"The Messiah expected by the Jews," says Mr. Everett, at the
beginning of the second chapter of his book, "and which Mr.
English supposes to be predicted in the Old Testament, is 'a
temporal prince, and a conquering pacificator.' The Christians on
the other hand maintain, that the prophets foretold not a political,
but a religious institution, not a temporal prince, but a moral
teacher, and spiritual Saviour. Which of these opposite views of
the predicted character of the Messiah is correct, must be decided
of course by an appeal to particular predictions. But it is also a
matter of reason, and we have a right to argue upon the question
from the character of God, and the nature of man. Which of these
views the Jewish or the Christian doth most commend itself to the
sincere believer in the moral government of God, and the rational
and accountable nature of man?"
This statement, I cannot help considering as both artful and unfair.
That I have represented the Messiah as predicted to be "a
temporal Prince and a conquering pacificator," is true, but it is not
the whole truth; Mr. Everett would have it to be understood, that I
maintained that the Messiah was to be merely "a temporal Prince;"
whereas, those who will take the trouble to refer to the prior
chapters of "the grounds of Christianity examined," will find that I
have endeavoured to prove that the prophets predict, that he was
also to be "a just, beneficient, wise, and mighty monarch, under
whose government righteousness was to flourish, and mankind be
made happy:" and I believe that there is not a single passage from
the prophets quoted in Mr. Everett's 2d. chapter to prove his views
of the Messiah, that I have not also myself quoted to prove the
beneficent character of him I suppose to be predicted.
Mr. Everett unwarily betrays his own unfairness in the following
passage of his work, p. 63.---"Mr. English objects, that whereas
the first characteristic of the Messiah was, that he was to be the
Prince of Peace, in whose time righteousness was to flourish and
mankind be made happy," &c.[fn17]
How is it possible, I might ask Mr. Everett that I could have
maintained that the Messiah was to be merely "a temporal Prince,
and a conquering pacificator," when it is also true, as Mr. Everett
confesses, that I maintain that "the first characteristic of the
Messiah was that he was to be the Prince of Peace, in whose time
righteousness was to flourish and mankind be made happy?" I
confess, that I feel both contempt and indignation at such an artful
mis-representation of my opinions, in order to attack them with
more hopes of success, and as I do not profess to be a Christian, I
may be excused for expressing what in this case I certainly have a
right so feel.[fn18] The prophets, literally understood represent (as
Mr. Everett will not deny) that the Messiah is to be a mighty
Monarch, enthroned at Jerusalem under whose reign the Jews
should be restored to their country and converted from their sins
and errors, and established in the most perfect and endless
happiness; that he will put down all opposition to his authority, and
exterminate the wicked out of the earth, and unite the pious and
good of all the human race under his government, making them
participators of the eternal happiness of the favoured descendants
of Abraham, that all sin, sorrow, and error shall be no more, and
the earth become all Paradise.
"Far more bless'd than that of Eden, And far happier days." [fn19]
The difference between Mr. Everett's and my view of this
representation is, that I understand the prophets to mean that the
whole will be literally fulfilled; and Mr. Everett maintains that, that
part which accords with the Christian view of the Messiah is to be
literally understood, but that that part which is opposed to it must
be taken figuratively.
Who is so blind as not to perceive the motives for such an
incoherent system, of interpretation! The passages which
represent the Messiah as a Monarch reigning at Jerusalem, and
whose temporal authority should extend over all the earth, Mr.
Everett would interpret to signify, (by a figure) "a preacher of
righteousness, and a spiritual Saviour of the souls of men;"
because Jesus had no temporal authority whatever, and therefore
to understand them literally would exclude the claims set up for
him. The earth's being restored to a Paradisiacal state, and the
extinction of all sin, violence, and misery throughout its
circumference, Mr. Everett would interpret to signify, (by. a figure)
"the blessed events," which have occurred, and the "changes that
have taken place," since the promulgation of Christianity!! [fn20]
Mr. Everett, in support of his system of interpretation, shows us,
that the Supreme Being is frequently spoken of in the Old
Testament, as a King and as a victorious warrior; and therefore
infers, because such passages must be understood figuratively,
that the passages in the prophets which speak of the Messiah in
similar terms, must be also understood figuratively.
