|
(Continued
from issue #7.)
Having
mentioned the insurmountable difficulties which attend the application
of the prophecies concerning the Messiah, according to their obvious
plain sense and meaning, to any person either pretending or claiming
that character, which is the only rational proof by which his character
is to be maintained and supported: I think some notice ought to be taken
of the shifts and evasions to which they have recourse, in which they
take shelter, and by which they endeavour and pretend to support a
character, which, in reality, is the most contradictory to that which
the prophets describe; and to show the fallacy and invalidity of such
applications. Their principal engine is the allegorical or typical
scheme, by the help of which they solve all difficulties; for, as it is
but making one thing to mean another, they can, by its help, answer all
objections; for, Proteus like, they apply it in all shapes and to all
things. It is from this scheme that their various arts and inventions
have their rise. As I have already considered this scheme, I shall now
only observe,—
- They declare, “That the
prophecies concerning the coming, the character, the death, and
passion of the Messiah, are to be found in a multitude of places in
the Old Testament, but after a mysterious and figurative manner.”*
- They declare, “That it
does not prove that things had originally any such sense, meaning,
and construction, merely because they are afterward referred to, in
the way of allegory, simile, or allusion.Ӡ
- They declare, “That such
proofs cannot alone establish any doctrinal truth:‡ and also that
they cannot be regularly produced as proofs of any thing.Ӥ
- They maintain,
notwithstanding, “That this is evidently the scheme which the
apostle Paul goes upon.”||
| * Calmet on the word Mystery. |
† Divine Authority, v. 2. p. 181. |
‡ Ib. |
| § Calmet on the word Allegory. |
|| Divine Authority, v. 2. p.
181. |
|
The
foregoing assertions plainly demonstrate the insufficiency of the
allegorical and typical scheme, or that things referred to for proof in
the way of figure, simile, and allusion, (which is confessedly St.
Paul’s scheme) can prove nothing; and, consequently, that all
inferences or conclusions from such premises, must be fallacious and
invalid.
This
appears very evident; for if a prophecy be a future event foretold,¶
nothing but a proper fulfilling of that event can be deemed a completion
of the prophecy, and no prophecy can possibly receive its completion
unless it be fulfilled according to the event foretold; therefore it is
absurd to pretend that types, allegories, similes, allusions, and
figures, are the fulfilling thereof; for nothing but the entire
completion of the prophecy, by the event, can be deemed valid; all other
methods being thereby excluded. So much for the allegorical or typical
scheme.
Another
method and invention whereby they endeavour to solve difficulties
arising from the most material prophecies concerning the kingdom of the
Messiah, is to remove it to heaven. It was to this new invented heavenly
kingdom that “Jesus invited the high priest, and promised that he
should see him sitting at the right hand of power.”** They tell us it
is in this kingdom he sits†† and reigns with great amplitude of
power and dominion, over a most glorious race of spiritual beings and
departed souls of true believers, who alone are admitted to the
enjoyment of that happiness which, the prophets foretold, the Messiah
should introduce here on earth. They have, indeed, carefully guarded
against any possibility of searching, or having satisfaction concerning
this kingdom, by placing it out of the reach of inquiring mortals;
therefore you must take it all on their bare words.
| ** Matt. 26:64. |
†† See the Creed.
|
Another
invention to evade the prophecies, is to pretend that the kingdom of the
Messiah, though they cannot deny it to be of this world, may,
nevertheless, not to consist of mere worldly power and dominion, but was
to be likewise of a spiritual nature. As in this claim they confound a
temporal with a spiritual earthly empire, and as neither the one nor the
other is any ways capable of being applied to Jesus—I choose, for this
reason, to set it forth in the words of a famous divine:
“It
appears” (says he) “that the kingdom of the Messiah, and that
glorious state of things so much spoken of in the prophets, is not to be
understood merely of a worldly dominion or empire, under the
government of a mere temporal prince, that was to be a proper
king of the Jews, and of them only; but of a kingdom of
righteousness and peace, of truth and holiness. The proper design was to
spread the knowledge and the practice of true religion among men. His
dominion was to be over all nations.—The blessing of his reign was not
to be confined to the Jews only, but was to extend to all nations.”*
This
is not only a most glorious description of the character of the Messiah,
but likewise a most desirable one. I think it wants only one thing to
make it a complete character, and I will add it; it is this: That the
Messiah was to gather the dispersed Jews from all countries and restore
them. This appears from the twelve prophecies which I cited,† and from
many others. If this, his distinguishing character, be implied in the
author’s description, by his representing him, “not as a mere king
of the Jews, and of them only,” I know not; but let that be as it
will, it is plain that, according to this author, the prophets speak
much of a glorious state of things under the Messiah; that worldly
dominion or empire was a principal part of his character; that he was to
be a proper king of the Jews; that the Jews were to enjoy the blessing
of his reign. These qualities are extended farther; that is, under this
glorious state of things the Messiah was to introduce righteousness and
peace, truth and holiness, or the knowledge and practice of true
religion. He was not only to be a proper king of the Jews, but to have
universal empire; for his dominion was to be over all nations, and the
blessings of his reign were not to be confined to the Jews, and them
only, but these blessings were to extend to all nations likewise.
