"They afflicted and complained not! their complaints have been fiercer than their sufferings have been cruel." Is this true? Does Mr. Everett really believe it to be true? Does not all the world know it to be false?[fn53]

"They have done no iniquity? When no iniquity? Not in the days of Isaiah their own prophet, who cries, "Ah! sinful nation, people laden with iniquity, seed of evil doers." Not in the days of Josephus their own historian, who sets forth scenes of depravity which turn common wickedness into virtue, and declares "that the earth would have swallowed them, if the Romans had not swept them from its face?" No iniquity in the ages since; throughout the cities of the dispersion, where they are proverbially dishonest, and professedly unfaithful." &c.. &c.

Now all this eloquent invective can be set aside so far as it affects my application of this prophecy by this simple remark; that this prophecy neither relates to the wicked Jews of the time of Isaiah, nor of Josephus, nor the ages since, but refers to "G.o.d's servant Israel" i. e., not to the rebellious and reprobate of the Jewish nation, but to those of the house of Jacob, who have, who do, and who shall adhere to G.o.d's law, and obey his commandments; for no others of them will G.o.d acknowledge as "his servants."[fn54]

I would also observe, that the stress which Mr. Everett lays upon the phrase "no iniquity," shows either great carelessness, or great ignorance of the idiom of the Hebrew Scriptures; because every man, familiar with those writings, knows that this expression is one of those called Hebreisms, which must be understood in a restrained sense. In proof of which, and a decisive one too, I would refer him to the prophecy of Balaam, recorded, Num. ch.

xxii. 21. where Balaam exclaims in his prophetic enthusiasm, "He [i.e. G.o.d] hath not beheld iniquity in Jacob, neither hath he seen perverseness in Israel."

Now I suppose that the 53rd. of Isaiah, is a representation of what may be the reflections of the nations, who have despised and persecuted "G.o.d's servant Israel," through the influence of the prejudices of their mistaken religion, but who had become sensible of their error by seeing the tremendous interference of G.o.d himself in their behalf, predicted over and over again by the prophets as to happen. The natural consequence of this conviction in the minds of those nations, would be a revulsion of the feelings to the opposite extreme. They would exaggerate the merits, and extenuate the demerits of "G.o.d's servant." They would reflect with astonishment and commiseration on their past sufferings. "We considered them," they might exclaim, "as a G.o.d- abandoned race, and devoted to wretchedness by him for having crucified their king. But instead of being the victims of G.o.d's wrath, they were wounded through our cruelty, they were bruised through our iniquitous treatment. It is we who have sinned more than they.

We having gone astray in our ignorance, being without the knowledge of G.o.d and his law. How pa.s.sive and unresisting were they! They were oppressed, they were afflicted, and complained not: when through false accusations and mistaken cruelty, they were plundered and condemned to die, they went like a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before the shearer is dumb, so they opened not their mouth. They were taken from the dungeon to be slain; they were wantonly ma.s.sacred, and every man was their foe; and the cause of the sufferers who condescended to examine? They had done no iniquity to merit this: for their adherence to their faith, which we charged upon them as a crime, we now see to be approved of by their G.o.d, as an acceptable instance of unexampled perseverance in the cause of truth."[fn55]

Mr. Everett proceeds, p. 145, "If any thing needs be added, the following observation is important, viz. that there is one pa.s.sage so clearly inapplicable to the Jewish nation, and so totally incongruous with the rest of the interpretation, that Mr. English pa.s.ses it over without even the attempt of an explanation. It is this: in a part of the prophecy which he puts into the mouth of the Gentiles we read, "for [the Hebrew I must remind Mr. Everett reads "by or through,"] the transgressions of MY PEOPLE was he stricken," This Mr. English paraphrases "for [it should have been "by or through"] the thoughtless crimes of my people he suffered.

But what the Gentiles could mean by "MY PEOPLE" he does not say, and this difficulty is fatal to the whole interpretation.""

