Imatges de pàgina
PDF
EPUB

ing to the notions generally received, (which points I mean not now to discuss,) and he quotes this prophecy as applied to Christ, and by the virgin supposes that the Virgin Mary, the mother of our Lord, is intended. Still there is not any sufficient evidence adduced to set aside the interpretation given. Matthew, even if inspired, and this part genuine, might quote it not as a direct prophecy of the birth of Christ; but allusively, as a saying which might be applied to him with propriety, though the prophecy did not at all refer to him. He was the first child of his mother, and he was Immanuel, for in him it was manifested, or he was a sign, that God was with us mankind, and would by him deliver us. Agreeably to this the Greek of St. Matthew might be rendered, "All this was done; in which was accomplished what the Lord had spoken by the mouth of the prophet," &c.; that is, these are events similar to those spoken of from the Lord, by the mouth of the prophet, &c. The Greek particle, Iva, when taken adverbially, signifies ubi, where, in which, by which. In a similar way we might translate and interpret several other such passages, in this Evangelist particularly. Thus, ch. ii. ver. 15, is quoted from Hosea xi. 1; where the words of the prophet evidently refer to the calling of the children of Israel out of Egypt, in the time and by the hand of Moses. And again, ch. ii. vers. 17, 18, is quoted from Jeremiah xxxi. 15; where the words evidently refer to the desolation of Judah at the time of the captivity to Babylon.

But it may be asked, Would it not be more consistent with the words of the Evangelist, and the general scope of prophecy, to understand these predictions as referring to more than one distinct, definite event, as pointing out two similar events happening at different and distant times? By no means. It would introduce such confusion and uncertainty into the prophecies, as very nearly resembles the double-meaning answers of the ancient heathen oracles. This opens a wide door to the cavils and objections of infidelity, against which all true Christians should particularly guard themselves and their sacred writings. If this confusion and uncertainty be ad

[blocks in formation]

mitted, why should we not give credit to, and acknowledge the authority of, ancient heathen oracles, which, in some ambiguous, similar manner, could and actually did foretell future events? Than thus to expose our holy religion to contempt, and weaken one of the very strong proofs of its divinity and truth in the fulfilment of prophecy, it would be better even to suppose a sacred historian mistaken in his application of prophecies; for inspiration to guard him from the misapplication of these is by no means necessary to enable him to write authentic history. This, however, is not supposed in the interpretation we have just now given.

III. The fulfilment of the prophecy in the event, is what was next propo sed to be considered and pointed out.

1. The accomplishment of the former part of the prophecy, delivered as a sign unto Ahaz, has been already shewn in the birth of Maher-shalalhash-baz. Of the other part, the land of Syria and Ephraim being left desolate of both her kings before this child knew to refuse the evil and choose the good, a more particular consideration is required.

It

It is necessary to refer to notes of time given in the history of these transactions. Before Ahaz came to the throne, even in the time of Jothain his father, Pekah and Rezin were making preparations for war against Judah and Jerusalem. Ahaz came to the throne at twenty years of age. Two or three verses after mentioning this, without giving any intermediate note of time, in 2 Kings xvi. 5, it is said, "Then Rezin and Pekah came up to war against Jerusalem." may hence be justly inferred, that this was very soon after Ahaz was seated on the throne; most probably in the first year of his reign. In Isa. vii. 2, we are informed, when Ahaz_heard of the confederacy of Syria and Ephraim, his heart was moved. Upon this the prophet is commanded to go to him, as related in the following verses. Probably, then, Isaiah might speak to Ahaz, before Rezin and Pekah were actually come up against him, even while they were on the march, if not even previously to their setting out on it. If this be supposed then can there be no appearance of wishing to favour the prophecy, as the event must, in

that case, immediately succeed. Hence it is concluded, that Isaiah delivered to Ahaz the prophecies contained in this chapter soon, very soon, after he had succeeded his father as king of Judah, even in the first year of his reign. And this first year of Ahaz, according to 2 Kings xvi. 1, was the seventeenth of Pekah's reign over Israel.

