Chapter II: Part 2

2. I had also objected to the application of this prophecy to Jesus, because "God has not set Jesus as his king upon the holy hill of Sion, (as the psalm imports) nor given him the nations for his inheritance, nor the uttermost parts of the earth for his possession." To this Mr. Everett, p. 91, replies in the usual way, i.e. after interpreting as much of the psalm, as he thinks he can make accord with the history of Jesus, in a literal sense, he interprets this passage of the Messiah's being enthroned on Mount Sion, which he cannot make accord with it, in a figurative one. The reader must judge whether this be fair or reasonable.

The latter part of the psalm, Mr. Everett contends, was fulfilled by the rapid spread of Christianity, and he quotes, in proof of this, some passages of the Fathers. To this I would reply, that those passages of the Fathers are notorious exaggerations, and convicted of falsehood by Middleton in his Free Inquiry.

And lastly, I would observe, that even those nations who have embraced Christianity, can by no means be called the inheritance or subjects of Jesus, since they have since the days of Constantine and the Counsel of Nice renounced his doctrines, and perverted his religion into "a fabulous, irrational and blasphemous superstition,"[fn29] for as much as all of them, except a handful of Unitarian Christians, are worshippers of three Divine Beings united by an ineffable union; and by far the greater part of them are adorers of idols, images, and pictures.[fn30] And if I may, without offence, be allowed to express the sincere opinion of my heart upon this subject, I would say, that it is my serious belief, that if Jesus the son of Mary could return into the world, and learn, that his professed followers had placed him between the Cherubim, at the right hand of the Almighty, worshipping him as "God equal to the Father," as, "God of God, very God of every God:" and that by far the greater part had also placed Mary his mother on the other side of the Deity, worshipping her as "the mother of God!"[fn31] he would in my opinion renounce and denounce them as impious heathens, and possibly believe that they were possessed with devils.

The next passage which Mr. Everett quotes as a prophecy of Jesus, is the 2d verse of the 5th chapter of Micah, "and thou Bethlehem Ephratah, it is little to be among the thousands of Judah; out of thee shall come forth unto me, him who is to be ruler in Israel, whose goings forth have been of old, from the days of ancient years:" [according to the Hebrew.] This I interpreted to signify, not that the birth of the Messiah should be in Bethlehem, but the descent of the Messiah should be derived from Bethlehem, i.e. from Jesse the father of David; (and that therefore a future Messiah who should be derived from this family, would fulfill the prophecy;) and this interpretation, I represent as being known and acknowledged by Hebrew scholars. "But the truth is, says Mr. Everett p. 94, that the original word, [translated by me "shall come forth,"] is familiarly used of the birth of a man, as "Mizraim begat Pathrusim, and Casluhim out of whom came Philistim,"" Gen. x. 13, 14. This is a very awkward quotation on the part of Mr. Everett, as it says nothing in favour of his views, but directly favours mine: for Philistim is a word in the plural number, and is used in the Hebrew Bible, to express "the Philistines;" and the word translated "come"[fn33] is also in the plural number, see Simon's Hebrew Bible. The passage therefore in Genesis x. 13. 14. imports that the Philistines were derived or descended from Mizraim. "Who the Hebrew scholars are, says Mr. Everett, who acknowledge this turn of the passage [in Micah] know not," p. 94 of Mr. Everett's work. If I were writing in Europe or America, I think that I could point them out; but if my memory does not deceive me, Grotius interprets the passage of the derivation of the Messiah from Bethlehem: and Mr. Everett will not deny that the modern Christian Hebrew scholars of Germany, disallow that this passage has any reference to Jesus, and affirm that it is quoted in the New Testament, Matthew ii. 5., only by way of allusion or accommodation.

I had however, in order to show that this prophecy could not be insisted on by the Christians, said by way of argument, that allowing "that Bethlehem was to be the birth place of the Messiah, what then? will a man's being born in Bethlehem, be sufficient to make him the Messiah foretold by the Hebrew prophets!"

