|
(Concluded from vol. viii. page 362.)
Letter XXVIII
The absurdity and inconsistency of the doctrines
treated of in my two last letters, prove the
impossibility of applying the prophecy, or
<<40>>making it answer the purposes intended
thereby, as some pretend, that a twofold death was
implied in the sentence. They infer that Adam and
his posterity were condemned both to a natural and
spiritual death, from which they could only be
released by the sufferings and passion of one, who
was both God and man. They say an agreement being
made between God the Father and God the Son, the
latter offered himself to be made a sacrifice on
the cross, to appease the wrath of God the Father,
and to atone by this ignominious death for Adam’s
sin; restoring the human race thereby to God’s grace
and favour, freeing them from the power of the
Devil, and from the penalties under which they must
have continued, as no other satisfaction could have
been accepted or deemed sufficient. We shall now,
therefore, inquire into the foundation of this
twofold death; “In the day that thou eatest thereof
thou shalt surely die,”* which in Heb. is expressed
by the words מות תמות
moth tamuth, very properly rendered in
the margin of the English Bible, “Dying thou shalt
die,” which phrase denotes the certainty of its
being inflicted; as will very evidently appear by
considering the use and intent of the same phrase in
other places. When Solomon passed sentence on
Shimei, the very same phrase is made use of, “On the
day thou goest forth, and passest over the Brook
Kidron, thou shalt know for certain thou shalt
surely die,” Heb. Moth tamuth.†
The prophet Elisha uses the same phrase to Hamel, to
denote thereby the certain death of Benhadad, king
of Syria. “The Lord hath shown me that he shall
surely die.” (Heb. Moth Tamuth.)‡ When Saul
doomed his son Jonathan to death, he makes use of
the same expression, “Thou shalt surely die,
Jonathan.” (Heb. Moth tamuth.)§ He also uses
the same phrases when he sentenced the priest, “Thou
shalt surely die, Ahimelech,” Heb. Moth tamuth.||
From which passages, and from all others in
Scripture where the same phrase is made use of, it
is plain that nothing but a corporeal death could be
intended.
Thus you see the foundation on which this grand
superstructure is built. The sentence, therefore,
only imports that on the day Adam ate the forbidden
fruit, he should commence to be mortal, or be liable
to death. That being the punishment, which was to be
inflicted, he was banished from paradise, that he
might be exposed to want and calamities, that by a
decay of nature and frame of body it might come on
him. The punishment being thus inflicted on the
aggressor, would it be just to doom his race to
eternal damnation? is such a conduct reconcilable to
the goodness and mercy of God?* Supposing a
legislator instituted a law, and enacted a certain
punishment to be inflicted on those who transgressed
that law; would any other punishment be inflicted on
the transgressor, besides that which had been
enacted? would it not be a very great injustice to
inflict a greater punishment on the offender? If
this would be so in human laws and tribunals, how
much more so would it be in the All-merciful God? In
what a woful and miserable state must the whole
human race be, if, notwithstanding, they in all
respects obeyed the will of God, by which they were
entitled to mercy, they should continue, and be
under his wrath and heavy displeasure both here and
hereafter? to what purpose did He give laws, if
those who practised the duties enjoined by them were
not to be benefitted thereby? Can this be made
consistent? No, this opinion is invented to give a colouring to what is not on any grounds whatever to
be maintained or supported.
To
support the doctrine before mentioned, it is
pretended that the history of the fall ought not to
be taken literally. I cannot better answer this
objection than in the words made use of by the
authors of the Universal History. “It cannot be
denied (say they), that some of the ancient
philosophers affected such an allegorical way of
writing to conceal their notions from the vulgar,
and keep their learning within the bounds of their
own school; yet it is apparent Moses had no such
design; and as he pretends only to relate matters of
fact just as they happened, without art or disguise,
it cannot be supposed but that the history of the
fall is to be taken in a literal sense is well as
the rest of his writings.Ӡ
Notwithstanding this assertion, these authors
immediately declare themselves of opinion, that it
was the Devil who made use of the serpent’s body.
