put them to death. Nevertheless, they used no violence in opposition to our oppressions, neither would they forsake their religion, and deceitfully assent to ours in hypocrisy.*
Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise him: he hath put him to grief. When thou shalt make his soul a propitiation for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in his hands. [This proves that this prophecy cannot refer to any individual, but may refer to the Jewish nation, because one individual cannot be put to death, and yet see his seed, and prolong his days.] After [or on account of] the travail of his soul, seeing he shall be satisfied, by his knowledge shall my righteous servant make many righteous [or show them righteousness,] and he shall bear the burden of their iniquities.
That is—After and for their sufferings, they shall be abundantly rewarded; by their superior knowledge of religious truth, shall they make many wise, for many nations shall go, and say, come ye, and let us ascend to the mount of the Lord, and to the house of the God of Jacob, that he may teach us his ways—Mic. iv. ch.
Wherefore, I will give him a portion with the great, and with the mighty shall he divide the spoil, because he poured out his life unto death, and was numbered with the transgressors, and himself bear the sin of many, and interceded for the transgressors.
Interpretation—Therefore, their reward shall be exceeding great, because for the sake of their duty, they willingly exposed themselves to death, and were accounted as transgressors, and bore the cruel afflictions inflicted by many, and made intercession for them who afflicted them.
Such is the explication given by the Jews of this prophecy. I have made no important alterations of the common English translation; except, that in some passages, I have made it more conformable to the original by substituting a verb in the past tense, instead of leaving it in the future, as in the English version. Those translators have taken certain liberties in this respect to make this prophecy (and several others) more accordant to their own views, which are not supported by the Hebrew: many of these expressions, however, we have left unaltered, as they are quite harmless. But if any of our readers desire further information with regard to the propriety of this interpretation of this prophecy of Isaiah, we refer him to the Munimen Fidei, contained in Wagenseil's Tela Ignea, where he will find it amply illustrated, and defended. Here, in this work, we shall content ourselves with proving, that this prophecy can by no means relate to Jesus, from these circumstances:—1. Jesus certainly was not exalted and magnified, and made very great upon earth, which, as has been shown, was to be the scene of the exaltation of the Old Testament Messiah; but was put to a cruel and disgraceful death. 2. He was not oppressed by pecuniary exactions, as is said of the subject of this prophecy. 3. He was never taken from prison to die, for he was never in one. 4. He did not see his seed, nor prolong his days, since he died childless; and we will not permit the word seed to be spiritualized on this occasion, for the word seed in the Old Testament, means nothing else, than literally children, which it is not pretended he ever had; and how could he prolong his days, when he was cut off in his 33d year. 5. Besides, who were the strong and mighty, with whom he divided the spoil? Were they the twelve fishermen of Galilee? and what was the spoil divided? In a word, 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. [See Priestleys notes on the scriptures, in loco; and the context before and after.]
We have now come to the last subject proposed to be considered in this chapter, viz., Daniels prophecy of the seventy weeks, the instar omnium of the prophetical proofs of Christianity, and which was for ages held up to the view of the unbelieving race, as cutting off beyond doubt their hope of Israel from ever appearing, since the time so distinctly foretold had elapsed. But such is the instability of human opinions, that it was at length suspected, and at last ascertained-by the learned, that the stubborn Israelites had some reason for denying that prophecy, any voice in the affair.
During many years, one learned man after another, had amused himself with destroying the system of his predecessor, and replacing it with his own, not a whit better, but tending to the same end, viz., to make the prophecy of the seventy weeks tally and fit with the event of the crucifixion. At length Marsham, a learned Englishman, declared, and demonstrated, that his predecessors, in this enquiry, had been grossly mistaken, for that the prophecy in all its parts was totally irrelevant and irreconcileable with the time of the crucifixion. The appearance of his book put all the theologians of that age in an uproar! But many learned Christians in the last, and present, century, now freely acknowledge, that Daniel is not on their side, but as much a Jew as his brethren.
This celebrated prophecy, literally translated from the original, is as follows:—Dan. ix. 24, &c.—Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people, and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy, [i. e., the sanctum sanctorum, or Holy of Holies.] Know, therefore, and understand, that from the going forth of the word to restore and build Jerusalem, unto the anointed prince, shall be seven weeks; and (in) threescore and two weeks, the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times. And after threescore and two weeks shall the anointed (one) be cut off, and be without a successor; (Heb. and not, or none to him) and the city and the sanctuary shall be destroyed# by the people of the prince that shall come; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined. And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week, and half the week (i. e., in the midst of the 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 (is) determined, be poured upon the desolate?
This is the prophecy on which such stress has been laid, as pointing out the precise time of the coming of the Messiah; and I shall fully demonstrate that it hath not the most distant reference to that event. And for the better explanation of the prophecy, it is proper that we attend a little to the context.