In 2 Kings xv. 30, it is said that Pekah was slain by Hoshea, in the twentieth year of Jotham, son of Uz ziah; that is, in the twentieth year from Jotham being made king, for Jotham himself reigned only sixteen years; see ver. 33. Now Pekah began to reign in the fifty-second year, that is, in the last year of Uzziah's reign; and he reigned twenty years. Compare ver. 2 with ver. 27. Jotham began to reign in the second year of Pekah, verse 32; and by comparing this with the last-quoted verse, it is plain that his reign would commence just after Pekah entered his second year. As Jotham reigned sixteen years, and Ahaz succeeded his father in the seventeenth of Pekah, it is hence inferred, that Ahaz began to reign just about, rather after than before, the time that Pekah completed his seventeenth year. Consequently the twentieth of Jotham will be some where in the third year of Ahaz, but before that year was completed. For add to rather more than one, (Pekah having just entered his second year,) the sixteen years of Jotham's reign, this will give rather more than the seventeenth of Pekah. As then there would not be three years wanting to complete the twentieth of Jotham, that would fall about the second, or at farthest before the third of Ahaz was completed. Ahaz then had not reigned three full years when Pekah was slain by Hoshea, and the land of Ephraim left desolate of her king.

Of Rezin there is not so particular an account given, nor have we such notes of time as will enable us so exactly to determine the time of his death. But from the narration given of it in 2 Kings xvi. 6-10, it may be inferred, that his death must have happened nearly about the same time. In the space of two years there seems a sufficient length of time for the accomplishment of all the intermediate

events; the success of the Syrians against the Jews, and the embassy from Ahaz to Tiglath-pileser, might take up one year; his descent upon Damascus, the capture of that city and people, with the slaughter of Rezin, might be accomplished in another. If so, this would be rather before the destruction of Pekah. Here again, then, it may be concluded that Ähaz had not reigned three years when this event took place. That is, it was about two years after the prophet had spoken unto the king, as recorded in Isaiah, ch. vii.

Now, as it is most probable that Isaiah went in unto the prophetess, and that she conceived shortly after the predictions had been delivered to Ahaz, and as nine months must be allowed for the time of gestation, the birth of the child Maher-shalal-hashbaz, must have been some time in the second year of Ahaz. Thence reckoning forward till the time of the death of Rezin and Pekah, in the third year of Ahaz, as has just now been shewn, the age of the child could not have been two years; very likely not much more than one. At that age, it is by no means probable that he should be able to cry my father and my mother. Consequently, according to Isa. viii. 4, the riches of Damascus, and the spoil of Samaria, were taken away before that time. In like manner it may be added, that at that age the child could not know to refuse the evil and choose the good. And, therefore, before that period, agreeably to Isa. vii. 16, the land which Ahaz abhorred was left desolate of both her kings. Thus the prediction and accomplishment of the sign have been verified.

2. It is also said, that "within threescore and five years" from the time of the prophecy being delivered, "Ephraim shall be broken that it be not a people." This also we shall verify by shewing its accomplishment. In doing which the notes of time must be collected from the account of the reigns of the kings of Judah and Israel, and from a comparison of the two together. That there may not appear to be any favouring of the prophecy, it will be proper to compute rather above than under what may be exactly indicated.

[blocks in formation]

time of its exhibition, and the very nature of it, could not possibly ansaid they, not without some show of swer any such purpose. For how, of a future event, which he was disreason, could a person be persuaded posed to question, merely from being told, at the same time, and upon the same authority only, that a second event, not less improbable than the first, should succeed it in after ages? The answer has been already given, and the sign shewn to result from a precurrence of facts, well attested by credible witnesses, and, therefore, impossible to be overlooked or mistaken;

From the time of the Prophecy being not posterior to, but preceding, what

delivered by Isaiah,

Pekah reigned three years, 2 Kings xv. 27, and xvi. 1. He was cut off in the third of Ahaz, by Hoshea, who began to reign in the twelfth year of Ahaz's reign. Consequently there was an interreign of

years.-Hoshea reigned years, ch. xvii. ver. 1; Pekah reigned three, making together twenty one or twentytwo years, agreeably to the result of the reigns of the kings of Judah. Thus, then, is this prediction of the prophet fully verified.