That this beast stands for, and means the Devil, is
also the opinion of almost every Christian
commentator, and is particularly asserted by Dr.
Sherlock, who has taken great pains to establish
this point But conscious that the passage as it
stands, could not bear that meaning, he adds:
“You’ll say, What an unreasonable liberty of
interpretation this is; tell us by what rules of
language the seed of the woman is made to denote one
particular person (that is, Jesus), and by what art
you discover the mystery of Christ’s miraculous
conception and birth, in this common expression?
Tell us, likewise, how bruising the serpent’s head
comes to signify destroying the power of sin, and
the redemption of mankind by Christ? As the
prophecy stands there” (he ought to have said, the
history) “nothing appears <<42>>to point out this
particular meaning, much less to confine the
prophecy (the history) to it.”* And I think that
many good reasons ought to be given to his own
objections, and a proper authority produced for
giving this history any other sense; since, as he
himself owns, and readily allows that the
expressions do not imply necessarily this sense. “We
allow farther (says he), that there is no appearance
that our first parents understood them this sense,
or that God intended they should so understand
them.Ӡ Yet notwithstanding this he has, on
doctrines of which our first parents knew nothing,
on doctrines which “God never intended they should
understand,” placed and established all the hopes
and comforts of religion.‡
But whatever may be pretended, though Adam by his
fall forfeited that, whatever it was, which he for a
very short interval had possessed, and was reduced
to a state of labour, and subject to sorrow: yet it
no where appears that they (he and Eve) were bereft
“of a rational foundation for their future
endeavours to reconcile themselves to God by a
better obedience,Ӥ the best foundation, and indeed
the only one, on which they would place their hope
(which I choose to give you in the Bishop’s words);
and whenever this foundation has been neglected, and
dependence on a Mediator introduced, you may then be
sure that false religion and false worship take
place, and it would be very easy to prove that it
was such schemes and inventions which gave the first
rise to idolatry, and defaced true religion.
But whatever hopes this learned person makes our
first parents to have different from a better
obedience; or whatever foundation he is pleased to
make necessary for the preservation of religion, by
the hopes “that their posterity should one day be
restored:” this much is certain, that any such
dependence must have been ill-grounded; for if
Adam’s posterity was to be restored by the
satisfaction made by Jesus on the cross, nothing
like it was effected. For the serpent still labours
under the curse; women still bear children in pain,
and continue in subjection to their husbands (which
some of them think the worst part of the curse); the
men still labour and endure sorrow; and death makes
of the same havoc now as it did before. Let them
represent things in what light they please, they
still continue as they were. Such inconsistencies
put me in mind of what this learned bishop says,
“When unbelievers hear such reasoning, they think
themselves entitled to laugh;”|| in truth who can
forbear it ? I pity any person of his
<<43>>
learning and parts advancing inconsistencies and
contradictions, rolling (as it were) with all his
might a stone up a steep mountain, and then being
obliged to let it fall, not able to stop it,
beholding his lost labour.
To
establish these doctrines they will have the serpent
stand for, and be the Devil. But can anything be
plainer than that every part of the sentence is only
applicable to a literal serpent, a beast of the
field, the being more accursed than any other beast,
or above all cattle? Rank him with the brute
creation: the Devil, I think, has nothing to do in
this part of the curse. The serpent was to go on his
belly; in this punishment the Devil is also
excluded. He was to eat dust all the days of his
life; very improper food this is for the Devil,
therefore it is not intended for him. The serpent
and his seed, and the woman and her seed were to be
in continual enmity; the woman and her descendants
were to bruise the serpent’s head, whilst the
serpent and his seed, being by nature or by the
curse made reptiles, should bite the others heels,
that being the part which they could most
conveniently come at.
