« AnteriorContinuar »
(7.) So Ahaz sent messengers to Tiglathpile. ser king of Assyria sa ying I am thy servant and thy son, come up and gave me out of the hand of the king of Syria and out of the hand of the king of Israel, which rise up against me. (8) And Ahaz took the silver and gold that was found in the house of the Lord and in the treasures of the king's house and sent it for a present to the king of Assyria. (9) And the king of Assyria hearkened unto him: for the king of Assyria went up against Damascus and took it, and carried the people of it captive to Kir and slew Rezin."
It is now left to the public to reflect seriously on the above circumstances stated in the context; and to pronounce whether thereby it appears that verse 14th. is originally applied to Hezekiah the son and heir of Ahaz king of Jerusalem, a child born before the de. feat of his enemies, the Immanuel whose land was Judah, or to Jesus of Nazareth born at least 500 hundred years afterwards: and also to decide whether or not the land which Ahaz abhorred had been forsaken by the king of Syria and of Israel from the interference of the king of Assyria before Hezekiah caine to years of discretion or whether that event took place only after the birth of Jesus.
As to the application of verse the 4th. to Jesus Christ by St. Matthew my language in the Second Appeal was that“ the evangelist Matthew referred in his Gospel to ch. VII, 14. of Isaiah merely for the purpose of accommodation; the son of Ahaz and the Saviour rtsenbling each other in each being the means at different periods though in different senses, of establishing the throne of the house of David. In the same manner the apostle referred to Hosea XI. 1. in II. 15. of his Gospel and in many other instances.” Nevertheless the Rêvd. Editor charges me with having blasphemed against the word of God by attempting to perguade him and others in my explanation of the above verse “ that the evangelist Matthew ought not to be credited.” Tindeed never ex, pected such an accusation from the Editor. To acquit me of the charge I entreat my readers to refer to the translation of the four Gospels by Dr. Campbell; a celebrated trinitarian writer, in whose notes page 9. that learned divine says
“ thus ch. 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 significa
tion God might now say I have recalled my son out of Egypt. Indeed the import of the Greek phrase as commonly used by the sacred wri. ters 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."
Did these orthodox writers also attempt to persuade people to discredit the evangelical writings by applying Hosea XI. 1. originally to Israel and allusively to Jesus Christ? The Editor will not I presume get the sanction of the public to accuse those learned divines of blasphemy:I did no more than adopt their mode of expression in examining Isaiah VII. 14. Compared with Matthew l. 22 and 23. and Hosia XI. 1. with Matthew II. 15. yet I am charged with blasphemy against the authority of the Gospel of Matthew. I must repeat the very words I used in the Second Appeal in comparing the book of Hosea with the Gospel of Matthew (page 119.) that the public may judge whether the language of the Editor as to my attempt to discredit the Gospel is just and liberal. Thus Matthew II. 15. “ out of Egypt have I called my son” the evangelist refers to verse 1st, chapter XI. of Hosea: which though really applied to Israel, represented there as the son of God, is used by the apos. tle in reference to the Saviour, in consideration of a near resemblance between their circumstances in this instance : both Israel and Jesus were carried into Egypt and recalled from thence, and both were denominated in the scriptures the "son of God." The passage of Hosea thus rups from chapter XI. 1-3. “when Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt: As they called them, so they went from them; they sacrificed unto Baalim, and burnt incense to graven images. I taught Ephraim also to go, taking them by their arms, but they know not that I heated them”: in which Israel, who is represented as a child of God, is declared to have sacrificed to Baalim and to have burnt incense to graven images - circumstaces which can not justly be ascribed to the saviour.”
The Revd. Editor likewise in opposition to my explanation applies Isaiah IX. 6. to Jesus * For unto us a child is born; unto us a son is given and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called wonderful, counsellor, the mighty God, the everlasting father, and the Prince of Peace”; and all that he says (page 534.) in support of his referring this verse to the Deity of Jesus is in these words ;=" to secure to Hezekiah that
passage in chapter IX. Our author gives us a translation or rather a paraphrase of it by Jonathan in his Targum to which we shall merely oppose that given by Bishop Louth” Can the interpretation of the old Testament given by Jonathan and other celebra ted Jewish writers, some of whom lived prior to the birth of Jesus, be discredited from the authority of one or one thousand Christian Bishops to whom at any rate, Hebrew is a foreign language? Can a Trinitarian in arguing with one not belonging to the orthodox sect and establishment quote with propriety for the refutation of his adversary the authority of a Trinitarian writer? The public may be the best judges of these points.- As these Jewish writings
not unprocurable, the public may refer to
to them for their own satisfaction. Is there any authority of the sacred writers of the new Testament authorizing the Editor to apply Isaiah IX. 6. even in modated sense to Jesus? I believe nothing of the kind--It is
enthusiasm that has led a great many learned Trinitarians to apply this verse to Jesus: The Editor avoided noticing the context and the bistorical circumstances which I adduced in my Appeal to prove the application of the verse in