3. It is again added, that if Ahaz did not believe, surely he should not be established. The Lord would bring upon him, his people and his father's house, the king of Assyria and the Egyptians. By them the country would be laid desolate, the people led away captive, and every thing destroyed. For the accomplishment of this, see 2 Chron. xxviii. 20; xxxii. 1,9; xxxiii. 11; xxxv. 20—24; and xxxvi. throughout. These passages, with the corresponding ones in 2 Kings, and their parallels in several of the prophets, abundantly verify this third prediction delivered in the name of the Lord, by Isaiah to Ahaz himself.

"I am now come to a conclusion of what I had to offer on this very plain prophecy; which appears, methinks, with so much consistency, clearness and unity, from the beginning throughout, that I flatter myself we cannot be far from seeing it in its true and proper light. I am not conscious of the least force put upon the natural construction or meaning of the words. Unbelievers can no longer deride us for admitting a fact for a sign, which, both on account of the

was meant to be established by them." See Blayney's Sermon, pp. 14, 15.,

[blocks in formation]

your monthly list of New Publications you have omitted to notice a very extraordinary work by Dr. Fletcher, a Catholic Priest, entitled, rogatives of Church and State." Thoughts on the Rights and Pre

[ocr errors]

I caught a glimpse of the book as it passed through Exeter, and in that cursory view of it met with assertions which astonished me and will surprise those readers of the Repository who have not met with the publi cation.

At page 86, he says, "It is not true that the constitution of this country is Protestant. It is on the contrary much rather Catholic. When it is said that the constitution is Protestant, is the meaning of the assertion this, that therefore the king and his ministers, the members of the legislature and of the government are or ought to be, the believers of the thirty-nine articles, or the professors of the doctrines of the Church of England? Is such the import of the term? No, it is not, because we may remark the state for ever admits into its councils and its cabinet, into its parliament and various offices, men of very different and even opposite religions, Calvinists, Presbyterians, Methodists, &c., nay even sometimes, men of no religion, (for we have seen even this,) Socinians, Unitarians, Deists and unbelievers. Therefore the consequence is, that the constitution is not Protestant in this sense, that men are bound in order to enjoy the

privileges of the state to profess the bers of the Established Church, the

religion of the state."

There is so much confusion in the style of this writer, that it is not always easy to find out his meaning. In the above passage he discovers a total ignorance of Protestantism, and the principles on which it is founded. I had always understood that a Protestant was one who rejected the corruptions of the church of Rome, and who appealed to the Scriptures as the sole rule of faith and practice. This I found asserted in innumerable writers, and the truth of it is evident from the whole history of the reformation. In these principles, "Calvinists, Presbyterians, Methodists, Socinians and Unitarians," are united with the Church of England, without a single exception.

This writer is not the first who has associated the Unitarians with Deists. And if to distinguish Christianity from its corruptions, to preach and live under the warrant of Scripture, and to inculcate sound morals on the prospect of that immortality which was brought to light by the gospel, be a sign of Deism, Unitarians will have no objection to the name of Deists. The frequent use of these invidious aspersions, by intolerant bigots, will take out their sting. The world is not so ready as it has been, to follow the cry of designing men. To affirm the globe we inhabit to be round, was deemed heresy a few ages back, and for asserting its motion the immortal Galileo was confined in the dungeons of the Inquisition. But the term heretic has, in these more enlightened times lost its dreadful sound. The worst heresies that ever infested religion are found to be spiritual pride, priestly ambition, the love of dominion, and the spirit of persecution.

But to place us on a footing with "Deists and Unbelievers," does not satisfy this Dr. Fletcher. He will not allow us to have any religion. He has falsely, malevolently, and without the smallest provocation, insulted those who merited far other treatment from a Catholic. In whatever light I view his conduct, it appears to me weak, indiscreet and ungrateful. While the claims of the Catholics to an enlargement of their toleration was opposed by the mem

Unitarian Dissenters, knowing what it is to be excluded from the common rights of citizens, advocated their cause. But to plead with such a person on principles of liberality and gratitude, is to address him in a language he does not or will not understand. From Dr. Fletcher we can appeal with pleasure to other Catholics of more enlarged and liberal minds. To use the words of another Catholic clergyman, "I have conversed, indeed, only with men of liberal minds, and as long as I am permitted to choose my own company, I will associate with no others. When they cease to be found, it will be time to retire to the woods."* have the pleasure of being well acquainted with another clergyman of that communion in this city, who is one of its brightest ornaments, and would be an honour to any communion, who is animated with the same liberal spirit and has expressed his unqualified disapprobation of this publication.