*In the preceding chapter of Daniel it is said, that when Daniel was informed of the vision of the two thousand and three hundred days, he sought for the meaning; but not rightly understanding it, he judged, that that great number was a contradiction to the word of God as delivered by Jeremiah, concerning the redemption at the end of seventy years; (Jer. xxv. 11, 12, and ch. xxix. 10) and from thence he concluded that the captivity was prolonged on account of the sins of the nation. This doubt arose from his not understanding the prophecy, and, therefore, the angel said unto him,—I am now come forth to give thee skill and understanding. And he proceeds to inform him, that as soon as he began to pray, and God saw, his perplexity, the royal command went forth from him, that he should come to Daniel to make him understand the truth of those matters, that were to come to pass in future time. And as the angel Gabriel had explained to him the vision from whence his doubt arose, it was incumbent on him to perfect the explanation; and that is what is meant by the expression to show, i. e., as I began the explanation, the commandment was, that I should finish it.
Before I proceed to give the Jewish explanation of the prophecy, it is proper to show in what manner the answer of the angel in it, agreed to Daniels question, and also the reason of his using the term weeks, and not years, or times, as in the other visions.
It appears, that Daniel, from the words of Jeremiah, perceived that God. would visit all the nations, and punish them for their sins, as may be observed from the following words:—Thus saith the Lord God of Israel unto me, Take the wine cup of this fury at my hand, and cause all the nations to whom I send thee, to drink it— Jer, xxv. 15. He then mentions first Jerusalem, afterwards the king of Egypt, Tyre, Sidon, and all the Isles beyond the sea, and many others; and at last the king of Sheshak, or Babylon.
He also further perceived, that the visitation of each nation would be at the end of seventy years, as Isaiah observes of Tyre: And it shall come to pass in that day, that Tyre shall be forgotten seventy years. Isaiah xxiii. 15, the same of Babylon: And it shall come to pass, when seventy years are accomplished, I will punish the King of Babylon. Jer. xxv. 12, And as it is observed in the next verse: All that is written in this book which Jeremiah hath prophecied, against all the nations. From whence it appears, that as the visitation of Babylon was to be seventy years, so was that of the other nations to be; for so had the wisdom of God decreed to wait according to this number. For which reason, and because the prophets say that the restoration of Israel is to be contemporaneous with the destruction of their enemies, Daniel appears to have. judged, that the sins of his nation would be done away by the seventy years of the captivity of Babylon; and, therefore, the angel informed him of his error, by telling him, that this was not to be the case with his nation, for that their wickedness was come up before God, and their sin was very grievous; and that, therefore, their sins would not be atoned for by seventy years, as in the case of the rest of the nations, to whom he allowed seventy years to see if they would repent; and, if not, then he would punish them. But as for Israel, he would not only wait seventy years, but seven times seventy years; (for thus it is literally, in the Hebrew, the words translated seventy weeks, are, literally, seventy sevens) after which, if they had not repented and reformed, their kingdom should be cut off, and they return into captivity, to finish an atonement for their transgressions. Hence the cause of Daniel's question is evident; and the propriety of the angels answer to the question, is manifest; as also the expression of weeks or sevens.
These seventy weeks are, without doubt, four hundred and ninety years, the time elapsed from the destruction of the first temple, till the destruction of the second.
This, it seems, was the more necessary for the angel to inform him of; because Daniel judged, that after their return from Babylon, by means of that visitation only, all their sins would be done away. For which reason the angel showed him that it would not be so, [for the return from Babylon was not a perfect redemption, because there was not a general collection of all that were in captivity, even all the tribes, save only a few of Judah and Benjamin, and those not the most respectable. And after their return, they were not free, but were under the dominion of the Persians, Greeks and Romans. And although they, at one time, threw off their yoke, and had kings of the Asmonean and Herodean families, yet was there no king among them of the seed of David, neither had they the Shechinah, nor the Urim and Thummim, all which is a manifestation that it was not a perfect redemption, but only a visitation, with which God was pleased to visit them; so that they were allowed to build a temple to the Lord, by the permission of Cyrus, and according to the measure given by him. This was that they might be the better enabled to do the works of repentance during the time allowed, and thus make atonement, and thus finish the transgression, and make an end of sins, and make reconciliation for iniquity; and thus, at the end of the time assigned, even seventy weeks, they would bring in everlasting righteousness, i.e., universal virtue and felicity, throughout the world, when the Eternal should be known, worshipped, and obeyed by all mankind. But if they did not repent, and amend, if they did evil, as their fathers, then their kingdom was to be cut off at the expiration of the seventy weeks; which, in fact, took place.]
After the angel had thus expressed himself in general terms, he descended to particulars; and laid down three propositions (if I may be allowed the term,) or periods.
First. Know, therefore, and understand, (that) from the going forth of the word to restore and build Jerusalem, unto the anointed prince, (shall be) seven weeks.
