|
(Continued)
The better to show the insufficiency of the arts
and inventions, mentioned in my last, it is necessary to instance some
prophecies, which being explained according to those rules, you will
then be the better able to judge the vanity of all such arts, and how
absurd it is to pretend by such evasions to prove either the fulfilling
of the prophecies, or to support any claim. It is pretended, “that the
prophets intimated clear enough, that a new dispensation was to be
introduced, and a new covenant different from that which God made with
their fathers.”* To prove this they refer to a passage of Jeremiah,
which I will transcribe at length, give you its literal meaning, and
then consider it according to the application made by their arts. The
passage is as follows:—
“Behold! the days come, saith the Lord, that I
will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of
Judah; not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers, in
the days that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of
Egypt, which my covenant (Berith) they broke, although I was a husband
unto them, saith the Lord. But this shall be the covenant that I
will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord: I
will put my law (Torah†) in their inward parts, and write it in their
hearts, and will be their God, and they shall be my people. And they
shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother,
saying, Know the Lord; for they shall all know me, from the least of
them unto the greatest of them, saith the Lord. For I will forgive their
iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more. Thus saith the Lord,
which giveth the sun for a light by day, and the ordinances of the moon
and of the stars, for a light by night, which divideth the sea when the
waves thereof roar; the Lord of Hosts is his name. If those ordinances
depart from before me, saith the Lord; then the seed of Israel
also shall cease from being a nation before me for ever. Thus saith the
Lord, If heaven above can be measured, and the foundation of the earth
searched out beneath, I will also cast off all the seed of Israel, for
all that they have done, saith the Lord. Behold the days come, saith the
Lord, that the city shall be built to the Lord from the tower of Hananel
unto the gate of the corner, and the measuring line shall yet go forth
over against it, upon the hill Gareb, and shall compass about to Goath,
and the whole valley of the dead bodies, and of the ashes and all the
fields, unto the brook Kedron, unto the corner of the horse-gate towards
the east shall be holy unto the Lord; it shall not be plucked up
nor thrown down any more for ever.”‡
Now from this prophecy it plainly appears, that God
was to make a new covenant with the houses of Israel and Judah, or
Jewish nation, which covenant should not be broken like that made with
their fathers. The condition on the people’s part is, that they are to
observe the law, (signified by God’s writing it on their hearts, and
fixing it in their inwards parts,) and be God’s peculiar people: and
God, on his part, was to forgive and forget their iniquity and sin, was
to restore, preserve them, and be their God, and cause their city to be
built, never more to be destroyed. This, in few words, are the contents
of the promised covenant, according to the clear sense and obvious
meaning of the prophet; conformable and agreeable to the repeated
promises made to the nation, by all the prophets. The plain meaning of
this prophecy, and the peculiar terms in which it is delivered, ought,
one would think, to deter people from practising their arts, and
imposing meanings thereon so different, and so entirely contradictory to
that of the prophet. He has entered into a particular description of the
people who were to be parties or partakers of the new covenant. And he
has also particularized and declared, not only its contents, but
likewise in what it was to differ from the former one. Thus it plainly
appears, that God would enter into a new covenant with the Jews; but
that a new law, or any new dispensation, was to be introduced, has no
manner of foundation. That the new covenant was to be different from
that which their fathers entered into, is likewise plain and evident.
But what has that to do with a new dispensation which is pretended was
to be introduced? does not the prophet declare in what the difference
was to consist? The former covenant had been conditional; by it the
nation’s happiness and welfare were made to depend entirely on the
observance of that which they stipulated; but they continually failed,
and broke the conditions, and, in consequence, often received exemplary
punishments. But the new covenant was to be formed upon an entirely new
plan; by it the nation’s happiness was to be permanent, lasting, and
unconditional; for they were to have such knowledge of God, from the
least to the greatest, as was to insure duty and fidelity ever after;
and this in such a manner, that though all nations failed, yet the Jews
should never be cast off, or cease to be a nation; for the same Almighty
Power that created the universe, and gave laws to nature, would preserve
and protect them. This, then, are the contents and condition of the new
covenant; and the difference from the old to the new is this, by the
old, the nation’s happiness was only conditional; whereas, by the new,
it is to be absolute and unconditional. The old they often broke, but
the new they never should break, for it was to be as lasting as nature
itself.
