ページの画像
PDF
ePub

king of the Jews. The neighboring kings of Israel and Syria were about to make war upon him. The Jewish kings were in the habit of consulting their prophets, as other kings were their oracles, when about to embark in any important enterprise, or be involved in any serious difficulties. Ahaz, not having much confidence in Isaiah, neglected, or refused to consult him, Isaiah forces himself upon the king, and tells him he shall have a sign, and then delivers the passage quoted by Matthew: "Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a child, and shall call his name Immanuel: 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 abhorest shall be deprived of both her kings." And this you call a prophecy of Jesus Christ.

In the first place, I will remark, that the Hebrew word, translated virgin, is properly rendered matron, or woman, in more instances in the bible, than virgin.* That it should be so rendered here, I will show presently. But even admitting that virgin is the proper rendering, does the expression, "a virgin shall conceive," convey the idea of a miraculous conception? that she should remain a virgin after conception? that she should not lose her viginity, in the act of conception? If I should say, that this or that young virgin shall conceive and bear a son in the course of two years, would any one understand me as asserting that she would be visited by the Holy Ghost? Would not all understand me as asserting that she would be married, and conceive in the usual way? Should I assert that some honest man would steal, and be sent to the penitentiary, in the course of a year, would I not be understood as asserting, that he who had previously sustained the character of an honest man, would be guilty of a dishonest act? Could I be understood as asserting that he would be honest after his theft, or that he would not lose his character for honesty, by the act of theft? It is a gross perversion of the text of Isaiah, to say, that he alluded to a miraculous conception. Again: This child was to be born, but not to be old enough to refuse the evil and choose the good-to tell butter from honey-before these two kings of Israel and Syria were to be overthrown, All which must have happened in the course of one or two years; for Pekah, one of these kings—the king of Israel-reigned but twenty years, and, in the 17th year of his reign, Ahaz began to reign in Judah. This invasion happened, therefore, during the last three years of Pekah's life. He was slain by Hosea. Ahaz sent to the king of Assyria for assistance, who came and slew Rezin, the other of these kings. At what particular time, we are not informed. But Ahaz is represented as sending for assist

* For this assertion I depend upon the declaration of those who understand the Hebrew.

[ocr errors]

.

ance immediately on being informed of the meditated invasion; and the king of Assyria is represented as going with his army, immediately on receiving the invitation, to Damascus, the capitol of Syria, and slaying the king, Rezin.

The Hebrew scholars tell us, that the proper translation of the passage is, "Behold, a woman has conceived," in the past tense, and not in the future, shall conceive. A comparison of this verse with the first four of the next chapter, will satisfy us that the present translation must be incorrect. It is admitted, on all hands, that the prophet is speaking of this same child in the first part of the 8th chapter. He says, he took witnesses to record. To record what? Not the act of conception. No one will contend for this; but to record the birth of the child. Who was its mother? We are here informed it was the prophetess. It now reads thus: "And I went unto the prophetess, and she conceived and bare a child; then said the Lord unto me, call his name Maher-shalal-hash-baz; 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." The prophet could not have intended to say, that she conceived and brought forth the same hour. One thing is certain, he tells us the child was born. We are therefore bound, in charity, to say, that here is also a mis-translation, as it makes the conception and birth simultaneous. It should no

doubt be thus: "And I went unto the prophetess, who had conceived, and was now being delivered of a son."* We have the child born, however, under any translation. The prediction is therefore accomplished, and not to be fulfilled, in the birth of Jesus Christ.

But you say, the mother was to call the child Immanuel. She may have done so. Isaiah has told us nothing to the contrary. He says, the Lord told him to call it Maher-shalal-hash-baz. Mary may have called her son Immanuel. It would have been very easy for her to have done so, and just as easy for Matthew to have said she did; but he has not told us so. I merely give it as my opinion, that Immanuel was a title given to the reigning king, whoever he might have been, for the reason that Isaiah concludes his address to Ahaz, (see VIII. 8. Isaiah) with the exclamation: "O Immanuel." "His wings shall fill the breadth of thy land, Oh Immanuel." God had been the temporal monarch of the Jews. A king, therefore, was in the place of God, or God with them. The prophet tells us, in the next chapter, that he intends to give this child five or six more wonderful names, as his children were to be for signs and wonders; but we

* Let these two verses be thus translated, and they will harmonize.

never hear any thing more of them. Probably he was disappointed, as many other fathers have been.

Now, I ask all honest, truth-loving men, if he could have been one, who attempted to torture this passage of Isaiah into a prophecy of Jesus Christ?

In Matthew's second chapter, he proceeds to tell us, that Christ was born in Bethlehem, the birth place of David, a village six or seven miles south of Jerusalem; that certain Magi, from some eastern country, came to see him, having been led by a star; that Joseph and Mary, being apprehensive that Herod the Great would destroy their child if they should remain at Bethlehem, went into Egypt, and remained there till Herod's death; that, on receiving news of his death, they started to return, and having come into the land of Israel, (probably that part allotted to Simeon) they heard that Archelaus, the son of Herod, had succeeded him; and fearing him, they dared not go into the Canton of Judah, from which they departed, but went around another way, probably along the shore of the Mediterranean, and came to the city of Nazareth, in Galilee. The last verse of this chapter is in these words: "And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene."