This Mr. Everett seizes hold on in the following Way, p. 95. "Now if we were willing to be consistent, and cling to our principles wherever they carry us, it would almost seem that this concession might decide the controversy. The Messiah is to be of Bethlehem. This reduces to a little span, the number of those among whom he can be found. Moreover, Bethlehem is now in ruins, to all moral purposes its identity is gone.[fn34] It is the habitation of Turks, of Arabs, of Christians, and if there be any Jews there, none will pretend that the divisions of the tribes are preserved among them, so that the tribe of David, from whom the Messiah is to arise, is known in Bethlehem, from the rest. Neither can it be argued that hereafter when the Jews are restored, Bethlehem will be repeopled with Jews, the family of David be discriminated, and the prophecy admit of fulfillment, because Mr. English himself allows it to be the sense of prophecy, that the Messiah shall be born before the restoration. It only remains therefore to look back, and to see, of all that have appeared in Bethlehem, which has the greatest claim to this character."

On this reasoning I would observe, 1st, that my concession on which it is founded is merely gratuitous; as the words "shall come forth" signify merely derivation; 2nd, that Mr. Everett is mistaken in supposing that Bethlehem is now in ruins. It is at present probably nearly as large and populous as it ever was. 3d, Mr. Everett is mistaken, in supposing that the family of David cannot be traced among the Jews. There are at this moment in the world, many families allowed by their bretheren to be descended from David. Should any of the Jews go to Bethlehem at any time to come, and have a male child born to him in that place, for aught that can be known beforehand, that child may be the Messiah and the prophecy be fulfilled in Mr. Everett's sense of it; which I repeat cannot be insisted on, as "come forth" certainly may signify, and in the case unluckily quoted by Mr. Everett, (Gen. x, 13. 14.) certainly does import, derivation.[fn35]

The next passage, adduced by Mr. Everett, is the 10th v. of the ix. ch of Zechariah, "Rejoice greatly O! daughter of Zion, shout O! daughter of Jerusalem: behold thy king cometh unto thee: he is just and saved, lowly, and riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass."

Mr. Everett, after allowing that the Hebrew reads "saved" or "preserved" instead of "having salvation," as in the English version, observes, that many ancient versions read as in the English Bible. Whether the true reading be mine or his, is not of any consequence to the question to which this book relates. I maintain that a man's riding upon an ass into Jerusalem, is not sufficient to prove him the Messiah.

I also repeat that the event predicted, is spoken of by the prophet as contemporaneous with the restoration of the division, [fn37] and of course could not have been fulfilled eighteen hundred years ago.

"Mr. Everett tries to shove out this objection, by taking for granted, p. 98 of his work, that the chapter of Zechariah in which this prophecy is found, is a series of chronological predictions. But I must remind Mr. Everett that this pretention is inadmissible. None of the predictions of the prophets, except some in Daniel, are arranged in chronological order; they were delivered by parcels, and at intervals, frequently of some years; and these parcels generally have no connexion with each other. Mr.. Everett's reasoning upon the assumption here contradicted, is therefore inadmissible.

Finally, the German Biblical Scholars so frequently mentioned, deny that this was a prediction of Jesus, and affirm that it is quoted by the Evangelists merely by way of accommodation.

The next passage adduced is Zechariah xii. 10., "And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and supplications, and they shall look upon [or towards] me[fn38] whom they have blasphemed, [or pierced,] and they shall mourn for him as one mourneth for an only son."

The meaning of this prophecy is obscure. The word translated "pierced" in the English version, may also in the opinion of Grotius, and I add of Rosenmuller too, as quoted by Mr. Everett in the 104. p. of his book, be best rendered "blasphemed or reproached." It may refer to the time when, according to the Old Testament, the hearts of the house of Israel shall be cleansed from sin, and they shall turn to God "with their whole heart and with all their souls," as predicted by Moses.

I conclude with observing, that this passage, quoted in the New Testament; John ch. xix. has long since ceased to be considered as a prophecy of Jesus by the German Critics, and is believed by them, to have been adduced in the gospel merely by way of allusion. (See Rosenmuller's observations in his notes on the passage.)