That is, it shall be seven weeks or forty nine years from the destruction of the first temple, to Cyrus, the anointed prince, who shall give leave to build the second. [With regard to the import of the phrase the going forth of the word, I refer the reader to Levi's Letters to Priestley, and shall here only concern myself with settling the meaning of the expression of the anointed prince.] Many Christians have objected to the term Messiah, or anointed, being applied, as in our interpretation to Cyrus a heathen prince; and they apply it themselves to Jesus of Nazareth. But that the term, or appellation, Messiah, can be applied to Cyrus, is evident; since we find it so applied by God himself in the xlv. ch. of Isaiah. Thus saith the Lord to his anointed, to Cyrus. 2. It is a singular fact, that the appellation Messiah is never applied to the expected deliverer of the Israelites in the whole bible, except, perhaps, in ii. Psalm. It is an appellation indifferently applied to kings, and priests, and prophets; to all who were anointed, as an induction into their office, and has nothing in it peculiar and exclusive; but the application of it to the expected deliverer of Israel, originated in and from the Targums. 3. In order to make this prophecy, and this phrase, Messiah the prince, or the anointed prince, apply to Jesus of Nazareth, Christians connect, and join together, this first member of the prophecy with the second, in open defiance of the original Hebrew; and after all, they can reap no benefit from this manoeuvre; for the term Messiah Nagid, or the anointed prince, can never apply to Jesus, in this place, at any rate; because he certainly was no prince or Nagid, a word which in the Hebrew bible always, without exception, denotes a prince, or ruler, one invested with temporal authority, or supreme command. Now, as it is allowed on all hands, that Jesus had no such temporal power, as a prince, or ruler; it, consequently, follows, that he can by no means be the anointed prince mentioned in the prophecy.
Second Period. And (in) threescore and two weeks, the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times,
Here the angel gave him to understand, that after the seven weeks before mentioned, there would come a time in which the building would be hindered, (and which was on account of the letter written by Rheum and Shimshai to Artaxerxes, who, in consequence thereof, made the building to cease-See Ezra and Nehemiah) till the second year of Darius, who gave leave to finish the building: which continued till the destruction by the Romans, sixty-two weeks, beside the last week, at the beginning of which, the Romans came, and warred against them, and at length entirely destroyed the cities of Judah, Jerusalem, and the temple. For, from the time that Cyrus first gave leave to build the temple, till its completion, was twenty-one years; and its duration, four hundred and twenty; in the whole, sixty-three weeks, or four hundred and forty one years. But the angel made his division at sixty-two weeks, as he afterwards described what was to come to pass in the last week (and with reason, for the horrible Jewish war lasted seven years!) And by the words, in troublous times, he informed Daniel, that during the building of the temple, they would have continual trouble and alarms from their enemies, as is mentioned in Ezra and Nehemiah, where we find, that while some worked, the others held the shield and spear. And even after finishing it, they were almost continually in trouble, and persecuted, as is evident from the books of Maccabees, and from Josephus.
Third Period. And after threescore and two weeks shall the anointed be cut off, and have no successor—[Heb. and not, or, none, to him]—and the city and the sanctuary shall be destroyed by the people of the prince that shall come; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.
That is, and after that period, shall the High Priest (or the anointed one) be cut off—[The High Priest is called Messiah, witness Lev. iv. 3—If the Messiah Priest, (or anointed priest) doth sin, &c.]—and have no successor; and the city and the temple shall be destroyed by Titus and the Romans, and until the end of the war, your country shall be swept with the besom of destruction.
The angel finishes the prophecy with these words:—And he (the prince that shall come) shall strengthen the covenant with many, for one week. And in the midst of the week (i. e., the seventieth and last week,) he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease.
This prediction was fully accomplished; for 1. Titus, the prince that should come, was continually offering peace to the Jews, and tried to strengthen the covenant—i. e., their old treaties made with the Romans, and in fact did bring over many. 2. On account of the distress of the siege, the daily sacrifice did in fact cease to be offered in the temple some time before its destruction; and the angel further observes, that all this was to come upon them for their sins, for the overspreading of abominations, it should be made desolate.
This is what appears to be a plain and fair explication of this prophecy; but since Christians, seeing mention made in it of a Messiah to be cut off, have eagerly endeavoured to press it into their service, it remains for me to show, that it is impossible to make this prophecy refer to the cutting off of Jesus.
The difficulty that learned Christians have met with, in their attempts to do this, will be easily conceived by any person, when he knows, that more than a dozen different hypotheses have been framed by them for that purpose; but that they have lost their labour, will be obvious from this single observation, that the anointed one, or Messiah, who, the prophet says, was to be cut off, was to be cut off AFTER the threescore and two weeks, i. e., at the destruction of Jerusalem, or within the seven years preceding that event! Now, we know from the Evangelists, and; from profane history, that Jesus was crucified more than forty years before the destruction of Jerusalem. In addition to this, nothing need be said, for this circumstance lays flat their interpretation at one stroke.
Those who desire to see a more elaborate discussion of this prophecy, and an ample defence of this interpretation, are referred to Levis Letters, to Priestly; and those who are desirous of seeing an account of the various, contradictory, perplexed and multitudinous contrivances, by which it has been endeavoured to apply this prophecy to Jesus, are referred to Prideaux, Michaelis, and Blayney.
We have now gone through an examination of the evidence adduced from the prophets of the Old Testament, to prove that Jesus is the Messiah of the Old Testament; and those of our readers who love truth, are, we trust, now made sensible that the religion of the New Testament, if built upon such proofs as these, is, evidently, founded on—a mistake.
CHAPTER VIII.
STATEMENT OF ARGUMENTS WHICH PROVE THAT JESUS WAS NOT THE MESSIAH OF THE OLD TESTAMENT.
