The Grounds of Christianity Examined by Comparing The New Testament with the Old Part 2

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, pa.s.sage 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 G.o.d, 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 pa.s.s 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 pa.s.sages, 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 G.o.d, 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 G.o.d 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 x.x.xiii. 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 G.o.d, 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 G.o.d, and the good of men; his miracles, with these circ.u.mstances, 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 G.o.d, 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 ill.u.s.trious 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 G.o.d, even Jehovah.

But of Jesus we read, that he a.s.serted, 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 a.s.signed 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 G.o.d, first to comfort Ahaz and the nation, and then to a.s.sure them by a sign, that his enemies should in a little time be confounded.--But Ahaz refusing a sign at the prophet?s 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 a.s.serted 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. b.u.t.ter 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 G.o.d to him, to a.s.sure him that the two kings should not succeed in their attempt against him, how could a virgin?s 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 G.o.d? 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 pa.s.s, it, consequently, evidences itself to be a divine sign, and answers all the purposes of a sign. And such a sign is agreeable to G.o.d?s 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 G.o.d, who directed the prophet?s 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 pa.s.sage, 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 Matthew?s 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 pa.s.sage, 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 pa.s.sage 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 a.s.sures 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 pa.s.sage 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 pa.s.sages 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 ill.u.s.trious 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 pa.s.sages 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 pa.s.sages 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 pa.s.sages, which had very much exercised the most learned Christian commentators.

The Rabbi having admirably explained those pa.s.sages, 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 pa.s.sages of the Old Testament quoted in the New?