I am afraid that the reader has found these discussions rather tedious, and am therefore happy to be at liberty to proceed to the consideration of the three famous prophecies of Jacob, Isaiah, and Daniel.

"The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a Law-giver from between his feet for ever; for Shilo shall come, and to him shall the obedience of the peoples be ." Gen. xlix. 10. So I maintain the passage should be translated.

On this prediction I observed, (Grounds of Christianity Examined p.40. as quoted by Mr. Everett.) "That though this prophecy is allowed by the Jews to refer to their Messiah, yet it does not define, nor limit the time of his coming. For that it is perfectly evident to all who will look at the place in the Hebrew Bible, that it is pointed to read, not "the sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a Lawgiver from between his feet until Shilo come;" but "the sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a Lawgiver from between his feet for ever; for Shilo shall come, and to him shall the gathering of the peoples be." So that the prophecy does not intimate that the Messiah should come before the sceptre be departed from Judah: but that it should not depart for ever, but shall be restored when Shilo comes."

On this Mr. Everett remarks, "now the points, commonly so called, have nothing to do with the division of a sentence into its members, or with what we call punctuation; but Mr. English intended to intimate, that according to the accents, the verse should be divided as he proposes." (p. 110, of Mr. Everett's work.) In return for this friendly attempt to set me right, I would beg of Mr. Everett to peruse the following extract from the celebrated Alting's Treatise on Hebrew punctuation, which he will probably look over with blushing cheeks. "Punctorum appellatione venit, quicquid in Hebraea Scriptura occurrit praeter literas. Sunt vero punctorum genera tria; unum eorum quae sonum moderantur; alterum illorum, quae tonum regunt, tertium mere criticorum est quae ad crisin masoretharum solummodo pertinent."' p, 9. edit. Septima.

I do not think it necessary, to enter with Mr. Everett into the intricate dispute about the Hebrew accents, since he represents that they are of no authority in deciding the question between him and me, and because I think he will therefore not deny, that disregarding their authority, the passage will bear the rendering I have given it.

I shall therefore proceed to establish the interpretation I have given of the passage in Genesis, 1st. by endeavouring to show, that Mr. Everett's interpretation would convict the prophecy, of falsehood; and 2dly. by showing that the interpretation I have given, is confirmed by the express declaration of God himself.

This prophecy was delivered by Jacob before there was any king in Judah. The sceptre did depart from Judah, and with a vengeance too, at the dethronement and captivity of Zedekiah, and the destruction of Jerusalem by the Chaldeans: consequently, if the sceptre was not to depart from Judah till Shilo came, the Messiah ought to have appeared before the dethronement of Zedekiah; as he certainly did not appear before that event, the prophecy, according to Mr. Everett's sensible interpretation, would be falsified.

2. The sceptre never has been restored to Judah since the dethronement of Zedekiah; because the tribe of Judah, since that period, have been in subjection to the Babylonians, the Persians, the Syrians, the Romans, and all the world. Mr. Everett maintains that the sceptre of Judah was in the hands of that tribe during the time that it was held by the Romans[fn42] who were of the tribe of Levi and the Herods who were Idumaeans. This idea appears to me absurd, but I shall not give myself the trouble to oppose it by argument, as it can be set aside by the express declaration of God, as reported by Ezekiel, ch. xxi. 26. Speaking of Zedekiah and his dethronement, the prophet represented the Deity, as saying, "thus saith the Lord God, remove the diadem, take off the crown; this shall not be the same: exalt him that is low, and abase him that is high. I will overturn, overturn, overturn it, (i. e. the crown or sceptre of Judah,) and it shall be no more until he comes whose right it is, and I will give it him."

Here the Deity expressly declares, that from the dethronement of Zedekiah; the crown of Judah should be no more till the coming of the Messiah to whom he would give it. The Asmonaeans and the Herods cannot therefore be considered as having held it, as Mr. Everett supposes.[fn41]

But this is not all, the original Hebrew of this emphatic declaration has a singular force, the idea it expresses is as follows, "I will make it (or "place it," the crown of Judah, i. e. the Messiahship) an occasion of perversion, of perversion, of perversion, and it shall be-no more till he come whose right it is, and I will give it him." Viewed in this light, who will deny that this declaration has been most strangely fulfilled? The Christians reproach the Jews with "perverse and mad delusion" in having successively believed a hundred: different impostors to have been the Messiah, while the Jews in their turn say that the Christians have been as mad as themselves, in believing that Jesus of Nazareth was this personage.