JAMES MANNING.

P. S. While the author represents the different sects of Protestants as being of different and even opposite religions, is he aware that Protestants might, on the same grounds, assert that the Augustines, Benedictines, Carmelites, Dominicans, Franciscans, and a variety of other sects, such as the Jesuists, the Jansenists, and Molinists, are of different religions?

SIR,

I

July 24, 1823. CANNOT discern any degree of similarity between the mystery of eternity and the supposed mystery in the Athanasian Creed; for so I choose to designate the popular doctrine, rather than by the term Trinity, which being an equivocal word, may be, and often is adopted by persons of different sentiments, in their own sense. It is therefore high time that this term should be discarded.

it, by not using explicit terms. Hence, "everlasting discussion, and no conclusion." But-to the point. I think that your correspondent (p.

Controversialists make sad work of

* Rev. Joseph Berington.

339) has not sufficiently attended to the important distinction between a mystery or difficulty, i. e. something beyond the reach of our present faculties, and a manifest absurdity or contradiction. The Scriptures allude to three sorts of mysteries; first, those of the kind first mentioned; secondly, something formerly doubtful or concealed, but now made manifest; and lastly, the mysteries of Antichrist, or of "Babylon the great, the mother of harlots, and of the abominations of the earth." In this latter sense, it has been well said, that "there are no mysteries in the gospel."

66

In the quotation from Dr. Priestley, the writer views the sublime subject only in the same light in which it has been represented by the greatest divines and philosophers. "In our idea," says the Doctor, we consider an eternity past," and an "eternity to come," the former as diminishing, and the latter as increasing; time being the isthmus or stage between them but this is only "in our idea," for eternity in the abstract, or strict philosophical sense, hath neither beginning nor ending; it is invariable, or infinite duration; as time is successive, or limited duration. This appears to me to be the sense of the passage, and by repeating the phrase "in our idea," the Doctor evidently intended to point out the modes of the Divine existence as utterly incomprehensible by us; but this statement is so far from involving a contradiction, that on the contrary it is a self-evident proposition, since nothing can be plainer than the axiom of Dr. Clarke, expressed in his peculiar, concise and energetic language, than that, "as something now is, it is evident that something always was;" and this something that always was," must be mind, and not matter-which is the grand argument against Atheism.

66

Your correspondent intimates that the Doctor has supposed "the Deity must have exerted his creative power from all eternity;" but he has not quoted the passage. This however, appears to be a topic far beyond the reach of our present faculties. If to suppose the Almighty passing an eternity (so to speak) solely in the contemplation of his own perfections,

might seem to imply a defect in his benevolence; and on the other hand, to consider creation as an eternal effect of an eternal cause, must ever appear to us almost to involve a contradiction; we can only conclude that these things are among the Divine incomprehensibles, and cry out with the great apostle upon another occasion, "O the depth !" It is of great importance to know where to stop, as well as when to proceed. "The meek will he guide in judgment, and the meek will he teach his way."

As to the other supposed mysterious doctrine of Dr. Southwood Smith and other Necessarians, the subject being, by common consent as it were, proscribed your pages, I shall only skim the surface. We are under great obligations to the Doctor for his book on the Divine Government." If he has embraced any sentiments which are contradictory as well as mysterious, and which in the opinion of many thinking persons, are dishonourable to the Divine character and government, no doubt they have not so appeared to him. If any one could explain a knotty point in divinity or philosophy, to the level of plain understandings, it would be Dr. Hartley, but many have thought his arguments upon this point weak and inconclusive. To say that the Almighty cannot carry on his plans here below, without the arm of the assassin, the depredations of the robber, the blasphemies of the impious, and the machinations of wicked statesmen and politicians, which render. the earth a scene of carnage and of blood; in a word, to represent the divine regiment or economy, with regard to his creature man, as vided against itself," is to adopt a scheme of moral philosophy, which should certainly not be hastily taken up, and which many (otherwise) orthodox writers and divines have thought it necessary to discard.

"di

[blocks in formation]
« AnteriorContinua »