|
(Continued)
Letter 12.
The
best method, and indeed the only sure guide we have to come to the
truth, is to examine the prophecies which are cited in the New, from the
Old Testament, and applied as fulfilled by Jesus, and accomplished in
him. It is by such an examination only that a true judgment can be
formed of the validity of their application and accomplishment; the
prophecies being the only criterion by which the Messiah is to be known,
since it is from them alone that his character must be proved; and we
may be most certain that such evidence must be, not only superior, but
the most sure, as St. Peter expresses it.* For what in nature can be
superior to plain and clear prophecies delivered to different persons,
and at different times, all unanimously and uniformly foretelling, so
long before, that which should happen or come to pass; being
transactions so very extraordinary that, when duly attended to, the
prophecies compared to the events, evidently, obviously, and literally
fulfilled and accomplished, must be the highest testimony any thing can
possibly be capable of. This task is therefore absolutely necessary, and
I with pleasure undertake the examination.
1.
The first prophecy taken from the Old Testament, and applied in the New,
is that which concerns the conception of Mary, and the birth of Jesus
from a Virgin; which St. Matthew proves by applying a passage out of
Isaiah:†—“Now all this was done, (says he,) that it might be
fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Behold a
virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall
call his name Emmanuel.”‡ Now it happens that the passage cited
from Isaiah, according to its natural, plain, and obvious meaning,
concerns neither the birth of Jesus from a virgin, nor the birth of the
Messiah at all: this being no prophecy, the evangelist citing it, as
fulfilled, can prove nothing. This will plainly and evidently appear
from a clue consideration of the prophet’s
design and intention in the sign, and also from the nature of the sign,
by him given to Ahaz, which was on the following occasion, viz.—In the
days of Ahaz, king of Judah, Rezin, king of Syria, and Pekah, king of
Israel, laid siege to Jerusalem, but could not prevail. The two kings
being disappointed, concluded a new alliance, and with a greater force,
agree to return again to the siege. This confederacy struck great panic
and terror in the house of David and inhabitants of Jerusalem. On this
occasion Isaiah was sent by God, to comfort Ahaz, and to assure him in
his name, that the confederate kings should not prevail in their design;
and in order to convince Ahaz of its certainty, the prophet, in God's
name, tells him to ask a sign of him. The incredulous king excuses
himself, under pretence of not tempting God. The prophet, after
complaining of the king’s behaviour, tells him that the Lord himself
shall give him a sign, no doubt an indisputable, immediate sign, and
such an one, as should effectually answer the intention .and purpose for
which it was given, viz: That a young woman, (for the word Almah
signifies,) should be delivered of a son, whose name should be called
Immanuel; that before this child should know how to refuse the evil, or
choose the good, that is, within a very short time, “The land which he
abhorred should be forsaken of both her kings.Ӥ Now it is plain as
words can make it, that it was to convince Ahaz of the truth of, the
prophet’s prediction, that this sign was given him from the Lord; and
the nature of the sign given was most certainly calculated and adapted
to answer the purpose for which it was given, viz: that it might be a
proof of and testimony to the prophet’s prediction, and so it
effectually was; and it must have been the greatest absurdity, and
contrary to the very intention of the sign, to have understood the
prophet as St. Matthew does, describing here the conception of Mary,
and, the birth of her son Jesus; an event which was not to happen till
seven or eight hundred years after. For how could a sign, either of this
pretended nature or so remote, have confirmed Ahaz in the hope and
expectation which the prophet gave him from the Lord, of the destruction
of his two grand enemies, within a very short time? But the certain
foretelling of a birth of a male child, and the declaring that before it
should have any knowledge, both the kings, his enemies, should be
destroyed, appears a proper and well adapted sign; because it must have
shortly verified the prophet’s prediction. But a sign which was not to
come to pass till upwards of seven or eight hundred years after, could
never answer the purpose; for how could it be a sign to the incredulous
king, to prove that which was immediately to happen? For the incredulity
of Ahaz was the occasion of God’s giving him a sign. But how could
that sign contribute to convince him, unless he saw the accomplishment?
And if he disbelieved the promise from God in what was soon to happen,
what credit could be expected he should give to an event so very remote?
Would it not be the greatest absurdity for a person to foretell a thing
as immediately, or soon coming to pass, and to give a sign, which should
not come to pass for seven or eight hundred years after? When the thing
foretold was over, could a sign at that distance be any proof or
confirmation of the truth of the thing foretold? No, certainly, it must
appear useless to every person, and rather a banter than a sign, and
could only serve to add to the incredulity of those concerned.
On the other hand, nothing can be clearer than
that the whole transaction was plainly fulfilled in the days of Ahaz,
within the time limited by the prophet, before the child which was born
could distinguish good from evil, or in about two years, as is evident
from sacred history; for within that time the king of Syria was slain,
after the taking of Damascus;* and the hand of Israel was smitten by
Hosea, who rebelled against him;† by which means the land which Ahaz
abhorred was bereft of both her kings, which event fulfilled the
prophet’s prediction, for which the prophet’s own child, (and not
Jesus, as it is pretended,) was given as the sign.