I suppose therefore that Mr. Everett, after coolly viewing what I have stated with regard to this prophecy of the Shilo, will be sensible that he may as well discharge the unfortunate Rabbies he has seized upon and lugged into court as reluctant witnesses of the truth of Christianity, as their further attendance can be no longer necessary: and I would leave him to consider whether the liberal appellation of "dogmatical blunderer," which he has bestowed upon me, p. 114 of his work, relative to my arguments upon this prophecy, may not better apply to another than myself.[fn43]

Let us now proceed to the consideration of the famous prophecy of Isaiah, which Mr. Everett styles, p. 144, the "carinficina Rabbinorum."[fn44]

In order to be enabled to give a fair interpretation of it, it is first of all necessary to give a fair translation of it from the original Hebrew, which is what has not been done in the English version; forasmuch as there are therein not less than thirteen mistranslations.

The following, I believe, will be considered as a just representation of the original as it stands in the Hebrew Bible.

"Behold my servant shall deal prudently, he shall be exalted, and extolled, and be very high. As many as were astonished at thee; his visage was so marred more than any other man, and his form more than the sons of man, (or Adam,) so shall he sprinkle many nations; the kings shall shut their mouths at him; for that which had not been told them shall they see; and that which they had not heard shall they consider.[fn45]

"Who hath believed what we heard? (or what was reported to us) and to whom was the arm of Jehovah revealed? For he grew up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground. He had no form nor comeliness; and when we saw him there was no beauty that we should desire him, He was despised and the outcast of men; a man of sorrows and familiar with grief;[fn46] and we hid as it were our faces from him, (or, as one that hid his face from us,) he was despised and esteemed not. Surely he hath borne our griefs and carried (away) our sorrows.[fn47] Yet did we esteem him stricken, smitten of God and afflicted. But he was wounded through our transgression, he was bruised through our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him, and with[fn48] his stripes we are healed. ("healing is to us," Hebr.) All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and Jehovah hath caused to light (or "meet") upon him the iniquity of us all. He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he would not open his mouth; he was brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he would not open his mouth. He was taken from prison and from judgment, and who would meditate [or consider sufficiently] his generation? [or who shall declare his generation;] For he was cut off out of the land of the living: through the transgression of my people was he smitten: ["smiting was to him," Hebr.] and he appointed his grave with the wicked, and with the rich[fn49] in his deaths.[fn50] Although he hath done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth, yet it pleased Jehovah to bruise him: he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days,[fn51] and the pleasure of Jehovah shall prosper in his hand. He shall see [the fruit] of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant make many righteous, for he shall bear [away] their iniquities.[fn52] Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great: and he shall divide the spoil with the strong, because he hath made naked his life unto death; and he was numbered with the transgressors, and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors." Is. from the 13th. v. of the 52d. ch. to the end of the 53d.

It is an acknowledged principle of sound criticism, that the same expressions in the same author, are to be-understood always, in the same sense, unless the context makes it plainly evident that another sense is intended. Let us, therefore, first of all, examine the chapters of Isaiah preceding the extract, in order to understand who he means by "God's servant."

In the 49th. of Isaiah, v 3. it is said, "Thou art my servant, O Israel, in whom I will be glorified." In ch. xlviii. 20. "The Lord hath redeemed his servant Jacob." In ch. xlv. 4. "For Jacob my servant's sake, and Israel mine elect." In ch. xliv, 1. "Yet hear now, O Jacob my servant, and Israel whom I have chosen: fear not O Jacob, my servant." v. 2. "Remember these O Jacob and Israel, for thou art my servant. I have formed thee, thou art my servant O Israel, thou shalt not be forgotten of me." v. 21.