Most of our readers have, no doubt, heard from the pulpit, many exclamations and declamations against the blindness of the Jews, in not recognizing their Messiah in Jesus of Nazareth. The reasons of this blindness are made, I think, by this time pretty intelligible.
Nevertheless, for the further satisfaction of the reader, I will here set down the principal reasons given by Rabbi Isaac, in his Munimen Fidei, which cause the Jews to deny the Messiahship of Jesus.
At a certain time, (says he,) a certain learned man of the wise men of the Christians said unto me:—Wherefore are you Jews unwilling to believe Jesus of Nazareth to be the Messiah, when yet your veritable prophets testified of him, whose words you profess to have faith in.
I gave him this answer. How, I require, could we believe him to be the Messiah, when you can produce no genuine proof from the prophets in his favour, since all those things adduced by the evangelists from them, to prove Jesus the Messiah, are nothing to the purpose? And we have many and evident reasons to prove that he was not the Messiah. And of these, I will bring forward a few, arising, 1, From his genealogy. 2. From his works. 3. From the time of his appearing. 4. From the prophecies of the things to take place in the time of the Messiah not having seen fulfilled in his age. And in these things are contained the genuine marks characteristic of our Messiah.
1. 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 Jesus. The descent and origin of Mary, is still less known, but it seems from Lukes 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 labours under great difficulties. Matthew, and Luke also, not only disagree, but irreconcilably 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.
2. 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, which words are written in Mat. ch. x. 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, ch. ix.:—He shall speak peace to the nations. Jesus says he came to send fire and sword upon the earth, but Micah says, ch. ii., 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 sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more. Jesus says that he came to put division between the father and the son, &c. But in the time of the true Messiah, Elias, the prophet, shall come, of whom Malachi prophecied that he shall convert the heart of the fathers unto the children, and the heart of the children to the fathers. Jesus says that he came to serve others, not to be served by them Mat. xx. 29. But of the true Messiah it is said, Psalm lxxii.:—All kings shall bow themselves before him, all nations shall serve him. The same also is said by Zechariah, ch. ix.:— His dominion shall be, from one sea to the other, and from the river unto the ends of the earth; and so Dan., ch. vii.:—All dominions shall serve and obey him.
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 coming of the Messiah should be in the end of days or, in the latter days, (which, surely, have not yet arrived) as it is in Isaiah ch. ii.:—It shall come to pass in the latter days, that the mountain of the Lords house shall be established in the top of the mountains, and all nations shall flow unto it; and it immediately follows, concerning the king Messiah, that he shall judge among the nations, and rebuke many peoples, and they shall beat their words into ploughshares, and their spears into pruning hooks. See also Hosea, ch. iii, and also Dan., ch. ii., where it is written:—God hath made known unto king Nebuchadnezzar what shall come to pass in the latter days, (or, in the end of days.) And this pertains to what follows, viz., to this:—In the days of those kings, (i. e., of the kingdoms that arose out of the ruins of the Roman Empire) the God of heaven will raise up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed. Thus you see, that the prophets predicted, that the kingdom of the Messiah should be after the destruction of the Roman Empire, not while it was in its vigour; when Jesus came; in the latter days, and not before.*
4. Besides all these difficulties, neither were the promises made to us by the prophets, concerning the things to come to pass at the coming of the Messiah, fulfilled in the time of Jesus. For examples, take the following:—1. In the time of the king Messiah, there was to be one kingdom only, and one only king upon earth, viz., the king Messiah—see Daniel, ch. ii.; but behold, we see with our eyes, many independent kingdoms, distinct, and distinguished by different laws and customs, religious and political, which things being so, it follows, that the Messiah is not yet come.
2. In the time of the king Messiah, there was to be only one religion and one law throughout the world; for, it is written in Isaiah, ch. lii. and lxvi., that all nations shall come at stated times to worship the Eternal at Jerusalem. See also Zechariah, ch. xiv. and ch. viii., and indeed throughout the writings of the prophets.
3. In the time of the king Messiah, idols were to be cut off, and utterly to perish from the earth; as it is said in Zechariah, ch. xiii., and so in Isaiah, ch. ii., it is written, And the glory of idols shall utterly pass away; and so in Zephaniah, ch. ii., The Lord shall be terrible among them, when he shall make lean (i. e., bring to nothing) all the gods of the earth; and all the countries of the nations shall bow themselves to Him, each out of his place.
4. In the times of the Messiah, there shall obtain no more sins and crimes in the earth, especially among the children of Israel, as is affirmed in Deut. xxx., Zephaniah, ch. iii and in Jeremiah, ch. iii. And l., and so in Ezekiel, ch. xxxvi. and xxxvii.
5. In the times of the Messiah, there shall be peace between man and beast, and between the tiger and the tame beast; and the little child shall stroke, with impunity, the variegated skin of the serpent, and,—as one of our own poets has beautifully said,—and with his forked tongue shall innocently play. See in Isaiah, ch. xi. and lxv., the original from whence he derived his beautiful poem.
6. In the time of the king Messiah, there are to be no calamities, no afflictions, no lamentations throughout the world. But the inhabitants thereof are to lead joyful lives in gratitude to the good God, and in the enjoyment of his bounties. See Isaiah lxv.