I will presently show Mr. Everett, that this formidable objection, so emphatically announced, is after all a mere man in buckram; and I am almost sorry that in doing this, I shall be obliged to expose one more proof of Mr. Everett's having neglected the study of "the beggarly elements," in order to devote himself, without distraction, to the understanding of the delectable types and allegories of the New Testament. Mr. Everett certainly is a scholar and a man of talents, but he does not perfectly know, nor will [fn56] understand, the contents of the Old Testament; and the above objection is a proof of it.

He maintains, that the expression "my people," could not be used by a Gentile, and that therefore my whole interpretation of the prophecy in Isaiah, is fatally affected by his objection. I request Mr. Everett to have the goodness to turn to the book of Ruth ch i.

16., where he will find this Gentile, "this Moabitish damsel" saying to her mother in-law "thy people shall be my people." Will Mr.

Everett look a little farther to the 1 Sam. ch. v. 10. in the Hebrew, (not in a translation,) where he will find the Gentile Philistines saying, "They have brought about the ark of the G.o.d of Israel to slay me and my people?" (ac. to the Hebr.) again, v. 11. "Send away the ark of the G.o.d of Israel, and let it go to his own place, that it slay me not and my people." (ac. to the Hebr.)[fn57]

Mr. Everett, therefore, may understand from these examples, why I pa.s.sed over this phrase "without even the attempt of an explanation;" because, truly, I never dreamed, that this formidable objection, would have been made: or that any man would write, upon the Jewish controversy, who did not first inform himself of the contents and phraseology of the Hebrew Bible.

Having, as I believe, shewn that the 53d. chapter of Isiah can be understood of "G.o.d's servant Israel," I will now attempt to shew the reasons why I think that it cannot relate to Jesus of Nazareth.

1st. Of the subject of this prophecy it is said v. 9. "and he appointed his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his deaths," in the plural. Now of Jesus we read in the gospels the direct contrary: for the gospels represent that his death was with the wicked, and his grave with the rich.[fn58]

2. The use of the word deaths, in the plural, appears to me to necessitate the application of the prophecy to a people, not to an individual. The same is evident distinctly from the Hebrew of v. 8.

at the end of the verse, in the word "lamoo."

3. The subject of this prophecy is said to have been "oppressed", i. e. by pecuniary exactions: for that is the radical idea of the Hebrew word, as is shown and a.s.serted in the lexicons of the Hebrew language.[fn59] This is peculiarly true of the Jewish nation, but was not true at all with regard to Jesus.

And to conclude, this prophecy is quoted repeatedly in the New Testament. Now, that none of the quotations in the New Testament from the Old can be maintained as prophecies fulfilled by Jesus, is the opinion of the learned Christians Michaelis, Eichorn; Semler, Eckerman, Lessing, &c. as is allowed by Mr.

Everett: of course the 53d ch. of Isaiah in their opinions cannot be adduced as a prophetic proof of Christianity: and Mr. Everett, in maintaining the contrary, has to struggle not only against argument, but the strongest Christian authority that can be produced on any question of Biblical Criticism.

Mr. Everett, in several pa.s.sages of his book, has thought proper to charge me with errors; but in the course of his discussion of my interpretation of the 53d. of Isaiah, has directly accused me of falsehood and of fraud, p. 148. of his work.

With regard to many of these errors, the situation and circ.u.mstances I am in at present, put it out of my power to defend myself, because I cannot get the books he refers to in order to test his statements;[fn60] but of the latter imputations, the work of Mr.

Everett itself not only enables me to justify myself, but to fix those charges upon him.

