페이지 이미지

would have exasperated the multitude still more; and it is contrary to all experience, to suppose they would omit the greater and insist on the less offence. Their law to which they appealed, was directed against blasphemy in general. "He that blasphemeth the name of the Lord shall surely be put to death; and all the congregation shall certainly stone him."—Lev. xxiv. 16. They had also a law, (Deut. xviii. 20.) for putting a false prophet to death; much more, for executing the same sentence on any one making a false claim to the character and office of their Messiah. But they had no law against the specific crime of pretending to be the Almighty Jehovah. They never contemplated the possibility of such an extravagance. But they thought the assumption of any authority from heaven was blasphemy, and for this they accused him. This accusation failing, they charged him with a political crime, and succeeded.

[ocr errors]

It is lamentable that any man of Mr. Pope's talents and learning should hazard such an assertion as the following: If the Redeemer were not God, then did he suffer himself to remain under a charge of blasphemy-then did he, by his words, both incur the guilt of wilfully contributing towards his own cruci. fixion, and justify his murderers in putting him to death as a blasphemer."

Whether the Redeemer was God, or not, he did not repel their last charge of blasphemy. He was consistent throughout, in maintaining that he was the character which he was persecuted for assuming. But he was not God; for this he most clearly and decidedly denied. He was the Son of God; for this he as decidedly asserted, before the people, before Caiaphas, and before Pilate. The assumption of this title, as claiming a peculiár interest with heaven, and the honour of being the Messiah, was deemed blasphemy by the Jews; and this charge he never refuted. Even so, he did not die the death of a blasphemer, which the law of Moses decreed to be by stoning, but the death of a political malefactor, by crucifixion, on a false charge of sedition, and by the sentence of a Roman governor.

Even when he hung on the cross, and his enemies gave vent to the full torrent of their reproaches, and upbraided him with all the offences, of which, in justification of their own cruelty, they wished to make him appear guilty, that of having assumed the name and character of Jehovah was not among them.

Mr. Pope thinks that the name EMMANUEL, which signifies God with us, proves the Supreme Deity of Christ.

The passage in Mat. i. 23, is this::-" Behold a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted, is, God with us." Bishop Lowth says, that these words did not primarily apply to Christ; and Rammohun Roy has clearly shewn that they were applied by Isaiah, vii. 14,-"to Hezekiah, son of Ahaz, figuratively designated as the son of The Virgin, the daughter of Zion, to wit,

Jerusalem, foretold by the prophet, as the deliverer of the city from the hands of its enemies, though its utter destruction was. then threatened by the kings of Syria and Israel. Orthodox writers, in the interpretation of the text in Isaiah," observes the same learned author, "have entirely disregarded the original Scripture, the context, and the historical facts." It should be rendered not "a virgin," but THE virgin, viz: "The virgin daughter of Zion, the city of Jerusalem, is pregnant, and is bearing a Son, and shall call his name Emmanuel." In accordance with this version, it is translated by Bishop Lowth, with the definite article, and in the present tense, thus, "Behold, THE Virgin conceiveth and beareth a Son." The prophets, in their figurative language, often call Jerusalem, the Daughter of Zion, and the Virgin*—thus, Isaiah, xxxvii. 22:-" The virgin, the Daughter of Zion, hath despised thee, and laughed thee to scorn; the Daughter of Jerusalem hath shaken her head at thee." Thus, Jeremiah, xiv. 17. "Let mine eyes run down with tears night and day, and let them not cease; for the virgin daughter of my people is broken with a great breach." And again, xviii. 13. Thus saith Jehovah, ** The virgin of Israel hath done a very horrible thing."-Amos, v. 2. The virgin of Israel is fallen. She shall no more rise; she is forsaken upon her land; there is none to raise her up." The original word virgin, in the passage under consideration, has before it the emphatic or definite particle, ha, which incontestibly fixes its meaning: and it can be shewn by numerous instances, that the word n, harah, rendered in our translation shall conceive, should be is with child. "Tamar hath played the harlot, and she is (harah) with child."-Gen. xxxviii. 24. "And the angel of the Lord said unto her, (Hagar) behold, thou art (harah) with child."-Gen. xvi. 11. "If men strive and hurt a woman with child," (harah) Exod. xxi. 22. The Evangelist Matthew, quotes Isaiah, not from the original He brew, but from the Septuagint translation, which is here incorrect. But it answers his purpose, which is merely to apply it by way of accommodation to Christ-"the son of Ahaz and the Saviour resembling each other, in each being the means, at differ

*It is also called "barren."-Isaiah, liv. 1. "a captive Daughter,"lii. 2—and a "Harlot,”—Ezek. xvi. 35.