Lastly. In the time of the king Messiah, the glory of God was again to return to Israel, and the spirit of the most High God was to be liberally poured out upon them, and they were to be endowed with the spirit of prophecy, and with wisdom, and knowledge, and understanding, and virtue; and God will no more hide his face from them; but will bless them, and give them a ready heart and a willing mind to obey his laws, and enjoy the felicities consequent thereupon. And the Shechinah shall inhabit the temple for ever, and the glory of God shall never depart from Israel; but they shall walk amid the splendours of the glory of the Eternal, and all the earth shall resound with his praise, as is written in Ezekiel, ch. xxxvii., and xxxix., and xliii.; and in Joel, ch. ii., and in Zech., ch. ii., and Isaiah, ch. xi., and throughout the latter part of his prophecies, and in Jer. xxxi.
And now, reader, let me ask you this question, has any one of the foregoing prophecies been yet fulfilled, either in the days of Jesus, or ever since? Thou canst not say it! Now, then, hear the conclusion, which, in sincerity, and with the hand upon the heart, I am compelled to draw from these precedents. Since these distinctive characteristics predicted by the Hebrew prophets, as to be found in their Messiah, were certainly, and evidently, never found in Jesus; and since these conditions and circumstances, and many others beside, which, to avoid prolixity, have been omitted, most assuredly did not take place in the time of Jesus, nor ever since, and since they were according to those prophets, certainly to be expected in the time of their Messiah; therefore, from all this, it seems to be demonstrable (allowing the prophets to be true,) that Jesus of Nazareth was not this true Messiah. And I would ask the candid Christian, in which link of this chain of proofs he can find a flaw? And I would ask him, too, as a moral and honest man, whether any Jew, in his right mind, could, without setting at nought what he conceived to be the word of God, receive him as the Messiah? The honest and upright answer, I believe, will be, that he could net. And, accordingly, it is very well known, that the Jewish nation have never done so. And this their obstinacy, as it is called, will not by this time, I think, appear unreasonable to any sensible man; and he will now be able to appreciate the justice of that idle cant about the carnal Jews, and their worldly-minded expectation of a temporal prince, as their Messiah. Certainly, the Jews had very good reason, from their prophecies, to expect no Messiah but a Messiah who should sit on the throne of David, and confer liberty and happiness upon them, and spread peace and happiness throughout the earth, and communicate the knowledge of God, and virtue, and the love of their fellow-men to every people. Whether this (carnal or not,) would have been better than a spiritual kingdom, and a throne in heaven; together with the ample list of councils, dogmas, excommunications, proscriptions, theological quarrels, and frauds, and an endless detail of blood and murder, I leave to the judgment of those capable of deciding for themselves.
Neither, in fact, is it true, that the Jews were so carnally minded as to refuse Jesus as their Messiah, because he was poor and in a low estate. On the contrary, did they not ask him not to evade, but to speak plainly? How long (said they) dost thou mean to keep us in suspense? If thou be the Messiah, tell us plainly. These very men were willing to hazard, in his favour, their fortunes, their families, and their lives, in his cause, against the whole power of the Roman empire. Nay, so urgent were they, that they were going to make him their king by force, and he concealed himself from the honour. The evasions he used to avoid their pressing questions upon the subject, are known to all who have read the evangelists; and so timed was he in acknowledging himself as the Messiah, that he did not do so, till Simon Peter told him that he was. And can any candid man, after all this, wonder at, or condemn, the blindness, as it is called, of the Jews? or can he refrain from smiling at the frothy declamations in which divines load that nation with so much unmerited reproach? These Jews had just reason, we think, to doubt his Messiahship; and they had a right to satisfactory and unambiguous proof of his being so: even the proofs laid down, by their prophets. And this, it must be now acknowledged, they wanted; and, certainly, the wise and learned of the Jewish nation, might be allowed to have understood their sacred books upon the subject, as well, at least, if not better, than the illiterate apostles, who manifestly put new interpretations upon them, and those, confessedly, not agreeable to the obvious and literal meaning of those books; but contrary to the sense of the Jewish nation. And for this scepticism they might plead the example of the apostles themselves, who, at first, like other unbelieving Jews, expected a temporal prince; and did disbelieve Jesus to be the Messiah on account of his death, notwithstanding his miracles. And they continued in these thoughts, till it seems they come to understand the spiritual sense of the scriptures; which spiritual sense, it is said, they obtained by the traditionary rules of interpretation in use among the Jews. Yet, it is rather inconsistent and singular, that they should place so much dependence upon these traditionary rules, and yet pay so little regard to the traditionary explication of the scriptures, with respect to the temporal kingdom of the Messiah—inconsistent and singular is it, that they should "cry aloud" for that which would support their peculiar views, but reject it when militating against these views.*
CHAPTER IX.
ON THE CHARACTER Of JESUS OF NAZARETH AND THE
WEIGHT TO BE ALLOWED TO THE ARGUMENT Of
MARTYRDOM AS A TEST OF TRUTH IN THIS QUESTION.