The reasoning of St. Paul on this passage is most
remarkable, and ought not to be passed in silence. He will have Jesus to
be the mediator of it,* and reasons, “that if the first covenant had
been faultless, there had been no place for a second.Ӡ To these two
assertions, I shall only say, 1st, that the prophet neither points out
Jesus, nor intimates any thing concerning a mediator; and 2dly, that,
had any other than St. Paul declared that what God did was faulty, so
many arguments would be urged against him by Christian divines, and such
a defence be made of God’s goodness and conduct, that the
impossibility of his committing any fault would be made so evident as
should silence all such opinions. And there appears so little connexion
between the new covenant promised by the prophet, and the transaction
related to have happened in
the time of Jesus, that I cannot see the least resemblance of the
prophecy to the completion. The comparing of a few instances may help to
set this in a clear light.
It is pretended that Jesus was the mediator of the
new covenant; but how was this performed? did he enter into any
agreement or covenant with the house of Israel? No, the Jews know of
none, and history is entirely silent, as to this circumstance, and not
the least footstep of any such contract is to be traced. Besides no
contract can be made without the consent of the parties; and if they did
not give either their express or tacit consent, the covenant, or
contract, can never be either valid or binding. But was it at that time
that God entered into a special relation with the houses of Israel and
Judah, of being their God, and taking them for his chosen people?
Was it then that they were full of the knowledge of
God, even from the least to the greatest?
Was it at that time that God forgave their sins and
iniquity?
Were they at that time restored, never more to be
cast off, or cease to be a nation?
Was then the time in which their city should be
rebuilt, never after to be plucked up or thrown down?
These particulars, it is well known, never came to
pass, neither then nor since. How, then, could the promised covenant
take place? Should not every particular circumstance of the prophet’s
description be fulfilled and accomplished, before they lay their claims?
and are not things represented in the very opposite, or contrary
extreme?
For, instead of having God’s law fixed in their
hearts, they are represented as the wickedest generation that ever
existed.
Instead of having a perfect knowledge of God, and
being his people, they are represented as the most abominable and
reprobate nation under heaven.
Instead of having their city and temple rebuilt,
never more to be destroyed, behold both miserably laid waste!
Instead of being a nation never to be cast off,
behold them struggling under every species of hardship, oppression and
dependence.
Instead of having their sins forgiven, they are
represented as committing at that very time, the most heinous and
atrocious crimes, particularly that of refusing the Messiah, and putting
him to an ignominious death.
Instead of continuing a glorious nation, behold
them miserable, conquered, and dispersed throughout the four corners of
the earth, persecuted in turn by every nation.
How, then, is this prophecy fulfilled? Has the
application the least shadow of agreement with the promise therein
continued?
But here they take shelter in their evasions, and
fly for refuge to their arts and inventions, the strength of which let
us examine.
They say that by the names of Israel and Judah, not
the Jews, but the gentiles, are thereby intended and meant. It is the
Christian church, under those denominations, that was to enjoy the
peculiar privileges and advantages promised by the new covenant. Were
they able to make out their claim, it would be but reasonable to grant
their pretensions; but it happens that the prophet is so minutely
circumstantial in his description, that it effectually excludes any
people or nation from being thereby intended, excepting the literal
house of Israel, or natural seed of Jacob. Nothing, under the utmost
violence done to the text, and a most unnatural meaning imposed on it,
can give it a contrary sense. But certainly the liberty of imposing a
sense and meaning on words different from that which they import
according to their first and known acceptation and signification, is
such a violation as ought never to be admitted.