"Accommodations are passages of the Old Testament which are adapted by writers of the New Testament, to an occurrence that happened in their time, on account of correspondence and similitude. These are not prophecies, though they are sometimes said to be fulfilled; for any thing may be said to be fulfilled when it can be pertinently applied. This method of explaining Scripture by accommodation, will enable us to solve some of the greatest difficulties relating to the prophecies."-Horne's Introduction to, the critical study of the Scriptures. Vol. 11. p. 438.

ent periods, though in different senses, of establishing the throne of the house of David."*

All this, indeed, must appear most evident to any one who will take the trouble of turning to the seventh chapter of Isaiah, and examining the subject with candour. Ahaz, king of Judah, being thrown into consternation by the confederated arms of Rezin, king of Syria, aud Pekah, king of Israel; the prophet comes to promise him safety, and desires him to ask a sign of his approaching deliverance. Ahaz declines this, saying, "I will not ask, neither will I tempt the Lord." Then the prophet replies, the Lord himself shall give you a sign: and repeats the words already quoted, with this addition: "Butter and honey shall he eat that he may know to refuse the evil and choose the good. For before the child shall know to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest, shall be forsaken of both her kings." The prophecy as applied to Hezekiah,† the Immanuel meant by the prophet, is clear and satisfactory. But it: is badly rendered in our common translation. There is no meaning in saying, "butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil and choose the good," as if knowledge were to be the consequence of such food. That he may know, should be when he shall know.‡ At this age he shall eat butter and honey, the emblems of peace and plenty; for, even before he shall arrive at years of discretion, the land shall be freed of her oppressors. Here was a sign that could be seen and understood. But what "sign," or consolation would it have been to Ahaz, terrified as he was by the approach of a powerful enemy, and the anticipated loss of his throne and life, to be told that a

Because Rammohun Roy had the honesty to give the above explanation, which is the only one that has sense, and can stand the test of fair criticism, he was accused by the Rev. Editor who opposed him, of having blasphemed the word of God. He says, with great innocence, that he did not expect such an accusation from the editor! and to acquit himself of the charge refers to the translation of the four Gospels, by Dr. Campbell, a celebrated Trinitarian writer, in whose notes that learned divine says, "Thus, Mat. ii. 15, a declaration from the prophet Hosea, xi. 1, which God made in relation to the people of Israel whom he had long before called from Egypt, is applied by the historian allusively to Jesus Christ, where all that is meant is, that with equal truth, or rather with much greater energy of signification, God might now say, I have recalled my Son out of Egypt. Indeed the import of the Greek phrase (that it might be fulfilled) as commonly used by the sacred writers, is no more, as Le Clerc has justly observed, than that such words of any of the prophets may be applied with truth to such an event.

[ocr errors]

+ Marshman says, the child could not be Hezekiah. But he founds his observation on a mis-translation of the Hebrew, and is triumphantly confuted by Rammohun Roy, who understands Hebrew indeed. It did apply to Hezekiah, not as a child that had yet to be conceived, but as a child: with which the virgin city was actually pregnant.


Virgin, viz: Mary would conceive and bear a Son, above seven hundred years after he should be gathered to his fathers?