Now
this being in part the glorious state of things so much spoken of and
described by the prophets, and the distinguishing character of the
Messiah: it would be an easy matter to work the conversion of the Jews,
which might be done only by making application of all this to Jesus. But
this they are not able to do; and it is as impossible to prove his
spiritual empire as his temporal; for where will they find either the
one or the other? Surely persecution and the different sects damning
each other, cannot be part of those blessings which were to extend to
all nations spiritually. Thus, with the same breath, they endeavour to
establish a spiritual kingdom or empire, which they affect to call a
state of peace, truth, and holiness, or the practice of piety and
virtue; but which they cannot prove to have been generally practised at
any time. They very effectually establish the power, greatness, and
earthly dominion of the Messiah, in like manner as the Jews do; and it
is worthy observation, how it weighs them down; for they never endeavour
to soar above it, but directly sink under it.
For,
notwithstanding Jesus disowns and disclaims any earthly power or
authority, by declaring, “That his kingdom was not of this world, for
if it were, his servants would fight that he might not be delivered
up;”* yet his followers cannot avoid forcing it upon him, contrary to
his expressed declaration and renunciation; for they will have him to be
not a mere king of the Jews, but a universal monarch.
Another
invention, is to pretend that the offices and character of the Messiah
clash, or are contradictory to one another. The following passage will
set this invention in its true light: “The evidence appealed to by our
Saviour” (says Mr. West) “was the testimony of the Scriptures, in
which are contained not only the promises of a Messiah and Saviour of
the world, but the mark and description by which he was to be known. Of
these, there are so many, and those so various so seemingly incompatible
in one and the same person, and exhibited, under such a multitude of
types and figures, that it was absurd for a mere mortal to pretend to
answer the character of the Messiah in all points.Ӡ
This is the light in which they represent that
great and noble character, which all the prophets so unanimously
describe. But the absurdity of representing it such as no mere mortal
could answer in all points, is owing to themselves. It is nothing but a
phantom of their own raising, by applying to him passages which do not
belong to him, or ever were intended as any part of his character. This
they are obliged to do, that it may answer their purposes, and because
the plain characters by which he is described by the prophets, are
clearly a contradiction to their schemes. They, therefore, make his
character a contradiction, that they may have the opportunity of
explaining the prophecies, and applying other passages in such a manner
as is most suitable to their cause. Thus it was the custom of designing
heathen priests to deliver the oracles of their false gods, couched
artfully in dubious or ambiguous terms, “so as to be easily applied to
the event, let it fall out which way it would.”‡ For, as they were
ignorant of futurity, an ambiguous, or doubtful, reserved meaning,
delivered in seemingly incompatible or clashing terms, capable of
different sense, meanings, and constructions, would certainly bring
their votaries to receive the explanations of such oracles from them;
this was agreeable to their cause, a cause of darkness, deceit, fraud,
lies, error, and imposition. But, to suppose ambiguity, double or hidden
constructions, clashing or incompatible meanings in. the oracles
delivered for our information and direction, BY THE ALL-WISE, GOOD, AND
MERCIFUL GOD, THE FATHER OF LIGHT, is either to suppose Him as ignorant
of futurity; as the priest who made use of that method, or to suppose
Him deceiving those whom He, in his great goodness, thought proper to
enlighten and instruct, for to this end only did He reveal those things.
Therefore, whatever passages clash, or are incompatible, can be no part
of that character so often and repeatedly uniformly described. Such
passages are, therefore, inconsistently ushered in, and made a
part of it, by artful and designing men, to answer their own interested
views, prejudices, and purposes.
Therefore, in justice to Him who only could
foretell and reveal future events with a fixed certainty, we must
believe that what He has revealed is candid, and easily to be
understood; and that the characters which He describes are uniform, and
have neither contradiction, double sense, hidden meaning, or
ambiguities; and that those who represent them in a contrary light, act
inconsistently and absurdly.