For if words are made use of as signs to denote our
ideas, what a confusion and subversion of language must ensue, if a
meaning contrary to that which the word stands as a known sign of, be
arbitrarily imposed on them at pleasure? What is there, according to
this scheme, that a person may not be made to say? But as this is the
greatest and grossest abuse of language, the bare mentioning of it is
sufficient to expose its absurdity. However, I should be glad to know
from whence the authority of imposing an opposite, contrary, or
different sense on Scripture is derived. I am sure no such liberty would
be allowed to any person; no, not even in the most common affairs of
life. Ought not the pretenders to this privilege (supposing in this
prophecy) at least to have referred to some passage wherein mention is
made of the houses of Israel and Judah, and showing the inconsistency
and absurdity of applying these terms to the literal seed of Israel or
Judah, or the Jewish nation, and then show their pertinency and exact
agreement as applied to the Christian church? Was it for want of words
in the Hebrew language, that the gentiles are called by that very name
by which the Jews are always meant and intended? Can it be supposed that
God would do that which must appear highly absurd in man? By no means;
the very passage is plain and explicit against any such pretensions, and
puts it out of all soubt, that none but the literal houses of Israel and
Judah were intended. For the new covenant was to be made with those
whose fathers the Lord brought up from the land of Egypt; with whose
fathers He made a former covenant; with those whose fathers had broke
that covenant, notwithstanding He had behaved like a husband unto them.
Now pray, whom does this description fit, the Jews or the gentiles? If
the Jews, then it was with them that God was to make the new covenant;
and as it is they, literally, to whom the preceding particulars are
alone applicable to, so it is with them literally that the covenant was
to be made. But since the gentiles are so fond of being thought to be
meant by the name of Israel, why do they not undertake to prove that it
was not the ancestors of the Jews (literally) but theirs who entered
into a former covenant—that it was not the fathers of the Jews
(literally) who broke the covenant, and were punished, but theirs? and
then, after they have properly made all this out, it will be time to put
in for that name, and claim the privilege of the new covenant. But as it
is natural to think that they can never make out all this, they may,
perhaps, make use of another invention, and pretend that the new
covenant was to be spiritual. To this I answer that God made no such
distinction; and, as the former covenant was worldly, so also must the
new one be; for it particularizes things entirely of worldly
nature—particularly, that the house Israel should never be cast off,
nor cease to be a nation.
It may likewise be pretended that this covenant was
to take place in heaven, and you may be referred to paradise for its
accomplishment; it is but putting heaven for Jerusalem, an invention
often made use of. To this I answer, that the prophet intimates the very
contrary; and, lest any such pretension should be made, he carefully and
minutely describes the earthly Jerusalem, and describes the tower
Hananel, the gates, the hill Gareb and Goath, the valley of dead bodies
and of ashes, the fields, the brook Kidron, and the Horse-gate; all
which puts it beyond dispute that he meant Jerusalem literally and not
paradise nor heaven. Besides, the words “shall not be plucked up or
thrown down any more for ever” imply that the place had been
destroyed, which never could be said of a heavenly one.
In short, it seems as if God had carefully provided
that his meaning should not be misapplied in any part of it, by
circumstantially describing every particular; and that He has done so
minutely, as strongly enforces his plain meaning in such a manner as to
render it impracticable consistently to apply this prophecy in any other
sense.
These are the arts and evasions to which the most
learned and eminent men have recourse; it is to these, and such like
subterfuges, that they fly for shelter; it is from such chimerical and
vain pretensions, that they undertake to prove the fulfilling of
prophecy. As they write to people of the same persuasion and way of
thinking, it is very rare that their reasoning meets any opposition; but
every thing they say, though ever so absurd, is received with applause
and approbation, as if they had demonstratively proved their point, or
convinced their opponents. They exult and sing Te Deum for their
victory. They triumph and exclaim against the Jews for wilfully shutting
their eyes and hardening their hearts against the plain arguments and
dictates of truth; concluding them to be under a national blindness, an
infatuation. They will, indeed, invite people to make their objections;
but wo then to the poor creatures who undertake the task, for they are
to expect no quarter; heresy, infidelity, and apostacy, will be proved
against them; and defamation and ill-language will certainly ensue, for
they are generally very eloquent and expert at these weapons.
Allow me, sir, to ask one question, and this is:
“Supposing a prophet had positive orders from God to promise and
fulfil any thing which was to happen and befall the house of Israel or
Judah, or their literal descendants, would it be possible for the
prophet to deliver or make known God’s will, and reveal his purpose to
them, in words and terms more significant and proper than those very
words which the prophet has in the passage now under consideration,
delivered his commission in?” I challenge any person to do it in words
more expressive and less liable to objections or exceptions; and if this
is the case, as it certainly is, what reasons are there to think that
when He has chosen the most unexceptionable terms, He has deceived those
He spoke to, and intended the contrary. Shall we impute that to God
which we should condemn as the greatest absurdity and abuse in men? |