A similar sign was given to the prophet himself, as we read in the next chapter. The prophetess bare a son. "Then said the Lord to me, call his name Maher-shalal-hash-baz, (i. e. Haste to the spoil, quick to the prey.*) for before the child shall have knowledge to cry, my Father and my Mother, the riches of Damascus, and the spoil of Samaria, shall be taken away before the king of Assyria," viii. 3, 4. He then proceeds to say, in the name of the Lord, that because the people refused the waters of Shiloah, meaning terms of peace, the king of Assyria would come up, as a torrent, against them, and "the stretching out of his wings shall fill the breadth of thy land, Immanuel," v. 8. What is meant here? Will any orthodox critic affirm, that the prophet apostrophises Christ? If there be, let him enjoy his fancy-to deprive him of it would be cruel and he might exclaim with one of his old classic acquaintances.:

[merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small]

The word Immanuel occurs again in 10th verse, but there it is translated "God is with us.'

Trinitarians rest great weight on another passage of Isaiah, ix. 6, applied by that prophet to Hezekiah also, "Unto us a child is born-unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulders: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, the Mighty God, the Everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace." "The words Everlasting Father," says Dr. Clarke, 46 are very ill rendered; for it is absurd to say of the Son, that he is the Everlasting Father, the Father of himself. The phrase ought to be translated-the Father, or Lord of the age to come." This is well, and it might be added, that no prophet could affirm of the Father, meaning God, that he had ever been a child, or was born. But on what authority, save that of orthodox divines, are they applied to Christ at all? They may certainly be used as descriptive of the character of him who was so truly the Prince of Peace-but nothing was farther from the mind of the prophet who wrote them than such a reference. They were applied by him to the same son of Abaz, whom he names

[ocr errors]


Immanuel. Such lofty hyperbolical epithets are perfectly in accordance with the style of oriental description, particularly prophetic and poetical description. Moreover it was customary with the Jews to give names to individuals expressive of some event or circumstance of their lives and such names were frequently associated with that of God, in a manner which may excite the surprise of those who have thought the title of Imma nuel, when applied to Christ, demonstrative of his Deity, Thus Hezekiah signifies "God my strength."-Israel, "Prince of God."-Elijah, "God the Lord:" or the strong Lord.-Elisha, "Salvation of God; or, God that saves."-Jotham, "Perfection of the Lord."-Ishmael, "God who hears."-Lemuel, "God with them." The word Immanuel, therefore, even if it belonged exclusively to Christ, which it did not, yields no support to the cause for which it is adduced as an auxiliary.

As to the appellation Jehovah, there is no place in the sacred volume by which it can be clearly shewn that our Lord Jesus Christ was ever so denominated and even if there were, it would be no argument for his Deity, since it is an appellation shared in common by angels, by men, and by places. The angel of the Lord who appeared to Moses in the bush, is called Jehovah.-Exod. iii. 2, 3, 4. The sons of Seth called themselves by the name of Jehovah.* -Gen. iv. 26. Abraham named the place where he caught the ram, Jehovah jireh.-Gen. xxii. 14. Moses built an altar and called the name of it Jehovah-nissi.— Exod. xvii. 15. Gideon built an altar unto the Lord and called it Jehovah-shalom.-Jud. vi. 24. The city to be possessed by the tribes of Israel was to be Jehovah-shammah.—Ezek. xlviii. 35. The text Jer. xxiii. 6. "This is his name whereby he shall be called, the Lord (Jehovah) our righteousness," is supposed, by the orthodox, clearly to establish the Deity of Christ, though in fact it has no more reference to Christ, than to William the Fourth, King of Great Britain and Ireland. Every reader of ordinary intelligence, who will read it in the connexion where it stands, will find that it must apply to some temporal ruler, and not to him whose kingdom is not of this world. text states, that he of whom the prophecy is written, "shall reign and prosper, and shall execute judgment and justice on the earth." Our Lord, on the contrary, so far from reigning and prospering, was a man of sorrows, who had not where to lay his head. Instead of executing judgment and justice; he asked the young man who wished him to arbitrate between him and his brother, "who made me a judge or a divider over you?".

• See Calmet's Dictionary.


"It is fortunate," says Rammohun Roy, "that some sect has not hitherto arisen, maintaining the Deity of Jerusalem, or of the altar of Moses, from the authority of the passages just mentioned."

« 이전계속 »