Five Pebbles from the Brook | Page 8

made happy?" I confess, that I feel both contempt and
indignation at such an artful mis-representation of my opinions, in
order to attack them with more hopes of success, and as I do not profess
to be a Christian, I may be excused for expressing what in this case I
certainly have a right so feel.[fn18] The prophets, literally understood
represent (as Mr. Everett will not deny) that the Messiah is to be a
mighty Monarch, enthroned at Jerusalem under whose reign the Jews
should be restored to their country and converted from their sins and
errors, and established in the most perfect and endless happiness; that
he will put down all opposition to his authority, and exterminate the
wicked out of the earth, and unite the pious and good of all the human
race under his government, making them participators of the eternal
happiness of the favoured descendants of Abraham, that all sin, sorrow,
and error shall be no more, and the earth become all Paradise.

"Far more bless'd than that of Eden, And far happier days." [fn19]
The difference between Mr. Everett's and my view of this
representation is, that I understand the prophets to mean that the whole
will be literally fulfilled; and Mr. Everett maintains that, that part
which accords with the Christian view of the Messiah is to be literally
understood, but that that part which is opposed to it must be taken
figuratively.
Who is so blind as not to perceive the motives for such an incoherent
system, of interpretation! The passages which represent the Messiah as
a Monarch reigning at Jerusalem, and whose temporal authority should
extend over all the earth, Mr. Everett would interpret to signify, (by a
figure) "a preacher of righteousness, and a spiritual Saviour of the souls
of men;" because Jesus had no temporal authority whatever, and
therefore to understand them literally would exclude the claims set up
for him. The earth's being restored to a Paradisiacal state, and the
extinction of all sin, violence, and misery throughout its circumference,
Mr. Everett would interpret to signify, (by. a figure) "the blessed
events," which have occurred, and the "changes that have taken place,"
since the promulgation of Christianity!! [fn20]
Mr. Everett, in support of his system of interpretation, shows us, that
the Supreme Being is frequently spoken of in the Old Testament, as a
King and as a victorious warrior; and therefore infers, because such
passages must be understood figuratively, that the passages in the
prophets which speak of the Messiah in similar terms, must be also
understood figuratively.
To this it seems to me to be a sufficient answer to observe, that men
who speak of the Deity, are obliged to employ human language and
human ideas; because:
"What can we reason but from what we know?" and therefore a great
part of such language will be necessarily figurative; but it by no means
follows from this, that the writers who are obliged to use this figurative
language when speaking of the Deity, intend to be understood in the
same sense when they apply the same expressions to describe men and

their actions. On the contrary, as they were writing to men and for men,
it is natural to presume, that they meant to be understood in the way
that such expressions are universally understood by all men, when they
relate to men and their actions. Such a system, of interpretation as this
of Mr. Everett's, turns the Bible into a Babel of confusion: a man
proceeding upon this system, might with equal plausibility turn all the
good and prosperous kings of Israel and Judah into "Spiritual
Saviours."[fn21]
"What, says Mr. Everett, p. 63. would be thought of one, who after
making a collection of passages which ascribe these attributes of
royalty and conquest to God, such as Mr. English has made of those
which ascribe such attributes to the Messiah, should infer as he does,
that God is a just, beneficent; wise and mighty monarch reigning on a
throne in Jerusalem?"
To this I answer by asking in my turn, what should we think of one,
who after making a collection, of passages which ascribe these
attributes of royalty and conquest to God, as Mr. Everett has done,
should therefore think himself authorised to infer, that the history of
David the son of Jesse, contained in the Bible, (which, as all the world
knows, is an oriental book abounding in figurative expressions) was not
to be understood literally, but that it was very possible that this
supposed monarch of Israel, who is represented as having "saved it
from its enemies on every side," was after all, probably only a spiritual
saviour of the souls of the Israelites, by having distinguished himself as
a prophet, a preacher of righteousness, and a