This being a conflict between the woman and the
serpent, and their offsprings, has the Devil any
concern in this strife? Can words be made use of
plainer to denote that the whole concerns the
serpent and his seed and not the Devil? and that the
woman and her seed is Eve and her descendants, and
not Jesus in particular, as is pretended? that in
this enmity or strife each should hurt the other as
they had it in their power? Could the Devil hurt or
bite Jesus, or has he any seed or posterity at all?
It is plain, therefore, that the curse concerns the
serpent only; he is represented at the very first
mention, as a cunning creature: “Now the serpent was
more subtle than any beast of the field which the
Lord God had made;”* and for making a bad use of his
subtlety he was punished. Now had the serpent been
actuated by the Devil, he could deserve no
punishment. short, there is nothing in the sentence
which concerns the Devil.
Neither can I find in this whole history, any
promise of a Messiah, nor any agreement between God
the Father and God the Son. Indeed such an agreement
must be inconsistent, and would prove different
wills in the Godhead; that is, there must have been
one willing to make satisfaction, and another
willing to receive it, whilst a third remained
passive or neuter; acts as contrary to each other as
any distinct beings are capable of, and inconsistent
in the same God.
Thus you see the impossibility of proving what they
pretend to, from the first eight verses of this
chapter, and how contradictory it is in
<<44>>every
respect. The remainder will appear not less so.
Verse 9th. “And he made his grave with the wicked
and with the rich in his death;” this happened the
very reverse; for he died with the wicked, being
crucified between two thieves, and was buried in the
tomb belonging to Joseph Arimathea, who is
represented as an honourable, just man, and a
councillor.
Verse 10. “He shall see his seed, be shall prolong
his days, and the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper
in his hand.” Here are three blessings, of which
none can be applicable to him (Jesus.) The first is,
that he should see his seed or descendants; but
children, we don’t hear he had any. The second,
length of days, or long life; this he had not; for
he was cut off in the thirty-third year of his age.
Thirdly, prosperity, of which he had none, as
appears from the account of his life and sufferings.
To make out these blessings, they have recourse to
the mystical application, though they pretend this
whole chapter to be literal of him; they say that
seed here does not mean children or descendants, but
that the phrase denotes the church, or his
followers, spiritually so called. But this has not
the least foundation, the word
זרע
Zerang being used always to denote
descendants or posterity, and there is no such thing
in all the Scripture as spiritual seed or
descendants. In the same manner they explain his
length of days, and pretend it means immortality.
But this is trifling; since immortality could not be
given as a privilege, but is general and common to
every soul, the privilege even of the wicked and the
damned; so that length of days in the next world
could be no peculiar blessing, since immortality
takes place there. Length of days, therefore, could
only be an earthly blessing. As to “the pleasure of
the Lord prospering in his hands,” or prosperity
here—as they cannot make it out here, they send us
to his heavenly kingdom; but as they know nothing at
all of it, you must therefore take it from their
guesses.
Verse 11. “By his knowledge shall my righteous
servant justify many.” This I have shown very
plainly he did not; therefore I shall say nothing
more on this head.
Verse 12. “Therefore will I divide him a portion
with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with
the strong.” This part of the verse is no ways
applicable to him; for far from dividing a portion
with the great, or having any spoil allotted him, he
never possessed anything of his own; of this he
complains himself. “Because he poured out his soul
unto death,” this being contrary to his will, and
forced on him, he could not pretend to any merit
from it. How “he bore the sin <<45>>of many,” or “made intercession for transgressors,” I have already
considered.