"Ye are my witnesses saith the Lord, and my servant whom I have chosen." ch. xliii. 10. See also the whole of ch. xlii. "Thou Israel art my servant, Jacob whom I have chosen, the seed of Abraham my friend." ch. xli. 8.

There can be no doubt therefore, that by "my servant," mentioned in the first part of the prophecy quoted from Isaiah, and by "my righteous servant," in the latter part of it, that "God's servant Israel" must be understood to be meant, provided there be nothing in the context to make it necessary to resort to some other interpretation. Mr. Everett says that there is something in the context, which forbids the application of this prophecy to "God's servant Israel." Let us then examine the reasons on which this assertion is founded.

He says 1st, p. 136 of his work, that the subject of this prophecy is spoken of as "passive and unresisting," and he exclaims, "The Jews passive and unresisting! They are the most obstinate and unyielding of the tribes of the earth, and have resisted the arm of power, and the lapse of time, which have crushed all other nations into oblivion."

The prophecy speaks of their non-resistance to oppression, and Mr. Everett tells us, to contradict this, that "they have resisted the arm of power, and the lapse of time, which have crushed all other nations into oblivion." This seems to me to be irrelevant.

"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 "God'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 God's law, and obey his commandments; for no others of them will God 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. God] 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 "God'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 God 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 "God's servant." They would reflect with astonishment and commiseration on their past sufferings. "We considered them," they might exclaim, "as a God- abandoned race, and devoted to wretchedness by him for having crucified their king. But instead of being the victims of God'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 God and his law. How passive 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 massacred, 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 God, 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 passage so clearly inapplicable to the Jewish nation, and so totally incongruous with the rest of the interpretation, that Mr. English passes 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 God of Israel to slay me and my people?" (ac. to the Hebr.) again, v. 11. "Send away the ark of the God 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 passed 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 "God'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 asserted 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 passages 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 circumstances 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 assertion 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 assertion 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 classical book with one class 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 passage of Grotius contradicts my representation of his opinion. The passage 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 asserted. 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 pronounces 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 assert the literal application to Christ, Mr. English may one day learn, that asseverations 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 passage 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 entitled "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 circumstance" 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 asserting "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, pronounces 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 illustrated and maintained by professor" Marsh. This opinion is that they were compiled from documents [not one document 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 passages 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 God 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 God 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 passed 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 passage, 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.

Whatever may be the true sigification of this prophecy, it is not, I conceive, favourable to the purpose to which Mr. Everett applies it, for the following reasons. 1. That in supposing what is commonly translated "seventy week's," to signify four hundred and ninety years, the prophecy would be falsified; for certainly the expiration of this period did not "finish transgression," nor "make an end of sins," nor "make reconciliation for iniquity," nor "bring in everlasting righteous," nor "anoint the most holy things," i.e. as I understand it, the new and eternal temple and its altar, predicted by Ezekiel in the last chapters of his prophecies. On the contrary, the Jews became more wicked than ever, and the temple then standing was destroyed to its foundations.

2. It follows from what is allowed by Mr. Everett himself, p. 159 of his work, that from the going forth of the word to restore and build Jerusalem, to the birth of Jesus Christ, was not seven weeks and sixty and two weeks, i. e. sixty-nine weeks, but EIGHTY-FOUR weeks, for he says there, that the duration of the second temple was "NINETY-FOUR weeks," i. e. six hundred and fifty-nine years. Now if my memory does not deceive me, Jerusalem was taken and the temple destroyed by Titus about the year seventy after the birth of Christ, which is equal to the prophetic weeks; therefore take ten weeks from the ninety-four weeks, (the time Mr. Everett states to have elapsed from the building of the second temple, to its destruction) and there remains EIGHTY-FOUR weeks, and not SIXTY-NINE. Which circumstance, appears to me to vitiate entirely the interpretation of Mr. Everett, who supposes the annointed one," spoken of as to be cut off after the sixty-nine weeks, to be Jesus Christ.