I am now about to consider a subject, to which, notwithstanding the harsh ness of my language in some of the preceding chapters, I approach with feelings of great respect. Far be it from me to reproach the meek, the compassionate, the amiable Jesus; or to attribute to him, the mischiefs occasioned by his followers*. No, I look upon his character with the respect which every man should pay to purity of morals: though mingled with something like the sentiments which we naturally feel for the mistaken enthusiast. Jesus of Nazareth appears to have been a man of irreproachable purity, of great piety, and of great mildness of disposition. Though the world has never beheld a character exactly parallel with his, yet it has seen many, greatly similar. Contemplative, and melancholy, it is said of him by his followers, he was often seen to weep, but never to laugh. He retired to solitary places, and there prayed: he went into the wilderness to sustain and to vanquish the assaults of the devil: In a word, he appears by such means to have persuaded himself, as hundreds have done since, that he was the chosen servant of God, raised up to preach righteousness to the hypocrites, and sinners of his day. It is remarkable, that he never claimed to be the Messiah, till encouraged to assume that character by Peters declaration. And it is observable, that in assuming that name, he could not assume the characteristics of the august personage to whom it belongs; but infused into the character all that softness, meekness, humility, and passive fortitude, which were so eminently his own. The natural disposition, and character of Jesus, could not permit him to attempt the character of a princely Messiah, a mighty monarch, the saviour of an oppressed people, and the benefactor of the human race. He could not do this, but he could act as much of the character as was consistent with his own. He could not indeed bring himself to attempt to be the saviour of his countrymen from the Romans, their fleshly foes; but he undertook to save them from the tyranny of their spiritual enemies. He could not undertake to set up his kingdom upon earth; but he told them that he had a kingdom in another world. He could not pretend to give unto his followers the splendid rewards of an earthly monarch: but he promised them instead thereof, forgiveness of sins, and spiritual remuneration.
In a word, he was not a king fit for the, then, carnal Jews, but he was, from his mildness, and compassionate temper, worthy of their esteem, at least, of their forbearance. The only actions of his life which betray any marks of character deserving of serious reprehension, are his treatment of the woman taken in adultery; and his application of the prophecy of Malachi concerning Elias, to John the Baptist.
As to his conduct to the woman, it was the conduct of a mild, and merciful man, but not that of one who declared, that he came to fulfil the law. For God commanded concerning such, that they should surely be put to death. Now though Jesus was not her judge, and had no right to pronounce her sentence; yet the contrivance by which he deterred the witness from testifying against her, was a contrivence directly calculated totally to frustrate the ends of justice; and which, if acted upon at this day, in Christian countries, would infallibly prevent the execution of the criminal law: For what testimony would be sufficient to prove a fact, if the witnesses were required to be without sin? Instead, therefore, of saying unto them, whosoever of you is without sin, let him cast the first stone at her; he should have said, Men! who made me a judge, or a ruler over you? carry the accused to the proper tribunal.
As to his conduct about the matter of Elias, it was as follows. It is said, in the 17th chapter of Matthew, that at his transfiguration, as it is called, Moses, and Elias appeared to his disciples on the mount, talking with Jesus. Upon coming down from the mount, the disciples asked Jesus, how say the scribes that Elias must come first, (that is, before the Messiah.) Jesus answered, Elias truly cometh first, and restoreth all things; but I say unto you, that Elias has come already and they have done unto him what they would; meaning John the Baptist, who was beheaded by Herod. (See the parallel place in Mark.) And he says concerning John, (Mat. vi. 14,) And if ye will receive it, this is Elias which was for to come.
Now certainly no one will pretend that John was the Elias prophecied of by Malachi, as to come before the great, and terrible day of the Lord, which has not yet taken place. And besides, that he was not Elias is testified of, and confirmed by, John himself, who in the gospel of John, chapter 1, to the question of the Scribes, asking him, if he was Elias? answers I am not. It is pretty clear that Jesus was embarrassed by the question of the Apostles, how say the Scribes, that Elias must come first? for his answer is confused; for he allows the truth of the observation of the Scribes, and then refers them to John, and insinuates that he was the Elias to come. However, it must be acknowledged, that he does it with an air of hesitation, If you will receive it, &c.
But are these all the accusations you have to bring against him? may be said by some of my readers. Do you account as nothing, his claiming to forgive sins? his speeches wherein ho claims to be considered as an object of religious homage, if not to be God himself? Do you consider these impieties as nothing? I answer by asking—the following questions: What would you think of a man who, in our times, should set up those extraordinary claims? and who should assert, that eating his flesh, and drinking his blood were necessary to secure eternal life? Who should say, that he and God were one? and should affirm (as Jesus does in the last chapters of John) that God was inside of him, and dwelt in him; and that he who had seen him, had seen God? What should we think of this? Should we consider such a man an object of wrath, or of pity? Should we not directly, and without hesitation, attribute such extravagancies to hallucination of mind? Yes, certainly! and therefore the Jews were to blame for crucifying Jesus. If Christians had put to death every unfortunate, who after being frenzied by religious fasting and contemplation, became wild enough to assert, that he was Christ, or God the Father, or the Virgin Mary, or even the Holy Trinity, they would have been guilty of more than fifty murders; for I have read of at least as many instances of this nature; and believe that more than two hundred such might be reckoned up from the hospital records of Europe alone. And that the founder of the Christian religion was not always in one coherent consistent mind, I think will appear plain to every intelligent physician who reads his discourses; especially those in the gospel of John. They are a mixture of something that looks like sublimity, strangely disfigured by wild, and incoherent words. So unintelligible indeed, that even the profoundest of Christian divines have never been able to fathom all their mysteries. To prove that I do not say these things rashly, wickedly, or out of any malignity towards the character of Jesus, which I really respect and venerate, I will establish my assertions by examples. For instance—
—Many instances might be adduced of conduct directly subversive of the very design, to promote which, he said that he was sent into the world. For example, he said that he came to preach glad tidings to the poor, and uninformed; and yet he declares to his disciples, that ho spake to this very multitude of poor and ignorant people in parables, lest they might understand him, and be converted from their sins, and God should heal, or pardon them. In the 26th chapter of Matthew, Jesus says to his disciples, in the garden at Gethsemane, these strange words, Sleep on now, and take your rest—Arise! let us be going, The commentators endeavour to get rid of the strange contradictoriness of these words, by turning the command into the future; and rendering the Greek word translated now thus—for the rest of your time, or for the future. And that he asked them whether they slept for the future? which appears to be just as rational as to have asked, how they do to-morrow?!!