Thus, sir, from the objections and considerations
aforesaid, it is evident that they cannot apply this
chapter to Jesus, neither can they prove the benefit
which they pretend must be the necessary consequence
of their doctrine. It now remains that I give a
different application. The generality of Jewish
commentators explain this prophecy, and apply it to
the whole body of Jews. They tell us that Isaiah, in
the 51st chapter, speaks great matters concerning
the redemption or restoration of Israel, and
denounces God’s wrath and indignation against the
oppressors and afflicters of his people. In the
next, or 52d chapter, the prophet continues the same
subject, and that he does in the most endearing
terms that can be expressed; and under the
denomination of a servant,* exalts and extols Israel
above all nations,—this term best describing the low
and despicable state to which that people should be
reduced, and what it should be made to suffer; but
from which it should be delivered. They prove that
the whole body of the Jews are often mentioned under
this epithet, and in particular that Isaiah calls
them by this name. “Yet now hear, O Jacob, my
servant.” “Fear not, O Jacob, my servant.” “Thou art
my servant, O Israel.” (See Isaiah xl. 1, 2, and
xlix. 3.) And in the passage now under
consideration: “Behold my servant shall deal
prudently,” he shall be “exalted and extolled, and
be very high.” Verse 14. At this exaltation the
world will be astonished ; and the more so, because
like a servant be was oppressed and despised, and
that in such sort as hardly to appear like other
sons of men. At this change (verse 15th), even kings
or great men should be astonished, and shut their
mouths; for in this an expected exaltation, they
should see that which had not been told them, and
consider which they had not heard. The admiration
which this event should occasion is continued by the
prophet, and he breaks out, chapter 53, verse 1,
with, “Who could believe our report, or that power
of the Lord should be manifested as revealed to this
despicable people,” or that (verse 2d), “a tender
plant should sprout from a root out of dry ground,
which had neither form or comeliness to make it
desirable? (Verse 3.) Being such as was always
despised and rejected and made to undergo much
sorrows and grief; hiding our faces from him, as not
worthy of esteem; for (verse 4), it was always
thought that that he was stricken, and smitten of
God ; and for that reason made to undergo much
sorrow and grief; for (verse 5) we continually
wounded
<<46>>him with our transgressions, and bruised him with
our iniquitous proceedings against him, the weight
of which we made him feel; and laid on him the
chastisement of our peace, i. e., persecuting him in
times of peace and leisure, sporting with his
sufferings; thinking that by his stripes we should
atone for our sins,* (as is the case actually in
Portugal and Spain, where it is believed that the
merit of persecuting the Jews atones for all
crimes.) But (verse 6) in so doing we strayed like
sheep (say the gentiles), and turned every
one to his own way, God permitting us to do that to
him which we deserved ourselves; (verse 8) though he
was taken from prison and from judgment, and made to
undergo torments and death, in the midst of his
best days,—all which is brought on him for the
transgression of my people; (verse 9) making his
grave with the wicked, or like the worst of
malefactors (for he is denied even burial, as
thinking him unworthy of it); notwithstanding this,
his death was honourable, as he was not brought to
it for either violence or deceit; (verse 10) but
merely because it pleased the Ld to afflict him and
punish his soul for his sin.”
His sufferings and afflictions have now an end in
his exaltation and restoration; for “he shall see
his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the
pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in his hands.
Verse 11. He shall see the travail of his soul, and
be satisfied; by his knowledge shall my righteous
servant justify many,” for he shall bear or clear
them of their iniquities, teaching them the ways of
the Lord, and making them acceptable; for many will
join themselves to the Jews, as is declared, “Also
the sons of the strangers that join themselves to
the Lord to be his servants, every one that keepeth
the Sabbath from polluting it, and taketh hold on my
covenant, even them will I bring to my holy
mountain, and make them joyful in my house of
prayer; and their burnt offerings and their
sacrifices shall be accepted upon mine altar; for my
house shall be called a house of prayer for all
people; so saith the Lord God which gathereth the
outcasts of Israel yet will I gather others unto
him.” (Isaiah lvi. 6-8.)
“For the Lord will have mercy on Jacob, and will yet
choose Israel, and set them in their own land, and
the stranger shall be joined with them, and they
shall cleave to the house of Jacob.” (Isaiah xiv.
1.)
“Therefore,” continues the prophet, (liii. 12,) will
I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall
divide the spoil with the strong;” and that for the
merits of “having poured out his soul unto death,”
in witness of God’s holy NAME: for which “he was
numbered with <<47>>the transgressors;” patiently
bearing the sinful and unrighteous behaviour of
many; and now in his exaltation interceding for
(those) transgressors.