As to who the "annointed ones" were, the first I think entirely refers to Cyrus, and the last who was to be "cut off" and have no successor, may either mean the pious and good Onias mentioned in the book of Maccabees, who was the last I think of the legitimate Jewish High Priests, [for after his time History testifies that several, who had not the right of primogeniture as descendants of Aaron, obtained the priesthood by force, by intrigue, and by bribery;] or the last Jewish High Priest, Joshua [fn74] who perished during the siege of Jerusalem, according to Josephus. At any rate the anointed one who was to be cut off, cannot mean Jesus of Nazareth; because this anointed one was to be cut off in that same week of seven years, in which the city was destroyed, whereas Jesus was crucified forty years before that event; a circumstance I insist which excludes any application of this prophecy to Jesus.

The claims set up for Jesus of Nazareth are moreover evidently rejected by Daniel's prophecy, even according to Mr. Everett's interpretation, forasmuch as he did not appear at the expiration of sixty-nine weeks, but of EIGHTY-FOUR.

And to conclude this discussion, I would observe that Daniel, ch. iii, in his account of the image [seen in a vision by Nebuchadnezzar] whose head was of gold, breast and arms of silver, belly of brass, legs of iron, and feet and toes of iron and clay, is predicting the empires which have most influenced the fate of the Hebrew nation; i. e. the Babylonian, Persian, Grecian, and Roman, the last represented by "the iron legs," which did indeed bestride the world; these "iron legs" are represented as terminating in feet and toes part of iron and part of clay, which have no natural coherence; i. e. the Roman empire shall be divided into several kingdoms, partly strong and partly weak: a prophecy remarkably fulfilled in the history and condition of the kingdoms of Europe. The prophet goes on to say in ch. ii, that in the latter days of those kings or kingdoms, [which are yet subsisting] "the God of Heaven, would set up a kingdom which should never be destroyed," that of the Messiah. Of course the kingdom of the Messiah was not to be--not only not till after the destruction of the Roman empire--but not till the latter days of the kingdoms which grew up out of the ruins; whereas Jesus Christ was born in the time of Augustus, i. e. when the Roman empire itself was in the height of its splendour and vigour. Mr. Everett in p. 201, endeavours to escape the strong gripe of the prophet Daniel, by maintaining that these strong and weak parts, into which the Roman empire was to be divided, meant that it should be divided into "strong and weak institutions." Now to turn this sensible interpretation head over heels, [fn75] it appears to me to be only necessary to observe, that these strong and weak parts into which the Roman empire was to be divided, were, according to the prophet, ch. ii. 4.3. of Daniel, to "mingle themselves with the seed of men," i. e. make intermarriages; which, it appears to me to be a thing that "strong and weak institutions" cannot do. This, however has remarkably, been the case among the royal families of Europe, who intermarry too with the avowed design of cementing union and promoting peace and harmony. Nevertheless, agreeable to the prophet's prediction, they have not "cleaved together, but on the contrary have been almost constantly at war with each other.

PEBBLE IV.

"The children of Israel shall abide many days without a king, and without a prince, and without a sacrifice, and without an image, and without an ephod, and without teraphim; afterwards shall the children of Israel return, and seek the Lord their God, and David their king, and shall fear the Lord and his goodness in the latter days." Hos. iii, 4, 5.

"I will set up one shepherd over them, even my servant David, he shall feed [or govern] them, and he shall be their shepherd: and I the Lord will be their God, and my servant David, a prince among them." Ezech, ch. xxxiv. 23.

"David my servant shall be king over them, and there shall be one shepherd,"------" my servant David shall be their Prince for ever." Ezek. ch, xxxvii. 24, 25.

"They shall serve Jehovah their God, and David their king, whom I will raise up unto [or for] them." Jer. xxx. 9.

"Incline your ear and come unto me: hear and your soul shall live; and I will make an everlasting covenant with you, even the sure mercies of David. Behold I have given him for a witness, to the peoples, a leader and commander to the peoples." Is. Iv. 3, 4.

From such passages I inferred, in my first publication, that the name of the true Messiah, was to be DAVID, and not Jesus. To avoid the force of these passages Mr. Everett has recourse to allegory and analogy.