Jo. viii. 51, Verily, verily.(said Jesus) I say unto you, if a man keep my saying, he shall never see death Reader, what dost thou think of this saying? Has believing in the Christian religion, at all prevented men from dying as in afore time? And should we be at all astonished at what the Jews said to him, when they heard this assertion—Then said the Jews unto him. Now we know that thou hast a demon [i. e. art mad.] Abraham is dead, and the Prophets, and thou sayest if a man keep my saying, he shall never taste of death? So said the Jews, and if in our times, a man was to make a similar assertion, should we not say the same?
Many instances might also be given of strange and inconsequent reasoning; but I shall only adduce the following. He reproaches the Pharisees, Luke xi. 47, 48, for building and adorning the sepulchres of the Prophets, whom their wicked fathers slew; and says to them, Your fathers slew them, and ye build their sepulchres, and he adds, that thus they showed that they approved the deeds of their fathers! Surely this is absurd! Did the Athenians by setting up a statue to Socrates after his unjust death, show to the world that they approved the deed of them who slew him? did it not show the direct contrary? and was it not intended as a testimony of their regret, and repentance?
Again, Upon you (says Jesus to the Jews) shall come all the righteous blood that has been shed upon the earth, from the blood of Abel the righteous, to the blood of Zechariah, &c. Now, herein is a marvellous thing! how could a man really sent from God, assert to the Jews, that of them should be required the blood of Abel, and of all the righteous slain upon the earth? Did the Jews kill Abel? or did their fathers kill him? No! he was slain by Cain, whose posterity all perished in the deluge; how then could God require of the Jews who lived four thousand years after the murder, the guilt of it; nay more, of all the righteous blood that had been shed upon the earth, were they guilty of all that too? If such assertions, and such reasonings do not prove what I asserted, what can?
It is said, that Jesus, by giving himself up to suffer death, proved the truth of his mission and doctrines, by his readiness to die for them. But this is an argument which will recoil upon those who advance it. Are there no instances upon record of mild, zealous, and amiable men who preached to the savages of America that they ought to worship the Virgin Mary? and did they not cheerfully die by the most excruciating torments to prove it? Yes certainly! and let any Protestant Christian read the accounts of the preaching, sufferings, deaths, aye! and miracles too, of the Roman Catholic missionaries in Asia, and America; and then let him candidly answer whether he is willing to rest the issue of his controversy with the Papists upon the argument of martyrdom? We all know the power of enthusiasm upon a susceptible mind; and we have read of, and perhaps sees, its effects in producing martyrdoms among people of all religions, in all parts of the world. Nay, more, such is the power of this principle, that even now, women in India burn themselves alive on the funeral piles of their husbands, to prove, as they say, their love for them, and their determination to accompany them to the other world; when it is well known, that they burn themselves from the impulse of vanity, and the fear of disgrace, if they should not do so. Nay, more still, so little support does martyrdom yield to truth, that there are more martyrdoms in honour of the false, ridiculous, and abominable idols of Hindostan, than any where else. You may see men hooked through the ribs, and supported, and whirled round in the air in honour of their gods, clapping their hands, and testifying pleasure, instead of crying out with pain. You may see in that country, the misguided enthusiastic worshippers of misshapen idols prostrate their bodied before the enormous wheels of the car of Seeva, and piously suffering themselves to be crushed in pieces by the rolling mass. And any man who has been upon the banks of the Ganges, can tell you of the Yoguis, and of their self-inflicted torments, compared to which, even the cross is almost a bed of roses. Indeed the argument of martyrdom will support any religion; and it has, in fact, been cheerfully undergone by enthusiasts and zealots of all religions, in testimony of the firm belief of the sufferers not only in the absurdities of Popery, and Brachinanism, but of every, even the most monstrous system that ever disgraced the human understanding. There have been martyrs for Atheism itself.