Thus, sir, have I given you a sort of paraphrase on
this famous chapter of Isaiah. To me this appears to
be the true and genuine sense and I am confirmed in
my opinion, both from the subject of the preceding
chapters, and from that which follows, containing a
description of the deliverance to be wrought, which
the prophet concludes with the following remarkable
words: “O thou afflicted, tossed with tempest and
not comforted, behold I will lay thy stones with
fair colours, and lay thy foundation with sapphires;
and I will make thy windows of agates, and thy gates
with carbuncles, and all thy borders of pleasant
stones. And all thy children shall be taught of the
Lord, and great shall be the peace of thy children.
In righteousness shalt thou be established; thou
shalt be far from oppression, for thou shalt not
fear; and from terror, for it shall not come near
thee. Behold they shall surely be gathered together,
but not by, me whosoever shall gather together
against thee, shall fall for thy sake. Behold I have
created the smith that bloweth the coals on the
fire, and that bringeth forth an instrument for his
work: and I have created the waster to destroy. No
weapon that is formed against thee shall prosper,
and every tongue that shall rise against thee in
judgment thou shalt condemn; this the heritage of
the servants of the Lord, and their righteousness is
of me, saith the Lord.” liv. 11, &c.) There are
those who apply this prophecy of Isaiah liii.
throughout to King Josiah; but there are many
things, in my opinion, which do not answer to his
character. The great Grotius I think with better
success, applies it to the prophet Jeremiah; there
are many things in his life and persecutions which
make the application to fit him more probably;
though I choose to give you the explanation which is
more generally followed. But let the prophecy
concern the Jews in general, let it concern Jeremiah
or Josiah this much is evident,—it cannot be applied
to Jesus; and of this opinion must the New Testament
writers have been, or they would have quoted and
made application of it.
I
am, &c.
Note by the Editor—With the above closes the series
of Dias’ Letters in the collection which we obtained
from our friend Samson Simson Esq., of Yonkers,
Westchester County, New York. We began their
publication soon after the commencement of our
Magazine, nearly eight years ago, and we then
expressed a hope that it might live long enough to
enable us to give publicity to all these able
letters <<48>>in our pages. This hope at least has
been fulfilled, and it is with truly grateful
feelings that we have seen it accomplished.
In
the collection before us there are yet two
independent dissertations, which we mean to insert
in our first disposable space. Since we commenced
printing the correspondence which we now close, we
have ascertained that another copy, in MS., is in
possession of Mr. Dias of London, a grandson of the
author, and yet another in that of the heirs of the
late Chapman Levy, who died not long since in
Kosciusko, Attala County, Mississippi. We have
endeavoured to obtain a sight of this, in order to
compare it with the copy before us, but we have been
unsuccessful. The family of the author in England
have hitherto not sent us their MS.; we in fact did
not ask for it; but we have no doubt whatever that
all three are substantially the same. We however
know not whether there are more letters contained in
the others than in Mr. Simson’s copy; should this be
found to be the case, we hope to be enabled to
obtain them for publication hereafter.
We
have copied the whole with the greatest care from
the MS., only altering in some places the antiquated
spelling, and correcting here and there slight
inaccuracies, evidently the result of carelessness
either in writing or transcribing, just as Mr. Dias
himself would have done had he lived to print his
valuable letters. We are happy to find that they
have attracted a large share of public attention,
and many have ked us to issue them in a separate
volume, in order to have them in a connected form.
We approve heartily of the suggestion, and should be
happy to be the means of diffusing them wherever
Israelites dwell, as a ready means of defence when
attacked. We would, therefore, request all those who
are desirous of possessing such a book to inform us
without delay; and if then in our power, we promise
to issue them in a form proper to be carried about
the person when travelling, so as to answer the
purpose intended. We especially request the
attention of ministers to the subject, and hope that
they may deem it of sufficient importance to
recommend it to their respective congregations. |