Let the whole chapter be read. I contend, that, in this chapter, Matthew gives us to understand, that Joseph and Mary lived in Bethlehem previous to the birth of Christ. This is the fair, and the only construction. The city of Nazareth is not mentioned till the last verse; and the expres sion, "a city called Nazareth," shews, clearly, that it was a strange city to Joseph and his wife. This author speaks of the birth as being at Bethlehem does not intimate that they were on a visit, or that Bethlehem was not their place of residence.. Why did they go to Egypt first, instead of Nazareth, their alleged home, at which place they could have been safe? for they went there afterwards, instead of returning to Egypt. To what place in Canaan would they have returned, had they not heard of Archelaus' reigning? Evidently to Bethlehem. But hearing this news, they changed their course. It is manifest, therefore, that Nazareth was not the place for which they had originally started from Egypt. Again. It is evident that Jesus had never been in Nazareth, before he was carried there, on this return from Egypt. It is further manifest, that he was not entitled to the appellation, or epitheton, of Nazarene, before he was taken there on this return. In short, it was, according to Matthew, by virtue of his parents going there with him at this time, and nothing else, that he became entitled to this appellation. If the settlement, or domicil of his parents had been at Nazareth, previous to, and at the time of his birth, he would

have been born a Nazarene, notwithstanding his birth might have happened at Bethlehem, where his mother was upon a visit.

rene.

Now for Luke's account. He tells us, expressly, that the place of residence of these parents was Nazareth, before, and at the time of the birth of Jesus; that Mary was at Bethlehem, on a special business, (to be enrolled) when taken in labor; that, at eight days old, the child was circumcised, (at Bethlehem, probably;) at thirty or forty days old, it was taken to the temple at Jerusalem, to be done with according to the law; and that, after the due performance of the proper ceremonies, the parents took the child to Nazareth. According to Luke, then, the child was born a NazaThis trip from Jerusalem, direct to Nazareth, must have been the first one the parents made to the latter city after the birth of their son. It could not have been the one dtailed by Matthew, for that was from Egypt. Yet Matthew gives us to uaderstand, as plainly as if he had said it in so many words, that the arrival at Nazareth, spoken of by him, was the first after the birth of the child. According to Luke, the journey to Egypt could not have been made until after the return to Nazareth from Jerusalem. If, therefore, the child's being carried to Nazareth gave it the appellation of Nazarene, it must have had it before it was carried there from Egypt, which, Matthew says, conferred it upon him. As it is plain, from Luke, that the journey to Egypt, if ever made, must have been after the return to Nazareth, I ask you to find a place in Luke's account, where you

can wedge in this trip to Egypt.

He says that Mary was delivered in a manger. Magi found her in a house.

Matthew says, the Luke says, the parents took the child to the temple, directly in the face of Herod's court, where the old prophet and prophetess, before some of the people, declared him to be a light to the Gentiles, and the glory of Israel, and spoke of him to all them that looked for redemption in Jerusalem. Yet Herod's jealousies were not aroused, nor fears excited. Matthew says, that his fears were so great, that he put to death all the children under two years old, at Bethlehem and its neighborhood, hoping to include, among his victims, this future king.

These I call discrepancies-contradictions. "Oh, no," say your doctors, "they are not; for it is possible that the child may have been carried to Egypt after it was taken to Nazareth. Mary may have been on a visit to Bethlehem, where the wise men came to visit the child, after this first return to her own city, at which time she may have been in a HOUSE. Herod may never have heard of the child till this second supposed visit of Mary and Joseph to Bethlehem. Matthew may have known that they lived in Nazareth, notwithstanding he speaks of their going to a place called Nazareth. He does not say, directly, that they did not live there.”

us.

I have already said, that mathematical certainty was not to be required of Probabilities, and probabilities only, are what we expect to arrive at in all our researches of this nature. I ask, then, if it is probable, that the child was carried to Egypt after it was taken to Nazareth? Is it probable that Mary was on a visit? Is it probable that such a massacre could have taken place, for the causes alleged by Matthew, and Luke not have mentioned it? Is it probable, that what both these authors say is true?

Let the first two chapters of Matthew, and the first three of Luke, be read. It will be perceived, that Luke says not a word about the heathen philosophers, called the wise men by our translators-not a word about the flight to Egypt, or the Bethlehem massacre, but does say, expressly, that Joseph's residence was at Nazareth, at and previous to the birth of Christ.

I have not yet defined a miracle, but will do so in some future chapter. It is admitted, by all of you, that a miracle is never wrought except to answer some great and important purpose.

Only Matthew and Luke give an account of the conception, birth, and infancy of Christ. The star that conducted the wise men, also the dreams they and Joseph had, in which they were directed to return home another way, and he to fly to Egypt-the appearance of the Angel to Mary—the commotion among the Angels, and their information to the shepherds-the inspiration of Simeon and Anna-and, lastly, the conception itself, I shall call miracles. Let me, in passing, remark here, that they are related by men who could not have witnessed any one of them. Luke says he writes from hearsay; but Matthew does not condescend to tell us that. We are naturally led, after reading the account of these prodigies attending the conception, birth, and infancy of Christ, to ask: "For what purpose were all these?" And the answer would naturally be: "To enable Christ to establish his pretensions." What must be our surprise, after reading his whole history, to find that, in no one instance, does he allude to any one of them during his ministry; nor does he once assert that Mary was his mother, or that he was begotten by the Holy Ghost, although he was called upon frequently to establish his pretensions.

Had these wise men visited Herod's court, having been led there by a star—had the birth of the child excited so much interest in the capitol, as that the learned Jews were consulted as to the birth place of the Christhad Herod been so thoroughly convinced, that Jesus was the Christ, or so alarmed under the apprehension, that he, or his friends for him, might make claim to the crown, as to have perpetrated the most wanton and cruel butchery found in the annals of any people-had Simeon and Anna taken up the infant, and publicly declared, in the temple, that he was the long

« 前へ次へ »