This argument of martyrdom has been more particularly applied to the Apostles and first Christians. How can it be imagined, (say Christian Divines,) that simple men like the Apostles could be induced to leave their employment, and wander up and down, to teach the doctrines, and testify to the facts of the New Testament, and expose themselves to persecution, imprisonment, scourging, and untimely and violent death: unless they certainly knew, that both the doctrines, and the facts were true? Besides, what honours, what riches, could they expect to get by supporting false doctrine, and false testimony?
To this argument 1 might reply as in the preceding pages, for I would ask, have we not seen simple and honest men quit their employments, and wander up and down to preach doctrines which they not only had no means of certainly knowing to be true, but which they did not even understand? Have we not seen such men submit to deprivations of every kind, and exposed to imprisonment, and the whipping post? And do we not certainly know that some such have cheerfully suffered a most cruel death?
Is it possible that any sensible man, after reading the History of the Roman Catholic Missionaries, the Baptists, the Quakers, and the Methodists, can be convinced of the certain truth of the Christian religion, or seriously endeavour to convince another of it, by such an argument as the above?
But, much more than this can be said upon this topic; for it can be shown, that the Apostles in preaching Christianity, did not suffer near so much as some well meaning enthusiasts in modern times have suffered, to propagate religious tenets, notoriously false and absurd. And that the Apostles could expect to get neither fame, nor honour, nor riches by their preaching is doubtful. This is certain that they could not lose much. For they were confessedly men of the lowest rank in society, and of great poverty—poor fishermen, who could not feel a very great regard for their own dignity, or respectability. And it was by no means a small thing for such men to be considered as divine Apostles, and in exchange for heavenly things, to have the earthly possessions of their converts laid at their feet. Peter left his nets, his boat, and boorish companions, and after persuading his disciples to receive his words for oracles, go where he would, he found ample hospitality from them. This, at least, was an advantageous change, and though they did not acquire fame, or respect from the higher ranks of society, they were at least had in great respect by their followers. Neither George Fox, nor Whitfield, nor Westley were honoured by the nobility, or gentry, or scholars of England; nor Ann Lee, by the most respectable citizens of the United States. Yet among their disciples, the Quakers, the Methodists, and the Shakers they were held by the most implicit veneration and can any man believe that they did not think themselves thus well payed for the trouble of making converts?
It is true that the Apostles did not acquire riches, for they were conversant only with the poor. But neither had they any to lose, by taking up the profession of Apostles, and Preachers. At least by preaching the gospel, they obtained food, and clothing, and contributions; as is evident from many places in the Epistles, where they write to their converts, It is written, thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out the corn; and Paul tells them, that they must not think from this place, that God takes care for oxen, for, (says he,) it was undoubtedly written for our sakes. Thus we see that the gospel was by no means altogether unprofitable, and many men daily risk their lives for less gain than the Apostles did.
As to the dangers to which it is said they exposed themselves, they had none to fear, except in Judea, which they quickly quitted, finding the Jews too stubborn, and went to the Greeks. From the Greeks, and likewise from the Romans, they had not much to fear, who were not very difficult or scrupulous in admitting new gods, and new modes of worship. Besides this, the Romans for a great while seem to have considered the Christians merely as a Jewish sect who differed from the rest of the Jews in matters not worth notice; as is to be gathered from Tacitus and Suetonius. And if the Apostles did speak against the Pagan gods, it was no more than what the Roman poets and philosophers did; and the magistrates were not then very severe about it. And it is evident from the Acts of the Apostles, that the Roman praetors considered the accusations against Paul and his companions, as mere trifles. But in Judea, where the danger was evident, it was otherwise. When Paul was in peril there, on account of his transgressions against the law, after being delivered from the Jews by the Roman garrison at Jerusalem, he pleaded before Festus and Agrippa, that he was falsely accused by the Jews; and he asserted that he had taught nothing against the Law of Moses, and his country, but that he only preached about the resurrection of the dead; and that it was for this that the Jews persecuted him; and ended by appealing to Caesar. When yet he knew that this was not the reason of the hatred of the Jew against him; but that it was because he taught that circumcision, and the Law of Moses were abolished, and no longer binding: which is evident to any one who will read the Acts, and the Epistle to the Galatians. So you see by what manoeuvre he got out of the difficulty: first, by at least equivocating, and then by refusing to be tried by his own countrymen, and appealing to Caesar; thus securing himself a safe conduct out of Judea, which was too dangerous for him. Among the Gentiles, their doctrine had a better chance of success, for they taught them marvellous doctrines, such as they had been accustomed to listen to, viz. how the Son of God was born of a virgin, and was cruelly put to death; and that his Divine Father raised him from the dead. The idea of Gods having a son of a woman did not shock them, for all their demigods they believed had been so begotten; and a great part of their poems are filled with the exploits and the sufferings of these heroes, who are at length rewarded by being raised from earth to heaven, as Jesus is said to have been. These doctrines were not disrelished by the common people, but were rejected by the wise and learned. Accordingly we see that Paul could make nothing of the philosophers of Athens, who derided him, and considered him as telling them a story similar to those of their own mythology, when he preached to them Jesus and the resurrection. And in revenge, we see Paul railing against both the stubborn Jews, and the incorrigible philosophers, as being unworthy of knowing the hidden wisdom, which was to the one a stumbling block, and to the other, foolishness, and which he thought fit only for the babes, and the devout women, with whom he principally dealt.