That
it was so, the prophet himself declares, by saying, “Behold, I and the
children whom the Lord hath given me are for signs and for wonders in
Israel from the Lord of Hosts.”‡ Thus was the sign given to convince
Ahaz fulfilled, and the whole prophecy accomplished at that very time,
and consequently it excludes all their pretentions. The word Almah,
rendered Virgin in the English Bible, signifies no more than a young
woman, whether maid, married, or widow. When a virgin is intended, it is
always expressed by the word Bethulah, which is the proper term
for a virgin; this is evident from the word Bethulah being used
for virgin throughout all Scripture.§
I
cannot here forbear observing, how cautiously Father Calmet treats, and
explains the word Almah. He trifles and imposes on his readers,
and endeavours to hide from them, as much as lies in his power, its true
meaning, by declaring, that, “The Hebrews had no term that more
properly signifies a virgin than Almah;” for though he at last, (and
as it were, contrary to his inclination,) is forced to confess the
contrary, he does it in such a manner, as discovers his glaring
chicanery; for he says. “It must be confessed, without lessening
however the certainty of Isaiah’s prophecy, that sometimes, by
mistake, any young woman whatsoever, whether a virgin or not, is called
Almah.” Now observe: First he assures you, that, “The Hebrews have
no term that more properly signifies a virgin, than Almah,”
which is evidently false; secondly, when he brings himself to the
confession, “that any young woman whatsoever” is called by this name,
he will have it to be by mistake, which is also false; and lastly, for
fear of prejudicing or lessening the authority of the application of
Isaiah’s prophecy by St. Matthew, he inserts a salvo by which he
excepts the word in that place, not to mean any young woman whatsoever,
but that it means a virgin. How vain, nay, how ridiculous are such
shifts and evasions.||
Let
us return: There are many Christian commentators, both ancient and
modern, who do justice to this passage of Isaiah, and acknowledge that
the whole must be literally understood of his own son, who was made the
sign to Ahaz, and was consequently accomplished in his days; and then
content themselves, either with making Isaiah’s son to be a type of
Jesus, or with barely contending for an accommodation of phrases, made
use of here by the evangelist. But as neither of these inventions is of
weight, or proves any thing, it makes others, who are not at all pleased
with the aforesaid methods of accounting for the evangelist’s saving
that a thing was fulfilled when in fact it was not, endeavour by various
shifts and wretched evasions, to extend this passage of Isaiah to the
miraculous conception of a virgin, and birth of Jesus. These always take
for granted, that the term Almah means a virgin. At all this you must
not be surprised; for on such occasions, let the passage be ever so
plain, they must endeavour to fix on some other meaning, and make it out
some way or other; this they will always do rather than give up a point
so essential, and on which they place the very foundation of the
Christian religion.
The
authors of the Universal History furnish you with a very remarkable
instance, who, having put their own sense on the prophecy, that the
sceptre should not depart from Judah, till Shiloh come to put an end to
the kingdom,* they tell you that the desponding king (Ahaz) could not be
ignorant of it; as if the wise authors knew, and were certain, that Ahaz
believed this prophecy of Jacob in the sense given to that passage by
Christians, after the establishment of Christianity; when on the
contrary, it very evidently and plainly appears, that the sense of the
whole Jewish church and nation, not excepting even Jesus himself, the
evangelist, and apostles, who never made use of, or applied that
prophecy in any sense whatever, (a plain proof that they never
understood it in the sense since given it,) must even have been against
any such application or explanation; for they did always ardently wish
for, and expect the Messiah, as the greatest blessing and happiness that
could befall them; consequently they either did not believe Shiloh to be
the Messiah; or if they did believe the Messiah to be thereby meant, it
must have been in a very different sense, since the restoring of the
kingdom and nation was that which they expected at his coming;
otherwise, instead of joyfully expecting him as the greatest blessing,
they would have had cause to dread his coming. Therefore Ahaz’s fears
could never have proceeded from that passage; for if he knew any thing
of that passage, he must have considered it in a different sense; and it
is much more probably, that he had but little faith in its prediction,
to which he seems to have paid but little regard, as appears from the
whole history of his life.
It is surprising therefore, that the learned
authors should explain this passage by building on so inconsistent and
so false a foundation; asserting as they do, “that this Shiloh
promised to Judah and David, who was to forerun the total excision of
the Jewish polity, was to be born in a miraculous manner, and with a
divine character, and other remarkable circumstances.” But all this is
a mere ramble of the authors’ own invention, and has no foundation at
all, nor any connexion with Isaiah’s prophecy; for the authors speak
of matters which could not be given for signs, neither to Ahaz nor to
any other persons: no, not even to those who should live in the time of
this pretended miraculous birth. Therefore such signs must have been
useless, and consequently could answer no purpose at all; for how could
that be given for a sign, which according to the nature and frame of
things, could never be made manifest, it being impracticable to evidence
the virginity of any woman? Take me right, I am not here speaking
against the possibility of the thing, that not being the question at
present; but what I urge is, the uselessness of such a sign; because it
was of that nature, as made it impracticable to be wrought in a manner
capable to answer the purpose for which alone a sign can be given, that
is, conviction.