To this it seems to me to be a sufficient answer to observe, that
men who speak of the Deity, are obliged to employ human
language and human ideas; because:
"What can we reason but from what we know?" and therefore a
great part of such language will be necessarily figurative; but it by
no means follows from this, that the writers who are obliged to use
this figurative language when speaking of the Deity, intend to be
understood in the same sense when they apply the same
expressions to describe men and their actions. On the contrary, as
they were writing to men and for men, it is natural to presume, that
they meant to be understood in the way that such expressions are
universally understood by all men, when they relate to men and
their actions. Such a system, of interpretation as this of Mr.
Everett's, turns the Bible into a Babel of confusion: a man
proceeding upon this system, might with equal plausibility turn all
the good and prosperous kings of Israel and Judah into "Spiritual
Saviours."[fn21]
"What, says Mr. Everett, p. 63. would be thought of one, who after
making a collection of passages which ascribe these attributes of
royalty and conquest to God, such as Mr. English has made of
those which ascribe such attributes to the Messiah, should infer as
he does, that God is a just, beneficent; wise and mighty monarch
reigning on a throne in Jerusalem?"
To this I answer by asking in my turn, what should we think of one,
who after making a collection, of passages which ascribe these
attributes of royalty and conquest to God, as Mr. Everett has
done, should therefore think himself authorised to infer, that the
history of David the son of Jesse, contained in the Bible, (which,
as all the world knows, is an oriental book abounding in figurative
expressions) was not to be understood literally, but that it was
very possible that this supposed monarch of Israel, who is
represented as having "saved it from its enemies on every side,"
was after all, probably only a spiritual saviour of the souls of the
Israelites, by having distinguished himself as a prophet, a
preacher of righteousness, and a composer of Psalms!! [fn22]
As Mr. Everett says, I "cheerfully leave this part of the controversy,
with the answer to this question which every rational inquirer will
give;" p. 63.
Mr. Everett, however, in maintaining that the Messiah, was to be
merely a preacher of righteousness, a founder of a new religion,
and a. spiritual saviour of the souls of men, not only opposes dicta
of the prophets of the Old Testament, but is expressly
contradicted by the doctrine of the New, which maintains the same
ideas of the Messiah that the prophets teach and the Jews
believe; and this with the indulgence of the reader's patience I will
plainly show.
The angel is recorded, Luke, ch. i. 31, to have told Mary,
concerning Jesus whom the author of that Gospel supposes to
have been the Messiah, that "the Lord God shall give unto him the
throne of his father David: and he shall reign over the house of
Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there shall be no end." Now this
is precisely the doctrine, concerning the Messiah, believed by the
Jews from that time to the present; for we see that Luke
represents that the Messiah was not to be merely a spiritual
saviour of the souls of men, but was actually to set upon the
throne of David, and reign over the house of Jacob for ever; which
is precisely what the prophets teach and the Jews believe.
Again, in the same ch. 68, the writer of that Gospel represents
Zecharias, when filled with the Holy Ghost, as predicting
concerning Jesus as follows. "Blessed be the Lord God of Israel,
for he hath visited and redeemed his people, and hath raised up a
horn of salvation for us in the house of his servant David: as he
spake by the mouth of his holy prophets which have been since
the world began: that we should be saved from our enemies, and
from the hand of all that hate us: to perform the mercy promised to
our Fathers, and to remember his holy covenant: the oath which
he swore to our father Abraham, that he would grant unto us, that
we being delivered from the hand of our enemies, might serve him
without fear in holiness and righteousness before him all the days
of our life."
Here we see again that in Luke's opinion the Messiah was not to
be merely "a spiritual saviour of the souls of men," but that he was
to "save Israel from their enemies and from the hand of all that
hated them," and this too is precisely what the prophets teach and
the Jews believe.
Again, from the first ch. of Acts 6. it is evident, that the primitive
Christians did not believe that the Messiah was to be merely a
spiritual saviour of the souls of men, but that he would perform for
Israel what was promised by the prophets. For the Apostles are
represented there as asking Jesus, previous to his ascension,
saying "Lord wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to
Israel?"