Another invention which they make use of is, to
take and usurp the names by which the Jews are always meant. Of this
they stand in very great need; for, how otherwise could they inherit the
promises? It is no wonder then that they boldly use the name of Judah
and Israel. The following passage shall describe this pretension:
“Whereas the Messiah’s kingdom seems sometimes to be described with
a particular regard to the Jews, and it is foretold that he should reign
over them, as their prince and shepherd, and that in his days Israel and
Judah shall dwell safely, and in a happy state: there are two things
which will entirely take off the advantage; the one is, that the terms
Israel and Judah, and the House of Israel, are not to be understood, in
the prophets, precisely of the seed of Jacob, literally so called, or of
the Jewish people and nation; but are sometimes designed for the church
in general.”*
This is the method by which the Jews are entirely
to be deprived of the advantages promised them. Here, then, by a dash of
the pen, you have the Jews stripped of their name, and the advantages of
the† promises to them made; and both the one and the other transferred
to the church in general. They, whenever they stand in need of it for
their purpose, (as sometimes they do,) why then, they make use of it;
but, their turn being served, they very willingly part with it, and
generally restore it to the right owner; for, whenever there is a
calamity foretold, that should happen to Judah or Israel, then the Jews
are thereby meant; and, upon such an occasion, they are the literal seed
of Jacob, and they will most certainly find it fulfilled and
accomplished. But whenever they find any promises of good things, or
happy days, then the Jews, or literal seed of Jacob, have nothing to do
with it; for the advantage of their name must be taken from them, and
such things only belong to the Christian church, that is, to the
mysterious seed of Jacob.
Thus
absurdly do they reason, and make the prophecies a two-edged tool, to
cut which way they please. Should not a reason be given why the literal
sense should be applied one time, and a different one at another? Have
notthe
Jews a right to urge that the words of the prophets were always
understood and taken in the literal sense, whenever they described or
foretold either the exaltation or downfall of any people or kingdom? And
are not such prophecies always applied according to their plain sense,
and literal meaning? Nay, is it not an argument made use of to prove the
inspiration of the prophets, that they did so clearly foretell such
events? Would not the Jews, in their Egyptian bondage, have had great
reason to refuse the mission of any person that should have pretended to
persuade them that the promises which God made to Abraham, of their
delivery from thence, and of possessing the land of Cancan, were not to
be taken in their literal meaning, but that these promises meant, and
should be applied and explained in a spiritual sense? Are not the
promises made to the Houses of Israel and of Judah of their delivery
from their oppression and dispersion, and their return from all parts,
as express as those made concerning their delivery from Egypt? If so,
the Jews act consistently in rejecting the sense of a spiritual delivery
from their present dispersion; in like manner as their ancestors would
have acted judiciously to refuse the mission of that person who should
have pretended their delivery from Egypt was only to be spiritual, and
not from their oppression, which was the promise made; and as God made
good his promise, in delivering them literally from Egypt, why should
they not expect, and hope for, a literal accomplishment of his promise
in this other?
How
absurd would it appear, even to Christians, were any nation or people to
pretend that the promise to Abraham, of the delivery of his seed from
Egypt, was not intended for his descendants, but meant themselves, who
were intended by that promise to have a spiritual deliverance! The
fallacy of such a supposition they would immediately discover and
detect; and, I dare affirm, would agree very much in favour of the
delivery of the Jews, and very clearly show how chimerical that people
or nation’s pretensions were, and demonstrate the absurdity of such a
claim, and the vanity of usurping a name which was none of theirs. Now
if it be absurd in one case, why not in the other? Besides, if the Jews
are the natural seed of Jacob for their calamities, why not for the
promise of good things? And
if they are literally fulfilled in one case, why should they not be
literally accomplished in the other?
But
the vanity of this pretension is plainly described by the prophet, in
these words: “One shall say, I am the Lord’s; and another shall call
himself by the name of Jacob; and another shall subscribe with his hand
by the name of Israel.”* From the prophet they have also the answer:
“Who, as I shall call and shall declare it, and set it in order for
me, since I appointed the ancient people? and the things that are coming
and shall come, let them show unto them.”† “Is my hand shortened
at all that I cannot redeem, or have I no power to deliver.”‡
| *
Isa. 44:5. |
†
Ib. 7. |
‡
Ib. 1:2. |
To
conclude this long letter: it is by such arts and inventions, without
any authority, that they pretend to reconcile the greatest difficulties
and contradictions. Allow them but the means, and they will attain their
ends. Take but their words, and every thing is made clear by the
application and explanation of terms and passages.
There
are, besides, some other methods and inventions, which I shall take
notice of upon proper occasion.
(To be continued.)
|
