Five Pebbles from the Brook | Page 7

trying to justify the writers of
the New Testament, for quoting the Old Testament otherwise than it is
written) and thus made them to differ from the reading of the Old
Testament," p. 279.
I have supposed that a reasonable and reasoning man, desirous to
ascertain the truth of the religion of the Christians, and in the hope of
finding it well founded, in the course of his examination of the
testimony for the authenticity and authority of the books of the New
Testament, comes to the knowledge of all these circumstances. If the
reader be such a man, I would ask him, if he can rationally rest his
belief in the moral attributes of God and his faith in a future life, upon a
foundation composed of such materials?
Mr. Everett observes "that as prophecy and miracle are equally divine
works, it is impossible that they should contradict each other. They are
equally the works of the God of truth, and whatever contradiction there

appears to be between them, must be but apparent. If a person of
whatever pretensions proposes to work miracles in support of those
pretensions, in which nevertheless he is contradicted by express
prophecy, one of these things is certain--that the prophecy is a forged
one--or that we have mistaken the meaning of it--or that the miracles
are not real," p. 3. of Mr. Everett's work.
Granted--upon this ground I think that Mr. Everett can fairly be brought
to issue. I presume that he will hardly persist in maintaining that the
Gospels are a sufficient proof of the miracles they record, in the face of
the objections to their authenticity and authority already stated--and as
neither he nor myself maintain that the prophecies, with regard to the
Messiah, contained in the Old Testament were forged, it remains only
to be considered, whether he or I have mistaken the meaning of them.
So that, as I have repeatedly said in my former publications, the
prophets, after all, are the only criterion which can be appealed to
certainly most important to the great interests of humanity, were it only
on this account, that the dispute has occasioned the most unparalleled
degradation, misery, and oppression to one of the parties to it.[fn16]
PEBBLE II.
"The Messiah expected by the Jews," says Mr. Everett, at the beginning
of the second chapter of his book, "and which Mr. English supposes to
be predicted in the Old Testament, is 'a temporal prince, and a
conquering pacificator.' The Christians on the other hand maintain, that
the prophets foretold not a political, but a religious institution, not a
temporal prince, but a moral teacher, and spiritual Saviour. Which of
these opposite views of the predicted character of the Messiah is correct,
must be decided of course by an appeal to particular predictions. But it
is also a matter of reason, and we have a right to argue upon the
question from the character of God, and the nature of man. Which of
these views the Jewish or the Christian doth most commend itself to the
sincere believer in the moral government of God, and the rational and
accountable nature of man?"
This statement, I cannot help considering as both artful and unfair. That
I have represented the Messiah as predicted to be "a temporal Prince

and a conquering pacificator," is true, but it is not the whole truth; Mr.
Everett would have it to be understood, that I maintained that the
Messiah was to be merely "a temporal Prince;" whereas, those who will
take the trouble to refer to the prior chapters of "the grounds of
Christianity examined," will find that I have endeavoured to prove that
the prophets predict, that he was also to be "a just, beneficient, wise,
and mighty monarch, under whose government righteousness was to
flourish, and mankind be made happy:" and I believe that there is not a
single passage from the prophets quoted in Mr. Everett's 2d. chapter to
prove his views of the Messiah, that I have not also myself quoted to
prove the beneficent character of him I suppose to be predicted.
Mr. Everett unwarily betrays his own unfairness in the following
passage of his work, p. 63.---"Mr. English objects, that whereas the first
characteristic of the Messiah was, that he was to be the Prince of Peace,
in whose time righteousness was to flourish and mankind be made
happy," &c.[fn17]
How is it possible, I might ask Mr. Everett that I could have maintained
that the Messiah was to be merely "a temporal Prince, and a conquering
pacificator," when it is also true, as Mr. Everett confesses, that I
maintain that "the first characteristic of the Messiah was that he was to
be the Prince of Peace, in whose time righteousness was to flourish and
mankind be