He says in the 148 page of his work, remarking upon my a.s.sertion in "The Grounds of Christianity Examined."--"In a word the literal application of this prophecy [the 53d. of Isaiah] 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,"- "Why does not Mr. English name these Hebrew scholars? Simply because his a.s.sertion is not true." Indeed! Does not Mr. Everett himself say in the 247 p. of his work, that Eichorn in a view of a work of Dr. Ekerman says, that "the principle of accommodation, which the better interpreters had already applied to many violations [fn62] in the New Testament, is by this author extended to all." "Though this opinion of Dr. Ekerman," says Mr. Everett, must be allowed to savour a little of the extravagance of theory, Eichorn adopts it. As the work alluded to, the "Theological Contributions" has become a cla.s.sical book with one cla.s.s of the German divines, who are thought to excel in critical learning, there is no doubt that this doctrine is generally received among them.

MICHAELIS we all know admits it; and Marsh is the only famous critic of the present day who does not embrace it.

Now the 53d. ch. of Isaiah is quoted in the New Testament,[fn63]

of course, therefore, according to Mr. Everett's own representations of the opinions of these learned critics, they must deny that the prophecy of Isaiah has any reference to Jesus, and hold that it is quoted merely by way of accommodation. And if so how has Mr. Everett dared to accuse me of falsehood in representing, that "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"?! There is undoubtedly a falsehood told in this affair, and a conscious suppression of truth, but it is not I who tell the first, or conceal the latter.

Mr. Everett then proceeds. "Priestley and Grotius are all he claims, [the reader may see by the above that I might have claimed more,] Priestley was a learned man, but he has no pretentions as a Hebrew scholar, and though Mr. English quotes Grotius, he does it incorrectly." He declares that "Grotius has applied it to Jeremiah, and says, that Jesus Christ has nothing to do with it except in a secondary sense, but that the whole of it from beginning to end refers to Jeremiah." "There are but few to whom I need say" continues Mr. Everett, "that the words of Grotius in his commentary are, "These marks have their first fulfillment in Jeremiah, but a more especial, sublime, and often indeed more literal fulfillment in Christ." Mr. Everett's work p. 148. I do not see how this pa.s.sage of Grotius contradicts my representation of his opinion. The pa.s.sage from Grotius quoted by Mr. Everett declares, "that these marks [i. e. the 53d. of Isaiah] have their first fulfillment in Jeremiah;" of course they could not be fulfilled by any other except in a secondary sense, as I have a.s.serted. As for the "more especial, sublime, and often indeed more literal fulfillment in Christ," I have always supposed that this and similar expressions in other parts of Grotius' Commentary, were understood, by all who were acquainted with Grotius' history and the times in which he wrote, to be intended for a mere salvo, as a tub thrown out to that great whale the vulgar; to contradict directly whose opinions with regard to the prophecies, was in the time of Grotius very dangerous, as he himself, notwithstanding all his precaution and truckling, seriously experienced.[fn64]

"Also, [Mr. Everett goes on to say,] in adducing the authority of Priestley for his interpretation without reference or qualification, Mr. English gives cause to think, that he did not know, or knowing forbore to state, that Priestley p.r.o.nounces it impossible, in one of his works, to explain this prophecy of any but Jesus Christ. What Hebrew scholars are to be named with Lowth and MICHAELIS, who both a.s.sert the literal application to Christ, Mr. English may one day learn, that a.s.severations like these whatever immediate effect they produce, will finally stand in the way of his character for veracity." p.149.

This has been to me the most irritating pa.s.sage in Mr. Everett's book, because it is a tissue of impudent ignorance or impudent fraud, and as such I will prove it.[fn65]

I have always supposed, that in quoting the opinion of an author as authority, it is the fairest way to quote his last avowed opinions.

Now the work of Priestley's which I refer to as applying the prophecy of Isaiah to the Jewish nation, as I do, is ent.i.tled "Priestley's Notes on Scripture," and was published after arrival in America, several years AFTER the work to which Mr. Everett.

refers, wherein Priestley, maintained that it was impossible to explain this prophecy of any but Jesus Christ." Therefore this fact "gives cause to think, that Mr. Everett did not know, or knowing forbore to state (which I believe in my conscience is the truth) this circ.u.mstance" which completely acquits me at least of a suppressio veri.[fn66]

"What Hebrew scholars are to be named with Lowth and Michaelis!" Several--among whom Eichorn stands pre-eminent.