The way the writers of the New Testament, get over the objection
to the Messiahship of Jesus, founded on the nonfulfillment by him
of the splended visions of the prophets relative to the restoration
of the dispersion, the punishment of their oppressors, and the
diffusion of universal happiness to the tribes and of the world,
(which they represent as the consequence of the coming of the
Messiah) is, not by maintaining that the Messiah was to be merely
"a spiritual Saviour of the souls of men," but by affirming that
Jesus would shortly come again into the world to fulfill them. "The
Lord Jesus," says the writer of the second Epistle to the
Thessalonians ch. i. 7, "shall be revealed from Heaven with his
mighty angels, in flaming fire, taking vengeance on them that
know not God and obey not the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the
presence of our Lord, and from the glory of his power: when he
shall come to be glorified in his saints, and to be admired of all
them that believe."[fn23]
Again, in the xii. ch. of the Revelations, Jesus is apparently
spoken of as destined "to rule all nations with a rod of iron." And in
the ii. ch. Jesus is represented as saying, that "he that overcometh
and keepeth my words unto the end, to him will I give power over
the nations; and he shall rule them with a rod of iron; as the
vessels of a potter shall they be broken to shivers even as I
received of my Father," v: 26, and lastly, not to be tedious, there is
a passage in the xix. ch. of Revelations, which proves decisively
against Mr. Everett, that the primitive Christians had even more
sanguinary ideas of the vengeance of the Messiah upon the
wicked of the earth, than are even entertained by the Jews. Jesus
is there, described thus, "I saw Heaven opened, and behold a
white horse; and he that set upon him was called Faithful and
True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war, and out
of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the
nations; and he shall rule them with a rod of iron, and he treadeth
the wine press of the fierceness of the wrath of Almighty God," v.
11, 15. Some idea of the slaughter meant by the writer of the
Revelations by "treading the wine press of the fierceness of the
wrath of Almighty God," may be understood from ch. xiv. 20,
where it is represented that the blood of men came out of this
wine press "by the space of a thousand and six hundred
furlongs!!"
I suppose that the reader is quite satisfied by what has been
adduced, that Mr. Everett's idea of the Messiah's being merely "a
spiritual saviour of the souls of men," is equally rejected by the Old
Testament and the New, and since Mr. Everett does not and
cannot pretend, that Jesus during the long space of 1800 years
has fulfilled the predictions relating to the Messiah in a literal
sense, which is the sense in which they must be fulfilled in order
to be made good, Mr. Everett is left without better proof of the
Messiahship of Jesus than bare opinion only, which attaineth not
to any certainty.
Mr. Everett supposes that a mere "Preacher of righteousness," is
capable of fulfilling all the predictions of the Messiah, which
represent him as putting an end to all wickedness and misery
throughout the World. How absurd!! there never was,[fn24] a
better or greater "Preacher of righteousness," than Jesus Christ
himself, and what did he effect among the people of his age? the
Gospels say, that they whipped him, and nailed him to a cross.
There has been since his time, for eighteen hundred years, I know
not how many millions of "preachers of righteousness," and what
have they effected? look at the history of the decline and fall of the
Roman Empire: look at the histories of mankind for the last 400
years. What scenes do they for the most part, present to the
shocked contemplation! are they not generally a complication of
folly, madness, and devilism, worthy of being recorded in triumph
by the evil one himself, in letters of blood and infernal fire?
What success have the "Preachers of righteousness," of the
present day? Do not these pious and good men, and pious and
good they generally speaking undoubtedly are, do they not feel
themselves obliged to tell you, that such is the depravity of human
nature, that "teaching and preaching are all in vain;" that they are
wearying themselves in "throwing pearls before swine," who
receive them with a grunt, and "trample them under their feet?"
Does not Mr. Everett himself tell us p. 80, that "it is too true that
the mighty passions, which agitate the public intercourse of the
world, are almost beyond the direct reach of moral means," i. e. of
the "Preachers of righteousness."
How then can he expect that a mere "Preacher of righteousness,"
is capable of subduing these "mighty passions," whose existence
is incompatible with peace and happiness, and fulfilling the
predictions relating to the Messiah? No, all history and experience
testify that no merely human power can put an end to them. It
must be done by the strong and armed hand of Heaven.
Then, and not till then, shall exiled "justice look down from
Heaven, and righteousness and peace shall kiss each other."
Then, and not till then, shall "the wicked cease from troubling;"
and the afflicted enjoy happiness.
"These be the last words of David. David the son of Jesse said,
and the man who was raised up on high, the Messiah of the God
of Jacob, (See the Heb.) and the sweet Psalmist of Israel; The
spirit of Jehovah spake by me, and his word is in my tongue. The
God of Israel said, the Rock of Israel spake to me, he that ruleth
over mankind (see the Heb.) shall be just, ruling in the fear of
God: And he shall be as the light of the morning, when the sun
riseth, even a morning without clouds; as the tender grass
springing out of the earth by clear shining after rain.
But the sons of Belial shall be all of them as thorns thrust away,
because they cannot be taken with hands. But the man that shall
touch them must be fenced with iron, and the staff of a spear; and
they shall be utterly burned with fire in the same place." 2 Sam.
ch. xxiii.