I
am therefore only clearing and defending the prophet from having any
such design; for such a sign and miracle, being by the nature of things
invisible, could never have been intended as a proof of that which
should come to pass; the same being actually contrary to the manner of
God’s performing his miracles on all other occasions. For unless they
were manifest and public, how could they be attended to, or how could
the people be convinced by them?
The
same objections may also be urged against the conception of a woman
without the concurrence of a man: the possibility of the thing is not
here the question; but the impossibility of the same being made
manifest, or evident, is all I contend for, and which is sufficient for
my purpose. I need not urge the different accounts given by Matthew and
Luke; from which many objections might be made: but there are some
expressions, such as “The holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the
power of the Highest shall overshadow thee,”* which I should be glad
to have explained according to the rules of language; for as they stand,
they may possibly introduce into unwary and ignorant minds, ideas very
unbecoming God, or the Holy Ghost;
at least it may be thought to give too great a sanction to stories,
feigned and invented by the heathens, concerning the amours of their
gods; with which their poets sometimes diverted themselves: Homer in
particular, very agreeably exposes Mars and Venus, when Vulcan caught
them in his net.†
But
whether this be so or not, let us now return to the authors of Universal
History. They say, “as for that part of the prophecy, which is
commonly urged on the other side, namely, before this wonderful child
shall know good from evil, the land which thou abhorrest shall be
forsaken of both her kings,”' they think that by this ought to he
understood, not the land of Syria and Israel, the land which Ahaz
abhorred, and which was to be forsaken of both her kings, viz.. Rezin
and Pekah, his two grand enemies, but the land of Judah and Israel,
which should be forsaken of both her kings before the coming of the
Messiah; this they pretend to make out by a new version of the text. How
stupid must the commentators of so many centuries have been, not to have
found this? But facts are stubborn things, and the destruction of Rezin
and Pekah by violent deaths, within the time limited by the prophet, puts it beyond dispute what kings they were which the
prophet meant.
I must not pass in silence the art which the
before-mentioned historians make use of to prejudice and blind their
readers, by inserting the word WONDERFUL, cited as if it was in the
text, which only says, “For before the child shall know how to refuse
the evil and choose the good.”* By this means they endeavour to make
Jesus to be this wonderful child. But supposing the prophet had said
this wonderful child, how could he be proved to be so? since it is
impossible to do it, either from the conception of a woman without the
concurrence of man, or from the nature of virginity; both these being
hidden and invisible. Had his birth any thing wonderful, or was his
person so? As for his birth, for any think that appears, it seems to
have been the same as that of other babes; being formed in his
mother’s womb, in the due course of time, and brought forth into the
world in the common manner. He does not appear to have been endowed with
any thing superior to other babes, and he required the same nourishment
and nursing; and as to his person, no doubt it was fashioned like other
babes; nothing is recorded of any thing extraordinary in his body, be
that as handsome or perfect as they please. So that in all things he
appeared like other children that were begat in the common way, and he
grew in like manner as other children do, and no person, from his
fashion or make, ever thought otherwise. From all which particulars one
may with certainty draw a very fair and natural inference, and that is,
as he appeared in his birth, shape and growth, like other men, so
nothing which can be alleged, will be sufficient to prove that he was
not got by the same usual means as others are.
This
natural inference being founded on facts and occular demonstration, no evidence can be superior to it, since it must always
outweigh any other proof,
unless it could be made as demonstrable and visible to our senses. For
this reason some Christians believe that he was Joseph’s son; but be
that as it may, they cannot pretend to impose him upon us as a wonderful
child. One may, indeed, with Doctor Echart, admire, and “see the
profound humility of our blessed Saviour, who chose not to descend from
heaven with the glories of a triumphant monarch and deliverer, but
privately to enter into the womb of a mean virgin; from thence to be
brought forth as an infant; and then to appear in the world in the
form of the lowest rank of mankind.Ӡ I produce not this passage to
make any observations, but only to strengthen what I have asserted, viz.
that nothing wonderful, as is pretended, appeared, or was visible in him: and that consequently these
historians misrepresent the whole transaction which concerns the birth
of Isaiah's child, (as appears from the history of those times,) given
as a sign to Ahaz, which was accomplished in those days. Therefore the
evangelist’s saying, “that it, might be fulfilled,” &c.,
citing this passage, is, at most but an accommodation of phrases, and
does not say that any thing was thereby fulfilled.
In
like manner we shall find, as we proceed farther in this examination, many other citations, made and accommodated to things which
the places from whence they are cited could have no reference to,
according to their plain sense and meaning; so that not being literally
applied, they cannot be proof of any thing.
I
must beg pardon for having troubled you with so long a letter, and have
no other excuse but that it was required from the importance of the
subject, which drew me to this length, notwithstanding I forbore saying
and remarking many things, as you may easily guess I might have done on
so copious a subject. But I shall conclude with one, and that is, that
no use was ever made by Jesus of his being wonderfully conceived or
born, nor offered by him as any proof of his being the Messiah; which
shows that these transactions could not be intended as any proof of him,
or his office, and are consequently useless.
(To
be Continued.) |