Moreover, how has it happened that "the keen detector of dissonances" has contradicted himself in quoting Michaelis? Here, because he chooses to cling to the 53d. of Isaiah as favouring his cause, he quotes the name of MICHAELIS as a.s.serting "its literal application to Christ." In another place, (p. 247.) where it is necessary to defend the New Testament from the charge of false application of the prophecies of the Old Testament to Jesus, he quotes again the great name of MICHAELIS as the patron of the system of accommodation, which system maintains that the 53d.

of Isaiah has no application to Christ at all! but is quoted by the writers of the New Testament merely by way of allusion. Mr.

Everett himself may live to learn, that such double dealing attempts to slander his opponent, and impose upon his readers, "whatever immediate effect they may produce, will finally stand in the way of his character for veracity," or at least for fairness and candour.

These are not the only instances in which Mr. Everett has calumniated me, and abused the good nature of his readers. For example--

I had maintained in my first work, that the gospel called of Matthew was a forgery, and not a translation from the ancient Hebrew gospel of Matthew, and had supported my opinion by saying, that learned Christians allowed that "it had not the air of a translation." This Mr. Everett contradicts as follows: "But Mr.

English is aware that MICHAELIS, the highest authority on these subjects, p.r.o.nounces that it is a translation, and maintains his proposition not less from the unanimous testimony of the ancients than from internal evidence." p. 472, of Mr. Everett's work.

I beg the reader after reading this to attend carefully to what is said by Mr. Everett in p. 464. "Semler's opinion of the origin and composition of the three first gospels, was the same as that of Le Clerc, MICHAELIS, Lessing, and Eichorn, and which has been ill.u.s.trated and maintained by professor" Marsh. This opinion is that they were compiled from doc.u.ments [not one doc.u.ment or gospel, but several] of our Lord's preaching and life, which had been committed to writing during his life, or immediately after, and which became after different additions, revisions and translations, the BASIS of our present gospels." Here the reader sees that when it is necessary to oppose my statements, in one place Mr.

Everett avers that Michaelis maintained that the Greek gospel according to Matthew, was a translation of Matthew's Hebrew; in another place, where it is also necessary to oppose me, he avers that Michaelis believed that the gospel according to Matthew, Mark, and Luke were compiled compositions, and of course none of them were translations from any one work. "I would, says Mr.

Everett, answer Mr. English fairly, or not at all." If this and the other instances quoted be specimens of Mr. Everett's fairness, what would be his conduct upon the very impossible supposition that he could be guilty of duplicity?

2. Mr. Everett tells his readers, that the Jewish Rabbies "are the most contemptible critics that have appeared;" that "they are so silly that he is almost ashamed to quote them;" that they were in short idiots. If so, of what value can their opinions be on controverted points, which must after all be settled by reason and scripture, and not by any bare human authority.[fn67]

Nevertheless Mr. Everett is continually calling upon his reader to believe his arguments and statements upon the authority of these said Rabbies. If I were one of his Christian readers, I should consider myself insulted by such a procedure. It is almost tantamount to saying, "'it is true, my arguments are built upon the authority of fools, but yet they may serve to convince you."

3. I had accused the writers of the New Testament in my first publication, of having blundered in applying pa.s.sages of the Old Testament as prophecies of Jesus Christ. Mr. Everett justifies them by maintaining in the 5th. chapter of his work, that it is true that these quotations cannot be supported as prophecies, but that they are excusable for the following reasons. The writers of the.

New Testament were Jews; the Jews of their times believed that every text of Scripture had seventy-two faces, and that each one regarded the Messiah, and that the resurrection of the dead was also taught in every chapter of Scripture, though we might not be able to perceive it, and that the writers of the New Testament had been brought up in these silly prejudices, and therefore argued on these principles, i. e. that, notwithstanding their being inspired men and full of the spirit of the Almighty, they continued in this respect as silly as ever.

Now if there be a pious and sincere Christian in the world, and should have this hypothesis laid before him for his acceptance as the best means of defending the writers of the New Testament, from the charge of fraud or blundering in their application of the prophecies, I venture to say that that pious and sincere Christian would, without hesitation, believe the proposer of such an hypothesis to be ruining the cause he professed to defend. "What!

he might say, are the quotations in the New Testament from the Old, indeed founded on folly, and alledged through stupidity?

Have the writers of the New Testament, who are allowed to have been inspired by the Most High G.o.d with a perfect knowledge and understanding of the Christian religion, who are representing continually that Jesus Christ was foretold by the prophets, and that their own minds were opened by the Holy Ghost to understand the Scriptures, have they indeed though continually quoting the Old Testament, after all never quoted for us even one of the predictions on which they say their religion is founded? and have they spent all the time they devoted to writing for the salvation of the souls of men, in fooling with the Old Testament in the manner you aver? 'Tis false! 'Tis monstrous! Either your hypothesis is a fable, or Christianity, itself is like the dreams of the Rabbies."[fn68]

When I see such principles, and other like principles avowed in Mr. Everett's work, I feel myself authorized to propose to him the following questions, by which I hope he will not consider himself as put to the torture.

What, Mr. Everett, were your motives for quitting, so abruptly and unexpectedly, the most respectable society who had done you the honour to elect you their pastor, believing you to be the only man worthy to succeed the learned, eloquent and lamented Buckminster? This abandonment of your station took place after you had engaged yourself in the examination of the question between me, Mr. Cary, and Mr. Channing. If you felt doubts of the validity of the Christian religion, and were therefore scrupulous about going into your pulpit every Sunday to preach Christianity in the name of the G.o.d of Truth, and therefore resigned your post, your conduct thus far does you honour and not shame. But if, after this, you have allowed yourself to be overcome by the solicitations of interested friends (who might have been anxious that you should publish something, that would allay the suspicions and silence the rumours your conduct had occasioned) to give to the world your very singular book, you have acted a part unjust towards me, and injurious to yourself, for you now see the consequence. You are taken in the snare you had laid for me, and your violent dealing has come down on your own head.

I come now to the examination of the celebrated prophecy of the seventy weeks. This prophecy has always run [fn69] the crux Criticorum. It is unquestionably a very ambiguous one, since Mr.

Everett himself informs us in a note, p. 167 of his work, that "Calovius whose day has pa.s.sed a century ago, in a dissertation upon the mysteries of the seventy weeks, numbers twenty-five different Christian hypotheses," to which may be added at least two more, those of Michaelis and Blayney.

If so, I would ask what stress a reasonable man can lay upon a simple [fn70] prophecy which is allowedly so ambiguous, as to have led Christians, sincerely disposed to make a prophecy of Jesus Christ out of this pa.s.sage, to interpret it at least twenty- seven different ways?

There appears to me to be a mistranslation at the root of the prophecy, which vitiates and confounds all the systems of interpretation; applied to it that I know of. I conceive that the prophecy should be translated thus.

"Seventy times seven [fn71] are determined upon thy people, and upon thy holy city, to finish transgression and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteoussness, and to seal [up] the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most holy things."

"Know therefore, and understand that from the going forth of the commandment to restore, and to build Jerusalem, unto the anointed Prince, shall be seven weeks; and [in] [fn72] threescore and two weeks the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times." [fn73]

"And after threescore and two weeks shall the anointed one be cut off, and have no successor; and the people of the Prince that shall come, shall destroy the city, and the sanctuary: and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end desolations are determined."

"And he shall confirm a covenant with many for one week, and in the midst of the [or, a] 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 determined be poured upon the desolate." Dan., ch. ix. 24, 27.